Christmas, as I heard Dennis Prager say recently, is the source of an entirely novel genre of art. Secular art inspired by a religious holiday and secular artists who often make it. This is obviously true of music, but it is particularly true of movies. So I thought we could talk a little about some of the classic Christmas movies, which are the good and bad, and of course which are your favorites.
~Innocent people can be executed.Bible References: Gen 1:26, Gen 4:1-16, Gen 9:6, Exodus 20:13, Exodus 21:12-25, Lev 20, Num 35:31, Deut 19:15-21, Deut 32:35, 2 Sam 12:5, Matt 5:17-19, Matt 5:38-39, Matt 5:44-48, Matt 26:52, Mark 7:10, Luke 9:53-56, Luke 19:27, Luke 20:9-16, Luke 23:41, John 8:3-11, John 19:10-11, Acts 5:1-11, Acts 25:11, Rom 12:14-13:4, Titus 3;1, Heb 2:14-15, Heb 10:28, 1 Peter 2:13-14, Rev 13:9-10
Links on Capital Punishment:
Capital Punishment by Wikipedia
CP Debate by Wikipedia
Religion and CP by Wikipedia
Catholicism and CP by FirstThings.com
Life For a Life: The Bible and CP by Tektonics.org
What About The Death Penalty? by GotQuestions.org
CP and The Bible by ApologeticsPress.org
CP Bible Quiz by BibleStudyGames.com
The Bible Teaches About CP by MBC.org
Pro CP Page by WesleyLowe.com
The Bible and CP by STR.org
Executions at 13-Year Low by New York Times
UN Calls for CP Moratorium by Boston Globe
Press Release and Text of CP Resolution by United Nations
~They’re really popular among administrators, so there must be something to it.Post-Show Thoughts: ZTPs are an abdication of the responsibility to use judgment wisely by those we put in positions of authority. They are a response to fears of litigation and tragic precisely because they remove individual thought from discipline, a process which must always remain distinctly humane. Exceptions do not destroy rules. Exceptions validate rules. And no rule can ever cover all of the contingencies enough to justify eliminating human judgment from contributing. They are a symptom of the nonsensical idea that all things can be neatly categorized by labels and measured by simple tests which is corrupting all of modern education. We can call them Zero Thought Policies, Zero Intelligence Policies, or Zero Flexibility Politcies, but the main problem with them is that they wind up treating wildly disparate behaviors the same under the false notion that equal treatment is equitable treatment. Equal and fair are not the same word. A society that replaces oral and essay exams with multiple choice/fill-in-the blank tests will always eventually establish ZTPs for a very simple reason: it has already acknowledged that human thought is not worth preserving or teaching.
Links on ZTP:
ZTP: A Report by American Bar Association
ZTPs Lack Flexibility by USA Today
ZTP (Schools) by Wikipedia
Losing My Tolerance for ZTP by ThisIsTrue.com
ZeroIntelligence.net
ZT Nightmares.com
ZTP and Alcohol by Potsdam.com
Waterboarding is an interrogation technique which simulates the sensation of drowning without actually risking physical harm to the person being interrogated. It has come under tremendous scrutiny precisely because it seems to fall between what we ordinarily think of as torture and legal methods of inducing cooperation. With renewed interest by Congress as well as the disclosure that tapes of this method being used were destroyed by the CIA, I thought we should talk about whether this method is ethical or not.Post-Show Thoughts: I go back and forth every time I think about this. On the one hand, it must work or else I have trouble understanding why the CIA and the Administration want it. To argue that it doesn't work makes them out to be sadists, which is uncompelling. On the other hand, obviously this manner of treating other human beings made in the Image of God seems really at odds with what we all think it means to be American. This simply isn't the sort of thing we do, it's the sort of thing the people we aren't would do. Clearly our enemies do far worse, but we do not define our standards by the way our enemies violate them. So I'm left not sure what to say, which means it's a dilemma. And the way to resolve dilemmas is to first ask who has the authority to decide them. Find a person whose character you trust, who has as much information as possible, who will wrestle with the decision, and who prays. Then let that person make the decision, and then, unless you are truly certain they have done something atrocious, trust them. I'm not convinced enough that this is awful to conclude that our government has done evil here. There are many things the military does that I am grateful I don't have to decide to do, and I also understand there are limits to what they may be allowed to do. About waterboarding, I tend to say that we must go no further beyond this line, but if those in charge believe this is useful, so be it. And for Congressional leaders who knew and approved of it in 2002 to now use it as a political point, shame on them.
Links on Waterboarding:
Waterboarding by Wikipedia
Waterboarding.org
Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002 by Wash. Post
Is Waterboarding Torture? by CS Monitor
Bush Admin. Blocked Critic by Wash. Post
Every year, we do a show on this topic because it’s such an important part of Christmas. Why, exactly, do we give gifts? What are the key ingredients to a good (and a bad) gift? What should you do when you get a gift you don’t want? Should you be honest with the person? Aren’t Christians supposed to tell the truth? Would you want to know if you failed at giving someone else a gift?
Post-Show Thoughts: Honesty is key. When someone gives a bad gift, they have really violated the purpose of gift-giving and done something immoral. This requires an appropriate response, which is usually tactful honesty. Lying always leads to a breach in the relationship and later lies, most likely. Real love pursues honesty and seeks to help them become wiser at giving gifts. I intend to write a longer article on this topic because I think it's so important. If gifts are meant to be a blessing, then we are obligated to do everything we can to make them not be a burden. Bad gifts show we don't know others and, therefore, can't really love them.
Two articles by Andrew on this subject
Bad Christmas gifts part 1, How not to give them
Bad Christmas gifts part 2, What to do when you get them
Bible References: Prov 21:14, Eccl 3:12-13, Eccl 5:18-20, Matt 5:21-24, Matt 5:40-42, Matt 6:9-15, Matt 7:6-12, Matt 10:8, Matt 19:21, Luke 6:30-36, Acts 2:37-38, Acts 20:35, 1 Cor 12, Rom 5:15-18, Eph 2:8-9, James 1:17, Rev 11:10
Links on Gift-giving:
Parent Alert: Video Games To Avoid by ABC News
What To Do WIth Bad Gifts by Blackamericaweb.com
Top Ten Worst Gifts From Last Christmas by 1stholistic.com
Anatomy of a Bad Gift-Giver by 1stholistic.com
Bye-Bye, Bad Gifts by USA Weekend
Humor: Things To Say About Bad Gifts by Zozanga.com
The Gift That Keeps On Being Given by Orlando Sentinel
Growth of Holiday Gift Cards by USA Today
Regifting by Wikipedia
Regifting 101 by Regiftable.com
The Regifting Debate by CBS News
12 Rules For Regifting Without Fear by MSN.com
~It’s hopelessly bound up with things we oppose or should oppose like materialism and fables.
~It’s origins come from pagan worship rituals.
~Christmas was actually illegal in America for a long time. Do you know why?
~Jesus never told us to commemorate His birth, and the disciples didn’t do so. We are told to commemorate His death with communion.
~By saying, “Do this in remembrance of Me,” He was implying that we ought not do anything else in remembrance of Him.
~Is this a Biblical phrase?
~Christmas isn’t even really all that important to the faith, compared to Easter anyhow.
~It’s only in one Gospel and wasn’t celebrated by the early Church.
~Birthdays are not a Biblical thing to celebrate anyhow.
~Christmas and all the traditions sets people up for great depression when they are alone or when they don’t have a “good one,” whatever that means.
Post-Show Thoughts: Many of these arguments are spurious. Most notably, the Bible clearly depicts a massive celebration at Jesus's birth by angels and shepherds and the Magi. Are we to be the only ones who do not celebrate His birth? Also, the way we know that Jesus is Messiah is because He fulfilled all of the Old Testament prophecies concerning His birth. If His birth were not important to God and our theology, why would the OT point to Him so clearly and then show those promises satisfied in Him? As far as the roots issue, I evaluate a practice based on what it is, not based on what it was. Whether America was a Christian nation originally tells us nothing about whether it is so today. Likewise, whether Christmas was a co-opted pagan holiday (and I think it was not, actually), that's not what it is now. And what something means to the people celebrating it is the key thing. Having a statue doesn't make me guilty of idolatry, unless I bow down to it.
Bible References: Gen 40:20-22, Lev 18:21-29, Matt 1:21, Matt 14:6-10, Matt 15:7-9, Luke 1:1-2:38, John 18:37, Romans 14:5-6, 1 Cor 10:31, 1 Cor 11:23-26
~Name a Christmas decoration that isn’t Biblically problematic.
~Christmas trees are pagan. Haven’t you read Jeremiah 10?
~Mistletoe was thought to be a magical wood.
~Christmas lights waste energy (lots and lots of it) and don’t have anything to do with the birth of Jesus.
~Stockings are about Santa, which we shouldn’t emphasize.
~Nativity scenes: Really? Statues of Jesus?
I was recently excited to see the return to network television of a remake of the old (1980’s) television show, American Gladiators. And it got me thinking about how many television shows get remade either as new television shows or (more commonly) as movies and how often it doesn’t work. So, I figured we could have fun talking about our favorite campy TV shows and whether we would or would not want to see them remade.
Links on TV Show Remakes:
~It’s wrong to compel children to espouse religion of any kind.Post-Show Thoughts: It may well be the last vestige of an overwhelmingly Christian culture, but that doesn't mean it's nothing at all. The opponents here are between two problems: on the one hand they want to say that these things are significant violations of Constitutional principle but they also want to say they aren't really meaningful. Which is it? To say that these are violations of the establishment clause is to really belittle the meaning of that clause. I like reminders that God is the source of morality which is the source of law.
Links on mottos:
History of "In God We Trust" by U.S. Treasury
In God We Trust by Wikipedia
Pledge of Allegiance by Wikipedia
Pledge of Allegiance criticism by Wikipedia
Should "Under God" be in pledge? by UnderGodprocon.com
~You can’t simultaneously argue that Christmas is a secular holiday deserving of protection and then maintain that the heart of Christmas is Jesus.
“God loves you. Sin separates you from Him. Jesus died to restore you. If you receive Him as Lord, you will know God again.” That’s a fine plan, but who is this Jesus anyhow? People say different things. Savior, healer, messiah, teacher, miracle-worker, lord, prophet. So who Is He really? And given all the evidence about Jesus in the New Testament, what is the best way to think about His identity?
Post-Show Thoughts: Jesus is King. When you start with this particular label, I think you get a lot of the things that He did and was trying to do in the process. He was establishing a Kingdom, showing how His Kingdom would operate, and demonstrating His Kingship through miracles, healings, casting out demons, ministering to all, forgiving sins, and rising from the dead. What particularly strikes me about this metaphor, however, is that it immediately obligates us to something. We either are loyal to the King or we are not. And salvation is a matter of declaring your allegiance to King Jesus. Another reason I like it is that it avoids the over-familiar, nice-nice Jesus that many people think of. It doesn't encompass everything, but it synthesizes much, and I found it useful to think of Him as my King.
We just finished watching the movie, The Reaping, (my review is posted here) and something in that movie made me really think. In the movie Hillary Swank’s character gives an account of how the Ten Plagues of Egypt could have occurred scientifically, which is expanded in the DVD extras. Does such an account threaten faith, reinforce it, or have no impact? Should we expect science to tell us things that fit with the Bible all the time, or should we expect areas of conflict? And what means more to us in our religious belief: faith, experience, or reason?
What’s the difference between a great toy and a not-so-great toy? What are the toys that really serve our parenting goals with our children? Which toys are most appealing to children themselves? Which toy do you consider a “must-have” for children growing up?
Toys I like and recommend:
For Toddlers
Mega Blocks, Wood Puzzles, Balls, gloves, bats, Magna doodle, Shape sorter ball, Board Books, Little People, Stacking blocks and cups, Play tools, Dinosaurs, Push popcorn and music, Little Tykes car or motorcycle or grocery cart, Play food, Bowling pin set, Vacuum cleaner, Stuffed animals, Jack in the box, Mr. Potato Head
Preschool
Wood Blocks, Duplos, Dominoes, Lincoln Logs, Bicycle, Chalkboard, Etch-a-sketch, Play-doh, Crayons, Tumble tower, Matchbox, Shake and go cars, Fire truck, Jacks, Silly Putty, Tinker toys, Various board games, Wooden trains, Animal game, Frisbee, Viewmaster, Dress-up stuff of any kind, Slinky
Grade School
Barbie, Legos, Train, Slot cars, Army men, Skates, Marbles, Fake guns, Chess, Erector Set, Jigsaw puzzles, RC car, Yo-yo, Pogo stick, Paddle ball, Action figures
In America, our system is simple: every citizen over 18 can vote as long as he isn’t a criminal or insane (generally). But these rules seem much more like a practical system than a theoretically coherent system. Should illiterate people vote? They haven’t read the Constitution. Should people who don’t pay taxes vote? They don’t suffer the consequences of their decisions. Should women vote? They can’t be drafted. Should the elderly vote? They have wisdom, but they won’t have to live with the consequences very long. Should children vote? They certainly have the most to lose by bad decisions. We require all sorts of tests before we let someone drive a car, but any old idiot can influence all of our lives by voting. So lets pretend that we are setting up a new system for voting…what would that system require of someone, if anything, before voting?
~Do as Jesus did: Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.
~Do you really want the state in the business of licensing legitimate churches by granting them tax exempt status?
~Further gives people the impression that religion is all about money.
~In an environment where churches are not taxed, you never know if a sermon or educational choice is made because it’s the right one or the one that won’t raise eyebrows at the IRS.
~Allowing the IRS to indirectly censor the church is stupid. The only way to prevent that is to give them what they threaten.
~If you were a scam artist, where would you go to find sheep to fleece?
~It would free up churches to become as political as they want to be, endorsing politicians, causes, and taking sides in electoral issues.
~Tax-exempt status forces pastors who do make political statements into absurd contortions about it being merely their own opinion and not that of the religious organization they represent.
~You can’t say that church and state should be separate and then grant churches a special tax status.
Links on Tax-Exempt Churches:
501(C) by Wikipedia
IRS exemption requirements by IRS.gov
Should churches be tax exempt? by Elca.org
501C3 facts by Hushmoney.org
Tax-exempt churches by Atheism.about.com
Church could lose tax-exempt status by USA Today
Separation of church and state by Washington Post
Should churches be tax-exempt? by Gather.com
Unfair subsidy by Sullivan-county.com
~It’s the first (and perhaps only) response of the parentally uncreative.
~It just teaches kids that violence solves problems.
~Is “might makes right” really the kind of lesson you intend to impart?
~If there were no spanking, there certainly could be no abuse.
~You can’t teach a child that hitting is wrong by hitting him.
~Becomes an easy parenting crutch, reducing creativity.
~Used too often loses its potency.
~It’s the angry response, not the loving one.
Bible References: Prov 13:24, Prov 19:18, Prov 22:15, Prov 23:13-14, Prov 29:15-19, Heb 12:7-11
Links on Spanking
Overview To Spank or Not? by John Shepard
Pro Index to Articles on Spanking by Focus on the Family
Pro Q+A on Spanking by FocusOnYourChild.com
Pro The Bible and the Rod by Brian Schwertley
Pro How Should Christians Discipline? by GotQuestions.com
Con Ten Reasons Not To Hit Your Kids by Jan Hunt
Con Nine Things To Do Instead of Spanking by Katherine Kvols
Con Never Hit a Child a Child by Randy Cox
Con The Sexual Dangers of Spanking Children by Tom Johnson
Con Rod or Shebet: In-Depth Examination by Joan Renae
Con GentleChristianMothers.com and Resource Index
Con Arms of Love Family Fellowship
John Paul II gave a long series of pontifical addresses summarized under the heading “The Theology of the Body.” The idea is simple: God made us in His Image, and this means that when God gave us bodies and then Incarnated one Himself, He was telling us that we could learn truths about Him by studying our bodies. This is a pretty grand idea, but I wanted to start a bit more simply. If the body is supposed to teach us about God, then we can ask two simple questions. First, what part of the body amazes you the most and why? Second, if you were to teach someone about God using a part of the human body, what would you use and what would you teach?
Links on the Theology of the Body:
“Mommy, mommy, Jeffrey just put the measuring cups in the potty chair.” Gross, I know, but, for those of you with kids, this is well within the realm of unsurprising events in your household. The question is, do you want kids to tattle on each other or not? On the one hand, it seems to be honoring authority and expanding the scope of information available to a wise authority figure. On the other hand, it seems to be a failure to resolve things peacefully and is often a way for children to subtly try to usurp authority to themselves. Why do we think of tattling as bad, or do we? Of course, the ramifications of our thinking about tattling have truly significant implications for our thinking about many adult activities as well. Everything from gossip to whistleblowing to informing the police about the commission of a crime or even testifying might be seen as variations on the basic tattling concept. So what is the best ethical perspective on tattling?
Bible References: Ex 20:16, Lev 19:16, Psalm 41:5, Prov 17:9, Jeremiah 20:10, Matthew 18:15-20, Luke 3:14, Luke 17:1-4, Rom 1:28-32, 1 Cor 13:1, 2 Cor 12:20, Gal 5:22-26, Gal 6:1-5, 1 Tim 5:13, 1 Tim 6:3-5, James 4:11-12, 1 John 2:9-11, 1 John 3:15
We’ve all used the expression, and it occurs quite early in the Bible. But what, precisely, does it mean to say that we are made in the image of God? Does it apply to men and women both? Does it apply to those who are not Christians? And what does it entail in terms of how we interact with others who are likewise so created?
Bible References: Gen 1:26-28, Gen 2:7, Gen 2:15-20, Gen 5:1, Gen 9:4-6, Gen 18:1-2, Gen 32:24-30, Psalm 8:5, Psalm 139:1-4, Prov 14:31, Daniel 3:25, Matt 25:31-46, Luke 3:38, John 1:1, John 1:18, John 4:24, John 13:34-35, Acts 17:28, Rom 2:14-15, Rom 12:1-2, 1 Cor 3:16, 1 Cor 6:19, 1 Cor 11:7, Gal 6:10, Phil 2:5-8, Col 1:15, Col 3:10, Eph 4:24, Heb 1:3, Heb 4:13, James 2:14-17, James 3:9, 1 John 4:16, Rev 13:8
Links on the Image of God:
Patristic Fathers by Theologicalstudies.org
Made in the image of God by AnswersinGenesis.org
Man: The image of God by AnswersinGenesis.org
The image of God by Ldolphin.org
Image of God: What does it mean? by Gotquestions.org
Book: In His Image by Christianbook.com
Humans in the image of God by WCG.org
Image of God in man by Crossroad.to
The image of God by Letusreason.org
Men and women in the image of God by LeaderU.com
“Emergency contraception” has been legal in the United States for several years, and sales are high. But many pharmacists consider it a violation of their pro-life views and also of the Hippocratic Oath and are refusing to fill prescriptions for it. Is this a matter of personal conscientious objection or religious tyranny by them over patients who are seeking a legal medication? Should they be protected in their refusals against firing?
Post-Show Thoughts: It's simple. Anyone should have the right to not participate in dispensing to others a drug which is incompatible with his basic religious beliefs. This right is further enhanced when the situation involves matters of life. Just as doctors are allowed to opt out of performing abortions, pharmacists should not be forced to dispence abortifacients, chemicals that either do or may accomplish an abortion. Whether the law recognizes this right is only relevant insofar as to whether the law will be just or unjust. I think pharmacists may put themselves in a difficult position, however, if they are objecting to Plan B but do not object to ordinary pharmaceutical contraceptives since the two are functionally so similar.
I'd go a step farther than most and assert that these rights should also extend to being allowed to refuse to dispense sexually-related materials to people who are not married. It's beyond baffling to me that the state would certify the sexual monopoly of marriage and protect it from commercialization through anti-prostitution statutes but turn around and require people to dispense anything in this area to others regardless of their ability to demonstrate they are married. This is not the same as criminalizing such behavior, which is well worthy of its own discussion. But at the very least, were I a pharmacist, I would demand the right to refrain from selling anything which facililtates an immoral activity.
Links on Plan B:
Emergency Contraception by Wikipedia
Beginning of Pregnancy Controversy by Wikipedia
Plan B: The facts behind the controversy by USPharmacist.com
The Hippocratic Oath by Euthanasia.com
Limits of Conscientious Objection (PDF file) by Yale.edu
Pharmacists' rights at front of debate by Washington Post
Contraceptive clears access hurdle by NY Times
Morning after pill gets closer look by NY Times
Plan B for Pharmacists by Atheism.about.com
Opinion: Dispense Plan B by Seattle Post Intelligencer
NJ law requires dispensing of Plan B by CNS News
Why the federal court was wrong by Findlaw.com
Some doctors refuse service by USA Today
Emergency contraception by Morningafterpill.org
Refusal clauses by Plannedparenthood.org
Walmart will sell contraceptive by NY Times
~You only have standing in the law when you’ve been harmed.
~They have cultivated the gluttony industry in America.
~People should eat at home with their families.
~A restaurant commodifies a transaction which should be voluntary: food preparation and service are things which should be given not sold.
~The portions and the content of food at restaurants is generally unhealthy.
~“Eat this 50 oz. Steak in an hour and get it for free.”
~All-you-can eat buffets.
~“Would you like a $5 dessert with that espresso, sir?”
~Fast food restaurants, in particular, make our society less patient and kind.
~Being a server is a form of slavery.
~Are we more thrifty or less with food in the era of the restaurant?
~If gluttony is as much a problem as it looks to be and we compare it to lust, then every restaurant is essentially a strip club for your stomach.
~Mom can’t compete with the Cheesecake factory, and she shouldn’t have to anymore than your wife should have to compete with the Victoria’s Secret models.
~If it weren’t for restaurants, we most likely wouldn’t have so many working moms because it would be logistically impossible.
Post-Show Thoughts: After reading the articles and the Bible references and talking it over with you for two hours, here is my conclusion. The practice is not shown in the Bible. Instead, we have the pattern of repent, believe, confess, and be baptized. Everything the altar call is supposed to accomplish would be better and more fully accomplished by having people come be baptized, and this would be done without the various dangers which go with altar calls. Since the Bible so clearly lays out this pattern, and there's no reason to tinker with it, I can't imagine a church preferring to practice the altar call without baptism. I think those who do altar calls are simply in the habit, which is only a tradition for about 170 years, and haven't realized the superior practice of immediately baptizing new converts, just as they did in Acts. Literally, every argument for the altar call is a better argument for baptism, and every argument against immediate baptism is a better argument agains having altar calls for salvation. And it disturbs me that in researching for this show I simply could not find any resource on the Web offering even a theoretical defense of the altar call, let alone a Scriptural one. The reason that such an article is not linked below is because I could not find one. That's not decisive in the discussion, but it should concern advocates of the altar call, which I have long been until just now.
Bible References: Matt 4:18-22, Matt 7:21-23, Matt 8:18-22, Matt 9:9, Matt 9:37-38, Matt 10:32-33, Matt 19:16-21, John 3:8, Acts 2:37-40, Acts 3:19, Acts 17:32-34, Rom 8:28-30, Rom 9:15-16, Rom 10:12-15, 2 Cor 5:1, James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:22-23
Links on Altar Calls:
Altar Call by Wikipedia
Altar Call by Mountainretreatorg.net
Altar Calls: Helpful or Harmful? by Biblicalstudies.com
Altar Call Evangelism by 9marks.org
Refusing To Heed an Altar Call by Gracesermons.com
A Close Look at Invitations and Altar Calls by BibleBB.com
Charles Finney and the Altar Call by Wordpress.com
Why We Don't Use The Altar Call by VictoryBaptist.us
