KJV & Universal Salvation / Reconciliation

I got into a bit of a discussion on this topic - again - with a Baptist some time ago. The usual arguement of "Well if its in the Bible, I believe it." was thrown at me in terms of there being a fiery hell that forever torments. The KJV was ultimately quoted wherein the problem lies. Sometime ago, we also got into whether or not the KJV was the literal word of God. I am claiming that it is but one of many translations. Back when it was first created, it wasn't a bad translation by any means. I believe that given what was available at the time, it is actually a pretty good translation, but perfect? No, KJV is not perfect. I was unaware of just how vicious and pigheaded some KJV adherents could be (but I suppose we all can given the right mix of beliefs). That is to say, there are a sizeable group of people that believe that *only* the KJV is 100% God's word. A smaller subset of this group will go even farther and claim that readers of other translations are heretics, and some will even claim that readers of other translations are going to this fiery hell (so much for embodying love and mercy)

Anyway,I am often left scratching my head in confusion as to how anyone can honestly look at their one's own arguement and find it to be solid and without holes in this arena. Most of the KJV arguements I've found on google seem to be nothing more than circular in nature. They go something like this:

1) The bible (KJV) says God's word is infallible
2) The KJV is God's word
3) KJV is therefore infalliable.

The other spin is simply a direct assertion that "KJV is better because it's infalliable" without actually showing it.

Occasionally I'll find the accusation that those who have studied Greek / Hebrew and become scholars, and still suggest that other translations (or multiple) should be used, are simply parroting what they have been taught. They are not true scholars. Or so the arguement goes. This is just nonsense. Let us assume that Person A is a scholar of Greek texts and likes other translations. Let us further assume that Person B has studied Greek as well, and levels the criticism that Person A is just "parroting". How has Person B any more authority on the Greek language than Person A? Person B is also "parroting" if such a thing has occured. To the best of my knowledge (and I will wager quite a lot on this as well) Person B did not grow up in ancient Greece, and has not spoken ancient Greek in any sort of real setting, and most certainly not as a primary language. Everything Person B "knows" about the ancient Greek language is simply a "parroting" of what he has been read / told as well.

Thus we have to look at who's opinion is more valid. I have yet to be impressed with anyone that sides with Person B. But that's just me.

Lindsay Lohan Fun (spot the dumb statement)

Ok, I had to include this. Li-Lo is in trouble again as of a couple of days ago. Big surprise, huh? But this little gem of a statement came from one of those really bright attorneys.

Partial Text from Fox (here):

That behavior won't cut it anymore and neither will spa-style clinics, said Barry Gerald Sands, a Century City defense attorney who's also a certified drug and alcohol counselor. "Whatever you have done in the past, do a 360-degree turn and go the other way," Sands said Wednesday. "She has to change her alleged friends, people sharing or selling her drugs. She has to lead a clean and sober life.

Step right up and spot the dumb part. First prize is a virtual Twizzler.

More Universal Salvation

At work, I've come to jokingly call the doctrine "The Dark Side" I tease some of the die hard Baptists around here that they too should join the Dark Side of theology, and that its power is inescapable. This of course, just throws them into a tizzy as the very thought of there not being an eternal hell jars against everything they believe in. Furthermore, I just know it warps their mind that a previously "conservative" Christian could ever fall away from "the true teachings" and adopt such a belief, and then have the audacity to claim it is biblical. Hence the reason why I call it the Dark Side.

In all seriousness however, the more I hear people preach and argue for the classical sense of Hell at work - the doctrine that there exists a real hell, where God sends most everyone since only a few are saved, where they will burn & suffer for all of eternity - the more I believe that Universal Reconciliation (through Christ mind you) is in fact right. I hear very few biblical arguments, and it’s mostly philosophy or personal opinion built in circular form or just bad premises. The biblical arguments I hear are all the ones I use to use as well, and for the most part, they - those looking to scoff the Dark Side - do not want to listen to any sort of rebuttal. To me that simply means it’s too scary to consider that perhaps Hell isn't real in how we usually think of it. Then to top it off, it also means / implies that there are no real counter arguments to the exegetical side of the doctrine. Now that's not to say that there are none at all by anyone, as I have managed to dig up a number of well written articles from the classical side, but those too leave me wanting and feeling unfulfilled.

But back on track. I do find it funny that one particular person at work, who is adamantly opposed to the Dark Side, uses arguments that cut both ways. That is to say, they can be equally, if not more so applied to knock down the classic view of hell. For example, it was argued that hell must exist, because even though it is so terrible, it directs people to God and makes him think about God, and makes him even more appreciative of what He has done.

Let's turn this logic to Universal Reconciliation. I could just as easily say, I believe that it must be true that all will be redeemed from sin, and there is no eternal hell, for it brings everyone to God, makes everyone think about God, and makes Him truly capable of anything and makes me even more appreciative of all He has done and what He can do.

I suppose the lesson for today is, if one is advocating a certain position, arguments should be carefully thought about and constructed, lest they be used against what is being argued in favor of.

Jesus and Hooters

Since 11th grade (14 years ago or so) I've been listening solely to 104.1 on the radio. I love it. They've had a few shows come and go, but oh well, the current line up is fantastic. They can be found here. The Philips Phile is the only one left since I started listening, The monsters have been around a long while, and I really like the Shannon Burke show, which is relatively new (2 years now?).

Anyway, The Monsters are on during my drive to work, and this morning they started talking about how some Christians go around not doing anything because of "temptation". Don't watch R movies because of temptation. Don't drink because you will be tempted to do this and that. Anyway, one of the things one of them experienced along these lines was "You shouldn't go to Hooters because you will be tempted to cheat on your wife." which was followed up by "Would you take Jesus to Hooters?"

I was thinking about this, and before the radio show personalities answered, I thought to myself "Yeah, I'd take Jesus there. They have good wings!"

Let's look at this from a theological standpoint too. If we assume that Jesus is omniscient and omnipresent being one with God the Father:

- Jesus will not falter no matter what is trying to tempt him. Therefore, Hooters will have no effect on him.
- Jesus already sees what is in Hooters anyway, therefore it will be nothing new.
- Jesus use to hang out with hookers and the like, who were actively looking to trade sex for money. Hooters girls are just serving food, and not looking to really be picked up by the 238947 guys that try everyday.

So Jesus is out of the equation. For myself, is it possible to go to Hooters then? Yes, most definately. The last time I went to Hooters was in January with my cousin who wanted to watch a football game while we drove up to Boston. We spent some time there, and while she was off playing around the resteraunt (mostly trying to track down their photographer) our waitress talked to me a bit. I guess I wasn't oogling her and the others enough, as her one of her questions finally came up, "So do you wish there were a bunch of guys in short shorts around here?"

"Huh?"

"You're gay aren't you?"

"No, not at all."

This was a bit of a shock to her, and made me start to laugh. "Why did you ask?"

"I'm sorry, I just thought you were." She seemed to take a much better intrest me in this point. I guess that made me something that was attainable. And in all honesty, she was a very pretty girl. But here's where the Hooters part comes in, they - her included obviously - don't wear anything that is *that* much more revealing anymore. Walk around the mall and you'll get an eye full these days. Not that I really care really, I suppose I'm desensitized now. Most everyone is. So my point is, though she looked really good and was wearing a form fitting top and some high riding shorts, it wasn't new.

I suppose I should also consider the location. There could be the arguement that I only did not succomb to temptation because of where we were. This was somewhere in NJ, and we were not stopping for the night, which made anysort of 1 night stand or relationship out of the question. It could be argued that I did not persue the conversation with our waitress in any sort of "pick up" means because of the logistics. If I had lived in the area, or was staying the night, it could be argued that I would have at least tried with the now very interested and attractice waitress we had. Perhaps.

However, I would counter with the same could be said no matter where we would have been. There are certainly other resteraunts with attractive servers. Should I stop eating? Further more, attractive females have actually been spotted outside of Hooters, which means to avoid being tempted by them - especially those who might take an interest in me - I should avoid the outsides completely.

But back to Jesus and Hooters. Let's say I'm in my own town and Jesus stops by. Would I take Him there? Sure. Like I said before, they do have really good wings (at least mine do). And even if I did start getting tempted, He would obviously know, as He is God under our assumption. And when God says, "Don't forget you are married," with a little wink, am I going to argue with what He's saying and knows I'm thinking? Nope.

Course, if He leaves early to find a leper to heal, that's another story :)

(nt)

Oof. Back on to Godly comments now

TKO almost on my end. Got whacked for 2 days with something really nasty. Going back to work tomorrow, a little weak still, but I need to get back since they don't pay me to sit around at home. Well they would if I had some sick days left. But I digress

Another little thing that started out as a joke, but I wonder if there might be a nugget of truth to it. I was saying to a coworker a while back that I bet that God has some awesome stand up (comedy). And being omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-everything, that naturally extends into humor. So when things are all said and done, and perfection is restored and "heaven" is around, I wonder if God would do some stand up acts. Being divine, He'd a) always have fresh material and b) all the jokes would be classic and well delivered. What more could you want?

People need to stfu

And learn not to butt in. That's just my preface to this rant. Yeah its nothing terribly insightful, funny, or related to any recent theological discourse as of late. But I'm going to rant anyway.

I've been slowly pressure cooking for oh, I dunno, 4-5 years maybe? Something like that, probably even more if I take a look at the really big picture. Had a brief "burp" back in October, and finally blew my top Mt. Helen style in January.

Ever see Lawnmower man? At the end of it, the virtual guy is "trapped" in the intraweb of the company, trying to hack his way out, trying all the virtual "doors" that lead to phone lines. There are thousands and each one comes back locked, and the timer is ticking, ticking ticking. Not a bad thing, except for the fact that once the timer hits 0, the building is going to blow up, and of course, vaporize him too.

That's sorta where I am. Door, door, door, door, locked, locked, locked. Finally found a door that might work (or two / three) and they got shutdown by some asshats who well - I'll just leave it at that.

So I'm left with fewer doors, scrambling along.

On a board I saw a thread about "Would you change 1 personal event if you could?"

Yep. A few actually. One relatively recent one. But I haven't found a place that rents time machines.

In the mean time, people really should not fiddle in everything, especially when they aren't welcome.

s! Quaker

You'll be missed. (d +1)

Mappin'

So I found a couple of zombie games to play, which I'm a sucker for. Stared piddling around on Hammer again and whipped this little hallway out:



There are a few screenies of the room behind it at this link, but its a work in progress at the moment.