#Sin Wheaton

[gay-spock]

here’s a compilation of why rick berman of star trek fame could have ruined the franchise with his bigotry, thanks to @/thisismewhatevs on twitter:

- rick berman is usually cited by writers as the main reason gay characters were not allowed on screen in TNG/VOY/DS9/ENT even though gene roddenberry specifically wanted gay representation in the 1980s

- notably, he is responsible for demanding female actors be "sexed up" in various ways including jeri ryan's catsuit and padding terry farell's breasts

- when terry farell asked for a reduced contract similar to those of her male costars, she was fired, leading to the sudden death of jadzia dax

- with seven of nine's catsuit, not only was it berman's idea to make her "born sexy yesterday" her original costume pinched her neck so much she kept passing out. rather than change it, berman brought in nurses to administer oxygen between takes

- berman would continually comment on the appearance of female actors to the point that marina sirtis developed an eating disorder. sirtis also mentions how tight her corset and how large her breast padding was under her "uniform"

- berman was left in charge of trek because he was in the right place when roddenberry got sick. He had no experience with scifi previously and didn't really believe in roddenberry's vision of the future:

- In addition to being a dick to denise crosby after pushing her out, he's also the reason for wil wheaton was kicked out for similar contact negotiation as terry farrell

- harry kim was never promoted from ensign since berman hated his actor, garrett wang, according to him

- enterprise was a step backwards in a lot of ways because berman had far more creative control (seasons 1-3) and took a much more hands on writing role. here's t'pol actor jolene blalock discussing his sexualization of her

- as DS9 went on, garak and bashir spent less time together and garak was given zyial as an incredibly gross love interest because andy robinson's portrayal as queer coded made berman uncomfortable

- despite the "equality" promoted on the show, berman hired very few female writers, with less than 30% of episodes having even one female writer during his time

- “Rick Berman is not the only asshole to have worked on Star Trek and he is not the reason for every bad choice from TNG-ENT. However HE WAS the executive producers and show runner in charge of production so much of the sins of that time lie at his feet. When people get confused about how some people seem to "misunderstand" the point of Star Trek and don't know how they can watch/enjoy the "progressive" nature of the show and be such vile sexists and racists, this is how. They let a sexist asshole run the show for three decades. On screen representation is important. It's amazing for people to see themselves in such a hopeful future, but the behind the scenes matters just as much if not more than who is in front of the camera. Representation without responsible storytelling is a tragedy.“ -Deep Space Fine on twitter

this is not to say that TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT are bad shows, or that they shouldn’t be watched, or anything else; but that understanding why these awful choices were made behind the scenes in depicting a “progressive” future. rick berman didn’t agree with this future because he didn’t want others who weren’t white, cis, straight men like him to benefit in the ways he did.

[wilwheaton]

Hi, Wil! I found an audio track on my computer and I'm trying to identify whence it came. Google is no help. It's an hour-long track called "MixTape20180408," and has some ambient synth as well as some other pretty eclectic musical selections, in genres I'm not familiar enough with music to call by their proper names. Anyway; is it yours? I saved it in the same folder with "asteraleS" but I don't see it listed with your other Bandcamp tracks. Cheers (-:

That sounds like something I would have made, yeah. That's the naming convention I used.

I looked through my Soundcloud just now, and I think maybe this is it?

[uboat53]

So I realize there's a lot of to-do over the misogyny in Harrison Butker's graduation speech, but did you catch the antisemitism in it too? Honestly, there's so much in there that it deserves a closer look.

First off the antisemitism. You might have missed it in all the uproar over his comments about women, but he also said "Congress just passed a bill where stating something as basic as the biblical teaching of who killed Jesus could land you in jail." If you're unfamiliar with the reference here, this is a reference to the Jewish Deicide; the idea that Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus Christ. This idea has been one of the primary drivers of violence against Jews throughout history and was renounced by the Catholic Church in the 1500s.

After that, though… there's so much nonsense in here, where do I even begin? Okay, let's start with his criticism of Biden. Specifically, he makes the claim that Biden is flouting Catholic doctrine by being pro-choice in his politics which, though accurate, misses important context. After all, the Catholic opposition to abortion is based on the same theological idea as its opposition to the death penalty, yet Mr. Butker does not seem to have any issue with conservative politicians who flout that particular doctrine.

There's more, too, but you should read the whole thing for yourself (there's a link to the transcript below), it's a doozy. Rather than continuing to go point-by-point, however, I think this is a good place to take a broader view. As you can see from just the few the points I went over above and more that you can read for yourself, his claim to represent "true" Catholicism is questionable at best. So what does he represent?

Well, doctrinaire Catholics don't believe that Jews were responsible for the death of Christ. After all, Christ died to redeem the sins of mankind, so Catholic doctrine is that all of humanity is responsible for his death. Doctrinaire Catholics also don't believe that opposing abortion is the only thing necessary to be in communion with the church's teachings on the sanctity of life. Who does believe these kinds of things and more that Mr. Butker does? Well, American Evangelical Christians do. In fact, this speech would honestly seem far less out of place somewhere like Liberty University or Wheaton College than at a Catholic college.

And this, ultimately, was the most interesting part of his speech for me. Conservative American Catholics are fond of calling more liberal Catholics "Cafeteria Catholics" for picking and choosing which parts of Catholic doctrine to follow, but when you look closely you'll find that they're doing pretty much the same thing but they don't seem to realize it. The reason for this seems fairly straightforward, conservative Catholics in America, like most conservative religious groups in this country, particularly conservative Christians, have tied themselves closely to the Republican Party; a party fairly well dominated by Evangelical Christians.

That's what's notable to me, conservative American Catholics have held on to the trappings of old-style Catholicism like the Traditional Latin Mass while completely upending the doctrine. Instead, once you take away the ritual and the rote, they're basically no different from American Evangelical Christians, which I'm sure would horrify genuinely traditional Catholics the world over.

And we're not even going to mention the arrogance of the conservative Christian to think that they, personally, perfectly understand the mind of God. That's a conversation that deserves its own space.

[whatdoesshedotothem]

x Sunday 10 November 1833

8 25

12 ¼

incurred a cross last night thinking of π- merely for the cross not affectionately - very fine sunny frosty morning F49° (on my writing desk in my bedroom) at 9am - wrote the following ‘Dear comtesse de Blucher  will this fine morning tempt you to take a drive? if it will, fix your own hour, I will call for you in my own carriage from out of which one can see (consequently I shall not commit the sin of making eyes like yours useless) and we will go where you please - very truly yours A. Lister Sunday morning 10 November 1833’ - sent off Thomas with the above to ‘the comtesse de Blucher’ at 10 - breakfast at 10 - and till 11 20 read from p. 64 to 90 Laney’s little history of Denmark - then Eugenie not have left me my cloak up, had the house up to pick the lock or find a key to get to it - read short prayers psalms lesson and collect and epistle and gospel to Thomas till 12, and out in my own carriage at Comtesse Blucher’s at 12 20 drove her to Charlottenlund - 40 minutes walk there - set her down at her own house and called for 10 minutes on Mrs. Eckhart - found Mrs. Hockschilde [Hochschild] there - Mr E- came in,  and handed me down to my carriage second class people    I will have no more of them - left my card for Mrs Wheaton the American minister’s wife and home at 3 55 Eugenie annoyed me by her excuses - dressed - off to the de Hagemanns’ at 5 - only Mr. d’Oxholm, who defended the duchess de Montebello against the de H-s I rather siding with them - he left us at 7 - then had my new cook and spoke to her with lady Harriet - to come from 8am to 10pm everyday - do all I wanted cook (buy and bring in provision) and clean the rooms and live with my servants - at 8 20 Lady Harriet went out with me to pay visits - the Fallesens not at home - left our cards - then to Comtesse Plessen my 1st visit - at home - 2 or 3 gentlemen there - Mademoiselle de Schalten on the sofa with the Comtesse - a nice person - staid 10 minutes - Lady Harriet in colours   I had advised her putting on black but Mr. de H- against it she had little to say and seemed shy and uncomfortable   she neither likes nor is liked by the people   I felt at ease and talked enough at the Paulis’ at 8 55 and sent Lady Harriet back to her own house (in the carriage) - the baroness and her daughter and Mrs. Hage and Mrs. and Miss....... Danish consul’s wife and daughter at Tangier where they (the ladies) go to join the consul next spring - she a nice enough fat darkish complexed person - the daughter said the play on the piano and sing well - tea had evidently been kept waiting for me - by and by came M. le baron and the 2 Mademoiselles de Nicolay and staid sometime there also Major Vickerty and another gentleman - Mrs Pauli would always be happy to see me - very civil - home at 10 ¾ having staid to the last expect Mrs. Hage - wrote the last 14 lines till 11 40 at which hour F50° – fine day – tho’ 2 or 3 drops of small rain while comtesse de B- and I were at Charlottenlund and a little rain in the evening

[saraloveliness-blog]

Part of me thought that Jesus was a hypocrite, but I knew that wasn't possible. Part of me thought the Bible was untrue and inconsistent, but I knew that wasn't possible.

Jesus said to love your enemies. It says in the back of Novum Testamentum Graece that this means to "cherish, show or prove one's love; long for, desire, place first in one's affections." It says in Thayer's that it means prompt obedience when the object of the love is God. I have procrastinated this blog post big time. When the object is another human being, according to Thayer's it means to have a preference for and to care about their welfare.

As far as I could tell Jesus did not love His enemies. Did He cherish them, desire them, and place them first in His affections? He angrily criticized their pride, exploitation, and hypocrisy to their faces and behind their backs. It didn't seem respectful or loving.

Jesusvoice said the Bible bifurcates love and respect and that they were not the same thing. Erich From said that respect was part of love and means to look at, to see, to regard, and to view accurately. He got that from the etymology of the word. I looked up respect in The Dictionary of Etymology, and it agreed with Fromm.

Jesusvoice said to look up respect in the back of the Greek New Testament. I used Google to find the verse about wives respecting their husbands. I then looked up the word in the back of the Greek New Testament. It means to be scared, "to be afraid to do something, to fear, worship, or reverence God" and in Ephesians 5:22, it means to respect

I don't know if any of this that follows is accurate, comes from Satan or is a schizophrenic talking to voices in her head and nothing more.

Jesusvoice said the tax collectors, prostitutes, and sinners were His enemies. He loved them. He treated them with affection. He cherished them. They were His enemies.

Jesusvoice said the Pharisees were not His friends or His enemies. They were religious leaders hom He respected. He respected them by viewing them accurately, regarding their lives and their hypocrisy, and by treating them with shrewdness because they had the power to get Him killed. He said He did not respect them by esteeming them highly but by fearing them and also by regarding their lives and their teaching with ruthless candor. He said they played for the same team. He said that both He and they believed in loving God and following the Mosaic law but had widely differing views on how to do so. He said they moved from the respect category to the enemies category when He was being tortured and crucified, and He loved them by not fighting back and begging His Father to forgive them.

So according to Jesusvoice...

-Tax collectors, prostitutes, and sinners were enemies. He loved and cherished them.

-Disciples were His friends. He lived and died for them.

-Pharisees were in the respect category. He respected them by taking their leadership, learning and sin seriously and holding them accountable for all of the above. They then moved into the enemy category, and He loved them.

Jesusvoice said that Wheaton College professors and mental health professionals fell into the respect category. He said I should be scared because they have the power to put me away for good. He said I should consider them with brutal honesty. He also said I should read their scholarship. I am a slacker. I probably shan't. He said family also falls into the respect category.

Jesusvoice said that mark is not a Christian category but that fool is and that is how most Satanists view their marks.

Jesusvoice also said, and this makes no sense, that I am all of the above. I am His friend. I am His enemy. Like the Pharisees, I am a religious leader He respects; and I am a fool.

I know I am His friend. I know I am His enemy. I know I am a fool. The evidence that I am a religious leader is scant and scarce. I type Daddy's sermon notes. Sometimes I add comments that I call rubrics. I used to be the most appalling church organist on the planet. I write about my take on myself, God, and the Bible all the time. Nobody responds. The only evidence I have that people read my writing without responding directly with honest, candid debate is that weird stuff sometimes happens on my computer. A PowerPoint presentation turned green when I thought it should, but I didn't change the color or the template myself. I am pretty sure a Satanist was seancing with me and changed the color in response to my thoughts. I was typing up Joyce Meyer's definition of fool, and the words appeared before I typed them. I was thinking about yahoo.co.uk. It had been a long time since I had gone to that website. It appeared on the address bar drop down without me typing it. I imagined Silas McNeill deleting my von Balthasar paper. The jacked up rough drafts were still in my OneDrive. The polished drafts were gone. IN MY IMAGINATION, Satanists seance with me and once in a blue moon give me a hint on my computer.

When Jesusvoice told me I was supposed to be in the respect category, it was exasperating. I don't want to work hard, and I don't want to be held accountable for my jacked up thoughts and actions.

Jesusvoice said that regardless of which category the people fell into, I needed to curse them by asking Him to make their weaknesses better and their strengths stranger, more ludicrous, and weirder. He said that was how people used to Papa Smith me.

Sources

Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer's Greek- English Lexicon of the New Testament, originaly Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1977), 3-4.

Robert K. Barnhart, The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology: The Origins of American English Words (New York: Harper Collins, 1995), 657.

Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, Dictionary, p. 1 & 513 & 196.

Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving, either I lost this book, or an evil book thief stole a wonderful book Grandma gave me

[mrlnsfrt]

Your Sins are Forgiven

"The miracle of salvation has to be the greatest miracle of all, for it meets the greatest need, brings the greatest results (and they last forever), and cost the greatest price"  -- Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 p.199

An invitation for a meal.

Then one of the Pharisees asked Him to eat with him. And He went to the Pharisee’s house, and sat down to eat. - Luke 7:37 NKJV

Who were the Pharisees? Pharisees were the most influential of the three major Jewish sects (the other two being the Sadducees and the Essenes). We first read of them in the second century b.c. (see Josephus, Antiquities13.10.5–6 [13.288–98]). In contrast to the Sadducees, the Pharisees believed in the resurrection, the existence of angels and demons (Luke 20:27; Acts 23:6–9), predestination as well as free will, and the validity of both the written and the oral law. Politically they were more conservative than the Sadducees, but religiously they were more liberal due to their acceptance of the oral law. (Robert H. Stein, Luke, vol. 24, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 175.

This is not the only time that Jesus ate with Pharisees. Luke 11:37; 14:1 also mentions Jesus eating with Pharisees. They “reclined to eat” is a better translation than “sat down to eat,” since “sat down to eat” invokes a mental picture of European-style tables and chairs, when they were more likely reclining at a short table. This detail will come in handy later on. That they reclined at the meal indicates that it was a banquet or Sabbath meal. Concerning the latter, it was quite common to invite a visiting rabbi or teacher to the Sabbath meal after he had taught in the synagogue (see Mark 1:29–31). If it was a banquet meal, Jesus may have been invited because of his reputation as a prophet. (Robert H. Stein, p. 235–236.)

According to Wiersbe, “It was customary in that day for outsiders to hover around during banquets so they could watch the “important people” and hear the conversation. Since everything was open, they could even enter the banquet hall and speak to a guest. This explains how this woman had access to Jesus. He was not behind locked doors. In that day women were not invited to banquets.” (Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 198.

Commenting on this passage, Bruce Larson points out that the Pharisee did not invite Jesus as a social equal since he did not provide the usual amenities for Him: the anointing of oil for the head, the ritual footwashing, and a kiss of greeting. This would indicate that the Pharisee invited Jesus out of curiosity. He had heard that Jesus was a prophet and he wanted to see for himself who this questionable celebrity was. (Bruce Larson and Lloyd J. Ogilvie, Luke, vol. 26, The Preacher’s Commentary Series (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Inc, 1983), 141.

Along these same lines Robert Stein shares that while it was not mandatory, it would have been a kind gesture for Simon (the Pharisee) as the host to have had his servants wash the feet of his guest (foot washing Gen 18:4; 19:2; 24:32; 43:24; 1 Sam 25:41; John 13:13–14) Simon was not necessarily being rude in neglecting to do this, but he certainly did not go out of his way to show hospitality to Jesus. It is evident that Simon in no way expressed any affection toward Jesus when he came to his home. (Robert H. Stein, Luke, vol. 24, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 237.

Behold, a sinner.

37 And behold, a woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at the table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of fragrant oil, 38 and stood at His feet behind Him weeping; and she began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head; and she kissed His feet and anointed them with the fragrant oil. - Luke 7:37-38 NKJV

Sometimes people are referred to as sinners because of their occupation. For example, tax collectors, tanners, camel drivers, and custom collectors, among others were considered ceremonially impure because of their occupations and could be labeled “sinners.” However, as it will become clear as the story progresses, her sins were not simply a matter of ceremonial uncleanness. (See Luke 7:47-50)

This sinful woman had undoubtedly repented and changed her life and wished to show her gratitude to Jesus who had rescued her. Her bad reputation as a harlot clung to her and made her an unwelcome visitor in the Pharisee’s house. - A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Lk 7:37.

When this woman, who was a sinner, knew that Jesus was at the Pharisee’s house she brought fragrant oil and came to Jesus’ feet. This is where the height of the table and “sat down” vs. “reclined” at the table makes a significant difference. If Jesus and others were sitting down in a European-style table and chairs she would have had to crawl under the table by everyone else’s feet and make her way to Jesus’ feet. However, if it was a low table and everyone was reclining, perhaps on some pillows, their feet would be behind them, away from the table and not underneath the table.

This woman, who is a sinner, makes her way to Jesus’ feet and begins to weep, she then uses her tears to wash his feet, and her hair to wipe them. This is very humbling, and if that were not enough, she also repeatedly kisses His feet and anointed them with fragrant oil. It is very likely that she had knelt by Jesus’ feet to anoint them with the fragrant oil and did not expect to weep and to have her tears reach His feet before the fragrant oil.

If this man were a prophet…

39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he spoke to himself, saying, “This Man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what manner of woman this is who is touching Him, for she is a sinner.” - Luke 36:39 NKJV

The Pharisee doubts that Jesus is a prophet. According to the Pharisee’s thinking, if Jesus were a prophet, then He would know that this woman was a sinner and He would not have allowed her to touch Him. Jesus addresses similar issues in Luke 7:34, where He recognizes that people accuse Him of being a friend of sinners. The Pharisee believes that he knows something that Jesus doesn’t, except that Jesus not only knows exactly who this woman is, He even knows what the Pharisee is thinking.

Let me tell you something.

And Jesus answered and said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” So he said, “Teacher, say it.” - Luke 7:40 NKJV

I find it interesting that the Bible says “Jesus answered,” yet no question was asked of him, at least not out loud. Jesus is answering the thoughts of the Simon. Jesus had come to Simon’s house, not because it would be an honor to do so. Jesus did not come looking for support or resources. Jesus came to the Pharisee for the same reason he hung out with tax collectors. Jesus knew Simon also needed the forgiveness and peace that He came to offer to all of humanity.

Story Time

41 “There was a certain creditor who had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42 And when they had nothing with which to repay, he freely forgave them both. Tell Me, therefore, which of them will love him more?”

43 Simon answered and said, “I suppose the one whom he forgave more.”

And He said to him, “You have rightly judged.”

Jesus used stories as a non-threatening way to engage his audience, see for example Luke 10:36 (Parable of the good Samaritan). This parable revealed to Simon that Jesus was indeed aware that the woman was a sinner. The parable also revealed that Jesus was aware of Simon’s thoughts, and not only that, the story revealed that Simon was also a sinner in need of forgiveness.

We don’t know how Simon reacted, but he is exposed. He knew everything about religion, liturgy, theology, ethics, temple worship, and the law. He knew all about the things of God but somehow he missed the essence of it all, which this woman captured. The woman knew how sinful she was. Simon’s problem was that he thought he was better than he was and he misunderstood the nature of God who is the giver of unconditional love. - Bruce Larson and Lloyd J. Ogilvie, Luke, vol. 26, The Preacher’s Commentary Series (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Inc, 1983), 141.

Do you see this woman?

44 Then He turned to the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has washed My feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head. 45 You gave Me no kiss, but this woman has not ceased to kiss My feet since the time I came in. 46 You did not anoint My head with oil, but this woman has anointed My feet with fragrant oil. - Luke 7:44-46 NKJV

Simon thought he knew something that Jesus didn’t, that the woman who was touching Him was a sinner. In reality, it was Simon who had failed to see. Simon had failed to see that Jesus was the Messiah, something the woman clearly saw.  

Everything that Simon neglected to do, the woman did—and she did it better! - Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 198.

It is worth noting that “The parable does not deal with the amount of sin in a person’s life but the awareness of that sin in his heart. How much sin must a person commit to be a sinner? Simon and the woman were both sinners. Simon was guilty of sins of the spirit, especially pride, while the woman was guilty of sins of the flesh (see 2 Cor. 7:1). Her sins were known, while Simon’s sins were hidden to everyone except God. And both of them were bankrupt and could not pay their debt to God. Simon was just as spiritually bankrupt as the woman, only he did not realize it.” (Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 198. Bold mine)

The main difference between Simon and the woman is not the amount of sin they had committed, but rather that she accepted God’s free offer of salvation and expressed her love openly. While Simon rejected Jesus’ offer and remained unforgiven. What a tragedy, to be so close to Jesus, yet fail to benefit from what Jesus had to offer.

What a tragedy to know so much about God, yet fail to understand the heart of God.

How tragic to have an intellectual and theological knowledge of God but miss the practical and relational understanding of our great need for the salvation that God offers us.

Have you ever wondered why, out of all the possible ways Jesus could have begun His sermon on the mount He chose to begin with “Blessed are the poor in spirit?” (Matthew 5:3) Because it is those who realize their need of Jesus that benefit from what Jesus has to offer. Simon probably knew much more about God, prophecy, the laws, and history than the woman did, but because that knowledge failed to cause Simon to recognize his need for Jesus it was all worthless. Maybe even worse than worthless, it was dangerous for his theological knowledge gave him a false sense of security. His hope was not found in Jesus or God’s great mercy, but rather in his intellectual prowess and religious discipline.

It was true that the woman had sinned more than Simon (according to the parable) but she is the only one who recognized her need for forgiveness and received it.

Your sins are forgiven

47 Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little.”

48 Then He said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” - Luke 7:47-48 NKJV

Jesus did not downplay the sinfulness of the woman. Indeed, she was a sinner who had committed many sins. However, the multitude of her sins did not make her more lost than Simon. How many sins do you have to commit in order to be classified as a sinner? There are degrees of consequences on a human, physical, and emotional level. However, when it comes to salvation, a small or large sin, or one or one million sins don’t make much of a difference. Once again, here on earth, there is a difference, the more you sin or the different types of sins cause varying levels of pain and suffering. But when it comes to salvation, one is all it takes for you to need to be rescued by Jesus.

The fact that the woman had many sins did not matter because she came to Jesus who was more than happy to forgive her of all her sins! Simon, on the other hand, had different sins, sins people would probably refer to as smaller sins, less offensive, less disruptive. However, Simon was also in desperate need of the forgiveness and salvation that Jesus had to offer. His failure to notice that prevented him from experiencing the deep love the woman had for Jesus.

All true penitents have a dear love to the Lord Jesus. - Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 1847.

As you read this you might identify with the woman with many sins, or you might identify yourself more closely with the Pharisee. Maybe your life has been pretty good, you might have never done anything terrible. Maybe you don’t feel a great need for Jesus and as a result, you don’t particularly feel much love towards Him. Maybe you look down on those who have more sins, those who have caused more pain and suffering and have also experienced a greater degree of pain and suffering. This story is a warning, lest you forget how you need Jesus’ salvation just as much as the worst sinner this world has ever seen.

Your faith has saved you.

49 And those who sat at the table with Him began to say to themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?” 50 Then He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.” - Luke 7:49-50 NKJV

Though the woman was forgiven much and loved much, her love was a result of her salvation, not the cause of it. She loved much because she had experienced forgiveness. Her forgiveness was a result of her faith.

We are not saved by faith plus works; we are saved by a faith that leads to works. This anonymous woman illustrates the truth of Galatians 5:6, “The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” (NIV). - Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 198.

Onlookers who had not experienced forgiveness to the degree that that woman had probably thought her behavior was over the top. We must be very careful not to judge someone else’s spiritual journey. They may seem fanatic to you, over-zealous, but perhaps they have just experienced God’s love in a way that is still foreign to you. Some dedicate their lives to God in such a passionate way that others wonder how it can be possible for anyone to live like that. Others live lives that barely give any evidence of their love for God.

I am still learning how to live my life in a way that is dedicated to God but sustainable. By this I mean I want to live in such a way that I will be around a long time to serve and bless those around me. However, I want to allow the Holy Spirit to move in me and make me uncomfortable as often as necessary for me to minister to those that God sends my way.

What about you?

What is your spiritual journey like? Is it vibrant and alive? Is your love for God passionate yet sustainable?

Or are you satisfied with a cheap and easy religion? Are you just sitting in your comfort zone judging those you consider less worthy of salvation? Do you love little and judge those who seem to love God way too much?

These are difficult questions. I am always asking God to guide me in this. I invite you to do the same. Ask God to reveal to you what you need to surrender to Him. Ask God to remind you of who you once were, and who you are now thanks to Him and His great love for you.

Instead of grudging greater sinners the mercy they find with Christ, upon their repentance, we should be stirred up by their example to examine ourselves whether we be indeed forgiven, and do love Christ. - Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 1848.

Practical application

Jesus is not here for us to anoint his feet. Some of us don’t have hair long enough to wipe His feet, so what should we do?

Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ - Matthew 25:45 NKJV

Though Jesus is not here, there are those in need that we can help because of our great love for Jesus.

So here is my challenge for you. Pray that God will send you someone to help this week. Someone you can help in the name of Jesus. You will help this person not because of anything they can do or has done for you, you will help this person simply because of what Jesus has done for you, a selfless act of kindness, that will reflect your great love for Jesus and your recognition of all that He has done for you.

[isaiahbie]

Does Christianity Neglect Ecology?

Christianity is often characterized as displaying little concern for the non-human realm of nature and focusing instead on only the salvation of souls and their eternal state in heaven above. Humans are deemed free to exploit the earth as its masters. The earth will be destroyed at the end of the ages anyway. Given this caricature of Christianity, many green activists and environmentalists have rejected a Christian view of nature and have gleaned heavily from non-Christian religions, which they take to be more respectful of nature. “Love Your Mother,” reads a bumper sticker with a depiction of planet Earth on it. Earth Day (started in 1970) is close to a sacred holiday for many groups. Yet pagan religions have done a fine job of polluting and disrespecting nature, as René Dubos pointed out in his refutation of Lynn White’s influential essay claiming that Christianity was responsible for “the ecological crisis.”¹

The Christian worldview neither deifies nature nor denigrates its worth. According to the Bible, creation is not divine and should never be worshiped. Yet it is neither intrinsically evil nor illusory, so it should be treated with respect. The universe was created as good by God and given to humans that they might develop and cultivate it through their God-given ingenuity. Women and men’s “dominion” over creation—critics to the contrary—was never intended to mean lawless exploitation at the expense of creation (see Genesis 1-2; Psalm 8).² However, the Fall set creation against itself such that harmony between humans, animals and the rest of nature is difficult to attain (Genesis 3). But now the entire creation has been dignified by God’s decision to take on a human nature and live on earth for the sake of cosmic redemption. In the end, the balance will be restored and nature in all its nooks and crannies will be reinstated with untrammeled goodness and grace (Romans 8:18-26; Revelation 21-22).

Nevertheless, the Bible’s ecological concern does not require vegetarianism, nor does it put animals on an equal or higher moral level than human beings, who alone are made in God’s image and likeness.³ Jesus spoke of humans as being “much more valuable” than “the birds of the air” (Matthew 6:26). Under the old covenant, God ordained animal sacrifice to portray the need for blood atonement for sin. The Passover meal, prefiguring Christ’s death for sin, features the consumption of lamb (Exodus 12:21). Jesus Himself ate this meal at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:17) and ate fish after the resurrection (Luke 24:40-43). Yet the Bible does not regard animals as without value or as mere fodder for human exploitation. The old covenant law speaks of the need for letting the land rest and for the proper treatment of animals.⁴

Although Christians of good conscience will find themselves in disagreement as to which policies are in the best interest for God’s green earth, all Christians should work for what Francis Schaeffer called “substantial healing” for the earth, even before the second coming. Although some writers have emphasized the imminence of events signaling the end of the world, Jesus proclaimed that no one knows the precise timing of His return from heaven (Mark 13:32; see also Acts 1:11). Until that time, His followers should bring as much shalom (justice and peace) to earth as possible. They should put their talents to good use while they have time (Luke 19:11-28). This includes tending the garden God bequeathed to earthlings for safe keeping. In fact, in recent years, many evangelical Christians have become more interested in these matters.⁵

Notes:

¹ René Dubos, The Wooing of the Earth (New York: Charles Scribner’s, 1980), pp. 70-78. See also Francis Schaeffer and Udo Middleman, Pollution and the Death of Man (1970; reprint, Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1992). Middleman provides the introduction to the new edition but did not write the main text. ² See Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati, “Earth Day: Is Christianity to blame for environment problems?,” Creation Ministries International (Online), March 20, 2002. ³ See Timothy Hsiao, “There is Nothing Wrong with Eating Meat” and “Human Lives Matter: Reflections on Human Exceptionalism,” in Paul Copan and Wes Jamison (eds.), What Would Jesus Really Eat? The Biblical Case for Eating Meat (Castle Quay, 2019). ⁴ See Rousas John Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, N.J.: Craig Press, 1973), p. 245. ⁵ See Schaeffer and Middleman, Pollution and the Death of Man; and Alister McGrath, The Reenchantment of Nature: The Denial of Religion and the Ecological Crisis (New York: Doubleday, 2002). McGrath argues that secularism fails to honor nature by taking away its status as God’s good creation.

[coghive]

Matt Redman Introduces New Live Album Recorded In The Ruins Of A Historical Place Of Worship

‘Lamb of God’ was recorded live at The Mission in San Juan Capistrano, a settlement founded in 1776 and recognized as the birthplace of Orange County. Matt Redman’s new album reflects on the age-old centrality and wonder of the cross. The contrast of these brand-new songs in the context of a historical place of worship is a significant marker of Redman’s heart to keep the people of God singing to Him. The album’s title track encapsulates its concept, reminding the Church that among so many amazing sights in this world, the greatest wonder will always remain the Lamb of God on Calvary.  “The best songs help us breathe in truth, and breathe out a grateful, reverent and passionate reply,” Redman says, “I really hope the songs on this album will do that.” The cruciform focus as well as the ancient and modern styles of worship represented in the 14 tracks make this album one that resonates with the young and old alike. Recording ‘Lamb of God’ in live settings also beautifully captured the devotion of people singing to their God; among the strings and keys textures, the artist intentionally left a lot of sonic room for people’s voices to shine.  Commenting on the songwriting process, Redman mentions the importance of “aiming for something meaningful and fresh,” which he achieved through co-writes with many of today’s worship landscapers.  ‘Lamb of God’ features contributions from Jason Ingram, Matt Maher, Cody Carnes, Mitch Wong, Benjamin Hastings, and Jon Guerra, as well as people Redman hadn’t written with before, such as David Funk, Aaron Moses, and Taya Gaukrodger. The theological, musical, and communal heartbeat of ‘Lamb of God’ is topped off by its artwork. The photo depicts an art-piece by artist David JP Hooker from Wheaton College, IL, which Redman’s daughter, Maisey, captured. Hooker took an old corpus statue of Christ which he covered in debris from vacuum cleaner bags – with the thought that in those bags would be people’s skin cells and hair. The metaphor for our sins placed on Christ resonated deeply with Redman and the essence of his new record. From the brand-new songs to a re-imagining of ‘Heart of Worship’ – Redman’s early classic – ‘Lamb of God’ invites us once again to stand amazed at the greatness and grace of our God. Singing of both the cross and the crown, Matt Redman offers the Church this new collection of profoundly worshipful songs. Lamb of God - Matt Redman https://open.spotify.com/album/4obIy2fyaxwVWnskygUke1?si=Y4DhZiQsRg6oY4bLSQz53Q Read the full article

[sacredcynic]

Guidelines For Paul

METHODOLOGY

 I think it is important to inform the reader of the thought process behind this letter written in Paul’s name.  It is an attempt to bring the mind of Paul into 2023.  First, I have spent most of my life wrestling with Paul. I have a Masters in Biblical Literature from Wheaton with a New Testament emphasis and a Pauline specialty. I also have completed all coursework toward a PhD in Biblical Theology from Marquette University with an emphasis in Pauline Literature. My Masters Thesis is in Paul’s view of sin in Romans, and I have done extensive work on Paul and his view of the Law.  I have also written the “Ephesians” volume for the Shaped By Scripture series published by The Foundry Publishing.

 Here are the standard premises of this letter.

1.     It is meant to sound like Paul and use his phrasing and vocabulary.

2.     It is written in the style and form of an ancient letter. It is not meant to sound modern.

3.     Great care was taken to write from the perspective of Paul. What would he notice about today and how would he address these concerns?

4.     When looking at the situation of today, it seemed that a letter reflecting the concerns and tome of Corinthians was most appropriate, with an element of Philippians as well. Some may desire a harsher tone like that of Galatians, but those readers should remember that Galatians was reserved for the most outwardly religious church of the NT. The harsh tone of Galatians was due to the soteriological issue that determined the future of the church and whether Gentiles would be admitted. No such issue exists today. Instead, we live in a culture where other gods are celebrated and where moral issues from the wider culture are impacting the church.  Sounds like today!

5.     Even in a confused culture like Corinth, Paul remained pastoral throughout.  I hope to match that tone here.

6.     Lastly, I do not seek to break new ground or take Paul anywhere beyond where he has already gone.  These words will sound familiar – like Paul. I do not want them to sound like me or today in any way.

7. This is a letter to my corner of the American church. I cannot write the letter to the Orthodox, Catholic, or a number of other corners.  This is geared to my people - you know who you are.  Feel free to comment. 

[nandni-77]

#canadastudy #canadaworkpermit #canadalife #canadawildlife #Whistler #toronto #ontario #victoria #wheaton #canadawriters #canadastudentvisa #kankam #KabirisGod #alaska

How to protect yourself from Sins?

To know, get free Spiritual book "Way of Living" by Spiritual leader Saint Rampal Ji Maharaj.

Send us :

Your Name :

Complete Address:

Contact Number :

in the Comment Box.

Or Email us : satlokashramcanada@gmail.com

#quebec #queensland #hiphop #canadajobs #canadavisa #ottawa #ottawacanada #Subscribe

[thesmolbutknowingclown]

“Consider your state. You are a pardoned sinner, not under the law but under grace, freely, fully saved from the guilt of all your sins. There is none to condemn, God having justified you. He sees you in his Son, washed you in his blood, clothed you in his righteousness, and he embraces him and you, the head and the members, with the same affection.”

Raymond C. Ortlund Jr., Preaching the Word: Proverbs—Wisdom That Works, ed. R. Kent Hughes (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 124.

(original quote penned by William Romaine)

[data2364]

Brent Spiner as Data 1990 in Star Trek: The Next Generation ”Sins of the Father”

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Sins_of_the_Father_%28episode%29

[wutbju]

Wheaton Professor Theon Hill (BJU Class of 2007) and Dallas Professor Daniel Hill write frankly about America’s god:

The backlash directed toward figures such as Jeremiah Wright and Colin Kaepernick offers a glimpse into the discontinuity between our self-image and lived reality. And it raises the question: do our conceptions of equity, justice, and citizenship recognize these figures as participants and agents in the dialogue of what it means to be American? Or are we only willing to relegate their discontent back to the margins? Are they fundamentally objects to be determined, or dialogue partners to engage?

Here, the American God raises its ugly head, an issue that should be particularly pressing for Christians, especially since idols tend to demand sacrifices in one form or another. And it is in times of crisis that the dissonance between our professed and actual values emerges, as we attempt to apply our conceptions of equity, justice, safety, and convenience in a manner that is separate but equal. Simply put: we cannot get biblical justice with Jim Crow logic.

Let us be direct, change cannot occur until we as a nation recognize that our articulation of core values like justice, equality, and unity embodied in our national story constitute the foundation of white supremacy in the U.S. And in that recognition, we must begin the hard work of rearticulation and reimagining. Until we have the vulnerability to raise critical questions regarding the nature of the civic values that we turn to in moments of crisis, we will have no real hope of creating the Beloved Community.

[harvard-art-museums-prints]

Vigilantia and Acedia (3 of 7), Pieter Jalhea Furnius, 16th century, Harvard Art Museums: Prints

(3 of 7) The Seven Deadly Sins Conquered by the Seven Theological Virtues Harvard Art Museums/Fogg Museum, Gift of Robert Bradford Wheaton and Barbara Ketcham Wheaton Size: plate: 25.7 x 19.9 cm (10 1/8 x 7 13/16 in.) sheet: 33.3 x 24.5 cm (13 1/8 x 9 5/8 in.)

https://www.harvardartmuseums.org/collections/object/316016

[calliecat93]

ST: TNG S4 Watchthrough Episodes 6-9

Legacy: We have ended up on the home planet of Tasha Yar… and wow it’s not a nice place. We also find out that she has a sister, welp. So… it was alright. Ishara is very similar to Tasha in demeanor, but also very different. I tilt my head at the crew being so willing to trust and accept Ishara into their midst when they know nothing about this woman. I could see the ‘she’s using them’ plot a mile away. But to be fair, the episode addresses it. They wanted to see Tasha. They wanted to see the brave, loyal, strong-willed Security Chief that they lost so callously in her sister… and in the end, that took over. While I can see why Ishara acted as she did, she didn’t know these people and hasn’t seen Tasha in years so she’s under no obligation to care about them, it really has to hurt that she used them and almost committed mass murder and make them take the lame. Her world is a hellhole so her actions make sense, but that doens’t change the betrayal. Especially for Data. Riker sums it up well, with trust comes betrayal… but without trust, there is no friendship. That’s just the cruel truth. Anyways, it was a fine episode. I like that we have a pot-mortem for Tasha even if late… but it just makes me wish that tasha herself didn’t get killed sos he could have had her own plot and feeligns focused on. It still pisse sme off and is just a reminder of so much wasted potential. But ah well, for what they had to work with, they did it welll. 3/5.

Reunion: K’Ehleyr is back… and with a child. Worf’s child, to be exact. Huh. have been waiting very patiently for a follow-up to Sins of the Father and this was an excellent one! Back in K’Ehleyr’s first episode, she was unwilling to take the Oath and Worf wanted to so much and follow the Klingon traditions. Here? K’Ehleyr is ready and doens’t care that he was discommendated… but now Worf can’t. he’s been dishonored and even if it means nothing to K’Ehleyr, it means a great deal to him. He can’t let her or his son bear that shame. It’s so hard to watch him here. How anguished he feels, the way the other Klingons treat him despite it being their damn fault that he accepted it, to begin with, just knowing that he did nothing wrong… but for the greater good, he has to bear it. He doesn’t even want Alexander to be known as his son not because he’s unwilling to accept parental responsibility but to spare him of the dishonor. Just… freakin’ ouch. I was so happy to see K’Ehleyr back and her character is just so freakin’ good and her wanting to allow Alexander to find his life path? Excellent parenting. So… needless to say, her being killed off pisses me off. They at least allowed her character to shine, but… it feels like they only did it to make Worf suffer more. It was well-executed, I was about ready to tear up and Worf being driven to kill Duras for all the suffering that he put him through and now killing the woman he loved (which btw the romantic chemistry was MUCH better here than last time)? I can’t blame him at all. I get why he got reprimanded since Duras was a political figure and this can cause a whole host of problems and clearly Picard was sympathetic… but I just felt so bad for Worf. At least he admitted that he was Aexander’s father and hopefully the poor kid will have a good life with Worf’s parents, bu… yeah. K’Ehleyr’s death stops me form giving this a perfect score, very least I wish we had gotten to see her fight instead of goign to commerical and them walking in on her bloody corpse… but at least they got the tone down. I just hope that one day, Worf and his brother can truly expose the conspiracy because Worf deserves a Hell of a lot better. 4.5/5.

Future Imperfect: Let’s perform a thought experiment, shall we? Imagine going on assignment on your birthday, business as usual… then some kind of mishap happens. You wake up… and discover that you have lost sixteen years' worth of your memory. You can’t remember significant life changes, special moments for yourself and your loved ones, or even your spouse and child. Then just as you begin getting used to things and accepting this new life… you find out that it was all a lie and you were in an illusion all along. You were captured and tricked… and then you find out that was also a lie and it was all due to a lonely alien child left on a barren planet/within a highly advanced Holodeck system that can give him anything that he wants, everyone he knew had died and he did all of this just to have a friend. Congratulations folks, you have now experienced what Riker went through this episode! Yeah, this episode was crazy. I feel bad for the poor kid, while he shouldn’t have done what he did we’re talking about a lonely child essentially forced to live in a Holodeck and just wanted to interact with someone real. Also, I loved how Riker got clued in on how the future word was fake, excellent call-back to Season One! Not much else to say, but good episode! It was wild, that’s for sure~ 3.5/5.

Final Mission: Well folks, this is the curtain call for Wesley Crusher. I know that he pops back up once or twice, but this will be his final episode as a main character as he finally enters the Academy. We’ll get to my final thoughts on Wesley here in a bit, but l focus on the episode itself first. And… it was fine. We have Picard, Wesley, and some third guy crash land on a desert planet, the Enterprise unaware of if they’re alive or not. Thus the three struggle to survive which not only is the third guy essentially a paranoid asshole… but a cave-in seriosuly injures Picard. Thus Wesley is more or less on his own and has to keep Picard alive. Thankfully we avoid killing him off, and thus they make sure to give Wesley a proper send-off. They let him showcase his strengths with his intellegence, fast thinking, and compared to in the beginning he’s much more mature and capable of handling an Away Mission. This convinced me that yes, Wesley is ready for the Academy and that he will be a great Starfleet Officer someday. Meanwhile the Enterprise are dealing with their own issues because of course they are. Nothing can ever just go easy for these people. can it? It’s fine. The Enterprise plot didn’t have me invested aside form worrying about Dr. Crusher. The poor woman just burris herself in her work to deal with her worry about Wesley and evades Troi when she tries to assure her Otherwise the plot is there sot hat it can be a solo Picard and Wesley adventure without hem interfering. Which while I havn’t been the biggest fan of their dynamic, it’s clear how much Welsey admires Picard such as recounting their Samaritan Snare adventure, and Picard admititng that he brought him along because he was going to miss the kid. It’s a nice moment between the characters and allows Wesley to truly open up… though I wish it focused more on him and his mother since that’s been seriously lacking, but ah well. It was still a good send-off episode for Wesley and that’s how you want to treat your characters, whether they stay ont he show or not. 3/5.

As for Wesley himself… it’s been a bumpy road. Do I agree with the consensus that Wesley is an annoying child character that even his actor agrees with (albeit I think jokingly but still)? No. Wesley isn't a bad character. He’s a smart young kid, tries his best, makes mistakes but tries to do his best, and he grew. He’s a perfectly likable kid and this episode especially shows the best of him. Do I agree that the character's role and execution were annoying and contributed to his reputation? Yes. That is ultimately what it boils down to decent character, poor execution. In S1 Wesley was elevated far more than he needed to be. He was given privileges that no other character his age would have been granted no matter the competency level that borders on blatant favoritism. Whenever he made a serious error, he got praise for fixing it, never scolded for his actions with The Naked Now being the worst example. He still had good episodes like Coming of Age, but alas. I think having a kid character who aspires to be in Starfleet, has a parent who is a prominent crew member, and being able to use his skills to help was a perfectly fine idea… but there were just issues with how they did it. S2 and 3 were. While I disliked him at the end of The Dauphin and he still got showed some blatant favoritism, it was better balanced. I didn't feel he earned to be an Ensign until this episode… y’know, the one that shipped him off to The Academy. Crusher being written out in S2 and then brought back in S3 also really killed any and all potential that their dynamic could have truly brought which also hurt. It really feels like by S3 they just didn’t know what to do with the character anymore, limiting him to mainly Helmsman duty. He wasn't being elevated anymore… but he wasn't adding anything anymore either. Maybe promoting him was to help give him something… but Wil Wheaton decided to go, and that ended that. I can’t say I’m sad to see Wesley go because his potential just got squandered to the point that keeping him just felt pointless, and having him go to the Academy feels like the best natural end-point for him, so might as well be now. Nevertheless, Wesley was still part of the crew and for all that I criticized, he certainly didn’t deserve the hate that he got. If people like or even relate to the character, that’s great! He just didn’t work for me unfortunateley. Wil Wheaton obviously moved on to bigger, better things and is well-liked in the fandom, so that’s good cause he certainly did the best that he could. He just wasn’t given a lot of good material. Hopefully Welsey’s later guest appearances will give him somethingg ood and heck maybe they’ll convince Wheaton to come back in Picard one day, but for now… farewell Wesley. Can’t say I’ll miss you, but it wasn’t the worst ride either.