Rachel Lucas has been reading C.S. Lewis. (And dressing her dog up like the Queen of Angels, but there's nothing too new in that; I hate to admit it, but I love it when she dresses her dog up—except, maybe, in the bee outfit, which was a bit much.)

One line from Lewis’ book that actually made me laugh out loud (at myself) was that if people “cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them.” I’ve mentioned before that I’ve read the Bible a couple of times, but the thing is, I didn’t read it as a real grown-up. The last time I read it, I was actively looking for faults to prove that I was right. I wasn’t truly being objective and considering it in a historical or scholarly context.

ItÂ’s difficult to articulate on a blog why IÂ’m even bothering trying to learn about Christianity now because as IÂ’ve mentioned before, I hate being misunderstood. The truth is that I am not exactly seeking salvation or God or anything like that, and frankly if I were, I would not talk about it with virtual strangers at this stage of the game. At this moment, my biggest aim is simply trying to relieve myself of the terrifying feeling IÂ’ve had for years that I live in a society full of and run by people who believe a theology I donÂ’t believe in, and that therefore I am surrounded by crazy people. ItÂ’s a bit of cognitive dissonance that I simply couldnÂ’t take anymore.

Is my dad a crazy person? Are 90% of the people who read my blog crazy people? Are most of my friends crazy people? If I think Christianity is crazy, then the only answer to those questions is YES. But it just never added up.

This rings so true for me: in fact, a lot of my family and friends do think I'm crazy—or weak—for believing in God. Crazier still for believing in Jesus as my savior. And I know that plenty of 'em think that's why I'm an "right-wing racist gun nut." But in fact my religious beliefs are entirely separate from my political beliefs: the only connection is that I'm willing to buck the trend in both arenas.

But, Jesus: well, I'm one of those people who do not believe he was a "great teacher," and just a man. I cannot feel a bunch of warm fuzzies about him if he wasn't who he said he was. Either he was the Son of God (and therefore God), or he was, as Evan once put it when we were in Junior High School, "an insane rabbi with charisma."

For me, Occam's Razor applies here.

I would say, "that's all," but it most certainly isn't. However, I'll stop.

Kudos to Rachel for investigating this with an open mind, and for re-thinking some of her preconceived notions about organized religion. The very best we can hope for from anyone is intellectual honesty. She is, indeed, awesome.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:16 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 505 words, total size 3 kb.

1 First off, no dog costume is ever excessive. Ever. I speak as from on high and will brook no objections. Second, I find the words and example of Jesus just as inspiring, just as much a call to imitation, if he was an inspired rabbi or if he was the Son of God. Personally, I go with the former, not seeing much evidence of a personally involved deity anywhere. But the whole being nice, giving to the poor, getting over yourself thing... that's good advice, no matter what the existential or metaphysical nature of the one who said it. In fact, I really like believing we can follow the example of Jesus' life without having to believe in His Power To Punish us if we don't.

Posted by: Rin at May 07, 2008 12:58 PM (bSHZa)

2 Dear Rin: Em, no. Jesus' entire ministry revolves around His claims to be God. And I would strongly recommend you re-read the Gospels if you think that Jesus is all about 'being nice' (see what He has to say about His disciples shaking their dust of their feet), or 'giving to the poor' (John records Mary anointing Him with some perfume that costs a year's salary), although 'getting over youself' is true, even if it includes "take up your cross and follow Me." Jesus walks around doing miracles as signs of His sovereignty; healing the sick, reviving the dead, mourning with those who mourn. His baptism shows the Trinity being present all at once. At the end of the day, what we make of His words very much depends on how we see Him. Either Jesus was telling the truth, or He was lying, when He said "before Abraham was, I AM". Please, please, I urge you to read again the Gospels and see what Jesus says about HIMSELF. And ask yourself; what do His claims add up to?

Posted by: Gregory at May 07, 2008 05:44 PM (cjwF0)

3 Not to mention that if He is not God, he is a liar. Why? Because He said He was God. Funny how no one ever brings that up when they try to tell you that it is enough that he is a man and he said some good things. If he wasn't God who became man to subject himself to the same rules of life he set out for us, he would be just a man. And His words would be merely opinions. Opinions like the opinions of the 100 billion people who have walked this Earth since the dawn of man have had. Give or take. Opinions, not truth--not Law. The Commandments told us what NOT to do. Jesus told us what to do. And if I didn't believe Jesus was God, I'd file His Words in the same place I file the words of other ordinary men. In my "for what it's worth" file. And I would not build my life upon them.

Posted by: Darrell at May 07, 2008 07:30 PM (Z279R)

4 gotta love cs lewis. and dogs that wear clothes aren't really dogs for gosh sakes!!!

Posted by: zoey at May 07, 2008 07:54 PM (KU4Si)

5 The idea is that his teachings were "misinterpreted" by his followers, that he didn't REALLY mean to claim he was the Son of God, his followers just put that in to fool the rubes later. Of course, that sort of leads to the question, if they got that central of a tenet wrong, then how can you trust their report of ANY of his teachings? Therefore, you are left with a total intellectual conundrum. The idea that they got the central tenet of his being the Son of God wrong, but correctly transmitted the rest of the teachings is the sort of idea that only someone with the cognitive dissonance of, well, a liberal, could hold. Note, that since I am a Mormon, I am neutral on all these things, since I am not a Christian. Just ask Mike Huckabee. David

Posted by: David at May 07, 2008 08:12 PM (AoSNx)

6 Zoey, I have to defend Rachel's dogs: they are clearly not happy about it. But the scarves and hats just slay me--like it did at the design magazine, when we'd try to get pix of the Bitty Terrier wearing the latest fabric samples as veils or dresses. I'm becoming a sicko in my old age . . . Re: Christianity, I have to say that there were teachings of Christ's that were revolutionary--on gender relations, for instance, and the formulation of the Golden Rule in the positive. But I still think that if Jesus wasn't divine, he was probably insane (or a liar, though that's less likely). And I don't think most of his apostles were on-board with this whole "I am God" thing until after he rose from the dead. So I suppose one could get by with the formulation that he was insane, but still chock full o' insight. But that seems like small beer to me, all things considered.

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 07, 2008 08:16 PM (Hgnbj)

7 My dog loved his sweaters. The halloween costumes, not so much. And the raincoat, frankly, made him depressed. His best outfit was the Harley Davidson t-shirt with matching hat. ;-) As for Jesus.... First, I have total respect for anyone who finds in the Bible (or another text) inspiration and tools with which to become a better, kinder, more principled human. Second, since the New Testament was not written by Jesus, but by people quoting him decades after the fact, I'm going to hypothesize that the "I am the Son of God" element was not original to Jesus. The essence of the NT is compassion, acceptance, forgiveness, and charity. Not smiting, not judging, and not doctrine. In any case, not believing in a vindictive God who smites anyone who gets the doctrine a little bit wrong, and instead assuming that "in my father's house there are many mansions" means there's room for all and a lot of ways to get there, I find it most likely that any person of compassion, honorable principles, and personal responsibility can earn whatever post-mortem rewards are on offer, besides the most essential reward for good behavior, which is itself and the world it produces. I used to be a devout Anglican, married to a pro-forma Catholic. Now, I'm an optimistic agnostic doing the best I can, trying to focus on living as a good person would. Peace.

Posted by: Rin at May 08, 2008 06:13 AM (pzH6j)

8 There is no evidence, either, that anyone changed the story of Jesus. The early Christians were persecuted, everywhere, and if there were any contemporaneous 'Gospels'(The Life of Jesus) they were surely hidden. Or existed only in words, kept in followers' minds--to keep evidence out of prosecutors' hands. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Covenant between God and the Jews--God becoming man. Without that element, the gospels are pointless. And there are consequences for your actions. Go back and reread the Words of Jesus. The point is that Jesus purchased your forgiveness by paying the infinite price with his death on the cross. And is there doctrine? Of course there is! There is the Way, the Truth, and the Light. And it's a one-way street.

Posted by: Darrell at May 08, 2008 11:48 AM (Z6/8g)

9 I'm fuzzy about the afterlife, but I don't believe that any of my family members are going to be bunking down with Stalin--in any time, or in any dimension. I know what I am called to do--spiritually, at least, if not in terms of my writing--and that is enough.

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 08, 2008 02:00 PM (Hgnbj)

10 Dear Rin: Second, since the New Testament was not written by Jesus, but by people quoting him decades after the fact, I'm going to hypothesize that the "I am the Son of God" element was not original to Jesus. I'm sorry to say this, but that's utter rubbish. No, the NT was not written by Jesus. However, Jesus died around AD33 or thereabouts. The LATEST dates posited for the completion of the Gospels is around AD70. Therefore, we can say that it is likely they were written down earlier, maybe AD50-60. I do not wish to spend too much time on this, but these events were accessible at the time, and immediately after. If the disciples had added stuff Jesus never said, there were thousands of people who could have contradicted them. And Christianity, right off the bat, was one of the most persecuted religions, so you can't argue that there was evidence suppressed. Again, Rin, I URGE you to read the Bible again, as well as standard apologetic texts, which are not too expensive even if some of them are dry texts.

Posted by: Gregory at May 08, 2008 06:39 PM (cjwF0)

11 I kind of dig the Gospels; St. Paul was such a freakin' sexist, it makes him hard to read. I haven't read the Gospel of John in a long time--I've been hangin' out with the "linear narrative" guys. Could be I'm overdue.

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 08, 2008 07:16 PM (Hgnbj)

12 I would call 30+ years "decades." I would also point out that the 4 Gospels vary in tone, emphasis, and details, so, without arguing for suppression or collusion, it's possible to say that the exact words of Jesus may not be perfectly quoted, nor yet quoted without embellishment. Those embellishments are, I'm sure, consistent with his overall message, but that doesn't make every syllable of the Gospels the absolute factual transcription of his message. As for the facts being available to thousands afterwards, that's true. But not everyone was literate, not everyone had access to what the authors of the Gospels were writing, and not all texts have survived or been included in the Canon. I wouldn't argue for robust fact-checking, in other words. I believe there are many ways of understanding and following the will of the Divine. Mine may be less formal than yours, but that makes me respect yours no less... and no more, than my own.

Posted by: Rin at May 09, 2008 11:36 AM (bSHZa)

13 Decades, yes, but well within the lifespan of eyewitnesses. Which was his point, btw, which you knew, btw. Everything relevant has been included. Not the phony Gnostic 'gospels' of course, because they couldn't even see who was the main character in the life story of Christ. The Jews didn't included Gnostic writings in their texts, either. That's why they glommed on to Christianity. The Gospels vary as most eyewitness accounts vary. Differences with emphasis and minor details, rather than substantiative matters. There are multiple references to earlier written accounts in the historical record, and the surviving Gospels more-than-likely were built around these and oral accounts passed down first and second hand. Surprisingly, LMA, Luke was associated with Paul. Go figure.

Posted by: Darrell at May 09, 2008 04:02 PM (IBMx9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I'd say Heinleinian, myself, Glenn. Pronounced "Heinlinian," maybe.

I had been meaning to re-read The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, for what that's worth. (No; I'm not going to read SIASL; it's too long, and I have no attention span, except on special occasions. I have read the "notebooks" contained therein, though.)

Yeah, yeah: RAH does overdo the animal-related similes for human behavior, and his characters aren't complex—generally not "round," in the E.M. Forster sense. But for a preachy writer, he's pretty good. He's one of maybe 2-3 SF writers I've actually read a bit of, and somehow his "pulp-ey" streak feels like a virtue.

I mean, it isn't as if every Jane Austen character was drawn to the nth degree, is it? One has to make choices. Books should be short, for one thing: ideally, one reads the entirety of any given novel within a day. (This is why serious readers and writers tend to subsist on foodstuffs that can be eaten with one hand, such as apples and bagels and whatnot.)

Anyway, yeah: I'd love to see what the "fish spinoff" symbol is for a Heinleiner, or whatever we're going to call it. I've been meaning to put a fish on one side of my bumper, and a Buddha on the other—just to see what the people around me are made of.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:01 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 1 kb.

One of my favorite Bible verses, as a matter of fact.

King James Bible:
"This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it."

World English Bible:
"This is the day that Yahweh has made. We will rejoice and be glad in it!"

American King James Version:
"This is the day which the LORD has made; we will rejoice and be glad in it."

American Standard Version:
"This is the day which Jehovah hath made; We will rejoice and be glad in it."

Bible in Basic English:
"This is the day which the Lord has made; we will be full of joy and delight in it."

Douay-Rheims Bible:
"This is the day which the Lord hath made: let us be glad and rejoice therein."

Darby Bible Translation:
"This is the day that Jehovah hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it."

English Revised Version:
"This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it."

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995):
"This is the day the LORD has made. Let's rejoice and be glad today!"

Jewish Publication Society Tanakh:
"This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it."

Webster's Bible Translation:
"This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it."

Young's Literal Translation:
"This is the day Jehovah hath made, We rejoice and are glad in it."

The NET Bible:
(This is a bitchin' translation available online—very accurate and very well researched; I have it in a print version.)
"This is the day the Lord has brought about.
We will be happy and rejoice in it."

My beloved New American Standard Version:
"This is the day which the LORD has made;
Let us rejoice and be glad in it."

And then there's The Latest Scholarly Translation:
"This is teh day which Ceiling Cat did maked; we will do happy dances and be realy had while we did it."

("Be realy had"? I'm afraid I don't know the LOLCat meaning of "had." But it has to mean "glad.")

UPDATE: Please note that I can't find my "main" Catholic Bible, the NAB translation—anywhere. I suspect You-Know-Who packed it up already in anticipation of our move, but the NAB and the NASB are not that different—save for the inclusion of the "bonus books" in the Catholic version.

The tome I'm reading now is Catholic-approved, Tobit-enabled Bible, but it's a POS paraphrase, which really sucks for the New Testament; it is sometimes helpful, however, with the Old—much as I hate to admit that.

In my next incarnation I'm learning Greek and Hebrew, so I won't be so dependent upon the translators . . . . Whaaaaaaat?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 465 words, total size 3 kb.

I keep toggling back and forth between finding it charming and thinking that it's a bit dangerous.

Is the "ceiling cat" an idol, or a cat's-eye view of Yaweh/Allah/the Lord?

(Just a Christian who lost her sense of humor on the intertubes . . . )

I'd love to hear from Christian cat-lovers on the subject, since it appears to be a gray area.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:30 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

I finished D'Souza's What's So Great About Christianity? several days ago, so I'm now reading Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

I love both these guys. On the whole, I think Hitchens may be the better thinker, but on this topic he has it wrong—D'Souza gets it right. Of course, the two men had slightly different missions. Hitchens wrote a polemic against all religions, which is, I believe, easier to pull off. After all, no faith is devoid of its superstitious moments, and with the world awash in radical Islam right now, it's easy to point out that "religion" has poisoned quite a lot. D'Souza chose the harder task by focusing on one faith—his very own—and writing a spirited defense of it and its place in the intellectual tradition that brought us good things like science, the American Revolution, and dark beer.

Of course, D'Souza isn't carrying socialism around with him everywhere he goes, so in general he probably has it easier. (He has other ridiculous ideas lodged in his cranium instead.)

It's sure a pleasure to read both of these guys. In an interesting way, they make nice companion pieces to Jonathan Rauch's Kindly Inquisitors. In addition to having coined the term "apatheistic" (to which D'Souza makes one or two snide allusions in passing; sigh), Rauch provides a nice history of the framework of free inquiry that we need to preserve, above all else, if Western traditions are going to endure.

Rauch makes the very best case as to why we might not want to spend a lot of time squabbling over religion, for what that is worth.

Even Hitchens claims that all he really wants his religious friends to do is to "leave him alone," and stop confusing his politeness on matters of faith with openness to witness. Both Hitchens and Rauch were clearly shaken—as they had every freaking reason to be—by the fatwa against Salmon Rushdie, and the ghost of that event flits across the pages of both Not Great and Kindly Inquisitors.

When I went to see Salmon Rushdie speak at a book fair one year I had a few pangs of fear. I knew we'd probably have to pass through metal detectors, but I wasn't sure whether or not the building we were in might somehow be detonated from outside. And I was also acutely aware that the fear I was feeling that afternoon was a part of Rushdie's existence 365 days a year, merely because he wrote a silly little piece of religious satire some time back.

"Aw, what the hell," I told my friends. "We have to die from something." And we headed down the hill to hear the man out.

Religion isn't invariably toxic. But, used incorrectly, it can certainly cause a lot of damage. Just like love, which Joni Mitchell once called "the strongest posion and medicine of all."

The problem lies with human nature. Whether this has to do with overdeveloped adrenal glands, as Hitchen maintains, or original sin is not altogether clear to me. But I know it doesn't quite work.

So: people of faith, agnostics, and athiests—let's be careful out there. Be kind to your fellow humans. Promote public inquiry and criticism. And, you know: try not to kill anybody in the name of God.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 12:57 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 557 words, total size 4 kb.

Why is it that people who believe in astrology—really, really believe it—are so annoying?

I'm being no more rational than they are when I integrate Fung Shui into the way I arrange my furniture, so this isn't a left brain vs. right brain thing.

I suppose it irritates me because in some cases it appears to be a substitute for real religion, and a poor one at that.

Discuss.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 05:11 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

Likely to start making death threats and setting off bombs? I hope not, but it's certainly happened, and more recently than a lot of Americans remember. (Cough, cough . . . Ireland . . . cough, cough.)

But Reynolds' point is that any religious sect that wants special privileges can now look at the behavior practiced by Islamists, and get pretty much exact guidance on how to obtain that kid-glove treatment. Hindus, Jews, Paganists, practitioners of Native American faiths: anyone can pick up those tools and use 'em, if we keep offering a special status to fundamentalist Muslims.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:27 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

Steamed asparagus with balsamic vinegar. A dry martini.

But no meat.

Am I doing this correctly? I don't seem to have any flair for Catholicism whatsoever.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:04 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

1 heh. Of course. You remembered the alcohol.

Posted by: caltechgirl at March 23, 2007 10:14 PM (r0kgl)

2 I don't like asparagus. But you did get the martini right.

Posted by: Cappy at March 24, 2007 06:11 AM (OPdak)

3 As a recovering papist, Fridays always meant fish. Most of the time, that meant fish sticks. I'd have a white wine, not the martini.

Posted by: Bloggermouth at March 24, 2007 07:58 AM (s8YHF)

4 I would prefer you go with complete proteins for main meals unless you're going with a fortified gin. Otherwise, carry on.

Posted by: Darrell at March 24, 2007 10:03 AM (bmopZ)

5 Dad was Irish/Catholic and Mom was Jewish - so l speak with some authority of the concept of "guilt". (Our family motto: "Guilt is Good!") That said, as a practicing Catholic (will I ever get it right?) Allow me to congratilate your Lenten dinner choices! I hope you garnished that martini correctly with two olives or three cocktail onions!! We could increase your verggie count on the new food pyramid with those additions!!

Posted by: mighty aphrodite at March 24, 2007 10:53 AM (13j7o)

6 Well, D--I had a snack earlier in the evening at my mother's place that contained plenty of tofu. And her idea of a snack is my idea of a meal. Mighty--It was a dirty martini, and all I have on hand are small olives, so I put a few in a little Japanese teacup and ate them with a toothpick as I drank. And I got all my guilt from my Methodist upbringing. Protestant guilt is so underappreciated

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 24, 2007 11:39 AM (0CbUL)

7 I wouldn't have the martini, but that's what the parents always had. When mom comes for dinner (a couple of times a month), I always offer the glass of ice and the Tanqueray, and she always enjoys it.

Posted by: Mark In Irvine at March 24, 2007 04:19 PM (mMjjU)

8 Obviously not a Wisconsin girl where Fridays are all about the fish fry and cold beer.

Posted by: Sean Hackbarth at March 24, 2007 04:57 PM (QJ5cf)

9 Ick. Seafood. Hey--is there any truth in the story that fish on Fridays was originated to assist the seafood industry, and if so did that occur here, or in Ireland? (Yeah--I could use Wikipedia, or a search engine. But what fun is that?)

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 24, 2007 07:46 PM (0CbUL)

10 It's tradition, but you could get stick with the potato pancakes.

Posted by: Sean Hackbarth at March 24, 2007 10:02 PM (QJ5cf)

11 You can't fool me; potato pancakes are Jewish! (And yummy, too.)

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 25, 2007 02:06 AM (0CbUL)

12 This speaks for itself... http://j-walkblog.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/muskrat_dispensation/

Posted by: leelu at March 25, 2007 03:25 PM (KFuCy)

13 People like to invoke conspiracies, don't they. The best explanation I heard is that 1st Century Jews fasted on Mondays and Thursdays. There is a passage in the Gospel about John the Baptist's followers questioning Jesus over not observing those fasts, as practiced by the Pharisees and even JtB's followers. Jesus told them the time will come for the fast after the Bridegroom is taken. Those who converted to Christianity shifted that to Wednesdays and Fridays to commemorate Judas arranging Jesus' arrest on Wednesday and his Crucifixion on a Friday. That explains the fasting. Since meat was a rich man's food, requiring sizable amounts of land for raising animals or money to purchase the meat, simpler foods were substituted for the premium fare. Anyone can fish a stream or river, and forage for fruit and such. I am looking into Nancy Pelosi's role in the matter, particularly in American Samoa.

Posted by: Darrell at March 25, 2007 08:41 PM (jnJd2)

14 I wouldn't have paid any attention, but I heard the notion from my mother, who doesn't usually buy into conspiracy theories. Anyway, it's healthy to have one day a week when one eats veggie or sticks with fish--the fish is particularly healthy, with the Omega-3s and whatnot. I have to be careful about actual fasting, though: I once tried to go to Stations of the Cross on an empty stomach, and nearly fainted. Low blood sugar isn't spiritual; it's stupid.

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 25, 2007 09:43 PM (0CbUL)

15 I'm a lurker and I'm coming out of the woodwork to say: the word "papist" isn't funny, it's a term used for centuries by bigots of all stripes to denigrate us and spread the eternal lie that Catholics worship the Pope. Please, don't use that word, not even as a joke. ::Retreating back into woodwork now. =):::

Posted by: Verity Kindle at March 29, 2007 09:30 AM (8MztE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Here he is on what is to be done about gay marriage.

He may not change your mind, but he will challenge you.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:37 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

Turns out Jesus didn't exist after all, because it took a while for the Gospel stories to be written down.

I wonder if those who don't believe the accuracy of documents that had origins in oral history are willing to apply this standard to any other sort of anthropological study. It's a new approach to sociology! "That's an oral tradition, not written down within the five years allowable. No facts may be contained therein. Sorry!"

And what's this about the Gospel of Mark being the sole source for the other three gospels? This is very sloppy: I could have done better myself. Actually, I'll be handling all the psuedo-scholarly Christianity "debunking" around here from now on. ("Jesus never existed! My imaginary friend Binker told me so.")

Posted by: Attila Girl at 02:27 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.

A woman from my writer's group asks how those who live a religious life reconcile taking a vow of poverty with the relationships all Catholics have with Rome, and its concentration of wealth.

I'd also put the same question to Protestants whose denominations are particularly prosperous: hwo do you process the Lord's admonitions about how dangerous wealth is, and justapose that with some members of the clergy living large? What about the pastor who ministers in a poor neighborhood, and lives as his congregation does, versus the minister in a wealthier area, whose fundraising activities demand that he eat at nice restaurants, etc.?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 02:01 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . that aren't bad in and of themselves—only that they open the door to more of the same. That was always my argument against goofing off at work (or, at least, without making up the time that evening, or that weekend): once you get into a habit like that, it's hard to stop. Then you feel guilty, and the pendulum swings back the other way.

One is against compulsive drivenness, but also against sloth. And all these things, not to put too much of a Protestant point on it, are insidious.

And so—back to work.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm looking into becoming a Eucharistic Minister at my church.

1) This ministry is now under the direction of the most conservative (legalistic, I want to say) priest there.
2) There is a dress code, and I shall have to scrounge up non-tight dress slacks, and/or skirts that fall below my knees.
3) It is hyper-Catholic, and involves all kinds of arcane terminology.
4) I'll have to learn to genuflect properly.

In short, I'm scared shitless. I'm very likely doing the right thing.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 07:39 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

1 ... you know, that is really, really cool....

Posted by: Eric at October 26, 2006 12:39 PM (NlzwQ)

2 No. But hey, maybe that's just me.

Posted by: k at October 26, 2006 12:51 PM (lCUKc)

3 Look up "Eucharist Minister" in the Bible. If you don't find it, don't go for it, because you probably won't be doing anyone any good.

Posted by: John at October 26, 2006 06:05 PM (f5QJI)

4 Go for it! It isn't "hyper-Catholic," just Catholic--just like you agreed. Isn't it time to commit fully? Know how many people in times past would have given anything to get the chance you have been given? For centuries, you would have had to have been ordained to handle the Body and Blood of Christ. A lot of people missed that opportunity! Certain roles carry certain responsibilities, and appropriate dress and demeanor certainly are a part of that equation. Besides, you get to shop for clothes, as your bonus! Just like in the Bible! Where it says "Do this in remembrance of Me..." P.S. I would think that LMA was made to genuflect--Built close to the ground with lightening reflexes. Am I missing something?

Posted by: Darrell at October 26, 2006 06:42 PM (X52Zv)

5 Ah--so I just think of it as a form of T'ai Chi, and I'll be fine It turns out I do indeed have skirts that fall below my knees.

Posted by: Attila Girl at October 27, 2006 07:33 PM (LEEsJ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

"you know, I'm not going to be an asshole any longer," and then discovered that turning over a new leaf has merely transformed you into an entirely different sort of asshole?

I wonder if this is part of my Protestant heritage—a hangover from the traditional delusion that humans are somehow perfectable.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:02 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

It's so different to read the gospels as an adult—and to take them seriously as biographies. I know I have friends who think Jesus was an unbalanced rabbi with charisma, but when I look at his maturity, and his willingness to die with dignity at the age of 33, it's difficult to look at the man's life and not be convinced that he was exactly what he said he was.

Jesus Christ the man was a major stud. A total badass. If he was not—is not—God, he was also completely insane, of course.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:16 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.

What a gallop through the life of Christ.

This is rather a weird thought, because despite being fully man, Jesus was also fully God. However, He was fully man, and I find myself thinking, "hey, this guy was one mature dude. I mean, his act was tight. He had it together."

Or as Frederick Buechner once put it: "when we say that people are 'with it,' the 'it' they are with is God."*

* From memory, so it might be a slight paraphrase.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:38 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I find Mark reads like a rough draft of Matthew and Luke. Beyond that I classify Mark, Matthew & Luke as the "Sportscenter Gospels" because they are the highlights of Jesus' top Plays. Meanwhile I file John as the "Lifetime Gospel" because its far more interested in capturing every detail of the stories it tells.

Posted by: the Pirate at October 16, 2006 12:57 PM (tM0AO)

2 There's a reason Mark reads like a "rough draft" of Mt and Lk. Of course, to me it seems more like an outline. This is my first time all the way through the gospels in a few years, I'm embarrassed to say. I really dug Matthew, because of its completeness and its rigor.

Posted by: Attila Girl at October 16, 2006 02:30 PM (LEEsJ)

3 Yeah, outline is a better term to use. I haven't read them through in quite a few years, but read them a ton thanks to the Jesuits... I find John the most interesting just cause its so different from the other three.

Posted by: the Pirate at October 16, 2006 02:37 PM (tM0AO)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

My NET Bible arrived yesterday; it's a modern translation, a la NASB, with more notes in it than any other Bible out there. I splurged and got leather, and even got my name engraved on the front (I intend to use this volume for the rest of my life).

This is the most amazing ministry, and I'm glad to support it by purchasing a physical Bible from these people. They essentially are committed to making scriptures available all over the world, truly harnessing the power of the internet in promoting reading/study of the Word.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 07:14 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . anything about the Amish school shooting. I know I've had the same moment of sheer homicidal rage most decent people have experienced when hearing the story, but I also know that I don't pretend to have an antidote to human evil: my mission as a political animal is to keep it from becoming widespread, as it is in North Korea and as it is in the nations/areas that employ Sharia law.

But Kat has a solid Christian take on that heart-wrenching event.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 04:37 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

cautions us about the supposed harmlessness of forced conversions.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:06 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . is teaching once again, at a Christian high school. Quite a change from pastoring.

If this is your sort of thing, please pray that he helps to draw young people closer to God. If not, please send good vibes. Teaching is a very hard job, as my mother has been telling me since I was born—shortly after she was manipulated back into the august profession.

I happen to think it's the most important job, and one that should only be undertaken when there's a calling. Pastor K. has it, by the way.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 02:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.