Hail Mary, full of somethin'

Today I went to a catholic mass for the first time for my niece’s first communion and it was an experience I will not soon forget. This may weave back and forth and seem a little discombobulated but I’m trying to cover everything I saw.

First off let me say that I have nothing against anyone who is catholic. You are a follower of Christ just the same as me and in reality as long as you follow what SCRIPTURE says that you should we should all arrive at the same party. That being said here’s how it went down:

We arrive and step into the sanctuary and the first thing that you notice is that it is massive. This place makes apex look like a hole in wall compared to the size of it. The next thing I notice is all the crap everywhere. There are crosses and cups and boxes and thrones and organs and pulpits and tables and chairs and crosses and candles and lanterns and crosses…and this is just the stage. The organ alone was the size of a movie theater screen.

After we find our seats I see that there are three books in front of us in the book holder thing on the back of the pew. Also attached to the pew was a fold out knee rest for those that want to be serious bout some prayin. I opened the first book to check out the Bible, because I’ve always heard that the catholic Bible has more books in it the standard Bible. Alas it was a hymn book. I opened the second book, it was also a hymn book. I knew that the final book was too small to be a Bible, and I was correct, It was another hymnal.

By this time the priest has walked in carrying the largest Bible I’ve ever seen, and I don’t mean in thickness, I mean in size, it was like 30 inches by 20 inches and he held it over his head the whole time. Everyone stands and sings a song and then the priest sing-talks a psalm which was the first thing that freaked me out. He sounded like a monk. And since this post will take forever to cover everything I saw, I’m just going to go over likes and dislikes.


Likes

The Priest: the priest was named father Satish and to my surprise was a young Indian man, rather then a old white dude. He interacted well with the children who were known as the “first communicants” and was engaging. We were there for over an hour and his sermon was only 10 minutes long but what he talked about I enjoyed. He spoke to the kids about something that I found to be completely unbiblical but the main point he was trying to make was heard loud and clear, “accepting Christ into your life is the most important thing that you’ll ever do.” I couldn’t agree more, but the way he wanted the children to go about it I’ll go into in a little bit.

The time: I thought we would be sitting there for 3 hours but it took just over and hour.

The exercise: with all of the stand up sit down, I got a bit of a workout.

Dislikes (this list may be longer)

The idolatry: the two biggest things on the stage had the least to do with Christ, unless there is some meaning that I don’t understand. One was a huge gold and blue sun with stars and triangles all over it. What it had to do with Christ I wasn’t sure. The second was this huge square gold picture hanging from the ceiling. It was divided into four pictures: a lion, a goat, an eagle, and a fourth thing that the sun was glaring off of, so I couldn’t really see it, but again, where is Jesus in this?

Scripture: Father Satish told this to innocent children, and I quote, “once you take this sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, you will then be one of God’s children and be allowed to enter Heaven and have Jesus Christ as your savior.” WOW so I sent out a twitter about it:

“I just learned that in order to be saved you have to take communion. He never said where it says that in the Bible, but im sure its in there.” OH WAIT, IT’S NOT!! You know how you become a Christian, let me tell you.

“Romans 10:9-13”
9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. “

Or if you don’t like that, then take this one

Acts 16:29-31

29The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household."

None of those have to do with crackers or wine. or baptism for that matter.

Now I did catch some flak for the things I tweeted during service and I’ll address those now.

One person stated:

“I'm not sure this is correct. In order to be saved, you must be baptized - to have the "original sin" removed from our soul. Which is why babies are baptized. We receive communion because Jesus asked that we "take this bread and eat, for this is my body; take this wine and drink, for this is my blood". We need years to understand the Catholic religion...Everyone practicing is still learning! 8-)”

The following comes from www.gotquestions.org

“The Bible is abundantly clear of what baptism is, who it is for, and what it accomplishes. In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized - as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him (Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-4). Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience after faith in Christ. It is a proclamation of faith in Christ, a statement of submission to Him, and an identification with His death, burial, and resurrection.

With this in view, infant baptism is not a Biblical practice. An infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ. An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Christ. An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes. The Bible does not record any infants being baptized.

Baptism does not save a person. It does not matter if you were baptized by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling - if you have not first trusted in Christ for salvation, baptism (no matter the method) is meaningless and useless. Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience to be done after salvation as a public profession of faith in Christ and identification with Him. Infant baptism does not fit the Biblical definition of baptism or the Biblical method of baptism.”

But to the point at the bottom, I’ll completely agree with that. “We need years to understand the Catholic religion...Everyone practicing is still learning!” To me this just states that there are so many rituals and rules within your faith that it needs a huge overhaul.

Here are the rules for Christianity

1.Love the Lord and Savior of mankind, Jesus Christ, as your own personal savior and follow his commandments.

2. See rule number 1.

The one thing that I did not mention of the above is the endless chanting. There was a constant call and response during the whole service. “and praise be to you” “Thanks be to God.” “and also with you.” “Praise to you, Lord, Jesus Christ.” “Glory to you, oh Lord” “Lord, hear our prayer.”

I again caught flak for this too.

“For those raised in the Catholic faith, it is not mindless repetition. I think we gain the same benefits as you gain from your church. Every individual experiences different emotions. We seek what inspires us, speaks to our heart. Isn't it funny that every religion thinks it is "THE" religion, and all others are lost?”

Now I hate to keep quoting the Bible, but it is the inerrant word of God, so here goes.

Matthew 6:7-8
7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."

Now I’m not saying that Catholics are pagans, far from it, but what I am saying is that prayer is not a ritual. Rather, it is personal conversation between you and God. It is not the length of the prayer that makes it effective, but the sincerity of heart, the depth of faith. "Christians' prayers are measured by weight, not by length." Don't bore God with many words, but no heart! (www.scripturestudies.com)

When I was hearing these people pray at this church, I couldn’t honestly say that God was there. I know that may sound harsh but the point I’m making is that if your prayers sound like they are hurting you, STOP DOING THEM! It’s a slap in God’s face to just be going through the motions and checking the boxes. If you’re going to pray, do it with zeal and heart or don’t do it at all.

All this being said, I know I’ve made some people rather upset with me today but you know what, I looked at today’s experience through biblical lenses and what I saw is what I saw. If you can argue for anything I saw today with SCRIPTURE, let me know I’d love to see it. I was not judging any person in that building today, nor am I saying that my way is the right way, but what I am saying is that if the Christian faith is based upon the Bible and I saw and heard things today that are not in there, then it’s simply not something I can follow.

L’Chayim,
-Ryan

Letters to God

It's things like these that make me enjoy the youth group.

The coming evangelical collapse

I thought this was a very thought-provoking article from The Christian Science Monitor, which by the was is not related to Christan Science at all.


Oneida, Ky. - We are on the verge – within 10 years – of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West.

Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the "Protestant" 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.

This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.

Millions of Evangelicals will quit. Thousands of ministries will end. Christian media will be reduced, if not eliminated. Many Christian schools will go into rapid decline. I'm convinced the grace and mission of God will reach to the ends of the earth. But the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close.

Why is this going to happen?

1. Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism. This will prove to be a very costly mistake. Evangelicals will increasingly be seen as a threat to cultural progress. Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society.

The evangelical investment in moral, social, and political issues has depleted our resources and exposed our weaknesses. Being against gay marriage and being rhetorically pro-life will not make up for the fact that massive majorities of Evangelicals can't articulate the Gospel with any coherence. We fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith.

2. We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught. Ironically, the billions of dollars we've spent on youth ministers, Christian music, publishing, and media has produced a culture of young Christians who know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it. Our young people have deep beliefs about the culture war, but do not know why they should obey scripture, the essentials of theology, or the experience of spiritual discipline and community. Coming generations of Christians are going to be monumentally ignorant and unprepared for culture-wide pressures.

3. There are three kinds of evangelical churches today: consumer-driven megachurches, dying churches, and new churches whose future is fragile. Denominations will shrink, even vanish, while fewer and fewer evangelical churches will survive and thrive.

4. Despite some very successful developments in the past 25 years, Christian education has not produced a product that can withstand the rising tide of secularism. Evangelicalism has used its educational system primarily to staff its own needs and talk to itself.

5. The confrontation between cultural secularism and the faith at the core of evangelical efforts to "do good" is rapidly approaching. We will soon see that the good Evangelicals want to do will be viewed as bad by so many, and much of that work will not be done. Look for ministries to take on a less and less distinctively Christian face in order to survive.

6. Even in areas where Evangelicals imagine themselves strong (like the Bible Belt), we will find a great inability to pass on to our children a vital evangelical confidence in the Bible and the importance of the faith.

7. The money will dry up.

What will be left?

•Expect evangelicalism to look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented megachurches that have defined success. Emphasis will shift from doctrine to relevance, motivation, and personal success – resulting in churches further compromised and weakened in their ability to pass on the faith.

•Two of the beneficiaries will be the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions. Evangelicals have been entering these churches in recent decades and that trend will continue, with more efforts aimed at the "conversion" of Evangelicals to the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.

•A small band will work hard to rescue the movement from its demise through theological renewal. This is an attractive, innovative, and tireless community with outstanding media, publishing, and leadership development. Nonetheless, I believe the coming evangelical collapse will not result in a second reformation, though it may result in benefits for many churches and the beginnings of new churches.

•The emerging church will largely vanish from the evangelical landscape, becoming part of the small segment of progressive mainline Protestants that remain true to the liberal vision.

•Aggressively evangelistic fundamentalist churches will begin to disappear.

•Charismatic-Pentecostal Christianity will become the majority report in evangelicalism. Can this community withstand heresy, relativism, and confusion? To do so, it must make a priority of biblical authority, responsible leadership, and a reemergence of orthodoxy.

•Evangelicalism needs a "rescue mission" from the world Christian community. It is time for missionaries to come to America from Asia and Africa. Will they come? Will they be able to bring to our culture a more vital form of Christianity?

•Expect a fragmented response to the culture war. Some Evangelicals will work to create their own countercultures, rather than try to change the culture at large. Some will continue to see conservatism and Christianity through one lens and will engage the culture war much as before – a status quo the media will be all too happy to perpetuate. A significant number, however, may give up political engagement for a discipleship of deeper impact.

Is all of this a bad thing?

Evangelicalism doesn't need a bailout. Much of it needs a funeral. But what about what remains?

Is it a good thing that denominations are going to become largely irrelevant? Only if the networks that replace them are able to marshal resources, training, and vision to the mission field and into the planting and equipping of churches.

Is it a good thing that many marginal believers will depart? Possibly, if churches begin and continue the work of renewing serious church membership. We must change the conversation from the maintenance of traditional churches to developing new and culturally appropriate ones.

The ascendency of Charismatic-Pentecostal-influenced worship around the world can be a major positive for the evangelical movement if reformation can reach those churches and if it is joined with the calling, training, and mentoring of leaders. If American churches come under more of the influence of the movement of the Holy Spirit in Africa and Asia, this will be a good thing.

Will the evangelicalizing of Catholic and Orthodox communions be a good development? One can hope for greater unity and appreciation, but the history of these developments seems to be much more about a renewed vigor to "evangelize" Protestantism in the name of unity.

Will the coming collapse get Evangelicals past the pragmatism and shallowness that has brought about the loss of substance and power? Probably not. The purveyors of the evangelical circus will be in fine form, selling their wares as the promised solution to every church's problems. I expect the landscape of megachurch vacuity to be around for a very long time.

Will it shake lose the prosperity Gospel from its parasitical place on the evangelical body of Christ? Evidence from similar periods is not encouraging. American Christians seldom seem to be able to separate their theology from an overall idea of personal affluence and success.

The loss of their political clout may impel many Evangelicals to reconsider the wisdom of trying to create a "godly society." That doesn't mean they'll focus solely on saving souls, but the increasing concern will be how to keep secularism out of church, not stop it altogether. The integrity of the church as a countercultural movement with a message of "empire subversion" will increasingly replace a message of cultural and political entitlement.

Despite all of these challenges, it is impossible not to be hopeful. As one commenter has already said, "Christianity loves a crumbling empire."

We can rejoice that in the ruins, new forms of Christian vitality and ministry will be born. I expect to see a vital and growing house church movement. This cannot help but be good for an evangelicalism that has made buildings, numbers, and paid staff its drugs for half a century.

We need new evangelicalism that learns from the past and listens more carefully to what God says about being His people in the midst of a powerful, idolatrous culture.

I'm not a prophet. My view of evangelicalism is not authoritative or infallible. I am certainly wrong in some of these predictions. But is there anyone who is observing evangelicalism in these times who does not sense that the future of our movement holds many dangers and much potential?

• Michael Spencer is a writer and communicator living and working in a Christian community in Kentucky. He describes himself as "a postevangelical reformation Christian in search of a Jesus-shaped spirituality."


Feel free to leave any comments, I'd love to hear from you.

Just because it is old, doesn’t make it good.

Over the past couple of weeks I have sent out several tweets ( www.twitter.com/Ryan Lewis ) about my disliking of C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity” and in doing so have been scolded about the fact that I should bite my tongue when ripping into a book deemed a “classic” and “staple” of the Christian faith. Well below is my response to that. No low blows, no animosity, just my humble opinion.


C.S. Lewis is known as one of the most honored and well respected authors and Christian writers of all time, and to a degree I agree with that. Books like “The Screwtape Letters” and the Chronicles of Narnia books series are both well known and widely regarded (I personally love the former)

That being said I STRUGGLED to finish “Mere Christianity.” Mere Christianity is one of if not his most well known books on the Christian faith. The book begins from the perspective of someone who is not of the faith or who I’ll be referring to as normal people, and states that all people or born with a sense of right and wrong and that this inherent law of nature is given to everyone by God. He then supposes that once we become aware of this fact then we are then given the choice to join or turn away from God, and that it is our choice but that God will influence this decision as he wants to draw us into his family.

There are several things that I did like in this book, such as what he believes is Man interpretation of God, he mentions how men will try to find happiness in anything outside of God until they have nothing left but God. He also explains at length the basics of the Christian faith and what most Christians believe. He also makes a lot of valid points so that if one was new to the faith or was interested in learning about it, they would have a lot to take away from it.

That being said this book is LONG! And I don’t mean long in the sense of word count (my copy was a only 225 pages) no the book is long in the sense that Lewis takes four pages to write what someone else could say in two paragraphs. He takes long drawn out examples to explain analogies that are so daunting that by the time you get done reading them, you want to take a nap.

The second big gripe I had with the book was the fact that he spends the better part of 30 pages speaking on something he has no basis for offering his input. Let me paraphrase, “I’ve never been married, but for the next two chapters I’m going to tell you what’s best for your marriage.” he even states something to this effect in the begin of the chapter. If you’ve never been married, don’t tell me how I should be married.

My biggest concern with this book is the lack of biblical context and example. As I mentioned above in the chapter about christian marriage he states thing that go directly against the bible, which is THE source of christian doctrine. Below is one such example that goes against everything I have learned about what Christ taught.

“If people do not believe in permanent marriage, it is perhaps better that they should live together unmarried than that they should make vows they do not mean to keep. It is true that by living together without marriage they will be guilty (in christian eyes) of fornication. But one fault is not mended by adding another: unchasitiy is not improved by adding perjury.”

WOW WOW WOW, why the heck did I even get married in the first place then ole C.S.!!! I could have just shacked up with Megan and ruled the roost without ever having to worry about the consequences. What bible is this guy reading!?!?!

He also states things like “it’s ok to like some people and not others, that’s human nature” FALSE! as followers of Christ we are to show love and compassion to everyone, especially those may require a little extra grace. Also at the end of the book he basically endorses evolution and states that all humans will eventually evolve to follow after God.

Oh, and I wont even get into the part about aliens.

The final complaint I have is this: lack of scripture. When you presenting an argument for a faith based upon Gods love and what he has done for us, as he shows us through scripture, point that out. After all he did leave us instructions. Hardly at all through the book is the Bible quoted and when it is there is no reference or citation given. If you want to point people to Christ, there are a few examples you can give them. One of the most important ones being the Bible. Without the Bible the Christian faith lacks authenticity and validation, use it Lewis, use it.

All this being said I still think the book is important and that it could bring about a lot of discussion amongst people. I understand that this book has helped a lot of people with their faith, I just think that there are better books out there that can accomplish the same thing a lot more thoroughly and more accurately. If you’ve read the book or would like to share your opinion, please do so, I would love to see a dialogue opened due to this post.

Brooklyn Loves The World

This weeks sermon is a continuation of what we have already been discussing with a little bit of biblical reference involved. Below is an email I recieved from my man Cub after I had discussed the topic of people hating Christians for being such terrible people. It is unedited and I thank cub for sharing his heart and thoughts.

(Note: Brooklyn is what we call out Quad, which is sort of like a bible study)


After Brooklyn i was reading the next two chapters of Matthew i was up to and i happened to be at Matthew Chapter 23. The first section of the chapter is on "The Seven Woes." Which is the EXACT thing we are were talking about on on Thursday and discussing what's wrong with "Christianity" and why many people in the world have negative feelings about church and Christianity. And i think these seven woe's the Christ spelled out are EXACTLY what is wrong.

1.Shutting the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. (Mat. 23:13-14)

2.Making converts twice as much a son of hell as the converters themselves are. (Mat. 23:15)

3.Claiming that swearing by the temple is nothing, but claiming that swearing by the temple's gold is everything. (Mat. 23:16-22)

4.Obeying the minutiae of the law but neglecting the important facets (Mat. 23:23-24)

5.Being shallow (Mat. 23:25-26)

6.Hypocrisy (Mat. 23:23-27)

7.Claiming that they would have behaved better than their forefathers - even though they build and respect the tombs of those who murdered the prophets. (Mat. 23:29-36)

These are exactly what was wrong in the time of Jesus and the CONTINUE to be wrong today. Every single one of those is a problem with 'christians' and the church in today's time. As we talked about how was someone rebuke his brother when he's doing the same thing. We could look at any one of these and see them all over the place. The more i think about it the more i see hypocrisy in the 'christian' community.

How does this change? What needs to be done? How can people who stereotype christians by the bad experiences they've had or heard about change their heart?


Just some thoughts...

Jesus was a Cookie Crisp man

I was thinking that from now on I would post an article, or link, or discussion about faith I may be having on Sundays, in keeping with the Sabbath and all. So let me know what you think. this first article comes from the church where me new sister Emily RADCLIFFE attended. It's by By Kevin Feldotto

A taste for granola I live in Colorado Springs, home of God. There are more Christian ministries in this town than you can shake a Harry Potter book at. Apparently, this makes us some sort of Christian Mecca. I'm not buying it.

The ugly truth is that we are a town divided by hate. It's the granola-eating, pacifist, pro-homosexual tree-huggers versus the holier-than-thou, flag-waving, pro-life, Bible-thumpers, and we have been divided for a decade. We don't have time to stand in the park and yell at each other, so we wage war with our bumper stickers. "FOCUS ON YOUR OWN DAMN FAMILY" is a popular bumper sticker that reveals more about our community than about any organization.

Being a Christian conservative, I am keenly aware of this battle. Recently I saw a bumper sticker that made me spew my latte. It read, "DOING MY PART TO PISS OFF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT." While that would make some wish they had a shoulder-mounted grenade launcher, it made me laugh out loud. Personally, I love controversy not for the sake of confrontation, but because it makes people think.

I wanted to kidnap the owners of the bumper sticker (with my grenade launcher) and buy them a beer. I would ask them how they feel about the religious; how they feel about the right. Then I would ask them how they feel about Christians. I would then do something so radical, it would completely freak them out. I would listen; no arguing, no defending, just listening. In fact, I might just be nodding my head in agreement.

You see, I am one of the religious right, and I don't like us. Our ranks are filled with arrogant know-it-alls who wear the label "evangelical" like some kind of medal; people who think "right" refers not to their political stance but to their level of correctness. If you are not a member of the club, you probably know what I mean. As soon as they figure out your label, you get the distinct impression that you have dog doo on your shoes.

I was still laughing about the "religious right" sticker when it hit me: If Jesus had a car, he might have had that bumper sticker on it, right next to the one that said "WHAT WOULD I DO?"

Hear me out on this. Whenever Jesus went on the attack, who did he launch against? It wasn't the liberals; it was the religious right, the conservatives. It was the religious leaders who knew the Scriptures like they were written on their underwear. The pious people who were convinced that they had the corner on being right.

Instead of giving them a good ol' boy slap on the back, he got in their faces at every opportunity. Time and again, Jesus said, "Have you not read?" He knew darn well they had not only read it, they had memorized it. When he repeatedly remarked, "You have heard it said this, but I say to you that," he purposefully challenged their authority. When Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath, he was not ignorant of rabbinical law. He did it to force the issue.

I find it very interesting that he never seemed to hang with the religious right. He ended up at parties with the wild crowd, while the conservatives hovered outside and talked about what he was doing wrong. He intentionally spent time with those whom the conservatives looked down on.

What does this say about us as evangelicals? Perhaps we don't have the corner on being right. (Be still my heart.) Possibly, we have been unwilling to see our weaknesses because of our own arrogance. Could it be that the bumper sticker, "THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IS NEITHER" is more than just wordplay? We need to be willing to honestly ask ourselves if we have been wrong. No, I take that back. The question should not be "Am I wrong?" but "Where am I wrong?"

Now that I have voiced these heresies, I may get thrown out of the club. That may be OK. If you're a pro-homosexual, tree-hugging pacifist, let's talk. I actually like granola.

The main idea of this article is something that some of the boys in my Quad have been talking about lately, basically the fact that "I am a follower of Christ" and not a "Christian."
I would love to hear from anyone with you're thoughts on this. If you love christans or hate them, please let me know. I PROMISE you won't be judged, or try to be converted, or told why you're being a sinner. If you don't want to leave a comment, email me lilking783@gmail.com. This is not a discussion that is ending soon, I have more articles and thoughts on this subject.

They got the map a long time ago

This was an article published in dailymail.co.uk, a well respected newspaper in Great Britain. I also saw this article on CNN.

In a discovery straight out of an Indiana Jones movie, archaeologists believe they have uncovered one of the lost mines of King Solomon.

The vast copper mine lies in an arid valley in modern-day Jordan and was created in the 10th century BC - around the time Solomon is believed to have ruled over the ancient Hebrews.

The mines are enormous and would have generated a huge income for the king, who is famed for bringing extraordinary wealth and stability to the newly-united kingdom
of Israel and Judah.

The announcement will today reopen the debate about how much of the Old Testament is myth and how much is history.

According to the Bible, Solomon was the third king of Israel. The son of King David, he was renowned for his wisdom, the size of his harem and the splendour of his kingdom.

During his reign, he is said to have accumulated a huge fortune from mining and trading, some of which was spent on building the grand temple and opulent palace of Jerusalem.

Archaeologists and treasure-hunters have searched for the mines for more than a century since the best-selling Victorian novel, King Solomon's Mines by H Rider Haggard, claimed they could hold a treasure of gold and diamonds.

But now, it seems the real version could have been closer to home, supplying the king with copper.

The ancient mine was found in a desolate region south of the Dead Sea in southern Jordan in an area called Khirbat en-Nahas, which means 'ruins of copper' in Arabic.

The region was known in the Old Testament as the Kingdom of Edom. By Solomon's time, it had become a vassal state, paying tribute to Jerusalem.

Digs at the site in the 1970s and 1980s suggested metalworking began there in the 7th century, long after the time of Solomon.

But Dr Thomas Levy, of the University of California, San Diego, and Mohammed Najjar, of Jordan's Friends of Archaeology, have dated it to the 10th century BC.

Dr Levy said: 'We have evidence that complex societies were indeed active in the 10th and 9th centuries BC and that brings us back to the debate about the historicity of the Bible narratives related to this period.

'We can't believe everything ancient writings tell us. But this research represents a confluence between the archaeological and scientific data and the Bible.'

The ancient site contains around 100 buildings, including a fortress, in the middle of 24 acres of land covered in black slag. The mine works are covered with trials and holes, and are big enough to be seen on Google Earth's satellite images.

The team also found ancient Egyptian artifacts at the site including a scarab and amulet from the 10th century BC.

When Solomon died, his kingdom was thrown into chaos and the Pharaoh Sheshonq is believed to have attempted to crush economic activity.

The findings are reported in today's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

anyone Who's interested in Christian Apologetics (which is stuff like the article above) let me know, I've got all kinds of stuff I can Recommend.

"It's like bringing a Knife to a Gun Fight"

The post below is something I wrote to myself like two years ago and
never did anything with. below is what transpired and my thoughts
since then at the end.



Last week I go over to josh and troy’s place to kick it and study
some Romans and all that jazz and I bring up the subject of
vacationing with our significant others and the response I get back
from both is EXACTLY THE SAME.

Troy says “I’ve thought about going up to Chicago with Lindsay with
my friends and her friends but nothing where we would stay the night,
that just wouldn't be a good thing.”

And then josh chimes in, “ I couldn’t put myself in that situation.”
To Which I reply, “Why?”

“Man, I just think the temptation would be to great for something
like that.”

Sheesh. Am I smarter then everyone around me, or just that naïve. I
am really that dumb to think I can travel to the big city, get a

hotel room, and not get super coital. Apparently my self control is
better then that of my associates. We set boundaries early on in our
relationship, and I’m expected to respect those boundaries, as is
she. It’s not like they’re pumping Viagra into the Chicago water
supply just because they know I’m coming. I don’t forsee as soon as I
step into the hotel room, megu slams the door, yells “have your way
with me” and then runs to jump on top of me. (Editor’s Note: not that
I would be opposed to this at all, but ya never know, stranger things
have happened.)*1

I guess this brings me to this whole idea of “!!!CHRISTIAN DATING!!!”
The rules and regulations that “couples” put themselves through are
both unnatural and petty.

“We’re not kissing until we’re engaged.”

“We don’t hold hands.”

“We don’t do things like that.”

No, What you don’t do is act normal.*2

Most people don’t know this but there were actually 15 commandments
but Moses drop one of them tablets (They’re heavy) but researchers
have actually found them and I present them to you now.

11. THOU SHALT BEHAVE WHEN AROUND THE OPPOSITE SEX

12. THOU SHALT KNOW HOW TO PROPERLY SMOOCH

13. THOU SHALT KEEP THINES GENITALS IN THOUST TOGA’S UNTIL TOLD

OTHERWISE

14. THOU SHALT BEWARE HOT CHICKS, FOR THEY ARE DANGEROUS

15. THOU SHALT KNOW HOW TO LAY NEXT TO A WOMAN AND NOT HAVE “HANKY

PANKY”



I didn’t know God had such a since of humor, but hey he created
manatees so you can’t put much past him. My favorite has to be 12. it
should have been a law in like 2kings or Hosea or something that said
before a guy proposes to a girl he should get to make out with her
for like 10 minutes to know what’s what. I would be livid if I
married a chick and the night of the honeymoon you get your first
smooch and it’s like kissing a camel. Just thank the Lord that I’m
not a divorce court judge, if a dude came in and was like, “look,
judge, sleeping with this woman is like having sex with a buffalo.”

“judgment for the plaintiff.”

Now, granted I am being a little phecieous, but you get my point. And
no I’m not talking about rampant Sex in the middle of the street but
on the same token you should be knowledgeable of your partner and
their body. Bottom line, just take the time smooch on your chick a
little bit, she’ll want you too. And if she doesn’t, then get rid of
her because chances are she’s more trouble then she’s worth.

*1 This has since happened, which is AWESOME, love you doodlebug ;)

*2 I know that if certain people read this (namely josh and Troy)
that I'm going to catch alot of crap for it, but you know what, when
I wrote this originally, I thought it and you what, I still do.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

After thoughts

After rereading that, I stand by it. I'll concede to that fact that
the relationship Megan and I have is not exactly what you would call
normal, but it's the best one I've ever been in. I want to make it
clear that I have all the respect in the world for someone who
chooses to have this kind of relationship, it's weird and doesn't
make you anymore sanctified then me, but I'm not going to disrespect
it.



----------------
Now playing: A Perfect Circle - Renholdër
via FoxyTunes

"You wear that Cross like a Dagger"

HOUSTON (AP) — Renowned evangelical pastor Joel Osteen told jurors Friday that his wife never assaulted a flight attendant over a small spill on her airplane seat.

Osteen was called as a witness Friday in the civil trial of a lawsuit filed by Continental Airlines flight attendant Sharon Brown, who has accused Victoria Osteen of assaulting her before the start of a 2005 flight to Vail, Colo.

During nearly two hours of testimony, Joel Osteen, who was on the same flight, said the incident was "an unfortunate misunderstanding" stemming from his wife's requests for flight attendants to clean up a spill on the armrest of her first-class seat.

Ok, first of all, the article doesn't say the flight attendant spilled the drink on her or even spilled the drink at all. From this point Mrs. Osteen really starts to shine.

Victoria Osteen said when she first told a flight attendant about the spill, she was handed some napkins. She said she responded, "'It's not my job.' I didn't say it in an ugly tone of voice."

"We would never disrespect authority or disrespect (Brown). There's no way in the world," Victoria Osteen assaulted Brown, said Joel Osteen, who was called to the witness stand by Brown's attorney, Reginald McKamie.

Osteen then serenaded the courtroom with his split tongue southern draw, "I'm too busy counting the millions I've made from the suckers who have bought my books to disrespect authority."

Then just in case you have you have no clue who these people are or why you should care about any of this...

Joel and Victoria Osteen are co-pastors of Houston's Lakewood Church, which draws about 42,000 people each week for services. Joel Osteen's weekly television address is broadcast nationally and internationally and who has written books that have been sold around the globe.

On Thursday, another flight attendant on the plane, Maria Johnson, testified that Victoria Osteen demanded special attention to clean up the small spill. When she didn't get her way, Osteen became verbally and physically abusive to both flight attendants, eventually grabbing Brown by the shoulders, elbowing her in the chest( note: I've also heard it was "the left breast" CAT FIGHT and pushing her out of the way in an attempt to get into the cockpit, Johnson testified.

Brown claims in her lawsuit that after pushing her, Victoria Osteen tried to get into the cockpit. Victoria Osteen denied that, telling jurors she just wanted to get away from the situation.

I've flown first class, and it ain't that big. "Away from the situation," where are you going babes, from the front of the closet to the back of the closet? Retard.

McKamie also asked Joel Osteen why he said in one of his religious messages that if it wasn't for him, his wife would be in prison.

Osteen said he meant it to be a comical statement about the differences between him and his wife, that he likes routine and considers himself boring while his wife is outgoing and likes to go to new restaurants and new places.

"You don't go to jail because you like different restaurants, do you?" McKamie asked, as the packed courtroom laughed.

"No sir," Joel Osteen said.

I have no clue why this is in the article or why it's relevant. what a douche. make that a douche nozzle, that's the business end.

McKamie also asked Osteen whether his family was used to getting special treatment, making reference to an anecdote in one of the pastor's books in which he wrote about being allowed to take an expensive television camera onboard a flight to India even though it was against the rules.

"You feel that you're entitled to the favor of God ... to do things other people can't do," McKamie said.

"All of God's children are," Osteen said.

"and by "all of God's children" I mean anyone who has ever prayed for Jesus to mail them money because I've told them to," Osteen added.

Brown has claimed the flight attendants asked to have Victoria Osteen removed from the plane, but Joel Osteen testified he and his family left voluntarily.

The Federal Aviation Administration fined Victoria Osteen $3,000 for interfering with a crew member.

Joel Osteen said his wife did not want to pay the fine but he convinced her to do so because he thought it would be a way to put the incident behind them even though they felt they did nothing wrong.

Brown wants an apology and punitive damages amounting to 10 percent of Victoria Osteen's net worth as part of her lawsuit. Brown claims she suffers from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder because of the incident and that her faith has been affected. She is also suing for counseling expenses.

Dear parishioners of Lakewood Church, y'all better pass the offering plate around again this week, because when Vicki spills her third rum and coke on her arm rest, someone's gonna get a titty twister.