Shame on the Acadamy!

I am a huge fan of the screen and cinema. I appreciate movies for the direction, acting, cinematography, production and artistic content. Therefore, I look forward every year to the Acadamy Awards. Every year I can't wait to see who will win. This is when the finest of a craft recognize what the best works where over the past year. That is exactly where it should end. Pushing agendas have no place in awarding art. Films, actors, and actresses should be awarded soley on quality of work. Unfortunately, the Acadamy has taken it upon itself to be the political platform for the homosexual agenda and should be ashamed!



I will start by clarifyng that they should be ashamed not because of whether homosexuality and gay marriage is right or wrong but because they are not politicians or spiritual leaders. They should be ashamed because they are artists. They give these awards to peole who work hard to master a craft. In all fairness, they deserve to be rewarded for their talents and efforts not for their beliefs or opinions.



The Acadamy Awards was not intended to be a platform for political or social agendas. Whether it is a conservitive or liberal agenda doesn't matter. Let art be art. Observe, anylize, critique and appreciate but leave your opinions about right or wrong out of it. People have worked long and hard for there shot to win an Oscar and it is a disgrace that one person or piece would be looked over because someone wants to push there point or "stick it" to a particular group of people within society.

Jesus' Rejection at Nazareth

In order to gain a clear vision as to what the Gospels of the New Testament mean in today’s changing world, we must see them from a historical and critical perspective. We must take into account the Gospel author’s genre, purpose, themes and occasion. In doing so, we find many similarities between each Gospel and yet we also find vast differences that define each author’s individual agenda. We can acknowledge these similarities and differences by comparing one Gospel’s account of a particular event to another Gospel’s account of the same story.

For argument’s sake, we can compare Mark’s account of Jesus’ rejection at Nazareth ( Mk. 6:1-6) to Matthew’s version of the same story( Matt. 13:53-58). Because it is widely believed that Mark’s Gospel was written first, we will compare Matthew to Mark. To the naked eye, both accounts seem very much the same. Both describe Jesus preaching in the synagogue at Nazareth and being rejected by his townspeople. It also addresses the idea that he didn’t or couldn’t perform many works because of issues with their belief. However, when examined closely, we see that just the slightest change in wording leads to very different undertones.

The first major difference we find is in Matthew Chapter 13 vs. 54. Like Mark’s account in Mark Chapter 6 vs. 2, Matthew describes Jesus teaching at the synagogue. However, Matthew edits Mark’s version by omitting Mark’s description of this happening on the Sabbath. This is a clue as to the different audience that each author is addressing. Mark’s audience consisted of ex-pagan gentile Christians. Therefore, the significance of the Sabbath carried much less weight that it did for Matthew’s audience, which consisted of Jewish Christians.

Second, in Matthew Chapter 13 vs. 55 the people refer to Jesus as the carpenter’s son, and then mention Mary as his mother. This is subtly different from Mark’s version in Chapter 6 vs. 3. In Mark the people refer to Jesus as the carpenter, son of Mary. There may have been a two-fold agenda here. First, Matthew is leaving no room for Jesus illegitimacy. Since one of Matthew’s purposes was to prove that Jesus fulfilled Jewish prophecy, as the Messiah, he also may have been using this acknowledgement of who Jesus father was, in order to make the clear connection to the House of David. Mark was again speaking to gentiles and therefore this lineage wasn’t as relevant. Finally in Matthew’s version (Chapter 13 vs. 58) Jesus did not do many miracles because of their unbelief as opposed to Mark’s version. In Mark Chapter 6 vs. 5-6, Jesus couldn’t do miracles except for the laying on of hands of a few sick people. This clearly follows Matthew’s depiction of Jesus as “higher”, as opposed to Mark’s more “human” description. Matthew’s Jesus chose not to do many miracles where Mark’s Jesus couldn’t because the people didn’t believe.

By analyzing the same short story from different Gospels we gain a great understanding of each author’s specific audience, purpose, and occasion. By grasping the context in which these scriptures where written 2000 years ago, we have a greater perspective as to what these scriptures mean to our culture today.

Steroids and Baseball

O.k. ladies and gentlemen, let's call it like it is. This whole steroid situation is becoming increasingly unfair to baseball players while ignoring the responsible party all together. Let's face it folks, the guilty party is the league itself and team ownership.

It seems as though an all out witch hunt has been imposed by the media on players while MLB its owners get off "scott free." Have we forgotten the great baseball strike of the eighties and it's affect on fan support? During that period, while baseball was in a state of hybernation, Michael Jordan was redefining sports as entertainment and football was emerging as the major money making sport in America. When baseball re-emerged it could not compete with its contending market without something to draw attention and fans back to the ballpark. Henceforth the "Steroid Era" took off! It really takes complete ignorance to not see the connection here. I'm not a rocket scientest but it seems pretty clear to me that the "Steroid Era" was instigated by baseball and it's owners. Homeruns are exciting and they draw fans to the stands. It's that simple.

Players like Alex Rodrigez, Barry Bonds and Miguel Tejada get payed to hit home runs and I can assure you that they have been encouraged, by their bosses, to make sure that they hit those home runs at any cost. If they don't hit those home runs then someone else, who does, will get their paycheck. Put yourself in their situation and then do the math. Since baseball came off strike MLB and its owners have encouraged it's players to use steroids. We all know it and we need to remember it before we start burning these guys at the stake.

Bud Selig and baseball? You need to stop passing the buck to your bread winners and start taking resposibility for the monster that "you" created!

Turn Off the Faucet!

On several occasions I have heard reputable pastors and theologians argue that there are levels of sin. Because of the law, I understand thinking in this context. In some sense, our culture must in order to keep peace, uphold the law, and avoid civil unrest. However, I would argue that God is so perfect, so pure, and so far removed from sin that all sin is the same to Him.

Time and time again you hear pastors put certain sin on a pedestal. For example, many have referred to the Bible calling homosexuality an abomination but fail to point out that Proverbs 6-16 states that a "proud look" is an abomination. All sin is an abomination to God. Its that simple. We must never look at sin as though, if we aren't guilty of a particular one, we are better than someone else in the worldly perspective. It simply isn't true. Sin is sin. We are all sinners saved by grace.

I say this to go a step further. Sin is the symptom not the source. If you read Romans 1:18 through 2:16 Paul clearly explains that God gave man over to sin as a result of self glorification. Therefore selfishness is man's problem, and sin is only the result of our sickness. I feel that by focusing on "sins" we are not dealing with the real problem.

Also, non believers are turned off because they can't understand the concept. They don't have a relationship with Jesus. All they can see is finger pointing. However, everyone understands selfishness, and although everyone is guilty of it no one likes it.

Picture a sink, if you will, and sin as the water running out of the faucet. If you keep trying to catch the water running out it just continues to run. The way to stop the water is to turn off the source it flows from. The source is selfishness! That is our sickness! Stop pointing fingers and start focusing on serving the will of the Father and the needs of others. TURN OFF THE FAUCET!

Prosperity is Justification for Americanization!

There is a popular trend in the American Evangelical movement to embrace this concept of a "Prosperity Gospel." It basically follows the idea that if you keep in right standing with God ( give 10% to your church and don't sin) you automatically qualify to have as much money and as many toys as you want. No matter how many people in the world might be starving at the expense of you having 3 cars, a 4500 sq ft home, your jet planes and your rolex watch, you are blessed and the starving person is cursed. This is heresy! It says that you are deserving of this so called blessing because of who you are and what you have sacrificed to God.

The fact is that this is not Christianity. This is an orthadox form of early Judaism. In the Old Covenant your relationship with God was all about whether or not you made the right sacrifices to God.

We as Christians live under a New Covenant. Under the New Covenant Jesus is the sacrifice. We, in reality, can never be in right standing with God without the shed blood of Jesus and he has paid our price on the cross. Although we strive not to, we are all sinners and giving money to the church isn't the key. We don't have to make sacrifices to please him.

This is not to say I don't believe in tithing. I just believe that under our Covenant you give joyfully because you want to be selfless, not because your getting something in return. After all that was Jesus' message. We live to serve not to be served. God is pleased when we sacrifice with no alterior motives. I believe in prosperity and the Bible talkes of it but it's spiritual prosperity not monetary! We live under Jesus' Covenant not Abrahams. Being poor is not a curse! It's a reality in a fallen world and we should all be willing to give the shirt off our back to a person in need.

PRO-LIFE VS. ANTI-ABORTION

After reading Richard Morin’s article “Political Ads and the Voters They Attract” I was reminded of the issue of abortion. The opinion of our general voter population on the subject of the right to life has become one of the strongest influences on the American political process. Unfortunately, most voter’s stance on the issue is more dependant on the emotions played upon by political ad campaigns than common sense or reason. This play on emotion is addressed by Morin in his article.

During election seasons political ads play on these emotions without challenging the viewer or reader to think about what is really being said. This, to me, seems particularly prevalent in Pro-Life campaign ads put out by the Republican Party. Playing on the emotions of the evangelical right, which I am a part of, these ads portray the Republican Party as the voice of moral purpose and the “Right to Life.” The problem is that this emotionally charged anti-abortion stance used in their platform is only one aspect of the “Right to Life.”

Consider, if you would, the war on terrorism. How many innocent lives have been taken from men, women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan due to American intervention in the name of freedom? Isn’t the mortality of people living in these nations just as deserving of a “Right to Life?” After all, the bible states clearly in the Book of Romans that Christians are called to love their enemies, to feed them and to give them drink when they are thirsty. Some Christians might argue that in the Old Testament God’s use of war is mentioned many times. They would be correct, however godly nations only went to war when called by their maker to do so. I did not once hear our commander-in chief, a Republican , acknowledge that God had led us there. Here arises a question for the evangelical right. Is the war on terrorism God’s desire or is it our desire? I don’t profess to have the answer but as our former president Abraham Lincoln, a Republican I might add, once said, “We must not concern ourselves with whether or not God is on our side but whether or not we are on his side.” If God did not have some divine reason for the death of all those people who have died as a result of our war then their “Right to Life” has been taken away and therefore no political party can establish itself as a representative of that right!

All this I say in making the point that to be Pro- Life is to be so across the board. Being Anti- Abortion, which I am, does not qualify a political party as Pro- Life. It simply means they are against taking the lives of babies in the womb. I believe that this trumps the validity of the Pro- Life platform of the Republican Party. If evangelicals truly take in the scope of what it means to be Pro- Life they will recognize that this platform is simply an emotionally charged manipulation of their beliefs and does not represent what they or the nation their forefathers envisioned stand for. I must add that I am a Christian and I do not believe in abortion, but I will never allow my stance on this issue to sway my vote in a political election in one direction or the other, because I also believe in the “Right to Life" and neither political party honestly represents the concept. We must never allow our emotions to overcome our ability to use reasoning when weighing out our options in a political election. In doing so we not only threaten our identity as individuals but also as a nation.

In closing I must add that I DO NOT SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY! I will only support leaders who desire the further His Kingdom because that is my desire. I am a member of the Constitution Party. You may view their platform at www.constitutionparty.com