I love sports. I love them in a "fanatical" sense, a true fan. I am an Atlanta Braves (but you already knew that), Minnesota Vikings, Utah Jazz, Dallas Mavericks, Pittsburgh Penguins, Cincinnati Reds, Andy Roddick (may he be retired in peace), USA fan. I love baseball first, basketball next and the NFL close behind. I will sit and watch Tennis, Lacrosse and Soccer without complaint. I have digested more stats in the MLB and NBA then most people will ever care to even hear. So, if you are not a Sports person, this and the following several posts will probably not interest you. However, I challenge you to broaden your horizons, these are multi-billion dollar industries, there's no shame in knowing about how they work. And besides that, they're fun.
These are general thoughts I've come to while watching and becoming a fan of the NBA, my second favorite sports league.
First of all, it's better than college basketball. That's right. WAY better. There is no college basketball program more "fundamental" than the San Antonio Spurs, so you can take your "they play iso-crap" argument and stuff it. Every single professional basketball player played in a college, minus the few high school jumpers, so every single one of them is at least that good, so I'm not listening to a "they don't play as high a level ball" argument either. Besides, the offensive sets being run by even the least productive teams (say the Hornets, formerly Bobcats, or the Pelicans, formerly Hornets) are still more complex and more ingenious than the most prestigious college programs can afford to attempt. Izzo, Boeheim, Kryzewski, Williams and any other coach you care to mention all have or do hope to coach in the pros not vice versa. In fact, they jump at the chance to coach in the Olympics. In short, anyone who thinks the NCAA Men's Basketball Association is possibly better than the NBA is flat wrong and needs to watch more basketball.
Secondly, the greatest player in the history of the game is Michael Jordan. I am 100% on the MJ train. I understand the arguments for Wilt and Kareem and don't understand but realize insanity can be persuasive in regards to Russell. Mike did everything, he scored 30+ a game for several seasons, he produced in the playoffs, he is the 3rd all-time scorer, he won 6 rings, he retired 3 times, he's a first ballot HOFer and I'm lucky I got to see part of his career. My first clear memories of the NBA are of the '97 title between Jordan and Malone. I'm a Jazz fan, mainly because of that team with Stockton, Hornacek, Russel, Malone and Ostertag but I'll always be a Jordan fan too. This leads me to give my top 10 players all-time, something which is argued about among the men in my family probably twice a month.
1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (Lou Alcinder)
3. Wilt Chamberlain
4. Shaquille O'Neal
5. Kobe Bryant
6. Erving Magic Johnson
7. Larry Bird
8. LeBron James
9. Bill Russell
10. Karl Malone
Shaq above Kobe and Karl on the list instead of Duncan usually draws the most criticism, but I stand on my 10.
Thirdly, I have irrational dislike for certain teams and players. Sometimes there is a rationality on the surface, but really there's just this negative sense when they succeed and a positive sense when they fail. Reggie Miller, LeBron James, Tony Parker, Rajon Rondo and Paul Pierce are the best examples. Hence I'm forcing myself to root for San Antonio to pull out Game 7 tonight and believe that Ginobili and Green were both fouled. (The Spurs would be an organization that I irrationally dislike as well)
Finally, I have an equally strong and possibly irrational man crush on some players. When I first started watching it was Bryon Russell, then it was Scottie Pippen, Jerry Stackhouse, Michael Redd, David Lee and Wesley Matthews. Most dominantly though, is my fanatic support of Dirk Nowitski. I honestly believe, and think I can prove, Dirk is a more talented and more accomplished player than Tim Duncan. That had Dirk been teamed up with David Robinson, Steve Smith, Stephen Jackson, Michael Finley, Ginobili and Parker, the Spurs would have won 6 straight titles. However, this could probably be stored in the "crazy" file.
In any case, if you're ever itching to talk basketball I can go 10 rounds with the best of them and would love it.
The Braves split a 4 gamer with the Mets, a couple rough ones on Tuesday bookmarked by good wins Monday and yesterday. Alex Wood looked real solid starting Tues and adds one more young arm to Atlanta's already insane future. Medlen, Minor, Beachy, Teheran, Sean Gilmartin, JR Graham, Wood and Lucas Sims all are or project to be top of the rotation starters. Not to mention 2013 1st round pick Justin Hursh. Tony DeMacio and company are real good at what they do, and they scout pitching.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Father's Day Thoughts
Had my first father's day. It was nice, went out to eat at Red Robin. Going to grill out with my dad on Thursday. Several people asked me what it was like to be having my first father's day. Didn't really feel different or weird, but their questions got me thinking, what do I want father's day to mean to me? The answer centers around my dad. I decided that if nothing else, I want to have the same friendship with my son as I have with my dad.
How do I get that? I don't know. If I did I'd be a billionaire public speaker and author. But I'm going to suggest some things here. Just a few, another short one.
First of all, I'm going to play with my son. My dad has always played with me. He still beats me in basketball, boggle, ping pong and chess on occasion. He and I have spent untold hours doing nerdy things with spreadsheets and baseball stats. Before just recently he was always good for a game of catch, recently he can only sustain one cycle of 2-on-2 a week without shattering into a million pieces...just kidding. kind of.
Secondly, I want to teach him stuff. I like to think I'm pretty smart, I've learned every ounce of what I know (and how to know it) from my parents. With no disrespect to my college-graduate high school teacher mother, mostly from my dad. I love history, philosophy and sports. So does he. I want to get a Master's Degree and maybe a Doctorate, he has both. Am I a daddy's boy? I don't know, you'd have to ask him. We've had our disagreements. Which leads to my third and final point.
Third, I want him to argue with me. I respect my dad a million times more than another father I'm associated with because of one key point, I can disagree with my dad and discuss it without repercussion. We have tussled on topics ranging from NBA history to epistemology and back. No one, and I mean no one, can go head to head with me in a game of debate except my dad. That may be arrogant, but I dare you, bring it. However, my dad owns my respect, not only because he's smart, but he is Always willing to participate in a discourse and often takes me to the cleaners.
So, that's my goal as a father. Be who my dad was to me. As I close, I cannot express how extraordinarily lucky (which means blessed) I am to have a dad like mine. I'll be lucky (again, blessed) if my son feels even remotely similarly.
Braves getting a major surge from "Fredo" Freeman. Last night he launched a 1 out, 2 run walk off homer breaking up a shut out in the process. Pretty awesome. Evan Gattis has hit the DL, strained oblique, so that may allow for Beachy to slide into the 25 man easier, but still leaves questions as to who the 5 starters will be. Friday will Teheran vs Peralta, will be awesome.
How do I get that? I don't know. If I did I'd be a billionaire public speaker and author. But I'm going to suggest some things here. Just a few, another short one.
First of all, I'm going to play with my son. My dad has always played with me. He still beats me in basketball, boggle, ping pong and chess on occasion. He and I have spent untold hours doing nerdy things with spreadsheets and baseball stats. Before just recently he was always good for a game of catch, recently he can only sustain one cycle of 2-on-2 a week without shattering into a million pieces...just kidding. kind of.
Secondly, I want to teach him stuff. I like to think I'm pretty smart, I've learned every ounce of what I know (and how to know it) from my parents. With no disrespect to my college-graduate high school teacher mother, mostly from my dad. I love history, philosophy and sports. So does he. I want to get a Master's Degree and maybe a Doctorate, he has both. Am I a daddy's boy? I don't know, you'd have to ask him. We've had our disagreements. Which leads to my third and final point.
Third, I want him to argue with me. I respect my dad a million times more than another father I'm associated with because of one key point, I can disagree with my dad and discuss it without repercussion. We have tussled on topics ranging from NBA history to epistemology and back. No one, and I mean no one, can go head to head with me in a game of debate except my dad. That may be arrogant, but I dare you, bring it. However, my dad owns my respect, not only because he's smart, but he is Always willing to participate in a discourse and often takes me to the cleaners.
So, that's my goal as a father. Be who my dad was to me. As I close, I cannot express how extraordinarily lucky (which means blessed) I am to have a dad like mine. I'll be lucky (again, blessed) if my son feels even remotely similarly.
Braves getting a major surge from "Fredo" Freeman. Last night he launched a 1 out, 2 run walk off homer breaking up a shut out in the process. Pretty awesome. Evan Gattis has hit the DL, strained oblique, so that may allow for Beachy to slide into the 25 man easier, but still leaves questions as to who the 5 starters will be. Friday will Teheran vs Peralta, will be awesome.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
A Theology of Regret
My wife would not hesitate to tell you that she and I come from very different backgrounds. One of the areas that has moved to the forefront of our relationship is our mindset towards decisions. On one hand, I make decisions with irrational confidence. I launch myself towards a door, even if its only open a crack, merely based on a "gut feeling" or "seems like God is orchestrating this." I have no fear of failing, failure is inevitable and the mortar with which we build our lives. Jenni has lived with a different mindset for most of her life. A caution to the extreme which is more concerned with one thing above all else: regret.
Every decision is painstakingly slow if the primary thought is, "I really don't want to pick the wrong thing, what if I regret it?" There are several logical and theological problems with this mindset, and I've been slowing showing my very teachable wife the wonder a life free from worry can be. So, I'll share some of my thoughts here.
I don't want to call it regret-free because that sounds too much like the YOLO, live life to the fullest crowd. But because I don't have a good name for it yet, I'd love your help by the way, I'll call it just that. To be regret-free you have to have certain presuppositions.
First - God is in control. It all comes down to this, the rest of the thought process revolves around God's sovereign authority over everything. From Creation to Christ to the 2nd Coming and Cosmic Ending (oh yeah) we are taught one thing above all else, God > _____. Regret-Free living is "God > _____" thinking. (Copyright 2013 PrinceofSaxony)
Second - God loves you. His sovereignty would be the most frightening truth possible were it not for His love. However, knowing His love compels us to Trust Him. As Paul says in Romans 8:28-29, Saxon Paraphrase Version (SPV) "God has planned out everything for His children's gain, the ones He handpicked and saved and is perfecting to be like Christ."
--- Side note, I prefer to paraphrase scripture for two reasons, #1 - I try not to fill my writing with quotes, this is supposed to be what I think #2 - You don't truly understand something until you can paraphrase it ---
Third - Sometimes there is no right choice. This may be the toughest one for some people to swallow. But lets face it, Big Mac or Double Quarter Pounder? They're both so good and yet they're both so so bad. Poor example, I know, but the concept should be clear, millions of times each day we make innocuous decisions, why fret over them? This shirt or that shirt? Apple or Banana? Apple or Microsoft? (We both know there's a right answer to that one...Microsoft) The list goes on and on. I have seen people, my beautiful wife in particular, slave over such simple decisions because they're afraid of making the "wrong" one. As Kevin DeYoung so elegantly put it, "Just Do Something" (I have the book, haven't sat down and read all the way through it, too busy just doing something I suppose).
So, there's the foundation to regret-free living. Recognizing when a decision is not right/wrong, acknowledging God's love for me, and keeping "God >" at the front of my mind. This leads to the ultimate question, what if two good people disagree on what's right/wrong? How do I know who to listen to? "If I speak I am condemned, but if I stay silent...I am damned." Catch 22s, "rock and a hard place" situations, strain even the calmest regret-free lifer. However, if God is truly in control then no situation find myself in is the "wrong" one. Also, if God truly loves me, then I will be able to handle any difficulty with His help. I don't have to worry that I lost some chance to serve, or lost some reward somewhere, we can't go back in time. Regret leads to despair and in despair lurks death. I would venture that a sizable majority of suicides stem from regret. Granted, some are spurred by impending consequences but the thought pattern that results in the false-escape of suicide most often is a cesspool of regret and despair.
The Theology of Regret also introduces an enormous amount of stress into your life. I sounds goofy, but living regret-free is healthier. Not YOLO, gonna party like the Epicureans, regret-free. But no-regret, make a choice and live in the confidence that 1 Peter 4:19 is true: (SVP) "We endure this life knowing that our King, the Creator God, who we can trust explicitly, is holding us in His hands." regret-free.
Should we regret sin? No. and yes. But mostly no. Did Christ die on the cross for my sin? Yes. Did He die for my sins already committed, that is past sins? Yes. But didn't He also die for the sins yet to be committed? Of course. Does this mean I should go out and sin? Of course not! But, Romans 8:1 reminds us of the most liberating truth, "For Christ's children, the verdict is not guilty." (SVP) Hey, David wept over his sin. True, and he begged for forgiveness. He didn't write a Psalm that said, "People of Israel, I have massively erred and therefore must remove myself from the ministry God has appointed me to and forever be marked a failure in the Christian Life" although if you look around in today's Evangelical circles, you'd think he did. True repentance releases regret. Let that sink in, cuz its HUGE. Place your sins at the cross and let Christ give you the gift of new life. Let me rephrase, live in the freedom and blessing Christ died to secure for you, not in the bondage of guilt Satan works tirelessly to maintain.
Are you living in regret? Stop it, and don't worry about it if you think you are, cuz that's just more regret about being in regret, and it can cycle for awhile, just ask my wife. Instead, change your thinking altogether, through the renewing of your mind by the power of the Holy Spirit, and focus on "God >" and His undying (and dying but resurrected) love for you.
Braves just dropped 3 straight to San Diego, ugh, but we pitched pretty well, just can't get any consistency from the lineup. Nasty, no good, horrible parallels between this team and late 90s Braves teams are cropping up, but I'll ignore them and maybe they'll go away. Home for 3 with the Mets and 4 with the Giants before coming up here to MILWAUKEE!!!! WHIPEEEEEEE!!!! Already gots my tix for all 3 games, come out and support America's Team - if you don't you're a traitor and should watch out for the NSA cuz they're watching you.
Every decision is painstakingly slow if the primary thought is, "I really don't want to pick the wrong thing, what if I regret it?" There are several logical and theological problems with this mindset, and I've been slowing showing my very teachable wife the wonder a life free from worry can be. So, I'll share some of my thoughts here.
I don't want to call it regret-free because that sounds too much like the YOLO, live life to the fullest crowd. But because I don't have a good name for it yet, I'd love your help by the way, I'll call it just that. To be regret-free you have to have certain presuppositions.
First - God is in control. It all comes down to this, the rest of the thought process revolves around God's sovereign authority over everything. From Creation to Christ to the 2nd Coming and Cosmic Ending (oh yeah) we are taught one thing above all else, God > _____. Regret-Free living is "God > _____" thinking. (Copyright 2013 PrinceofSaxony)
Second - God loves you. His sovereignty would be the most frightening truth possible were it not for His love. However, knowing His love compels us to Trust Him. As Paul says in Romans 8:28-29, Saxon Paraphrase Version (SPV) "God has planned out everything for His children's gain, the ones He handpicked and saved and is perfecting to be like Christ."
--- Side note, I prefer to paraphrase scripture for two reasons, #1 - I try not to fill my writing with quotes, this is supposed to be what I think #2 - You don't truly understand something until you can paraphrase it ---
Third - Sometimes there is no right choice. This may be the toughest one for some people to swallow. But lets face it, Big Mac or Double Quarter Pounder? They're both so good and yet they're both so so bad. Poor example, I know, but the concept should be clear, millions of times each day we make innocuous decisions, why fret over them? This shirt or that shirt? Apple or Banana? Apple or Microsoft? (We both know there's a right answer to that one...Microsoft) The list goes on and on. I have seen people, my beautiful wife in particular, slave over such simple decisions because they're afraid of making the "wrong" one. As Kevin DeYoung so elegantly put it, "Just Do Something" (I have the book, haven't sat down and read all the way through it, too busy just doing something I suppose).
So, there's the foundation to regret-free living. Recognizing when a decision is not right/wrong, acknowledging God's love for me, and keeping "God >" at the front of my mind. This leads to the ultimate question, what if two good people disagree on what's right/wrong? How do I know who to listen to? "If I speak I am condemned, but if I stay silent...I am damned." Catch 22s, "rock and a hard place" situations, strain even the calmest regret-free lifer. However, if God is truly in control then no situation find myself in is the "wrong" one. Also, if God truly loves me, then I will be able to handle any difficulty with His help. I don't have to worry that I lost some chance to serve, or lost some reward somewhere, we can't go back in time. Regret leads to despair and in despair lurks death. I would venture that a sizable majority of suicides stem from regret. Granted, some are spurred by impending consequences but the thought pattern that results in the false-escape of suicide most often is a cesspool of regret and despair.
The Theology of Regret also introduces an enormous amount of stress into your life. I sounds goofy, but living regret-free is healthier. Not YOLO, gonna party like the Epicureans, regret-free. But no-regret, make a choice and live in the confidence that 1 Peter 4:19 is true: (SVP) "We endure this life knowing that our King, the Creator God, who we can trust explicitly, is holding us in His hands." regret-free.
Should we regret sin? No. and yes. But mostly no. Did Christ die on the cross for my sin? Yes. Did He die for my sins already committed, that is past sins? Yes. But didn't He also die for the sins yet to be committed? Of course. Does this mean I should go out and sin? Of course not! But, Romans 8:1 reminds us of the most liberating truth, "For Christ's children, the verdict is not guilty." (SVP) Hey, David wept over his sin. True, and he begged for forgiveness. He didn't write a Psalm that said, "People of Israel, I have massively erred and therefore must remove myself from the ministry God has appointed me to and forever be marked a failure in the Christian Life" although if you look around in today's Evangelical circles, you'd think he did. True repentance releases regret. Let that sink in, cuz its HUGE. Place your sins at the cross and let Christ give you the gift of new life. Let me rephrase, live in the freedom and blessing Christ died to secure for you, not in the bondage of guilt Satan works tirelessly to maintain.
Are you living in regret? Stop it, and don't worry about it if you think you are, cuz that's just more regret about being in regret, and it can cycle for awhile, just ask my wife. Instead, change your thinking altogether, through the renewing of your mind by the power of the Holy Spirit, and focus on "God >" and His undying (and dying but resurrected) love for you.
Braves just dropped 3 straight to San Diego, ugh, but we pitched pretty well, just can't get any consistency from the lineup. Nasty, no good, horrible parallels between this team and late 90s Braves teams are cropping up, but I'll ignore them and maybe they'll go away. Home for 3 with the Mets and 4 with the Giants before coming up here to MILWAUKEE!!!! WHIPEEEEEEE!!!! Already gots my tix for all 3 games, come out and support America's Team - if you don't you're a traitor and should watch out for the NSA cuz they're watching you.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
The Kingdom of Heaven
Some thoughts, though not organized well because sometimes I just need to ramble.
Seemingly contradictory statements in Scripture are where most of the major Christian controversies are born. The most discussed in Evangelical circles are Calvinism vs Arminianism, the Atonement, and the Kingdom. The first two I may devote a post or series of posts too in the future, but today I'd like to tackle the third.
The contradictions that introduce the argument come straight from the teachings of Christ, so suggesting that they truly are contradictions is a gross misunderstanding and near-blasphemous misrepresentation of Christ Himself. "The Kingdom of Heaven is like..." beings several Parables which are given directly to His disciples. Couple those with the Sermon on the Mount and several statements Christ made to various people and you get a somewhat hazy but important theology of the Kingdom. Here's the Saxon Paraphrase Bible version.
So, open your Bibles to Matthew chapter 3...
John the Baptist is preaching and he says "Jesus is coming" but he uses the words "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!"
then in chapter 4
Christ preaches the exact same thing as John - "I'm here" but He also uses these words "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand"
chapter 5
He gathers a group of followers, people who were interested in Him because of His miracles, His words and probably curiosity. He describes to them how a Kingdom citizen is to live. He describes a moral person with a love for God and man. He describes someone interested in what God thinks and with a keen sense of the suffering of others. He describes someone who isn't selfish, isn't greedy, isn't blood-thirsty, and most of all isn't prideful. He uses contemporaries (the Pharisees) as an example of how not to be a Kingdom citizen. He is describing a culture, but a culture of ideas and paradigms not actions. When he says "blessed are the poor" He means "happiness comes from spiritual things, not material" when he says "love your enemy" he means "we are in a struggle for souls, not territory, we are not trying to conquer the world, we are trying to convert the masses". This is not a description of thousands of years from then. This is not Heaven in the sense of Zion with the elders, angels, beasts, and the golden streets. This is Heaven, Christ reigning over the people of His church, His own flesh and blood, the Body of the Living King. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
chapter 10
Christ commissions his "army" to go an preach the same thing "I'm here, your King has arrived" using those same words "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand"
chapter 11
The Kingdom of Heaven is filled with Saints, and those Saints are the most valuable things in God's Universe
chapter 12
Christ casts out demons either by Satan (illogical) or by God (logical) and then draws the corollary that if it is by God then the Kingdom is here
chapter 13
starting at verse 24,
The Kingdom of Heaven is like a group of people, some of which are followers of Christ, some of which are not --- and they won't be separated until its time to judge finally.
now at verse 31,
The Kingdom of Heaven is greatness born out of small, specific actions, thoughts and ideas
verse 33
The Kingdom of Heaven should (and will) permeate every aspect of your life
verse 44 & 45
The Kingdom of Heaven should be valued above all else
verse 47
The Kingdom of Heaven will be purified, and the judgement will make sure of it -- this and the sower shows that at first it will not be pure, and that it will need to be purified
chapter 16
Here's where you've got some "contradiction"
Christ hands Peter the "keys to the Kingdom" (seemingly future tense) and then declares that those present will "not taste death till they see the coming of the Son of Man in His Kingdom" (also seemingly future) I think these back me up from my previous claims in the Sermon on the Mount. Christ was telling them that His crucifixion, resurrection (the coming of the Son of Man in His Kingdom) and Ascension were very near (even could be described as "at hand"), so near the listeners would not have time to die.
How do you describe getting saved to a 5 year old? Jesus Christ is coming to live in your heart.
What is He doing there? Reigning. Unlike the sin that before had "reigned in your mortal body" He is King now. The Church is His body and the Kingdom is then/now/then. Or as my dad says (he didn't originate it, just "bleeds it" haha) already, not yet.
So, am I an amillennial, Heaven Forbid! The same common sense approach to Kingdom teaching allows for a common sense Eschatology suggesting that when John describes a 1000 yr period of physical a Kingdom with particular defining aspects (such as Saints judging Angels, the reinstatement of Israel, the bodily reign of Christ in Jerusalem, the binding and eventual loosing of Satan and the final judgment) he isn't drawing pictures.
Next time, possibly I'll address missions in light of the Kingdom mandates, or not I'll see how I'm feeling.
Braves are going through a bit of an up and down stretch. JUpton is mired in a horrible slump which has countered the emergence of Uggla's and BJ's production. It is becoming evident that the reason the Braves are good is because their starting pitching is phenomenal. That leads to a difficult query - who does Brandon Beachy replace? BB was the staff ace, no doubt about it, before he had to get TJ. Now Minor is the 2nd or 3rd best lefty in the NL (Kershaw, Lee, Corbin and Minor is some order), Medlen is the guy who started 25 straight wins last year, Maholm has been stellar, Huddy is a future HoFamer and Teheran has given up more than 2 runs only 3 times over his last 9 starts. I hate to say it, but either Juilo gets sent down or Maholm gets traded, but we better get half the farm and an impact now reliever or Frank's got some 'splainin to do.
Seemingly contradictory statements in Scripture are where most of the major Christian controversies are born. The most discussed in Evangelical circles are Calvinism vs Arminianism, the Atonement, and the Kingdom. The first two I may devote a post or series of posts too in the future, but today I'd like to tackle the third.
The contradictions that introduce the argument come straight from the teachings of Christ, so suggesting that they truly are contradictions is a gross misunderstanding and near-blasphemous misrepresentation of Christ Himself. "The Kingdom of Heaven is like..." beings several Parables which are given directly to His disciples. Couple those with the Sermon on the Mount and several statements Christ made to various people and you get a somewhat hazy but important theology of the Kingdom. Here's the Saxon Paraphrase Bible version.
So, open your Bibles to Matthew chapter 3...
John the Baptist is preaching and he says "Jesus is coming" but he uses the words "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!"
then in chapter 4
Christ preaches the exact same thing as John - "I'm here" but He also uses these words "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand"
chapter 5
He gathers a group of followers, people who were interested in Him because of His miracles, His words and probably curiosity. He describes to them how a Kingdom citizen is to live. He describes a moral person with a love for God and man. He describes someone interested in what God thinks and with a keen sense of the suffering of others. He describes someone who isn't selfish, isn't greedy, isn't blood-thirsty, and most of all isn't prideful. He uses contemporaries (the Pharisees) as an example of how not to be a Kingdom citizen. He is describing a culture, but a culture of ideas and paradigms not actions. When he says "blessed are the poor" He means "happiness comes from spiritual things, not material" when he says "love your enemy" he means "we are in a struggle for souls, not territory, we are not trying to conquer the world, we are trying to convert the masses". This is not a description of thousands of years from then. This is not Heaven in the sense of Zion with the elders, angels, beasts, and the golden streets. This is Heaven, Christ reigning over the people of His church, His own flesh and blood, the Body of the Living King. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
chapter 10
Christ commissions his "army" to go an preach the same thing "I'm here, your King has arrived" using those same words "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand"
chapter 11
The Kingdom of Heaven is filled with Saints, and those Saints are the most valuable things in God's Universe
chapter 12
Christ casts out demons either by Satan (illogical) or by God (logical) and then draws the corollary that if it is by God then the Kingdom is here
chapter 13
starting at verse 24,
The Kingdom of Heaven is like a group of people, some of which are followers of Christ, some of which are not --- and they won't be separated until its time to judge finally.
now at verse 31,
The Kingdom of Heaven is greatness born out of small, specific actions, thoughts and ideas
verse 33
The Kingdom of Heaven should (and will) permeate every aspect of your life
verse 44 & 45
The Kingdom of Heaven should be valued above all else
verse 47
The Kingdom of Heaven will be purified, and the judgement will make sure of it -- this and the sower shows that at first it will not be pure, and that it will need to be purified
chapter 16
Here's where you've got some "contradiction"
Christ hands Peter the "keys to the Kingdom" (seemingly future tense) and then declares that those present will "not taste death till they see the coming of the Son of Man in His Kingdom" (also seemingly future) I think these back me up from my previous claims in the Sermon on the Mount. Christ was telling them that His crucifixion, resurrection (the coming of the Son of Man in His Kingdom) and Ascension were very near (even could be described as "at hand"), so near the listeners would not have time to die.
How do you describe getting saved to a 5 year old? Jesus Christ is coming to live in your heart.
What is He doing there? Reigning. Unlike the sin that before had "reigned in your mortal body" He is King now. The Church is His body and the Kingdom is then/now/then. Or as my dad says (he didn't originate it, just "bleeds it" haha) already, not yet.
So, am I an amillennial, Heaven Forbid! The same common sense approach to Kingdom teaching allows for a common sense Eschatology suggesting that when John describes a 1000 yr period of physical a Kingdom with particular defining aspects (such as Saints judging Angels, the reinstatement of Israel, the bodily reign of Christ in Jerusalem, the binding and eventual loosing of Satan and the final judgment) he isn't drawing pictures.
Next time, possibly I'll address missions in light of the Kingdom mandates, or not I'll see how I'm feeling.
Braves are going through a bit of an up and down stretch. JUpton is mired in a horrible slump which has countered the emergence of Uggla's and BJ's production. It is becoming evident that the reason the Braves are good is because their starting pitching is phenomenal. That leads to a difficult query - who does Brandon Beachy replace? BB was the staff ace, no doubt about it, before he had to get TJ. Now Minor is the 2nd or 3rd best lefty in the NL (Kershaw, Lee, Corbin and Minor is some order), Medlen is the guy who started 25 straight wins last year, Maholm has been stellar, Huddy is a future HoFamer and Teheran has given up more than 2 runs only 3 times over his last 9 starts. I hate to say it, but either Juilo gets sent down or Maholm gets traded, but we better get half the farm and an impact now reliever or Frank's got some 'splainin to do.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Conspiratorialism
Some of my favorite conspiracies, you decide if they're legit.
All of the high profile assassinations and attempts, including Kennedy, Reagan, King, Lincoln etc, have been endorsed by at least a faction of the Federal Government in one way or another.
Sounds pretty far fetched until you start looking at the arguments. First Kennedy, the other shooter of course, but also the rest of the family. Its like a real life Final Destination they're all going to die unnaturally its just a matter of how and when. Which, by the way, is one of the stupidest movie series ever conceived of, but I must see them all. Is it not possible that war with Russia was on the horizon? The Cold War was in full affect. Kennedy side-stepped it nicely a couple of times but could he again? Maybe somebody knew he was done playing around. Maybe somebody knew the next time the Russians pushed he was going to push back. I don't know, just seems fishy.
Ok, what about Reagan? Have you checked his ratings? What a boost that was, to be able to connect to the American people from a Hospital bed. Am I saying he lied to us about it? Maybe. Or maybe an aid thought it would help but kept him out of the loop. He was a professional actor, maybe he just played like he got shot. He was the President, he could fabricate some forms pretty easily. Just saying.
Sure....what about King? Listen, Malcolm X was the real threat. If King hadn't been shot he would've run for President. If he had run for President he probably would have won. If he had been President Malcolm's people would have been in the White House. If you're a CIA analyst and you see that scenario you act fast. Why not shoot Malcolm? They did. The also shot King because he was the figure head that would place the radicals in power. Not saying I would do it, I just see the thought process.
Whatever...you can't say they shot Lincoln? Well, that one is actually the easiest. Booth was a disgruntled individual. The South had been defeated meaning life as he, and anyone else, knew it was about to change drastically. Also, as I've highlighted in earlier posts, Lincoln had made a lot of enemies with his spit-in-the-face-of-the-constitution leadership style. How easy would it be to justify killing a man who was in many ways responsible for more American deaths than anyone in history, to this very day. Hmmmmm...
Convincing right? I don't believe any of that but it interests me when people do. The moon landing? Sure, they faked the moon landing, tell that to John Glenn or Buzz Aldrin and you'll be swallowing your teeth in a second. 911? No government, no matter how corrupt, kills thousands and cripples its own economy to start a land war in Asia (the biggest blunder possible, barely edging out a battle of wits against a Sicilian with death on the line).
Wow, if you finished reading this, you're awesome. Sorry I didn't have much today. Tuesday I'll explain my position regarding the Kingdom of Heaven. Hint, I'm not classic.
Braves swept the Pirates. 7 game lead on the Phils in the East (Gnats are in 3rd!!!!) and indisputable awesomeness. Gattis, JUpton, Freeman and Simmons all belong in the All-Star game. Kimbrel and Minor too. I can only imagine how good this team would be with Chipper, even at his advanced age most experts agreed he could be a valuable platoon candidate, DH or pinch hitter. Maybe he'll come back for the stretch run? I can dream anyway.
All of the high profile assassinations and attempts, including Kennedy, Reagan, King, Lincoln etc, have been endorsed by at least a faction of the Federal Government in one way or another.
Sounds pretty far fetched until you start looking at the arguments. First Kennedy, the other shooter of course, but also the rest of the family. Its like a real life Final Destination they're all going to die unnaturally its just a matter of how and when. Which, by the way, is one of the stupidest movie series ever conceived of, but I must see them all. Is it not possible that war with Russia was on the horizon? The Cold War was in full affect. Kennedy side-stepped it nicely a couple of times but could he again? Maybe somebody knew he was done playing around. Maybe somebody knew the next time the Russians pushed he was going to push back. I don't know, just seems fishy.
Ok, what about Reagan? Have you checked his ratings? What a boost that was, to be able to connect to the American people from a Hospital bed. Am I saying he lied to us about it? Maybe. Or maybe an aid thought it would help but kept him out of the loop. He was a professional actor, maybe he just played like he got shot. He was the President, he could fabricate some forms pretty easily. Just saying.
Sure....what about King? Listen, Malcolm X was the real threat. If King hadn't been shot he would've run for President. If he had run for President he probably would have won. If he had been President Malcolm's people would have been in the White House. If you're a CIA analyst and you see that scenario you act fast. Why not shoot Malcolm? They did. The also shot King because he was the figure head that would place the radicals in power. Not saying I would do it, I just see the thought process.
Whatever...you can't say they shot Lincoln? Well, that one is actually the easiest. Booth was a disgruntled individual. The South had been defeated meaning life as he, and anyone else, knew it was about to change drastically. Also, as I've highlighted in earlier posts, Lincoln had made a lot of enemies with his spit-in-the-face-of-the-constitution leadership style. How easy would it be to justify killing a man who was in many ways responsible for more American deaths than anyone in history, to this very day. Hmmmmm...
Convincing right? I don't believe any of that but it interests me when people do. The moon landing? Sure, they faked the moon landing, tell that to John Glenn or Buzz Aldrin and you'll be swallowing your teeth in a second. 911? No government, no matter how corrupt, kills thousands and cripples its own economy to start a land war in Asia (the biggest blunder possible, barely edging out a battle of wits against a Sicilian with death on the line).
Wow, if you finished reading this, you're awesome. Sorry I didn't have much today. Tuesday I'll explain my position regarding the Kingdom of Heaven. Hint, I'm not classic.
Braves swept the Pirates. 7 game lead on the Phils in the East (Gnats are in 3rd!!!!) and indisputable awesomeness. Gattis, JUpton, Freeman and Simmons all belong in the All-Star game. Kimbrel and Minor too. I can only imagine how good this team would be with Chipper, even at his advanced age most experts agreed he could be a valuable platoon candidate, DH or pinch hitter. Maybe he'll come back for the stretch run? I can dream anyway.
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
At the Movies: Les Miserables *Spoilers*
This is a day late, and as always I'm a dollar short, but yesterday was a full day.
I LOVE the book and musical versions of Victor Hugo's Les Miserables. So I was excited when I heard they were making a movie. I got more excited when I heard Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe were going to be in it. This excitement increased yet again when I discovered it was to be a motion picture version of the musical with full songs and orchestration. That excitement waned a bit when Anne Hathaway was revealed to be Fantine, but I never really liked Fantine anyway so no loss.
I'll address the movie and then the music. The scenery was awesome. The darkness that permeates the story was beautifully represented in the Gothic French architecture and grotesque costuming/makeup. The tragedy of the rebellion, its futility and the fanaticism of its participants was communicated clearly. At least two people related to me wept at certain scenes including the deaths of Gavroche, Javert and Valjean. The last couple movies I've seen Crowe in, he's been fair-to-midland. In Body of Lies he was not amazing and in Robin Hood he was decent but in Les Mis he didn't steal the show which Javert is very capable of doing. I'd give him a C-. This of course does not detract from his exceptional body of work including personal favorites Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind. Jackman was fan-tas-tic. He was not Wolverine, he was not Angier, he was Jean Valjean. Especially early in the film I lost him and was deep inside Valjean's damaged psyche. Great performance, A. Hathaway is not my favorite. Her only good role as of yet is Red in Hoodwinked, which if you haven't seen stop reading this and go watch it, its that good. She was ok as Fantine, definitely had the depression and despair down. At one point I wondered if she was channeling Gollom a little bit when Javert was threatening to arrest her.In any case, I wasn't weeping when she passed, B-. Marius, Enjolras, Cosette and Eponine were all decently cast. They each had strengths and weaknesses, the most glaring weakness being Cosette. As a group I'd say B+. Sacha Baron Cohen is one of those guys that leads me to investigate everything he does. So much funny, so much talent, so little conscience. He managed to be the only character in the film with a French accent which is obviously a plus seeing as every character is French. (Gavroche used cockney, an urban British accent, which is laughably stupid.) The Thenardiers fit the parts and did well in their limited roles, A. The only other character of interest was the priest, played by Colm Wilkinson. If you've heard the songs Jackman sang, you probably heard this guy singing them. He is one of the greatest singers I've ever heard and it turned out was a more than capable actor. Bravo production crew for getting one of the greats, A++.
Now for the music. It was, in a word, meh. However, I did not go into it thinking I was going to be getting the 10th Anniversary dream cast. Which is definitely worth the 2 hours. However, some of the music was well below snuff. Russell Crowe was horrible. Ok, we all knew that. Hathaway was also less than good, but she was emotive, for what its worth, so I tolerated it. Cosette was horrible and obnoxious. In the book and play you're supposed to fall in love with Cosette with Marius. Not happening here. Marius and the other revolutionaries were great. Enjolras in particular had a wonderful sound. I could listen to them sing for long stretches. The Thenardiers were better than I expected, Madame Thenardier (more famously Bellatrix Lestrange) was quite good actually. Cohen kept up. I already mentioned Wilkinson. That leaves Jackman. The whole movie hinged on whether or not he could handle telling the story in song. Not just any song, but some of the most beautiful and extremely challenging songs on the stage. He nailed it. His Who Am I? was breathtaking. His One Day More was very good and his Bring Him Home was good as well. The only complaint is he wasn't Colm and that's not fair to anybody.
So, in conclusion. Great movie, I loved it. Be aware the Thenardiers are dirty people and Fantine is driven to darkness.
On a philosophical note. The musical and now movie, have a cross agenda from the book. In Hugo's novel, contrast is the driving force. Contrast between Valjean and Javert, between Marius and Valjean, between Cosette and Eponine, between Fantine and the Thenardiers, between the revolutionaries and the criminals, and finally (and I believe ultimately) between Valjean and Monsieur Thenardier. Valjean and Thenardier start in the same place - the mud. Valjean asks for mercy, grants grace, gives love and receives blessing. Thenardier cheats, steals, kills, loots and eventually stands alone in the gutter with no one and nothing calling down curses on the God he thinks abandoned him. This powerful theme is completely lost on the comedic character in the musical but you can't have everything I suppose.
Haven't decided what's on the docket for tomorrow, tune in to find out! Now on to watch the Braves and Pirates play the MLB TV free game of the day!
I LOVE the book and musical versions of Victor Hugo's Les Miserables. So I was excited when I heard they were making a movie. I got more excited when I heard Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe were going to be in it. This excitement increased yet again when I discovered it was to be a motion picture version of the musical with full songs and orchestration. That excitement waned a bit when Anne Hathaway was revealed to be Fantine, but I never really liked Fantine anyway so no loss.
I'll address the movie and then the music. The scenery was awesome. The darkness that permeates the story was beautifully represented in the Gothic French architecture and grotesque costuming/makeup. The tragedy of the rebellion, its futility and the fanaticism of its participants was communicated clearly. At least two people related to me wept at certain scenes including the deaths of Gavroche, Javert and Valjean. The last couple movies I've seen Crowe in, he's been fair-to-midland. In Body of Lies he was not amazing and in Robin Hood he was decent but in Les Mis he didn't steal the show which Javert is very capable of doing. I'd give him a C-. This of course does not detract from his exceptional body of work including personal favorites Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind. Jackman was fan-tas-tic. He was not Wolverine, he was not Angier, he was Jean Valjean. Especially early in the film I lost him and was deep inside Valjean's damaged psyche. Great performance, A. Hathaway is not my favorite. Her only good role as of yet is Red in Hoodwinked, which if you haven't seen stop reading this and go watch it, its that good. She was ok as Fantine, definitely had the depression and despair down. At one point I wondered if she was channeling Gollom a little bit when Javert was threatening to arrest her.In any case, I wasn't weeping when she passed, B-. Marius, Enjolras, Cosette and Eponine were all decently cast. They each had strengths and weaknesses, the most glaring weakness being Cosette. As a group I'd say B+. Sacha Baron Cohen is one of those guys that leads me to investigate everything he does. So much funny, so much talent, so little conscience. He managed to be the only character in the film with a French accent which is obviously a plus seeing as every character is French. (Gavroche used cockney, an urban British accent, which is laughably stupid.) The Thenardiers fit the parts and did well in their limited roles, A. The only other character of interest was the priest, played by Colm Wilkinson. If you've heard the songs Jackman sang, you probably heard this guy singing them. He is one of the greatest singers I've ever heard and it turned out was a more than capable actor. Bravo production crew for getting one of the greats, A++.
Now for the music. It was, in a word, meh. However, I did not go into it thinking I was going to be getting the 10th Anniversary dream cast. Which is definitely worth the 2 hours. However, some of the music was well below snuff. Russell Crowe was horrible. Ok, we all knew that. Hathaway was also less than good, but she was emotive, for what its worth, so I tolerated it. Cosette was horrible and obnoxious. In the book and play you're supposed to fall in love with Cosette with Marius. Not happening here. Marius and the other revolutionaries were great. Enjolras in particular had a wonderful sound. I could listen to them sing for long stretches. The Thenardiers were better than I expected, Madame Thenardier (more famously Bellatrix Lestrange) was quite good actually. Cohen kept up. I already mentioned Wilkinson. That leaves Jackman. The whole movie hinged on whether or not he could handle telling the story in song. Not just any song, but some of the most beautiful and extremely challenging songs on the stage. He nailed it. His Who Am I? was breathtaking. His One Day More was very good and his Bring Him Home was good as well. The only complaint is he wasn't Colm and that's not fair to anybody.
So, in conclusion. Great movie, I loved it. Be aware the Thenardiers are dirty people and Fantine is driven to darkness.
On a philosophical note. The musical and now movie, have a cross agenda from the book. In Hugo's novel, contrast is the driving force. Contrast between Valjean and Javert, between Marius and Valjean, between Cosette and Eponine, between Fantine and the Thenardiers, between the revolutionaries and the criminals, and finally (and I believe ultimately) between Valjean and Monsieur Thenardier. Valjean and Thenardier start in the same place - the mud. Valjean asks for mercy, grants grace, gives love and receives blessing. Thenardier cheats, steals, kills, loots and eventually stands alone in the gutter with no one and nothing calling down curses on the God he thinks abandoned him. This powerful theme is completely lost on the comedic character in the musical but you can't have everything I suppose.
Haven't decided what's on the docket for tomorrow, tune in to find out! Now on to watch the Braves and Pirates play the MLB TV free game of the day!
BONUS POST: A's @ Brewers 6/4
Last night had the privilege of participating in the time-honored tradition of going to a ballgame with your dad. I get gas at BP for only one reason, and that reason is free Brewers tickets. I've already gone once this year (see my last BONUS POST) and hope to go at least 5 more times. Pops wasn't busy (at least comparatively) and so we decided to take in a game at the old ballpark.
When the game finally ended at 10:45 pm we were both glad we came. A brilliant pitching performance by AJ Griffin was ruined by some poor relief appearances and series of clutch hits by the Brew Crew. In the bottom of the 10th, Yuni Betancourt walked off with his gapper off of sidewinder Pat Neshek into right that scored the speedy Carlos Gomez from first. Had it not been for the game the 2nd basemen Erick Sogard wouldn't have even attempted to throw him out, it wasn't even close.
Several clutch things occurred to get the game to that point. First of all, Kyle Loshe didn't fold after giving up a pair in the first. For the second game in a row I was walking up the ramps while the opposing team was homering in the first inning. Yeonis Cespedes, who is rapidly becoming one of my favorites, drilled a ball into the right center bleachers with Coco Crisp on base. When we heard that as we found our seats, we figured Loshe would get shelled at that at least there would be a lot of runs. However, he went 6 strong only allowing one other run, an absolutely annihilated missile to right center off the bat of the same Yeonis Cespedes in the 6th. I tweeted "I've never seen a homer leave the ballpark as fast as Cespedes' 2nd, holy #crushed." Check this baby out. It doesn't look nearly as awesome in the video, but it left the park before he reached 1st and never really got higher than the bottom of the scoreboard. Destroyed. But, Loshe still didn't cave.
Secondly, Jean Segura hit a two-rbi triple off of lefty Sean Doolittle in the 8th. The ball barely sneaked by 6'8" 1st baseman Nate Freiman into the corner scoring Rickie Weeks and Nori Aoki. Then, after Ryan Cook blew Ryan Braun away, Am Ram blooped a broken bat single into center completing the comeback and tying the game at 3 apiece.
None of this would have mattered if the following pitchers hadn't completed scoreless innings; Tom Gorzelanny, Brandon Kintzler, Micheal Gonzalez, Francisco Rodriguez and John Axford. Essentially the whole Brewers pen pitched, a pen which is much maligned and for good reason. However, despite Gonzalez loading the bases, each pitched extremely effectively and gave Milwaukee (and Axford) a W.
Fun game. Next one I'm going to will be game 1 of the 3 game series with Atlanta. Marc Tanis should be joining us so that will be fun.
When the game finally ended at 10:45 pm we were both glad we came. A brilliant pitching performance by AJ Griffin was ruined by some poor relief appearances and series of clutch hits by the Brew Crew. In the bottom of the 10th, Yuni Betancourt walked off with his gapper off of sidewinder Pat Neshek into right that scored the speedy Carlos Gomez from first. Had it not been for the game the 2nd basemen Erick Sogard wouldn't have even attempted to throw him out, it wasn't even close.
Several clutch things occurred to get the game to that point. First of all, Kyle Loshe didn't fold after giving up a pair in the first. For the second game in a row I was walking up the ramps while the opposing team was homering in the first inning. Yeonis Cespedes, who is rapidly becoming one of my favorites, drilled a ball into the right center bleachers with Coco Crisp on base. When we heard that as we found our seats, we figured Loshe would get shelled at that at least there would be a lot of runs. However, he went 6 strong only allowing one other run, an absolutely annihilated missile to right center off the bat of the same Yeonis Cespedes in the 6th. I tweeted "I've never seen a homer leave the ballpark as fast as Cespedes' 2nd, holy #crushed." Check this baby out. It doesn't look nearly as awesome in the video, but it left the park before he reached 1st and never really got higher than the bottom of the scoreboard. Destroyed. But, Loshe still didn't cave.
Secondly, Jean Segura hit a two-rbi triple off of lefty Sean Doolittle in the 8th. The ball barely sneaked by 6'8" 1st baseman Nate Freiman into the corner scoring Rickie Weeks and Nori Aoki. Then, after Ryan Cook blew Ryan Braun away, Am Ram blooped a broken bat single into center completing the comeback and tying the game at 3 apiece.
None of this would have mattered if the following pitchers hadn't completed scoreless innings; Tom Gorzelanny, Brandon Kintzler, Micheal Gonzalez, Francisco Rodriguez and John Axford. Essentially the whole Brewers pen pitched, a pen which is much maligned and for good reason. However, despite Gonzalez loading the bases, each pitched extremely effectively and gave Milwaukee (and Axford) a W.
Fun game. Next one I'm going to will be game 1 of the 3 game series with Atlanta. Marc Tanis should be joining us so that will be fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)