davidould.net

It's raining cats and dogs here. So obviously time for this...

Brilliant stuff. Watch this:

Now read this:

John King of CNN wilted under Newt's bombast, but that is not the point. The point is whether or not he needed to wilt. King tried ineffectively to defend himself against Newt's attack by saying that it was another network that had done the interview, and it was one of those things that was "out there" with people "talking about it," gotta ask, journalistic duty, etc. Newt, in bellicose mode, wasn't having any and said to him, on the contrary, "your network decided to lead off with this question, and it was Disgraceful, Appalling, Reprehensible," or whatever words of high dudgeon he used. "How dare you bring moral indignation into a presidential debate! I'll show you moral indignation." The audience was at first agape, and then it roared to its feet. Is he not whacking a liberal? What's not to like?

 

Despicable is not serial adultery. Despicable is asking about it.

I don't think we have seen the like since Woodrow Wilson was a blastocyte. Obama is certainly arrogant, working that little tiptilted-nose-attitude thing of his, but his hubris is an arugula salad kind of pride. Newt works day and night in the great kitchen like a master confectioner of conceit, with one of those thirty gallon stainless steel mixing bowls, making tray after tray of the peanut brittle of brag.
I don't think I could watch an Obama/Newt debate without constantly looking around for the little car that the 13 clowns were going to tumble out of. This is the circus, isn't it?

We are dealing with a high vulgarian, living well above the tree line. We are dealing with an ego of field rank, looking around for Wellington. We are looking at a flyblown reputation, masquerading as something else -- but we should remember that shiny is not the same thing as clean. This is a merchant of buncombe, with everything in his shop priced to move.

As if. But the whole thing fascinates me. My conservative friends in the States are daily bemoaning the lack of a real choice - a fiscal and social conservative who isn't a loon or a serial adulterer.

• Romney - a centrist moderate if ever there was one. The Republican hierarchy might like him but the footsoldiers aren't convinced.
• Gingrich - a man that cheated on and dumped not one, but two wives. I mean, seriously?
• Ron Paul - more a libertarian than a republican. Most think he's in for entertainment value.

Which leaves one guy. Santorum. I'd be voting for him. Yes, he's a Roman Catholic but he makes no bones about it, unlike Romney who fudges the big questions (oh, how good would it be for an interviewer who knew his stuff to press him on Mormon doctrine).

And when he talks "family values" you know he means it. There's a glaring hypocrisy in Gingrich's scathing attacks on Bill Clinton while he, himself, was conducting an extra-marital affair. I don't know how you get past that in terms of establishing integrity - not once, but twice.

What also strikes me is the question of who really is the conservative front-runner. Consider these comments from Santorum at today's CNN debate,

Change.org has a new petition, relating to Queensland's so-called "gay panic" law. Here's the preamble to the petition, written by its proponent, Fr Paul Kelly (a Roman Catholic priest in Queensland):

A loophole in Queensland law allows people accused of murder to defend themselves in court by claiming “gay panic” -- that is, if someone who they think is gay “comes onto” them, the sheer panic they feel is partial justification for murder.

 

This law belongs in the dark ages --affirmed by the High Court in the notorious Green case in 1997, when a man responded to “gentle touching” by brutally murdering his victim.
The killer’s argument was this: “Yeah, I killed him, but he did worse to me.”

 

Just over two years ago, a man was murdered in my church’s grounds, and his killers used this same “gay panic” defence. They were eventually acquitted of murder. I’m utterly appalled that a law that so revoltingly and openly discriminates against gay people is still tolerated in a modern society. Laws like the “gay panic” defence are a crucial part of legitimising and reinforcing a culture of hate which means that 73% of gay and lesbian Queenslanders are subjected to verbal abuse or physical violence for their sexuality.

While almost all other state governments have abolished similar laws, and refuse to admit evidence of non-violent homosexual advances in murder trials, nothing has changed here. Queensland is now one of the last states upholding the idea that a person can be panicked enough by gay and lesbian people to justify murder.  In addition, the mere introduction of this evidence pollutes jury deliberations.  That’s why I am calling on the Queensland parliament and LNP leader Campbell Newman to eliminate this law as a partial defence for murder, and forbid non-violent homosexual advance being treated as evidence in any murder trial. This situation cannot go on.

The page then goes on to link to a number of newspaper articles which are actually pretty light on details as to the exact precedent set and what the current legislation is. Paul does explain a little more on his own church's website:

TAKING A STAND:  Our parish community witnessed a tragic death of a man who was beaten to death in the church grounds so we have a special connection to this issue. We are asking the Queensland Government and ministers to commit to eradicating a Partial defence in criminal law that a
victim had made a homosexual proposition to the offender, thus somehow mitigating against violent bashing that leads to death.  The catholic church teaches: men and women with deep-seated homosexual tendencies must be treated “with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust
discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” (Excerpted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 2358.) The existence of homophobia is rather confirmed by the fact that some people might immediately jump to the conclusion that because a topic involves the word “homosexual” that the church would be opposed to the topic. But if the topic is “everyone deserves freedom from hatred,
violence and the threat of being killed, including homosexuals” then the church certainly would agree with that statement. We are not fundamentalists, we are disciples of Christ. If you wish to add your support to this, there is a Petition set up on line and also in written form. To sign the Petition, see me after Mass.    Fr Paul

...

for a full exposition on the Catholic Church’s teachings on human sexuality, which I and the St Mary’s Catholic parish fully support, please see this handy link.  It also speaks of homosexuality in the full context of the church’s teachings. Sincerely, Fr Paul.

Let me try and summarise the situation:

1. There is a legislated defence of "provocation" in QLD (and, no doubt, similar in other States)
2. There is a precedent (ie not legislated but established in criminal court) that a homosexual advance may be considered "provocation"
3. Thus the petition seeks a legislated removal of a homosexual advance as any defence of provocation, overturning the established precedent
4. Similar clarifications have been legislated for in other States.

As they say in this part of the globe, "good on yer, Paul". Here is exactly the right way for us to be approaching this issue. Paul is, by his own clear statement, fully supportive of the orthodox conservative position on human sexuality and yet he also is rightly convinced that this in no way excuses, let alone condones, any violence towards homosexual people. And so he's set up this petition and I'm delighted to endorse it.

And now some additional thoughts (come one, what else were you expecting?!)...

Here, if ever there was, is an example of a moderately correct usage of that so badly defined term, homophobia. Stricly speaking, "homophobia" ought to be defined as "the fear of something that is the same" but, of course, it is now very often used as a bully-word to portray anyone who is morally opposed to homosexual activity as, somehow, bigotted and irrational. That is, of course, a shameful way to go about debating an issue but is increasingly popular amongst our "tolerant" conversation partners who would far more rapidly demonise their opponents than have to engage in a proper discussion.

I wonder what they would have made of Jesus? Jesus would have been a real problem for them - utterly uncompromising on sin wherever He saw it and yet gracious and accepting of all those who recognised their sin and responded in repentance and faith. Indeed, it was often His gentleness towards them in the first place that prompted their repentance. Yet for many of the gay advocacy lobby He would have been a "homophobe" for firmly endorsing "traditional" sexual ethics. Of course, these are the same people who will (with a delicious irony) chant the mantra (long misattributed to Voltaire - although possibly a distillation of his thought),

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

They don't mean it, of course. They disapprove of what we say and then heap vitriol upon us and try to silence us. It's just a way of sounding virtuous.

But, here in the "gay panic" defence we actually have a clear case (or as clear as that muddled term can be expressed) or "homophobia"- someone arguing that their response to a homosexual advance, their fear of it and anger in response, was a mitigating factor. It is a shameful argument to use and if we, as a culture, truly value the freedom and protection of our people then it must be dealt with. You don't have to be a flaming liberal to agree. After all, look at me and Fr Paul - hardly tie-dye wearing hippies.

This is the "homophobia" that we ought to be standing against and I'm delighted to do that now. And so should you.

Someone tell me if there's a better Michael Jackson homage than this

Once again, a great bit of work. Something to offend <i>everyone</i> here

So a number of people have begun to comment on Tim Minchin's song "Woody Allen Jesus" that was cut from the transmission of the Jonathan Ross Show Christmas Special. For those who haven't heard of him, Minchin is a fabulously talented songwriter/comedian who shot to fame a couple of years ago by winning the Perrier Award for best newcomer at the Edinburgh Fringe Comedy Festival in 2005, following on from a similar award at the Melbourne International Comedy Festival that same year.

So what was all the fuss about on the Jonathan Ross show? Minchin himself explains,

I thought it would be fun to do a song about Jesus, but being TV, I knew it would have to be gentle. The idea was to compare him to Woody Allen (short, Jewish, philosophical, a bit hesitant), and expand into redefining his other alleged attributes using modern, popular-culture terminology.

...

And then someone got nervous and sent the tape to ITV’s director of television, Peter Fincham.

 

And Peter Fincham demanded that I be cut from the show.

He did this because he’s scared of the ranty, shit-stirring, right-wing press, and of the small minority of Brits who believe they have a right to go through life protected from anything that challenges them in any way.

According to Minchin, this is outrageous. Was Fincham right to do so? Well, judge for yourself. Here is "Woody Allen Jesus",

So what do you think? Personally, I thought it was dumb (I'll come to that in a moment) but I'd argue that principles of freedom of speech ought to be at play here. There was nothing outrageously blasphemous here in a way that we don't see all over our modern media. Why pick on this? Perhaps Fincham was worried about the response? Well, he also has the right to decide what's best for ITV.

But that's not my major issue here. Rather I want to spend a little time pointing out 2 other things.

1. Minchin, like so many pop-atheists who fawn over him, is disingenuous about the power (or supposed non-power) of his words.
2. Minchin, like so many pop-atheists who fawn over him, can only attack Jesus by deliberately misreporting and misunderstanding what the Bible has to say about Him.

So, first of all, the power of his words.

Let's be clear. Minchin set out here to insult and ridicule. In his blog post he states,

I thought it would be fun to do a song about Jesus, but being TV, I knew it would have to be gentle. The idea was to compare him to Woody Allen (short, Jewish, philosophical, a bit hesitant), and expand into redefining his other alleged attributes using modern, popular-culture terminology.
It’s not a particularly original idea, I admit, but it’s quite cute. It’s certainly not very contentious...

No contentious? Here's the problem with the pop-atheists - they operate in this universe where their assumptions are unquestionable. It was, of course, a very contentious piece - that was the point of it, indeed that's the point (and even the beauty) of much of Minchin's comedy - it's contentious. It deliberately seeks to provoke and disarm at the same time. SO when he goes on to write,

It’s 2011. The appropriate reaction to people who think Jesus is a supernatural being is mild embarrassment, sighing tolerance and patient education.

he betrays what's really going on. We Christians are beneath him. We're an embarassment. And the claim to "tolerance" is just nonsense - the piece had nothing to do with tolerance but was rather another attack on Christianity itself. It didn't seek to "tolerate" it so much as to seek to further reduce and diminish it - the very opposite of tolerance.

And it's not as if Minchin doesn't know that his words are powerful. In his own (quite brilliant) piece "Prejudice" he sings this,

So never underestimate the power that language imparts
Sticks and stones may break your bones but words can break hearts

In "Prejudice" Minchin makes a powerful argument against racism, but in a brilliantly self-deprecating way. Nevertheless, his point is clear - we can do terrible damage with our words. And so why do we find him deliberately mocking people in "Woody Allen Jesus"? So often for those riding on the pop-atheist bandwagon, the rules are different when it comes to religion.

Second, and more fundamentally, Minchin can only attack Jesus by (deliberately - since he sets himself up as someone who knows enough to offer an opinion on the subject) misrepresenting who Jesus claimed to be and how Christians understand Him. The song is a fine example of the smogasbord of objections that pop-atheists throw out. So perhaps time for some "patient education" as we consider each stanza of the song in turn,

Jesus was a Jewish philosopher, had a lot of nice ideas about our existential fears, much admired by his peers
Short and Jewish and quite political, often hesitant and very analytical

Praise be to Jesus, Praise be to Woody Allen Jesus, Woody Allen Jesus!

"a Jewish philosopher". Classic understatement. "Nice ideas about our existential fears". "Much admired by his peers". Heh

Luke 11:30-31 For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation. ³¹ The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one  greater than Solomon is here.

Does that sound hesitant to you? Hardly. Jesus didn't present as a philosopher, seeking to somehow work wisdom out. He comes across as the audacious dispenser of wisdom, far above the "wise men" of His age. How about this:

Matthew 11:21-28  "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. ²² But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. ²³ And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. ²⁴ But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you." ²⁵ At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. ²⁶ Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure. ²⁷ "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. ²⁸ "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.

Again, note the audacious nature of the claim. You want a "nice idea about our existential fears"? Try out what Jesus says; you're going to Hades unless you respond rightly to me. And the truth of this has been hidden from the supposedly "wise" people of Jesus' day. In fact, more than that, all things are entrusted to Jesus. Somehow I don't think Woody Allen makes those sorts of claims. Far from it. To liken Jesus to Woody Allen is to compare Gary Kasparov to my 6yr old chess-playing son.

Jesus was a great entertainer, doing cool tricks all of the time, turning water into wine, making stormy weather fine
Even now his stunts confound us, kinda did what Derren Brown does

Praise be to Jesus, Praise be to magic Woody Allen Jesus, Magic Woody Allen Jesus!

Fair does to Minchin, it's a nice plug for Brown who is "a prominent sceptic and a pronounced atheist" and mimics paranormal ability. Simply put, he fakes it for entertainment. Minchin suggests that Jesus faked his own miraculous works, for entertainment. But, of course, the gospels all show Jesus performing miraculous works in order to reveal that He is no mere man. So, for example, the calming of the storm,

Matthew 8:27 The men were amazed and asked, "What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey him!"

Who is this man, indeed. Same with the water-to-wine miracle,

John 2:11 This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed at Cana in Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him.

Kinda nothing like what Derren Brown does. And speaking of the miraculous, how about rolling out the old straw-man-back-to-not-really-alive-at-all chestnut:

Jesus died but then came back to life, so the Holy Bible said, kinda like in Dawn of the Dead, like a film by Simon Pegg
Try that these days, you’d be in trouble. Geeks would try to smack you with a shovel

Praise be to Jesus, Praise be to Magic Woody Allen Zombie Jesus, Magic Woody Allen Zombie Jesus!

Except that the Resurrection of Jesus is not portrayed as anything like Dawn of the Dead or Shaun of the Dead, a brilliant comedy homage film about zombies. And zombies are a typical pop-atheist theme rolled out to parody the Resurrection. Which only serves to demonstrate that those making the argument either know nothing about zombies, or nothing about what the Bible says about the Resurrection. A zombie [wiki] is

an animated corpse brought back to life by mystical means, such as witchcraft.

And yet the Bible's account of Jesus' Resurrected body is never that of re-animation. It is far more than that. Yes, there is certainly continuity with the previous body (John 20:27) but it's something far more than that. Jesus has a new body, not the old one zapped up a bit.

1 Corinthians 15:42-44 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; ⁴³ it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; ⁴⁴ it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

A brief word of caution here. The word translated by the NIV as "natural" is the greek φυχικος, sometimes rendered "soul". Paul here is distinguishing between the previously mortal/dying body and the new immortal resurrection body (as I have written on in depth before).

The previous was mortal and corruptible, the new body is eternal and spiritually empowered.

Even Simon knows these guys aren't anything like imperishable, let alone glorious

Curiously, good old Osiris is a zombie when he is raised, his body stitched back together from however many different parts (depending on which myth you source it from) his body is chopped into. On we go...

Jesus ascended into Heaven, He was an incredible guy, you don’t often find fellas that fly, disappear right into the sky
And only once did he use this ability, with great power comes great responsibility

Praise be to Jesus, Praise be to Magic Woody Allen Zombie Superman Jesus!

And here Minchin just ridicules the idea of the Ascension. Aside from mixing up Superman and Spiderman (although it was worth it for the "with great power comes great responsibility" line methinks) there's not much to say. In fact others have noted the Superman/Jesus links before. Of course the Ascension is a one-off, as Minchin observes. But it's not so much an exercise of great power as the demonstration of great power.

Ephesians 1:19-21 ...and [God's] incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, ²⁰ which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, ²¹ far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come.

It's not so much "great" power as "enormous" power. Power and responsibility over everthing.

And if the end of Jesus' earthly life attracts scorn, so does the beginning...

Jesus’ mother gave birth to him without having sex with a dude. No, she would never be that rude, never even be nude with a dude.
Breeding without the opposite gender is commonly known as parthenogenesis.
Other animals that don’t need males include a lot of lizards and various snails

Praise be to Jesus, Praise be to Magic Woody Allen Zombie Superman Komodo Dragon Jesus

Parthenogenesis [wiki],

comes from the Greek παρθένος, parthenos, meaning "virgin", and γένεσις, genesis, meaning "birth".

and, of course, Mary was a virgin. But rather than producing Jesus herself (as demanded by parthenogenesis) there was another source for the divine embryo.

Luke 1:34-35 "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?" ³⁵ The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

It goes without saying that parthenogenesis is unheard of in humans, at least not as a natural phenomenon. If it were to happen then the children would be female, having a double X-chromosome inherited from their mother. So setting aside Minchin's scorn, quite how does one explain what happened to Mary? The Bible's answer is that there was a divine action, the Spirit of God "overshadowed" Mary. And yes, there have been reported instances of parthenogenesis in Komodo Dragons. That's a funny line.

Jesus can communicate with the deceased, like Psychic Sally–
Jesus lives forever, which is pretty odd but not as odd as his fetish for drinking blood
Jesus is in more than one place at a time like an electron or Schrödinger’s feline
Jesus pulled off that water walking miracle, He was as handy as an amphibious vehicle
Jesus had bare feet, long hair, and a beard
Look, I’m not saying it’s me. I’m not saying that I am Jesus. I’m not saying that I am Jesus. I am Jesus!

Praise be to Jesus, Praise be to Woody Allen Jesus, Woody Allen Jesus!
Praise be to Magic Woody Allen Zombie Superman Komodo Dragon Telepathic Vampire Quantum Hovercraft *Me* Jesus! 

It's quite a full bridge and final chorus! Communicating with the deceased? I think Minchin just gave up trying at this point. What on earth is he referring to?

Fetish for drinking blood? Well, again here we have an inability to comprehend what is being claimed.

John 6:53-55 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. ⁵⁴ Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. ⁵⁵ For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

If you read that with a rigid literalism then perhaps you might call it a fetish. Vampirism? Not unless Vampires are now also drinking their own blood. I don't claim to have read any of the Twilight series and only watched the one film I was forced to but I don't think Vampires insist that others drink their own blood.

Jesus Himself has already explained in His own words,

John 6:47-48 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. ⁴⁸ I am the bread of life.

Simply put, it's picture language. To "eat" or "drink" Jesus is to trust him. Nothing more, nothing less. Mind you, Minchin could have a go at the Roman Catholic church with this one.

In more than one place? Simply put, no. Jesus is right now in heaven but dwells in His people by His Spirit. The Schrödinger's Cat line is cute, but hardly the same thing at all. There is no uncertainty about Jesus' whereabouts in the Bible's presentation.

As for walking on water, all I'd say is that if you can do it yourself, Minchin, then you're in a position to mock it. Otherwise calling yourself Jesus is overly optimistic. In fact it's Minchin's last line that exposes just how juvenile the whole thing is. If any line was intended to offend it was the last one. Else why have it in?

Out of the 10 or so "arguments" we might be persuaded to give him half a point on the "superman" line. The rest of it is the usual pop-atheist "sceptic" rubbish.

Now why write this blog post? Am I so outraged by Minchin's  song that I needed to do something? No, not really. As I said I think he's got a perfect right to make whatever argument he wants - if only he had mounted an actual substantial argument. Instead he's provided us with another list of pop-atheist stereotypes and strawmen to bounce off. Don't be surprised if in the weeks to come you hear some of these arguments repeated in the circles you move in. Well now, hopefully, you have the beginnings of an answer to them. Just because they come wrapped in a catchy melody and a winning smile doesn't make them any more deep.

edit: and do note - Minchin does claim to be making a reasonable argument. He tweets,

2nd last: everything in that song is an accurate representation of biblical claims, re-expressed in modern pop-culture vernacular.

— Tim Minchin (@timminchin) December 22, 2011

Rather than "accurate representation" we have weak soundbites wrapped in childish disdain. Does no harm to point that out once in a while.

But it's more than just that. By mocking Jesus and deliberately missing the point Minchin is, ultimately, missing out. He's barring himself from any possibility of truly knowing someone as incredible as Jesus. Of course, he might argue it's too good to be true. But perhaps the next time he comes across something like that the better response might not be to mock that thing, that person, but take a closer look. As things stand his view of Jesus is quite myopic and the only person that really misses out is Minchin himself. Which is tragic. Next Christmas, after all, he could have a far better time than mocking something that he doesn't yet begin to understand and have plenty more incredible reasons to drink white wine in the sun and so much more.

This bit of magic from St Eutychus,

The British Mint is producing a series of sport related coins for the Olympics. This one will be welcomed by husbands/boyfriends/brothers/fathers everywhere.

Anyone know the origin of that diagram?

Great song to kick off the New Year.

Can't tell if Cast [wiki] are Christians. Seems that their songwriter, John Power [wiki], at least leans that way. That's a great lyric:

Two thousand years apart and still remain
You carve into my heart - a sacred name

I'm not sure I'd tick every single box that Piper has here but there's no doubting the force of what he says.