Most people know that I grew up very religious.

(here, I take a deep breath and type very slowly)

In person I’m happy to bring this up and talk about it, because it’s so much easier to gauge the other person’s feelings on the topic. I usually know when to back off or shut up, when someone wants to hear more, and how I should phrase my experiences so that I’m not transmitting any judgment or disrespect. Hopefully, anyways.

Writing about this is far more difficult. Being honest while still showing love and respect is hard enough in most areas of life, and this is people’s raison d’etre. All that’s to say: I dearly hope I can manage to explore this topic with the utmost respect and sincerity, whatever beliefs you (you!) might have.

My religious past is something that strongly informs my worldview. I know what it’s like on both sides of the fence. Usually, that means reading any mainstream (secular) writing about religion is purely obnoxious. The people who feel most compelled to spout are usually those that have no real familiarity with what being part of a church community is actually like. So, it was with a little bit of surprise that I encountered this very decent article on Joshua Harris and the purity movement of the late 90’s early 2000’s.

This was quite the read for me.

As a teenager, I went to multiple purity seminars where I signed my name on a heart to give to God. I went to a bible camp every summer where there were 2-3 sermons every day, half of which were about sex and lust. Joshua Harris was frequently mentioned by folks in these circles and at church – the article does not exaggerate his prevalence in this movement.

One of the core tenets of this ideology of purity is that by having any kind of lustful thought or desire, you are sinning against God. For me, this meant I was in a constant, unending state of sin.

Have you ever wronged someone you love – intentionally or not – so badly that there is no amount of apologizing that would make a difference? The kind of harm that you can only hope that the other person will forgive you for…eventually? You know the way that guilt hangs so heavily from your heart, makes you want to sink to the bottom of the ocean? That is what my guilt over my sin felt like.

It was relentless, inescapable, and all-consuming. For years, I prayed regularly and earnestly for God to take away my lustful thoughts and dreams. I wrote about it in my journals, on my blog, and took up hours and hours of my mentors’ time to anguish about it. And this is as someone who didn’t start having sex until 19 (right around the time I left the church). I barely dated in high school.

Hopefully now you can imagine the strength of my feelings on this topic, having gone and done all of the things I swore not to do, to find that very little of what I was told turned out to be true:

You really can fall in love more than once. There is more than one possible companion out there.

It is possible, and often necessary, to talk openly, without shame or judgment, about past relationships with someone you’re dating.

Sex can be safe. Birth control works. STD tests are accurate. It’s possible to fully trust someone on these issues without being married.

People have wildly different desires and expectations from relationships. Not everyone needs the same thing. For most people, your virginity is not important.

There is no platonic ideal of sex. Sex can be a lot more different than you might imagine and still be perfect.

If you’re with a good person, you will not be loved less for your past mistakes.

Sex is not inherently ethereal, transcendent, or magical in any way. It is made fabulous by passion and creativity.

You might indeed lose parts of yourself through some of your relationships. But this will not dilute you. You will also walk away with a piece of them, too. What they leave with you will make you a far better person than you were before.

These are a few of the things I wish i’d heard as a teenager. What the purity movement gave me was the exact opposite.

I hope that Christianity can embrace sex-positivity, some day. But I’m not holding my breath.


A brief comment on the resignation of Mozilla CEO, Brendan Eich.  In particular, the contents of the quite viral article from Ars Technica are what inspire me to write.  I have one point to make, and it’s a simple one.

Let’s do some phrase replacement with the quotes from the article.

Calls for his ouster were premised on the notion that all [opposition to the Civil Rights Act] was hateful, and that a CEO should be judged not just by his or her conduct in the professional realm, but also by [racial or ethnic biases] he or she supports as a private citizen.

Continue reading chief


If I said that I’ve had enough controversy in the last year to last for the remainder of my life, it would be an understatement and a lie. At this point, I’ve come to accept that for whatever reason, my actions frequently generate drama at a rate that greatly surpasses the national average. I don’t see myself as a dramatic person, but my personality, values, choices, preferences, and circumstances seem to combine with one another in such a way that results in situations where emotions run high, sides are formed, and battles ensue.

This blog has been the platform for more minor battles in the past. This time, however, the myriad details of the catalogue of nonsense that my life has become are not suitable for a blog post. As much as I would love the convenience of updating everyone on all the specifics in one place, there are too many friends I prefer to hold on to, or in some cases, keep a minimum of respect intact. It’s not just about pissing people off, either, but about respecting the privacy of others. No one should have to force me to sign an NDA before being honest with me.

There’s also the problem of objectivity. It’s easy to remain fair when describing simpler situations, but as more players are added to the game, it becomes much more difficult to give appropriate consideration to all relevant perspectives. Sports fans have argued passionately for weeks over who was to blame for the outcome of a single game and yet never reach a definitive conclusion; there is no reason to believe I would have any more success in trying to analyze this debacle. The best I can do is describe a few of the precipitating factors and then provide some illumination on my current course of action.

Continue reading parentstroika


The last month has seen more activity in the Middle East, complete with senseless murders and vast rioting.  Yet again, this has spurred a great deal of head-scratching as to how in the world a feeble insult in the form of a minute-long YouTube video could inspire such a response.  The usual explanations are everywhere: large groups of unemployed and alienated young men, hyper-conservatism fostered through theocratic rule and aggressive media filtering, or America’s incomprehensibly bad relationship with the entire region – there’s so much to choose from.   However, whatever the situation over there predisposes people to feel or do, the fact remains that hundreds of thousands of people were rioting about a YouTube video.  I propose to you that it’s because they aren’t getting trolled frequently enough.

Trolls are a vaccine for the social immune system.

Continue reading pathogen


A foray onto the topic of gay marriage, inspired by the book of faces.  I’d like to take a look at a few ideas that seem to fuel much of the opposition to homosexuality.

  • Strictly defined gender roles

I watched a great Norwegian documentary a few months back that investigated some of the dominant theory in psychology and sociology in Norway, where most explanations tend to favor nurture over nature in the development of the human psyche and society.  Over the course of the series, he demonstrates how the desire to create total equality leads to dogma which rejects the possibility that people aren’t just blank slates.  To the point: as much of the anecdotal evidence suggests, men and women are fundamentally different from one another in certain ways.  This observation forms much of the basis for “ought” statements concerning the genders, but to stop here is to use incomplete evidence.

Continue reading quibble

Of Note

Mike told me about a rather widely-viewed program on National Geographic last night concerning the “Gospel According to Judas”. I hadn’t heard of it, so I did some research.

Essentially, it was found in the mid-to-late 2nd century by a bishop of Lyons, and this date has been verified by all the surrounding evidence. So, it’s definitely old. The “Gospel of Judas” apparantly is told through the eyes of Judas, and suggests the Judas did not, in fact, betray Jesus, but was asked to by Jesus. I haven’t been able to find any manuscripts of it online, but from what I’m seeing, that’s the big “danger” it poses to Christianity.

My initial reaction was mild confusion, whether due to being massively tired or whatever, but I managed to not hold judgement until I got some research done. Lo and behold, it appears to be yet another Apocrypha. For those of you who don’t want to read the article, the Apocrypha are texts from Jesus’ time that have been deemed false. The Roman Catholic church and some Orthodox churches still keep some of the Apocrypha.

The Apocrypha, in general, are massively inconsistent with the basic canonical text of the Bible. In them you’ll find stuff about Jesus getting married and having a child, or various Old Testament stories in which men are worshipped (iirc) with God’s sanctioning. The stuff is pretty blatantly contradictory. That doesn’t automatically qualify it for being excluded from the Bible, but considering that a lot of this stuff was made by Gnostics, I fail to see how the “Gospel of Judas” is any different (the author is apparantly unknown, although it is told through Judas’ eyes).

You no take candle!

This so, so so isn’t ready, but I desperately want to post. I’ve been dreaming about it. I kid you not. This blog is wonderful to me. I love it dearly.

We’ll backtrack from here to then.

I’ve spent the past 3 days pretty much just playing World of Warcraft. I caved in and used Paul’s 10-day free trial, after which I will continue playing. At the moment, I’m a level 13 priest, and I’m thoroughly enjoying it. Very good game. But none of you have waited a month to hear about that.

Work has improved marginally. At this point, I’m basically getting paid to learn/do AutoCAD, which I shouldn’t be complaining about at all. It’s actually been a really good learning experience – I’ve learned how to mail all kinds of packages (I only knew how to mail letters before), stain wood, do stuff at the bank, lots of random things that are kind of useful for every day doings. It has a lot of boring moments though, mostly when I don’t have enough variety in my work. This last project in AutoCAD I’ve been doing has just shot my nerves – every day, something new changes or happens and I have to redo a lot of work. Frustrating, let me tell you. Thankfully, I’m not under any deadline, so nothings going to fail because of me. Actually, the project I’m working on right now is for a building that will be going up where Dominoe’s (that don’t look right O.o) used to be, next to the Gateway Center. It’s a pretty spiffy building. Maybe there’s an NDA on it or something, so I should probably be hush hush….

The only other significant thing in my daily life (e.g. that consumes time) is Jen, whom I still don’t like. She’s mostly house trained, but she’s still a puppy, and thus retains puppy-ness. How quaint.

In important news, Jonothan gets back from Iraq September 15th. He actually arrives back on the 5th (this Saturday), but has to stick around for a many number of days for whatever reason. I’m really looking forward to seeing him. I won’t be able to go down and meet him because it’s 10 days, but, whatev, I’ll see him soon. Before I got WoW, I was playing lots of Zelda (the gamecube version, which I will get to, and OoT), which brought back some great memories from our first Christmas here. We’d get up in the morning over break, grab some hot chocolate and all the blankets we could find, plop down in front of our little monitor and play for many hours. I can’t remember how we worked it out, we probably took turns or something, I dunno.

No word has come in on Christopher’s discharge (still). I’m hoping he’ll be here before Thanksgiving, at this point.

Let’s see….I’ve acquired a job with a cool old Russian dude. He’s a retired professor from Cornell, like 80 years old, so I help him out with gardening and stuff. It lasts basically indefinitely, which is how I’m going to be paying for WoW.

Zach lent me this CD from a band called Bloc Party – it is growing more, and more, and more on me. The lyrics SUCK, basically the same phrase (which was good the first time he said it) over and over (not so good the 8th time). However, the music is excellent, and my constant techno-listening (6 hours a day minimum, thanks to work), I can phase it out and listen to the good stuff.

And now, for the rants that have been brewing for a month.


I can’t stand it.

I can tolerate a literal interpretation of Genesis, but the ID mindset has gone too far. For once, Bush has really ticked me off. As most of you know, I was once a big fan of him, but he’s servicing the “religious” right, giving them everything they want while he has time. I can’t stand it. Whether I’m a part of the people he’s blowing kisses towards or not, I don’t want the tax dollars I am now spending (I pay income tax now! Huzzah!) to go towards a movement to stick a “science” like ID in schools. A Slashdotter put it perfectly: Once the ID crowd are willing to say that the Intelligent Designer (God) is falsifiable, then and only then can ID be considered as a possibility. And I know well enough that it’s impossible for that to happen. Faith is the hope in things that cannot be seen, proven, or denied. As with most things that are written in the midst of emotion, I will probably regret a specific phrase or sentence which does not reflect what I mean. But we’ll see. Open fire.

The Gamecube Zelda.

It sucks.

It sucks majorly.

I could live with cell-shading. I could almost live with playing a child, with child-like characters in a child-like work. I could just about live with the sailing. But not. It sucks. I want the next version, which has been delayed until 2006.

Nintendo, if it isn’t good, I sincerely hope you go down in flames.

I wish you all well on this night. I will slowly improve the blog as I desire, but it’s readable, and that’s what matters at this point.

Part 11-13 of X

Does the Bible condemn astrology?


“Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee. Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame: there shall not be a coal to warm at, nor fire to sit before it.”


“And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars.”

The Bible condemns living by the stars – planning your days, seeing the future, and living by what you see in the stars. There are signs in the stars – the star over Nazareth is a good example.

Should we believe everything?


1 Cor.13:7
“Believeth all things.”


“The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.”

1 Th.5:21
“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”

Hmm….that first quote looks a little short. Context! Here’s the NIV version, because the SAB version would require me to quote the entire chapter to make sense.

1 Cor.13:4-7
“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”

Now, it doesn’t say believe in there, but instead says trusts – this is obviously talking about what love does, not what wisdom or caution does. Ahem.

Does the blood of animal sacrifices take away sin?


“I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”


“For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.”

In the Old Testament, God asked the Israelites to present sacrifices to atone for their sins. These sacrifices were not actually doing anything; they were symbolic of where their sin was going.

These Fries Sure are Loaded…(O.o)

I’ve had a rather interesting weekend, of sorts. Friday was rather enjoyable – Paul came over, we went downtown, expecting a horde of girls to greet us with unmeasurable joy, and were instead greeted with a capella and greasy pizza. I don’t like spelling a capella, it is most unnatural, suggesting something about the genre itself. Ahem.

We came back (he spent the night), watched the Royal Tenenbaums (good movie, not quite as hilarious as I had expected, but good), and Paul still can’t beat me in soccer. I was Cameroon. CAMEROON. I spent the rest of the day basically doing nothing – I rather badly wanted to get Jesse, Benjamin, and Daniel over, but Jesse had no transportation, Daniel was at his last day of classes, and Benjamin did come over, but we had nothing to do. I sat up in the attic reminiscing, listening to music, for about an hour, doing absolutely nothing. It was actually quite nice, in some respects. I cleaned up the attic some more, moved some signs, and, randomly enough, two couches appeared up there. Dad said Louie (Young Life director-majig) left them here, though it’s not known whether we’re keeping them. Either way, they’re here for a while, and it really rounds off the attic nicely – no weird empty spaces.

The 7 days between now and the end of school seem very, very long. I’m not actually looking forward to the end all that much, I just want to be in a place of regularity, so I can sit down and plan things out. It doesn’t help that I still haven’t gotten an answer from Sho’s dad – that decides a lot of what I’ll be doing over the summer. I really hope I get it, I’m really eager for a new computer, moreso than the repairs on the car. Speaking of which, I’m getting the permit Tuesday.

I’ve begun to appreciate some of Jonothan’s massive 1000+ CD collection in the back room – I’ve dug out his Built to Spill and Sunny Day Real Estate stuff, but it’s hard to find anything in a collection that massive. Admittedly, it doesn’t compare to Christopher’s 100GB library, but his is sorted into folders, which you can scroll down. Flipping through books of CDs is a little slower.

And to end, a fitting quote to my anti-SAB series.

Hebrews 4:2 (NIV)
“For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith.”

I wasn’t always a Christian, you know.

Parts 8-10 of X

You want answers? (2, 3) You got answers.

8: Is it okay to drink alcohol?

“It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.”

“Drunkenness … and such like … they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

“And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess.”

There are dozens there, but I chose these three, because they sum up what the Bible says. As with most things, the Bible warns against excess – some alcohol is okay, but drinking to be drunk is wrong. It’s common knowledge that your judgment is impaired while drunk, and that can easily lead you down the “garden parth” (as Mrs. Teukolsky would say).

“Wine, which cheereth God and man.”

“Wine that maketh glad the heart of man.”

“Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.”

Again, it’s not that it’s wrong, only in excess. Proverbs is a book of true sayings, basically quotes that sound pretty and are true. Proverbs isn’t a guide for life, it’s just stating fact.

9: Does God want some to go to Hell?

1 Tim.2:3-4
“God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved.”

2 Pet.3:9
“The Lord is … not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

This, my friends, is the hardest question of Christianity, although poorly phrased. Here’s a short explanation. God loves everyone, but he cannot ignore our impurities. We’re all equally sinful before his eyes. We all deserve Hell. We don’t all get it. Any person that believes in Jesus won’t go there. In more basic terms, the question is asking if God decides who believes in Jesus or not. Short answer: kind of. God made us unique, knowing what choices we would make. He knew what choice we would make when it came to Him. Take with that what you will; this question has no comforting answer. The Lord COULD make everyone go to Heaven, but many of us would not do so willingly, it would be forced. God wants willing hearts. He wants all of us to believe in Him, but He is not going to force us all to believe. This is a paradox – He wants us to choose Him, and yet our destiny is chosen for us. I have not found a satisfactory answer yet.

“Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.”

This sums it all up; it’s all up to Him.

10: How long does God’s anger last?

“He retaineth not his anger forever, because he delighteth in mercy.”

This pretty much sums up the other 2. This goes back to Romans 9:18, which is just above. He has mercy on those of which He will have mercy on. He’s never said His anger is not everlasting. Most of these verses are just contextual – in some cases, it is temporary.

“For his anger endureth but a moment.”

These are the Psalms – they’re like a diary of his walk with God. He’s cursed the Lord in some Psalms, in others, he is delighting in Him. It is his experience.

“Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever.”

The other three actually aren’t relevant – punishment is not anger. You may deserve everlasting punishment, but that doesn’t mean His anger is punishment. He deems that some deserve His everlasting anger. That’s as best an answer as I can give.

Many to go.

Part 7 of X

You want answers? You got answers.

Ex.20:14, Dt.5:18
“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

“Whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

Correct. Adultery is a sin.

“But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

Wait, what? I do believe SAB has some stupidity issues to solve. This is telling them to save those who have not had sex. That’s what “have not known man” means. Duh?

“And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms….”

Not only is this not approving of adultery, it’s not even close to relevant. God commanded Hosea to marry a prostitute, and be faithful to her until death. Even though she ran off dozens of times with other men, he stayed true, and in the end, she was turned.

“Then said the Lord unto me, God yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress.”

I’m impressed by the lack of context they give. See above.

Many to go.

Part 6 of X

Having thoroughly owned 5 minor detail “contradictions”, I’m now going to skip through to general questions. It’s simply not worth anyone’s time to have to go through all of them. I suspect this will entail about 45 more questions, so it doesn’t end this any time soon. If you find one worth considering, tell me.

You want answers? You got answers.

In reality, I shouldn’t dignify this one with a response, but, I know that some want more than logic to disprove these things.

(Humans were created after the other animals.)
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image…. So God created man in his own image.

Chapter 1 of Genesis is the chronological account of God creating the world. This is correct.

(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man’s rib.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them…. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Easy. God created more animals for Adam to see, instead of taking from what was already there. Or, if you don’t like that, consider this: just because God created more animals doesn’t mean he didn’t create them before. Common sense.

Part 5 of 339

You want answers? You got answers.

1 Sam.22:20
“And one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar.”
1 Sam.23:6
“Abiathar the son of Ahimelech.”

Yep. These two references refer to one Abiathar.

2 Sam.8:17, 1 Chr.18:16, 1 Chr.24:6
“Ahimelech the son of Abiathar.”

2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles overlap as far as the timeline goes – Abiathar had sons, and named one of them after his father, Ahimelech. Simple.

334 to go!

Part 4 of 339

You want answers? You got answers.

“By faith Abraham when he was tried, offered up Isaac, … his only begotten son.”

“Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, … and offer him there for a burnt offering.”

These both refer to when God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son. This, for Abraham, was the ultimate test of faith. Isaac was considered his only true, loved son. While Abraham did have other sons, Isaac was his only begotten son. Ishmael, who was born before Isaac, was not his true son, as he was not born of Abraham’s real wife, Sarah. Isaac, who was born of Sarah when she was about 80-90 years old, was God’s gift to Abraham.

“And Hagar bare Abraham a son: and Abram called his son’s name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael.”


“For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son is his old age …. And Abraham called him Isaac.”


“Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.

Again, yep.

“Abraham had two sons; the one by a bond-woman, and the other by a free woman.”

This is hardly relevant. This isn’t saying he had only two sons – if you look at the context, it was comparing the origins of Isaac and Ishmael.

335 to go!

Part 3 of 339

You want answers? You got answers.

“For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory.”

This is correct. Christians are saved not by works, but by their faith in Jesus – so that no man can boast. (Ephesians 2:9) Meaning? I won’t be able to say “I am better, because I managed to save myself from death by being better than you.”.

“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?”

Having read James two or three times, I can tell you off-hand exactly what’s going on here. Let’s get some context first.

“What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.”

As shown, this verse is about how faith is worthless without backing it up – you can talk the talk, but will you walk the walk? This is a great example of why context is necessary.

336 to go!

Part 2 of 339

You want answers? You got answers.

2 Sam.23:8
“The … chief among the captains … he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.”

Let’s get some context in here.

“These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.”

Now that we have the identity clear, let’s look at the next verse.

1 Chr.11:11
“the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time.”

Hmm, it seems they left out an ellipses at the beginning to denote an incompelte quotation. Let’s have some context.

“And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had; Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time.”

Need I say more? In case you’re wondering, Samuel and Chronicles are not tales of the same thing – they go in chronological order. The Tachmonite was David’s captain at the time of 2 Samuel, and Jashobeam his captain at the time of 1 Chronicles.

337 to go!

Part 1 of 339

You want answers? You got answers.


“Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you…. But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.”

This is correctly identified as having 10 disciples having seen Jesus. Since Judas was dead, and Thomas was not present, there were only 10.


“Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him.”

Thomas was present when the angel instructed them to go to Galilee – he went with the disciples to Gililee, but wasn’t with them when Jesus came. It’s not as if there weren’t other places to be in Galilee.

“Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.”

If you look at the surrounding verses, you can see this is a summary of what happened. Jesus did in fact appear to all eleven when they were together – he appeared to ten of them before that, but just because it does not mention that, does not mean it did not happen. The Gospels are different accounts – the authors focus on different parts of Jesus’ life and their walk with Jesus.

Lk.24:33, 36
“And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together…And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

This is a classic case of SAB’s habit of taking things out of context. If you read it with context, you get something more like this.

“Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre;And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive. And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken?”

Here we see a clear account of people (not disciples) investigating Jesus’ grave.

“And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread. And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

These people went and saw Jesus, who was with the disciples already. Taken out of context, the meaning is wrong.


1 Cor. 15:15
“And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.”

This doesn’t even make sense, it’s not even saying that the twelve saw him. It’s just saying that he was one of the twelve disciples.

338 to go!

It’s Not Supposed To Do That (O.o)

When I got home, mom showed me a “self-rising, self-crispening and browning” microwaveable pizza. I opened it up and it had 3 parts to it: a tray, a lid, and the pizza. You stuck the pizza on the tray, which did something, and put this little ring-lid around the edge of the pizza, seemingly to make the crust work. 5 minutes, and voila, I had a pizza that I didn’t work at all for. Laziness has reached another peak, and it is good.


Today was the laughable event of the Day of Silence, a day in which those who “support gays and lesbians” don’t talk. I don’t laugh because it has specifically to do with gays and lesbians, I laugh because it’s just retarded. No, really. Case in point: people are trying to make a ‘statement’, by doing something as passive as not talking. Doesn’t matter what you’re trying to make the statement for, it’s stupid. All this does, and I support this as a fact, is say that you’re trying to make a statement, and even that might be a stretch. Most people don’t notice.

Another aspect of this is that no other “group” has a day in which people state they support said “group”. Don’t try and tell me gays and lesbians are being persecuted – so have Jews, so have Christians, and to a far worse extent. This is life, deal with it, without making akward ‘statements’, that accomplish nothing in the first place.

EDIT: i must admit, upon reviewal of the evidence, the method works. but, this does not end the discussion on homosexuality. post on!


I’ve gotten into the habit of leaving my computer on while I’m at school, so I can listen to the music on the server during Programming (and occasionally PoE). I tested it out for the first time today, didn’t work well because the PoE computers don’t have speakers, so I may bring one (singular) in for that purpose. We’ll see.

As for Chaos Theory, I’ve gotten four of the levels beaten on 100% so far, about to start the fifth momentarily. I’m hoping for some kind of special reward here, but, I doubt it. I haven’t heard any mention of it before, so, chances are slim. One can hope.


School was generically okay, nothing special to mention. Today did mark that I officially have 2 days of school left before Spring Break. I haven’t needed a break this much for a while, although I could probably operate a few weeks more on my current level of motivation. The only other thing of note in school is that we took a survey today, mostly on drugs/alcohol, with a short bit on sex. Supposedely, the results go to a national average. I was kind of surprised, that the school would do something as pro-active as this, as in, getting some answers from the 1500-2000 students. The survey itself wasn’t very interesting – the first 50 pages of questions (the amount per page varied, they were grouped by type of answer) were ALL on drugs and alcohol, and there were app. 70 pages. It was kind of interesting as a whole though, considering I know a handful of people who are heavy on the drinking, and know of dozens of people who, uh, seem to be stuck on the weed, as it were. We also have a group of people (hicks) that stand outside on the corner of IHS, smoking cigarettes. How stuff like this happens, and continues to happen, I don’t know.

On to Hokkaido!

Evolutionary Napping (…)

This week has sucked. Not in that “oh teh woe is teh me, my girlfriend has left meeee” or “omg world must die omg”, but that “i’m tired, i’m hungry, i’m cold, and i’m still not done with my homework” kind of way. I’m not actually cold, or any of those right now, but that’s the general feeling I’ve had all week. I’ve had no time to socialize during the week. Monday through Friday have been spent hard at work improving those grades I got.

  • German 3H, Bronfenbrenner: D
  • Math 10H, House: C
  • Principles of Engineering, Peters: Passing (probably A or B)
  • Global 2H, Rumney: C
  • Programming 2, Teukolsky: C
  • English 10H, Asklar: F
  • Chemistry, Smith: D
  • PE, Palmer: B

These are officially the worst grades I’ve ever recieved in my lifetime. My first D’s ever, my second F ever (first was last quarter, remember), and the most C’s ever on one card. Unacceptable, to say the least. The grades have all risen by about one letter by now (that’s how much I’ve been doing). You know what? I’m gonna say it again. I hate Mary, German, I hate it all. Every time I step into Ms. Smith’s room I want to shoot myself, just from listening to her for 45 minutes. That counts for an entire month’s worth of being emo, so I’ll stop there.

In addition to fixing grades, which have caused the generic lack of sleep, and an increased hunger, other things have been happening. Most important of all is that of a recent reform to my creationist beliefs. I was what is knows as a YEC (young-earth creationist, they believe God created the world in a 6-day period, instantaneously). Due to recent evidence I came across while doing research for a bible study lesson I was teaching last Tuesday, I’ve changed my opinion rather drastically. I had previously had good faith in the Big Bang, simply due to the empirical evidence already available, but had not actively pursued trying to apply it to the Bible. Upon reading, I came to the conclusion that the Big Bang and Evolution work in a Biblical context – they are not the enemies of common Christian theology. You have to know my history to understand how big of a change this is. You’re reading the blog of a boy who stood up in front of his 7th grade Life Science class to debate evolution, and had several almost heated discussions with his teacher. This is a guy who’s argued with at least a dozen people over the physical evidence for evolution, almost on a regular basis. I really believed evolution had been disproven and was prepped to collapse in on itself. I didn’t just change all that in a moment, you see. It’s taken a good 20-25 hours of researching this week to get me to a point where evolution is believable in a scientific context. I still have my doubts, and I may not accept evolution in the end, but it’s comforting in a lot of ways knowing that I don’t have to fight it anymore. It sapped a lot of energy from me, always arguing and struggling against my friends over it. If nothing else, I’ve gained a more open mind. If you’d like to see my resources on this, just give me a line, I’ll be glad to show you. For now, I supply to you a rather important verse on which this is based.

Romans 1:20
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

This is giving away a little bit of the bible study lesson I’m doing next Tuesday, but basically, God has not put anything in Creation that would be a road block for someone coming to faith. Everything we see is evidence of him, not against him. I’ll get off my soap box now.

Other than that, I’ve just been plain busy. I took a nap after I got home today, and went to Sho’s for an hour. That was a little akward, it’s a little hard to describe, but suffice to say, it was akward. And with that, I take me leave to continue playing Mario RPG.


Halo 2 owns, I’ll bother with a real update later. I have a final gay marriage conversation, with Paul. It’s the 5th one (4th one is one Zach’s blog). When I was debating this whole thing with Kevin, I knew all my reasons, but it seems I’ve just forgotten them. I had a legitimate argument, I just burned myself out on this particular topic. Oh well. Because this one is short, it’s getting posted directly.

[20:52:53] Salandarin: paul…
[20:52:54] Salandarin: “Maybe it’s because he doesn’t have an argument besides “God hates fags”.”

[refer to comments on zach’s blog]

[20:52:56] Salandarin: come on man
[20:53:11] Lemonadeyeti: what’s your argument?
[20:53:21] Salandarin: it’s certainly not that.
[20:53:24] Lemonadeyeti: what is it?
[20:53:59] Salandarin: why does it matter? you’re just gonna transform what i say into opinionated Christian-isms
[20:54:20] Lemonadeyeti: do you want to tell me what it is? because if you don’t, then I’ll think you don’t have one.
[20:54:25] Salandarin: i never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever said God hated anyone.
[20:54:44] Salandarin: you know I have one. i have four arguments on it.
[20:55:05] Lemonadeyeti: tell it to me…
[20:55:59] Salandarin: no. you know why I don’t want to? because it’s not gonna make a difference. it’s gonna set you deeper in your belief that I’m in blind believer in something that doesn’t exist, and that I’m trying to legislate morality and my beliefs.
[20:57:43] Lemonadeyeti: ok, you took offense to my comments. they were insensitive and inappropriate, and for that I apologize. I know you are very religious and faithful, something I could never be, and I respect that.
[20:58:05] Lemonadeyeti: but I don’t see your argument outside of religious/moral standpoint and if it does exist I would like to know it.
[20:58:16] Salandarin: thank you
[20:59:19] Salandarin: my personal goal would be to remove marriage benefits, and just seperate marriage from the government. that way marriage is back at the origin/foundation of religion.
[20:59:44] Salandarin: the government can supply civil unions for those who want marriage outside the church.
[21:00:09] Lemonadeyeti: marriage is an ambiguous word because it is sanctioned by the government
[21:00:19] Salandarin: doesn’t matter.
[21:00:32] Salandarin: if it weren’t sanctioned, we’d be better off
[21:00:44] Lemonadeyeti: as it stands now, marriage based on sexual preference is discrimination, because it is not limited to only christians/ those of specific other faiths
[21:00:58] Lemonadeyeti: if it were to be run by the church, then it wouldn’t be
[21:01:10] Salandarin: what’s your point?
[21:01:52] Lemonadeyeti: my point? as long as marriage is a governmental institution it shouldn’t be limited by the specific beliefs on a single faith
[21:02:26] Salandarin: and you’re right. morality from any one point of view cannot be enforced.
[21:02:31] Salandarin: and should not.
[21:03:32] Salandarin: i’ve given up on arguing over gay marriage. personally, i don’t want it to happen, but, there’s nothing I can do.
[21:05:44] Salandarin: are we clear?
[21:05:56] Lemonadeyeti: transparent.

I am still opposed to homosexuality in itself, for reasonsbeyondmy faith. If you want them, ask me.



Today was pretty good. I woke up at 8:00, and I was like “Meh, I’ll take my time.”, so I got to school at about 8:45. Most everything in school has been going pretty well, though Chemistry is SNORE-TASTIC. I slept a little bit in there, as it’s just so boring and easy to understand. I had a much more extensive and interesting debate over abortion with Paul. We ended on the note of having to discuss Evolution, which will be understood once you’ve read it. Semi-long.

Abortion #2

Much more detailed, and probably a little more interesting. As a side note, if you wannaflameme for my beliefs, don’t do it on my comments. I just gets annoying having to do it over the comments system. If you have a question or something to add as support or counter-point, go ahead, but don’t flame.

[2012 edit: looks like these gems are lost forever]

I’ve had so many conversations it’s ridiculous. So many arguments. This is getting out of hand. But I’m gonna let it go on, because it’s interesting. If you feel the need to discuss or debate with me on anything, go RIGHT ahead. Don’t let anything stop you. But don’t be stupid. I don’t wanna see a lot of misinformed Bush-bashing.

That being said, I have a few recent conversations to show you.

Gay Marriage #1

Gay Marriage #2

Abortion #1

My disclaimer for talking over IM – the conversation, unless overtly personal, will get posted on here.


[2012 edit: looks like these gems are lost forever]


I just felt like sharing a conversation I had with Greg tonight, because it helped me understand a bunch of stuff. And I’m in a really good mood. So here you go.

[21:22:22] Steak220: and he asked the most OBVIOUS question i should have been able to answer off the beat
[21:23:36] Steak220: “god hates us because we sin?” “no, he loves us despite that.” “he loves us even though we sin, no matter what we do?” “yeah” “so we can do whatever we want?” “err….”
[21:23:36] drakos7: and you choked, eh.
[21:23:55] Steak220: it’s a question i always stumble on, and I can enver give a good answer to
[21:24:48] Steak220: i’ve been told like twice before how to answer it, but i always forget
[21:28:21] drakos7: You need to remember the essence of the gospel and always go back to it. Prevent them from wandering off to their own topics.
His love is based upon what Christ did on the cross, and not what we do. BUT, what we do shows how much we love God. Anyone actively commiting sin would be greatly deceived if they thought they were redeemed. AND, God’s love says nothing about God’s chosen for salvation. Difference between mercy and grace. God not punishing is mercy (not gettng what we deserve), God giving eternal life is grace (gettin what we don’t deserve).
[21:30:33] Steak220: i don’t quite understand
[21:30:41] Steak220: like..
[21:30:43] drakos7: what part?
[21:30:56] Steak220: God’s love is based on how much we show our love for him?
[21:31:12] Steak220: i don’t think that’s true, but that’s what it seems like from what you said
[21:32:43] Steak220: i mean, you can fall into sin, and still truly believe in God, can’t you?
[21:32:48] drakos7: My very first sentence of that paragraph: His love is based upon what Christ did on the cross, and not what we do.
[21:33:03] Steak220: right, but also look at
[21:33:09] Steak220: “Anyone actively commiting sin would be greatly deceived if they thought they were redeemed.”
[21:37:27] Steak220: this is what i don’t really get
[21:37:50] drakos7: right. If you are actively pursuing some(or many) sin with no repentance, should you really hope that you are redeemed? If God’s love abides in us, then we know Who we belong to. There is no scriptural evidence that unrepentant sinners will receive mercy or grace. The calloused heart is easily decieved.

Now, what about “assurance of salvation” and “perseverence of the saints” you may ask. Those who persevere are obviously saints. Those who eeke by are still saved “but as through the fire”. Still saved but not pretty.
[21:38:30] drakos7: And like I said in SS, we cannot ultimately arbitrate who gets in.
[21:38:35] Steak220: so your faith isn’t permanent?
[21:39:04] Steak220: i was always taught that if you believe once, that’s all it takes
[21:39:53] Steak220: like, taking shelter in Jesus’ death sort of kept you there from that point on
[21:46:03] drakos7: yes. but what if the object of your faith is not real? what if you believe with your whole heart that Jesus saved you but you also believe that Jesus=ReverendMoon? In that case you would be sincerely believing something that is not worth believing in. Many “accept Christ” just because of the social benefits, fear being punished eternally, did not have a father figure, … They are often trusting in something in their own imagination (or someone elses) and not in the Jesus of scripture (and reality).

So that is why we talk about objective faith, that we have a specific object in mind and we need to know who that is.

Yes, I do believe that some truly trust in Christ and then are ensnared by Satan and his minions. They are still saved, no doubt, but are not glorifying God.

So when I say “actively commiting sin greatly decieved” it can only be directed to one’s own heart and not applied to others. I need to search my own soul and decide whether running amok is a sign of the Spirit in me. Does that help at all?
[21:47:15] Steak220: i think so
[21:47:44] Steak220: i understand the whole first part
[21:48:09] Steak220: but what do you mean objective faith? faith that is in the eye of the beholder?
[21:49:36] Steak220: and when you say actively commiting sin greatly decieved
[21:49:40] Steak220: you mean, decieving yourself?
[21:55:24] drakos7: objective: that the object is true. you believed that before you sat down that the chair would support your weight. Now if I had snuck in and sabotaged it, your faith would still be the same, but the object would be faulty (and you would plummet!) so if the object of your faith is an idol, no matter how sincerely you believe, and even if the name is Jesus, then, well… You can come up with numerous analogies along these lines because in truth, we live most of our lives in faith. Faith that our water is not poisoned, faith that our car will not blow up, faith that the bus’s steering will not fail, …

yes, deceiving yourself (and quite possibly/often deceiving others as well). If I claimed Christ but tried starting a cult of highschoolers who would take over Ithaca at gunpoint, my Christ is not the true Lord of scripture.