Back Home

Checking In

On prophetesse Annette Legion. Is UK going to the Final Four?

Thinking Ahead

If you read my Tumblelog, you saw the link to the "Miraculous" Jesus Nightlight, which I dubbed the "creepiest piece of kitschy Christian crap I’ve ever seen." And I've seen a lot of Christian crap.

For a good commentary on "Jesus Junk", read this post by Jason Janz. And this Post Secret entry.

The creepy part about the nightlight is their claim that the 3-D image of Jesus "appears to move & follow you wherever you walk in the room." They say "Your children will love this nightlight, as Jesus appears to be watching over them wherever they are. Your children may (like mine) receive comfort, security, and relief from those sleepless and scary nights."

Or, it would absolutely freak them out. One or the other.

I'm actually tempted to hang one of these over Ali's bed while she's sleeping, then wait to hear her reaction when she wakes up. But I think I'll have enough therapy to pay for as it is.

The whole point of this rather rambling post is to share a fantastic observation. Julie wrote me this morning, saying:

John (her husband) says we should get one for our daughter's room to guarantee she'll never have sex in there. Maybe you should get one for Ali and Kaylee, too. An ounce of prevention and all that...  (-:

I ordered three. Just to be safe.

 

Guess We Won't Have To Wait

Remember a few months back when I posted about a supposed prophet who had foreseen her son going to the University of Kentucky and eventually leading them to the NCAA basketball championship? Well... turns out he's transferring out of UK. I guess when she said, "I have spoken these things into existence" it was more of a suggestion.

And I can delete my reminder post to check back in a year and half.

There's a litany of theological lessons to derive from this story, but I'll hold off. However, is anyone else weirded out their last name is "Legion"?

The Value Of Ethics

If you hadn't noticed, I generally try to steer clear of "the big two" on my blog—religion (which I differentiate from my personal thoughts/convictions with the "Religion" and "Faith" tags) and politics. And while what I'm going to write about sounds like politics and religion, my post isn't really about them, hence the title. Although in this case they are at least roommates.

In case you missed it, stem cell researchers finally were able to turn skin cells into stem cells and then cultivate them into a variety of other mature cells. Now, if you've been up on this stuff, it isn't really new news, per say. Back in 2005, the Washington Post reported:

Scientists for the first time have turned ordinary skin cells into what appear to be embryonic stem cells -- without having to use human eggs or make new human embryos in the process, as has always been required in the past, a Harvard research team announced yesterday.

But the stem cell issue has been a hot button issue since Bush vetoed creating new embryo-destructive stem cell lines using government money in 2001. His decision had two purposes: to stop what he felt was ethically wrong (destroying embryos), but also to pursue that which he believed in, the medical promises of stem cells. Now, six years later, we can see both of those goals realized.

It is interesting me to see that it was only because of Bush's ethical convictions that the second possibly has happened so quickly. If he was to have signed off on full embryonic stem cell research, that is most certainly where most of the work and money would have gone. It was the highest profile segment of the science, after all, and the one that (at the time) showed the greatest promise. And as there is a limited amount of man hours and money to go around, skin cell research would have invariably been set back.

So here we have an example of how an ethical decision impacts both the science and the politics of a potentially life-changing discovery for the positive. And because Bush, and many others, refused to accept embryonic stem cell research as the only way, an alternate discovery was made that is not only bereft of the moral issues, but is actually easier to implement scientifically.

I liken it to those who pursue renewable resources because they believe that depending on things like fossil fuels is just not an option. It's the same idea applied to a different issue.

I came across a piece of transcript from a discussion on a "Special Report Panel" the other night about this very topic that got me thinking about all this.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: This is one of the great discoveries of the last half century. This is the holy grail of stem cell research, and the reason is that it is so elegant and simple.

And that's why the old technique, the one that has the arguments about the use and destruction of embryos, the one that has been held up because of that, it will become rapidly obsolete.

And the reason is under the old technique, it was very complicated. You had to get eggs out of a woman, which you had to induce her with hormones. You had to have a surgical procedure to remove eggs — not dangerous but complicated, expensive.

Then you have to remove the nucleus of that egg, take a stem cell, take a skin cell from someone, inject the nucleus. You grow a small embryo, you detach stem cells, and you grow it — very complicated.

Here, what you do is you take a skin cell, you inject four genes, and it becomes presto, by magic, an embryonic stem cell, which can become skin or bone or liver or brain, or anything. It's truly a miraculous discovery.

And the irony is that the research this research was undertaken, part of it is, and the researchers in Wisconsin who collaborated on this and who did an independent study, were funded by the Bush administration's National Institutes of Health.

Funding the research, because the president imposed an ethical constraint on embryonic stem cell research —

BRIT HUME: And then paid for these guys to go out and look for alternatives.

KRAUTHAMMER: Which ended up being not only more ethical, but more elegant, and simple, and reliable. And it's going to be the new wave, and the old issue will be abolished. That ethical debate will be a moot issue in a couple of years.

...

FRED BARNES: [Embryonic stem cell research] was morally objectionable to a lot of people, including myself. And if you can get around that and you don't have to do that, then I think you are ahead of the game.

President Bush was called "anti-science," remember that? He was called "anti-science" because he said let's try this other track.

Remember, he funded a number of lines of embryonic stem cells. He didn't want to expand the funding into the future, but it was more than anybody else had funded it. And now this comes along.

HUME: As a result of research that his government supported?

BARNES: Yes.

And, remember, Congress barred — was asked to fund research into this alternative embryonic stem cell research, and Congress voted it down.

The people who were doing this with embryonic stem cells are not going to want to give it up. There being funded for that. This is what they have been pursuing as scientists, and it is going to be hard for them to accept the fact that they've been leap-frogged here.

And, secondly, if you say that it's morally objectionable to kill these embryos, you're also saying abortion is morally objectionable.

HUME: You think that is at the root of this?

BARNES: I think that is at the root of this.

KRAUTHAMMER: It ended up as a surrogate debate about abortion. I was on the president's council of bioethics, and we felt as if we were simply re-treading in a different forum the abortion debate, which made it intractable. But the reason all of this, I think, is going to go away is because there are a thousand labs today that could start on this new technique because it's so simple. There aren't a lot that could do the old technique, which involves all those complicated steps.

So if you're a research lab, they will be jumping in now to try to reproduce this. And I think it will yield the results which will be really salutary.

What strikes me is the contrast between the moral arguments for embryonic protection verses those in favor of "pursue anything, at any cost, that might possibly advance science". There are reasons why we have ethical guidelines. And the value of them isn't just in what we may stop from happening, but the better solutions which may come from following our ethics.

To add an ironic end to this tale, some of the very reporters that heralded stem cells as a modern miracle are now finally realizing/admitting (as some scientists have been saying all along) that the hype they've helped foster has been much bigger than the potential applications.

Is "Prophetesse" A Word?

The "sign" gifts (prophecy, healing, tongues, etc) are something I've been studying a bit lately. So an article with the headline, "Basketball Prophesies: UK player's mom sees Final Four" caught my attention. It's about the mother of University of Kentucky basketball freshman Alex Legion. She claims to be a modern-day prophet and spirit-filled evangelist.

There's an interesting part to her prophecy that the journalist is quick to point out:

"The Lord has shown me: They're going to the Final Four," she said, before adding a qualifier, "providing they play together."

Let's be clear about what's going on. This woman is claiming that the almighty God spoke to her directly and she is relaying his message. Now, when the OT (and the few NT) prophets spoke like this, they were never wrong. The word of God is infallible and inerrant. And usually doesn't contain qualifiers other than, "If you repent, all this bad stuff I just told you will happen may not."

It would take a lot of time to discuss why she is not a prophet, even if UK goes to the Final Four. But if they don't, it's real easy to show that she's a false one.

I'm not sure what the overlay in the Venn diagram is between people that believe her and people that gamble on college basketball, but if you're one of 'em, place your bets now. Because I'm setting a future post to pop up the day before the first game of the 2009 Final Four to remind us all.

That Was A Close One

You scored as Martin Luther, The daddy of the Reformation. You are opposed to any Catholic ideas of works-salvation and see the scriptures as being primarily authoritative.

Martin Luther 87% Karl Barth 80% Anselm 73% John Calvin 67% Jonathan Edwards 47% Friedrich Schleiermacher 47% Augustine 33% Jürgen Moltmann 13% Paul Tillich 13% Charles Finney 0% Which theologian are you? created with QuizFarm.com

Compare & Contrast

I honestly try not to preach too much religion on here, but this one gets under my skin and I think contributes to a vast amount of confusion and, frankly, presents a false gospel. See, on one side we have Titus 3:4–7:

But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

and Hebrews 10:10–14:

And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (emphasis mine)

And on the other, we have the Roman Catholic church offering indulgences "for sins that have already been forgiven" to shorten your soul's time in purgatory before reaching heaven.

So, mercifully saved and justified by grace, freely giving us eternal life or... working your way to heaven. Your choice.

And just for good measure, I'll throw in some Augustine:

Though we brethren die for brethren, yet there is no blood of any martyr that is poured out for the remission of sins. This Christ did for us. Nor has he in this conferred upon us matter of imitation, but ground of thanksgiving.

and

As the only Son of God became the Son of man, that he might make us sons of God, so he has alone, without offense, endured punishment for us, that we may through him, without merit, obtain undeserved favor.

Quotes taken from John Calvin's study of Colossians 1:24–29.

It comes down to this: either Jesus was a perfect savior whose sacrifice saves perfectly OR God created a "plan" to follow that is dependent on us for completion. And in the words of Rick Elias, "If I could have, I would have saved myself, and I wouldn't need you like I do."

HT: Pro Apologian for the indulgences article

JC B-Day

A happy birthday to the departed John Calvin. Born July 10, 1509 in Noyon, France, he'd be 498 years old today. Quite a feat, had he accomplished it. Lucky for him, he did some other good stuff to make up for his lack of Methusalaic longevity.

Turns out things haven't changed so much in 400 years:

For if in broad daylight we either look down upon the ground or survey whatever meets our view round about, we seem to ourselves endowed with the strongest and keenest sight; yet when we look up to the sun and gaze straight at it, that power of sight which was particularly strong on earth is at once blunted and confused by a great brilliance, and thus we are compelled to admit that our keenness in looking upon things earthly is sheer dullness when it comes to the sun. So it happens in estimating our spiritual goods. As long as we do not look beyond the earth, being quite content with our own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue, we flatter ourselves most sweetly, and fancy ourselves all but demigods. Suppose we but once begin to raise our thoughts to God, and to ponder his nature, and how completely perfect are his righteousness, wisdom, and power -- the straightedge to which we must be shaped.

From Institutes of the Christian Religion

Debating God

Theologian Douglas Wilson and atheist Christopher Hitchens had an email debate prompted by the question "Is Christianity good for the world?" Christianity Today has kindly collected the missives for us. I've only read the first volley so far, but it's very interesting and thought provoking.

The Ten Comizzles

In a discussion of whether or not to number a prop of the Ten Commandments with Roman or Hebrew numbers, one poster made this comment:

use good ole 1-10 and then spice it up with your local drawl...
for instance, in my neighborhood, it might be more relevant like this...

1. yo, don't be worshippin' no other godz
2. American Idol ain't fo' real check it
3. you talk to your mama with that mouth?
4. chillax it easy
5. you talk to your mama with that mouth?
6. no cappin'
7. keep it in ya own crib, you feel me?
8. That ain't yours
9. you talk to your mama with that mouth?
10. Seriously, that ain't yours...