This has always bothered me. If instead of, or in addition to, going out and telling the son who’s feelings were hurt to go inside and be happy the father had (also) told the prodigal son to go out and speak to his brother, would the two brothers have been reconciled?

I think, yes.

I was having a great discussion with a few friends this week about Christianity, and God. One of the things that was brought up was the question of whether or not everyone “automatically has the Holy Spirit” or not. I believe it is pretty firmly established in the Orthodox Faith that you do not have the Holy Spirit until you are baptised (and chrismated?). However, no one should just hear, “It’s firmly believed by the Orthodox Faith that XXX” and just take that as Gospel… ‘Cause it ain’t. Instead, why not let’s look at the Gospel?

Acts 19:1-7

1It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples.

2He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”

3And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.”

4Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”

5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.

7There were in all about twelve men.

Now this is interesting to me on two notes: 1, that Paul felt the need to re-baptize them, which I’ve always heard was unnecessary, but maybe since they were only baptized with John’s baptism of repentance and not with the baptism of the Lord Jesus Christ it was ok or necessary. 2, that once they had been baptised Paul laid his hands on them and it was at that point that they received the Holy Spirit.

These men were already disciples and believers of God, and they didn’t have the Holy Spirit!

But what significance does Paul’s laying on of hands have here? Why did he do that? Again, it’s “firmly established in the Orthodox Faith as a sacrament”, yeah, but why?

It just seems like the thing to do. In Acts 6:6 the disciples lay their hands on men of God already full of the Holy Spirit (Stephen, who was the first martyr, was noted in Acts 6:5 immediately before this as “a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit”). So it can’t just be by laying on of hands that the Spirit is passed, and laying on of hands is used for more than just passing the Holy Spirit.

In fact, if you look at Acts 10:44, Simon Peter was preaching to Corneleous the centurian and those in his house. They were not Jews, but Gentiles. Peter was telling them the story of Jesus and saying, “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” and:

Acts 10:44-48:

44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.

45All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered,

47″Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”

48And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

So here we see that God is not limited to baptism or laying on of hands in order for us to receive the Holy Spirit. However, it is also just as firmly established that the Holy Spirit is passed on through hearing words spoken by, or through physical contact with, someone who already has the Holy Spirit.

Check out Acts 8:14-17, in it the disciples do have to lay their hands on the believers to transmit the Holy Spirit, even though they had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

What do we know for sure? The disciples themselves, despite having walked with, touched, and eaten with Jesus did not have the Holy Spirit until after Jesus had gone. Jesus promised it to them (in Acts 1:5 saying, “for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” and then in Acts 1:8 saying, “but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you;…” It was not until days after Jesus had ascended into heaven that the disciples received the Holy Spirit. It’s a pretty dramatic event, and happens in Acts 2:1-6:

1When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place.

2And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting.

3And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them.

4And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.

5Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven.

6And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language.

Peter, when full of the Holy Spirit and preaching to seemingly three thousand people immediately following receiving the Holy Spirit, and possibly while the disciples are speaking in tongues, says in response to the multitude asking what they should do after hearing the message of Jesus and being peirced to their hearts:

Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

So, it seems to me that not all have the Holy Spirit by default, but rather, that upon hearing of Christ, and repenting, they can receive it whether by baptism or by laying on of hands or by hearing about Jesus from one who has the Holy Spirit.

Now, I want to note that you have just read the worst possible version of “how one receives the Holy Spirit”. I’m just some kid who hasn’t even read the whole Bible yet. Some monk somewhere after praying and fasting for like 12 years wrote some brilliant thesis on this that would blow mine out of the water (I’m sure). I just don’t know where that thesis is…

If you are interested in reading/learning more about the Holy Spirit, a great place to start is your Bible. Also, you could go to the OCA’s page on the Holy Spirit.

If you are an Orthodox Christian, welcome to Lent.

If you are any other brand of Christian, Easter is just around the corner, and you can safely ignore this post.

So, if you are an Orthodox Christian, and you are strictly following the fast (no meat, cheese, oil, fish w/ back-bones) I have a question for you:

1000 years ago, were bugs considered a valid source of food in the “civilized” world (ie, were grass-hopers part of a normal diet), and if so, would they be considered meat? If not, then are we in fact more limited with our food options during the fast than our Christian brothers from 1000 years ago?

Instantly you could say the answer was no to the second part of that question. Obviously now because of people who are full time vegans we  have tons of options (like boca burgers) that our ancestors did not have. But, it’s still an interesting proposition.

Let’s say we take our basic foods:

Fruits, vegetables, grains, meat, dairy

Now, let’s say that we decide not to eat two of those, like “meat” and “dairy”. Now let’s say we make that a tradition. Now let’s say that 1000 years from now no one eats fruit anymore. This means we have now instead of chopping 20% of our food-source out of our diet, chopped 25% of our food-source out. Should we re-evaluate? Like, instead of fasting from all meat and fish with back-bones, just fast from all meat but not fish?

I know, I know, I’m being legalistic. This isn’t about foods, but rather about self control, prayer, and mind-set. No, I’m not trying to rationalize being able to fast from everything except for my favorite meat (chicken). No God won’t strike me down if I don’t do the fast. Yes it is all about adding more God and not about eating less food.

I’m simply sitting here eating my delicious food and wondering what the heck my Christian brother 1000 years ago, freezing his butt off in a hole he dug out of the ground, and covered with mud, sticks, and grass, thinking about God, thinking about the fast, and thinking about the fact that most of the food he eats comes from the six goats he trapped in the pen 30 feet away, and the milk he is able to get from them, and the fact that it’s winter so there are no berries, he can’t dig for roots, and his grain and vegetable are quickly dwindling, and there is no fruit on the trees. Actually, with that scenario, the fast looks like something that you would pretty much have no choice in, because where are you going to get food from in the middle of winter, and if you don’t conserve what you have by rationing it, you will run out anyways.  Except if he is in the habit of catching fish and eating them, and that normally sustains him, but now he is deciding not to do that either…

Just some thoughts. Happy first day of Lent. This goes without saying, but don’t forget to pray, because otherwise you’re just going on an unhealthy diet. Just a friendly reminder…

So… I went to see Beowulf (in 3d) today.

Why?

1) I’ve never read it and it’s a classic and I’ve always wanted to know the story (but people said it was an awful read, so I thought a movie would be the easiest way to go to learn the story)

2) It’s 3d (I’m a huge sucker for 3d. Almost went to see the sharkboy/lavagirl movie just because it was 3d).

3) Even though it has the sluttiest actress in history in it, it only had a pg-13 rating, so how bad could it be, right?

So what did I think?

Basically that it was horrible.

1) Julie says that she doesn’t remember the poem being very much like that.

2) The 3d was OK, but the reason I like 3d is because it makes it more lifelike, and in this movie was barely more lifelike than Shrek 3. The 3d was good because it didn’t call attention to itself (much) and they didn’t “play” to it excessively (like throwing swords and stuff at you). They played to it a little, but just enough to not annoy the crap out of me.

3) Nudity out the wazoo. I am utterly astonished this movie wasn’t rated NC-17… Or R at the very least. Demonina Jolie was completely nude on screen for about a solid five minutes (and then a couple of other times for a short period as well). We are talking completely here. In 3D no less. completely. [Insert your choice of shocked outraged short succinct exclamatory statements here].

Ok, so you could make a weak argument that they “smoothed” over the “important” stuff to make it look like gold or something. But seriously, what’s the difference? Unless you’re 13 there isn’t one.

Not only that, but Beowulf spent a good portion (maybe… 10 minutes?) of the film buck naked as well. It got kind of silly because they were trying to hide his… package… and it just became this Austin Powersish joke. So they never “flashed” his “stuff”, but you saw everything else… a lot. And for half the movie he basically wears a loin cloth. Two other guys butts made cameos as well.

Everyone was debaucherous and horrible. I found myself rooting for Grendel all the beginning, and was sad when he didn’t kill everyone.

For the love of… well… yourself, don’t go see this movie. Just do yourself a favor and steer clear.

The ONLY redeeming thing in the whole movie (I’ll call this the Father Joseph moment, since he likes to find redeeming things in horrible horrible movies) is when Beowulf realizes he sucks at the end, and (after his 16 y/old lover leaves the room and his 60 y/old wife is talking to him) he says to his wife “I’ve always loved you. I’m so sorry. I want you to remember me not as a hero or a king, but as a man broken and humbled.” or something along those lines. Basically he realizes what a bastard he is and repents. Yay. It doesn’t make the movie worth seeing though, because I just told you, so now you don’t need to see the movie.

Ok, the other thing the Father Joseph quality finding expedition turned up was that this movie was about man’s struggle with himself and his vices (particularly lust). But no one really struggles that hard…

They also openly reject Christ in the film, except the one character they make out to be evil ends up a priest. Oh, but the queen might be the only good person, and she is a Christian.

Yeah, so that’s it. This movie get’s an 11 (hundred) on the B-Ratings scale. Blech.

Oh, and some guy took his four year old child to see this, and another couple had a crying baby in there the whole time. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

Went to Men’s group tonight for the first time in ages. See the pics. Note that they are no where near the caliber of Josh’s, but they are just good enough for people like Timbo Baggins and Joeliver to get a taste of home.

Men’s group is awesome. We come together, drink some beers, give thanksgivings/prayer requests, study the bible and writings of the church fathers, and then hang out afterwards. It’s a good healthy (in a mental and spiritual sense) way to just hang out with the guys.

During our discussions, we sampled a beer that looked like a grape soda (the can), which was brewed at the “Melanie Brewery”. Which was funny because John Rentch’s wife’s name is Melanie, and her maiden name is Brewer. We only had one can of it, and I didn’t taste it. But they tell me it “tasted like your keys smell”.

After group, some of the guys played reau cham beau (spelling?), which is paper rock scissors, with a penalty phase. You can see the penalty in the pictures. It involves two fingers to the arm…

Not being one to cause myself undue pain, unless it is that of an overly full belly, I went with Josh Coolman and Luke Beechum to Macnivans(?) on Mass. Ave.

Josh didn’t eat anything, and so I can only guess that he drove us because “friends don’t let friends drink and drive”. Although the two of us had only had two beers in two hours, it was probably better that we didn’t drive. Better safe than sorry, and even a little alcohol can make heavy city driving tricky. Thanks Josh, that was very nice of you.

Josh and Luke used to be “Authority Figures” to me. They have both been my counselor at summer camps gone by, and I always got the impression they were very close friends. They obviously know each-other well. It was somewhat interesting to observe them.

We sat at a table meant for two, and I took a seat at the long edge of it, almost as if I were a film camera capturing a transpiring movie scene. Josh sitting quietly, and relaxed with a slight smile on his face, while Luke somewhat energetically looked around, talking and laughing in his normal Luke way.

When we got to the table, I noted the ash tray sitting right side up. Josh fairly quickly remedied this, quietly placing it up-side-down. “Please don’t smoke” he seemed to be saying, silently.

Luke sitting down, looking around for the waiter, taking in his surroundings with quick energetic glances, upon spying the ash try, up-ended it, as if to say “don’t mind if I do”. However, as his hands reached for his pure tobacco, Native American grown, charcoal filter cigarettes that he kept handy for special occasions only, the waiter arrived.

3 waters, 2 orders of Scotch eggs and a visibly disappointed waiter later, Luke hopped up for a visit to the Lew.

Josh, spying the righted ash tray, silently, and without much ado, picked it up, and placed it up-side-down on the banister behind him. Game. Set. Match.

I must say I was slightly disappointed. I had been somewhat looking forward to a peach flavored clove cigarette (I only smoke about 3/4 a pack a year, and only on special occasions). However, since Josh was our driver, and since he was so politely clever, I was more than happy to refrain.

The Scotch eggs, which I had for what I thought was the first time ever (however, apparently my Dad had made them once before when I was younger), were greasy and good. In case you don’t know, Scotch eggs are hard-boiled eggs, wrapped in bacon/sausage, breaded, and deep fried. You dip them in spicy mayo with bacon bits in it. Excellent.

After waiting a seemingly long time for our check to come, Luke ordered, and took back for the rest of the guys, another helping of the eggs, which I hear they devoured in no time at all (upon arriving back at group, I left immediately to get my wife, as it was getting late).

It was Matt Trent’s last night at men’s group for the forseeable future, which is sad. But I guess it worked out well because Brian and I both showed up. I think that’s the first Men’s Group we have both showed up to at the same time, and it was his 4th group in a row.

The only problem with Men’s Group is that it happens on Friday night, and that normally keeps me from going. Since Julie and I go to my parents on Saturday night, Friday night is usually our “date night”. However, now and then she will go hang out with “the girls”, and I’ll go to men’s group. I really can’t think of another night that would work better however. Maybe Tuesday. But since a lot of the guys stay pretty late, I don’t really think that would work either…

Finished this book a few days ago. It was pretty interesting. A good read, especially for anyone who “doesn’t believe in evil”.

He explores varying levels of evil, from people who are “on their way” to becoming evil, individuals who are themselves evil, married people who are together evil, to group evil. All of the stories in the book are based upon real patients the author had in his clinic throughout his life. This makes the book all the more fascinating, since it is true.

He postulates that the mother of evil is narcissism (pride) and laziness. Evil people refuse to believe there is anything wrong with themselves, and they also do not truly “see” other people as even being real people. The entire world revolves around them, and they have no real category of another persons feelings/wants/needs as even being valid. It also explores why it is that often you will find evil people as avid church-goers and even preachers. Evil people have no true love for anyone else, and as they are so narcissistic they don’t really even understand the concept of love.

It begins with an obsessive compulsive man who attempts to make a “pact with the devil” to rid himself of his compulsions. This man was on his way to becoming “evil”, as he was willing to cause the death of his son to rid himself of his own flaws.

It moves on to children whose parents are evil. One whose parents gave him the very gun his brother used to commit suicide as a Christmas present. These parents do not see their children (or even eachother) as being people, and have no real love or care for them.

It then explores a grown child whose parents are evil who are on their way to becoming evil themselves. They are enveloped in their own reality, and use others to fill empty holes in their life, but have no real care for them, they are simply disposable tools to fill their needs.

Then it explores the case of a woman who is evil, but seeks therapy. She was so imersed in her own world that she remade the entire world in her image in her mind. It became quickly apparent that the only reason she came to therapy week after week was in an attempt to seduce Dr. Peck (which she never succeeded at).

Finally it explores group evil in the Vietnam war and America in general. This was a point in which I had to grit my teeth a few times, since this guy is a liberal, and I am conservative. We disagreed on a few points, but as it was only one rather short chapter, it did not “ruin” the book, and he actually did have some valid points.

All in all, this book wasn’t as dramatically engaging as “Glimpses of the Devil” was, but it is still a fascinating read. I found his first book “The Road Less Traveled” at half price books for $1 today, and am looking forward to reading it. I think it focuses more on being good than examining evil…

Just finished “Glimpses of the Devil” over the weekend. It is about a Christian Pyschiatrist who at the beginning is 95% sure the Devil does not exist, but by the end succeeds in performing not one, but two exorcisms, of what he believed to be satan itself.

Do I believe what he wrote? I believe that he did not lie in anything that he said, whether he is right or wrong, I believe him to be truthful. However, I’m not sure I believe him to be completely ‘correct’ about all of it either, as no human can ever be 100% correct about anything as complex as this.

Do I believe he performed two exorcisms in which the subject was indeed possessed? You betcha. However, I’m not sure I believe them to have been possessed by THE devil. It seemed to me they were possessed rather by lesser demons (albeit, very powerful ones).

******************SPOILERS (kind of)*******************
There are two cases in this book. The first is a successful, somewhat well executed exorcism of a young girl who was possessed by 5 demons (the last of which being a demon who claimed to be ‘jesus’ whom Peck identifies as ‘the ati-christ’ as well as simultaneously being ’satan’).

The second was an exorcism full of mistakes, which ultimately was too much for Peck, and while it does succeed, it only lasts for 21 days, after which the girl is repossessed, and eventually dies. Oops. He regrets ever having attempted this one.
******************END SPOILERS**********************

It’s very well written and engaging.

It always amazes me when people will believe in God, possibly even believe in angels, but absolutely refuse to believe in the devil. I have no clue how they can justify that. Many people who do not believe in the devil simply say he is a metaphor for evil, and evil tendencies for humans. They justify Jesus’ supposed “exorcisms” as simply healing some sort of mental illness (like epilepsy). But how could the healing of a mental illness be the cause of an entire herd of swine killing themselves? What, did Jesus “cast the mental illness out of the men and into the swine, which then caused them to kill themselves by drowning themselves”? That doesn’t even really make sense. If that were the case, why hadn’t the men drowned themselves? And if it were cast out of the one and into the other, then it was indeed something and not just a glitch in their neuro-pathways. So now you are just accepting “mental illnesses” as being some sort of spirit all on it’s own rather than a glitch, and you are in essence believing in demons and just calling them something else.

It is also very clear that you can’t just be walking down the street and “OH NO!” Out jumps a demon and, “oh crap I’m possessed”. It takes a long time of cooperating with the demonic to result in possession. Your body is a shell, and your soul as residing in that shell (with room to spare). Cooperating with the demonic is slowly opening little holes in the shell through which they can come into the shell, and slowly over very very long periods of time and cooperation on your part utterly replace you in that shell (eventually leaving nothing of you in it at all).

Another interesting point is that the exorcist really doesn’t do a whole lot towards exercising the demon. Rather, what the exorcist does is to bring the possessed to the place where they are able to choose to cast the demon out of themselves. In the end no matter what the exorcist does, the demon will never leave unless the person decides to stop cooperating with and to reject the demon.

On an interesting aside, part of the Orthodox rite of baptism is an exorcism. You, along with the church, reject satan (or if you are an infant, the church just does it for you). This is not to say that that is the purpose of the baptism, just that it is a result of the baptism. If you were possessed, but for some reason willingly sought baptism and took an active cognizant role in your baptism, your demon would be expelled as a result of that, since no demon could live in you while you were indwelt by the Holy Spirit which is what baptism is all about.

Man is God cool… He’s like, ‘Hey guys, want me to live inside you? Yeah, I know I’m like GOD and all, but I just love you THAT MUCH that I want to be a part of you, while still allowing you to have full control and free will over yourself.’ Essentially our bodies are a car and God asks to get in the passenger seat. But if we are smart, we’ll let him hold the map and guide us. Because what truly bad thing could happen while God was co-piloting (Even if we may have to drive through hell and back to get where we are going)? Sorry, I know this is a very overly simplistic metaphor, but it was too fun to resist making…

I guess the whole point is that there is a passenger seat next to your soul, and if you don’t fill it with God, something else might just hop on in if you let it…

So I get an e-mail today about this local annual “art” festival that has been happening for the last five years.

I went to it once. Had a booth there in fact. Showed/tried to sell a movie with my friend. My (then girlfriend) wife came along.

To start, there was a bus out back where many people were smoking pot. Okay… After we had been there for a few hours these girls start walking around in their panties with the rest of their bodies painted in orange and blue swirls. Great.

I left immediately and would never even consider going back.

Why can’t art just be clean? Why is it that if you are going to go to any sort of “art” scene, there is going to be lots of drugs and sex and other inappropriate stuff? I don’t get it. Maybe because I’m not an artist…

Needless to say I won’t be going, but I’ve given up on warning other people away from it. Mostly because when I tell them why I object to it, they give me these blank looks like “what do you expect?” or “why is that a problem?”. Whatever…