Thoughts on JPII and religious tolerance

The recent death of JPII has given me pause all week long. I recently read this comment on the life of the Pope on a Conservative Religious Website that I visit often, by Al Mohler president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

After chronicling many of JPII's good deeds Mohler closes with the following:

"Even so, we must also recognize that John Paul II also represented the most troubling aspects of Roman Catholicism. He defended and continued the theological directions set loose at the Second Vatican Council. Even as he consolidated authority in the Vatican and disciplined wayward priests and theologians, he never confronted the most pressing issues of evangelical concern." emphasis mine

The last time I checked the Baptists and Mohler included were obsessively concerned with doing things in a biblical fashion.

The last time I checked our Savior gave less than a fig for being biblical, or following the pre-existing set of rules. He seemed to be concerned with feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and caring for societies marginalized outcasts.

The last time I checked Pres. Mohler drove a very fancy car, lived in a very nice house, wore very nice suits, and was busy railing any bit of Liberalism in the church. He is concerned with feeding the hungry et all, assuming that said individuals are White, Male, Protestant Evangelical, Republican, and willing to sign a statement of belief (essentially a TULIP Calvinistic Creed).

Although I think that established religions generally miss the point, I suspect that JPII may be much closer to the right answer than any of the Evangelical Protestants might care to admit.

Said one icon of the 20th century, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ"

'Tis the Season

I'm so excited. Today touched 80 degrees (as hot as it should ever get IMHO!) and they're calling for storms later this week.

Anyone from this area of the country is just beginning to consider (secretly in the back of their mind) moving somewhere safer like hurricane-ravaged Florida, quake-prone LA, or Tsunami-ridden Indonesia. My suggestion is to move to someplace near a volcano. Honestly, how often do you really hear about a volcano wreaking havoc ?

Of course my wife thinks this shit's terribly exciting too.

P.S. I've started watching the weather report again, Alice Cooper Soundtrack notwithstanding.

Draft of A Proposed Constitutional Amendment promoting Biblical Marriage

As certain politicians work diligently to prevent marriage between two people of the same sex, others of us have been busy drafting a Constitutional Amendment codifying all marriages entirely on Biblical principles.

After all, God wouldn't want us to "pick and choose" which of the Scriptures we elevate to civil law and which we choose to ignore.

Marriage in the United States of America shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)

Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives.
(II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron > >11:21)

A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30, 2Cor 6:14)

Since marriage is for life, neither the US Constitution nor any state law shall permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9-12)

If a married man dies without children, his brother must marry the widow. If the brother refuses to marry the widow, or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut > >25:5-10)

In lieu of marriage (if there are no acceptable men to be found), a woman shall get her father drunk and have sex with him. (Gen 19:31-36)

I hope this helps to clarify the finer details of the Government's righteous struggle against the infidels and heathens among us.