Vidblog #38: Not Nuprin

Nomilated!

Well wouldja look at that? Someone somewhere somehow likes me :-) and nominated me for Diarist.net's award category Best Use of Multimedia on a (blog?)Site in the middle quarter of 2004! Well, they either like me or this is one of those cliche tales like in the teen comedies where the class nerd/loser gets his hopes up because the jocks nomilated him for Prom King or some other ridiculously outlandish position of power and importance in his peerdom. But no! Mean-spirited, selfish, arrogant, careless, and brash i may be, but a nerd/loser? No, I don't think so. Therefore the nomilation must be genuine! Wow. I'm actually and honestly honoured.

I looked at the other nominee's and I don't think i deserve to win, but it's nice to be nominated :-) Since I don't think I'll win, I'll give my Thank Yous right now.

Jett-O without you, I would never have even began my multi-media adventure into vidblogging. Donut, you get as much credit as Jett-O: thanks. I'd also like to thank PlastWood, the maker of SuperMag, and Brandon Wason's airplane finger for being the intial protovidblogs. Going back further, I'd like to send a smile and a wink to Levy and Anneke Carmen Jones (well, Jones unless she's married) for being amongst the first motion victims of my Sony Mavica with which the multi-madness happens. I suppose I could also thanks Macromedia for creating Flash, which enabled such spectacles as Cosmic Interrupt... but I won't. The end.

I thought about not writing about this because, well, the Dougs are just so typical and predictable in their fringe weirdness that it almost becomes boring to critique them. But then I realized it was between writing about the Dougs (which is always good for at least a cheap laugh) and watching a couple episodes of some mindless cartoon.

And strangely enough, i decided to write this anyway....

This episode of What to Do with Dougs features a response to their wacky antics in "Owning the Curse: Rethinking Same-Sex Marriage"! What fun! The Dougs make this wonderfully playful assertion: Homosexuality is primarily a judgment from God against the Church. And further, that Christian fathers are a primary cause of the curse of homosexuality.

No. No, really. They said that. No... I don't. No. I don't care if you don't believe me, that's what... What? No, of course it's silly! No, no, I don't think they mean us to take them seriously. Uh? Well, I don't really... no, but after a lot of thought and.. no, after a lot of thought and, and, uh.. and watching them over the years... no, no, really I think they're like Christian entertainers. You know, like a travelling group of Christian circusfolk. Huh? Well.. but yeah, you're right. They don't really travel much. Okay, they're like a travelling group of Christian circusfolk who got stuck in Idaho. Yeah, people love 'em! They're like Mike Warnke or somethin'... yeah, only without the weird fake Satanism backgrounds. Yeah! Totally! And people, they... yeah, people, they love 'em so much they even send their kids there to learn how to be funny too! It's like a big Christian comedy school or something! No. No... I thought about going there maybe, but then I remembered that I get stage fright and stuff, so a life of stand-up comedy really wouldn't be for me. Hm, well... anyway....

So one of the funniest things are the passages of Scripture they use to back up this particular wacky claim. They claim that:

The Apostle Paul described homosexuality as what happens when God gives up on a nation's normal idolatries: "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful" (Rom. 1:26,27). Widespread homosexuality is a sign that the society in question is not living under normal chastisements; it is the sign of God's abandonment of us.

Hee hee. That was great. I don't remember Paul using Romans 1:26,27 as reference of God's work against anything so specific as nations. Unless by nations, the Dougs mean all mankind. But they don't, so maybe they picked up a Watchtower translation by mistake or something ;-) In any case, I thought it was cute.

And then, using their tried and true comedy bit (always good for a chuckle) about God giving "the Christian church the responsibility of leading culture" and then claiming that "the Church did this in the West for many centuries," the Dougs solidify their place in the pantheon of modern Christian comedy. I remember when the church was commanded to proclaim the gospel and make disciples of men. I remember when the church was exhorted to be a light unto the world and guide it to the light of Christ. I remember when the church was called to convert the souls of men through the preaching of the Word. I also remember the church being described as strangers and sojourners in a land not their own. But unfortunately, I don't remember the church being called to mold the culture of the unbelievers around them. I don't remember the church being called to fashion the society into a counterfeit of it's likeness either. Hm, and if we're spoken of as strangers in a strange land, perhaps we're meant to remain that way.

(I guess it's here that the Dougs are succeeding.)

And what's this funny business about the Church responsibly leading culture? When was that? Is they talking about the Christian Right? They couldn't be talking about the Dark Ages. No, that would be too silly. Too silly for even comedy. Maybe they're thinking of the 1600s when nominal Christian governments would persecute to ruin those who opposed their ways? Yeah, I s'pose that could work as comedy. Or better yet, that golden age of early Americana when the church reveled in Enlightenment joys and had its silly fingers in every silly pie. Ah, the good ol' days.

I suppose it's not really any surprise when the punch line comes: "when society sins in this way, it is because the Church has sinned, has failed to lead— "their" sin stems from our failure to lead in a godly manner." It would have been funnier if it hadn't been so telegraphed. I'll admit, this isn't the finest example of their humour, but I still cracked a smile at this point. Really, I think it's too bad that Peter kinda kicked back on his laurels in the first century, because man, if he woulda kept up his 2000-3000 converts in one day streak, I'm certain the church wouldn't have fallen under God's judgment through the first through fourth centuries. I mean, sure, Rome was decadent and homosexual romps predated the church and continued apace as the church grew and flourished, but, well, you know....

One thing I'm curious about is the idea that God judges the church. Now, my soteriology may be askew here, but didn't God judge the church in Christ? Wasn't his curse laid once and for all upon his son? Does our current and inherent inadequacy before the law earn us further retribution? Is there a point at which our current sins are little enough that God pats us on the head and winks, saying, "Little scamp! These things you do... ah well, boys will be boys." Or big enough that he now declares, "You know what, Christians? You guys suck enough that I'm gonna make these people to whom you're s'posed to proclaim the gospel start wearing Stubbies (tm) and giving them television shows where they will tell you what's fashionable. Oh yeah, and I'll make people with beards kiss people with beards. That'll teach you!"

I mean, sure. Maybe God does that. But I don't think i've ever seen evidence in Scripture to support that. The Dougs later quote Malachi 4:5,6 as evidence that the church needs to continually, uhm, be good fathers and stem the tide of bearded people kissing bearded people. But really, I thought that was talking about John the Baptist. Really, there are so many funny things at hand in the article that I can't possible react to any of them. The Dougs seem to be like a Farrelly Brothers movies - they say about ten semi-humourous things in the space of a minnut and hope the effect will overwhelm and that we will remember them being funnier than they are. Well, it works. I originally remembered this article by the Dougs as being really funny. But now I'm just kinda sad. People listen to them and trust them for whatever reason (I think it's kinda like how people love to listen to Rush Limbaugh).

And now, I'm burnt out.

Surprising Toilets!

While in Amsterdam airport, I took note of some many interesting weirdnesses. One among many were their surprising toilets.

I know I was surprised. Plus, I have no idea what it was talking about.

One small portion of my job, as I've mentioned in the past, is that I answer questions of a theological nature that land in the email bin of one of the major online Bible search sites. I enjoyed the dynamic of this one and thought you might as well.

Question:
Would you consider it a bold statement to say you know something to be true ( no doubt ) concerning your doctrine? And if you do, would you not say it was just as bold to say "I know I'm going to Heaven."?

Answer:
It's a difficult question with a lot of avenues down which one might pursue an answer. Should we talk about epistemology and the possibility of someone knowing a thing. Should we talk about human fallibility? Should we talk about doubt and what it is to know something beyond doubt?

A lot of issues that a lot of people have made a life's work.

So what can I tell you? I can speak about what we can know for certainty. This we know: Christ. And the resurrection of life. How do we know this? By faith alone. We are not given any thorough empirical evidence for our trust, but it is unneeded - for our trust is born out of that same faith. We can know the life of Christ that grows and pumps in us even as we know ourselves; and in fact, more, for we cannot even trust ourselves entirely, but the very nature of the work of Christ in us breeds that intimate indubitable trust and knowledge.

What then of doctrine? Is our trust of it of that same kind? I would hazard to say only insofar as it describes accurately that work done in us. And only insofar as it accurately reflects the record of that work as defined in holy Scripture. The difficulty then comes in interpretation of Scripture. Can we be so certain of a particular interpretation of Holy Writ that we can essentially know it to be true? Of course. Can we be proven wrong? Yes we can. This is the difference between well-reasoned doctrine and that innate knowledge of the divine work of the Lord in us: the first is dependent upon of faculty of reason; the latter is dependent upon nothing save the fact of its accomplishment.

So then, what with the reasoned doctrine that one is going to heaven? It occurs by the placement of reasoned belief upon known fact. The known fact? That God has accomplished a redemptive work in me and has builded me into a creation wholly apart from what once was. This is incontrovertible as it is innate to the change. The jump to reason? That God brings those whom he has redeemed from death and cleansed of sin into His heavenly cove - into His kingdom eternal.

Now then. The final question. Is this a bold leap of reason? Is this an act of manly hubris to presume that God treats so those in whom He has wrought such a re-creative work? Perhaps. But not nearly so bold as the statement "I'm going to stop by the gas station tomorrow" or "a² + b² = c²" or "See you after lunch" or "My grandma is dead." Really, then, it does not seem so bold at all to presume that those in whom the work of Christ has taken hold - that these same will fill the city of heaven. Who else would fill that glorious kingdom than those whom God has prepared to enter it?

No. It seems not bold at all to state - if indeed Christ's unmistakable redemptive power has gripped our lives - I AM GOING TO HEAVEN! For Christ is our assurance! His work is our work. His life is our life. His future is our future.

Vidblog #37: 2 Weeks in 3 Minnuts

The thing about sensor-flush, auto-toilets is this: they suck. No really. There are two reasons for this fact. Actually, there may be more (and likely are), but for now, I will only reveal two.

Reason #1: It becomes impossible to place one of those sanitary, butt-protector things on the toilet without setting the toilet-sensor off and causing a flush that will sweep your sanitary, butt-protector thing away. You know the things I'm talking about. The safety halos made of waxed paper. The ones you pull from the wall and from which you have to tear the center tongue out. You bend over the bowl, lay the safety halo upon the seat, allowing the tongue to float languidly into the bowl proper, and when you get up to turn around and take your seat, the auto-throne flushes and sweeps away your hepatitis-barrier. Pure evil.

Reason #2: No such thing as a courtesy flush. No really. This becomes quite evident when you've placed dice with old pizza and the local vicinity could really do with a good courtesy flush. Evil again. Both pure and unadulterated.

Oh yeah. I'm back.

Just a quick pee ess before I sign off from Amsterdam: never play dice with a day-old, unrefridgerated slice of pizza when you're looking at thirty hours of foreign travel. That is all.

Hm. I'm posting now from Amsterdam, land of shockingly red hair (and I mean barrel-of-monkeys red), more water than roads, and bra-less women who probably ought not to be bra-less. You know what's funny? Europeans look so very European. No really, you can pick out the Netherlanders from the Americans by hairstyle and facial expression alone.

(Although in contradiction to this theory, the bilingual Amsterdashing stewardess who became my faithful servant on the flight in guessed first that she should speak to me in Dutch *sigh* I don't think I look that European.)

On the upside is the fact that though my far-too-long-and-far-too-restless flight has left me over-ripe and reeking like a cat without a butt, I do indeed fit in very well now. Using the natural aroma of the body is one of the first tricks to learn in order to camouflage oneself to appear a native of the continent. So there. Incidentally, I'm not sure exactly how it'll happen, but I do hope to post video during the regularly scheduled time slots. *shrug* We'll see.

p.s. I'm dead certain that one really could call this the Land of the Midnite Sun - cuz man, it's three en la mañana and its hot and sunny for sure.

Vidblog #36: Orange