The Right Spin

So, I picked up Guild Wars for the PC and it's pretty cool thus far. You can go PVP or straight role-playing and I chose the latter. It's nice - it feels like a massively multiplayer single player game. I know who weird that sounds but that's the most accurate description I can come up with. It has the strengths of a single player campaign with MMO thrown in. I'm liking it so far. I'm a necromancer. For those of you who don't know necromancers have their fun at the expense of the living... and unliving. Essentially kill live things with the powers of death and then take the corpses of the formerly living and make them do our bidding. It's two-times the fun!

neo-neocon. The blog of a "lifelong Democrat mugged by reality on 9/11." Good stuff.

John Hawkins speaks here of Massachusetts lawmakers trying to make spanking illegal in their state. If this passes on a state level I'll support it there. I would not agree with it but I would support the citizens of that state's right to govern themselves thusly. However, a decision like this should be made only on the state level.

I myself fully support spanking even though I often times found myself on the recieveing end of it when growing up. Some of the times the spanking crossed the line into sexual abuse. My step-father would bind my hands to his bed, lay me across his lap fully naked, while he himself clothed in nothing but his underwear and proceed to spank me with a large oak paddle. On a number of occasions this left large brusies and blood collecting just under the skin. It very much was abuse. However, while what I did each of these times warranted a spanking the severity to which my deceased step-father went was inexcusable. And that is the key. A parent should never strike their child while angry (as he did) and the child needs to understand clearly why this is being done and to have no doubt in their mind that their parent's care deeply for them.

This is not a "lack of imagination on the parent's part" as one ignorant commentor to Mr. Hawkins post suggests. It's a time-tested proven course of dicipline. It works and if the kid is in a well adjusted household he'll grow up knowing he deserved it and it did him good.

Chirstianity and Judiasm are one, did you know that? "Sure," you might say, "Christianity developed from Judiasm." And you'd be right. And you'd be wrong. Yes, Christianity finds it beginnings in Judiasm but it's suppose to be one with that faith. Not related to it as Islam may be. Though, I'm sure, most can at least admit Christianity is far closer to the teachings of Judiasm than Islam ever was. But, still, Christianity is suppose to be one with the Jewish faith. It was never designed to supplant it or be Judiasm 2.0. While Christianity is a progression of the doctrine established in the Old Testament it is still inexorably tied to it. Just as my hand is an extension of my arm. Lose my arm and my hand ceases to function. So, where is the Jewishness of Christianity? Why do we not celebrate the Jewiush feasts? Are they no longer important? Why is there so little preaching on the Covenant Laws of Moses? Did these become irrelevant? The Old Testament takes up over 2/3 of the Bible but how many Christians skip past it with nary a glance? It's there for a reason, right?

Additionally, do we think early Christians, most of whom were Jewish, suddenly abandoned their Jewish traditions? I think not! Indeed the Apostles challenged these potential converts to compare what they were saying against what the Law said for any discrepancies. If you look at the Gospel and the charges levied against Jesus and His Apostles never were they accused of teaching something forbidden or contrary to the Law of Moses. If they had Christianity would have died right there and then.

So, where is the Jewishness of Christianity? Why do we look like a seperate faith rather than, at most, a seperation similiar to a differing denomination?

Something has always bothered me about this idea: A proper Christian should be a pacifist. From where does this idea come from? Where is the scriptural and historical evidence for this? Sure there are some passages on "turn the other cheek" and whatnot but where do these doctrines mean we're not to defend ourselves against outright attack? If someone seeks to do deliberate and permanent harm are we not to react? I'm not advocating revenge because that I believe the Bible clearly forbids. But there's a clear distinction between that and self-defense.

So, where does the doctrine of the docile Christian come from?

Did you know there are two ways to ensure you don't get AIDS by sexual contact? The first is abstinence. The second is wearing a condom if you do have sex. Really, I had no idea that condoms were proven 100% protection against AIDS! Man, if that commercial I saw by Trojan is true they deserve some kind of award. And I'm sure that if it can give you 100% protection against AIDS I'm sure you can get as much protection from every other sexually transmitted disease.

I'm not joking here. Their commercial said there are two ways to protect yourself from AIDS. Abstinence and a condom.

What complete and utter drek.