Quibbling Over Terms Part Redux

The Maximum Leader points out several groups that claim membership in the Christian fraternity yet deny the divinity of Jesus. He specifically mentions Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Christian Scientists.

Members of each of these groups may consider themselves to be Christian. But they are not Christians according to the definitions of mainstream Christianity. Many mainstream Christians specifically deny membership in the fraternity to their groups.

Google searches for:

“Christian Science” + Cult = 48,300 hits.

“Jehovah’s Witnesses” + Cult = 50,600 hits.

Mormons + Cult = 51,700 hits.

I’m passing no judgment here. And many of the links provided by Google are lacking in, shall we say, Christian charity. But certainly a good proportion of the Christian world does not view those groups as “Christian.”

Perhaps it would be better to call each of those groups “Post-Christian.”

All three are unique products of the American experience - the Second Great Awakening and the humanism of the Antebellum period.

All three rely heavily on the teachings of a new prophet - Mary Baker Eddy, Charles Taze Russell, and Joseph Smith.

All three have works that supercede the Bible - “Science and Health” and “The Book of Mormon” both claim to be divinely inspired and infallible. I am not sure if the Witnesses ascribe divine revelation to Russell.

In many ways, if the Maximum Leader want to include these groups in the fold, he would do well to include Muslims as well. The Muslims accept the teachings of the Bible as incomplete, have a new prophet, and subscribe to a new testament.

Toads: Lessons for Today

I once had a pair of toads as pets.

A pack of elementary school friends was playing army behind Tarun Gupta’s house. I think the Minister of Propaganda may have been there, but I really don’t remember - and it really doesn’t matter. As I was frolicking through the woods (notice the straight line set up there for the Maximum Leader), I came upon a pair of toads and took them home.

I kept them in an terrarium.

I named them Shake and Speare.

Shut up. Just ’cause you were an unoriginal putz who named your dog “Spot” doesn’t make you morally superior to the intellectuals in your midst. I also had Edgar, Allen, Poe, Abdul the Damned and Gromyko the turtles, Lenin the Hermit Crab, Trotsky the garter snake, and Shiller the fish. Today my dog is Kermit Roosevelt. I guess my Scottish cow had a common, non-historical name, but that was just so I could squint, impersonate Willy the groundskeeper, and say “Aye, she’s a Bonnie lass!”

Shut up. I’m warning you. I was not a geek!

Shake and Speare were cool pets. I taught them to jump through hoops. They slurped worms up like spaghetti. If you fed them lightening bugs, the lightening bugs would light up inside their bodies, glowing redly through toad skin. If you fed Shake and Speare several lightening bugs and then let them hop around, the blinking lights would make them look like moving Christmas trees.

I always wanted to have them lay eggs and hatch tadpoles, but over three years never had any luck, even though I had a male and female pair.

Shut up. It’s not that hard to sex toads, you perv.

You just pick up a toad and rub the belly. A female will squirm around. A male will squirm around and squeak.

You see, toad sex occurs when a male wraps his arms around a female and squeezes out her eggs. He then releases his sperm into the water and his sperm fertilize the floating eggs.

During mating season, things get really hectic. “Toad balls” develop as males struggle to be the one closest to a fertile female. As a defense mechanism, the squeak is the way one male toad lets another male toad know: “Get off! I’m not a girl!”

Try it with the next toad you find. Impress your friends.

One of my favorite childhood memories was when the local boyscouts put on a kid’s pet fair at the branch library.

I took Shake and Speare.

Shut up. I was not a geek.

So there I was, an eleven year old with his toads. They announced a best pet trick contest.

I entered.

There were over a dozen dogs, a few cats, and Shake and Speare.

So the announcer calls each kid up on stage, they do their pet trick, the audience applauds, mom and dad snap pictures, and the duo climbs down from the stage dreaming of winning the trophy.

I was last.

I strode up to the announcer, asked to borrow his megaphone, put Speare to the mouthpiece and ordered him to “Speak, boy, speak!”

Tickled on his belly, driven by millions of years of Darwinian selection, Speare croaked out his “stop molesting me” cry.

We brought down the house. All the adults laughed uproariously and the kids who had worked so hard to train their Benjis and Spots stared at their shoes as I was awarded the trophy.

Heh.

Why am I telling you this?

Shut up. I’m not a geek.

Shut up. I mean it.

The Maximum Leader linked a Beautiful Atrocity post based on a My Pet Jawa riff. Their comments threads are full of guys exhibiting shower rage: raw, violence-spawning fear of the possibility that a gay might look at, or even hit on them.

Men who have gay rage are morons. Why engage in fisticuffs when a simple “no thank you” will do?

Toads do it all the time. If a gay man comes on to you, simply say “no thank you.” If anything, be flattered by the attention.

It’s not that horrible. Gay men have made passes at your Minister of Agriculture on several occasions. I seem to set off gaydar. One frustrated suitor told me that he had made an assumption about my orientation because I violate the “straight line” when I dance. Evidently most white heterosexual men will not raise their hands above their shoulders when dancing. My arms fly around with wild, spastic, uncoordinated abandon. Each and every time, when I declined by saying “no thank you, I’m straight,” they left me alone.

They did not try to convert me. They didn’t drag me into an alley. They all got a little sheepish grin, apologized, and went away.

You know that little sheepish grin.

It’s the one you get when you ask a girl to dance and she says no.

Excursus: The Foreign Minister is my personal hero for many, many reasons. One of them is because when one girl shot down his offer of a dance in a particularly snooty fashion, he deadpanned back: “I’m not being picky. Why are you?”

Men who can’t handle unwanted attention should think about what women have to put up with every day. I’m sure that the Lovely Annika and the lovable Celibate turn down invitations from unattractive men all the time. Women don’t seem to suffer emotional trauma when they turn away undesirable suitors.

So men who suffer from gay rage are actually demonstrating that they are emotionally weaker than women. Not that women are emotionally weaker. But knuckledragger types who suffer from gay rage probably hold chauvinist views about the “weaker sex.” Misogyny and homophobia seem to be clustered phenomena, no? So I’m just hoisting them on the petard of their own misguided ideology.

Repeat after me, guys:

Be like a toad:

Squeak! No thank you. I’m straight. Squeak!

Wolfe Wins Sex Award

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader will pass along this headline for you without comment.

Tom Wolfe wins bad sex award.

The article is an interesting read. And the award is one that our favourite sexy Sadie would never win.

Carry on.

Don’t Ask, Don’t… Well You Know the Rest.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader will direct his minions to a recent post of Jeff’s over on Beautiful Atrocities. One entitled “Protocols of the Homo Predators.” It is quite good. And the comment track is equally excellent.

In many ways a post like Jeff’s and the thoughtful commentary are what the whole blogosphere is all about.

Carry on.

Derb on Intellectuals

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader, while a religous reader of John Derbyshire’s work, doesn’t often want to comment on his work in this space. Well, that is not the case today. You ought to go and read his column about Intellectuals on National Review Online yesterday.

Very thoughtful stuff. Identifying modern living intellectuals. What is really so sad is that your Maximum Leader could only come up with one that he thought met Derb’s general criteria. (Alive, reasonably well-known, published, etc) The one he came up with was Niall Ferguson. Your Maximum Leader thinks that a case could be made for journalist Christopher Hitchens. But Hitch would be a stretch.

If any minions care to name others, your Maximum Leader’s ears are open.

Carry on.

Quibbling Over Terms (Slightly Updated)

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader can say that now his good minions are going to be pleased. Not only is your Maximum Leader back; but he is arguing with the Minister of Agriculture.

Not a full-blown argument exactly… Just  quibble.

Begin quibble. The term “Christian.”

We should begin with the term “Christ.” As we all know the English word “Christ” is derived from the Greek word “Christos” which is used in the early versions of the New Testament to denote the Hebrew word “Messias” which in turn means “annointed.” In this early sense any prophet in the Jewish tradition could be considered annointed in his work. There was, before the person of Jesus of Nazareth, a growing Jewish belief in the coming of “The Annointed.” A single eschatological being who would fulfill all the previous prohecies of Daniel, Isaiah, and others. (Okay, perhaps not fully eschatological, but how often can you work eschatology into a proper sentence?) The followers of Jesus of Nazareth began to refer to their teacher as the Christ. “The Annointed” as it were. Early followers of Jesus called themselves “Chrestus” which means roughly “excellent.” (And your Maximum Leader thinks the term is also a clever play on Christos.) They referred to themselves collectively as “Chrestians” or “the excellent ones.” Eventually, this collective appellation “Chrestians” became “Christians.”

Now, as for the term “Christians” automatically denoting a belief in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth; the good Minister of Agriculture is on pretty firm ground here. According to the doctrinal tenets of most of the major Christian Churches there is an implicit belief in the Divine nature of Jesus. The Catholics, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodist, Presbyterians, and Baptists (among others) all believe in the Divine nature of Jesus. In fact, they all adhere to the concept of the Trinity (One God in three forms, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost/Spirit). So, to be an adherent to one of these religions implies a belief that being “Christian” also implies a belief in the Divine nature of Jesus.

But that is not the end of our story. There are plenty of minor sects which don’t care, don’t mention, or flat-out deny the Trinitarian impulses of their larger bretheren. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists, the United Church of Christ, the Congregationalist Churches, and the Quakers (among others) are all non-Trinitarian churches. They deny the Trinity and in many cases the Divine nature of Jesus as well. Are these people not “Christians?” It might be surprising for them to find out they aren’t. Your Maximum Leader, for one, is happy to lump them in with other “Christians.”

For the purposes of your Maximum Leader’s earlier musings, he was relying upon the commonly-held dictionary definition of “Christian.” In this case, a Christian is simply one who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows a religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

So in one respect, your Maximum Leader answered his rhetorical question of an earlier post already. If you deny the divinity of Jesus, it is hard for you to be a good Episcopalian - at least insofar as doctrine is concerned. But the spirit of your Maximum Leader’s question remains. Can you still behave like a good Episcopalian even if you deny certain basic premises of that faith? And your Maximum Leader isn’t meaning to single out Episcopalians here, any (broadly-defined) Christian religion will do. It is just that being the “Cake or Death” church the Episcopalians are least likely to kill you for questioning their faith.

Carry on.

I’d Prefer Viceroy, Weak Excuses, The Real Reason Behind Sadie’s Disappearing Act, and the Defintion of “Christian.”

Heh.

The Foreign Minister emerged from his cocoon whilst your humble Smallholder remained awol.

You Minister of Agriculture is suffering from big-post-itis. I’m working on a post about the bittersweet market day when I took my lads to the butcher. Vater Smallholder and I had a heckuva day. But I haven’t been able to get the post to where I like it.

Blogger’s block, if you will.

I have also had interims, test grading, and SOL reviews to complete for the paying gig.

But I digress. The Maximum Leader is not one for excuses anyway (unless offered on behalf of the administration, which is why I was a little surpirsed at his Rummy post).

What I regret most about my absence has been the innocents who suffer. Sadie Mirth seems to have taken my silence hard; she has gone on a hunger and blogging strike pending my return. No need to be coy about your reasons, dear; the Maximum Leader will probably figure out your preference for chopped liver soon enough.

As a quick hit, the Maximum Leader asks about labeling religion. His example, I fear is not apt; the word “Christian” refers, by definition, to someone who accepts the divinity of Christ. I grew up believing that Chirst was simply Jesus’ last name, but believe it or not, Christ isn’t really a bit of Josephian patrimony. The word means “messiah and son of god.” So if you say “Jesus Christ,” you are naming a historical figure and declaring your acceptance of his divinity. I have had to work very hard in my world history class to avoid improper terminology. It is quite proper for me to explain to my kids that Jesus the historical figure was perceived by many of his followers to be the Son of God. But I ought not to use my position of public trust to proselytize for my interpretation that he was indeed the Christ.

Perhaps Bill over at Bill’s Comments or the good Kevin at Big Hominid can rework the content of the last paragraph into a semblence of scholarly consideration. I can’t. Too tired.

Posting will most likely remain light until Christmas break.

All the best of the season to our happy little corner o’ the blogosphere.

The Other Shoe Falls…

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader sees that the news wires are leading with: Jury Agrees on Sentence for Scott Peterson.

Death? We can only hope so. Especially since one cannot guarantee that he will be some other convict’s bitch for the rest of his natural life.

Carry on.

Ok… Guilty as Charged

I apologize for dropping the villainous ball when the ML was on Sabbatical, however, in my defense, I will say that I was away myself and barely had time to check in with NV as my INLAWS were visiting.

The Foreign Minsiter, the Warden, and her Parents went down to the German/Austrian alps to celebrate Thanksgiving and the onslaught of Christmas.

WHEN I DID try to blog, I will say that blogger kept crashing on me or not opening up at all. Since the Warden only lets the Foreign Minister out for good behavior, he did not have a lot of time to blog.

Anyway,
To make my attempt at your question about flavors of religion (more specifically flavors of Christianity), here is how I see it.

With your scenario of what if a guy thinks Christ exists, but was just a dude with cool ideas.

That already exists. The Jews, and Muslims believe that he existed and was some sort of holy man. I argue that what MAKES a Christian is the person that makes the leap of faith to believe that he was God’s Son and was raised from the dead. Without that part, there is no Christianity.

But–
The Bible is kind of like the US constitution in respect that 2 people could read it and get something TOTOALLY different out of it. That is why you have Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, etc etc.

And the constitution-
The M of A reads it and thinks the second amendment is only for states. Annika reads it and buys a machine gun. (I don’t know if she did buy a machine gun but she knows an awful lot about the Hitler’s Saw!—- )

On to the Humvee thing.
The soldier in question should have asked/said-
1) Why don’t we all have tanks to ride in instead of lightly armored jeeps?
2) Why don’t we just carpet bomb Falujah instead of sending me in?
3) I learned enough in college through the GI bill to know that I can die here… could you send someone else in?
4) This is a scary place, I want more than armor… I want a force field.

I kind of think it was a stupid question. The Humvee is not a bullet proof vehicle. It was not designe to be. Even the up armored version is not going to do well against a roadside bomb. Soldiers have been making field adjustments like welding scrap armor on since warefare began. I would imagine even the soldiers with up armored humvees are adding on additional armor. I think this is more of the MSM stirring the pot.

Back to the trenches—

Ironical

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader wanted to make an observation. Do you minions know what the most delicious ironical part of today’s installment from the Crack Young Staff at The Hatemonger’s Quarterly is?

It is the the first blogad at the top of the screen of course.

Heh.

Carry on.

Mormon Heresy?

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader noticed an interesting heading on the news wire today. It is: Mormon Church Disciplines Author for Book.

The meat of the piece is this: a Mormon former seminary teacher has published a book in which he looks critically at the early history of the Mormon church. In his book he suggests that Joseph Smith did not translate the Book of Mormon by the gifts and power of God; but rather wrote them himself based on his own experience and knowledge of the King James Bible.

The former seminarian, Grant Palmer, has been “disfellowshipped” from his church. This seems to be a type of suspension. Just short of excommunication.

Palmer wants to remain a member of his church because the still believes in the essential beliefs and teachings of the Latter Day Saints.

Here is the interesting point for your Maximum Leader. If you accept the basic teachings and beliefs of a particular religious tradition, but might quibble with how those teachings and beliefs came to be; how faithful are you being to your church? It is an interesting mental excercise.

Take for example a person who might believe that while Jesus of Nazareth was a real person who lived and breathed on this earth. During Jesus’ time on earth he was a rabbi and taught an important (and perhaps even Divinely inspired) message. Then he was crucified and died. End of story. If one accepts the teachings of Jesus, without accepting that Jesus was God or the literal Son of God; does that still make you a Christian? Does it make you an Episcopalian or Methodist or Presbyterian?

Is thisan instance of the message being missed because the messenger is unacceptable?

And let your Maximum Leader throw one thing out there for you all to contemplate. In your Maximum Leader’s mind, churches are associations who can regulate the terms and conditions of membership as they want. Your Maximum Leader has absolutely no issue with any church/established religious organization kicking someone out for whatever cause it sees fit. If in the case of Mr. Palmer, the Church of Latter Day Saints wanted to excommunicate him for saying what the hierarchy of the Church finds unsayable; that is fine with your Maximum Leader. Your Maximum Leader supposes the question is more how how do we define ourselves in terms of religious affiliation? Is the faith in our heart more important than the faith we practice with a group? Is it possible for someone to “know” facts that point to a historical truth yet still choose to believe in their hearts a revealed or religious truth at odds with the view of historical fact?

Carry on.

Some Thoughts On Rummy.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader missed the initial kerfuffle concerning Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld’s comments about “going to war with the army you have.” But they are worthy enough to deserve some commentary from your Maximum Leader.

First off, your Maximum Leader was a little put out in the knowledge that the question was planted by a reporter. But, after thinking about it for a little bit, the reporter planting the question didn’t detract from the necessity of answering the question. In the end, bringing up this whole aspect of the story struck your Maximum Leader as an attempted diversion.

Next off, isn’t it a great thing to see an enlisted man asking a difficult, pointed, and uncomfortable question of the Secretary of Defence? That man asked the question and put his superiors on the spot. He did so knowing that he wasn’t going to be dragged out and shot. He wasn’t going to be retailiated against. He was a citizen-solider who wanted to know about what resources were being given to him to fight a war the Secretary and President wanted. It was a sight that made me proud to be American.

As for Rumsfeld’s comments itself. They weren’t very thoughtful. He should have waited a moment longer and composed a better answer. But there are two important undercurrents to what he said that are important to note.

The first undercurrent is the easier one to comment upon. As so many others have noted, this was a war that the US started. We had the opportunity to delay. We could have tried to get the “army we wanted” before going to war.

This is where most people stop their interpetation. We could have waited and crafted an army that would be better suited to the war we found ourselves in. But your Maximum Leader asks you to think about that for a moment. How do you get that army?

You get it through a political process. And in many ways, the army we have is the army that Congress gives us. While your Maximum Leader will not spend a lot of time here discussing the military procurment process and how “pet” weapons systems aren’t killed when their usefulness is ended. Neither will he spend lots of time saying that the US hasn’t recovered from the massive cuts of the 90s. Let it suffice to say that our political procurement process is not suited to building ANY single type of army. We will always have an army by committee. Your Maximum Leader doesn’t have a problem with that. So long as the army can betweaked along the way as needed.

Which leads to the revelations that the armour manufacturers reported that they could have increased their outputs if they were asked. They just weren’t asked. Your Maximum Leader hasn’t read enough about this. The articles on this topic don’t seem to address the questions your Maximum Leader wants answered. Those questions are: 1)who made the call not to ask for increased production? And 2) what was the rationale behind the decision?

Follow on questions to the first point are: Was it some procurement person who didn’t want to have the army slapped with contract related fees? Was it some desk commander who determined that he knew what the men in the field needed better than the men themselves? Was it a field commander who had to make a choice between armoured humvees or something else?

Follow-on questions to the second point are: How did was the rationale communicated down the line? Was the rationale communicated?

You see these are complicated questions. And they deserve sensible answers.

But there is one more point that your Maximum Leader would like to make on this item. Rumsfeld’s comments were callous and also can be interpreted to mean that he knew that this was an issue that wasn’t being addressed. If Rumsfeld and his commanders knew that armoured Humvees were a concern (and who really didn’t know); and they also knew that production could be increased; and they chose not to increase that production. Then Rumsfeld should resign. He failed in his responsibility to advocate for the troops on the ground.

Of course, when you consider the prison scandal, and this supply issue together; it seems to become more clear that Rumsfeld ought to go. There are plenty of others who could be effective in the Secretary of Defence role.

Carry on.

UPDATE: While it is not surprising to see in print, it still reflects your Maximum Leader’s position too… Senator John McCain expresses “no confidence” in Rumsfeld.

Twinging.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader isn’t sure what to think of this post by the sexy and mirthful Sadie.

Should he be pleased that he made her uterus twinge? Afraid? Disappointed?

Ponder that.

Carry on.

Outer Life & The Gift of Reading

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has been trying to go over all the blogs he likes and catch up on his reading. With the exception of his own site, this is proving to be a little harder than he suspected.

One post that seemed to scream out for commentary wasone entitled The Gift of Reading on the Outer Life site.

Your Maximum Leader found himself going through a whole range of different thoughts reading this post. On the one hand, your Maximum Leader sees all of the shortcomings of giving a book as a gift that Outer Life notes.

But on the other hand, if you really know someone very well the gift of a book can be very intimate and personal. Your Maximum Leader wouldn’t consider giving books as a gift to anyone he didn’t know very well. But he tries to be thoughtful in his book-giving.

You should just go and read Outer Life and see how it corresponds to your thoughts on gift giving…

Carry on.

First Blog.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader presents the wee Villain’s first blog entry ever. Here it comes:

qukjyuhh hhj . fghjol;uiio

This blog was written by the Maximum Leader’s son, aged 5 months. He touched some keys and declared himself done.

And with that one line of gibberish, he wrote more during over the past week than did the Minister of Agriculture, The Foreign Minister, and Minister of Propaganda combined.

Many thanks to the Poet Laureate for the graphic repost. But it only counts a half a post in the grand scheme…

Carry on.

    About Naked Villainy

    • maxldr

    Villainous
    Contacts

    • E-mail your villainous leader:
      "maxldr-blog"-at-yahoo-dot-com or
      "maximumleader"-at-nakedvillainy-dot-com

    • Follow us on Twitter:
      at-maximumleader

    • No really follow on
      Twitter. I tweet a lot.

Naked Villainy… We’ll try to be nicer if you try to be smarter.

    Villainous Commerce

    Villainous Sponsors

      • Get your link here.

      Villainous Search