OUT OF HERE!
This will be my last post from the confides of Mississppi. Be back online soon. God Bless and talk to everyone soon,
Nick
Archive for August, 2006
Packing up the memories
I realized this morning (well more exactly last night around 2am) that the reason this is dragging me down so much is the strings tied to it. Packing up and moving that is. For better or worse, this apartment was for Valarie and me. The reason I have a 2 bedroom/2 bath is because that’s what she wanted. I would have been happy with a 1br box (but am now glad I had 2br/2bth with all my visitors) that had internet. Packing reminded me of how much last ditch effort I put into this place. This was my line in the sand for the marriage. I figured if things went well when I picked her up from the airport in Shreveport then maybe she would visit and see the great apartment. I stocked it with a bunch of crap I didn’t need or like, but I knew she would. All her favorite things were nestled inside the confides of, what I hoped would be, our home. As you well know two things happened, she never came down and she left.
What is sad about all this is that I had left those things in the nestled places. Not out of remembrance or anything, but because I just don’t use much in the place. It wasn’t until I began ripping the cabinets and closets apart did I realize it was all still around. Slowly the memories of why I am here came back. I didn’t move to Biloxi for Nick…this wasn’t the place I had envisioned myself to be…this apartment was way more money than I would have willing spent for just Oscar and I…etc…etc…etc. I thanked God for the countless blessings of being here last night and thanked Him also for the move to Huntsville. A lot like the trash bag full of those things I bought for her to feel at home, my life too is shedding a few “products.” What I have learned from this move thus far is that it is time to remove the shackles of my past. I am not sure this job will work out and that I won’t be moving again here soon. I know the Good Lord will take care of me and I trust in that. What I know for sure is that I have moved on and moved forward. My apartment, job, and life in Huntsville will be entirely God’s and mine. The reasons for the move and every decision in between simply are because it was for Oscar and Nick.
Friday morning when I drive off into the sunset will feel a lot like when I left MacDill. With the sun falling behind me as I drive the truck North, I will be moving on. Sometimes that is good and sometimes it is not. But like MacDill, I left a lot of stuff behind. The last thing my father and I did was throw away all the crap of MacDill in a dumpster. So too this Friday morning I will be throwing it all in a dumpster…set for something new…
Plan-B / WHAT?!
PHEW HOLD ON!
The Plan-B pill has been approved for over-the-counter use. That means that whoops, made a mistake, no worries I can get rid of my little “problem.” I can’t convey to you the disgust this brings me. Are there no consequences in our society anymore? Is it any wonder that we have millions of people depressed and unable to find joy? Our Founding Fathers knew this when they wrote “Life, Liberty, And the Pursuit of Happiness.” We no longer can pursue happiness because the best we can do is medicore like everyone else. Hardships make you grow. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had this to say:
“Such interference is best understood not as contraceptive but as a very early abortifacient action.”
It is a good thing that all of us Christians stand united on this…or do we? I think this maybe the worse part of this story:
A Harris Poll conducted online in September 2005 shows that evangelicals overwhelmingly support birth control (88%). THe survey specifically asked about the Plan-B pill.
“…evangelical couples may, at times, choose to use contraceptives in order to plan their families and enjoy the pleasures of the marital bed.” – Albert Mohler, the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in discussion of the Plan-B pill with the New York Times
The 1930 Lambeth conference of Anglican bishops was the first Christian church body to authorize the use of contraceptives within marriage, even as it condemned certain motives for using it, like “selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.”
The introduction of the birth control pill in the 1950s and 1960s offered “free love” to society at large; married evangelicals embraced its convenience and effectiveness.
“…simplistic answers to the problem of abortion which, on the one hand, regard all abortions as murders, or, on the other hand, regard all abortions as procedures without moral significance.“ – United Methodist General Conference
“People need to understand: The medical fact is that neither birth-control pills nor emergency contraception—a concentrated dose of these same birth-control pills—cause an abortion.” – Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice—a group that represents Episcopalians, Presbyterians (PCUSA), Conservative and Reform Judaism, United Methodists, and Unitarians. – Rev. Carlton W. Veazey
The Catholic Church, by contrast, stated in Pope Paul VI’s “Humanae Vitae” encyclical of 1968 that the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage are inseparable. I find it very dishearting that the world outside of many Orthodox denominations and Catholics see this as no big deal. When did it become okay to tell God to stay out of life? Did God not in Genesis 1:27 give us the most beautiful gift, the chance to join in Creation? I think it is time for mainstream society to stop seeping into the Protestant faiths. Take a stand…it will be unpopular…people will leave your church…but then again, so did the disciples after Jesus taught. Be a tool for God. Pregnancy is not a disease–why vaccinate against it?
John Baths
Splish Splash I was taking a dip in the Jordan
After speaking with my fellow Brothers and Sisters in Christ who are non-Catholics, I began to realize that what they equated to Baptism was in fact we called Confirmation. Let me walk through what we consider Confirmation for those who don’t know:
It has been variously designated: bebaiosis or confirmatio, a making fast or sure; teleiosis or consummatio, a perfecting or completing, as expressing its relation to baptism. With reference to its effect it is the “Sacrament of the Holy Ghost”, the “Sacrament of the Seal” (signaculum, sigillum, sphragis). From the external rite it is known as the “imposition of hands” (epithesis cheiron), or as “anointing with chrism” (unctio, chrismatio, chrisma, myron). The names at present in use are, for the Western Church, confirmatio, and for the Greek, to myron.
In more layman’s terms this is the affirmation of your acceptance of the Holy Spirit. It is the crowning of your Baptism. Where the roads split with Catholics and Non-Catholics is the Original Sin and Salvation aspects of this sacrament. Let us go into the specifics of this sacrament to first better understand the outward grace.
What is baptism? Baptism is derived from the Greek word, bapto, or baptizo, to wash or to immerse. Baptism in the Catholic Church is given as the washing away of original sin. Baptism isn’t to say that this person has accepted Christ into their lives. An infant cannot fully accept into their hearts this joy because obviously they know nothing about the purpose. That is where it falls onto the parents to be good stewards of their child’s faith. Why would we baptize a child? Why not just wait till they are older and more accepting?
In most non-Catholic denominations, baptism is almost referred to as a symbolic acceptance of your acceptance of Christ. Wow. If there was one teaching that fully was given from God it is that baptism isn’t simply the symbolic acceptance, it is that a spiritual effect. *Maybe that is where the split comes on infant baptism…hmmm…* Another area we differ is that you only need one baptism. The “Born Again” repetitive baptism is to deny your salvation. To say that you needed multiple baptisms would be to say that the saving grace the Lord offers you is able to leave. This is another topic for discussion. Let us first affirm that baptism isn’t symbolic with scripture as it pertains to the rest of this discussion:
Acts 2:38 – Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 22:16 – Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name.’
Romans 6:1-4 – What then shall we say? Shall we persist in sin that grace may abound? Of course not! How can we who died to sin yet live in it? Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life. For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection.
We know that our old self was crucified with him, so that our sinful body might be done away with, that we might no longer be in slavery to sin.
Col 2:11-12 – In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
We can very quickly gather that in fact baptism is the outward sign of God’s grace upon us. It is through baptism that we receive the grace of Christ in our lives. No where do we read that only someone accepting or in complete understanding can receive this grace. To argue that infants cannot understand is null and void. What can’t they understand that would require them to wait?
Now we have to discuss this on the basis that the Bible is sola scripture or full and true. You cannot let your emotions get in the way of your understanding of the teachings of Christ. The disciples were not commanded to baptize only those over 14 or only people 5′5″. The Apostles were only sent to baptize the nations. The nations include everyone. To negate the teachings would require you to assume that the Apostles were crazy heretics.
Let us also look into the history of the Church. I think some misunderstanding occurs when we look back to the origins of Christ’s Church. We have documentation stating that in fact infants were baptized as early as 113 A.D. and that the there was no arguments until the Protestant Reformation. That’s right ladies and gentlemen, for over 1500 years not a soul argued the fact that infants should be baptized. Also let us glance at what many non-Catholics reaffirm as division among the Catholic Church as all this deserves is a slight glance: During the early Church there an argument about which day was the infant to be baptized…ASAP…or the 8th day as Jewish law for circumcision had stated. In 1500+ years there goes your one inter-Church disagreement on the subject :)
Lastly I would like to support this stance with scripture of baptisms occurring as infants and other young children in the Bible:
Acts 2:38,39 – Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him
Acts 22:16 – Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.
Matt. 19:14 – Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven. Can infants be excluded from baptism if Jesus specifically said let the children come to me? Seems kinda ballsy!
Luke 18:15–16 – Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God
Luke 18:15 in Greek – Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha Definition of Greek word brepa; infants
Acts 16:15 – She was baptized, with her household. Unless you assume that household means her and just the people over 15…
Acts 16:33 - “…the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family…” Once again does family just mean him and his wife?
1 Cor. 1:16 – I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. I guess Paul was just off his rocker with these 3 different verses :) He must have meant to say Adults only! SHEESH!
Abortion – Catholics Old and New
St. Antoninus is often brought up to PROVE that Catholics at one point supported abortion. I guess if one looked at the topic face value than, yes, a very prominent bishop wrote that he did. Let us look at what the article that sparked this post said:
“There is even a pro-choice Catholic saint, the 15th century archbishop of Florence, St. Antoninus. He approved of early abortions when needed to save the life of the mother, a huge category in his day. There is thus no one Catholic view.”
I want to pause for a moment and look at the author, Tom Ehrich is an Episcopal pastor, author, teacher and writer, thats right boys and girls. Ol’ Tom is a PASTOR. The original article can be found here. He goes on to point that even scripture is a little off. Sheesh.
Back to the Abortion loving Saint. I guess if you looked at his original writings and had no desire to look at them deeper you could say that he was an abortion loving bishop. If you know me, this is something I am unable to do. This Bishop was living 700 years ago. Let me set the stage…medical field was just getting her start following the middle ages and things like conception and such were not well known. St. Antoninus relied on the distinction between the animated and unanimated fetus that was prevalent before the process of fetal development was understood. Antoninus condemned abortion of the animated fetus in all cases. For the unanimated fetus, Antoninus allowed abortion to save the life of the mother. Now lets fast forward to today. We would be able to tell St. Antoninus that the fetus is “animated” form the moment the sperm enters the egg. In his time he believed that for males the soul was enfused at 40 days for males and 80 days for females. So using what he would have considered the basis for animated and unanimated fetus, his test would always be never allowed. Would it not by his own words? In his day there was a toally different understanding of when that animation occured. I guess if you felt the need to be childish you could continue to use his writings as Catholics supporting abortion. Those needs would be incorrect.