Obama Skips Church for Gym

I'm a firm believer that the church is a group of people and wherever the work of Christ is being done and not specifically a building or ritualistic services---but even-so this doesn't bode well for a Christian President Elect. I understand that there are pressures from both sides of the fence, but anyways here is the full article---let me know what you think:

Obama Skips Church for Gym
AOL
posted: 3 HOURS 58 MINUTES AGOcomments: 3783filed under: Political News, The Obama Presidency

(Nov. 23) - Since the election, future President Barack Obama has traded Sunday morning pews for some quality time at the gym.
The Obamas have refrained from public prayer for fear their large retinue would disturb the church service, according to an anonymous aide who spoke with Politico.com.

"They do not want to draw unwelcome or inappropriate attention to a church not used to the attention their attendance would draw," said the aide, according to Politico.
Since the election, Obama has been focusing on building his administration team. Monday, he introduced members of his economic team, and urged the incoming Congress to act quickly on a stimulus plan.

The Obamas haven't belonged to a church since the spring, notes ABC News, after Barack Obama split with Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ because of controversial sermons by the pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. A videotape from one of Wright's sermons showed him damning America.

Churches, especially African-American houses of prayer, played an important role in Obama's candidacy, notes the Associated Press and Politico. Obama made campaign stops in churches. Congregations prayed for him on Election Day, and celebrated his victory, the Associated Press reported.

Now, churches in Washington, D.C., are scrambling to lure the Obamas to their pews, reports the Associated Press -- even if Obama hasn't attended church in weeks.
2008 AOL LLC. All Rights Reserved.
2008-11-24 09:51:28

Teen 'Buddha' Returns to Jungle

Teen 'Buddha' Returns to Jungle By BINAJ GURUBACHARYA, AP
posted: 1 DAY 23 HOURS AGOcomments: 437filed under: World NewsWith HP wireless printers, you could have printed this from any room in the house. Live wirelessly. Print wirelessly.
PrintShareText SizeAAA

KATMANDU, Nepal (Nov. 22) - A Nepalese teenager revered by many as a reincarnation of Buddha has returned to the jungle to meditate after emerging for less than two weeks, officials said Saturday.
Ram Bahadur Bamjan, 18, reappeared on Nov. 10 after several months of meditation to bless thousands of his followers, speaking to them on at least two occasions.
He made his last appearance on Friday and then returned to the jungle to meditate, said Biswo Prakash Newpane, a government administrator in the area. It was not clear when he would return again.
His followers lined up near the jungle of Ratanpur, about 100 miles south of Katmandu, to be blessed by Bamjan. He tapped the believers on their forehead but did not speak to them individually.
The followers believe he has been meditating without food and water since he was first spotted in the jungles of southern Nepal in 2005. Believers say he spent months without moving, sitting with his eyes closed beneath a tree.
Buddhism, which has about 325 million followers, teaches that every soul is reincarnated after death in another bodily form.
But several Buddhist scholars have been skeptical of the claims that Bamjan is a reincarnation of Siddhartha Gautama, who was born in southwestern Nepal roughly 2,500 years ago and became revered as the Buddha, or Enlightened One.
Rakesh, a Buddhist scholar, told The Associated Press last week that being Buddha means the last birth and the highest level that can be achieved and there can be no reincarnation of Buddha, even though Buddhists believe in life after death.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2008-11-22 16:40:35

1,800-Year-Old Chariot Unearthed

1,800-Year-Old Chariot Unearthed
By VESELIN TOSHKOV, AP
posted: 2 DAYS 18 HOURS AGOcomments: 387filed under: Science News, World NewsPrintShareText SizeAAA

SOFIA, Bulgaria (Nov. 21) - Archaeologists have unearthed an elaborately decorated 1,800-year-old chariot sheathed in bronze at an ancient Thracian tomb in southeastern Bulgaria, the head of the excavation said Friday.
"The lavishly ornamented four-wheel chariot dates back to the end of the second century A.D.," Veselin Ignatov told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from the site, near the southeastern village of Karanovo.
But he said archaeologists were struggling to keep up with looters, who often ransack ancient sites before the experts can get to them.
The bronze-plated wooden chariot is decorated with scenes from Thracian mythology, including figures of a jumping panther and the carving of a mythological animal with the body of a panther and the tail of a dolphin, Ignatov said.
He said the chariot, with wheels measuring four feet across, was found during excavations in a funerary mound that archaeologists believe was the grave of a wealthy Thracian aristocrat, as he was buried along with his belongings.
The team also unearthed well-preserved wooden and leather objects, some of which the archaeologists believe were horse harnesses. The remains of horses were uncovered nearby.
In August, excavations at another ancient Thracian tomb in the same region revealed another four-wheel chariot. Daniela Agre, a senior archaeologist at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, had said at the time that it was the first time a completely preserved chariot had been found in Bulgaria. She said previous excavations had only unearthed single parts of chariots — often because ancient sites had been looted.
Some 10,000 Thracian mounds — part of them covering monumental stone tombs — are scattered across the country.Ignatov said up to 90 percent of the tombs in the region have been completely or partially destroyed by treasure hunters who smuggle the most precious objects abroad.
He said the country's Culture Ministry granted $12,500 for the excavation.
"The money is badly needed because we are in an uneven race with looters who are often better equipped than our teams," he said.
First mentioned in Homer's "Iliad" as allies of Troy, the Thracians were an Indo-European nomadic people who settled in the central Balkans around 5,000 years ago. They were conquered by Rome in the 1st century, and were assimilated by invading Slav peoples in the 6th century. They had no written language, and so left no records.
Fierce warriors and horse-breeders, the Thracians were also skilled goldsmiths. They established a powerful kingdom in the 5th century B.C. Its capital was thought to be Seutopolis, whose ancient ruins lie under a large artificial lake near Shipka, in an area dubbed "the Bulgarian Valley of Kings" for its many rich tombs.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2008-11-21 17:43:51

Genesis And Theistic Evolution: Part 3

Sorry for the wait, but here's the conclusion to my post series on Genesis and Theistic Evolution. Here are the other two posts on the subject for those catching up:

TheoPoetic Musings: Genesis And Theistic Evolution: Part 1

TheoPoetic Musings: Genesis And Theistic Evolution: Part 2

Anyways, here is one interesting interpretation of Genesis that comes from the Jewish Midrash---Genesis Rabbah 8.1 and Rashi:

IV. “The First Human was Created Androgynous”: Two Creations or One Creation?

Shortly before the verse discussed in our earlier study (HY VIII: Bereshit), in which a man leaves his parents to cleave to his wife and to become one flesh, we read of the creation of the first woman from man. After God brings all of the various animals and beasts before Adam as potential companions, without success (although Adam does give each one a suitable name), God casts a deep sleep upon him:

Gen 2:21. “And the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon the man, and he slept, and he took one of his tzela’ot (ribs? limbs? sides?) and closed the flesh beneath it.” Rashi: “One of his tzela’ot.” From his side, as in the verse, “And on the side (tzela’) of the Tabernacle” [Exod 26:20]. This is what we have said: They were created with two faces/sides.
This verse is often thought of in modern times as the height of male chauvinism, establishing the inferiority of woman by the fact that she was fashioned from man. But Rashi—who is very brief here, if not cryptic—clearly states that this is not so: the word צלע, often translated in the Christian tradition as “rib,” in fact means “side” or “half” of the body; a proof-text is invoked from the description of the construction of the Sanctuary in the wilderness. The original human had two sides; one became man, the other woman. Hence, there is no inherent inferiority to woman; man and woman were created as equal in stature.

To understand this motif more clearly, let us examine Rashi’s sources. This is based a midrashic motif that appears in several different places—Genesis Rabbah 8.1; Lev. Rab. 14.1; Midrash Shohar Tov (Tehillim) 139.5; b. Berakhot 61a; b. Eruvin 18a; and, in truncated form in a halakhic discussion, at Ketubot 8a—each with certain variations.

Genesis Rabbah 8.1. “Fore and aft You have created me” [Ps 139:5]… R. Jeremiah b. Eleazar said: When God created the first man, he created him androgynous. Of this it is written, “Male and female he created them… and he called their name Adam” [Gen 5:2]. R. Shmuel b. Nahman said: When God created the first man, He created him diprisophon (i.e., with two faces), and severed him and made him two backs—one back facing this way, and one back the other. They challenged him: But is it not written, “And he took one of his tzela’ot” [Gen 2:21]? He replied: [One] of his two sides (sitrohi), as one says, “And the side (tzela’) of the Sanctuary” [Exod 26:20], and its [Aramaic] translation is, velistar mishkena.
How are we to imagine this first human being? Like Siamese twins, with two heads, four arms and four legs, and two torsos, who simply needed to be separated into two individuals? And were they, perhaps, in sexual embrace (“the beast with the two backs”), whom could reasonably be described as Siamese twins joined at the genitals? According to one midrash, particularly beloved by some of our latter-day prophets of a re-eroticized Judaism, the Roman invaders were scandalized upon breaking into the Holy of Holies to discover that the cherubs that crowned the Holy Ark were representations of a male and female figure in intimate embrace. Or was he/she, as the word androgynous is used today, a single individual, with a dual sexual nature?

It seems significant that, in the versions from the great midrashic collections, such as that quoted above, the sexually androgynous nature of the human being is but one of many dualities mentioned, alongside moral, existential and philosophic dualities, all of them inferred from the verse “fore and aft You have formed me.” (For a fuller discussion of this passage see HY III: Bereshit, or Bereshit (Midrash) in the blog archives for October 2005)

I will begin my discussion by reiterating a point I have often made in the past: midrash is to be read, not as a literal account of events, but as myth, in the positive sense: as an image, a paradigm, used to convey some universal, eternal truth about human beings or the world. To say that something is myth is not to dismiss it as untrue, but to acknowledge that it expresses a depth-insight that cannot be expressed as well in conceptual language. The question then, as Levinas would say, is what issue is being discussed by the rabbis in the guise of this seemingly mythical language?

What, precisely, is the point of the distinction between “androgynous” (or “hermaphrodite”) and diprosaphon or du-partzufi (i.e., Janus faced?) in the Talmudic reading of this midrash? I read the idea of the first human being as androgynous as suggesting that the archetypal human being transcends sexuality, so that each of the two sexes represents only a part of the full range of human capacities. The primal androgynous represents an ideal image of humanity, combining the ideal characteristics of both sexes (bracketing the contemporary issues as to whether these are innate or “cultural constructs,” and certainly whether they are “politically correct”): initiative, abstract intellectual qualities, creativity, physical strength, leadership qualities, “conquering worlds,” of the male; and the more nurturing, intuitive, tender, intimate, home-building qualities, connected to the stuff of life itself, and typically more readily sacrificing self for others, of the female. (These spiritual qualities seem to be symbolized by the Kabbalistic identification of male and female with the qualities of mind known as hokhmah and binah, “Wisdom” and “Understanding/Intuition”; sexual union, known as da’at, “knowledge, is simultaneously a merger or synthesis of the two. See Chapter 1 of Pseudo-Ramban’s Iggeret ha-Kodesh.) Of course, no individual embodies all of these qualities. Their presence in the paradigmatic Adam suggests that neither sex is sufficient unto itself. The fully human is a synthesis of the two, that doesn’t exist in realty, but only in the archetypal world of the Golden Age, of Creation itself.

The du-partzufi image, on the other hand, suggests two fully-formed individuals, man and woman, who were originally joined and then, as part of their creation, severed in two. Here the emphasis is on man/woman as an incomplete creature, who seeks completion through mating with a partner, who is so-to-speak a lost part of himself. Or shall we say, rather, that human life is a constant two-step dance of uniting and parting, autonomy and togetherness, the relationship/community of man and woman being a basic, elemental part of world. (An interesting Jerusalemite strictly-Orthodox female Kabbalah teacher and scholar, Sarah Yehudit Schneider, has written at length about these issues in her Kabbalistic Writings on the Nature of Masculine and Feminine)

I see at least three basic ideas implied by these midrashim:

1. The basic common humanity of man and woman. The differences between the sexes, insofar as based on status or power, are temporary imperfections (even if long-standing in terms of historical time), and not innate. The curse of Eve, as the origin of male supremacy, is a fault in the world as we know it.

2. Sexual attraction as a search for a lost part of oneself. Elsewhere (at the end of b. Kiddushin) Hazal compare a man’s quest for a mate to that of one seeking a lost article. Marriage, and its sexual consummation, is a restoration of the primordial state of oneness. That is why various firms of solipsistic sexual gratification—i.e., those oriented toward self-pleasure alone—are seen as contradicting this verse (see Sanhedrin 58a-b, where the entire Noachide teaching on sexuality is learned from Gen 2:24).

3. Male and female are present in the psyche of each person (as in the Jungian notion of the animus and the anima, a part within the psyche representing the opposite sex within the individual’s own identity). Hence male and female, man and woman, are not exclusively, or even primarily, biological, physical concepts, but spiritual definitions. Each is a component of the “full stature” of humanity. Therefore, a person must seek wholeness not only through personal integration, but through his relationship with a partner.

In the Talmudic discussion, two further elements are introduced: were man and woman created in one act of creation, or in two separate acts? (Some say that the third and fourth of the seven nuptial blessings allude to these two aspects of human creation.) And was the “side” or “rib” from which Eve was created a face or a tail? At first blush, the latter view sounds like an insult to woman. But Emmanuel Levinas, in his Nine Talmudic Readings (Bloomington–Indianapolis: Indiana U. Pr., 1990, pp. 161-177), suggests that the issue here is whether the essence of sexuality has to do with a spiritual difference between man and woman, something about the human essence of each, or whether the difference between them is in fact a strictly biological, functional difference, relating to the “lower” functions of the body—what is referred to in the Talmudic versions as “the tail.” That is, the point is not that woman is “tail-like,” but that she shares in the full, singular humanity of man, and it is only their relatively marginal biological functioning that makes the sexes different.

An Interesting Postscript:

Just over six months ago, I was present at a wedding at which Rabbi Shlomo Riskin of Efrat recited the fourth of the seven blessings. He made a small but significant departure change from the usual version of this blessing, printed in all the Siddurim and “benchers.” Rather than the traditional:

ברוך אתה ה' אלקינו מלך העולם, אשר יצר את האדם בצלמו, בצלם דמות תבניתו, והתקין לו ממנו בנין עדי עד. ברוך אתה ה' יוצר האדם. Blessed are You, O Lord God King of the universe, who has formed man in His image, in the image and likeness of His pattern, and created for him an eternal building. Blessed are You, who forms man.
He read:

ברוך אתה ה' אלקינו מלך העולם, אשר יצר את האדם בצלמו, ובצלם דמות תבניתו התקין לו ממנו בנין עדי עד. ברוך אתה ה' יוצר האדם. Blessed are You, O Lord God King of the universe, who has formed man in His image, and in the image and likeness of his pattern created for him an eternal building. Blessed are You, who forms man.
By moving the conjunctive letter vav, and thus grouping the phrases together differently, the whole syntax of this sentence changes. It is clear in the latter version that woman is not merely an appendage of man created to provide as a “eternal building”—in vulgar terms, a breeding machine, a source of ongoing offspring and thus eternal continuity—but herself made in the Divine image and likeness just as is man. This change is highly significant—far more egalitarian, and portraying the relationship between the sexes in far more complementary terms.

Though I had heard about this alternative reading, I had until then never heard it recited publicly nor seen it in print. I approached Rav Riskin afterwards to ask him about this, and he explained that he had learned this reading from Rav Soloveitchik, and that other students of Rav Soloveitchik (including Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, who was also present at this wedding) also used it. It seems clear that this reading is as ancient and legitimate as the more familiar one. Later, I consulted the article in Encyclopaedia Talmudica (IV.646) on Birkat Hatanim, where I found the sources for this alternative reading given as Semag, Aseh §48, citing R. Saadia Gaon.

(Read more: Here).

See also: "Androgyne
Androgyne derives from two Greek words, but makes its first appearance as a compound word in Rabbinic Judaism (see, e.g., Genesis Rabba 8.1; Leviticus Rabba 14.1), most probably as an alternative to the Greek Pagan-related usage of hermaphrodite." And: Some thoughts on gender and Judaism. Last but not least I defer you to an earlier post of mine for an evolutionary reading of Genesis: TheoPoetic Musings: Fundie Nuts Vs. Harry Emerson Fosdick.

Deadly Shooting At Church Service

200 People Were Inside

Gunman Opens Fire in New Jersey Church AP
posted: 54 MINUTES AGOcomments: 425filed under: Crime News, National NewsPrintShareText SizeAAACLIFTON, N.J. (Nov. 23) – A gunman entered a northern New Jersey church during Sunday services and shot three people in the vestibule, killing his estranged wife and injuring the other two before fleeing, authorities said.
'I Came to Take My Wife'


Police were searching for 27-year-old Joseph M. Pallipurath of Sacramento, Calif., after the shooting at St. Thomas Syrian Orthodox Knanaya Church in Clifton. He was last seen driving a green Jeep Wrangler, police said.
Detective Capt. Robert Rowan told The Star-Ledger of Newark that the victim, 24-year-old Reshma James, had recently moved from California to escape an abusive marriage and had filed a restraining order against Pallipurath.
When he came to into the church, Pallipurath said "I came to take my wife," a witness told The Star-Ledger. Authorities believe he acted alone.
About 200 people were attending services in the sanctuary of the church, whose members are mostly first-generation Indian immigrants and their children.
All three victims were shot in the head, Rowan said. The other two victims, a 47-year-old woman and 23-year-old man, were in critical condition, he told the newspaper.
A spokeswoman for St. Joseph's Medical in Paterson, where the victims were being treated, declined to comment on their conditions.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2008-11-23 16:58:36

Lets pray for the victim, the felon and their families after such a tragic loss.

FBC-Wilmington's Statement Of Faith...

Fundamentalism Free...

See for yourself here:

Our Mission and Vision



“Heritage & Hope”

Standing on the shoulders of those who have come before us, and believing that the best is yet to be for our congregation, we the members of First Baptist Church, Wilmington, North Carolina, commit to living out the following:

Our Mission: To honor God by becoming and helping others to become fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ.

Our Vision: To become a community of believers that is open and welcoming to
anyone, no matter where they are on their faith journey, and is intentionally joining with Christ in his redemptive work and purposes in the world.

Our Core Values: We are intentional in our efforts to be …

* BIBLICAL - We believe the Bible is true and that its teaching is the catalyst for life-change in an individual's life and in the church. (2 Timothy 3:16-17; James 1:22-25; Hebrews 4:12; Acts 20:32)

* EVANGELISTIC - We believe unchurched people matter to God, and therefore ought to matter to the church. (Luke 5:30-32; Luke 15; Matthew 18:14)

* RELEVANT - We believe the church should be culturally relevant while remaining doctrinally sound. (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)

* TRANSFORMATIONAL - We believe followers of Jesus should live authentic Christian lives and strive for continuous spiritual growth. (Ephesians 4:25-26 & 32; Philippians 1:6; Hebrews 12:1)

* PURPOSEFUL - We believe the church is a unified community of servants, each one exercising their unique spiritual gifts, and structured according to the nature and mission of the church. (Romans 12; Ephesians 4; 1 Corinthians 12 & 14; I Peter 4:10, I Peter 5; Acts 6:2-5)

* LOVING - We believe loving relationships should permeate every aspect of church life. (1 Corinthians 13)

* RELATIONAL - We believe life-change happens best through relationships. (Acts 2:44-47)

* EXCELLENT - We believe excellence honors God and inspires people. (Philippians 3:12-16; Colossians 3:17; Proverbs 27:17)

* SPIRITUAL - We believe the pursuit of full devotion to Christ and His cause is expected of every believer. (Philippians 2:1-11)

* FREE – We believe in religious liberty for all people, the separation of church and state, and the autonomy of the local church. (Galatians 5:1; Matthew 22:21)

FBC-Wilmington Changes Website Design

After a long time of non-existent updates, FBC-Wilmington decides to overhaul it's web design. I can't help but wonder whether the decision was made to draw back the youth and young adults that we lost to a local popular church, Port City Community Church . The feeling of competition between the two churches seems to have been long-standing since when Port City began building it's multi-million dollar "compound," our church decided to renovate our Activity Center---this adds to the feeling of competition, when there doesn't need to be.

Our church is a free church that leaves room for dissent on any topic we as a whole profess other than the confession that Jesus is Lord, whereas Port City is a subtly Fundamentalist church. On the surface, one may not notice any presence of fundamentalism at Port City---what with it's contemporary worship services and pop praise choruses, but when one digs deeper beyond all the glitz and glam---we get to the hidden fundamentalism. From the What We Believe section:

Our mission is not to get people to believe a certain way, but to help you walk with God. But it is important to nail down some of the core beliefs that keep us centered and focused. What you will read in our statement of faith is just an affirmation of Historical Christianity and we understand that we are just a continuation of what God has already been doing.

Notice how almost all fundamentalists believe that the man-made beliefs that were invented in the 19th century have always been professed by Christians through the centuries. In the Our Beliefs subsection the bible like in all fundamentalist statements of faith comes before the Triune God. Here is what is written about the bible:

The sole basis of our belief is the Bible, composed of 66 books of the Old and New Testament. We believe that Scripture in its entirety originated with God and that it was given through the instrumentality of chosen men. Scripture, thus at one and the same time, speaks with the authority of God and reflects the backgrounds, styles, and vocabularies of the human authors. We hold that the Scriptures are infallible and inerrant in the original manuscripts. They are the unique, full, and final authority on all matters of faith and practice, and there are no other writings similarly inspired by God.

Notice that instead of Christ the Risen Lord being the sole basis of belief---the bible, a human object, takes Christ's place. Also, we see the absurd man-made belief in inerrancy in the above section. In the section on Jesus, the substitutionary theory of the Atonement is subtly professed in this statement: Jesus..."voluntarily atoned for the sins of all by dying on the cross as their substitute, thus satisfying divine justice..." without mentioning other valid theories such as the much older and scripturally based Christus Victor theory of the Atonement. Finally in the Faith and Practice section, one notices scripture again takes Jesus' place:

Scripture is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice. This church recognizes that it cannot bind the conscience of individual members in areas where Scripture is silent. Rather, each believer is to be led in those areas by the Lord, to whom he or she is ultimately responsible. We believe the Statement of Faith to be an accurate summary of what Scripture teaches. All members shall refrain from advocating doctrines that are not included in the Statement of Faith in such a way as to cause dissension.

Scripture states that Jesus has "all authority"---nowhere in the bible do we find that the scriptures have any authority much-less the "final authority" on anything. Any authority the scriptures are afforded are accorded to them by Christ via the Holy Spirit. The last sentence says it all---no dissent allowed or as Harry Emerson Fosdick might say: “Come, and we will feed you opinions from a spoon. No thinking is allowed here except such as brings you to certain specified, predetermined conclusions (our personal opinions of what Christianity looks like). These prescribed opinions we will give you in advance of your thinking; now think, but only so as to reach these results.” Not only is the last sentence fundamentalistic in nature but it borders on the cultic. Dissent is not only a Baptist belief but every Christians' right. But competition aside, I didn't mean this post to be a critique of Port City Church's beliefs just as an example of why we don't need to compete. Competition or not, both churches are willing to work with each-other and other local churches in our community and that's all that matters in the end. Anyways, view our new site: here.