there just are not words

File under stories that make you want to vomit:

From the Associated Press -- A man pleaded guilty to murder Tuesday, admitting he left his 3-year-old foster son bound up in a closet where he died and then burned his body and threw the remains into the Ohio River.

David Carroll Jr. was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison, with an additional year in prison for his guilty plea to gross abuse of a corpse.

He and his wife, Liz, were charged with causing Marcus Fiesel's death by leaving the developmentally disabled boy wrapped up with a blanket and packing tape in a closet for two days while they went to a weekend family reunion in Kentucky in August. Carroll admitted his role, but continued to blame a live-in companion, Amy Baker, for playing a major part in the boy's confinement and the subsequent cover-up of his death.

"We left him there," Carroll told the judge. "And when we came back, he was gone ... he was dead."

Clermont County Judge Jerry McBride accepted the sentence proposed by prosecutors. Dressed in an orange jail jumpsuit, Carroll answered "yes sir" as McBride explained the plea and his rights. Carroll told the judge he was on medication for bipolar disorder, but was thinking clearly Tuesday.

A jury last week convicted Liz Carroll, 30, of murder and six other charges, including involuntary manslaughter and kidnapping, in the boy's death. She was sentenced to 54 years to life in prison.

As part of the deal with David Carroll, prosecutors agreed to drop six charges against him. Carroll, 29, had faced the same seven charges as his wife, plus the eighth charge of gross abuse of a corpse.

While Liz Carroll's judge told her last week she showed no remorse, David Carroll urged prayers for the boy in his statement to the court.

"Marcus was a sweet, gentle and loving child who did not deserve this," he said.

Daniel "Woody" Breyer, an assistant prosecuting attorney, told the judge prosecutors agreed to the deal because they felt it would be difficult to seat a jury in Clermont County after Liz Carroll's trial and other extensive publicity, and to avoid the risk of an acquittal.

"We would rather have a guarantee," Breyer said.

Afterward, he told reporters that prosecutors don't believe David Carroll's statements that Baker was directing the Carrolls and threatened their family if they didn't go along with a cover-up.

Prosecutors didn't pursue charges against Baker after she agreed to cooperate. Baker, who had an affair with David Carroll and then moved in with the couple, testified for the prosecution in Liz Carroll's trial.

Prosecutors say the couple found the boy dead when they returned home from the reunion. The Carrolls then claimed the child had disappeared from a park in suburban Cincinnati, sparking a search by thousands of volunteers.

Prosecutors in Hamilton County also agreed to drop charges against David Carroll of making false alarms and inducing panic, Clermont prosecutors said. The charges were related to the claim that the boy was missing.

weird al does dylan's subterranean homesick blues

This is HILARIOUS! Al is the undisputed king of parody - and this is the most clever thing I've seen in a long time. The entire song is done completely in palindromes.



For those of you too young to remember the Dylan version, here it is so you can appreciate the cleverness of the parody:

a bit of sanborn to lighten the mood

Wow. Things have been a bit heavy up in here lately. So here's some vintage 80s Sanborn back in his heyday. Peeps this, yo!

more on inerrancy of the bible

Here's another post from a theologian regarding inerrancy of scripture.

It's also available as a podcast HERE.

Summary time!

• Many early fathers and reformed theologians do not support inerrancy as taught by modern-day fundamentalists:
• Origen
• Luther
• Does the Bible claim to be inerrant?
• The bible claims NOTHING about itself. Our version of the bible did not exist when the various separate writings were penned
• Verses to claim inerrancy are pushed too far. 2 Tim 3:16 is often used. Useful and perfect are very different ideas.
• Verses can be understood to support inerrancy ONLY if the reader reads deductively.
• Biblical errors. Here's a brief list:
  
  
• There are scientific errors.
• a) An example: Leviticus 11:6 and Deuteronomy 14:7 both describe the hare as a ruminant. However, as Law rightly states: ‘This is quite simply wrong and no exegetical ingenuity can make it right’b) Biblical cosmology asserts a flat earth, something Creationists will do their best to ignore. While your in Genesis, compare the creation accounts in Gen 1 and 2 and think about the order of creation, i.e. when humans came along in relation to the rest of creation.
  
  
• There are genealogical list errors.
• a) Even many conservative scholars would admit this even in relation to Matt 1:1-17. Btw, in 1:17, it states: ‘from Abraham to David fourteen generations, and from David to the Babylonian exile fourteen generations, and from the Babylonian exile to the Christ fourteen generations.’ Sit yourself down and actually count how many generations there are listed in the preceding verses and see if the editor/author was any good at maths.
  
  
• There are copyist errors. Hundreds of them. And the copyists and editors saw fit to change bits of the text here and their to suit their own agendas. To be contemporary in my comments: Ehrman has a good point, but it is
  
• a) not entirely original and
  
• b) no reason for turning from the faith – only one sickened by a false understanding of what the bible is. I will look at the old ‘escape clause’, that of the purity of ‘original manuscripts’, later.
  
  
• There are historical errors. Just a few random examples:
• a) How did Judas die? Compare, closely, the accounts in Matthew 27:3-8 and Acts 1:18-19. The differences are certainly not the result of a mere copyist error.
• b) Did Paul’s companions hear the voice during the Damascus road experience? Acts 9:7 ‘The men who were travelling with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one’. Acts 22:9 ‘Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me’.
• c) What colour robe was Jesus forced to wear? Compare Matt 27:28-29 with John 19:2-3.
• d) How many Syrians did David slay? Compare 2 Sam 10:18 and 1 Chron 19:18.
• e) For more, do a bible study on these questions like: Who is the father of Joseph? Who was at the Empty Tomb? How many times did the ‘cock crow’ (Peter’s denial of Jesus)? Etc.
  
  
• There are factual errors
• a) One example: Matt 27:9-10 cites a passage that the author/editor claims to have come from Jeremiah. But where did it really come from? Zech 11:12-13.
  
  
• It’s writers often supported theological errors, and the biblical tradition later corrects and contradicts itself. It makes theological statements that are such that one or other is true, not both. Many tend to call this phenomenon a ‘tension’. But aren’t many simply contradictions, thus making the contrary theological assertion an error?
  
• a) The righteous will get along dandy thanks (Proverbs), or perhaps in real life things are not so simple (Ecclesiastes). Cf. Childs OT work on this.
• b) Will all be saved in the end?
• c) Will God punish the children for the father sin or not?
• d) Can God be seen? Yes or no?
• e) Does God change? Do a bible study.
• f) Matthew 5:19 ‘Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.’ But isn’t this exactly what the early church went on to do?

The rest gets a bit philosophical, so I'll let you check it out yourself.

cs lewis' opinion of inerrancy

A few posts back, we talked about biblical inerrancy. I came across this post by Michael Spencer - the Internet Monk regarding CS Lewis' view of inerrancy.

He references an article by the Christian Research Institute (Hank Hannigraf - Bible Answerman).

Here are a couple interesting quotes from Lewis:

I have been suspected of being what is called a Fundamentalist. That is because I never regard any narrative as unhistorical simply on the ground that it includes the miraculous. Some people find the miraculous so hard to believe that they cannot imagine any reason for my acceptance of it other than a prior belief that every sentence of the Old Testament has historical or scientific truth. But this I do not hold, any more than St. Jerome did when he said that Moses described Creation “after the manner of a popular poet” (as we should say, mythically) or than Calvin did when he doubted whether the story of Job were history or fiction.

The total result is not “the Word of God” in the sense that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science or history. It carries the Word of God and we (under grace, with attention to tradition and to interpreters wiser than ourselves and with the use of such intelligence and learning as we may have) receive that word from it not by using it as an encyclopedia or an encyclical but by steeping ourselves in its tone and temper and so learning its overall message.

Spencer also give a good overview of Lewis' position:

Lewis believed that “all Holy Scripture is in some sense — though not all parts of it in the same sense — the word of God.” The book of Job, for instance, lacking historical details and context, appeared to Lewis to be unhistorical. The idea that the creation account in Genesis was derived from earlier mythical and pagan accounts did not trouble Lewis. These earlier stories were retold and modified (whether consciously or unconsciously) until they became an account of “true Creation and of a transcendent Creator.” When this happens in Genesis, Lewis concluded, there is no reason to “believe that some of the re-tellers, or some one of them, has not been guided by God.” In Lewis’s thought, Genesis conveys divine truth but not necessarily scientific or historical truth; still, God reaches us through its message.

brian mclaren, donald miller and the emerging church 101

For all those visiting from oldtruth, CRN and other places who are concerned about the emerging church, here's a short video to help introduce you to the conversation. It features Donald Miller and Brian McLaren.

a good reminder

I was hitting the blogs tonight before bed and hit Paul Soupiset's blog. He had a great excerpt from one of Martin Luther King, Jr's sermons that reminded me of the heart of Christ.

As we've been debating and philosophizing, I think we must remember this beautiful teaching that is central to our faith.

is our bible "inerrant"?

I've been engaged in a discussion over at OldTruth about the "inerrancy" of our bible.

You can study up on inerrancy over at wikipedia.

So - my question to you all... Is the scripture we hold in our hands perfect? Has 1600 years of translation affected the reliability of the text? Are the books included in the canon the right ones? Does God protect scripture from taint?

My current opinion (I'm always open to being wrong) is that scripture is inspired by God. I believe it's useful as it says in Timothy.

I do NOT believe it is perfect in the sense that most conservative evangelicals do. There are obvious errors that we can discuss. We can also talk about whether the bible ever claims inerrancy. And even if it is perfect, how do we understand what's literal vs sybolic? What's history vs poetry? Is there really harmony between the four gospel accounts?

So - let's just open up for remarks. We'll see where this goes.

crying statues, shiny angels and other christian oddities

WOAI here in San Antonio has gotten raptured up as of late in covering some pretty squirrelly "religious" things.

Read About Crying Baby Jesus

Tune in Tuesday for a Girl Who Talks to Angels

It strikes me how many people line up for stuff like this. It seems to be a cultural thing. When Mexico had Christianity thrust upon them by invading European armies, the powers-that-be often merged Christian beliefs with pagan ones.

My wife and I spent a week in San Miguel de Allende about 6 years ago. It was a really bizarre. The first chapel built there - in the 1500s - was adorned with angels, crosses and symbols of the church side by side with symbols for the local sun god, fertility god and war god. The church used fear to control the people. Because most weren't educated, it was a fairly simple thing to do.

This mixing of superstition and fear casts a sort of dark shadow over the churches we went to in San Miguel. They were beautiful and mysterious, but there didn't seem to be any joy or victory inside their walls. Instead of the freedom that Christ brings, there hung an aura of oppression and dread.

That's what I think of when I hear things like this. People traveling for hours to pray to a statue. Girls talking about angels like they were something from PAX-TV instead of the book of Ezekiel.

And even though we long for a real encounter with our Creator, we often settle for cheap man-made rip offs. Instead of seeking God with all our mind, soul and strength, we settle for forms of godliness with no power behind them.

Well one thing is right about this. I think that Jesus is - in fact - crying.

best super bowl commercial ever!

Of course, nothing this year came remotely close to my personal favorite commercial of all time. It has all the elements of comedy genius. Hillbillies. Mexican music on a $15 tape player. No rhythm. And of course, a monkey. ENJOY!

well said, mr turkey-neck!

My vote for the best superbowl commercial is simple. Harry. Ilene. Joy. Bob. And of course...Mr Turkey-Neck!