Special Bulletin -- Comma to be outlawed

(D.C.) Lawmakers on Capitol Hill began deliberations today on what is expected to be a successful motion to ban usage of the comma in American discourse. Senator Galoon (AK) told reporters he has the votes needed in the Senate, and he is confident that the House will also "hearken to the voice of reason."

"The comma is an antiquated device that should be done away with in these frenzied modern times times of change times of forward thinking times of ingenuity and a general sense that the old ways must be severed hackled cast into the sea," Galoon said. Apparently, many agree with him.

Dana Calhoon, National Teacher of the Year, issued this statement: "The comma doesn't belong in our society or in any society that is building a bridge to the future because it slows one down when one is reading and it's not really needed for clarity civility tradition or any other reason and it does nothing for me personally."

Here in Louisville, opinion was divided. Local anti-grammarian forces rejoiced. "Mwuahaha the comma is dead the semi-colon will be next then we'll talk about speling and paragrafs," said Tom Branch. "You can pretymuch figure out what is being said without all that firly stuff if you just read slowly and not get ahead of yourself and whats the point of all those weird signs that do nothing for you and dont pretty up the page they look like curse symbols: ;'"-'/;" Branch claimed.

Not everyone was so sure. "Let me just say that this is indicative of the loss of standards throughout our society," said Lorie King, Spelling uh, Policewoman. "This trend of 'dumbing-down' everything is bringing societal chaos, and, if you think about it, is tied in with the moral depravity that, while inherent to man, has increased exponentially in the last fifty years. This may be an anti-cultural notion, but we have got to start holding each other accountable for our actions, and for our speech. And hear me -- HEAR me: once commas are removed from public life, there will be chaos. There will be rioting in the streets. And don't come crying to me when it happens. No, really," King said.

20/20 will have a special report on this matter later tonight.

Anti-trinitarian heresies, again

Okay, I'm finally returning to this topic.

At the turn of the 20th century, when various small fragments of pentecostals began to project the theory that there was a secret code-name for "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," it opened the door for other errors. This "Oneness" theology, ironically, splintered into many, many sub-teachings.

One such group, fresh from the denial of a trinitarian mode of baptism, claimed a Unitarian interpretation of John 1:1 for their own. Of course, most of them were not aware they were following Unitarian dogma. They felt their "revelation" was unique to them, a long-lost apostolic truth that God was, through them, restoring in the "End Time."

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

They latched onto the Greek word "logos," translated "Word," and taught that it really meant something more like "thought." (It's important to note that almost no one who believes this can actually read the slightest bit of Koine Greek.)

Therefore, the passage would read "In the beginning was the thought..." The Son, then, did not preexist. He was a thought, an idea. The Father always knew, always predestined, that the Son would one day exist, but the day would not come until He was literally born in a manger.

This lead them down a difficult path. There are many scriptures that show or point to the preexistence of the Son, so each of these scriptures had to be tended to with verbal slight-of-hand. For instance:

Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him.

This passage, as well as the rest of John 1, was dealt with thusly: The Father created all things with the power that he would one day invest in the Son, after creating the Son. So it's something of a riddle. The Son created nothing, but the Father always had the Son in mind.

This would be like saying, if you had a son and you were baking him a birthday cake, thinking, with each step in the process, of your son, how much you love him, how much you want him to enjoy this cake, that, when the cake was done, your son was the one who had actually baked it.

The teaching that "Logos" really means "thought" originated with a 16th century Italian heretic named Faustus Socinius. He is credited with being a father of Unitarianism. He felt that Jesus was not divine, so John 1:1 cannot mean what it seems to mean. A priori reasoning, to be sure, but he gained many followers.

He rejected original sin, predestination, and the canonicity of the writings of Paul. It was assumed that Jesus never meant for us to believe He was divine -- that Paul twisted His teachings and corrupted them beyond recognition. Now, oneness Pentecostals believe nothing of the sort. THEY think their teaching on John 1:1 was given straight from God to them. It is a case of, among other things, "those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it." They accept Socinius' teaching that Logos = thought, while trying to swing back over to Christianity when it comes to the divinity of Jesus and predestination.

Finally, the wholesale separation from the doctrine of the trinity became complete with the rejection of the teaching "God in three persons." As oneness theologians teach it, as I learned it, the doctrine of the trinity is this:

There are three gods: Father, son, and holy spirit. They are all people. Well, two are, I guess. Two people and a bird. The Father looks like a wizened old man -- perhaps like Father Time or Gandalf. The son of course is Jesus. The holy spirit is a dove. There are three thrones in heaven: one for Jesus, one for Gandalf, and one for the bird.

Of course this is ridiculous, but that is the danger of it -- when you grow up in a closed community that not only teaches that something is wrong, but misrepresents the "wrong" teaching, then it is hard to see your way out. They quote passages like "God is a spirit" and "no man has seen God at any time" to prove a point that no real trinitarian would quarrel with -- that God the Father is not a man. So those held in bondage to the heresy are led to believe that trinitarians believe the Father is a man. They create straw man arguments that no trinitarian scholar would put forth, and then they destroy the straw men, leaving their followers to believe they have just destroyed the doctrine of the trinity.

In the first place "God in three persons" is not the same as saying "God in three people." "Persons" and "people" do not share an etymology. Our English "person" comes from the Latin "persona," which shares an etymology with the Greek "prosopon." "Prosopon" is used of the Father in Rev. 6:16 and Matt. 18:10, where it is translated "face," and Acts 3:19-20 and Heb. 9:24 where it is translated "presence." (It is also translated as "face" from the Septuagint, in Exodus 33:20).

Of course, those of you who have studied Church history are well aware of the trouble that has come from translating words into different languages, and of the early trinitarian controversies that came about in large part because of the poverty of the Latin language as compared to Greek. The Church fathers had to defeat the teaching that the Godhead contains three "essences" or was of three different "substances" or "beings," or that each was separate. Distinct -- yes. Separate -- no.

The English word "person" has gradually become more and more synonymous with "human" or "formed being," which the devil has seized upon to confuse an unlearned yet proud group of people who live for "new revelation," always searching for more and more traditional Church teachings that they can tear down under the name of "restoring lost revelation in these Last Days." As with a complicated math problem, once you err in the first stage of an equation, you will err further at each later stage. In this way, it becomes harder and harder to see your way out.

USA Today recently ran an article called "Teens Wear Hearts On Blog" -- http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2005-10-30-teen-blogs_x.htm

Interesting stuff. I have two thoughts:

1. I can't believe these kids are even bothering to get angry when their parents check out the blogs. They shouldn't be posting private thoughts on there anyway -- it isn't a private diary. Anyone in the world can stumble across your blog, including your parents.

2. This is sort of related to a brief exchange between Jonathan Hodges and myself on his blog, concerning how personal one should get on a blog. It is interesting that those who are most likely to be preyed on -- females and teens, are the most "open". As an experiment, I searched blogs -- mostly in my "blog circle," until I came across the profiles of 20 guys and 20 gals. 8 of the gals actually list there personal email addresses on their profiles. By contrast, only 4 guys did.
Of course, the chief reason for this is because women are generally more trusting, and also more driven to communicate and express themselves.

Anyway, it was quite an article. And of course, going back to the subject of teens, a far bigger concern than "I caught my dad reading my blog" should be "I'm writing about personal things on my blog that I shouldn't even be indulging in."

Another Thanksgiving, Come and Gone.

Now that we've got that out of the way ....

Actually, I don't have anything to post right now. I just figured I'd log on and tell you that I don't have anything to post right now.

Hopefully everyone had a good holiday weekend. Of course we all have lots to be thankful for. Life, for one ....

Raised in an end-times cult

Many of you have read or heard about how I was raised in an anti-trinitarian, pseudo-pentecostal, Last Days-prophecy church that set dates for the rapture and taught that the pope was the anti-christ. Here is a little story about how all that teaching affected me when I was a youngster:

Everyone said, when I was a lad, that I was going to be a sure-fire preacher someday. Maybe even, um, an apostle. So perhaps that talk encouraged me, or perhaps that talk was encouraged by, my little neighborhood sermons. I guess a lot of church kids "play preacher" growing up. We certainly did. My cousin Michael would lead the singing, which is funny in itself because he can't carry a tune and wouldn't sing out loud to save his life as an adult. Then I would hold forth with my big ol' King James Bible. We'd even built a little pulpit in the Brown's clubhouse out back. Neighborhood kids would gather 'round.

Now, what you need to know about this is that almost every kid in our neighborhood was male, and almost none of them ever went to church. They were, in fact, a profane lot. Lot's o' cussin' and fightin'. To them (and I'm sure, to their parents) church-going was for sissies. So if I'd have been a regular play-preacher, repeating things I would have heard in a regular Sunday school program, I'd have either been whipped regularly or ignored. Because you see, unchurched boys, raised on a steady diet of violent shows, video games, Dungeon's And Dragons, horror movies and pro wrestling do not have much patience with a message like "Jesus loves me, this I know." Tragic, but true.

What they do think is cool, however, is something like this:

And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.
3And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.
4And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
5And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
6And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

So I was a pretty popular little cult leader (not that the verses themselves are "cultic" in any way). Of course, my texts were not unusual to me -- they were what I heard every Sunday. And I figured the popularity of my sermons was due to the Power of the Spirit, not the bloodlust of boys. Oh, I do have some things to make up for ....
One day I took my text on Revelation 17:
1And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
2With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

A few parents expressed concern to my folks. It seems they hadn't gotten around to explaining to their kids what a great whore was, in either the literal or symbolic theological sense. Nor had they brought up the subject of fornication.
Now, I had no idea what these terms literally meant either. I knew that my preacher claimed the passage refered to the Roman Catholic Church, and that the Beast of Revelation 13 was the European Common Market, and the Antichrist was the Pope. That's all I meant, and that's what I taught to the wide-eyed kids. Most of their parents could have cared less about any of that.
However, my ol' friend Bob comes from a Catholic family. So he, all of eight years old, went to his mom and asked her why she worshiped the Great Whore of Babylon. This put a bit of a strain on our friendship, and the relative degree of welcome I felt when I'd come to visit Bob in his house. So his mom talked to my parents, who talked to our pastor, who explained to me that I shouldn't necessarily cast my pearls before the swine. That ended the neighborhood preaching.

Why Is Everybody Always Picking On Me?

So at church last night, several people claimed I was "Harvey Brown." I will now present two pieces of evidence to the contrary:

1. I am Bobby Gilles. It even says so on my birth certificate. And my nickname, as long-time readers of this blog can attest to, is B-Dog. For short. The full name, obviously, is Love Caddy B-Dog, The Forlorn Moonpuppy.

2. Harvey Brown wasn't even at church last night. But I was. In fact, I don't think Harvey and I have ever been in the same place at the same time. Therefore, Harvey can't be me. I can't very well be in two places at the same time, can I?

I'm glad we've finally cleared this up. I will shortly get back into my series of columns on the trinity.

I have the most caring friend in the universe.

Background is in order: I am, I must admit, a wrestling fan. Yes, I understand there are many sleazy aspects to the business as it is run today. I grew up watching it because my dad watched it, and so I've just always been hooked.

Be that as it may -- a wrestling superstar and former WWE champion died unexpectedly Sunday morning. It was quite a shock, and a very sad situation.

Now, my friend, my little sister Stacey, couldn't care less about wrestling. Actually she makes fun of my interest every chance she gets. I didn't even say anything to her about the death. But she saw it on the AP wire or something, printed it out for me, and emailed me this little message:

From: HALL, STACEY
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 4:12 PM
To: GILLES, BOBBY
Subject: Sorry dude....hope you are feeling better.



© MASAHIKO YAMAMOTO/AP
Eduardo Guerrero
WE Smackdown!' Star Guerrero Dies
Nov 14, 9:52 AM EST


The Associated Press

MINNEAPOLIS -- A World Wrestling Entertainment star was found dead in his hotel room Sunday in Minneapolis, where he was scheduled to appear that evening in a WWE show.

Eduardo Gory Guerrero, 38, didn't respond to a wake-up call Sunday morning, authorities said. His nephew, fellow WWE wrestler Chavo Guerrero, and hotel security at the Minneapolis Marriott City Center forced their way into the room and found him.

There were no apparent signs of foul play, police said. An autopsy was planned to determine how Guerrero died.

His nephew said Guerrero was open about past drug and alcohol abuse but had been sober for four years. Guerrero was married and had three children.

"This is a huge loss," said WWE chairman Vince McMahon. "Eddie was a wonderful, fun-loving human being. Eddie was a consummate performer."

Guerrero was a featured star on the UPN series "WWE Smackdown!" and son of Mexican wrestler Gory Guerrero. Last year, he became the second wrestler of Hispanic heritage to be WWE champion, though he lost the title four months later.

UPN also aired a special last year on his life, "Cheating Death, Stealing Life: The Eddie Guerrero Story." The program chronicled Guerrero's childhood and his struggle with drug addiction that almost cost him his job, family and life.

Stacey is so awesome. Such a loving little pinhead. See, this is why, when people assert, as they have sometimes done through various blog comments, that men and women can't really be friends, that I must disagree. I simply know it's false. Stacey is the best friend I could have, in many ways. And when she got married last year, I simply gained a new best friend. And obviously the very title "best friend" carries an implied caveat meaning "best besides the spouse." There's no confusion.

I am truly blessed.

And as a final thought, even though hardly any wrestling fans will read this: Rest in peace, Eddie Guerrero. He was a Christian who had, through the power of Christ, overcome drug and alcohol addiction and had become known by the other wrestlers as the one to go to if you needed anything. He was always there to quote Bible verses and give advice. He will be missed.

Oh Tangled Web of Relationships (Or, Why Can't Martians and Venusians Speak The Same Language)

There are a couple good blogs out there that have been putting out some interesting columns on the differences between the genders, as well as dating advice and related topics. Check them out at:
http://12strings.blogspot.com (Jonathan Hodges)
and
http://christinehnat.blogspot.com (Christine Hnat)

I don't believe either of these two to be connected with Harvey Brown.

Christine discusses "dating in your mind," among other related topics, mostly from the female perspective. She says some good things. I would add, ladies, that if you are in a platonic relationship with a man (hereafter refered to as a friendship, although all romantic relationships should be grounded in brother-sister in Christ friendship as well) and you don't want to be -- if you want more from him, and he has expressed no interest in wanting more, then you should get out. You shouldn't have to carry that load. You shouldn't let yourself be strung along, which is what he is doing, rather he knows it or not. You should sever the unhealthy relationship and be open and honest with him about why you are doing so.

I do think it's interesting though, that whenever I read this kind of thing on a blog, whether Christine's or not, it is usually from the woman's perspective. I would submit to you that there is at least as much confusion, if not more, coming from Mars as there is from Venus.

In fact, in a recent match.com pole, people were asked two very telling questions (at least the responses were telling):

1. Who is more likely to misinterpret the intimacy of friendship for desire?
64% of respondents said "Men." Only 25% said "Women." 11% were undecided.

2. Who is better at keeping sex out of a platonic relationship?
Only 13% said "Men." 67% said "Women", leaving 20% undecided.

So there is certainly a lot of confusion among men when it comes to "hanging out." Many women like to have male buddies to do things with, as well as to "get the male point of view" on things. And many men are confused by this -- in short, they perhaps WOULD pursue, have pursued, or are pursuing, only to hear those words that we've all dreaded at some point or another: "I think we should just be friends." I say this not to disagree with Christine or any other woman who is rightly concerned about all the "hang-out," passive males, but to point out that it cuts both ways.

It's difficult, this modern age. Male-female friendships definitely make it harder to tell who wants who, and in what way they want them. It's not a good thing. And I say this as someone who has, and has had, wonderful friendships with women. I would have to say, though, that every significant friendship I've had has developed because one or both of us had given our hearts to someone else, and therefore there was no doubt from the start as to what direction our relationship would take -- it would be a platonic friendship. And then, of course, when one or the other of us had, at some point, become disengaged from the romantic relationship we were in, the platonic friendship had already developed to a significant point -- in other words, we already felt that platonic affection, and we already knew that our friendship was worth preserving, rather than ending because "it's not leading anywhere." In this fashion, I've even gained good friends when my female friends married.

It would be much harder, maybe fruitless, to begin a friendship with a woman when we were both completely free, unless we felt that the friendship could lead in a romantic direction. And of course, in that case, the man should certainly be upfront and intentional in his pursuit.

Jonathan's blog explores such topics as "why do women communicate more," "are men more visual?" and the big subject of Biblical manhood and womanhood. I love the story of how he and his girlfriend got together, and how he met her parents and sought her father's approval. You'll read some interesting comments from people who think this is an old-fashioned pattern of "patriarchal oppression," as well as comments from us patriarchal oppressors who think the young couple is off to a great start.

And I think even Harvey Brown would agree with that.

Who Is Harvey Brown?

There has been some discussion on this thread and others as to the identity of one Harvey Brown, who apparently has a school named after him in Louisville, according to Jason. Jason has also pointed out that there is a noted Christian speaker named Harvey Brown, though our boy Harvey has denied a connection.

Harvey, for you regular bloggers, has been all over the blog world the past few months. On Nikki Tatom's blog, Laura questioned whether Harvey was real, to which Harvey responded with an attack on my stuffed bunny Rabby. Oh, how little Harvey knows about Rabby's explosive temper ....

I will now venture some guesses as to the identity of Harvey Brown. Here are the choices:

Lorie King: It is odd, isn't it, how Lorie was NOWHERE to be seen in blogdom for months, during which the reign of Harvey began ON HER BLOG. Then when she burst back on the scene earlier this week, Harvey went on hiatus. Hmmmm. It's also interesting to note that Harvey has continuously pointed out that he met all his new blog friends through Lorie's site, that he, like Lorie, grew up in South Carolina, and that the cat in Lorie's blog picture is, in fact, his cat.

Nikki Tatom: Harvey may have appeared on Nikki's thread more than any other. Yet she never, never mentions him or responds to him. And we all know how creative Nikki is. Also, one time Harvey went on her roommate Kristin's blog and told Kristin not to do drugs in school. Kristin responded with a "good advice, Harvey," rather than doing what most bloggers have done with some of these comments -- ignore them. So perhaps Kristin knows her roomie is having some fun ....

Jason Ramage: This whole thing SCREAMS of Jason. It's something he would do -- let's face it. And Jason keeps bringing Harvey up. The smeller's the feller. Notice that Jason discovered Harvey had a school named after him. Jason discovered a Christian speaker with the same name. Is he trying to throw us off the scent?

Some Seminarian I Don't Know: Many of Harvey's posts are primarily about church methodology. It's no secret that he espouses views that would be at odds with many of us Sojourn-type folks. Maybe he's some seminarian with an alternate view on "how to do church" who has figured out that "Anonymous" is often ignored, so he came up with a pseudo-identity to try to convince us wayward Christians of the supremacy of Sandi Patti and 4 Him.

Harvey Brown: Maybe this dude is real. Why wouldn't he be? We all have met Christians like him. And just because he doesn't want to fill out a big ol' blog form and get an official link doesn't mean he's a fake. He claims to have joined Nikki's community group -- or at least he claims he "will be" joining it. That group is led by Mike Cosper. Hey, wait a minute ....

Mike Cosper: Now, Harvey's typical views on worship, the arts, etc. are diametrically opposed to the Worship Arts Minister of Sojourn. Perhaps he has created this character to sharpen the minds of everyone. In other words, by creating a caricature of the other side, he lets us see how wrong that side is -- in a way, it's actually more effective than if he were merely joining our little circle of blogs as himself, and offering his real opinions. And Mike is a very clever guy ... hmmmm. I'm gonna think about this one. I don't think "Harvey" would be foolish enough to say he was joining a community group led by Mike if he wasn't -- unless either Harvey is Nikki, and she doesn't think any of us will find out that there isn't a Harvey Brown in her group, or unless Harvey is Mike, the group's leader. Are there any other suspects in that group?

Harvey -- in case there is a real you, know that I'm just having some fun here. No harm intended. I enjoy your posts. I disagree with you often, but you certainly provide food for thought.

What do you people think? Who IS Harvey Brown?

P.S. I will return to my trinitarian articles shortly. I just had to get to the bottom of this issue first.