Willing to die so you don't hear a women sing? Israeli Rabbi just suggested such a thing

In Israel, the Ultra Orthodox Jews are flexing their religious muscles. Here it's the headline and the first lines of the news:

Top settler rabbi: Soldiers will sooner choose death than suffer women's singing
Rabbi Elyakim Levanon warns IDF of prohibiting soldiers from leaving events which include women's signings, says hopes there are 'wise' people who would prevent such an order.

For Orthodox Jews, women singing is as bad watching porn, since they believe that a woman's voice entices men to commit sexual acts, and think impure thoughts. I wonder how little does keeping the Law do to them. Apparently, if a voice of woman singing it's too much temptation for them, then they have a lust problem.

They don't want women to serve in the army. I don't disagree with that, but women singing?

The reserve officers indicated that their appeal comes in response to a series of recent events, including the boycotting of military ceremonies by religious cadets due to women singing.The petitioners warned in their letter about harm caused to the motivation of women to serve in the army, as well as to what they termed damage to "the fundamental values of Israeli society."

Well, I agree that allowing women in combat operations is bad for any society, but once they are in, and you object to their singing, it's nonsense!

But what I find unacceptable and totally out of line, is what this rabbi comments on what some rabbis may suggest to religious soldiers:

However, in a radio interview on Thursday, Rabbi Levanon criticized a possible ruling that would forbid religious soldiers from leaving events over women's singing, saying that IDF soldier should choose death before complying with such an order.

There you go, dying for listening to a woman singing. This reminds of the Greek myth of the Odyssey, where the sirens would sing, and turn the sailors mad, and they would wreck their ships against the rocks.

Well, if you think that the Taliban is bad, check out Israel's Orthodox Jews.

Music at Church, a never ending issue

Via Christian Urban News

Good News Baptist Church in Chesapeake, Va., made a theological choice to offer only traditional music that expresses Christian doctrine. (Jack Gruber, USA TODAY)

In many U.S. churches today, worship musicians bang the drums for God and singers croon as if Christ were their boyfriend.
Bye-bye to Be Thou My Vision, a sixth-century Irish hymn with century-old English lyrics. Godspeed, Amazing Grace.

Nearly 50% of Protestant churches now say they use electric guitars or drums in worship, up from nearly 35% in 2000, according to the recently released Faith Communities Today study of 14,000 congregations.

But just because you don't like the tune doesn't mean it's theologically incorrect, says Rick Muchow, music pastor for the Saddleback Church founded by evangelist Rick Warren. "The Bible does not have an official soundtrack."

The nation's fifth-largest Protestant church, with nine satellite locations, runs several concurrent worship services Sunday mornings at its main site in Lake Forest, Calif., each with a different genre of music.

Muchow lists: a Gospel praise service; a "straight-ahead rock" called Overdrive; one called Fuel that's "geared to 20-somethings with more alternative music"; and a Traditions service with piano and a singer. Traditions is the only service using hymnals.

In the vast main worship center, however, the sound is "radio-style contemporary Christian with a small rhythm section," maybe an orchestra or choir now and then, and big screens beaming down the words to be sung by praise choruses, Muchow says.

"There are all different kinds of churches for different kinds of people. We don't worship music, we worship God," Muchow says.

Still, an unbending conservative guard of churches carries a flag for songs and sounds of the past. Their pastors claim people of all ages are drawn by timeless truths in classic hymns.

The fight can get fierce.

"There is an intense war being waged today for the heart and soul of Bible-believing churches, and one of the Devil's most effective Trojan horses is music," warns pastor David Cloud.

Good people go to heaven?

A bit of visual aid for those who want to take the Bible literally at all ocassions

Via Timothy Michael Law

Luther on his drinking problem

“If our Lord God can pardon me for having crucified and martyred him for about twenty years [by saying mass], he can also approve of my occasionally taking a drink in his honor. God grant it, no matter how the world may wish to interpret it!” -- Martin Luther

If there's one thing that I admired Luther for, is his frankness. He liked to drink, some even say that he had a "sip" before he preached so he could give a stronger sermon!!! His late night drinking with his fellow students was legendary, since they were also talking theology. And hey, his wife run a brewery from their house, so they were used to the smell of beer.

So there you go, don't idolise the Reformers, not even Luther. But from my end, I admire him even more, since he didn't hide his weaknesses, not even when he knew that many would disapprove. He just proves that all of us are sinners, fighting against our fallen desires.

Luis Alberto Jovel

Remembering both those who fought for our lives here on earth, and those who fought so we could hear the message of eternal life

Did you notice that this year, Remembrance Day fell right on the 11 of the 11 of 2011? Much talk was made about it, since it is the first date that coincides with all the 11s. But regardless of that curious date, what’s most important is what we celebrate on Remembrance Day, which is that we remember the sacrifice done by others on our behalf. Men and women who went to fight or help in that fight in order for us to enjoy the free life that we have.

            Just in case you missed it, Martin Luther was borne on the 10^th of November. He was also one of those persons who were willing to put their lives on the line so other Christians would come to enjoy the fullness of life that is found in the grace of God. We cherished those who lost their lives fighting for our life here and now, but do we cherished similarly the lives of those who were willing to fight for our eternal lives?

            The only way we can fully honour those who gave their lives in wars is to continue to uphold the freedom their sacrifice gained for us. The only way we can honour those who endangered their lives so we could worship God freely, is to hang on the saviour they believed and served, Jesus.

Roger Olson takes on Neo-Reformed's view of predestination

In high Calvinism God predestines the elect to salvation and the non-elect to damnation. Some Calvinists do not believe in double predestination; instead they believe in “single” predestination. Roger Olson, however, argues (along with many Calvinists) that single predestination necessarily entails double predestination. Then Olson probes into the doctrine to say it makes a mockery of God’s love and goodness, and offers instead an Arminian approach to election. So, he argues “Yes to election; No to double predestination.”

Calvinism’s commitment to its form of election creates theological and logical problems for Calvinism. Do you think double predestination ultimately shakes confidence in God’s love and goodness?

As you may know, we are this series on Roger Olson’s Against Calvinism and Michael Horton’s For Calvinism. One of the most admirable characteristics of Roger Olson is his candor about what he thinks and what he thinks of others, seen for instance in his recent criticisms of JI Packer’s understanding of Arminianism. When Arminians criticize like this it is seen as arrogance or a lack of charity while when Calvinist theologians go after Arminians it is perceived as commitment to the truth and a willingness to defend the hard doctrines (of grace). Baloney on that one. Olson is simply being a good, sharp-minded theologian and is always open to discussion — and his recent public debates with Michael Horton, who like Olson is charitable and civil even when they disagree firmly and say strong things, are a good sign of this commitment to public civility. I digress.

Olson’s chp on election is admirably clear about what Calvinists believe and at the same time firm in disagreement. Olson is against double predestination for individuals; he is for “conditional election” for individuals. He is firmly against “unconditional individual election’s inevitable correlate — reprobation” (104), and he sees it contrary to God’s love.

Calvin believes in double predestination; so does Boettner, Edwin Palmer (“choosing implies leaving others unchosen”) and Palmer throws up his hands at times when it comes to the logicality of this viewpoint. Sproul believes in double predestination (though he sees one as positive, the other as negative; active vs. passive, etc.). And James Daane argued that it was double or nothing when it comes to predestination of individuals.

Olson: this makes God morally ambiguous or worse, even monstrous.

The standard Calvinist response to criticisms is now called divine command theory, or that whatever God does is good and it is not ours to question it. This was seen recently in both Francis Chan and Mark Galli’s response to those who want to probe into the theodicy question of the morality of eternal punishment. Calvinists have often pushed back this way, and Olson argues this shows they believe their view of God is God as God is, while he wants to argue that their view (not God) is wrong. Another point made is that Calvinists, like Boettner and Piper, often contend doctrines like these ultimately glorify God even if we cannot comprehend how or why. Olson contends such ideas often turn God into being arbitrary.

The issue here is how to square belief in God’s love and double predestination. Pushing back by saying we aren’t to question simply doesn’t do it. This is why some today see God’s love at several levels (Piper, Carson) or say God has two wills.

Olson argues there are strong Calvinists theologians who have completely contested double predestination, including G.C. Berkouwer and James Daane. Then he sketches the powerful responses of John Wesley to Calvinism, where you will hear ideas very similar to what we have heard from Olson in many contexts (mainly, this stuff cannot be squared with a God of love without diminishing God’s love, which is exactly what is often seen in some Calvinists).

The alternative? Election is corporate (those in Christ, who believe in Christ, are elect because Christ is the Elect One). Arminians, too, believe in the priority of grace in prevenient grace, in spite of what its critics often repeat. And with Jack Cottrell, Roger agrees God made a world in which God acts with self-limitation because God values the freedom of those whom God has created.

via Patheos.

Welcome to the Planet of the Dogs. Occupy Denver elects a new leader, a dog!!! Stupidity at its best

Once humans start electing are their representative officials a dog, that can't fully understand you, or you can't fully understand it, then you will not get far with your movement.

This occupy movement has shown itself not only destructive, but totally stupid as well.

If you vote for a dog as your leader, you are actually saying that that animal has more brains than you. They protest against politicians and corporate institutions, that have no wisdom or knowledge as to how to carry the economy. Will a dog do it better?

Here it's how TIME reports on it, but look at the short version of the video below as well:

It depends how much money you have or dont have that defines how you view God

 Christianity Today has published a very helpful graph that shows that it depends how much you earn, that you you believe if God does have a plan for your life.

The graph also shows that if you believed that the USA was a very religious country, you are wrong.  The USA is not as exceptional as some like to think.

It is interesting to think that those who have a belief that God has a plan for their lives, are more likely that those who work, will reach their dreams, and are opposed for any intervention by the government in culture and society, specially with the poor. Some believe that less government, means that the hand of God is more involved!!

Check the link, to see the complete graph.

Luis A. Jovel

The gay movement does it again. Now Penguins are gay!!

I've heard of many gay dolphins, gay giraffes, gay donkeys (and I've heard this one from my latin american friends), but now, we hear about gay penguins.... CNN reports on it:

Buddy and Pedro are two male African penguins at the Toronto Zoo who seem to have a connection — a very special, loving connection — that has zookeepers wondering if their relationship is more than just a bromance.
According to the Toronto Star, zookeepers have noticed that although Buddy, 20, and Pedro, 10, swim and play with the other penguins in their enclosure by day, they pair off and nest together at night as well as exhibit other telltale mating behaviours, such as touching, making braying sounds and defending their territory.Does this mean that Buddy and Pedro are gay? Not exactly, as the term doesn’t normally apply to animals. But according to research from the University of California, Berkeley, birds — and other animals, for that matter — are known to form same-sex relationships.

This reminds me of how Bert and Ernie, from Sesame Street, were also considered gay because they have been living together for more than 40 years, yet, sleep in different beds. You can see my entry on this here.

I talked to a family member who became gay after searing 3 kids, and he told me that the army was a gay institution, as well as the 12 apostles of Christ, and many other institutions.

This confirms to me, if you are gay, you see everything, but I mean, everything through that view. Sexuality, according to these people, is not a gift to enjoy, but a worldview to impose upon everyone, either by cultural domination (TV, radio, media, arts) or by lawful imposition (rejecting proposition 8 in the courts, although the people of California democratically voted for it, passing gay marriage through the courts, etc.). 

Many criticise me for bringing this issue time and time again, but if you have young kids, do you want them to hear that penguins are gay? From a kid's point of view, if it's ok for animals, why not for us? This type of news are trying to change people's mind, but kids don't have the maturity to stand up to this undercover brain washing. 

I give a plus to CNN, although they are liberal, that at the bottom of the page, gives an alternative story, that goes like this:

For a while, Roy and Silo, a pair of male Chinstrap penguins in New York Zoo, were the world’s most famous gay couple, building a nest together and even hatching and rearing abandoned chick Tango. However, this has been somewhat spoiled by a new study from the Center for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology in Montpellier, France which has suggested that penguins are only pairing up with other males because they are “lonely.” According to the paper, in the colony studied, where more than a quarter of the penguins were in (mostly male) same sex couples, a shortage of females was driving males with high levels of testosterone to engage in mating displays with other males. Professor F. Stephen Dobson, one of the authors of the study published in the journal Ethology, said that when he observed the colony over time he found that all the “gay” penguins chose a heterosexual partner eventually and that female pairs would also “split up” to raise an egg with a male partner. However, NewsFeed refuses to let this ruin the beauty of the romance between Roy and Silo

So, it's not that penguins are gay, but they are lonely.

In our sex driven culture, it would seem that all sorts of affections can be interpreted as a sex act. This news then, shows more what's in the mind of those who are praising these "gay" penguins, than what the penguins are doing themselves.

Luis A. Jovel