Beer

35 billion gallons of beer sell worldwide each year. It is over a $330 billion industry. And yet… one must be the best. But which one is the best of all? It is an interesting question; no doubt personal perception plays a role. Still, is the most popular beer really the best? How many people do you know that have tried Speckled Hen or Hop Head (and these are just some of the easy to pronounce and more popular ones)?

Certainly popularity does play a role, but people that are limited by few experiences should recognize the restrictions or their scrutiny. If Coors or Molson is the most exotic beer you’ve tried in the last few years you might just have to admit your limitations. And while I am not the most erudite of drinkers I do think that I have something special to offer you and I do believe that I have explored this world to an extinct far more diverse than is the average. And what precisely do I think I might have to offer my good readers? Well… faithful followers I, HaKohen have come to the following conclusion - Innis & Gunn – Oak Aged Beer is my personal favorite and is perhaps more importantly the greatest beer in the world.

In my humble opinion, you may not be able to find it at your local store, but you should certainly take a look.

Check ‘em out at http://www.innisandgunn.com/index.htm

It is well worth it!

He'Brew

Sorry to say that this one isn't available in Canada just yet! But that hasn't stopped these guys from shipping throughout most of the US. Perhaps soon we too can get a taste of thie new Jewish Beer... or as they call it He'Brew.

http://www.shmaltz.com/

Church?

I was thinking about something recently. I was thinking about how stupid church goers can be today. Today’s “contemporary” evangelical pastors think they’re so smart. They set up huge stages with “worship bands” and choreographed lights and have little skits to keep people interested. They perform an act and make God’s church into a theater and his ministers into little more than jesters. The pastor will speak to everyone from a seated position up at a little coffee table so that even in crowds filled with hundreds of people, each person is meant to feel as if they are sitting right across for him at some hip new overpriced coffee shop. It’s all just a little too hygienic for me. Where is the reverence? Where is the room for people to interact or discuss?

Near my home town in Kansas a church called Grace Point is the perfect example. If you go to their webpage you’ll find all the same kinds of images you’d see at any other “contemporary” church website. It has catchy slogans that don’t really mean anything like “Church for people who don’t like church” (in reality this means a gathering of believers that don’t like believers gathering). It shows a causally dressed minister who talks about “relevance” and “authentic community” and basically any other buzz words that happen to be floating around this year.

Now I’m sure that this church has some wonderful things going on and I’m sure that pastors like these truly believe in what they are doing but I just can’t understand it.

What has happened to us? I wonder what people in third world churches think when they see this? What is the difference between these mega-churches and old cathedrals built with gold and marble statues? Do people really look at this from their place in secular society and say, “wow, look at that light show… Jesus must have died for my sins”? Why do ministers keep feeding the people exactly what we think they want and nothing of what they need? Does church really need to be a “celebration service” every week? What about Good Friday? Is there no room for pain in our churches today? Do we really need church to be fun and entertaining all the time, cause to be honest I think if I wanted to be entertained I’d much rather go see a movie than go see a heavily diluted presentation of Christianity.

If you are reading this and you haven’t been to church in a long time then my advice to you is to go to the smallest church you can find. Find a mainline church that has intensely thought through its worship or find a new emerging church that is attempting to do the same for a new generation (one where you have input). But whatever you do –stay far, far away from personality cults and churches with a lot of money to spend and seemingly nothing better to do with it then build onto their already gigantic sanctuaries or hire specialty pastors for every conceivable type of person. If the church you go to has a minister for bisexual Asian, non-English speaking immigrants with missing toes, get out now!

Christian Heritage Party

As I have recently returned from a trip up North, I could not help noticing all the signage for the Christian Heritage Party as I traveled along the road. Now, as strong believer in the democratic process, I have no problem with the propagation of their beliefs. What I do take issue with is spreading their message with the name Christian Heritage Party, more specifically the words Christian & Heritage
First, I have a problem with the name Christian in any party because Christianity holds such a broad spectrum of beliefs that to say that all Christian believe in the same policies of one party would be absurd. Not all Christians believe that same sex marriage is wrong! Not all Christians believe abortion is murder! Not all Christians believe that the Capitalism of the west is a blessing from God! So to use the name Christian in a political name is quiet offensive to us that do not hold your views
Second, the word Heritage in the name insinuates that it is founded on long standing Christian principles. Christianity has been evolving since day one and it continues to mature today. We no longer support slavery, crusades, or segregation and not all Christians supported these practices when they were commonly accepted as OK. So it is impertinent to assume that your political beliefs are based on the Heritage of ALL Christians. We all come from varying backgrounds and Heritage’s; therefore, we all have a different heritage.
It is with this that I believe it would be better suited to call your political party the Ultra Conservative Fundamentalist Party or maybe the Minority View of Christianity Party, but please be considerate of your fellow believers that do not hold your view, and do not market yourselves as the Christian party. Please do not try and include all Christians within your belief system for we are quite diverse in our beliefs and function better because of it.



Cutty Sark

Christians and Genetics

This one came in from brad (Said he wrote it for us but then put it on his myspace page...? Seriously man how old are you?)

Anyway Here it is:


We live in a world where the virgin birth in no more miraculous. The reality of the issue is that almost anyone can be a mother now and the new survival of five different tubule pregnancies makes it suggestible that a male could even carry a child. The topic of reproductive technologies and genetics is a very difficult one for me, but I do have some lines drawn in the sand.

Personally I find that Artificial Insemination (AID) is not immoral in and of itself. If seems to me that these implantations have nothing to do with adultery and to suggest so seems also to suggest that women commit adultery every time they visit the gynecologist. Though some complications exist with AID I see no reason to oppose it as an option and I find AIH to be even less problematic. This is not to say that I have no concerns when it comes to Artificial Insemination. In fact I do but my concerns do not lie with the "creation" of implanted fertilized eggs, but rather they lie with the discarded or unused eggs. In my view, as soon as the eggs have been fertilized; life has begun to develop. As such, anything that calls for the creation of fertilized eggs that could become little more than "medical waste" or "research material" is immoral because of the secondary outcomes. This means that Artificial Insemination is not wrong in and of it self but that some of the things that go along with it are. If Artificial Insemination would be done one egg at a time, I could not oppose it. (It seems the main problem people have with this is monetary and I do not see any relevance between cost and morality. It may cost more but the price tag is well worth the clean conscience.) Embryo Transfer is another interesting option but again I do not have any problems with the process per se. In stead I have a problem with the creation of life that will then not be allowed to develop to its full potential.

I have to say, though I find no real moral difficulties with these procedures, (save certain secondary concerns that could easily be eliminated) I would much rather opt for adoption. This is not because I see infertility as a sign. In fact, I see infertility as a medical condition and believe that much like cancer it should be treated wherever possible. The idea that people should accept there situation is ridiculous. This kind of position is a slippery slop that soon finds its way into trouble. Instead I merely favor adoption because adoption seems to be the greater good. Moses was adopted; Jesus as well. It is certainly a good option for Christians and I do not believe that waiting matters one bit. Impatient does not create morality.

Selective Genetics
For me it seems that the choosing of characteristics for you children is an error. The problem I find with this sort of thing is not that it is evil to want your children to be red headed or blue eyed or taller; it is in the issue of betterment. When we begin to believe that people can be better if only they hold certain characteristics, it shows that we have little respect for the differences in us as a people. In making an active choice to have a child without a handicap, we are essentially saying to all handicapped people that they are somehow lesser beings. This is not to say that we should not attempt to correct medical problems. In fact, if possible we should perform life saving surgery on unborn babies inside the uterus and this is of little difference from the illumination of disease causing genes in embryos, but it is a far step to get to eye color or height or even choosing what gender to have. In my view, these kinds of technologies carry with them great power. They could help us to eliminate disease, but the question comes in differentiating disease from discomfort; healing from "bettering".

The Problem of Certainty

As the war continues in Iraq, it should give us time to reflect on the travesty of fundamentalist belief which I believe is Certainty. It is with certainty that we are able to hold so dear to our own beliefs that we are willing to kill and abuse others who do not hold onto the same ideas. We blindfold the masses in emotional security about our way being the right way while vilifying those outside our own belief system. It has been stated, “Whenever a group of religious folk begin to believe they posses God’s truth, almost inevitability they become those who in the name of their version of that truth persecute, excommunicate, purge, burn at the stake, or justify cruel religious wars against any who will not salute their tradition or acknowledge their rightness in things religious.”
Both sides of this conflict have those who believe beyond a reasonable doubt that they are right in their fight. But in order for us to move ahead with the peace process in the Middle East both sides will have to admit that they are wrong and enter into an area that is difficult for all of to enter, which is uncertainty. Whether we are Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh or Agnostic, we have to be willing to set aside our own moralistic views and live by the spirit of our religion and that is to love God and to love our fellow Human. All religions have this same creed within their belief system but it is somehow ignored. We decide to live by the law or rules and not the spirit or ideal of our religions. As John Shelby Spong wrote, “Fundamentalism is so limited. This is surely why Paul wrote that ‘the written code kills, but the spirit gives life.’” Maybe it is time that we grow up and be willing to admit that we are wrong and that the other side maybe right. It is the only way that we will be able to find peace. Uncertainty is not to be feared but needs to be embraced in order for humanity to move forward.

"Cutty Sark"

Strange Thought

Profound mental retardation
IQ Below 20

Severe mental retardation
IQ 20–34

Moderate mental retardation
IQ 35–49

Mild mental retardation
IQ 50–69

Borderline mental retardation
IQ 70–79

It is interesting to see how people treat each other. For example: Mental retardation is defined as someone with an IQ below 70. In this day and age, that means that these people are actually much respected and well cared for. It is looked down upon to mock people with disabilities. And if you were to do so you would be looked down upon by the general public. It’s true, it hasn’t always been this way, but today this is a general principle. On the other hand, what about people who score closer to the mid-80’s. Well, we see these people every day. They are often socially awkward. They work in our offices, provide our services and go through life relatively unnoticed. These people are the most despised people on earth. The truth is that these are the same people that are hated at your work. These people are generally described as “stupid” and nobody wants to be around them except of course for other “stupid people”. They do not complete tasks correctly. They preform at a sub-par level. They annoy.

It is strange to think that we have come so far and yet most of us dislike people we think to be “idiots”. It is culturally acceptable to mistreat them or talk about them with others. In fact, it is often a point of unity between other co-workers.

I wonder, could we learn to think of these people in a new way? What is it about human nature that says we must always place people into cast systems? It is an interesting question...

-Ha Kohen

New post from Loft

Okay so now Loft has also decided to send something in. I have got to figure out how to add you guys so you can post on your own.

So here it is a little article sent to me from Loft. I hope you enjoy it... byt remember it aint mine.
-Ha Kohen




So Joe Simpson, manager of daughters Ashlee and Jessica Simpson is at it again. No… he’s not praising the grandeur of his little girls “double D’s” again as he did back in GQ. Instead he’s sharing his pristine guidance on parenting with the world in order to further humiliate his daughter’s greatest competition. While Joe claims to “feel bad for Britney Spears” with all his ex-Baptist minister heart he also asserted that “I would never let that happen to my daughters”.

Well with all your daughter pimping skills aside and your newly found proficiency in applying Church whoreing to the secular music industry as well, I’d have to say that you are an ex-mega-church… mega-douche bag!

While I’m not a particularly huge fan of Britney Spears, I’m also not a big fan of kicking people while they’re down. And just exactly how many parents do you believe “let” this kind of thing happen to their children? As far as I can tell, you’re the most famous deadbeat dad I’ve ever seen and just because you still make a good living sucking up the loose change after the their quasi pornographic pictures are taken, that doesn’t make you the moral center of parenting. Your kids aren’t sexual commodities and nobody’s parents just “let” damaging things happen to their children… except for you of course. Screw off!

Not from me - don't blame me!

Well I guess an explanation is in order. The Realist was handed down to a new generation some time ago. A new group has been running the actual paper for some time now and the issues just have not made it to the online version because I was no longer involved. However, being one of the creators does have its advantages and Cutty Sark has agreed to send some things in from time to time (his idea). So I guess you should just keep checking in to see what’s going on. For now I’ll post a copy of what Cutty sent me as an e-mail. In the future he will have a space on the dashboard and will be able to post his own work. But for now you will just have to make due with me pasting it in. Enjoy!

-Ha Kohen





An Open Letter to the Church Growth Movement: By Cutty Sark

So… What’s up… you spoiled bunch of hoe-bags for God. You know, God doesn’t need a whole lot of conservative dicks pushing him like a box of old, broken toys at a garage sale! Jesus isn’t some shitty tasting medicine that needs to be force fed down peoples throats or diluted to fit everyone tastes. STOP TRYING TO MARKET THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE!!! I’m pretty sure that thinking God needs your help is what’ll get you put somewhere between Hitler and all those unbaptized Catholic babies in the lowest levels of Hell!

And another thing… what the hell is the deal with you guys hate’n on the TNIV? It’s your effing (like how I did that?) conservative translation; complete with all your pathetic conservative theological slants. You should be shoving copies up you anus for safe keeping just in case the mainliners decide to burn up all the competition. What’s so bad about gender inclusive language? Seriously? It’s not like they’re claiming Jesus had a vagina or something. The just want to make the Bible read more like it was originally. I’m pretty sure God isn’t male anyway! I’m pretty sure he doesn’t need a dick to piss with; I’m pretty sure he doesn’t piss at all or need to drink so He’d have to piss in the first place. Ah screw it that’s enough for now! No what – Screw you! And Grow Up, Ass-clowns!

The Realist Online: Issue 8

The Realist Issue 8

The Telephone’s Ringing. Pick it up...

-Hello? Who’s there?
-It’s Jesus.

-Oh, Jesus. I’m so glad you called. I handed out tracts outside of bars and condemned a bunch of sinners to hell. I went to church on Sunday and I’ve been reading my Bible everyday. I’ve been wearing my WWJD bracelet and haven’t lusted after a woman in three months. You’re probably so proud of me.

- Actually I’m disappointed with you. You didn’t give that drunk your spare change this morning. You yelled at that scared girl as she was going into the abortion clinic last week. You wouldn’t look that prostitute in the eye when she asked if you could give her a ride uptown. You saw those addicts on TV dying of AIDS and muttered under your breath that they deserve to die.

-But Jesus...

-Smarten up. (*click*)



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome ladies and gentlemen to the final issue of the Realist for this year. It has been fun writing and publishing this work of art. It has had the desired effect of causing open discussion of taboo subjects. I have taken some criticism for my tactics but if it were not controversial I do not believe it would have caused the discussion that it did. Maybe. Maybe not I just wanted people to step outside the protective bubble that is meant to protect us here at ________ I do not think that it does. It causes more damage by allowing us to be Christians that sit on a fence judging those who do not live up to our manmade standards of Christianity. As I reflect on my last eight years at Bible College, I realize that I have evolved from a super fundamentalist to a Born Again Catholic.1 It has been quite a journey but I must say it was worth it and I appreciate all that _________has given me. Just remember to question. We are all heretics in the end!

- Cutty Sark

===============================================

A Note from Bastard Bob:

Greetings Fellow Realist Enthusiasts:
I bet you were looking at the front page and noticed that my name wasn’t on it. I bet you thought Oh crap; this is a Cutty Sark issue. We’re all doomed. Thirty pages of smut and insult. Where the hell is Bastard Bob? Well, not to worry. I’m right here. I couldn’t fit this blurb on the front page. Well, as Cutty said, this is the last issue of the year. It’s been a long haul. We unintentionally stirred up a lot of controversy. We had our papers torn up in front of us and people gave us dirty looks (even though they couldn’t prove which pseudonym matched up to whom). We received threats of physical violence, and we were threatened with legal battles. We were even threatened with the wrath of God. Many people questioned our faith and called us heretics. A couple people even emailed us and told us we were going to hell. In the end we’re still here. And whether or not all Realist Staff will be condemned to hell remains to be seen. I guess you’ll all have to wait. If you were right, you can say I told you so/from across the fiery gulf

I think that it’s kind of sad that you have had an agnostic for an editor for the past several issues. If I were a conservative Evangelical, maybe I would have had more to say to you. Maybe you would have been more interested in what I had to say. I don’t deny that I’m a heretic. My ideas about God, faith, truth and life definitely conflict with Christian values and norms, but these poor writers couldn’t find anyone else to edit their work for them, so you were all stuck with me. Though I may label myself a heretic and apostate, please do not be so quick to label the other staff members here at the paper. Those who I have met in the flesh have turned out to be compassionate people who have a genuine concern for Christianity and Christians. They want to get away from the Cotton Candy Christianity which has become a part of pop-culture. They want to get away from simple sinner’s prayers that instantly save souls and books that promise church growth in forty days or less. They want to get away from judgment and condemnation. They want to question common views about God and the world. They want to be compassionate and help the poor, the down-trodden, and weak.

Whether you like The Realist or not, you have to admit that it’s been a great place for discussion. People have written about many different topics and others have had an opportunity to respond. I would like to thank everyone who contributed articles and all of those who sent us emails regarding the paper (even those who did not agree with us). I would also like to thank all of those people who wrote to us and encouraged us to put out a final seventh issue. It’s just great to see that all the time, effort and money that went into this little independent paper wasn’t overlooked. Many people like The Realist and want it to continue. Have a good summer. Remember the poor. Remember the weak. Please remember those who society has forgotten.

-Bastard Bob


__________________________________________

We’ve received a lot of mail over the last couple of months. We selected a few entries for publication. As always, it’s your own damn fault if you write in criticizing us and we end up making you look like a complete fool. Submit at your own risk. Cheers. Bastard Bob.
Letters to the Editor:

Dear Bastard Bob:
I am so sad that you were pushed out by those hypocritical bureaucrats in charge at The Realist. Down with Cutty Sark! I wish you would consider putting out another issue and stick to the man just more time. Oh, will The Realist be back next year? All my love and kisses.

Clementon

Thanks we know we’re awesome.


-------------------------------
Dear Realist:
I was offended by the absence of the word “wanker” in your last issue. You claim to be tough stuff, yet everybody knows tough guys say “wanker.” Please remedy this for the comeback issue.
Thanks.
Steve “The Wanker Man” Stevenson

Personally, I prefer “weiner” to “wanker.” The word “weiner” is so cool. You can spell it “weiner” or “wiener,” but either way it’s still a weiner.
-----------------------------

Realist:
I’m so glad you guys are finished. Six issues was definitely enough. I was thoroughly offended and left aghast by your lack of Christian love and maturity on several occasions.
Signed
Relieved

Well RELIEVED, we weren’t going to do another issue but then we got your email. So prepare to be offended.

-----------------------------

Dear Realist:
I found a copy of issue three in one of my classrooms at King’s University College. Where can I get the rest of the issues? Can I subscribe? I especially liked “Top Thirteen Movie Scenes not to Watch with your Mom in the Room.” My friends and I couldn’t stop laughing, and we even had to rent some of the movies (without supervision). I showed it to some professors in faculty lounge and hilarity ensued. How can I become part of The Realist team? Sign me up.
-Brian Yutze

Well Brian, we already know where to find you.

Dear Bob and the Gang:
Did you guys all make amends? I thought that Bob was pissed off with Cutty Sark. What happened?

We read certain copy of a certain official school paper and we thought - if we did make a comeback, it couldn’t ‘t be any worse than this. Why not spend an insurmountable amount of time piecing something together? Oh yeah, Cutty bought me a beer.

-------------------------------


Realist:
Jesus is probably turning over in his grave right now. Christianity is about community, charity and compassion, not criticism. You know nothing about Christianity or Christian love.

Urn... we do know that Jesus isn’t in a grave, you idiot!
-Realist one. Idiots nil.



Dear Bastard Bob:
If you could be any type of animal, excluding the puffer fish, llamas, and el Salvadorian Green Iguanas, what type of animal would you be?

-The Crow


I would be a weasel.
Because they’re weasily.

-HaKohen

-------------------------------

Dear Ha Kohen, You are boring. You’re like a long poem with too much alliteration and too little clemencertation.


Clementeration? I don’t think that’s a real word. Is this George Bush?

--------------------------

Realist Staff:
I know who all of you are. Stop your publication, or I will release all your names and you will never get jobs in ministry. Ever. You have been warned.
Anonymous

We all already have jobs in ministry - I might be your Pastor.

------------------------------------

Hey there Bob and you other people:

I hope you all can make amends and find it in your hearts to forgive Cutty Sark. It is the Christian thing to do. Get him back on board where he belongs. Sure, he was a crazy, rude drunkard. Sure, he swears at people and writes inappropriate e-mails, but I really liked him. He addressed all the subjects that everyone else ignores. He’s not afraid to say what he thinks. He also brought out the best in all of you, especially Bastard Bob.

Please give him one more chance,
Dave


Dave, you’ve convinced us. We also agree that Cutty Sark is a crazy, rude drunkard, but hey, we all have our vices. And forgiveness is what we’re all about here at The Realist.

===========================================

TOP TEN THINGS YOU DON’T WANT YOUR MOM TO
FIND IN YOUR ROOM

10) Birth Control
9) A nude someone of the same sex
8) A Planned Parenthood pamphlet.
7) A Source Adult Video Membership Card.
6) Pictures of old people in compromising positions.
5) A fake ID
4) A blow-up doll
3) Tracts from the Society for Krishna Consciousness
2) A small baggie filled with green leaves
And.., the number one thing you don’t want your mom to find in your room...
1) A picture of you in drag, wearing her lingerie!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Abortion: A Woman’s Choice

When does life begin? This question is of grave importance in regards to the issue of Abortion. The fundamentalists claim that life begins at conception in which the soul is given to the newly conceived ferns. Traditionalists claim that life begins at birth where the soul is given upon the infant’s first breath. Since, most of us at a Bible College would sit on the side of Fundamentalist and use the weak defense of “thou shalt not kill” as support for our argument, I will defend the choice of a woman to decide what to do with the flesh that is growing in her body. This is a defense for pro-choice using the Bible, history and tradition to formulate my argument. Remember to keep an open mind, because you may have been brainwashed as I was.

Fundamentalists may be surprised that traditional Jewish interpretation would lend support for the Pro- choice side. Jewish interpretation traditionally has understood that the soul of a human was given upon the first breath of the child. Consider, Genesis 2:7, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” This verse is stating that it was the breath that gave life to Adam. He was formed but it was not until his first breath that he was alive. Also, Consider Job 33:44 “The Spirit of God bath made me, and the breath of the Almighty bath given me life.” The breath of the Spirit of the Almighty gives life, not conception, as many would believe.

Ezekiel 37:1-6 describes the infamous story about the dry bones. Miraculously, flesh and bones are brought together out of Dry Bones, but the life is not given until it is breathed into them from God. As with the formation of Adam, it is not until the first breath is breathed, that they are regarded as living.

Exodus 21:22 supports Pro-choice’s idea that a fetus is not alive; therefore it should not be regarded as a human. It states, “When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.” Violence has induced an abortion but the ferns in not considered a human and the traditional death penalty is not applied for murder Abortion, then, is not considered a capital offense by God or a violation of the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” This commandment can no longer be used as a defense to the Pro-life camp.
God is called upon to bring about abortions. Look at Hosea 9:14-16. “Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb (an abortion) and dry breasts.. .yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. In this case God causes abortions; the prophet prays that these women will abort. If these are truly innocent children, how could God do this? But they are not, they are “miscarrying wombs,”“imperfect substances” and God kills the innocent. Abortion is not seen as evil when used by the purpose of God. Maybe, it is not a sin that Pro-life adamantly claims it is.

Abortion may or may not be a sin but we must remember not to force our will onto other people for Paul states in Galatians 2:21, “Follow the example of Jesus, let those that want Christ come to you. Do not force the grace of God on anyone. God has the power, not only to give life, but to save.” Only God can breathe life into humanity. Claiming that life begins at conception is a gross misinterpretation of scripture because a faithful interpretation recognizes that life is breathed into the body upon birth. Life is given at birth; therefore, Christians should show grace to women who choose to end unwanted pregnancies.

Put yourself in her shoes before you condemn her choice.

By: Cutty Sark

_______________________________________________

Editor’s Note: This was actually submitted a long time ago... around the time of the freedom of speech versus anonymity debate. Sorry it took so long to print it, Loft! No hard feelings.


Why Writers of Independent Liberal Christian Thought Publications might want to use Pseudonyms...

I’ve now read several issues of The Realist, and I’ve noticed that many of the authors choose to write under an assumed pen-name, rather than reveal their respective identities with a signed true autograph. From casual conversations from other Realist readers, I’ve discovered that several individuals find the use of a pseudonym to be cowardly or discrediting to the magazine. Some have made the remark that if a person has something to say, he or she should have the decency to attach a real name to the work. It appears to me that people who regard The Realist as a troublesome publication believe that disgruntled writers are hiding behind a pseudonym in order to get away with bashing other people. I am not writing to condone the practice of publishing anonymous slander against a person or specific group; however, I do believe that pseudonyms have a place in writing, and I also think I may understand why some writers may feel a sense of security when writing under a pen-name.

This is my third article that I have written for The Realist. Initially, I was tempted to write under a pseudonym. I have used pseudonyms in the past when writing for various publications. I’m always terrified that my articles will find their way into the hands of my former professors; I constantly feel the dread of knowing that someone may notice my comma splices or pronoun reference problems.

The first evening I actually saw my article published I immediately wished I had written under a pseudonym. I walked into the S.U. lounge and saw a red-faced student snatching copies of issue three out of people’s hands, ripping them up and throwing them in the trash. I was a little bit nervous. I couldn’t help but wonder if this person’s rage was the result of what I had written. Then I began to think what this person may do if he knew that my address and phone number were in the telephone book. It’s a little silly, I know, but thinking back to some of my experiences with conservative Evangelicals, some individuals have become violent in certain disagreements. I was afraid of being harassed. Thankfully, no one has done so, yet watching that man rip up the paper made me understand why some writers would feel safer under the veil of a pen-name.

Loft Gluckstein

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Snake Handling
In a society that expects bang for its buck, it is getting harder for the evangelist to Fleece the Flock; therefore, I have decided to teach the reliable moneymaker of Snake Handling. It is shame that not all Bible Schools offer starving students a get rich scheme in order to make their astronomical tuition payments. So for you out there that needs coin quickly but do not have any other resources, I have decided to give 10 guidelines to Snake handling, It has been making Southern Baptist Churches as well as Pentecostals rich for years. A student can be like Paul, walking away from snakebites, but unlike Paul we will make a little money. Good luck and enjoy.

1. Make sure to use the 1611 Version of the King James of the Bible because it is the only one that will support your insane beliefs.
2. Build up a tolerance to Rattle Snake Venom by injecting yourself in small doses of such venom. A minimum of 3 months is recommended.
3. Pick out the largest snake because its venom is less lethal than smaller ones. Also, a large snake just looks cooler. Remember: It is a show!!!
4. Remember to take snake juice medicine before the show. Just in case you do get bit, you always need to be prepared. If you do get bit, act like Paul by shaking it off and walking away. It is quite painful to have the fangs stuck in you, so pretend that you are speaking in tongues when screaming out in agony.
5. Also, make sure you put the snakes in the fridge for a couple of hours before the show. This will make the snakes less active. It will be less likely to bite you.
6. For liability reasons, make sure to state that you are not encouraging people to take up a snake, but you are only insinuating that those with enough Faith can handle snakes. Nobody wants to get sued over this; you are here to make money.
7. If someone is bit and they hit the ground, make sure to wave your hands in a miraculous manner making it look like you moved them in the Spirit.
8. If someone dies, condemn him/her for not having faith. Don’t feel sympathy because this will make it appear condone sinners. You need to make the survivors feel blessed so they donate to the cause.
9. Also, it is important to have a booth in the foyer with, DVD’s, CD’s and T-shirts. For example, t-shirts that state, “I survived the great snake revival of 2005, God loves me!” One must make as much money as possible to pay our dastardly tuition.
10. A gift offering is also very important way to bring in the money. Make sure to insist that it is a gift to God. Guilt is a great motivator to generous donations.

By: The Chief

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

F.U.B.A.R.
Who has the right to use this term? That is what we at The Realist have been trying to figure out. So here is our list of people who have the right to use this term.
1. If you have been in one of the World Wars, Korea, Vietnam or the Gulf Wars. You have won the right to use F.U.B.A.R.
2. If you have ever survived a car accident in which people have died. You have earned the right to use F.U.B.A.R.
3. If you have been born in a southern red neck family. You have inherited the right to use F.U.B.A.R.
4. If you have to pull an all-nighter because you are to stupid to get you work ahead of time. You do not have the right to use F.U.B.A.R.
5. Finally, if you are the president and you look at the deficit you are F.U.B.A.R.ed. and have dubiously earned the right to use F.U.B.A.R.

If you do not know what F.U.B.A.R. means, you need to watch the movie Saving Private Ryan for an explanation.

By Tommy Lebowsky


=============================================


The following article is a condensed version of a paper I wrote a few years ago on the social situation described in Paul first letter to the Corinthians. I’ve cut it down to the best of my abilities; however, it‘s still quite lengthy. I’ve asked the editor of The Realist to release in two parts. Part II will contain a bibliography.

1 Corinthians from a Social Perspective: Part 1

Jesus as the Corinthians Saw Him
NT Scholarship from the Social Perspective

New Testament scholarship approached from the traditional dialectical perspective — that is humanity, in its immanence, has a miraculous encounter with a transcendent being — leads to a biased, limited frame of reference. When this type of “genre criticism” of the New Testament Hermeneutics, which focuses on interpreting texts with the intention of shedding new light on the Christ, attempts to explain Christian origins, or the original “Christ Myth,” the scholar is trapped in a fallacy of self-justification. Burton L. Mack calls this attempt at self-justification, the “Catch —22 of New Testament Scholarship.” Mack states, “the New Testament is taken as proof for the conventional picture of Christian origins, and the conventional picture is taken as proof for the way in which the New Testament came to be written” (2001, 64). The problem lies in the fact that New Testament scholarship survives within the framework of Christianity — for it is “Christian in its derivation and definition (ibid). The “Christian approach” to the NT scholarship leads to a rigid framework that has definite solid boundaries; thus scholars can only come up with the same conclusions. In order for something new to be breathed back into the origins of Christianity, New Testament scholarship needs to be approached from a new angle. A social perspective is needed in order to give us a new outlook on the letter of 1 Corinthians; for “religion is generated by social interests, and [it functions] to maintain and manipulate social interest just as other systems of signs and patterns of practices that structure human societies” (ibid 84).

The Historical Context
In a social context, the formation of the early Christ cult in Corinth entails an exchange, or a coming together of the christos ideology from Paul, combined with existing and changing ideologies in Corinth. Therefore, the mythic framework of the early Christ cult should be seen as fluid and dynamic entity, rather than a rigid, formalized theological doctrine that was passed from God to Jesus, Jesus to Paul, and finally, Paul to the Corinthians. In his book, The Christian Myth, Mack refers to religion within the context of a social construct; he states that common notion of personal religious experience is highly inadequate for defining a religion. More importantly than the individual religious experiences — which are experienced by people in many different ways — are the shared “myths, rituals, symbols, beliefs and patterns of thinking” (68). Mack points out that it is the social agreements and their subsequent rewards and possibilities that people come to in religions that need to be the focus of religious study, especially in Christianity. In the social formation context, the members of the Christ cults become social experimenters — they form new myths as an attempt “to regain sanity in a social situation that threatens human well-being” (ibid 70).

A background of the social situation in antiquity Corinth is necessary in order for one to understand why new social groups were forming and rearranging themselves like the early Christ cults and what ideas were circulating at the time. Between the eighth and second centuries BCE, Corinth was arguably one of the most important cities in Greece. Corinth was politically and economically important as a result of its location — it lay at the isthmus connecting Peloponnese to central Greece. In was a main trade centre between the Aegean Sea and the Gulf of Corinth. However, the city was laid to ruin in 146 BCE, by Roman conquest (Winter 7). One hundred years later, the Roman Empire began rebuilding the city from the ground up. And although scholars like Winter are quick to point out that the rebuilt Corinth was definitely a “Roman” city, with its cultural basis in Roman roots and not Greek, the city was composed of people from different cultural backgrounds. The city saw a massive influx of people from various cultural and social backgrounds; including, non-Roman freed slaves from Greece, Syria, Judaea, and Egypt (Murphy—O’Connor, from Smith 15). Thus, the ethnographic composition of Corinth was the perfect setting for Mack’s “social experimentation” — wherein rituals, ideas and myths were being traded, adopted, abandoned and synchronized.

Traditionally, it has been thought that Paul’s core idea of the Christ myth is found in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-5. Bultmann was the first to suggest that the verses three to five as the “kerygrnai”, “proclamation” as central to Christianity from the time of Paul to the present. Today, most conservative Christians site these verses as the basis for their core beliefs — or some variation of these verses. A contemporary Christian may suggest that it was Christ’s message of salvation through belief and a personal relationship with him that the Corinthians saw as the main attractions to Christianity. But scholars like Keith Thomas and Richard Rothaus have pointed out that this emphasis on belief and personal commitment to Christ did not really arise until the time of the Reformation (Rothaus 4). Christian salvation entailed the apocalypse; which was not an important attraction for cultures in the Eastern Mediterranean because “apocalyptic projections of judgments calculated to destroy the bad and reward the good have not attraction of their own. One needs to already belong to that which is “good,” and for reasons that are not rooted in an apocalyptic mentality” (Mack 1995, 109).

1 Corinthians in Social Context of Ancestors and Family
When examining 1 Corinthians, it becomes apparent that some sort of drastic miscommunication took place between Paul and the Corinthians. There obviously were discrepancies surrounding what Paul understood as central to his Gospel and how the Corinthians interpreted his message. We wish to discover what exactly attracted these people to Paul’s Christ Myth, how they understood the myth, and what parts of it they choose to incorporate into their existing sets of beliefs. A particularly interesting angle to take on 1 Corinthians is that Paul’s Gospel offered some Corinthians a deity who could provide them with a substitute “mobile ancestor,” one that was not bound to a specific locality and who could replace the ancestors they left behind when they moved to Corinth. It is necessary to understand what an important role ancestry, lineage, and family played in the personal identity of a person from antiquity. Evidence for the possibility of Christ as a substitute ancestor is found within Paul’s use of language, which connotes a sense of family or possible ancestral lineage (as demonstrated in his use of the term some (“body of Christ”) and Paul’s references to Adam). Another possibility is that some Corinthians may have viewed Christ as some sort of mediator between the living and the dead. Of utmost importance are the Old Testament terms obol (“Spirits of the Dead” ) and yidde ‘oni (“wizard,”“magician,” or “soothsayer”); for it is possible that some Corinthians may have understood Paul’s Christ or the Holy Spirit as something similar to one of these concepts. Unfortunately, the letter of 1 Corinthians does not really directly address the issue of Christ as a connection to dead ancestors; thus we are forced to read between the lines, and extrapolate indirect references to the dead and practices associated with them.

Afterlife and Ancestors
Dale B. Martin has suggested that there was not a general concern for everlasting life in Greco-Roman culture because people did not expect eternal life from their gods. Gods were viewed as providers of mundane things — things of immediate use — like good health, financial fortune, protection and even knowledge of missing possessions, like runaway slaves; rather than abstract concepts like eternal life and salvation (108). People lived in difficult times, food was scarce and poverty abundant, and they needed gods who would grant them advantage in everyday struggles, not a promise of a better life after death. Yet, Martin admits that the baptism of the dead, found in 1 Corinthians 15, demonstrates that at least several Corinthians” believe in some kind of afterlife for their loved ones — even perhaps, those who were not baptized during their lives” (121).
The people who settled the rebuilt city of Corinth were foreigners, people who left their homelands — and subsequently abandoned their dead, buried ancestors. By the time Paul visited in approximately 50 CE, these settlers were second or third generation Corinthians with geographical roots spanning all across the Eastern Mediterranean; yet every tribe would have still remembered the dead they left behind. Mack writes that although each particular culture of the Eastern Mediterranean has its own specific concepts regarding the nature of the dead, the spiritual realm, and funeral procedures, identity of the culture resided within a people’s “land, traditions, and ancestors” (1995, 109). Moreover, it was the shrines dedicated to the dead that signified the ownership of land to a group of people. Because people were separated from their buried ancestors, they felt a strong sense of dislocation from traditions and cultural familiarities (1995, 109-110).
Mack asks the questions “what if joining the Christ cult exacerbated the problem [of dislocation from ancestorsi instead of solving it? What if joining the Christ cult had inadvertently threatened one’s sense of belonging to the ancestral traditions lodged in the local cult of the dead?” (ibid). Mack’s particular example in Who Wrote the New Testament, pertains to the Thessalonians. Yet, one could ask the same question of the Corinthians, for they were also victims of the cultural alienation set forth by the Roman Empire and would have longed for some connection to family lineage found within the dead ancestors who were buried across the Eastern Mediterranean. If dead ancestors were indeed so important to people of the Eastern Mediterranean, and in this case the Corinthians, it would seem that the Christ cult would have had to offer a solution to this problem of loss of family connections instead of complicating it further. If the Christ cult exacerbated the problem of ancestral alienation, it is doubtful that people would have accepted the Christ deity at all. But it is apparent that some Corinthians were able to fit this new alien Christ into their existing set of beliefs. Although it is difficult to ascertain what exactly the Christ cult offered these Corinthians in regards to a substitute ancestor, we can make some inferences. (Continued in a latter issue)

-Dave McCaferty

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Stark Reality
This Easter, a pastor at my friend’s church did a sermon on the hope that Christ provides for us. This well- meaning but painfully overconfident preacher was convinced that he could approach someone who is about to commit suicide, and be able to stop the individual’s course of destruction by telling him or her about Jesus. This notion only serves, once again, to infuriate me at the ignorance of society towards enigmatic issues such as depression and suicide.

Last fall, my brother hung himself in our basement with an extension cord.

He had been a Christian for the majority of his life; he was an honors student at a Christian University, volunteered at the local homeless shelter, led Bible study, and was a visionary who had dreams to change the world by intervening for the poor and oppressed and giving hope to those in distress. Around this time last year, he fell into serious depression triggered by a hereditary mental illness which had claimed the lives of two preceding relatives. I remember him telling me that he stayed awake all night, for months on end, pleading with God to heal him and to fill him with hope for the future; but to no avail. Encouraging words from family and friends were uttered in futility — the chemical imbalance within his brain prevented any light from taking root. Where is God in all this?

I remember the day my brother died. Motionless on the couch, I was approached by a member of my church who offered a small morsel of smarmy comfort: he said, “You’re going to pull through this; God will never give you more than you can handle.” Here the man was alluding to and employing his own rendition of 1 Corinthians 10:13. My impassioned response to this man’s reasoning was, “Well, did He give my brother more than he could handle?”

1 Corinthians 10:13 says, “God is faithful, and he will not let you be tested beyond your strength.” My brother was definitely tested beyond his strength — he could no longer endure the experience of constant death within life. However, this passage goes on to say “He will also provide the way out.” Suicide is a way out. Is it possible that suicide is a way out provided by God?

Just because we are Christians and have the hope of Christ does not mean that we are invincible against the plagues of depression and suicide — and we need to stop pretending we are. We think that dealing with sin or finding Jesus are solutions to these problems. “Jesus is the answer” is an obsequious religious cop-out that pardons us from taking responsibility and action in our world. Depression is not explicitly a spiritual malady, but an illness, a cancer of the emotions, a component of our fallen physical forms that requires treatment. Our ignorance in this area leads us to judge, label and isolate those in our communities who suffer daily with contemplations of ending their own lives — and thus prevent the formation of a community which can effectively support these people. We have become superficial in our relationships and cannot be real with others about how we are really doing in our emotional and spiritual lives. We readily condemn suicide victims (and everyone else who’s not like us) to hell.

Maybe if we gave a damn and took depression more seriously, our friends wouldn’t feel the need to die alone.

-Bronwen Poultney

Thank you, Bronwen for being so open. Depression is a serious issue that cannot be ignored. If you are depressed, you are not alone. There are many at school who are working through it, including myself. Please seek help at our student life department. We are a community of individuals that can help each other throughout the difficult times. Our prayers and thoughts are with the Poultney family.

- The Realist


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Christian Radio Bull$*@#

I have become increasingly irritated with the rubbish that has been hitting the airwaves lately in the name of Christ. I do appreciate the odd worship song and as such am grateful for the chance to sing in my car, but for the most part, Fm finding my friends down at the “well-lit” station are pulling a bit of a fast one on us. Plus it bothers me that they stole their name from probably the creepiest Christian band in recent history.

Two commercials in particular are still ringing in my ear, so I’ll leave them with you in the hopes of tainting your impressions of what I think is a marketplace at the temple gates.

The first is an email I sent my friend in England the night I heard a certain commercial on a certain station. I was certainly jaded that night. Please pardon the expletive. I don’t even swear. (Although I hear Luther did and that’s liberating.)

“The future of Canada is in the hands of the church” is what the commercial for a Christian leaders conference said to me tonight. I said buil$*@# and turned the dial to Mariah Carey singing about her boyfriend. It was heavenly.

I think the future of Canada is in the hands of God. I think the future of everything is in the hands of God and I really don’t like it when Christians lie to make money off Christians.

Secondly, you may have heard you could go on a trip with the cast members of the
morning show. That’s cool. Lots of stations do that, so way to be up-to-date!
However, the commercial advertising the trip says, “Join me for a spiritual trip to
Mexico.”

I’ve done some research, and believe me, the trip sounds mighty spiritual. They are going shopping, laying on the beach and even stopping to see the church in the city of Manzanillo. I tried to talk to the host of the trip, who is also the host of the morning show to ask him about the spiritual content of the trip but he couldn’t be reached at time of print. Seems to me that we are being sold a holiday, packaged in the box of Christianity and wrapped with a Jesus-ribbon. If it was a trip to the Holy Land I might have different feelings. I’ll be the first to sign up for that one.

Regardless, I think I’m going to go on this one too, and enjoy some Christian margaritas on the beach. I heard Luther also enjoyed doing that. Why don’t you join us?
For reservations and information call:
Newwest Travel __________or _____________

By: Casual Observer.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is taken from Chicken Sh*t for the Soul. A Collection of Inspiring Tales

Shame and the Fast Eddie Fiasco:

I was in the sixth grade at __________Elementary School. I remember it was near the end of the year and my teacher was taking all of us to Fast Eddie’s for a pizza party. Unfortunately, I was scheduled to have my tubes taken out of my ears that same afternoon. My mom decided that I wouldn’t have to miss the party because the procedure was minor, the doctor would only take an instrument and pull the small pieces of plastic out of my middle ear - there was no need for anesthetics.
The procedure was over in ten minutes and my mom sped all the way to Fast Eddie’s. I remember that she weaved in and out of cars on the Whitemud Freeway. I remember she took the turn onto Argyll too quickly. I stumbled into the restaurant. When you have tubes removed from your middle ear you equilibrium is altered. Your natural balance for walking and depth perception deteriorates. Even your speech becomes slurred. I sat down at the table and ordered a coke. The pizzas were already on the table and I helped myself to a couple slices of Hawaiian. The room started to spin.
I tried to talk and tell my teacher that I didn’t feel well, but my speech was garbled. I stood up and pushed back my chair. I fell back down from the dizziness. I got back up and started running towards the bathroom. I remember taking big steps from side to side, afraid that I would lose my balance entirely and fall over. The Hawaiian pizza in my stomach shifted. I looked up trying to get my bearings. I started to overheat. My forehead was sweating. I took off my jacket. While I was taking those giant disoriented steps, I threw up into my Jean jacket - right on the back of the New York Yankees Logo. Thick and chunky vomit slid across the back of the jacket and into the pockets, ruining my collection of Marvel Universe Cards, I was stepping in it too. It was seeping through the tops of my shoes into my socks. I didn’t know what to do. I just stood there. My balance was so off that I swayed from side to side. I must have vomited loudly because the class heard me. They left the tables and gathered in a large semi-circle around me - far enough away to avoid getting hit if another stomach assault was launched, yet close enough to smell the object of my embarrassment.
I started to shake. I sank to my knees in the vomit puddle. My jeans became wet. My teacher called my mother, and a young waitress began picking up my mess with paper towels from the bathroom. She dry heaved a couple of times. Never had shame tasted so much like bile. I sat outside on the cold concrete steps and waited for my mother to pick me up. No one spoke to me. When my mother finally arrived I left without anyone noticing. I often wonder what they all did after I had left. Did they go back to eating their various delicious pizzas and appetizers? Did they pretend that the pool of vomit only a few feet away did not exist? Did they talk about me? I wish I had had a chance to explain and blame the situation on equilibrium deficiency. Shame has made me who I am today.
Bastard Bob

=========================================

==========================================

Luke 24:51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
Acts 1:9-11 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Many times when Tread my Bible, I find myself wondering just how I’m supposed to take certain things. It’s not that I’m a skeptic or that I need to understand every little detail of my faith, but I just can’t stop myself from questioning certain things. However these “certain things” have been bothering to me more than usual in the last couple of days.

A few years ago when I was reading through the Bible, I found myself struggling with the story of Elijah. Although not entirely a new concept considering Moses ascension at Sinai (Gen. 5:24) the idea that he had been carried up into heaven seemed little more than a fanciful description of his death. By the time I came to the ascension of Jesus however I no longer felt comfortable resorting to this type of dismissal on either account. Feeling confronted with a problem I asked a very pointed question to myself, “Where is Jesus now?” At that time I did a little searching but found nothing of interest other than a few crack-pots willing to toss the whole Bible into the recycling bin. Feeling rather exhausted I convinced myself that it wasn’t even worth thinking about and went on with my life by accepting the simplest and most thwarting answer of, “seated at the right hand of the Father” (Rom. 8:34).

This week I find myself face to face with this question again however, this time not quite as susceptible to evasive answers. As these things usually do, this question has taken my focus off almost everything else and staged a fortress in the front of my mind. The question “Where is Jesus now” has gotten to me and so I am determined to answer it.
For Christians a basic tenant of faith has always been the belief in the bodily resurrection. What’s more Christ also returns in the flesh just as he left in the flesh suggesting that he is for lack of a better word “trapped” in a human body. For believers He is eternally the Son; sacrificial in more regards than we can ever understand, and that’s what is so interesting about the ascension. We are forced to see this account as the historical ascension of an earthly body into the heavenly realm, but how can this be?

At first I thought that I might suggest a duality of Christ but it seems unfair to the text to suggest that His natures have been completely severed and that he is somehow everywhere and yet nowhere though there exists such a debate. Where is Jesus now? An evangelist’s answer might be, “He is certainly not everywhere though he can be reached from anywhere.” But such statements do not really address the issue.

Though seemingly not a necessary doctrine of the faith the ascension does play quite an important role in the descriptors of the second-coming. It is because of this that I am uncomfortable ignoring the issue, nor am I content in suggesting that the ascension is a mere literary device to describe the resurrection. A simple reading of the texts will tell us that this incident is meant to stand on its own. We are it seems, meant to understand Christ as being raised into heaven, human body and all.

Although some might suggest that Jesus is now somehow only spirit and focus on the assumed movements through space and doors, content to throw literary concerns completely aside, this is hardly a fair prognosis considering that Christ ate. Moreover He also walked. One can’t help but conclude; at least to some extent, that Christ was bound to human characteristics.

A true skeptic might argue that the ascension is a fictional work meant only to split the books of Luke-Acts and is a significant sign of importance as it ushered in a new era. One might suggest that the ascension could be a mere confirmation of the parousia for the early church. After all, the Temple had just been destroyed (depending on how you date Luke) and the people were seeing signs of the “end of days” all around them and some were even denying the parousia all together (2 Pet. 3:4). Perhaps the description of a bodily ascension was used solely to counter the Gnostic idea of a spiritual return of Christ (2 Thess. 2:2). Given the right information people can convince themselves of almost anything. The trouble comes rushing back to us though, as soon as we remind ourselves that the Bible is not simply a work of fiction. We are not let off so easily. The Bible presents these eye witness accounts not as poetry or cleverly devised schemes but as historical descriptors that bear witness to Christ’ divinity and humanity: a paradox that is presented as returning in like fashion. The question of “Where is Jesus now?” seems unrelenting.

For people in the first century the answer seems so simple. Heaven is up. In biblical times people largely thought of heaven as the firmament or clouded area across the sky and the region of the stars as being the dwelling place of God just beyond. There was no understanding of thinning air at high altitudes. For them Jesus was forever the man they knew sitting up there somewhere readying himself for his return. We however are not blessed enough to have the benefit of thinking this way. The collapse of traditional cosmology with the great discoveries of Copernicus will simply not allow it. The revolving earth and Newtonian Physics have made for a rather certain destruction of that simplistic view of the heavens. No longer can Christians reasonably look up to the stars as if to see a staircase to Jesus. The question “Where is Jesus now?” is more difficult to answer than all of that.

Did he leave the Milky Way and find some oxygen rich, fruit filled planet somewhere and sit down with a great white bearded God? A human body is made of matter isn’t it? Apparently he had blood in his body, He needed air, and ground and food, did He not? Though laws like cell-life governing a resurrected body might be something extraordinary it does seem a bit odd to think of Jesus floating up form off of a planet where up is different depending where the earth is in rotation (if there is an up) so that he can live in the sky. We have been in planes and we have been to space, but we have not yet seen him.

Now I am not quite ready to abandon my Bible just to replace it with yet another misplaced search for the “historical Jesus,” nor will I leave this “a necessary myth.” And I’m not even going to attempt to get into the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And because I am a Trinitarian, I am forced to conclude that Jesus still has a glorified yet human body. For me it seems best to say that Jesus used the beliefs of the people much like the belief that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds, to symbolize something to the people in a way that they could culturally understand. But I have not answered the question and now find myself stuck with a Christ that would humor the people he loves.
I wonder, did God create another physical dimension; a place for Christ to wait? Is it naive to think that even though Jesus has a body, that the God who created the universe has not given away all His secrets? In answering the question “Where is Jesus now”? I have to say, “I don’t know!” Though it may seem to some a blatant cop-out, it may just be that humanity is simply not meant to fathom the possibilities that lay at the hands of perfection incarnate. To me, it seems that the question “where is Jesus now?” is answered best by saying just what I would have said two years ago. Jesus is “seated at the right hand of the Father” where and whatever that might mean.

Brad Childs

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Do we really have a Duty to Pursue Truth?
A man evangelized to me on _______ Avenue a couple of months ago. He said that I should be searching for God and truth in life — that I have an obligation to use my god-given reason to pursue truth. He also insinuated that if I tried hard enough, I would find what I’m looking for; he said “Seek and ye shall find.” I have heard this argument before I do not know if I buy into it. Do I really have a duty to myself to pursue truth? Is it possible for me to find truth? This evangelist got me thinking about truth and if we have a duty to pursue it and if truth is attainable.

When speaking of epistemic justification in deontological terms, we can say that one has a duty or an obligation to pursue the end of seeking truth and avoiding falsehood or as Stuep puts it: vis-à-vis eptistemic end: “the end of seeking truth and avoiding error, which is ultimately the end of acquiring knowledge” (69). Epistemic duty arises out of the works of Descartes in the seventeenth century. Descartes believed that careless judgment is a misuse and abuse of our intellectual freedom. A proposition ought to be believed only if its truth is clearly evident In order to discover a proposition’s intrinsic truth or falsehood, we only have to use our God given reason. John Locke expands on this idea in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding; in which he states: “he that makes use of the light and faculties God has given him, and seeks sincerely to discover truth, by those helps and abilities he has, may have this satisfaction in doing his duty as a rational creature.”

It is interesting that in asserting duty or obligation upon a subject, the subject is also liable to incur blame and criticism in failure to meet his or her epistemic duty. Suddenly one becomes responsible for his or her beliefs and cannot simply plead intellectual ignorance on the day of judgment. This duty makes us seek out and solidify what we believe — and according to Descartes, Locke, and my evangelist friend, it is possible for us to do so. I think that there are several problems with this idea; or rather there are several premises that must be accepted before one can accept this argument.

First, one must assume the categorical imperative in order to say that we have a duty to believe only what we clearly perceive as truth. This is not always the case; for example, a utilitarian would not believe in one’s duty to pursue truth if it were not for the benefit of society. In the case of utilitarianism, sometimes people promote false beliefs and try to convince others of these false notions. Secondly, one must assume that Absolute Truth exists. If it doesn’t, how will I ever reach it.

Descartes and Locke also assume that we as humans can apprehend truth by rational means — if truth exists, it is comprehendible. Although Richard Feldman agrees with this idea and says that we should believe in accordance with evidence, this still does not tell us much about how we are to go about apprehending knowledge. A model of deontological epistemic justification as follows:

I am justified in believing a premise if and only if I believe the premise and it is not my duty to refrain from believing said premise.

However, it is important to note that this notion of epistemic duty does not work in all situations. A deontological conception or worldview presupposes that humans are autonomous beings, in control of their cognitive process. Since many of our perceptual beliefs are involuntary, I suggest that these beliefs cannot rightfully be subjected to epistemic duty.

Each person’s beliefs are the sum of his or her experiences and knowledge. And I cannot force myself to believe something no matter how hard I try. Not to mention the fact that my so-called god-given reason is often contrary to the ideas concerning a god whose omnipotence and omniscience is often incompatible with various theological concepts. The bottom line is while I believe in the pursuit for truth; I do not accept that the path to it is as clear as some people would like to think. And while I may have a duty to pursue truth and that may be as far as I get in my journey. The act of pursing truth may be the end in itself, rather than a means to absolute truth.

Ha Kohen

------------------------------------------------------------------------

A plain language retort to the Ontological Argument.

Although this theory has been masterfully adapted in numerous times and places, (such as the theory of Emmanuel Kant’s Innate idea) the so-called Ontological Argument is generally assumed to have found its beginnings in the work of Anselm of Canterbury. Quite simply this argument for the existence of god is based on two short statements and a conclusion. They are as follows:

Statement 1. Human beings have an innate sense of a perfect and eternal being.
Statement 2. In order for something to be perfect, it must first exist.
Conclusion. A perfect and eternal being must exist because the concept of perfection
exists.

Problem: Simply because a person can conceive of something; that does not mean that this thing must be.

In other words an insane man might conceive that a living Stegosaurus has entered into his car, however the apparition does not automatically determine the existence of said Stegosaurus. Human beings can conceive of a seemingly infinite number of impossibilities. These impossibilities could then conceivably include the existence of a god. In addition, it is important to ask the question: What god is being conceived of?” Almost certainly no two people could hold to the exact same understanding of what god is. Additionally this argument does not take into account the very real possibility that humans lack the ability to conceive of both perfection and eternity.

In my mind, it is better to follow the perfect example of Jesus Christ, in an attempt to represent god on earth then it is to coerce into any discussion that includes the word “Argument” in its title.

—Brad Childs

===========================================

Instructions on how to Cast out Smoking Demons
1) Make sure to wear all white. Smoking-Demons fear God’s favorite color and fear cleanliness in general. Also make sure your belt and shoes are clean and colorless.
2) Always make sure to talk to the Smoking-Demon as much as possible. Start simple. Ask the demon for its name. If it is truly a Smoking- Demon it will tell you by using the patented, impossible-to-fake, groggily voice. His name will almost always be Cigarette, or Smoke, or Tobacco but if he is named Lust or after one of the other 7 deadly sins makes sure to bind these spirits first before moving on to the Smoking Demon.
3) To bind spirits: hold your bible close. Don’t open it, or read it, or know anything inside it, just hold it out in front of you and say, “Smoking- Demon I bind you with the blood of Je-a-sus-a!” (Use an imaginary lasso and God will grant you its power.) Immediately the man-demon will be frozen in place.
4) Next remember to prolong the incident long enough for your crew to film the event so that creepy music can be added to it in time for your next show.
5) Now that you have all the appropriate media, take you bible, (bible must be a black, soft, flexible, leather bound KJV) and lightly fold it to a 9Odegree angle in your hand.
6) At this point you must simultaneous yell out, “Come out! I command you!” and hit the possessed person with the bound end of the bible either on the forehead or in the center of the chest.
7) If your possessed person has fallen over then have your helpers pick him or her up and help the newly freed person back to his or her seat.
8) If at any time you are confronted with “reality”, just remember that theology is your enemy and that it is the devils trickery.
9) Your final step is to ask for large amounts of funds to continue your important work.

By Cutty Sark

The Realist Online: Issue 7

Sorry to say this but the Realist Issue 7 seems to be missing along with Issue 2.5

We will keep searching but we're messy people.

The Realist Online: Issue 6

The Realist Online: Issue 6

Bob gets a Serious Email and Freaks out

I recently visited the website www.godhatesfaos.com, a website put out by Pastor Fred Phillips and the congregation of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas (these are the same people who picketed Freddy Mercury’s funeral with posters proclaiming: “Freddy is burning in Hell” and “Thank God! One more fag gone!.” On the website, the first icon the reader sees is a warning sign: ‘Warning: Gospel Preaching Ahead.” The site creators list a bunch of Bible verses under various headings that eventually deduce the ultimate damnations of the “Sodomite dogs.” Here’s a sample of their Gospel Preachin’:
THE SODOMITES’ ONLY HOPE IS TO HAVE THE UNAMBIGUOUS TRUTH PREACHED TO THEM, AND PERHAPS GOD
WILL SOFTEN THEIR HEARTS AND GRANT THEM REPENTANCE TO DEPART FROM THEIR SIN AND NAME THE
NAME OF CHRIST. NOT VERY LIKELY, THOUGH, SINCE GOD HAS GIVEN TI-IEM UP.

This kind of ignorant hate really pisses me off. I don’t really understand what people like this are trying to accomplish. I would like to think that the people I know in Evangelical circles are not hate mongers. Although after I sat down and thought about my own church, my family upbringing, my youth group talks and my days at Bible college, I can’t see much difference between what was being shoved down my throat and the things on this disgusting website.

I remember the first time I heard the word “fag” used. I was eight years old and my brother and I were playing some kind of war game and I had disguised myself up as a woman to avoid being caught by the Gestapo. My mom came in the room and screamed, “Take off that blouse! What are you a fag or something?” I didn’t find out what “fag” meant until a couple of months later; I had to work up the courage to ask one of my friends on the playground. “Faggot” was a word used in my house by my parents all the time. We would be watching the news and my dad would say, “Look at those fags in their Gay parade. It’s just sick. They even allow them to teach in schools. Pretty soon it’ll just be okay to be a faggot.” My pastor preached against homosexuality from the pulpit, stating that the “disease of homosexuality” would be the downfall of our society and that “AIDS is God’s punishment.” My youth pastor told me that homosexuality is the worst sin because it is a sin against one’s own body — the body of Christ; therefore, it deserves the worst punishment: eternal condemnation.

Bible College did not really help me with the homosexuality issue either. Whenever I brought up the topic in class, my peers’ answers always boiled down to: “Hate the sin. Love the sinner.” It seemed like kind of a petty answer, while we are willing to label some things in the Bible some as “cultural”, “metaphorical”, or “grey areas”, suddenly, the Bible is black and white about the issue of homosexuality: “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own hands” (Leviticus 20:13).

I met my first gay man when I was twenty years old. He was the manager at my place of employment. I’ll call him Gary. I instantly made it my duty to save him from the burning fires of hell. His response to my preaching was, “I do not believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God; therefore, I do not feel inclined to follow the tenants set forth in the flawed work God created me the way I am: I am short, I have green eyes, and I’m gay. I was born gay. That is the way God created me. I have one partner, whom I love and am devoted to.” I could never really respond to my manager’s rebuttal. If there was a god and he created everyone with intent and purpose, why had he created Gary gay? And it always seemed to me that if Gary was created gay, he never had a chance to accept Jesus into his heart with the little sinner’s prayer.

Now I know what you are thinking. You are saying to yourself, “Homosexuality is a choice, no one is born gay.” Or maybe you are thinking that homosexuality is part of “the fall” and that while a person may have homosexual feelings, he or she must repent. Are you sure? Science is on a quest to find evidence of a genetic disposition to same-sex orientation. What if scientist find a “gay-gene”?

It seems that the Bible supports the notion that some individuals might be born gay. After all, the Bible states that there will be those who believe and no those who do not: ... but you do not believe because you are not my sheep My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they know me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand” (John 10:26-28). Reading Acts 13:48, it appears that Gary was damned from the day he was born: “When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.” Finally, Romans 9 had me swimming in the depths of Calvinism: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort (or action, as I would argue), but on God’s mercy...Therefore, God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden” (verses 15-18).

While thinking about the issue of homosexuality and Christianity, I went to my bookshelf. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a great deal of information on homosexuality, let alone homosexuality and the Bible. My Catholic Catechism states: The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them rt is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
- Catechism of the Catholic Church 2358 and 2359

I do not know if this offers me much help in trying to sort out the issue. If this is correct, God has pre-destined millions of people to lives of loneliness and others eternal condemnation. Those who are chaste, never experience the warmth and love of a monogamous relationship, yet those who pursue the physical act of love with a member of the same sex face judgment. Even if you decide to repent after partaking in the act of love, you will have to suffer in chastity. It just does not seem fair. Why should straight people get to enjoy sex and not homosexuals? Gut then, if there is a god, who am Ito say what is fair and what is not?

I’m sorry if you thought I would come to some conclusion by the end of this rant. There is none. I have not completed an in-depth exegesis on the passages that deal with homosexuality in the Bible. It would take months to sort through all the material, and I would probably still have no definite answers — I’ll leave all that trouble to Anglican scholars. I personally do not have a problem with homosexuality, and I do not label it a “sin.” In my opinion, if there is a god, she has created us in a specific way and we should live that way. I believe that the Bible is a flawed document and most of it cannot be taken at face value but that is what I feel. If you want to know why I feel that way, you can write me an email at and I’ll send you a long letter about my views (I won’t bore the rest of you Realist’s – I recognize that most of you would disagree with me and I respect your right to disagree with me.)

I can tell you what I believe homosexuality is not. It is not a demon that should be exorcised, it is not a choice that bad people make; it is not something that should be feared. I do know that statistically speaking, you probably have twenty-five to thirty people attending your school right now who are gay, bi-sexual, bi-curious, or transgender. Statistically speaking, you probably also have a professor who is gay, bi-sexual, or transgender. The issue of homosexuality is something all Christian schools must deal with. I would suggest that an atmosphere of compassion and understanding be developed to help individuals dealing with confusing issues. If you are a Christian and you have never met a bi-sexual man or a transgender woman, you should attend a gay-straight alliance meeting at a Church or University to broaden your horizons (check out the web, See Magazine, or Vu for postings). Hiding in a bubble won’t make the issue go away. At the very least please refrain from using offensive jargon like “fag” or “dyke”—just because you believe a given life-style is wrong does not give you right to breed hate. I’ve recently had a long talk with members of my immediate family concerning the etymologies of some of their favorite hate words.

Well, I’m reading over this long rant and it seems that it has lost its point. Once again, please do not be offended by the picture and caption on page 5, it was put in to illustrate the fears a gay man goes through in Christian college dorms. If you think you may be offended, don’t read page 5, just skip over it! We at The Realist are not gay-bashers and we wish to harbor an atmosphere of respect and dignity for all people. If you are confused about your own sexual-orientation or gender identity, please get in touch with people who can share their own experiences with you. Get help; you are not alone. Thanks to Jerry for having the courage to send the caption in.

- Bastard “It’s ok to be gay” Bob

=================================================

Letter to the Editor

Dear Bob:
I recently read a copy of issue five wherein the editor, Bastard Bob, included a lengthy article describing the origin of his name. After reading this article, it would seem that his use of the word “bastard” in his pseudonym is somehow justified. But I have to ask: Is this article true? I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.
- baffled

Baffled,
Some of the details may have been stretched (within the restraints of artistic license of course), yet the majority of the details are based on actual events. I cried too after I wrote it. It brought back painful memories. And good ones too.

—B-Bob



Dear Realist editor and Trent Derrick:
Bob, thank you for printing “An Interview with a Sex Trade Worker,” and Trent, thank you for having the courage to write it and put your name on it! Trent, the interview was extremely touching and I appreciated your comments at the end. You are right when you state that we as Christians can no longer ignore the problem of prostitution. Young girls are dying. We all have to do something.
- Sincerely, Jessica

I am glad you took the time to read the article, Jessica. Apparently, other people enjoyed it as well. We had a positive response from some students at Grant MacEwan College who read an issue at a bus station; they sent an email thanking us. Unfortunately, I accidentally deleted the email and can’t print it! Sorry. The Realist is getting out there and that’s great.

— B-Bob


Dear Realist Staff:
I read “Interview with a Vampire: The Realist” in the last issue of the Apocrypha. It seems that you all glorify drinking, smoking and the bar scene. (was just curious how you would respond to this observation.)

-no name given

I cannot comment on drinking with regards to the views of the other staff, I can only speak for myself. As a dry alcoholic, I no longer drink — or at least I try my very best not to touch alcohol. I believe that alcohol is a very dangerous addictive substance, and I can contest that it has the potential to ruin one’s life and drive away one’s family. However, I do not know how the other staff members feel about the issue of alcohol. With regards to smoking, I am a heavy smoker. Unfortunately, I have chosen to endorse an addictive substance like cigarettes in order to cope with my addiction to alcohol (it’s stupid I know, but I would rather smoke than drink at this point in my life). Finally, with regards to the bar scene: I do not particularly like bars, large groups of people make me nervous. The bottom line: Alcohol kills your liver. Cigarettes give you lung cancer, it would seem pretty obvious that you should not drink, nor smoke. We did conduct our Apocrypha interview at a bar, but that doesn’t mean that we glorify drinking, smoking, and night clubs. If you are trying to corner me into printing something that you can later use against me, I would say that you have too much time on your hands. I have answered your question to the best of my ability; I hope my answer is sufficient.
– Bob


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whoroscopes

Aries — It is time to feel adventurous. You didn’t come to Bridal College for nothing. Ask someone out already. At this rate you may be in the “emm arr ess” program 5 years...

Taurus — Holy crap! Your engine just dropped. No, I’m not kidding, it’s on the road behind you. You are left with a Flintstone mobile. (This is Cutty’s sign)

Gemini —Wow You Got a Date! You Got a Date! That is so cool. Now go through some bridal magazines and cut out pictures of rings you like and send them to him. Trust me it’ll work. There’s nothing guys like more on a second date than solid commitment.

Cancer — Look man this isn’t funny anymore I have a serious problem.

Leo — Leo: ah.. . Low ... education... ah.. . ah. I got nothing’.

Virgo — It is time to be adventurous. Go into Benke. Ps. don’t forget your rubber gloves.

Libra — Apparently, even if it is your own you may not want to touch it. Kitten lover!

Scorpio- You were a bad guy on the Simpson’s once.

Sagittarius — Seriously call me baby. I need a date to the Christmas banquet. You know who you are baby. — Cutty- Broken and lonely.

Capricorn – Sick of Corn Jokes. The stars say you spend to much time reading online.

Aquarius- You eat poop. It’s way funnier with the emphasis on the last “p”. Although the word “doo doo” might be funnier.

Pisces —The stars have aligned. You will eat your own pooh or sacrifice something or... kill and eat a rabbit... I don’t know whatever Benke boys do. We Rule!

Ophiuchus — You are just plain messed up. You are outside the astrological calendar; this means you are doomed. We know who you are!!!

By Cutty: “The devourer of ‘Black and Tans” Sark

==============================================

When you Evangelize to me, please Remember...

In my last article, “Epistemological Dinner Conversation” (Issue 3), I referred to my coworker who believes my arthritis is the result of generational sin. Reading over the article again, I notice that it sounds as if I disagreed with this woman and that was that. However, truth be told, she really got under my skin. I did tell her that 1 wasn’t interested in her witchcraft but our actual conversation was quite a bit lengthier. She said, “Dan, I understand that you have some type of religious upbringing and that you used to attend a Lutheran church.” Then she went on to patronize me, stating that if I remembered my confirmation class teachings correctly, I would know that there is a verse in the Old Testament that declares that God will punish children for the sins of the father to the third and fourth generation. She couldn’t even tell me what book the verse was in.
Looking back on the whole incident, I wish that I had told her to get her Bible from her car, showed her the verse in Exodus 34 and then explained a few things to her. I wish I would have told her that generational sin in Exodus 34 likely refers to the time the Israelites were sentenced to wander in the desert. I wish I had told her that post-Babylonian exilic writings like Ezekiel and Jeremiah would seem to indicate that this idea of generational sin was a phenomenon exclusive to the desert wanderings (Ezekiell8:17 and Jeremiah 31:29-30). I wish that she would have listened to me when I said, “I’m sorry, I don’t believe in your ideas; can we please just leave it at that?”
After proclaiming my disbelief in generational sin for a second time, I sat silent, hoping she would pick up on my body language and stop the conversation, thus avoiding confrontation and hurt feelings. She did not read my body language. She continued to push her views onto me for over half an hour. After mentioning several of her acquaintances’ encounters with generational sin, she went on to site “factual examples” found in various hairy-fairy publications as well as instances of generational sin deliverance on the Bob Larsen show. Then in a roundabout way, she worked her way back to the topic of my sinful arthritis. She asked me a lot of personal questions about my parents, grandparents, and great-parents, most of which I was unable to answer anyway. Finally, it all came together. Her conclusion was that I needed to say the little curse-binding prayer that she carried around with her, as well as purchase a variety of curse-binding pills from a prominent spiritual warfare website (apparently she or her church has shares in the company). I became so upset that I had to ask her to leave me alone and never bring up the subject again. She told me I could call her when I was ready to accept “the truth.” I was harassed by this particular person. I refuse to work in her department any longer in order to avoid encounters with this woman. If you are going to try to evangelize to someone or share your particular take on a certain theological issue, remember a few important key points:
1) Read the person’s body language and take verbal comments seriously. I made it clear from the beginning that I was not interested in having a conversation about my sad, wicked affliction of generational sin, and she blatantly ignored my request. She also ignored my body language.
2) Do a little reading and research. Do not pick up on the latest contemporary Christian craze by trying to pawn off regular ordinary occurrences on demons, spooks, curses, or generational sin.
3) Know your Bible. If you refer to a verse, know where it’s found. “I know it’s in there somewhere and you do too,” doesn’t cut it.
4) Don’t try to sell me hokey products that support complete foolishness. i.e. curse-binding pills.
5) Do not mention any of the following radio/tv. Evangelists and/or apologists: Bob Larsen, Benny Hinn, Jerry Falwell, Josh McDowell, James Dobson, Fred Phillips, or Lee Strobel.

I’m still upset while writing about this incident. Bottom line: if you are trying to share something with someone, don’t be too pushy, it really turns people off. If you already knew that, the entire four minutes you took to read this page has been a waste of your time and I apologize.
- Dave McCaferty


=---------------------------------------------------------------------------=

Buddha’s Corner

I believe that the methods by which we increase our altruism, our sense of caring for others and developing the attitude that our own individual concerns are less important than those of others and are common to all major religious traditions. Though we may find differences in philosophical views and rites, the essential message of all religions is very much the same. They all advocate love, compassion. and forgiveness. And even those who do not believe in religion can appreciate the virtues of basic human values.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ask Japuti

Dear Japuti,
My boyfriend and I have been dating for several months and now I have been thinking about having sex with him but I have some moral reservation about the issue so... 1 was thinking that oral sex is all right. What do you think?

Is that all you people think about is sex?! There are people dying of starvation in the world and you want to ask me that. Sex on the Brain! Sex on the Brain! Your North American culture is messed up. And the answer to you question is NO. Now, Bow! Bow! Bow! To the mighty power of Japuti. The one who does not need to be sexually pleasured!

Dear Japuti,
Praise be given to the mighty Japuti, You are all powerful and I bow to you. Now to my question! Mirror, mirror on the wall. Who is the sexiest of them all? On Campus! Me!
Finally, someone who believes in the mighty power of Japuti! Bring me sacrifices of fruit and veggies. I love to devour. Bow! Bow! Bow! To the All Powerful! One convert: 250+ to go. Japuti mission’s is working.

==============================================

*We at The Realist do not support the anti-Semitic views of Martin Luther. However, we have included this in case you are a student who brags about being a Lutheran at a Baptist college. Before you proudly proclaim yourself a staunch Lutheran, know what Luther stood for...(It is also important to put Luther in proper context and not to judge him by modern standards)

Luther’s Corner
• When we read that Judas hanged himself, that his belly burst in pieces. and that his bowels fell out, we may take this as a sample how it will go with all Christ’s enemies. The Jews ought to have made a mirror of Judas, and have seen therein how they in like manner should be destroyed. An allegory or mystery herein lies hid, for the belly signifies the whole kingdom of the Jews, which shall fall away and be destroyed, so that nothing thereof remains. When we read that the bowels fell out, this shows that the posterity of the Jews, their whole generation, shall be spoiled and go to the ground.
• I would not have preachers torment their hearers, and detain them with long and tedious preaching, for the delight of hearing vanishes therewith, and the preachers hurt themselves.
• Experience has proved the toad to be endowed with valuable qualities. If you run a stick through three toads, and, after having dried them in the sun, apply them to any pestilent tumor, they draw out all the poison and the malady will disappear.

_____________________________________________

Consumerism Christianity by Ha Kohen

The new world is a place where the spiritual is always fluffy. Contemporary society has made God more about self-help than worship. God has lost the title of “Judge” and any other title that might make people uncomfortable. Gone are the days when “fear of the LORD” meant wisdom, and welcomed are the days of entertainment where God is reduced to nothing but “Love.” God has become a kind of cute and lovable god. People have begun to call the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the universe their ‘buddy”. Halloween has made demons comedic, and “cotton candy Christianity” fills our Christian bookstore shelves as ages of theological thought goes unread, sitting next to the dusty Bibles they were based on.
Instead of the lifetime of meticulously thought out knowledge we find in the works of Calvin’s Commentaries, people are living off whatever latest Mega-Church’s consumer-driven trend could be sold to them, like so much modem snake oil. Ready-made growth in a box is sold at a hefty price to every small town church in the world that’ll swallow the manipulation and breed week theology and “worship services” designed to neglect the members of the Body so that the unbelievers that fill the halls can have a good time pretending to worship the Most High God. They have been told they’re not big enough by the Church/corporations that want to make miniature versions of themselves, and they have taken the bait. God it seems is more like Wal-Mart than you or Moses or T could have ever imagined. Yancey, Ortberg, The Bible Diet, Prayer of Jabez and The Bad Girls of the Bible have replaced Kaiser, Hayes, Childs, Brugerman, and Luther.
Christians won’t buy anything unless it’s shiny or has a number in the title for easy use. It seems we have all the money in the world when it comes to 7 weeks of this and 40 days of that but not 2 bucks for the homeless kid freezing to death on the street tonight. Product lines of everything from “Christian T-Shirts” to greeting cards to pictures of scenery are stamped with a Bible verse like any other corporate logo and the Body of Christ comes running with bills in one hand and a tattoo advertising Willow Creek on the other. We are the lost generation who has traded everything for easy answers and a bracelet with a question on it we can’t answer.

- Ha Kohen

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ten Albums that have to be in Loft’s Possession at all times:

1) The Joshua Tree — U2
This CD has “Running to Stand Still” and “Mothers of the Disappeared” — need I say more? Oh yeah, I guess “With or Without you” and “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking for” were big hits too.

2) At San Quentin — Johnny Cash
Although it was his prior live album, At Folsom Prison, which is generally considered his comeback album, I think At San Quentin is
The Man in Black at his best. A true mix of rock, country and blues. Check out “A Boy Named Sue” and “Big River.” Before Marilyn
Manson there was Johnny Cash. He’s the original badass... he told his record producers and the crowd, “I’m tired of all that skit!”
(see track 4).

3) Paradise and Lunch— Ry Cooder
This is Cooder’s tribute to Southern Gospel. Some of the best blues licks you’ll ever hear are on this album. Some of his theology is quite funny. Oh wait. You don’t find anything fimny. Humour is evil, Maybe you should not listen to this to avoid offense.

4) Cross Roads - Eric Clapton
This four disc box set is a large cross-section of Clapton’s career throughout the seventies. People will be wailing on air guitar solos to “Cocaine” and “Crossroads” for the next two hundred years. Although, I don’t know why he let Duane Ailman play slide overtop the keys in “Layla.” Every time I hear Duane’s guitar in this song my inner ear trembles — in a “vomity” sort of way.

5) Morrison Hotel — The Doors
While I love all their albums, I like this one the best “Road House Blues” and “Peace Frog” are terrific for dancing at wild house parties or just cruising in your car. Morrison’s voice very is raw on this album yet not as forced as in La Woman.

6) Money for Nothing — Dire Straits
Mark Knopfler is one of the guitar gurus of the seventies and eighties. “Sultans of Swing” has one of the greatest solos of all time. “Money for Nothing” is so weird it’s cool: “Get you money for nothing and your chicks for free!”

7) Physical Graffiti - Led Zeppelin
I’d like to say IV is the best album — it has “Stairway” and “Blackdog,” but PH is amazing. Listen to “Trampled Under Foot” in the dark with lots of bass and you might have an epiphany. Also check out “Houses of the Holy.” Try to pick up the album on vinyl. I find my CD doesn’t sound quite as edgy.

8) Underdogs — Matthew Good Band
ft’s tough to decide on a favorite album but Underdogs has “Everything is Automatic,” “Apparitions,” and “Rico.” Though he can get a little preachy in concert, the man is definitely a gifted song writer.

9) Unplugged—Nirvana
Kurt Cobain’s voice combined with an acoustic guitar, singing old blues covers. It’s kind of eerie. “Jesus Doesn’t Want Me for a Sunbeam” and “Where did you Sleep Last Night” (A Leadbelly classic) are great

10) Up to Here — The Tragically Hip
I love all their albums, but this was the fist one I ever owned. Gord can’t sing and Sinclair’s backing vocals on this album are particularly horrible; however, there isn’t a hilly-billy in Alberta that hasn’t cranked up “New Orleans is Sinking” or “Blow at High Dough” in his pick-up truck southbound on highway 2.