Canonicity: Part 4 - Jewish Myths

As Christians we honor Judaism and the people who follow Moses. Christians do not replace Jews as God's chosen people; we are only added in. Paul wrote in Romans 11:17-21 says:

If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

This reminds me that it is antichrist to be antisemitic. On the other extreme because Jews were given with "the oracles of God" and it's through them that we have all that we have, even Jesus, some of us seem to think that if a manuscript is both ancient and written by a Jew then it must be scripture. This is most definitely not true. If you, again, apply 2 Timothy 3:16,17 and 2 Peter 1:16-21 it it clear to see what scripture and what is not. I want to be clear that I am not saying anything against Jews. They have been a continuous culture for thousands of years while many other cultures have died out. Why? Because God preserved the Jews as He promised Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and all the rest. Without question the 39 books of the Old Testament was inspired by the Holy Spirit as described by Peter in 2 Peter 1:16-21. What about the story of Lilith? The Book of the Jubilees? The Talmud? The Zohar? Kabbalah? Why are they not scripture? Judaism has by-and-large managed to stay pure. Most of the sects came from bringing in outside teachings and traditions from their neighbors when they were scattered throughout the world. I think one argument for the authenticity of the Old Testament is how those extraneous ideas were kept out of the Old Testament. God pulled a miracle. Let's take them one at a time.

The legend of Lilith seems to have entered Judaism from the time they were in exile among the Babylonians. Some Jews took their legends and used them to answer questions that didn't need the infusion of a first wife for Adam other than Eve. Many people fall into the same trap looking at Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 as two separate stories for creation. Some people even think they contradict one another. They don't. Traditional Jews and Christians interpret Genesis 2 as a detailed account of what happened in Genesis 1, focusing on the sixth day of creation. Genesis 1 is merely a summary of all that happened. However, being influenced by Babylonian/Sumerian creation myths about a female demon named Lilith who seduces men, sucks their blood, and kills babies if they are not ritually clean as prescribed in the Old Testament laws, some rabbis began (and some still do) that in Genesis 1, Adam had a first wife created at the same time and in the same way he was. They said this woman was Lilith and said that she was cursed by God to be a demon because she refused to submit herself to Adam. They cite that she would let Adam lay on top when they had sex because she said that she was equal to Adam why couldn't she be on top (I think this part was added in medieval times) . This lead to the first divorce and that was why Eve was created and taken from Adam's side to show that women came out of men so they are subordinate to men. (Remember, this is the legend - not scripture). See the difference? Scripture tells us God never makes mistakes. If you accept this you think that God gave Adam the wrong woman and then He had to fix it with Eve. There is nothing in Genesis 1 and 2 that can lead you to thinking that the two women are not the same person. If you disagree then why assume that the man is the same person in both chapters. Some scholars also think that this story may be a base for vampire legends. However, I think that it was made up to legitimate the second-class status of women which is also non-scriptural. Does it make sense to call it scripture? No! See the picture on the right and above for a picture of what inspired the myth.

What about the Book of Jubilees? As I understand it is a summary and commentary on some parts of the book of Genesis. Sometimes it's called Little Genesis. If we have the whole book, why include a re-telling a part of it? I'm not advocating not reading it, just giving a reason why it's not canonical. As for the Talmud, it has rabbinical sayings, teachings, and commentary on the scriptures. I've actually read a book summarizing much of this information and i think it's worth reading but rabbinical commentary is not something that you can totally base your faith on. For example, due to King David's standing, some rabbis try to mitigate, if not outright deny, his sin of adultery with Bathsheba and then covering it up by murdering her husband. The scriptures say David was wrong. David said he was wrong. Yet these men attempt to justify David's actions.

Another example is a quote another first century Jewish rabbi who said (paraphrasing) "Do nothing to others that you do not want done to yourself. All Else is commentary. Now go learn the commentary. The guy who said this was not Jesus. I can't remember his name. But if you think about what he said it is no where near as binding as what Jesus said. The other statement of the golden rule is passive. As long as you hurt no one, you don't have to go out of your way to help others. What Jesus said was different in Matthew 7:12:

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

If you do what Jesus said, you cannot be passive. You not only do no harm to others but you help them, feed them, clothe them, teach them, love them. It's a subtle difference but sets scripture apart. The people of Jesus' day were of course amazed if they were hearing teaching like what the other guy was preaching.

As for the Zohar and Kabbalah, I think that they are reactions against Christians telling Jews that we have something they didn't. They are referred by many as part of Jewish mysticism and in no way contemporaneous with any Old Testament writer. They date to the middle ages in written form but are said to date back much further in an oral tradition. The other thing to remember is that Jewish mysticism has a lot in common with Christian mysticism. The thought that we can, by some way other than believing scripture, we can gain secret knowledge and access to God. Many of the ideas are based on the idea that God spoke the universe into existence using Hebrew, and if we knew what God said we can do the things he does. The legend of the Golem (picture opn the left) is a good example. The thought that if we knew what words God used to take Adam's lifeless body made of dust and put life into it, we could being a body made of mud together to protect us. Or that God has put a secret code hidden in the text of the first five books of the Bible. If we can break the code we can tell the future (today's Christians fall for this one too, I know I did.)

We have the antidote for any heresy or false teaching that rears its ugly head. All we have to do is ask, "Does this fit with what God has already revealed?" If it does, go with it. If not ignore it whenever possible, and stand against it if you have to.

Heavy Is the Head....

I just read today that because of the Presidential Records Act, Obama will not be able to have personal e-mail or even use a Black Berry PDA. I was shocked. It turns out that all a President's correspondence must be in the public domain (thank you, Richard Nixon). When I look at what you have to give up to be President, not to mention the stress and the lack of privacy, I wonder why would anyone want the job. Well, better him than me.

Voice Search on IPhone

I just found out that Google has new software for the iPhone. You can literally speak into the iPhone and do Google internet searches! I'm amazed. Almost makes me willing to get one. The truth is the Google phone will probably offer the same features soon.

You Can't Make this Stuff Up!!!!

I just saw a news reports on how a Turkish prisoner escaped a German prison recently by hiding in a freight box!!!! The guy is still at-large. The article I read this in, alludes to the fact that the first recorded instance of this idea being used is in the Metal Gear video game series. I myself have played this game and it's base on stealth. The main character sometimes hides in a freight box, and moves along slowly, to avoid detection! Cool concept. It's even fun to do in the game. I just never thought that such a thing could ever work in real life!!! Who knew?

Obama on 60 Minutes 11-16-08

Barack Obama was interviewed on 60 minutes this Sunday night. I have pasted it below.

Star Trek Theater Trailer

I found the Star Trek theatrical trailer being released before the new James Bond movie. The trailer is great.

William Ayers Speaks

Well, I guess the "gag" order has finally been lifted from Dr. William Ayers. I realize that he needed to be silent until after the election because so much rhetoric was being spewed out by the McCain/Palin campaign that I doubt anyone would have listened to Ayers defend himself. But now, finally, he can. Interesting enough, it quite offended me every time Sarah Palin called this man a "terrorist". And under her definition all the young people who demonstrated for Civil Rights and against the Vietnam War were terrorists. Ayers was never personally convicted of bombing anything. He is now a professor at a major, well-respected university. Further, it was laughable to lump Obama to any of Ayer's past alleged terrorist acts, even if they were evil! I mean Obama was seven of eight years-old? Makes no sense at all.

Do You Call This Tolerant?

Gay Marriage supporters accuse those who supported Proposition 8 as being intolerant of anyone who disgrees with their own position. They say that we are being insensitive and unkind. These accusations seem baseless in light of the following video!

Script for the "Dark Knight"

Warner Brothers has released the script for Dark Knight. I downloaded it and then put it on my Issu.com account.

Get your own - Open publication

Update: Suit of "Batman" Copyright

G4TV has reported on even more information in its article. I'm shocked.

1. The mayor of a town in Turkey called "Batman" wants to sue Warner Brothers for "stealing" the name "Batman".
2. Apparently the town took the name in 1955. (Batman began to be published in 1939)
3. Batman's mayor, Huseyin Kalkan (picture on the left), is bring the suit for copyright infringement.
4. This isn't the first time Kalkan has pulled this. In 2007, DC comics settled a case with them for an "undisclosed" amount.
5. In February 2008, Kalkan was sentenced to 10 months in jail for "promoting terrorism". Prosecutor speculate that Kalkan used the settlement money for terrorism support.
6. I don't get why DC caved....Batman had been around a long time before that town in Turkey
7. Why let Kalkan go to the well twice? Obviously, he is expecting some kind of windfall because The Dark Knight is going to gross way more than $1 million once all the DVD sales are added in.
8. If the Kalkan is supporting Terrorist, no way should we let Warner Brothers or DC settle.
9. Kalkan has no case..if anything Batman, Turkey should be paying Warner Brothers.

New "Watchmen" Trailer

I'm really looking forward to the Watchmen movie next May. It is based on the work of a genius, Alan Moore. He wrote a graphic novel of the same name quite a while ago, about the early 1980's. It turned the ideas of what a "superhero" is. I never read the book because at the time it was published I was child and it's most definitely not for children. I think I may read it now that I'm grown. I'm looking forward to the movie because the director is the same director as 300, Zack Snyder. He promised to be faithful to source material. He was spot on in how he translated Frank Miller's work from comic book to screen in 300 so I think he will be able to do the same with Watchmen. Here is the latest trailer.

New Star Trek Trailer

Ok, I realize that it may make me a geek, but I love Star Trek. The whole franchise. Each and every series....all the movies...well except for Star Trek V - it sucked. I'm part of that generation that knew the original series only through re-runs. All my peers had someone in their early lives who made them watch Star Trek whether they wanted to or not - leading to them either detesting the show or becoming life long fans such as I. In my case it was my eldest brother. He's 16 years older than I and he plopped me in front of the TV to watch Star Trek with him as soon as I was able to sit up by myself. By the time I was 5 years old I had seen every single episode and could even quote lines from many episodes. I'd like to one day post a blog article about Star Trek, how it has affected my World View, society, and it's theology, but for now I just wanted to post the trailer for the new movie coming out next year. It's based on the original with an all-new cast.

Heroes Online Comics

On one hand, NBC has supported the show Heroes extremely well...especially in providing fun interactive content for the Internet. You can get interactive web comics that have voice overs, sound effects, and great art. They expand the story and sometimes feature characters that are not in the TV series. You can even download the stories as standard comic books. They are really well done and are released once a week. You can find all of this material at the official site.

Matrix Parodies

I found these videos on YouTube and I think that they are Hilarious! What if the Matrix really did run on Windows. I think the makers of these videos hit it right.

Reincarnated Budah?

I saw the following article on AOL called Devotees Say Teen Is Buddha Reborn. People are saying that an 18 year-old boy is the reincarnation of Buddha. In a world, such as ours, where eastern mysticism is given the same weight in society as traditional religions in America. Many Americans, including some Christians, accept reincarnation. What I really wanna point out is that some of the teachings of Buddha conflict with the worldview God tells us to have. The important thing to remember that Buddhaism teaches you reach enlightenment by looking within you. Jesus said that enlightenment can only be found through him. They both cannot be right simultaneously. The Bible says that it is appointed once for us to die...and then the judgement. We don't come back over and over again





The one question, I have always had about reincarnation is how do you know you have enough Karma stored up to upgrade to the next form of existence? Who says one life form is a step forward and another is step back. It's the same problem with evolution. A lot animals who are considered "beneath" us have abilities that we don't have. If evolution is all about passing the best traits so that the next level life form has the best chance for survival then why can't we see in the dark as well as cats? Why can't we fly? Don't get me wrong I thank God for my oppoesable thumbs, but if evolution was true would not the highest evolved creatures contain the best traits of all the other animals in the descent tree? I know some would aregue that we are not directly descended from cats or birds. Fine. But how come all the other primates have greater physical strength and durability then we do? Would not the ultimate primate have the strength and staminia of a mountain gorrilla but have human "intellect"? No such being exists on earth. And I see no way such a one could evolve out of us.

Also, concerning reincarnation, if it were true, then the sum number of living things on the earth would never change. I mean if souls are only switching bodies then it would be a closed system. Why then would there be more humans living on earth simultaneously than at any previous time? By extension, I doubt that that the same cannot be said about other species of life, even if you allow for souls to be in any living thing even plants. Therefore reincarnation cannot stand.

Batman vs "Batman"

I just read on a blog, that there is a town in the nation of Turkey named Batman and they have filed suit against Warner Bros for using their name!? The only way this could fly is if that town has been around since before the year 1939, when Batman was first published. And if it was, then why sue now? I mean there have been thousands of comic books published, 6 major movies, and not to mention the dozens of animated series and video games and other merchandise and media that the character has appeared on and in. Why haven't they complained before now? I hope this gets thrown out. I wish this was joke.

I'd Call This"Terrorism"

This morning on James White's blog I heard about something that should receive national attention. On Sunday, November 9, 2008, some gay "activist" crashed a church meeting. Thirty people sat through a portion of the worship service and then in a pre-arranged and coordinated coup, disrupted the service. Dr White posted a link to an article reporting on the incident. This post includes a copy of a picture of the perpetrators. Here is an excerpt:

Prayer had just finished when men and women stood up in pockets across the congregation, on the main floor and in the balcony. "Jesus was gay," they shouted among other profanities and blasphemies as they rushed the stage. Some forced their way through rows of women and kids to try to hang a profane banner from the balcony while others began tossing fliers into the air. Two women made their way to the pulpit and began to kiss.

Their other props? I'll let them tell you in their own words... from another of their liberal blogs:

"(A) video camera, a megaphone, noise makers, condoms, glitter by the bucket load, confetti, pink fabric...yeh."

The video camera they put to good use as they attempted to provoke a violent reaction. The image of the pink-clad folks above is one of theirs, stating in a picture worth more than a thousand words the goals of the Michigan left.

I admit the article did seem to try to imply that the protesters were having sex publicly in the building or displaying used condoms, without really saying that they did it. Therefore I'd be willing to discount that part of the report. However, disrupting a church service...any church service...is a denial of rights as an American citizen. Apparently the protesters did not like the church's teachings concerning abortion and same-sex marriage. Two things stick out to me. One, This didn't happen in region of America known for liberal stunts. This was not San Francisco, Los Angeles, Berkeley, Las Vegas, Miami, or even New York. It took place in Lansing, Michigan!!!!! And, two, where do we draw the line between "protester" and "terrorist"? When you attack and disrupt a worship service, that's an act of terrorism. I mean do we burst into gay people's bed rooms and stop them in what they are doing? No. And we haven't the legal right, no matter how much we may disagree.

John McCain: Good Character

Although, I'm glad he lost the election,I've got to admit that John McCain has really surprised me as to how graciously he loses. While many Republicans are busy blaming Sarah Palin for the lost, McCain does not publicly condemn her and refuses to be a "sore loser". I think that is classy. Also he seems to genuinely respect Barack Obama now. At the beginning, I don't think he did. McCain recently has been on Jay Leno and talked about loosing the election. Here is a clip.

Mirror's Edge: A Game Like No Other

I have just heard about a video game that is like none other I have ever seen. It's called Mirror's Edge. It's different because it's a first person action game that plays as 3D platformer! What that means is that you are running and jumping, flipping and diving - like the Tomb Raider series or Mario or Legend of Zelda - but in the first person perspective. You can't see your character's face unless you are looking at a reflective surface. You see the world and all the action from her point of view. To get an idea of how this looks check out the video below.

MSNBC Anchor Emotionally Pleads Against Prop 8

Keith Olbermann gives his opinion on Proposition 8 and he was against it. Here is what he said.





I must admit that I am amazed by the arguments spewing from his mouth. His main points seem to be that what homosexuals do and whom they "love" is of no concern anyone but themselves. And that they must be seen as living just as valid lives as people who live traditional lives. He also seems to think that standing against gay people means that you hate gay people. He also said that the legal definition of marriage has changed over the years to first exclude slaves and interracial marriages and now that has changed to include us. The problem is that as a Christian, I'm not just trying to uphold a "legality" but the definition of "marriage" passed down to us from God. Since He invented it, don't you think we should use his definition. Giving black people and discriminated minorities equal rights under the law and legally recognizing their marriages did not change the definition of "marriage" but only restored it to what it has always been intended by God: union of one man and one woman.

By definition, a Christian believes that every human being is sinful and in need of Jesus for salvation from Hell and reconciliation with God. Biblically, homosexuality is no greater sin than lying, stealing, murder, adultery, or any other sin. Any of these mean you deserve to go to Hell. It is way more loving and not hate to point out to people when they sin against God so that they can choose to repent and submit themselves to God's standards, thereby accepting the gift of salvation.If I hated someone I would shield this knowledge from them so that they will be lost. But because Jesus has put love in my heart for everyone, including homosexuals, of course I can't let them go on about their business to redefine "marriage" without pointing out the error.

One thing I agree with Olbermann about is that us voting on same-sex marriage in California will indeed affect the rest of the country. If it makes it here it will be all over the nation eventually.

Doug Wilson vs Christopher Hitchens

I read about a great debate on the Alpha Omega Ministries blog. It's between Doug Wilson and Christopher Hitchens on October 30, 2008. The audio is below. I thought that Hitchens did not say anything new from what I have heard him say before. It's hard to talk to someone like Hitchens because he is the living embodiment of what the Bible says. He said that he rejects God because if there was a God that deity would be unassailable and unaccountable. He understands what is at stake. If there was a God he said that he sees no reason or right to question God's actions or purposes. I agree. Hitchens cannot accept being out of control and a supreme being being in control of him. He can't trust that being to do what is best for him and the universe because he does not like what he sees in the world. All else he argues is a rationalization to get around his own accountability to God. I disagree with Hitchens about what the Bible says. He said that he does not like to be told that he does not have divine information because it was not revealed to him. I think Dr. Wilson did a great job interacting with him.

Get this widget | Track details | eSnips Social DNA

Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens

On the Internet, I found this debate where Frank Turek debated Christopher Hitchens. It took place September 08, 2008. The topic was: Does God Exists? It took place at Virginia Commonwealth University. It's quite good. You can find a great place to download it from here.


Christopher Hitchens/Frank Turek Debate from Larry M on Vimeo.

Rival Monks Throwdown

Okay, I see more and more why the old folks used to say that the "world is going to hell in a handbasket." I just saw a news report of monks fighting in the church where many people believe was the site of Jesus' tomb. I saw the article on AOL News. They were fighting in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. The fight was between Armenian and Greek orthodox monks over a piece of Jesus' cross in the 4th century AD. I'm amazed. Apparently the Israeli police break up fights among Christian sects in Jerusalem often. And the truth is this one fight is over nothing. First it's debatable where exactly the crucifiction and resurrection took place. The churches built on tradtional locations were set in place 300 years after the events really took place. And some of the best archeology and information we have says that there are other locations that fit what the Bible says. I think its on purpose that we don't know the exact locations to the nearest inch because relics and commemorating locations is not what God wants us to focus on. Jesus told us to go and make disciples of the world, not fight over relics and who has the right to what piece of land. I'm surprised the Muslims weren't in on this fight. But then why would they care about Jesus' tomb or a piece of the cross? Yeah...answered my own question

Suing Christians

The reason why people are concerned that ministers can be sued for not supporting gay marriage is because such things have happened before. You have stated that the Mormon allowed Blacks and outlawed polygamy. These are examples of faith and practice being changed due to government interference. The federal government said to the Mormons that we will jail you if you continue polygamy because you are breaking the laws of the United States. I've studied some history of the Mormon church by looking at apologetic debates and this is a hot topic as to how valid some of the claims of the Mormons (which I will not get into here). For more see the work of Dr.Walter Martin who was excellent at witnessing and talking to Mormons with gentleness and respect. The point is that Mormons did not get rid of polygamy on their own. The top leader at the time "heard" from God and due to that "revelation" they got rid of polygamy after the government made an issue of it. Please research this if you don't believe me.

On top of that black people were barred from the Mormons because they were not considered human or worthy of salvation since the days of their Founder, Joseph Smith. They only started to allow Black people because of the weight of the civil rights movement in the 1960's.

I do not think that its good idea to assume that gay people will not be able to sue churches to make them accept homosexuality because it's already happening in the United Kingdom. I saw a story in the past few month. Look at this link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-417582/Vicars-sued-refusing-bless-gay-weddings-fears-Church.html

In addition, just recently, Bible Publisher Zondervan is being sued for their translation of the Bible because it hurts the feelings of the homosexual platiff named Bradley Fowler. His complaint is with 1 Corinthians 6:9 and how it lists homosexuality in a list of sins. See http://endtimespropheticwords.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/zondervan-faces-60m-federal-lawsuit-over-bible-homosexuality/

Fowler said that it's a mistranslation. Here is a list of several translations and how that verse is rendered: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9;&version=31;9;49;50;

Each translation says the same thing but not in the same English words. In the Greek the offending word is "aresenokotes" (Strong's number: 733) and the lexicon I own is "one engaging in homosexual acts, sexual deviant". As far as I know when the 1st Century readers read "aresenokotes" the understood Paul was writing about Homosexuals....what they do as being offensive not who they are or something that God cannot deliver them from. Here is the whole passage,verses 9 and 10 (NIV):

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Star Wars: Clone Wars Comic

Here is the link: http://www.starwars.com/clonewars/comic/index.html

Proposition 8 Passed in California

As you probably know Proposition 8, banning gay marriage, squeaked by in California. I voted for it because I see no reason for re-defining marriage. I thought that homosexuals had almost the same rights as heterosexual married couples, so there was no reason to change what "marriage" means. I found out that I was wrong. In California, homosexual couples in "domestic partnerships" have the same rights as traditional married couples. Look at Domestic Partnerships in California. Here is some information from that article:

A California domestic partnership is a legal relationship available to same-sex couples, and to certain opposite-sex couples in which at least one party is at least 62 years of age. It affords the couple virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges, and imposes upon the couple all of the same legal obligations and duties, that California law affords to and imposes upon a married couple.

As of 2007, California affords domestic partnerships all of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5). Among these:

• Making health care decisions for each other in certain circumstances
• Hospital and jail visitation rights that were previously reserved for family members related by blood, adoption or marriage to the sick, injured or incarcerated person.
• Access to family health insurance plans (Cal. Ins. Code §10121.7)
• Spousal insurance policies (auto, life, homeowners etc..), this applies to all forms of insurance through the California Insurance Equality Act (Cal. Ins. Code §381.5)
• Sick care and similar family leave
• Stepparent adoption procedures
• Presumption that both members of the partnership are the parents of a child born into the partnership
• Suing for wrongful death of a domestic partner
• Rights involving wills, intestate succession, conservatorships and trusts
• The same property tax provisions otherwise available only to married couples (Cal. R&T Code §62p)
• Access to some survivor pension benefits
• Supervision of the Superior Court of California over dissolution and nullity proceedings
• The obligation to file state tax returns as a married couple (260k) commencing with the 2007 tax year (Cal R&T Code §18521d)
• The right for either partner to take the other partner's surname after registration
• Community property rights and responsibilities previously only available to married spouses
• The right to request partner support (alimony) upon dissolution of the partnership (divorce)
• The same parental rights and responsibilities granted to and imposed upon spouses in a marriage

Eligibility

Currently, a couple that wishes to register must meet the following requirements:

1. Both persons have a common residence.
2. Neither person is married to someone else or is a member of another domestic partnership with someone else that has not been terminated, dissolved, or adjudged a nullity.
3. The two persons are not related by blood in a way that would prevent them from being married to each other in California.
4. Both persons are at least 18 years of age.
5. Either of the following:
   • Both persons are members of the same sex.
   • The partners are of the opposite sex, one or both of whom is above the age of 62, and one or both of whom meet specified eligibility requirements under the Social Security Act.
6. Both persons are capable of consenting to the domestic partnership.

Update: Robert Downey Jr's Comments on ReCast

I saw an article today at ReelComix.com that contained what Robert Downey, Jr thinks about the casting fiasco on Iron Man 2. As I have blogged earlier, Terrence Howard has been replaced by Don Cheadle to play James Rhodes/War Machine in Iron Man 2 and Avengers. Robert Downey Jr. plays Tony Stark/Iron Man. Here is what Robert Downey Jr said about the casting problem:

“It’s one of those situations where I still don’t quite know what
happened or why. Here’s what happens too: things happen and you wind up
commenting on them before you’ve actually talked to the people and it’s
in poor taste.”

I was glad to see him take the high road...not burning any bridges. Smart! You never know you will have to work with...or for....again. However, it does not answer any questions. I mean was Terrence Howard screwed or not? The story still isn't clear, but to summarize how I understand it from the article I have read:

The Studio is saying that Howard was paid more than anyone else on the first Iron Man because he signed on first (No idea how). They say that he was horrible to work with. They say that they weren't happy with his performance and had to cut and re-shoot a lot. They paired down his role in Iron Man 2 and offered him 50-80% less than what he earned in the first film and Howard said no. So they offered the role to Don Cheadle in Iron Man 2 and Avengers.

The problem is that no interview I have read can confirm that Howard did badly or that the Rhodes role was ever paired down. He got glowing reviews from nearly everyone connected to making Iron Man. Still sounds fishy. Howard himself said that he read about his firing in the trades like everyone else. I've not heard Jon Favreau weigh in on this at all. I know he is prepping the next movie so he is busy but I wanna know what happened because I was looking forward to seeing War Machine on the screen and I think Terrence can pull it off. The reason why the first movie worked was because Robert Downey Jr made Tony Stark believable as a genius who plays be his own rules and a man crazy enough to strap himself into a suit like that, fly around, and force people to not misuse his creations. In order for War Machine to work, you have to believe that James Rhodes is the kind of man who is so loyal and dedicated to protecting others that he is willing to risk putting that thing on. I believe Terrence Howard would....I'm not sure if Don Cheadle can sell it.

Obama Through the Lens of Superman

I found a couple of video on YouTube that Celebrate Obama's historic election as President and mixes in scenes from the very first 2 Superman movies and 2006's Superman Returns.

SuperBarack


"Obama Returns" DNC '08 Nomination Trailer (Superman Remix)

Canonicity Part 3: The Book of Enoch

In 2001 and 2002 I explored the notion that there were books missing from the Bible by way of studying Genesis 6:4 which says:

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

I was intrigued by who the "Nephilim" were/are. The King James Version translates the word as "Giants". In Hebrew "Nephilim" mean "fallen one" or "to fall". The Bible connects the Nephilim to men who are described as nearly monstrously tall and large, also called . Men like Goliath (1 Samuel 17:4) - whom David slew, the man described in 2 Samuel 21:20 and 1 Chronicles 20:6, men who were sometimes referred to as Anakites (Numbers 13:33, Joshua 11:22; Deuteronomy 1:28), Og king of Bashan (who was an Rephaites - Deuteronomy 3:11), and others. Using this information, 2 separate explanations as to who the Nephilim are have been proposed...both are Orthodox...and they hinge on the identities of the "son of God".

Some people use Job 1:6 which in the KJV refers to angels as "sons of God". this would mean that angels fathered children by human women. Then it doesn't take much imagination that children of angels would be bigger and stronger then pure humans. This idea is bolstered by the Book of Enoch which emphatically states that this is what happened. However, not everyone agrees that this is the correct understanding of who the Nephilim are because of two reasons. First, "sons of God" elsewhere in the Old Testament refers to human beings and second, because Jesus said angels do no marry (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25) and therefore we conclude that angels cannot have sex or procreate.

I am not leaning toward the interpretation that "sons of God in Genesis 6 is not referring to angles because it cannot be corroborated with the rest of the 65 books that I know are scripture. However when I was flirting with the idea that the Book of Enoch was truly inspired, I researched how we go the copy we have today and looked at if the 1st Century church used the Book of Enoch as scripture. What I found out was that the oldest copies we have are more than 2000 years old, dating back to the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls. We don't have any Hebrew copies nor do we know what original language it was written in. The copy I have is translated from a Coptic copy. If it was really written by the real Enoch, it would have to be extremely old. Enoch was first mentioned in Genesis 5:19 - seven generations from Adam. This make me doubt that he wrote it. However the rub is that the Book of Enoch is quoted in Jude 1:14,15 which we know the book of Jude is divinely inspired. The passage says:

Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

The question I was asking was: If a book is quoted in scripture, does that mean the book is also scripture? Going back to the first canonicity post I wrote, I have to apply the criteria scripture gives. Under that criteria I have to conclude that no the Book of Enoch is not scripture. Don't believe me? Read it yourself:

Get your own - Open publication

Okay, I know what you're asking. The same question I asked upon reaching this conclusion: Does this mean that Jude is not inspired either? Jude is inspired according to the criteria scripture sets up. Obviously, first century Jews and Christians had access to the Book of Enoch but we know it was not part of the Jewish canon. I think that the fact that Jude quotes the Book of Enoch because it was a common piece of literature his readers were familiar with and illustrated the points he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to make. Here is an illustration: if a preacher quotes a movie or a book...does that make the movie or book scripture, even if the point being made is true? No. I often wonder if there be a confusion 2000 years from now about what Christians today consider scripture with all the different texts and denominations floating around today. I wonder because some of us are more familiar with the Left Behind books than we are with scripture.

“IN TEARS" OBAMA OFFICE TELEPHONE BANK CALLERS

Check this Out. Mrs. Scelestine Langston is a mother in the Church of God in Christ. Her first son, Bishop James L. Langston, Jr is a bishop in the church of God in Christ.

Contact: Dr. Louis C. Langston
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Cell Phone: (510) 582-3461
Email: "Sandra Langston"

“IN TEARS" OBAMA OFFICE TELEPHONE BANK CALLERS
"Volunteer Caller, 100 years of age Matriarch"




Photo L to R.- Ms. Diskowski, Bishop James Langston, Mrs. Sandra Langston, Armand Burns, Dr. Louis Langston, Mrs. LaJuanah Lunceford, Mrs. Scelestine on Telephone
==============<><><>==============
Berkeley, California, October 28, 2008 – Obama Headquarters Office welcomed the unexpected 100 year old, Mrs. Scelestine Langston. She was accompanied by her forth generation son, a first time voter, Armand Burns; her first son, Bishop James L. Langston, Jr.; her seventh son and his wife, Dr. Louis C. and Sandra M. Langston; and her second daughter, LaJuanah R. Langston-Lunceford. The staff and volunteers in the crowded office were aggressive in calling and working the telephone banks to Get-Out-The-Vote.

Ms. Dawn Diskowski, Phone Bank Captain, and Bishop Langston, assisted Mrs. Scelestine Langston in making her first call to Jonathan Christman of Norwalk, Ohio. Christman was very surprised to receive an out-of-state, get-out-the-vote call from the 100 year old great-great grandmother but happily promised her he would go out and vote for Obama.

Mrs. Langston’s fourth generation son, Armand Burns, said he was encouraged to register to vote after listening to his great-grandmother. She told him and the others listening that her life has come full circle and is now complete. Her faith in God is unyielding; her family is intact; and with the real possibility of Obama’s becoming the nations forty-fourth president, her belief in change makes more sense now than it ever has. To use Obama's words, she is now embued with hope.

The 100-year old matriarch, Mrs. Langston, the oldest of three children, was born to Louis and Orelia Jenkins on March 8, 1908 in Jeanerette, Louisiana. She gave birth to 11 children.

Two Glimpses Into the Future

Tuesday, November 4, 2008 gave us 2 glimpses into the future. First, we found out who the next President is: Barack H. Obama Jr! Second, we saw the next iteration of remote conferencing technology: Holographic News Correspondents! I was blown away to see Anderson Cooper of CNN interviewing Will.I.AM. Anderson was in New York. Will.I.Am. was in Chicago. It was a Full, free-standing hologram, interacting in real-time! They even showed the hologram from the rear. Will.I.Am even did a little dance at the beginning and ending of the interview. It was like the hologram of Princess Leia projected by R2D2 in Star Wars Episode 4: A New Hope (1977,1997), only it wasn't blue. I thought it was a trick. But it seems that it was real. Also it turns out that they had used the technology earlier that day, when Wolf Blitzer interviewed Jessica Yellin. G4TV also reports that the very first time the technology has been used was in Australia:

This however, is not the first time this technology has been utilized. In May, Australian company Telstra "beamed" a hologram of its Chief Technology Officer from Melbourne to 460 miles away in Adelaide.

I scoured the Internet for about how the technology works. Gizmodo had the answer:

CNN's holographic election coverage is fancy pantsy, but how did they manage to send 3D 360 degree footage of virtual correspondent Jessica Yellin from Chicago all the way to the station's election center in NY? As Arthur C. Clarke says, Magic. A magic made possible from technology Vizrt and SportVu with the help of forty-four HD cameras and twenty computers. Here are the details.

On the subject's side:
• 35 HD cameras pointed at the subject in a ring
• Different cameras shoot at different angles (like the matrix), to transmit the entire body image
• The cameras are hooked up to the cameras in home base in NY, synchronizing the angles so perspective is right
• The system is set up in trailers outside Obama and McCain HQ
• Not only is it mechanical tracking via camera communication, there's infrared as well
• Correspondents see a 37-inch plasma where the return feed of the combined images are fed back to them. Useful for a misplaced hair or an unseemly boogar
• Twenty "computers" are crunching this data in order to make it usable

On the HQ side:
• Only used on two out of 40-something total camera feeds that CNN has
• Wolf Blitzer really loves it (or loves Jessica Yellin):

It's still Jessica Yellin and you look like Jessica Yellin and we know you are Jessica Yellin. I think a lot of people are nervous out there. All right, Jessica. You were a terrific hologram.

• The delay is either minimal, or we've gotten used to satellite delay that we don't even notice now
• An array of computers takes the crunched info feed from the subject's side in order to mesh it with the video from Wolf's side.
• Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the images are actually "projected" onto the floor of the CNN studio so that Wolf can actually talk to the person, you know, in a face to face. So it's not quite Star Wars just yet. Only after computers merge the video feeds together do you get a coherent hologram + person scenario

Here is a video of the system in action!!!

CNN debuts hologram @ Yahoo! Video

I want one of these!!!!

Obama Wins! November 4, 2008

I am almost speechless. I don't even know what to say. Barack Obama has actually succeeded in becoming President of the United States Of America. I heard McCain's concession speech. I was really good, classy, kind, amazingly honorable. I regained respect for John McCain in that speech. As for Obama's victory speech, it was perfect. Obama did not seem to let the success go to his head but allowed him to ask Americans to think and not just be all emotional. He told it like it is: This is not going to be easy, there are tough times and choices ahead. He said that this is just the beginning and not the end that he and his supporters have been fighting for. I was really, really impressed.

Here is Barack Obama's Victory Speech



Here is John McCain's Concession Speech

Updated: To Sean Hannity: Don't Drink the "Haterade"

If you haven't watched Sean Hannity on Fox News, you have missed some of the most biased journalism I have ever witnessed. He seems to hate Barack Obama and seems personally insulted. I think that it is good that people should scrutinize Obama, but it should be truth. Hannity seems to be trying to find anything at all to disqualify Obama from being President, and he can't do any better than the lies, falsehoods, and fact-manipulation that we have witnessed throughout the campaign from Fox News. This list was broadcasted last week and by now you probably realize that most Americans ignored Hannity, but I think its worth looking at why his list doesn't make sense. If this is his reasons why he would not vote for Barack Obama, this list represents why I did.



I made some notes on his points, I have to ask "Is that all you got?" His points are in bold my comments are in bold red

10. Judgement - Questionable Associations
a. Jeremiah Wright
b. Father Flagger - connected to Farrakan
c. William Ayers
d. Frank Marshall - Poet, Communist
e. Tony Resco - felon
f. Rashid Kalide -Palenstenian who says that it is ok to resist Israel
g. Percy Sutton - Dr. Kahlid Almon Sur (Black Panther Party mentor; Black
Nationalist; hates Israel;
Asserts Obama's associations would not allow him to be an FBI Agent

Well I guess its good then that Obama is not trying to be an FBI agent huh? I agree that who you choose to hang around with does speak to who you are, but each of these people have either been misrepresented or the attempt to connect them to Obama is tenuous at best. C'mon, you know people who are not exactly law-abiding too. Does that make you a bad person? No!

9. Media Darling - appoints him a celebrity, supported by hollywood, no critical
view or analysis on him or positions.
a. His associations
b. Redistribution of wealth


Did you hear one of the criticisms that Hannity uses in the clip: 9. Media Darling. Hanniyt's problem with Obama is that the media has made him a media darling. So was John F. Kennedy. So was Ronald Reagan. So what? Hannity claimed that the media has not scrutinized Obama enough. Hannity is part of the media. He might as well say he hasn't done his job. His argument is that we should not vote for Obama because liberal Hollywood and the media like him. Can't he do better than that? He also insinuates that Obama has been linked with radical and terrorist men and the media has done nothing to call him on it. What does he want the media to do? Round up a posse and lynch Obama? What I saw was that Obama knows a lot of people, some of whom he disagree with. none of them are less American than you or me. With each of the people he brings up you can't say any of them are un-American or criminals. If you do, then so are Bush, Cheney, and many others. Can't he do better than that? I think the mainstream media did not pursue these stories because they are non-issues. Everyone has associations with some people that other's don't like. Hannity seems to think that Obama should shun people that Hannity do not like or disagrees with. What is this? High school?

8. Joe Biden - was a bad VP pick. I don't see Biden putting his foot in his mouth all
the time, Just Hannity twisting his words

I've posted on this point before, but I want to re-iterate that I think Biden is correct that some of enemies may decide to see how far they can push us because they want to test Obama. So. I don't think they would not test McCain. Our enemies think we are weak, decadent, immoral, and about to collapse at any time. They think god is on their side. Why wouldn't they hit us regardless of who is President?

7. Consistency -flip flops too much
a. October 2007 - no flag Lapel
b. Accepty public financing
c. Immediately withdraw troops
d. FISA Bill
e. Jerusalem must be undivided, next day changed
f. Withdraw from NAFTA

When is changing your mind or opinion flip flopping? According to Sean Hannity, there is no difference. Makes no sense. It's like he has already decided not to vote for Obama and now is trying to rationalize that choice.

6. Out of the Mainstream - Elite, clinging to education
a. Looks down on average Americans
b. Against Abortion
c. Sex education to kindergarteners
d. Too much gun control
e. Provide amnesty to illegal immigrants

Here, Hannity's jealousy really comes through. His tone seems to dismiss Obama as if to say, "How dare he be black and intelligent and educated, challenging all of my pre-conceived thoughts and prejudices about what Black men are like!"

5. Too many democrats - no check and balance on liberal agendas
a. Universal health care
b. New Supreme Court
c. Compromised National Security

Hannity paints a nightmare scenario where Democrats will have the power to pass any liberal laws and ideas they want without restraint if they have the Presidency and control of Congress. I think that he may be unable to sleep tonight. We will still have the Supreme Court to act as a check and balance. Ordinary citizens made their influence felt in this election using the Internet, I doubt that this influence will not play a role in an Obama administration.

4. Divisive Politics
a. Farakahan calls him a "messiah"
b. John Louis compared McCain to George Wallace

Asserts racially tinged rhetoric but with no examples

3. Taxes and Spending
a. People who don't pay taxes will get a check for the government.
b. Scaring other countries from doing business for us

With the economic brain trust advising him, I think Obama has more an idea of what to do about the economy more than Hannity.

2. Foreign Policy
a. Inexperienced
b. Will draw our enemies to attack us
c. Sitting down with enemy nations without pre-conditions.

1. Lack of Experience
a. Used the rhetoric from the Democratic Primaries campaign where Clinton
and Biden said Obama was not ready.



Sean Hannity remarked that Obama has done nothing major or important to be where he is. My question is what has Sean Hannity done to deserve his won television show? I have never heard of him before Fox News. What makes his opionions so important that he should be on the air waves? Not even enough. At least as a community organizer, Obama did touch people's lives. And as a Senator, you touch lives just by going to work, not to mention the legislation and other duties Obama has performed. What has Hannity done that touched any lives? Sean Hannity, stop hating. You seem very jealous that you have not had the same level of success in life as Barack Obama. In addition, John Kennedy, Carter, Truman, and several other Presidents had very little Foriegn Policy experience but made a great Presidents. Also I am amazed at how nasty the compaigns was and now that it's over, I wonder how can they just put aside all the spilled blood and work together. After the things Biden and Hillary Clinton said, Obama has seemed to let all that go and work with them. This is something else that I think will make him a great President.

Theololgy and Biology

Here is a video from GodTube discussing on how God has designed our bodies. It may explain the reasons behind the soaring divorce rates and infertility in countries where the pill and other chemical contraceptives are prevalent.

Facts about the Koran

Here is a short video explaining the "Doctrine of Abrogation". In it, Muslim reconcile contradictory passages in the Koran by annulling the older passage. We have no such issue when it comes to the Bible because there is no example of passages blatantly contradicting one another no matter how you look at the context and culture of the time in which they were written.

Obama and History

The following was sent to me today:

Crispus Attucks fell so that Rosa Parks could sit, Rosa Parks sat so that Dr. Martin Luther King could march, Dr. Martin Luther King marched so that Barack Obama could run, and Barack Obama is running so that our children and grandchildren can fly."

I have ambivalent feelings about this. I am ecstatic that a Black family has gotten this close to the White House without being maids, butlers, day-laborers, or slaves. As long as we keep realistic expectations on who Obama is and what he can do, we will be okay. Although there are some misguided attempts to paint him in messianic terms, I have never heard Obama make any such claims. We must be careful to not put him on a pedestal that he, nor anyone else but Jesus Christ, can stand on.

Update: Terrence Howard and Iron Man 2

I just read on ReelComics.com and /Film more information about why Terrence Howard was not recast (read fired) as James Rhodes in Iron man 2. Marvel is saying that because Terrence was the first to sign on, he ended up being paid more than anyone else, but there is no explanation as to how this could happen. It was also reported that the director and producers were not satisfied with Howard's work on the first Iron Man. That does not make sense because I heard them say that all the actors were great. There was talk about scaling back the Rhodes role in the sequel and offering Howard 50%-80% less money than what he signed up for. No wonder he said "No." Even before the first movie came out they promised that if there was going to be sequel James Rhodes as War Machine would play a major role. It all sounds fishy to me. Apparently with Don Cheadle signed on, War Machine's back in a major way. Mr. Cheadle needs to watch his back because apparently Marvel Film execs did not get the memo that the civil rights legislation passed. It's not right to break contracts and just treat people that way. I think they could have worked harder to work something out with Terrence Howard. I'm not sure who to believe, but we are not getting the whole truth.

Sarah Palin Tricked

Sarah Palin was recently tricked into thinking that she was on a phone call with the President of France, named Nicolas Sarkozy. I've attached a YouTube video to this post that records that calls. The prank was on the radio by 2 Canadian "shock jocks". Palin seemed incredibly clueless. Even when the call got outlandished. I think Palin should have known something was up when "President Sakozy" referred to Hustler magazine's porno, called "Who's Nailin Paylin", as a biographical film about her that he liked. At best it is a filthy parody and at worst real porno. I would have thought that she would have known about it and would have been outraged. She reminded me of women in film or rap videos who don't realize that they are being exploited.



I really thought that is was a hoax and that nothing like that could every really happen, but now that other sources have confirmed this I'm really worried that McCain gave Sarah Palin too much credit as a running mate. I, under any circumstances, do not want to see someone that clueless in power.

Importance of Voting

I just received e-mail that points to a video created by Color of Change.org and it is well-done. It gives a historical background summary of election frauds in 2000 and 2004. Please share it and view it.

A Letter That Should Be Read

October 31, 2008 I recieved a forwarded e-mail from a White man who was a member of Jeremiah Wright's congregation longer than Obama. What he has to say about Rev. Wright as a Pastor is very telling about who he is and how much of a distortion that the media has done in an effort to Obama. You can find the original letter at: Trinity United Church of Christ Celebrates Diversity: One man shares his experience with Rev. Wright.

Trinity United Church of Christ celebrates diversity. One man shares his experiences with Rev. Wright

Rev. Wright in a different light
By William A. Von Hoene Jr. **click to read the entire article**
March 26, 2008

I have been a member of Trinity, a church with an almost entirely African-American congregation, for more than 25 years. I am, however, a white male. From a decidedly different perspective than most Trinitarians, I have heard Wright preach about racial inequality many times, in unvarnished and passionate terms.

In Obama's recent speech in Philadelphia on racial issues confronting our nation, the senator eloquently observed that Rev. Wright's sermons reflect the difficult experiences and frustrations of a generation.

It is important that we understand the dynamic Obama spoke about.

It also is important that we not let media coverage and political gamesmanship isolate selected remarks by Wright to the exclusion of anything else that might define him more accurately and completely.

I find it very troubling that we have distilled Wright's 35-year ministry to a few phrases; no context whatsoever has been offered or explored.

I do have a bit of personal context. About 26 years ago, I became engaged to my wife, an African-American. She was at that time and remains a member of Trinity. Somewhere between the ring and the altar, my wife had second thoughts and broke off the engagement. Her decision was grounded in race: So committed to black causes, the daughter of parents subjected to unthinkable prejudice over the years, an "up-and-coming" leader in the young black community, how could she marry a white man?

Rev. Wright, whom I had met only in passing at the time and who was equally if not more outspoken about "black" issues than he is today, somehow found out about my wife's decision. He called and asked her to "drop everything" and meet with him at Trinity. He spent four hours explaining his reaction to her decision. Racial divisions were unacceptable, he said, no matter how great or prolonged the pain that caused them. God would not want us to assess or make decisions about people based on race. The world could make progress on issues of race only if people were prepared to break down barriers that were much easier to let stand.

Rev. Wright was pretty persuasive; he presided over our wedding a few months later. In the years since, I have watched in utter awe as Wright has overseen and constructed a support system for thousands in need on the South Side that is far more impressive and effective than any governmental program possibly could approach. And never in my life have I been welcomed more warmly and sincerely than at Trinity. Never.

I hope that as a nation, we take advantage of the opportunity the recent focus on Rev. Wright presents—to advance our dialogue on race in a meaningful and unprecedented way. To do so, however, we need to appreciate that passion born of difficulty does not always manifest itself in the kind of words with which we are most comfortable. We also need to recognize that the basic goodness of people like Jeremiah Wright is not always packaged conventionally.

Obama on the Bible Redux

With Election Day immediately upon us, there has been several videos posted on GodTube and YouTube accusing Obama of mocking the Bible. I blogged on this months ago, but since its rearing it's ugly head, I've got to comment on it. The most divisive part of the speech is the part that is being clipped out and distributed around the internet. Here it is:



I must say first I disagree with Obama's assertions. The Bible is just as relevant today as it ever was and will always be relevant. This is the truth. As a Christian, I believe this and know that its more true and more relevant than any religious text that has or ever will be written. That being said many of us Christians are under the delusion that America is a "christian" nation that follows the Bible and loves God. It could be argued that it never was. This is not an indictment or criticism against the country I love, just an observation, that I will develop into a more extensive article, and not the point of this post. The only way for Obama to be elected is to appeal to all Americans not just Christians. I believe him when he says (if you watch the whole speech) that he believes America is now more than a just a Christian nation. Buddism. Mormonism. Jehovah Witness. The Occult. And so many other religions are in American society and jockeying for postion in the American heart and mind. In recognizing this, Obama was saying that the state could not use the Bible, or Koran, or any other religion to set policy - separation of church and state. This was the soul of his message in that speech. I think it's unfortunate what he said about the Bible because I disagree. I reject the notion that all religions can co-exist and play nice. Uneasy tolerance is the best we can hope for. The basis of who we are, as Christians, is that Jesus died for the sins of mankind and rose again in power and reality. Every other religion denies this fact. We can all be wrong...but we can't all be right.

Unfortunately, many people who claim to be Christian today do not hold a high view of scripture and erroneous views the Bible as literature, but not God-given or inspired by him. That's unfortunate. You may even be able to argue that these people are not truly Christians. Even if you apply this logic to Obama, you have to apply the same logic to McCain. He, nor his staff, have behaved any better in this campaign than Obama and his staff have. Bearing false witness against some one is a sin and God does not like it. The McCain campaign has repeated labeled Obama as a socialist. He is not. If you think Obama is a socialist, then you don't know what a socialist is. That is just as anti-Christ as Abortions, same-sex unions, and not honoring scripture enough to obey it. For this reason, I don't think that this excludes me from voting for Obama. In my opinion, McCain is just as off theologically as Obama. And Obama is the lesser of the two evils.

If you have not seen the whole speech, please check out my previous post: Obama's View on Bible.