Extra Life

I have signed up for the Extra Life charity event, in which on October 15, 2011, gamers from all over the world will be playing for twenty-four hours straight to raise money for local children’s hospitals. I’m looking for sponsors. I’ve set a goal of at least $100, but they recommend finding four people to donate $1 an hour (for a total of $24 each), so I’m going to shoot for at least five (or one person who can donate at least $4). If interested, please go to this link: http://www.extra-life.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=donorDrive.participant&eventID=501&participantID=5174 and click the “SUPPORT ME!” button. Any amount you could donate would be appreciated.

Games I’m planning on playing during this event (with more TBA) are as follows: Portal, Portal: Still Alive bonus maps, Portal 2 single player campaign, Portal 2 co-op campaign, Portal 2 DLC maps, Mega Man 9, Mega Man 10, Sonic the Hedgehog, Sonic the Hedgehog 2, Sonic the Hedgehog 3, Sonic and Knuckles, Sonic the Hedgehog 4, and Rock Band 3. I would like to get this recorded and streaming on-line, as well, if I can. I’ll update later if this is possible for me to do.

Movie Review #3: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

Disclaimer: My reviews will contain many spoilers (and, as a result, this disclaimer). In fact, it's a pretty in-depth review. So if you don't wish to be spoiled, be sure and watch the movie before reading my review.

The year is now 1982, three years since the first Star Trek film hit theaters. The first movie was good, but nothing like fans were expecting. It was low on action and too familiar to one of their episodes. But despite Star Trek: The Motion Picture being a glorified rehash of an episode ("The Changeling"), Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was a sequel to the episode "Space Seed." It's not necessary to have seen the episode in order to understand the movie. They exposit enough information to catch up anyone who hasn't seen it. But I'll briefly explain the episode for greater understanding in this review.

The Enterprise, under command of Captain Kirk, discovers a "sleeper ship" adrift in space containing a group of genetically-enhanced supermen, under the command of Khan Noonien Singh, from the late 20th century. They are the last remnants of the "Eugenics Wars," sent into space in cryogenic hibernation. When they are revived by the Enterprise crew, they soon decide to try and commandeer the ship. Needless to say their attempt fails and they are sentenced to exile on planet Ceti Alpha V, a perfectly stable planet, capable of sustaining life. Before the event ends, however, Khan has successfully wooed an officer on the Enterprise, Lt. Marla McGivers, and convinced her to try and help his cause. Lieutenant McGivers opts to go into exile with Khan rather than undergo a court-martial. Spock comments at the end that he'd like to see what Khan makes of Ceti Alpha V in 100 years.

Plot

The U.S.S. Reliant, under the command of Captain Terrell, is sent by space station Regula I to investigate planet Ceti Alpha VI for usability in a new prototype life-creation machine called Project Genesis. Before Project Genesis can be used, they must make certain there are no lifeforms that would be killed, or nothing changed in their habitats. Terrell and Pavel Chekov (formerly of the Enterprise, recently transferred to the Reliant) beam down to the planet.

They make a startling discovery. They soon discover the remains of the S.S. Botany Bay, which Chekov remembers with horror. No sooner do they realize their plight than Khan and his supermen capture the two. It turns out they have actually landed on Ceti Alpha V without realizing it. Ceti Alpha VI exploded and shifted the orbit of Ceti Alpha V, also making it become inhabitable. Khan uses the only remaining indigenous lifeform, Ceti Eels, to take control of Terrell's and Chekov's minds. Khan is going to seek revenge on the man who stranded him and his crew there, Captain James T. Kirk. (And for trivia buffs, this is where the most notorious inconsistency of Star Trek shows up. Not only does Chekov recognize the Botany Bay, but Khan tells him he "never forgets a face" and recognizes Chekov. However, "Space Seed" was in the first season of Star Trek and Pavel Chekov didn't join the show until the start of the second season. However, this is easily explained away since Chekov wasn't transferred, so he was likely on the ship when the episode occurred.)

[Major spoiler coming up] Khan takes over the Reliant and maroons its crew on Ceti Alpha V. He then causes trouble for Regula I, using them to bring Admiral Kirk to the area. Meanwhile back on Earth, Saavik, a Vulcan trainee, is undergoing the Kobayashi Maru no-win scenario. Spock "dies" during the simulation (which was actually a response to leaked information that Spock was going to die in the movie -- they figured they'd kill him off at the beginning of the movie, then surprise moviegoers when he actually dies later on).

Kirk convinces Starfleet Command to allow him to take the Enterprise, complete with untested training crew, to investigate Regula I and the Genesis Project itself.

This movie is actually the first in a trilogy of sorts. At the end of the movie, Khan activates Genesis and it causes a new planet to coalesce out of a nebula. Spock's body is fired via photon torpedo casing into orbit of this new planet, which directly leads into the next film.

Soundtrack

The soundtrack this time was composed by James Horner. He did a phenomenal job here. Every piece of music fits the mood just right.

Ethics

This is, at its heart, a revenge story. Khan blames Kirk for abandoning him on Ceti Alpha V (despite the fact he was originally intrigued by the idea of starting a new colony on the planet), and for the death of his wife as a result of the catastrophe involving Ceti Alpha VI. Most of all, for never checking up on him. Khan will stop at nothing to kill Kirk, including killing anyone who gets in his way. He uses Ceti Eels to wrap around Terrell's and Chekov's brain stems, leaving them very much open to suggestion. He steals the Genesis Project and the Reliant, marooning its crew on the now lifeless Ceti Alpha V. And in the end, his obsession with revenge is his own undoing.

There's also a thread running through the movie of growing older. It's Kirk's birthday. Spock first gives him a copy of A Tale of Two Cities ("It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...a message, Spock?") and then later Doctor McCoy gives him an antique pair of reading glasses. Growing older is inevitable for all of us, and we all must come to terms with it. In Kirk's case, he's allowed himself to get a promotion and a desk job when he really yearns to be out traveling amongst the stars. And with the death of Spock, not only does Kirk have to deal with growing older but for the first time in his life, he has to face death (he's cheated death, but never had to face it until his closest friend died).

The other major thread is the creation of life. Do we, as humans, have the right to play God and create living planets, create other lifeforms? ("In the wrong hands? May I ask, Mr. Spock, whose hands are the right ones?") McCoy would answer an emphatic no to that question, whereas Spock finds the concept intriguing.

Characters

The acting is much better in this movie. Whereas the acting was more "stiff" in the first film, everyone seemed much more relaxed here. It really felt like the crew was back with us again. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy are back to the chemistry that we loved from the original series. The other characters (Scotty, Uhura, Chekov, and Sulu) were just as we remember them.

Chekov, again, has been transferred to the Reliant, under the command of Captain Clark Terrell (played by Paul Winfield). Even though he's under the influence of the Ceti Eels, he's still a Starfleet officer and a heroic man. When ordered to kill Captain Kirk by Khan, rather than kill a fellow officer he turned the phaser on himself when the pain of the eel became unbearable due to not following the order.

A new recurring character is introduced in this film, Lieutenant Saavik (played here by Kirstie Alley, probably best known for her role as Rebecca Howe on the sitcom Cheers; also, she did not return to reprise her role in future movies because she demanded too much money, so Robin Curtis would play Saavik in future films). Additionally, we see Dr. Carol Marcus (played by Bibi Besch), a former love interest of Kirk's. She and Kirk had a song, Dr. David Marcus (played by Merritt Butrick). Carol had told David about her father, but he, understandably, harbored a lot of resentment towards his father. However, having met him for the first time in this film and seeing that he's not the bad guy he always expected (in fact, he showed up to save the day, as usual), relations between him and his father have gotten off to a good start.

Now we get to the crux of the matter, Khan Noonien Singh (played by Ricardo Montalban). Ricardo Montalban played Khan in the original "Space Seed" episode, and here he reprises his role. He is a brilliant actor and played the part of Khan exceptionally. Obsessed with exacting revenge on Captain Kirk, it's an obsession that rules his life. After commandeering the Reliant, rather than enjoying his freedom and going anywhere he wanted to, the only thing on his mind is to get his revenge on Kirk.

Overview

There is a pattern that is said to have developed in Star Trek films: even numbered movies are excellent and odd-numbered movies are bad. I don't agree with this philosophy. Personally, I love every Star Trek movie, even the first one. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is on many top 10 lists of greatest movie sequels ever (and on lists of movie sequels that were better than the original). Star Trek: The Motion Picture was seen as such a lackluster movie that probably any sequel would have been better. But that didn't seem to matter; the ante was upped. Even though it didn't have that great an act to follow, a phenomenal movie sequel was still produced, one of the most beloved science fiction films ever.

Star Trek films have always been uncertain. They are made one at a time, with no guarantees that another one will be made. Thankfully, Star Trek is a successful enough franchise that it continues on and has given us 11 (so far) movies and five series'. Despite the fact there were no guarantees of a third, it was still left open for a sequel. And indeed, it would be the first of a trilogy of movies. If you haven't yet seen this movie, you owe it to yourself to see it.

Movie Review #2: Star Trek: The Motion Picture

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) Review
--The Sci-Fi Guy

Disclaimer: My reviews will contain many spoilers (and, as a result, this disclaimer). So if you don't wish to be spoiled, be sure and watch the movie before reading my review.

It's really no secret that I'm a huge Trekkie. Unless you don't know me, in which case don't mind the empty bag and the feline happily prancing around. I fell in love with Star Trek during The Next Generation, their sixth season. I saw my first episode, loved it, and was hooked ever since. Being that I was born in the early 80's, I really didn't grow up with the original Star Trek series. So this review is from the eyes of a relative newcomer to the franchise, albeit one that's been with the franchise for about seventeen years now. Let me briefly set the stage for you.

The original Star Trek series aired for three seasons, from 1966 to 1969. Although the show was canceled (twice -- it was revived after fans wrote in and saved the show when it was canceled after its second season), it still had a very strong cult following. After a few years off the air, an animated series was developed and ran for two seasons, 1973-1974. Then a new television series, titled Star Trek: Phase II, was being developed but would be canceled before seeing the light of day when Paramount's Television Service folded.

So after the success of movies such as Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Star Wars (movies which I'll most likely review at some point), and after having been off the air (or in syndication, but no new episodes being produced) for five years, fans finally got what they had been waiting for. A brand-spanking-new Star Trek adventure, and one on the big screen, at that. Would it live up to fans' expectations?.....the short answer is no. But they were happy to have new Trek, and it's still a good movie on its own. For the long answer, read on.

Plot

Since Star Trek: Phase II had been canceled, the writers actually rushed to turn the pilot episode (titled "In Thy Image") into a feature film. (Other scripts written for Star Trek: Phase II made their way into episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation.) This is where many people, fans and non-fans alike, really feel that the film falls flat. Now don't get me wrong. At its heart is a very Star Trek story. But it feels like a rehash of certain episodes of Star Trek ("The Changeling," in particular). There are spoilers ahead.

Earth finds itself threatened by a large entity that calls itself V'ger. On its way to Earth it wreaks havoc in its path, decimating three Klingon Birds-of Prey and a Federation starbase, amongst other things. The Enterprise, now under the command of Captain Willard Decker, is ordered to intercept this new threat. Being the only ship in range (how many times have we heard that one before?), the ship is ordered to launch ahead of schedule and to rush finishing the refit. James Kirk (now promoted to admiral), convinces Starfleet brass to give him command of the Enterprise for this mission. Kirk, subsequently, convinces Starfleet to "draft" Dr. McCoy, and Spock (who has been on Vulcan going through the Kohlinahr ritual to purge himself of all remaining emotions) meets the ship en route to V'ger.

That's basically the whole gist of the movie. While it's not the most in-depth plot, there are some very stunning visual effects (and I would recommend you get The Director's Edition, which has been remastered and the special effects look even more impressive). While the effects are archaic by today's standards, they were way ahead of the time for 1979. Star Trek has always been known for pushing the boundaries of special effects, among other boundaries. So there are some pretty slow sections during the course of the film that's basically there to simply show off the impressive special effects. There's a slow trip around the Enterprise by Scotty and Kirk, which I'm pretty sure was also kind of a nod to the fans. Kind of a "welcome back," if you will. Then there are some parts of the movie while the ship is inside V'ger that takes a while to get through, but again the effects look great.

In the course of the film the crew makes a startling discovery. V'ger is actually the Voyager 6 probe, a fictional member of the Voyager series which were sent to explore the farthest reaches of the solar system and beyond. Voyager 6 was pulled into a black hole and presumed lost, but as the crew have now discovered it emerged somewhere on the far side of the galaxy and encountered a race of living machines. They discovered Voyager 6 had a mission, to learn all that was knowable and return the information to its creator. The living machines constructed a spacecraft for the probe and sent it back to Earth. On the way, the probe had amassed so much knowledge that it had attained sentience. Finally on the verge of completing its mission, it gives Earth an ultimatum: bring the creator to V'ger so that V'ger and its creator can "merge," or it will destroy all carbon-based life on the planet.

The film is short on action, and is very cerebral. It almost reminds me of the first pilot episode, "The Cage." That episode was deemed "too cerebral," but Gene Roddenberry was given the rare opportunity of filming another pilot for the series. In the same vein, this movie was almost the "pilot episode" of the films, and just like "The Cage" was too cerebral for the tastes of the fans spawning another pilot, the next movie was filmed much heavier on action. They wanted what they had come to know from Star Trek: an intelligent story with plenty of action.

Soundtrack

The soundtrack was composed by the late Jerry Goldsmith (1929-2004), who composed much of the music for the Star Trek films, and some of the music for the series'. He was an accomplished composer and aside from Star Trek, composed music for a plethora of other films and television shows. The opening theme for Star Trek: The Motion Picture would later be re-used for Star Trek: The Next Generation.

One thing in particular I noticed about the music Mr. Goldsmith composed is that it's completely natural for the events transpiring in the movie. Oftentimes, I'd be watching the movie completely unaware of the soundtrack as if it's just supposed to be there. It would have been noticeable had it not been there. Everything from the triumphant re-introduction of the Starship Enterprise to building up the suspense upon entry of V'ger, and traveling further inside the living machine. If you feel the movie drags on a bit in places, just sit back and enjoy the wonderful orchestral soundtrack.

Ethics

There are a few themes running through this film. One is Kirk's obsession with the Enterprise. He let himself get promoted to admiral (a fact he would later bemoan to Picard in Star Trek: Generations). Yet he can't let it go that someone else is commanding his beloved ship. He once told Decker that he hopes he has the opportunity to command another ship someday. McCoy points out to Kirk that he's obsessed with the Enterprise, and that he went to a lot of trouble to get her back. However, there's no real resolution to this problem because his obsession actually works out in the end. Decker takes the place of V'ger's creator and "melds" with it, thereby leaving the ship without a captain. Kirk is all too happy to take over.

Another theme turns up in a few places in Star Trek. V'ger and its probe keep saying that the crew and other carbon-based lifeforms are "not true lifeforms." This seems to be a clever juxtaposition of humans who misunderstand androids. Data has to convince a Federation jury that he's sentient in "The Measure of a Man" (TNG). But in this case, rather than deciding the fate of an android, it's mechanical lifeforms who disregard carbon-based lifeforms (i.e. humans) as not truly alive. This is a great way to foster understanding of this dilemma, especially to those of us who have never had to go through it. Kirk and Decker finally convince V'ger that carbon-based lifeforms are true lifeforms by showing V'ger that its creator was, in fact, a carbon-based lifeform.

Finally, V'ger has a crisis of identity. V'ger, upon its return to Earth, has a very important question for its creator. "Is this all there is?" Not necessarily what its purpose in life is, because it knows its purpose and has, in fact, fulfilled it. But what else is there? Even Spock mentions that we, as humanoid lifeforms, can see beyond the physical realm and can make leaps of faith that can't be proven logically. V'ger has to join with its creator to have a new purpose for existing.

Characters

While the original series had six main characters in season one, and seven in seasons two and three, three characters have always been at the forefront of the show: James Kirk (played by William Shatner), Spock (played by Leonard Nimoy), and Leonard McCoy (played by the late DeForest Kelley). One reason this film suffers is because the trio isn't even together again until a good way into the movie. This is necessary, of course, because after being off the air for five years they had to find a way to bring the crew back together. But even while together, there was really none of the chemistry of the three from the series. Spock and McCoy didn't verbally spar with each other. Now granted, this could probably be explained away by the gravity of the situation, but that's just it. There's very little humor in the film to get us through the heaviness of it.

The other supporting characters are there: Nyota Uhura (played by Nichelle Nichols), Hikaru Sulu (played by George Takei), Montgomery Scott (played by the late James Doohan), and Pavel Chekov (played by Walter Koenig). The problem here is there's absolutely no character development for any of them. They're all there on the Enterprise from the start, so apparently they've all stayed with the ship for the past five years. All of their dialog is geared towards being supporting characters.

There's also Captain Willard Decker (played by Stephen Collins, known for playing Eric Camden in 7th Heaven -- and for trivia buffs, Catherine Hicks, who plays his wife Annie Camden, starred in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home as Dr. Gillian Taylor), and Lieutenant Ilia (played by Persis Khambatta). Little to nothing is revealed about these characters other than the fact that Decker was once stationed on the Deltan homeworld and knew Ilia, and that Ilia's vow of celibacy is on file. While her vow of celibacy is never expanded upon, various deleted scenes make reference to it. Keeping this to a family-friendly review, I won't expound on exactly why Deltans in Starfleet are required to take an oath of celibacy, but if you're really that curious about it the information isn't that hard to find.

Overview

So those are the high points of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Again, it was the movie the fans were waiting for but not necessarily the one they wanted. The Powers-That-Be would greatly make up for it with the sequel, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, which is largely hailed as one of the greatest movie sequels ever (which are usually worse than the original). However, I can't help but wonder if Star Trek II is hailed as such a great sequel because Star Trek: The Motion Picture is seen as such a lackluster movie. Sequels tend to be worse than the original because they have a hard act to follow. That wasn't the case here. And it's unfortunate, because the movie was actually rushed to be finished and meet its deadline. Also, the director, Robert Wise, was never satisfied with the final product. Thankfully, they churned out a great sequel, which I'll review next.

So again, the movie's not terrible. I wouldn't even call it bad. There are some great things about Star Trek: The Motion Picture. As I noted earlier, I'd recommend finding The Director's Edition. And join me as I review the rest of the movies in the Star Trek saga, and then branch out to other science fiction movies, classic and modern. I'll try to church out the Star Trek reviews as quickly as possible, but then I'll probably limit my reviews to once a week. The greatest thing about science fiction is not just the storytelling and how it gets our imagination going, but the very fact that it can teach us something about ourselves. Let's continue on...for the human adventure is just beginning.

Out of the mouths of babes...

This is a brief devotional I wrote and submitted for consideration to be placed at the following blog: http://journeydeeperin2godsword.wordpress.com/ . Go check it out, if you'd like. There are a lot of great devotionals there. I also wanted to post this here, in the hopes that it may encourage someone.

“Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: ‘Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; Before you were born, I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.’ Then said I: ‘Ah, Lord God! Behold, I cannot speak, for I am a youth.’ But the Lord said to me, ‘Do not say, “I am a youth,” for you shall go to all whom I send you and whatever I command you, you shall speak. Do not be afraid of their faces, for I am with you to deliver you,’ says the Lord.” -- Jeremiah 1:4-8 (NKJV)

As the old saying goes: the more things change, the more things stay the same. Do you ever read through the Scriptures and realize that even though we’re living a couple thousand years after these prophets, we’re still plagued with the same problems and many of the cultural biases are still present today? Many young people today remain silent when they should speak up, because adults appear to think that children are to be seen and not heard. But God has a difference of opinion here.

He chose Jeremiah before He even formed the prophet in his mother’s womb. He ordained Jeremiah to be a prophet and called on him when he was still a youth. Jeremiah had the same issues: “I am but a child. I can’t speak up to my elders.” God’s response to this is: “Don’t be afraid. I will give you the words to speak, and I will be with you.” The Apostle Paul had similar words for Timothy: “Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity.” (1 Timothy 4:12). Jesus Himself even told his disciples: “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 19:14).

There’s a special place in the heart of our Lord for children. While we should always strive to respect our elders, sometimes it’s up to the youth to be an example of Godly living.

Whether young or old, strive to be an example of Godly love, faith, and purity.

Album Review: Hell is for Wimps -- The Newsboys

The Newsboys
Hell is for Wimps
1990 (StarSong)

Line-up: Sean Taylor (bass), John James (lead vocals), Peter Furler (drums and vocals), Jonathan Geange (guitar)

Hell is for Wimps is the second studio album by The Newsboys. It's basically a follow-up album to Read All About It, continuing in the same musical vein. Phil Yates had left the band and was replaced by Jonathan Geange on guitar. It consists of ten songs (which will actually pretty much be the standard number of songs for a Newsboys album, with a few variations and special editions).

Stand Up for Jesus
Written by: Peter Furler, Philip Urry

The album starts out with an upbeat rocker. A pretty straightforward song about being bold in your witness for Jesus. But again, the songwriting on this album is definitely not up to Newsboys standards, and the type of one rhyming couplet in this song would later be condemned in their DeGarmo & Key cover, Boycott Hell.

In the End
Written by: Peter Hook, Bernard Sumner, Ian Kevin Curtis, Stephen Morris

For this next song (which rocks pretty hard), they tackle humanism and evolution. In the End was inspired by the verse in Scripture which mentions that there will come a time when every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord. The song itself rocks pretty hard, and there are times in the song where John James reminds me a bit of Greg X. Volz (of Petra) -- in fact, the whole song sounds quite Petra-esque.

Simple Man
Written by: Peter Hook, Bernard Sumner, Ian Kevin Curtis, Stephen Morris

I think this is one of their stronger songs, lyrically, from this album. It's a song about living a simple life, devoid of riches that could corrupt you.

All I Can See
Written by: Peter Furler, Billy Smiley, Sean Taylor, John James

This is a worship song. It has a bit of an 80's flair to it, as do the rest of the songs.

Ten Thousand Miles
Written by: Peter Furler, Billy Smiley, Sean Taylor, John James

This is a song about the lengths one will go to show their devotion for God. While it seems the claims may be a bit exaggerated (walking ten thousand miles and dying for God, which one never really knows if they would do that until faced with the situation), it all culminates with the concession that it's God who gives us the strength in the first place to be able to do great things for Him, even, if need be, to die for Him.

Something's Missing
Written by: Paul Evan Colman, Peter Andrew Furler

This is a song about how a life without Jesus is missing something. This is a pretty common theme among Christian songs, so this isn't a terribly original song.

Get Up for Love
Written by: Peter Furler, Billy Smiley, Sean Taylor, John James

Here we have a song that talks about a believer who basically lives in secret, and poses questions such as will you let your unbelieving friends go to Hell by not ministering to them?

Sea of Love
Written by: Peter Furler, Billy Smiley, Sean Taylor, John James

Now we have a love song, expressing his love for a woman with Godly love. A love like this truly lasts forever, unlike the love expressed by the average hair metal band.

Love You Tomorrow
Written by: Peter Furler, Billy Smiley, Sean Taylor, John James

Now this one switches gears slightly, and instead of a love song for a woman is a love song to God. It's a slow ballad, a song about how our love should grow ever stronger for God.

Victory
Written by: Peter Furler, Billy Smiley, Sean Taylor, John James

Finally, we end on a praise song about our victory that we have through Jesus. The verses are a mesh of different paraphrased verses from the Bible.

Closing thoughts: Again, nothing much new from the first album (basically a follow-up). There are some gems on this album, at least from a nostalgic perspective. The album's not horrible, just not up to modern Newsboys standards (or even their standards from the 90's). Again, if you're a Newsboys fan, this album is worth checking out. If you're new to the Newsboys, I'd recommend one of their later 90's albums to get yourself introduced to them.

Album Review: Read All About It -- The Newsboys

In honor of The Newsboys' recent release of their 14th studio album, Born Again, I have decided to do a full-fledged discography review of one of the most popular Christian pop-rock bands: The Newsboys. I didn't actually get into Christian music until 1999 (and it was dcTalk's Jesus Freak that drew me in). I really didn't know there was Christian rock music. Having grown up in the church, I thought Christian music was hymns and 80's worship writers like Michael W. Smith and Amy Grant. Boy, was I happy when I heard the news (pun definitely intended).

To give you a little background, the Newsboys officially formed in 1987 in West Orange, New Jersey, after signing with Refuge Communications. The boys hail from Australia, where they had formed a band named The News in Mooloolaba, Queensland. However, when they moved to the States,  they changed the name of the band to avoid confusion with the American band Huey Lewis and the News. The News' lineup consisted of John James (lead vocals), Sean Taylor (bass), Peter Furler (drums), and George Perdikis (guitar). The first album the Newsboys released under Refuge was Read All About It. George Perdikis had left the band (but can still be heard on a few tracks on the album), and was replaced by Phil Yates. So without further ado, here is the review for that album.

The Newsboys
Read All About It
1988 (Refuge)

Line-up: John James (lead vocals), Sean Taylor (bass), Peter Furler (drums), Phil Yates (guitar)

I'm actually pretty biased here. I was first introduced to The Newsboys pretty late into their career. So when I first heard their three albums (which, in fact, are albums that even the band would rather forget ever happened), I was pretty shocked. This was not the Newsboys I was used to. That's not to say they were bad, necessarily, just not up to The Newsboys' current standards. But of course, bands have to hit their stride. The Newsboys couldn't become The Newsboys overnight. One track even made it onto their first greatest hits album released in 2000. Theologian and music lover Mark Alan Powell calls the album  sing-along dance music. The album consists of ten songs.

I Got Your Number
Written by: John James, Sean Taylor, and Peter Furler

This song is simply about prayer. It's the only song from the Newsboys' first three albums to make it onto their 2000 greatest hits album. It's a pretty catchy song in its own right, but in all honesty not very interesting lyrically. Most of the lines that should rhyme, don't. The same word is used again (i.e. I got your number where love can be found/I got your number where truth can be found). The song does have a great bassline.

Listen for the Shout!
Written by: George Perdikis, Sean Taylor, John James, and Peter Furler

This one is about how Jesus will be returning. It reminds me a bit of a surf rock song. Another catchy one. This one has a bit more going for it, lyrically, but still nothing great. In a future song (Boycott Hell), the Newsboys mention "boycotting" dumb lyrics and how certain words shouldn't be used to rhyme with other words. Well, a good number of these songs were probably on their minds when they sang it.

Lighthouse
Written by: Sean Taylor, George Perdikis, Peter Furler

This song seems to be about someone saved by a street preacher. Another upbeat song, somewhere between Brian Setzer Orchestra and a lounge singer.

It's Joy
Written by: Sean Taylor, Peter Furler, John James

There's a lot of good to say about this one. The bass is catchy, there are some tasty organ licks, and the guitar solo is pretty nice. However, the lyrics, again (as is the case with most of their earlier albums) are not that great. Don't get me wrong, it's great to sing about the joy that God gives us. But the lyrics here are very simplistic (which isn't always a bad thing), and not up to the Newsboys' standards. They later released another song called Joy which speaks of the joy God gives us a little more creatively.

You're Still There
Written by: John James

A nice song about how God never leaves us. This one reminds me a lot of The Police. This is probably one of the stronger songs, lyrically speaking, on this album.

Read All About It
Written by: Peter Furler, George Perdikis, and John James

Another Police-esque song. This is another simple song about how you can find good news in the Bible as opposed to the bad news constantly springing up in the morning papers.

Hold on Tight
Written by: George Perdikis, Sean Taylor, and Peter Furler

This one actually rocks pretty hard. Opposite to the previous song, this one is encouraging us not to let go of God.

Never Surrender
Written by: George Perdikis, John James, and Peter Furler

This one had a lot of potential. It rarely ever rhymes, and one of the rhyming couplets is a bit awkward (You've got the power, don't be ashamed/You gotta stand up for the name of Jesus -- it could just as easily have been "You gotta stand up for Jesus' name," and it would have worked better as a rhyme). The pre-chorus and the chorus are fine, though, and the harmonies are nice.

The Big Time
Written by: Tommy Simms, George Perdikis, Sean Taylor, Peter Furler, and John James

This one is a paraphrase of Ecclesiastes 3, a little more upbeat than Turn! Turn! Turn! by The Byrds.

He's Coming Back
Written by: (Not listed in the insert)

Another upbeat song about Jesus' imminent return, and to be ready for it.

Closing thoughts: Honestly, I haven't listened to this album in quite a long time. Now upon listening to it again to write this review, it's really not as bad as I remembered it. I would still probably consider their first three albums their three worst, but if you're a Newsboys fan I would definitely say these albums are worth a listen. I don't have much to say about them because they're pretty straightforward. There are some major 80's influences in these songs (I can particularly hear The Police in a couple of their songs), but then again the album was released in 1988. So if you've never heard of the Newsboys, I'd say definitely start with one of their later albums (I'd probably recommend Not Ashamed, Going Public, or Take me to Your Leader). But if you are a Newsboys fan, you should at least check this one out.

Super Mario Brothers Crossover

I just want to briefly share with you a game I've come across. I've seen/read a couple different reviewers reviewing this game. It's called Super Mario Bros. Crossover, and it's a must-play for any fan of the original NES. It's the full game of Super Mario Bros. but with a twist. You can now play as seven different characters, with possibly more on the way. You can play through the game as Mario, Ryu Hyabusa (Ninja Gaiden), Mega Man, Link (The Legend of Zelda), Bill Rizer (Contra), Simon Belmont (Castlevania), or Samus Aran (Metroid). Add to that five difficulty levels and a number of other gems and you've got yourself a winner. Rather than tell you anything more about it, I'd urge you to go try it out for yourself: http://supermariobroscrossover.com/

Inflammatory Language

I have a new follower! Yay. Welcome, Flashman85. And to anyone reading, make sure you check his blog out.

I was recently pointed to a pro-choice article written by a girl who simply goes by ProChoiceGal. I did respond to her blog, hoping to start a dialog with her, but it seems she's not interested. Although I was very respectful toward her and the pro-choice movement, she chose not to post my note on her blog (she had her administration filter on). That being said, I will not be responding to her blog here because I doubt I'd have her permission to recreate it and I wouldn't want to reproduce it without her permission. But I did want to touch on one thing.

Her opening line: "Dear Anti-Choicers..." It doesn't get more inflammatory than this, people. Now, I can hold respectful discussions with people who believe contrary to me. But calling those against abortion "Anti-Choicers" is an obvious inflammatory term. It's what we call an "ad hominem" argument, lit. "to the man." This is a fallacy in which rather than responding to someone's argument, you attack them personally in order to make them seem as horrible as possible. "How can I agree with someone so despicable?" Those against abortion are no more "anti-choice" than those in favor of abortion are "anti-life." But how can she be expected to be taken seriously? If your position is strong, there is no need to attack the person who holds those beliefs.

Even Christians can fall into the hole of being complete jerks on-line. Internet anonymity is stronger than alcohol in releasing you from your inhibitions. Jesus wants us to love each other. There is no reason for anyone, especially Christians, to be jerks. Being mean and nasty will only cause the other person to become defensive, and they'll never admit you're correct even if you actually are.

The bottom line is: if you're going to be debating your beliefs, do so respectfully. After all, that's the only way to truly convince someone.

Response to a Catholic Article

I was pointed to an article written by Mr. James Akin about the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura. Maybe one of these days I'll write a full article on why I support the doctrine of sola Scriptura, but I want to take this entry now to respond to this article.

This being my first entry written about Roman Catholicism, I just want to make it clear I am not "anti-Catholic," as I've known some Catholics to say. I can disagree with someone's philosophy or theology without wishing them any harm or ill will.

That being said, I'd just like to point out that no Scripture was used in writing this article to back up his thesis. I find this odd, since this article was written to combat the doctrine of sola Scriptura. If someone believes in Scripture alone as their authority, and you were writing an article to show why sola Scriptura is bad theology, shouldn't you include some Scriptures that prove it? If I have Scriptures to support my side and there are no Scriptures to deny it, how do you propose to convince me? But let's dig in. The words in the article will be italicized.

He begins by stating the following: "Simply stated, the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura ("Scripture alone") teaches that every teaching in Christian theology (everything pertaining to "faith and practice") must be able to be derived from Scripture alone. This is expressed by the Reformation slogan Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum ("What is not biblical is not theological," cf. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, Richard A. Muller, Baker, 1985).

An essential part of this doctrine, as it has been historically articulated by Protestants, is that theology must be done without allowing Tradition or a Magisterium (teaching authority) any binding authority. If Tradition or a Magisterium could bind the conscience of the believer as to what he was to believe then the believer would not be looking to Scripture alone as his authority."

Let's make it clear: Sola Scriptura does not mean "if it's not in the Bible, it's not true." There are some obvious examples (i.e. gravity is never mentioned in the Bible). But when it comes to theology, to the revelation from God to man about spiritual matters, then I believe (as per sola Scriptura) that all truth God has for us has been revealed to us in the Bible. I consider the 66 books of the Protestant Bible to be the inspired word of God (which is a topic for another entry altogether).

Mr. Akin continues: "A necessarily [sic] corollary of the doctrine of sola scriptura is, therefore, the idea of an absolute right of private judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures. Each individual has the final prerogative to decide for himself what the correct interpretation of a given passage of Scripture means, irrespective of what anyone—or everyone—else says. If anyone or even everyone else together could tell the believer what to believe, Scripture would not be his sole authority; something else would have binding authority. Thus, according to sola scriptura, any role Tradition, a Magisterium, Bible commentaries, or anything else may play in theology is simply to suggest interpretations and evidence to the believer as he makes his decision. Each individual Christian is thus put in the position of being his own theologian.

Of course, we all know that the average Christian does not exercise this role in any consistent way, even the average person admitted by Fundamentalists to be a genuine, "born again" believer. There are simply too many godly grannies who are very devout in their faith in Jesus, but who are in no way inclined to become theologians.

Not only is the average Christian totally disinclined to fulfill the role of theologian, but if they try to do so, and if they arrive at conclusions different than those of the church they belong to—an easy task considering the number of different theological issues—then they will quickly discover that their right to private judgment amounts to a right to shut up or leave the congregation. Protestant pastors have long realized (in fact, Luther and Calvin realized it) that, although they must preach the doctrine of private judgment to ensure their own right to preach, they must prohibit the exercise of this right in practice for others, lest the group be torn apart by strife and finally break up. It is the failure of the prohibition of the right of private judgment that has resulted in the over 20,000 Christian Protestant denominations listed in the Oxford University Press's World Christian Encyclopedia."

Now Mr. Akin isn't exactly stating matters correctly. Sola Scriptura does not state that the Bible is open to interpretation. That's a modern concept unrelated to sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura just means that Scripture is our ultimate authority. I don't believe the early Reformers would have said that Scripture is open to interpretation, especially since the Holy Spirit is who interprets Scripture for us (John 14:25-26, 1 Corinthians 2:6-14, et al). We do not believe the Bible is open to interpretation.

It is true that there are way too many Protestant denominations. But that's because people can't agree, or even agree to disagree. It's not true that we have to agree with the teachings of the church or we're excommunicated from that church ("shut up or leave the congregation"). My theological leanings are Souther Baptist, but I currently play in the worship band at a Lutheran church. I have even discussed with the pastor my differences in theology. But it's not a matter of strife between us; we both respect each other and respect the fact that we disagree on a few matters (even seemingly important ones like the role of baptism). But I have been welcomed into this church, and I love and respect each of them as my brothers and sisters in Christ. I have never once been ordered to change my doctrines or leave the church. The very thought of that is ludicrous. Now of course, there are certain things which call for excommunication. But those are things that our Lord, Himself, has laid out. No one is excommunicated for holding a different theological position.

And let me also get this straight: Since some professing Christians are not willing to practice what they believe, this makes their belief wrong? That's not disproof of their belief; that just shows they don't truly believe it. I know many professing Catholics who never witness or talk about their faith. It happens in every faith.

Continuing on: "The disintegration of Protestantism into so many competing factions, teaching different doctrines on key theological issues (What kind of faith saves? Is baptism necessary? Needed? Is baptism for infants? Must baptism be by immersion only? Can one lose salvation? How? Can it be gotten back? How? Is the Real Presence true? Are spiritual gifts like tongues and healing for today? For everyone? What about predestination? What about free will? What about church government?) is itself an important indicator of the practical failure of the doctrine of private judgment, and thus the doctrine of sola scriptura.

However, there is a whole set of practical presuppositions that the doctrine of sola scriptura makes, every one of which provides not just an argument against the doctrine, but a fatal blow to it. Sola scriptura simply cannot be God's plan for Christian theology.

In fact, it could never even have been thought to be God's plan before a certain stage in European history because, as we will see, it could have only arisen after a certain technological development which was unknown in the ancient world. Before that one development, nobody would have ever thought that sola scriptura could be the principle God intended people to use, meaning it was no accident that the Reformation occurred when it did."

Yes, there are many theological issues that we disagree on. But we tend to focus on our similarities rather than our differences. That is how we, as Protestants, get along and believe that God would have us conduct ourselves. There are, of course, those who believe their denomination alone holds the truth and anyone opposed to them are crazy heretics. But those people will be surprised to see whom God will let into the Kingdom.

The examples given are not failings of the doctrine of sola Scriptura, they're the failings of those who believe in sola Scriptura to abide by their own beliefs. They allow their own interpretations to override what the Holy Spirit intended by the passages. This is why I believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture. That way you draw out what was intended rather than read into it your own interpretations. There are some exceptions to this (for instance, Jesus' parables were stories that didn't actually happen, but were used to illustrate a spiritual truth).

Sola Scriptura was always God's plan for Christian theology. The problem with allowing tradition to guide you in spiritual matters is that it only takes a few generations for stories to become distorted and exaggerated, so that the oral tradition bears little or no resemblance to how it did originally. With the Scriptures, we have an actual written, historical account of Jesus' teachings. And while we no longer have the original manuscripts, we have numerous copies. The manuscript evidence for the Scriptures we have is stronger than the evidence we have to support any other ancient work. We know withing a 99.95% accuracy what the original texts said.

The problem with allowing church leaders to guide you is the same as allowing "private interpretation." How do you know the church leaders aren't leading you astray? How do you know they're not allowing their own personal interpretation get in the way of what God actually wants to teach you? Catholic leaders used indulgences to sway people to fight in the Crusades. Catholic leaders run the same risk of misinterpretation as any other person does.

Continuing: "If God had intended the individual Christian to use sola scriptura as his operating principle then it would have to be something the average Christian could implement. We can therefore judge whether sola scriptura could have been God's plan for the individual Christian by asking whether the average Christian in world history could have implemented it.

Not only that, but since God promised that the Church would never pass out of existence (Matt. 16:18, 28:20), the normal Christian of each age must be able to implement sola scriptura, including the crucial patristic era, when the early Church Fathers hammered out the most basic tenets of Christian orthodoxy.

It is in this practical area that the doctrine comes crashing down, for it has a number of presuppositions which are in no way true of the average Christian of world history, and certainly not of the average Christian of early Church history."

Now the arguments just get ridiculous. The reverse can also be said about Church Tradition. Since Church Tradition had not been established yet (the early church fathers were hammering out the basic tenets of Christian orthodoxy), then Church Tradition wasn't being utilized by the early church. This means it is unreliable, and certainly not necessary to the Disciples and all the Christians before church tradition was established. All sola Scriptura means is allowing the Scriptures to be your final authority, and allowing the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture for you. This is something the average Christian can do. In fact, this is what the average Christian must do. This is what the average Christian was also capable of while church tradition was being "hammered out."

On we go: "First, if each Christian is to make a thorough study of the Scriptures and decide for himself what they mean (even taking into consideration the interpretations of others) then it follows that he must have a copy of the Scriptures to use in making his thorough study (a non-thorough study being a dangerous thing, as any Protestant apologist warning one against the cults and their Bible study tactics will tell you). Thus the universal application of sola scriptura presupposes the mass manufacturing of books, and of the Bible in particular.

This, however, was completely impossible before invention of the printing press, for without that there could not be enough copies of the Scriptures for the individual Christians to use. Sola scriptura therefore presupposes the inventing of the printing press, something that did not happen for the first 1,400 years of Church history (which will be the almost three-quarters of it if the world ends any time soon).

It is often noted by even Protestant historians that the Reformation could not have taken off like it did in the early 1500s if the printing press had not been invented in the mid-1400s, and this is more true than they know, because the printing press not only allowed the early Protestant to mass produce works containing their teachings about what the Bible meant, it allowed the mass production of Bible itself (as Catholics were already doing; one does realize, of course, that the Gutenberg Bible and the other versions of the Bible being produced before Protestantism were all Catholic Bibles).

Without the ability to mass produce copies of the Scriptures for the individual Christians to interpret, the doctrine of sola scriptura could not function, since one would only have very limited access to the texts otherwise—via the Scripture readings at Mass and the costly, hand-made copies of the Bible kept on public display at the church. Thus sola scriptura presupposes the printing press.

This is a key reason why the Reformation happened when it did—several decades after the invention of the printing press. It took time for the idea of the printing press to make its mark on the European mind and get people excited about the idea of easily available books. It was in this heady atmosphere, the first time in human history when dozens of ancient works were being mass produced and sold, that people suddenly got excited with the thought, "Hey! We could give copies of the Bible to everyone! Everyone could read the Scriptures for themselves!"—a thought which led very quickly into sola scriptura in the minds of those who wished to oppose historic Christian theology, as it would provide a justification for their own desire to depart from orthodoxy ("Hey, I read the Scriptures, and this is what they said to me!")."

Sola Scriptura does not presuppose that every Christian must be able to get their hands on the Scriptures. After all, the men in Athens, Greece in the book of Acts 17:22-24 were worshiping the one true God, without even knowing who He is. Paul showed up and revealed Him to them, but that doesn't make their prior worship any less valid. This is also what is meant in Romans 1:20, when Paul wrote that anyone who rejects God is without excuse, because God has revealed Himself in nature itself. Those men in Athens knew it. If I lost the ability to read Scriptures tomorrow, there are people that I trust enough to ask them to read Scripture to me. People who wouldn't put their own interpretation into it, but would read it exactly as it appears. Having the Scriptures does not necessarily presuppose the doctrine of sola Scriptura.

It is true that the printing press really allowed the Reformation to take off. But the problem is the author here is looking at it wrong. Martin Luther left the church because there were doctrines that didn't sit well with him (hence the need for his 95 theses). Catholic priests who taught doctrines contrary to Scripture was the very reason Martin Luther and other Reformers felt the need to get the Scriptures into the hands of lay Christians so that they could see for themselves what the Scriptures actually teach.

It goes on: "Of course, the invention of the printing press does not itself enable us to give Bibles to every Christian in the world (as all the calls for Bibles to be sent to Russia illustrate), which leads to the next practical presupposition of sola scriptura...

Second, besides the printing press, sola scriptura also presupposes the universal distribution of books and of the Bible in particular. For it is no good if enough copies of the Bible exist but they can't be gotten into the hands of the average believer. There thus must be a distribution network capable of delivering affordable copies of the Bible to the average Christian.

This is the case today in the developed world; however, even today we cannot get enough Bibles into many lands due to economic and political restraints, as the fund raising appeals of Bible societies and their stories of Bible smuggling inform us. However, in the great majority of Christian history, the universal distribution of books would have been totally impossible even in the what is now the developed world. During most of Church history, the "developed world" was undeveloped.

The political systems, economies, logistical networks, and travel infrastructure that make the mass distribution of Bibles possible today simply did not exist for three-quarters of Church history. There was no way to get the books to the peasants, and no way the peasants could have afforded them in the first place. There just wasn't enough cash in circulation (just try giving a printer 5,000 chickens for the 1,000 Bibles he has just printed—much less keeping the chickens alive and transported from the time the peasants pay them to the time the printer gets them)."

I have already addressed the issue of distribution of Scriptures. So let's move on: "Third, if the average Christian is going to read the Scriptures and decide for himself what they mean then he obviously must be able to read. Having someone read them to him simply is not sufficient, not only because the person would only be able to do it occasionally (what with a bunch of illiterates to read to), but also because the person needs to be able to go over the passage multiple times, looking at its exact wording and grammatical structure, to be able to quickly flip to other passages bearing on the topic to formulate the different aspects of a doctrine as he is thinking about it, and finally to be able to record his insights so he doesn't forget them and he can keep the evidence straight in his mind. He therefore must be literate and able to read for himself. Thus sola scriptura presupposes universal literacy.

Fourth, if the average Christian is going to make a study of what Scripture says and decide what it teaches, he must possess adequate scholarly support material, for he must either be able to read the texts in the original languages or have material capable of telling him when there is a translation question that could affect doctrine (for example, does the Greek word for "baptize" mean "immerse" or does it have a broader meaning? does the biblical term for "justify" mean to make righteous in only a legal sense or sometimes in a broader one?).

He must also have these scholarly support works (commentaries and such) to suggest to him possible alternate interpretations to evaluate, for no one person is going to be able to think of every interpretive option on every passage of Scripture that is relevant to every major Christian doctrine. No Protestant pastor (at least no pastors who are not in extreme anti-intellectual circles) would dream of formulating his views without such support materials, and he thus cannot expect the average Christian to do so either. Indeed! The average Christian is going to need such support materials even more than a trained pastor. Thus sola scriptura also presupposes the possession—not just the existence—of adequate support materials."

Again, the third point here is completely ridiculous. There are many people who could read Scriptures to someone who couldn't read. It wouldn't have to be one person. But again, this same person who couldn't read would have no idea if the Catholic priest who was teaching him doctrine was accurate because he couldn't search the Scriptures himself to make sure it was true (which, by the way, the Bereans in Acts 17:11 were considered of nobler character than the Thessalonians because they searched the Scriptures to see if what Paul taught was true, rather than simply taking his word for it). So this point is moot.

For the fourth point, I am actually somewhat in agreement. I have a Greek-English lexicon and a copy of the New Testament in Greek, and have been studying it. I haven't gotten around to the Old Testament and Hebrew/Aramaic yet, but I will probably get there eventually. I have long believed it is in every Christian's best interest to have at least a basic understanding of Biblical languages so that they can understand the Scriptures in greater detail, rather than settling on a superficial reading of the Scriptures. But again, we do have the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture for us. If someone reads the Scriptures without allowing their biases to cloud their interpretation, then the Holy Spirit can teach them what He wants them to learn.

Next: "Fifth, if the average Christian is to do a thorough study of the Bible for himself, then he obviously must have adequate time in which to do this study. If he is working in the fields or a home (or, later, in the factory) for ten, twelve, fifteen, or eighteen hours a day, he obviously doesn't have time to do this, especially not in addition to the care and raising of his family and his own need to eat and sleep and recreate. Not even a Sunday rest will provide him with the adequate time, for nobody becomes adept in the Bible just by reading the Bible on Sundays—as Protestants stress to their own members when encouraging daily Bible reading. Thus sola scriptura presupposes the universal possession of adequate leisure time in which to make a thorough study the Bible for oneself.

Sixth, even if a Christian had adequate time to study the Bible sufficiently, it will do him no good if he doesn't have a diet sufficiently nutritious to let his brain function properly and his mind work clearly. This is something we often forget today because our diets are so rich, but for most of Christian history the average person had barely enough food to survive, and it was almost all bread. "Everything else," as the British historian James Burke put it, "was just something you ate with bread"—as a condiment or side-dish. This means that the average Christian of world history was malnourished, and as any public school dietitian can tell you, malnutrition causes an inability to study and learn properly. That is one of the big motivating forces behind the school lunch program. If kids don't eat right, they don't study right, and they don't learn right, because they don't think clearly. The same is true of Bible students. Thus sola scriptura also presupposes universal nutrition.

Seventh, if the average Christian is going to evaluate competing interpretations for himself then he must have a significant amount of skill in evaluating arguments. He must be able to recognize what is a good argument and what is not, what is a fallacy and what is not, what counts as evidence and what does not. That is quite a bit of critical thinking skill, and anyone who has ever tried to teach basic, introductory logic to college students or anyone who had tried to read and grade the persuasive essays they write for philosophy tests can tell you (I'm speaking from personal experience here), that level of critical thinking does not exist in the average, literate, well-nourished, modern college senior, much less the average, illiterate, malnourished, Medieval peasant. This is especially true when it comes to the abstract concepts and truth claims involved in philosophy and theology. Thus sola scriptura also presupposes a high level of universal education in critical thinking skills (a level which does not even exist today)."

This post is getting kind of long, so I'll try to be brief with the next points. Sola Scriptura does not presuppose an excessive amount of free time to study. In fact, this is probably one of the reasons Paul says he wishes all Christians (or at the very least, the unmarried and widows he was writing to) could remain as he was (unmarried) in 1 Corinthians 7:8 so that they could have the most time to devote to God. But even so, studying the Scriptures is a life-long pursuit, no matter how much free time you have.

Really? Now you're saying it's impossible to understand Scripture without a healthy diet? First of all, while, of course, it's good to consume "brain food", it's not a requirement for understanding Scripture. Again, the Holy Spirit interprets Scripture for us and He is not limited by what kind of food we eat. Secondly, healthy eating is encouraged in Scripture.

Also, a Ph. D. is not a requirement for understanding Scripture (again, we have the Holy Spirit). In fact, the Scriptures were penned by uneducated men under the influence of the Holy Spirit. But this begs the question: Is every priest required to have a Ph. D. and take an education exam before becoming priests? (I honestly don't know the answer to this.) But my question would be how can you trust that every priest has these unfair qualifications you're laying on the shoulders of lay Christians who believe they can understand the Scriptures for themselves?

Finally: "Therefore sola scriptura presupposes (1) the existence of the printing press, (2) the universal distribution of Bibles, (3) universal literacy, (4) the universal possession of scholarly support materials, (5) the universal possession of adequate time for study, (6) universal nutrition, and (7) a universal education in a high level of critical thinking skills. Needless to say, this group of conditions was not true in the crucial early centuries of the Church, was not true through the main course of Church history, and is not even true today. The non-existence of the printing press alone means sola scriptura was totally unthinkable for almost three-quarters of Christian history!

All of this is besides the limitations we mentioned earlier—the fact that the average Christian, even the average devout Christian has no inclination whatsoever to conduct the kind of Bible study needed to become his own theologian and the fact that he is encouraged by many pressures from his own pastor and congregation (including the threat of being cast out) to fall in line and not challenge—especially publicly challenge—the party platform.

Christianity For The Common Man?

It is thus hard to think of sola scriptura as anything but the theory spawned by a bunch of idealistic, Renaissance-era dilettantes—people who had an interest in being their own theologians, who had a classical education in critical thinking skills, who had adequate nutrition, who had plenty of leisure time for study, who had plenty of scholarly support materials, who had good reading skills, who had access to Bible-sellers, and most importantly, who had printed Bibles!

The average Christian today, even the average Christian in the developed world, does not fit that profile, and the average Christian in world history certainly did not, much less the average Christian in the early centuries. What this means, since God does not ask a person to do what they are incapable of doing, is that God does not expect the average Christian of world history to use sola scriptura. He expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain his knowledge of theology in some other way.

But if God expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain the Christian faith without using sola scriptura, then sola scriptura is not God's plan."

As I have shown, the doctrine of sola Scriptura supposes none of those things (with the one possible exception being looking into what the original texts stated"). But again, the Holy Spirit can work through uneducated men to produce the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit can certainly teach even the uneducated about the truths of Scripture.

And again, Mr. Akin does not have his facts straight. A Christian will not be excommunicated for doctrinally differing with the official theology of the church he/she is attending. My theological leanings are closest to Southern Baptist, but I play in the worship band at a Lutheran church. I am in no threat of being cast out because of my Baptist ways.

You could think of it in the way described, or you could think of sola Scriptura as the springboard for men who couldn't take the Catholic Church's word that the doctrines they taught contrary to Scripture were what God would actually reveal, since God, being perfect, cannot contradict Himself. Sola Scriptura seems like it makes a lot of sense as God's plan.

Batman & Robin Comic Generator

So while reading another blog post here on this site, I discovered the following website: http://www.batmancomic.info/

It's pretty awesome. You can select from a few comics featuring Batman and Robin, and put your own text into the text bubbles. If anyone reads this and creates their own, feel free to post them in the notes and show them off. But please only post ones that are appropriate for all ages. Here are a few I came up with: