Dear Agony…

Yes, it’s been awhile; major internet issues for months.  Anywho, Breaking Benjamin’s new album is out in stores and on itunes; Dear Agony is the title.  I’ll have a longer review later, but will just say that the sound is definitely different.  Not really better, nor worse, just different.  Some of the differences in sound could be due to the way it was recorded or edited or enhanced, but some come from Ben changing up his vocals.

It’s definitely worth the money, though I do have to be honest and say it isn’t my favorite album, and I will probably enjoy the songs more when they are mixed in with their other songs in my playlists.  There are several really good tracts, to mention two;  my favorite “Show Me a Sign,” gave me (the good kind of) chills the first time I heard it (I do like to hear Ben playing around vocally with the various notes), and the title track is definitely worth listening to several times.  Here is a link to an interview with Ben; if you are getting the album listen to it before reading this, then listen again afterward, it changes how you listen, and what you take away from the songs, IMO: Ben Burnley Interview

Chad, Mark, and Aaron do an amazing job on here as well, though I do have to say I would have liked to hear Aaron’s guitar a bit more, and a bit heavier in places.

Breaking Benjamin’s new song and video…

Here’s BB’s first single off their new album Dear Agony (yet to be released, I believe it’ll be out on Sept. 29th).  The title is I Will Not Bow and it will be included in the movie Surrogates which is why there are movie clips in their vid.  The link is to myspace, which is where their single and the video was released:  Breaking Benjamin video: I Will Not Bow.

I like the song better than the video.  Ben seems to be cleaning up his vocals for this one, it’ll be interesting to hear the rest of the album…I’m sure he’ll throw in some heavier vocals with a bit more growl, at least I hope so, though he does sound good either way.  Loved the guitars in this one (go Aaron and Ben!…I like to hear Mark and Chad too, don’t get me wrong, but now that I’m attempting to play the guitar, that’s what I listen for the most) and just flat out love Ben’s new(?) guitar.

Breaking Benjamin back in the studio…

Yes, my favorite band (secular alternative rock band Breaking Benjamin)  is back in the studio working on their next album.  The updates aren’t all that regular, but their first new single “I Will Not Bow,” which is said to be in the movie Surrogates, staring Bruce Willis, will be released on the radio  sometime around August 10th.  It should be available on itunes close to September 1st.  As far as the album itself goes, a set date hasn’t been announced but is tentatively (probably really tentatively) scheduled to come out around Sept. 29th.

My regular readers my not care, but I can’t help it…I’m excited!

Torchwood; Children of Earth. My thoughts…

So, during the normal US seasons of Doctor Who I add my thoughts on the eppy’s quite regularly, but during the hiatus I apparently have to fill some space with a brief Spoiler-filled discussion of Torchwood’s five part miniseries; Children of Earth.  I didn’t like it.  Pretty much that’s it.  Heh.  No, really, there were aspects of the plot that I literally laughed outright when they hit me just right, and that was not the intention of the writers, I’m sure.

If any of you have read my Doctor Who articles, you know I’m amused and intrigued, as a Christian (and a conservative) , when some of the atheistic writers (such as RTD) throw in religious references and such…well, this time it wasn’t so much a religious aspect that got me laughing, but rather a political one.

Really simplified version of the plot; Aliens want some of earth’s children.  The Aliens are using the kids in a symbiotic manner that gives them a high; yes, a drug high.  The aliens can apparently kill every human on the face of the earth (which is never really even established), but are willing to trade earth’s overall safety for 10% of the children of Earth.  Britain’s gov’t is covering up the facts, and they come to a point of sending the military out to take their populace’s share of the children by force.  Captain Jack is at first pursued by the gov’t, not to help, but so that they can kill him if they can, and if not, so they can contain him.  Of course, that doesn’t happen; Jack is freed, Ianto gets killed by the aliens and in turn…Jack kills his own grandson to stop the aliens from taking the children or killing off humanity.  Yes, yes, RTD’s fingerprints are all over this ‘un.

So, I have to mention that RTD was interviewed about the plot and one thing he mentioned was that this is like the war on terrorism…no, not that he is in support of the war, but rather that our soldiers are  basically over there fighting, doing who knows what to who knows who…hmmm…yeah, completely missed that intention (in fact I agreed with the bloke that labeled the aliens terrorists).  What kept running through my mind was; This has got to be a big advertisement for the Second Amendment of the US constitution!  For those of you who don’t know, that’s the one talking about the right of the populace to arm themselves.

Yes, the British military is shown with automatic weapons and body armor invading civilian homes and taking their children for sacrifice…I mean, to appease the aliens.  The citizenry gets to “fight back” by running away and/or throwing things like bricks and rocks at the armed personnel…really effective.  Seriously, I was distracted to the point of not caring about the actual plot so much as laughing and pointing at the TV, loving the support of the right to bear arms.

The next thing that had me laughing out loud was when Darwinism was on full display, and it was meant to be taken negatively by the audience!  I love it, as this too seemed to be completely unintentional on the part of the writers.  So, we need to trade 10% of the world’s children.  How does the British gov’t decide which kiddies get a living death being crack for the aliens?  The dumbest 10% of the young population!  In a move that should make Darwin proud, and Hitler very happy, they go through the school records and prepare a sacrifice of the “weakest” members of the species.  Flows right along with Darwinist thought, though the writers seem to be making it a point that we should be horrified over…yet, I’m laughing…

Morally that was a wrong and evil decision.  From a Christian perspective that would never ever fly, and it is indeed horrendous.  But, from the supposed position of an atheistic Darwinist, it’d be the “right” thing to do.  Not only that but one of the “tree-hugging” members of the gov’t points out that this sacrifice…I mean trading of the Children, is actually a good thing; we get rid of 10% of the young population…think about all the disappearing carbon footprints both now and in the future!

Alright, now for general thoughts and commentary.  First, shame on Jack.  I’ve lost any respect for the character, and just with the Doctor was around to put him in his place.  Let’s not try to come up with an alternate solution to the alien dilemma, such as engineering replacement drugs for them.  Let’s not blow up the lone alien present on earth after we shoot a few rounds from two little handguns at the bullet proof glass protecting it and it doesn’t work.  Let’s not figure out how to resonate something other than a child to send a return signal (the aliens did just fine with a pair of earth-manufactured speakers oddly enough).  Let’s not ask the children for their help, or consent…No, let’s needlessly murder an innocent child that doesn’t even know what’s going on.

Was there any religious elements?  Several; a mention of someone who had once had faith, but offed themselves when they found out aliens were real because the person felt so small and insignificant.  Then there was the them of sacrifice throughout, and specifically human sacrifice.  I kept thinking of: Leviticus 18:21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech… and, 2 Kings 17:17 And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger. At one point Gwen brings up the Doctor and how she used to wonder why he didn’t always show up to stop the evil happenings, and how she know realizes how he must look away because of the shameful state of humanity…how wonderful for us that the real Messiah hasn’t done that.

Anywho, I’ve seen a lot better.  I also don’t know what this bodes for the future of Torchwood, nor the character of Jack Harkness…

Christian witness…

There is a lot of talk in Christian circles about being a good Christian witness.  This is based upon the idea that the world (made up of non-believers) is watching us, and we should outwardly show, in some way, shape, or form, what being a Christian is about.  Now, it is clear that scripture teaches us something similar, and that we are to be a people set apart in some ways; I would argue in spiritual ways and understanding.  Many times this idea gets twisted into a form of legalism, which is never good.

Apart from that, I was just recently ruminating on the fact that it isn’t just important that we present ourselves to the world in certain ways, but I honestly believe it is just as important, or perhaps more important, that we present ourselves to our fellow Christians as…well, fellow Christians.  When we present a life of faith and trust in God to our brothers and sisters in Christ, it strengthens our own walk, and it also heartens others.

I’ve been in different circumstances lately where a fellow Christian modeled this to me, and that in turn allows me to respond in kind.  Christians are indeed supposed to be a community, a fellowship of believers.  That does not always imply going to a church…but in a way it does, since every meeting of Christians, two or more, is indeed “church.”  I guess the point of this post is to say this; lets really let the Holy Spirit guide us in our dealings with fellow Christians, let’s yield to Him (for it is from Him that any truly good act comes, not ourselves) in our responses to each other, and not just in our responses to the world.  And yielding to the Spirit ensures that our response isn’t the fake “oh, look at me, aren’t I a good Christian” type of act.

Many are going through rough times right now, and I do believe that if we took the time to ponder the fact that we are now a part of an extended family with the same Father, and the same Brother, we may be a lot more inclined to respond the way scripture tells us too.  Weep when our siblings weep, rejoice when they rejoice, pray for them, listen to them.  Sometimes it isn’t the fun thing to do, or the easy thing, but with the guidance of the Spirit, it can bolster faith all around.  I also urge people to notice the “weep when they weep” command; we believers know that not everything is always sunshine and light, the rain does fall on the just and the unjust alike.  Laying guilt trips on people going through rough times isn’t the answer in the least, neither is bashing a believer who slips and sins.  It’s all about grace and  faith, folks, and helping to uphold that faith in us, and in our fellow believers, and sharing God’s grace with each other, not just the world.

Dead saints omniscient?

I was just reading a RC question and answer forum, and a question about prayer to “saints” came up; Does one have to pray out loud for the saints in Heaven to hear them?  Good question, and one which I hope shows the person is really thinking through this praying to anyone other than God situation.  The way the RC presents prayer to the dead, they (the dead saints) would have to be omniscient in order to explain how they could hear unspoken prayer.

The priest that answered the question underscored this with his reply; yes, the dead saints can hear your thoughts, no need to pray aloud.  Hmmmm….. this whole thing just once again backs up the point; we should only be praying to God, He is the omniscient one, He is the one that we abide in and who abides in us.  Christ is our mediator, and the Holy Spirit is our intercessor; we don’t not require the intercession of any of our dead fellow saints (all believers are saints).  There is no scriptural evidence that the dead saints can hear our thoughts.

Folks, direct all your prayers to the Lord, not to any fellow creature.

Music news: Creed reforming…

Got an interesting email today about one of my former favorite bands; Creed is reforming with all its original members, including bassist Brian Marshall. That means it will be Scott Stapp as lead singer, Mark Tremonti on lead guitar, Brian on bass, and Scotty P (Scott “Flip” Phillips) on drums.   After Stapp got a bit “squirrelly,” and the band broke up, I quit listening to him, but followed Alter Bridge for a bit…but I always wished Mark would just sing, as I couldn’t ever really take a liking to their lead singer.

So, anywho, they are coming out with a new album and will be touring this Summer here in the US…let’s all hope that Scott got some vocal coaching, and will not a repeat of losing and almost damaging his voice every other concert.  I also hope he got whatever that was out of his system, and is firmly grounded in reality once more (hopefully without an ego).

I really do hope it all works out, as Tremonti is one of the reasons I’m taking guitar lessons (he always seemed to have so much fun and/or energy when he played…he really enjoyed it), and Creed was one of the first bands that I really listened to every part of the song; each instrument, and the lyrics as well.   They also mixed the sacred and the secular in powerful ways…Scott’s lyrics tended toward religious images and themes, yet the band was not a “Christian Band” (I wonder if that old debate will crop up again?).

Creed.com is back online with the tour dates.

Nightline’s “Satan” Panel; pt. 3; Driscoll & Lobert…

Now for the “there is a Satan” side of the debate.  There were also two individuals; Mark Driscoll and Annie Lobert.   Driscoll is pastor at Mars Hill Church, and Lobert is the founder of “Hookers for Jesus.”  Yes, I just typed “Hookers for Jesus.”  My old pastor, Doc Scott, would be proud…that just sent any judgmental legalistic types running for cover!   But, really, “Hookers” does mean hookers, but it is also a play on words; former hookers, as Lobert is herself, putting the gospel message out there, and hence becoming hookers (as in fish hooks) for Jesus.

Just to make sure we are clear: Mark 1: 16 Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. 17 And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. 18 And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him.

Oftentimes when I talk about evidence for God, I talk about personal evidence, and objective evidence, in this case, the same holds true for Satan.  Driscoll is the more scripture oriented Christian; he provided the scriptural, objective evidences for Satan.  Lobert was much more personal; she discussed her personal experiences of things like demons, and direct experiences of evil, as she was on the receiving end of some very horrible things.

Driscoll talks a lot about free will and evil, and mankind’s act of disobedience in the garden as bringing about death and suffering for all of us.  This is pretty much in line with the Free will defense to the “Problem of Evil” I’ve already gone over in my blog.    In my opinion, Driscoll definitely held his own, and countered several mistaken conceptions that Chopra and Pearson espoused…of course, it didn’t sink in.

Lobert did well too, especially considering the stories she had to relate and the emotional trauma she suffered going through them.  IMO, it made it a lot harder for her to relate her stories when Chopra and Pearson pretty much laid all the blame at her own feet…you know, for getting raped repeatedly, beaten, kidnapped, things like that.  She actually kept pretty calm in the face of such idiocy, and did a much better job controlling her temper than I would.

So, Lobert recounted several instances of what she considered direct experiences of evil, including getting a glimpse into the eyes of a demon after one particularly harrowing experience.  I found it interesting that she was asked to clarify over and over again if she was claiming to have seen a demon, and if she really believed demons were in the room when these bad things were happening to her…for goodness sake, people don’t understand English any more; YES! She is claiming demons were in the room, literally.  (“Now, you really mean….” this is only the second time the host was annoying, the first was when he asked another inane question about free will, anywho…)

Lobert makes the point that this type of evil is what drove her to God, so she knows that she was saved because she went through those experiences…hence backing up the idea that God can indeed work in all things to make good come of it.  She did good talking about the reality of things like Satan, demons, and Hell.  There is only one area where I felt she needed just a bit more balance, and that was her repeating that God is Love, which He is, but His character also includes other things too.  He is also absolutely Righteous, Holy, Just, Merciful, etc… and it is always important to discuss these other aspects of God alongside the idea that God is Love.

So, in short, I think these two did pretty good.  I particularly liked some of  Driscoll’s responses to Chopra and Chopra’s odd, non-historical view of Jesus, and his misinterpretations of scripture.  Driscoll was definitely prepared to discuss this issue with the people present; he had done his homework for sure.

Everyone has to listen to Lobert’s recounting of events and see if they think it actually happened or not.  There are many Christians who don’t believe we can see into the spiritual realm at all…though I believe that contradicts scripture; Angels can become visible, and logically that would mean it is possible to see fallen ones too.  God can also open our eyes to the spiritual realm if He wishes.

The two held their own, and represented Christian views pretty well.  I’d have liked to seen everything unedited to really get a feel for more of the context, but overall it was a good debate as an intro. to this issues of Satan.

Nightline’s “Satan” Panel, pt. 2; Carlton Pearson…

The other individual on the “there is no Satan” side of the panel is Carlton Pearson (“Bishop” Pearson).  His supposed credentials to sit on this panel includes the fact that he calls himself a former “demon-caster-outer.”  No, I’m not kidding, and that is not my “word” but his.

Pearson apparently, at one time, believed in the Devil, and in demons as well.  He claims to have attempted to cast demons out of folks.  Well, what can I say about Pearson?  The man had faulty theology, and the man still has faulty theology.

One of the necessary factors a person has to have in order to approach certain subjects is proper knowledge.  Pearson’s knowledge is sorely lacking.  What do I mean?  Just as one example, he used to think of Satan as the “cartoon character” version; hoofed, fanged…you get the idea.  Now, when I here someone talking about Satan in this way, I know that they have faulty theology, and are not conversant with scripture.

I’ve mentioned this before, I believe, but Satan isn’t some grotesque looking monster…quite the opposite.  He is an Angel, after all, and was above all the others before his fall.  One of Satan’s best setups right now is the fact that people have painted him as looking like our worst nightmare, when in fact he appears often as an angel of light, and I mean that figuratively in the way he manipulates, and quite possible literally if he decides to make an appearance.  Pearson also believed that the Devil was somehow omniscient and omnipresent…where that idea comes from, I don’t know, but it isn’t found in scripture, quite the opposite.

Anywho, so Pearson’s theology was and is flawed, that severly restricts his ability to form an opinion that is supported by Christian teaching (as he still claims to believe in Christ).  One of his early answers to evil, “stop believing in it, and it will go away.” Hunh.  I hear a recurring pattern between Chopra and Pearson; evil’s in our heads.  Tell that to a person who’s kid has just been kidnapped and murdered, see how far that goes as an actual logical answer.

Pearson mainly seems to have a beef with mainstream Christianity and goes off on a tangent of griping about legalists, and his belief in the “mystical Jesus.”  Yes, legalists can get annoying, but I thought this panel was about the existence of Satan.  If Pearson ever actually managed to connect these two things to the main theme, I never caught it.  Again, later in the discussion, Pearson misrepresents Christian teaching on the Devil, instead he relies on fictional stories.  For example, he says he doesn’t believe God sends you to Hell and turn you over to the Devil.  Yeah, one thing we actually agree on.  Hell isn’t the Devil’s domain, right now, earth is, and Hell isn’t under Satan’s power.  Hell isn’t Satan’s home, it’ll be his prison some glorious day.

Another tangent; Pearson runs off at the mouth about something else he knows nothing at all about; text. crit. of the Bible.  I don’t know where he’s getting his information from as I’ve even heard atheists with more love for the Bible, and more knowledge.  Basically Pearson is under the mistaken belief that the Bible doesn’t have a lot of manuscript support, and that we can’t be sure of the content…this is odd, since even secular scholars agree that the Bible has more manuscript support than pretty much any other collection of documents.

If it seemed like I was wondering around a bit in my post, it is because this is the ground Pearson covered as well.  One of the more tense moments of the debate was when Pearson kept intimating that Annie Lobert was the cause of all the evil that happened to her in her testimony, which I will cover soon.

Long story short; Pearson believes that evil is all of our own making, including Satan and demons.  It does bother me to have someone who claims Christian knowledge blabbing about things that they were/are apparently ignorant about.  BTW, Pearson and Chopra had a love fest going on between them…well, Pearson was all about Chopra and Chopra looked a bit nervous about this…

“Crown of Thorns” Galaxy…

Hat-tip to me mum, and foxnews…

“Crown of Thorns” Galaxy Photographed in space

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Genesis 22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

John 19: 2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe, 3 And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands. 4 Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him. 5 Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man! 6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.