will be starring Will Smith. This sounds awesome:
Django Unchained, where an escaped slave, played by Will Smith, seeks to free his wife and exact revenge on his former masters.
Full preview here.
Parsing Politics and Finding Cool Stuff on the Internet
“With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses. … You have a right to beat down my door with the police, escort me away and force me to take care of you? That’s ultimately what the right to free health care would be,” – Senator Rand Paul.
Some days I like Rand. Today, I feel he is off kilter.
Michael Coogan sees love as the core Bible value:
When talking about so-called family values, pastors, popes, and politicians routinely quote the Bible as if it were an unassailable divine authority — after all, they assume, God wrote the Bible, and therefore it is absolutely and literally true.
Although Jews and Christians, individually and collectively, have for the last 2,000 years accepted the Bible as authoritative in principle, in practice many of its values have been rejected. On issues such as slavery, no one today would maintain that slavery is acceptable, even though, according to the Bible, it was a divinely sanctioned institution. In the debates about slavery in the 19th century those opposed to its abolition cited the Bible in support of their position, but despite such biblical warrant, their views were renounced.
Individual biblical texts should not be appealed to selectively: Such cherry-picking is all too easy because of the nature of the Bible as a multi-authored book. Rather, as with another formative text, the Constitution, one needs first to understand it historically — what did its words mean when they were written — and then attempt to determine what its underlying values are, not just what it says in a specific passage. Only in this sense can the Bible be considered to have timeless relevance that transcends the historical particularities of its authors.
The broad brush approach of “supporting a Biblical family value system” is so vague when thrown around, it needs to be clarified and not kept in vague terms. Are we talking about the family lifestyle of the male having sex with his female servants, the man having concubines, or the more recent monogamous, heterosexual relationship?
As for the cherry picking approach, it indeed does strip any sort of context and is more often used in a controlling instance. Let’s try a reverse, or a top down, approach to scripture: look at the topic from the OT or NT perspective, then category (law, prophet, gospel, letter), then book (author? time?), then chapter, then verse grouping.