From DailyKOS:

"Cindy Sheehan phoned me from [Crawford,] Texas a few minutes ago to say that she's been informed that beginning Thursday, she and her companions will be considered a threat to national security and will be arrested.  Coincidentally, Thursday is the day that Rice and Rumsfeld visit the ranch, and Friday is a fundraiser event for the haves and the have mores.  Cindy said that she and others plan to be arrested."

Visit: http://www.meetwithcindy.org for more information.  Cindy Sheehan is a mother of a soldier killed last year in Iraq.  She has been trying to get the president or the administration to answer questions as to why the war that killed her son actually started and why it's being continued.  (And probably also why the president is on vacation during a time of war)

As someone who had a brother in Iraq, and who currently has several close friends over there now, I would like those questions answered also.  Expecially since we know that the administration has continually lied to us about the war, and has slandered and/or fired anyone who tried to tell the truth about the war.  And to think that I used to be a Republican... I guess that I can thank G.W. Bush (& Carl Rove) for my conversion.

[UPDATE:] Now the right wing has chosen to attack this woman, who is just trying to figure out what (if anything) her son died for.  They claim that she's just a pawn of the ultra-liberal groups...which are obviously forcing her at gunpoint to camp out in the rain (now also with a fever).  They also claim that she's changed her mind on the war in the last year or two... No kidding.  The 9-11 report, the downing street minutes, treasongate, etc. have all happened since her first brief meeting with the president. 

Well, my radio is fixed, and now I have two Coldplay X&Y CDs (Anyone want one - barely scratched?).  Ford told me that they couldn't fix the stereo, and it had to be broken, then replaced for about $500.  I went to an auto parts store, bought a $7 tool to remove the stereo and then in about 20 minutes I had the CDs out.  I didn't even have to unscrew or take apart anything.  I just followed the instructions I found on the internet and unplugged the power, tilted the stereo, then plugged it in.  Needless to say, I'm trying to write a letter of complaint to Ford and their repair center.

So if you ever have a problem with Ford factory stereos, and Ford tells you they have to replace it... DON'T!  (And don't push CDs in, because their stereos can't handle it)

Well, I didn't get to the beach after all.  Hurricane Emily was just hitting the Ukatan penninsula when we were going to go to South Padre.  We decided to just stay in San Antonio and wait to see what it did after that.  We decided to skip the trip when we found that it was heading directly towards Padre.  A couple of my in-laws went anyway and had one day of fun before the hurricane hit the island.  Then they were silly enough to stay on the island while the hurricane passed over their head.

Instead of going to an island with a hurricane, we instead came back to Dallas and went to Hurricane Harbor (a six-flags owned waterpark).  We only got a little sunburned.  All in all, it was a good vacation, even though we didn't do much.  I got to stay at home and relax, read a few good books, and watch a few good movies (War of the Worlds, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and Dark Water).

On another note, I bought another copy of Coldplay's X&Y, since my first one is stuck in my car radio (it was cheaper than buying another radio).

Not much free time this week, I'm working overtime... This weekend I'm going on my first real vacation since I started working.  I'm going to the beach with most of my wife's family, who does this thing every summer.  Post when I can....

It's happening already.  Just what I was afraid of.  Sean Hannity, of Fox News 'fame', said this about the London attacks:

"Isn't this the fact, though, General... that what we witnessed here was pure evil, what we saw on 9/11 was pure evil and doesn't (sic) events like this actually prove that the president is actually right inasmuch as we knew Saddam used chemical weapons and biological weapons against his own people? "

So, further attacks mean the president's course is "right."  No attacks mean the president is doing a good job.  It must be good to be the president in this administration, you can't be wrong!

Update:

Another quote, from Rush Limbaugh this time:

You've been asking me since 9/11, "Rush, if it happens again, does it hurt Bush?" No, it's not going to hurt the one guy that's out there trying to do something about it.

Our president is infallible, praise God!  No matter that Bush is only trying to do one thing.  No matter that other Republicans as well as other Democrats are trying to suggest alternatives - but getting shut down by this administration.  No matter that the war in Iraq, which is Bush's main focus, was started despite knowledge that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorists or WMD.  Bush isn't fighting the war on terror, he's not concerned about catching Osama bin Laden (Bush 3/02), and he knows that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th. (Bush 9/03)" and we now even know that he always knew there was no evidence.

Four London Blasts Kill 40, Injure 700

My prayers go out to those in England, who are suffering and who are scared after their recent terrorist attacks this morning.   I wish we had learned how to make our country and our world safer after our own terrorist attack. 

Unfortunately, this kind of attack could still have just as easily happened in our country, in one of our cities, in our subways.  Our administration has repetitively said that fighting the terrorists who are now in Iraq will prevent us from having to fight them here at home.  However, as shown by the terrorist acts in London, terrorists are not restricted to Iraq.  Instead of focusing on al Qaeda, the perpetrators of 9/11 and likely this one also, we were fooled into a war with a country that the administration knew was not a threat, ignoring al Qaeda.

This is not, though I'm sure many will try to make it, an opportunity to praise the president for doing such a good job.  It is not an opportunity to "stay the course" and keep doing things the way we now know make our country less safe.  It is an opportunity to fix our mistakes, to be honest with each other, to make the world safer, and to actually go after the terrorists (instead of creating more).

Update: Here's some scary information

These graphs were taken from http://tkb.org, a knowledge base by the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (which is funded through the department of homeland security).  They pretty clearly show that both the number of attacks and the number of deaths due to terrorist attacks have grown higher then 2001 despite assurances that we are "winning the war on terror" - Scary thought, huh?

Data for 1968-1997 covers only international incidents.
Data for 1998-Present covers both domestic and international incidents.

Note: This graph only goes into half of 2005

Went to see some fireworks with my wife and some of her friends from college.  The show was great, but seemed short (20 minutes.) We got stuck in traffic afterwards, sitting in the parking lot for 55 minutes without moving.

Interesting dream last night, I woke my wife up a few times.  I guess I should preface this dream by telling you that I watched "Land of the Dead" this past weekend.

A group of people (I think some of my college buddies were there too) were with me on one side of an electric fence, and there were a couple of people on the other side trying to get in where we were.  We turned off the power for a few moments, but (of course) the power wouldn't come back on after they crossed.  That was about the time the zombies started showing up.  We were quickly overwhelmed despite the fact that there were many of us with weapons. 

I don't remember being attacked personally, but I remember finding myself lying on the ground with many dead people and zombies.  I suppose the zombies were either killed or they left, thinking we were all dead.  Then the dream panned out and I saw nothing but bodies lying on the ground everywhere.  All of a sudden some of the people, who were scattered randomly in the carnage, slowly sat up in unison.  I somehow knew that I was one of the ones that was sitting up, but I couldn't tell if we were just regaining consciousness or if we had become zombies.

Currently NOT Listening X&Y By Coldplay see related

Stargal01, you'll love this story...

This weekend, I was shopping at Sam's and happened to see the new Coldplay CD for around $12.  I went ahead and bought it and immediately stuck it in my (6-CD in-dash) car stereo.  A few nasty sounding whirs and clicks, and the CD was stuck, never to play again.  Didn't even hear a bit of it.  We took the car to Ford and to Best Buy, both of which said "we'll have to break it to get the CDs out, then you'll have to buy another stereo."  However, the stereo works fine, as long as I ignore the 3 CDs that are stuck together in two of the six slots, even the other 4 slots work fine!  So it looks like I'll go and get another Coldplay CD and try to see how long my stereo will last.  (This time, I'll copy the songs to my computer first...just in case.)

-J.

I've had this topic come up several times in the past week (my sister's baby, and several commenters on Xanga), so I felt it was about time to discuss Christian Baptism. I've tried to organize it slightly, see below

1. Is baptism necessary for salvation?
2. Why do some Christians baptize infants when the Bible doesn't mention baptism of babies?
 2.1 Biblical evidence
 2.2 Jewish tradition of circumcision
 2.3 Evidence from early Christians' writings
3. Conclusions and criticisms

 

1. Is baptism necessary for salvation?

The quick answer is yes.  The exceptions to a traditional water baptism are summed up well by the Catholic church as follows, though the conservative protestant churches believe similarly (most just haven't written it down):

"Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens [someone preparing to be initiated into the Church], and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" (CCC 1281)

Those martyrs that die for the faith are considered baptized by blood, those that are actively striving to fulfill God's will are considered baptized by desire.  The Church gets these beliefs from Jesus' second baptism [Luke 12:50] and the salvation of the Jews before the time of Jesus.  One of the church fathers summed it up pretty well less than 2 centuries after Jesus:

"We have, indeed, a second [baptismal] font which is one with the former [water baptism]: namely, that of blood, of which the Lord says: ‘I am to be baptized with a baptism’ [Luke 12:50], when he had already been baptized. He had come through water and blood, as John wrote [1 John 5:6], so that he might be baptized with water and glorified with blood. . . . This is the baptism which replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost" (Baptism 16 [A.D. 203]) - Tertullian).

Well, what about the Bible?  Ok, try these on for size:

and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21)

Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call. (Acts 2:38-39)

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit." (John 3:5)

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16)

2. Why do some Christians baptize infants when the Bible doesn't mention baptism of babies?

The lack of any specific mentioning of baptism of infants holds problems both for the baptism of infants and for the baptism of young adults - which are also not mentioned in the Bible. The only specific baptism accounts in the Bible involve converts from Judaism or paganism, there is no mention of baptism—either in infancy or later. 

How then, did the Christian churches (Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican, etc.) come to baptize infants?  Through a careful reading of the Bible, understanding the Jewish roots of Christianity, and early Christian writings, that's how.

2.1 Biblical evidence:

When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. "If you consider me a believer in the Lord," she said, "come and stay at my house." And she persuaded us. (Acts 16:15)

At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. (Acts 16:33)

Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else (1 Cor 1:16)

While these verses don't specifically mention - nor exclude - infants, the use of "households" indicates an understanding of the family as a whole. If there were to be exceptions, it would probably have been explicit.  However, it is pretty explicit when Jesus tells his apostles to let the infants come to him in this verse:

People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." (Luke 18:15-16)

The baptism of water and the entry of the Holy Spirit into your life, though usually occurring at the same time for converts, isn't always occurring at the same time in the Bible.  The apostles were baptized before Jesus's crucifixion, but the Holy Spirit didn't come upon them until they were "baptized by fire" at Pentecost, after Jesus's resurrection and ascension.

2.2 Jewish tradition of circumcision

Paul likened baptism to the former Jewish practice of circumcision:

In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead (Col 2:11-12)

Faith in the Lord was necessary for an adult convert to Judaism to receive it, but it was not necessary for the children of believers. The infants were usually circumcised around the 8th day after their birth, and was done in anticipation of the Jewish faith that their parents were going to raise them in.  Likewise, Christians baptize infants because they are going to raise them in the Christian faith - after all, parents have control over what their children are taught and what they will believe in why exclude something as important as religion?

2.3 Evidence from early Christians' writings:

Irenaeus (and other Fathers of the Church) was raised in a Christian home and wouldn't have taught infant baptism as apostolic if their own baptisms had been deferred until the age of reason.  Irenaeus was probably baptized by Polycarp, who was a personal disciple of the apostle John.  If this was a heresy, we would have had records of other early Christians saying "Not so!", instead of everyone either agreeing with it or not commenting on it.  (After all, why comment on things that are common belief and aren't being questioned?)  Here are some of the many others who commented on infant baptism.

"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189] - Irenaeus ).

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215] - Hippolytus).

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248] - Origen).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248] - Origen).

"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408] - Augustine).

If you don't count the people in the Church only a few generations from Jesus, how about from one of the first protestants?  I'll try my best to summerize what Martin Luther stated in his Large Catechism, you can read the entire thing at: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/web/cat-13a.html

Lurther states that we can be sure the baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ because "God sanctifies many of them who have been thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost....  If God did not accept the baptism of infants, He would not give the Holy Ghost nor any of His gifts to any of them"  He states that Baptism does not become invalid if the person believes or not, because Baptism is not bound to our faith, but to the Word.  "How dare we think that God's Word and ordinance should be wrong and invalid because we make a wrong use of it?"

He states that "we bring the child in the conviction and hope that it believes, and we pray that God may grant it faith..." but that we baptize solely upon the command of God.  He compares the false logical conclusion 'if the faith is false, then the baptism is false' to the equally false conclusion "if I do not believe, then Christ is nothing."  To explain this argument, he states "For gold is not the less gold though a horlot wear it in sin and shame."  Thus even if our baptism is performed with imperfect or no faith, the baptism is still valid - because no baptism with water and the Word of God can be invalid..

He reminds us that Baptism is tied to Repentance, because repentence returns us to our baptism and the forgiveness of sins received there.  He states that we need to be aware that our Baptism isn't a single completed event in our past that we cannot use after we fall again into sin.  Instead, though it is our initial entry into the Christian Church, we are always falling from the Church through further sin and need to come back - not through additional baptisms, but through repentance which brings us back to our baptism.

3. Conclusion

Some protestant denominations claim that baptism is not necessary for salvation, (ignoring the verses above) and that it also cannot be done on infants because infants cannot believe in Jesus since they can't learn yet.  They quote many verses that say that such-and-such person believed and was baptized, pointing out the fact that believing precedes baptism, failing to realize that everyone was a convert at that time.  They try to get people who were baptized as infants to be baptized again, claiming that their first baptism doesn't count. 

There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called - one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Eph 4:4-6)

The Catholics and the conservative protestant churches believe that baptism should be done only once, when the person enters into the Christian church.  Either when their parents initiate them into the church (usually at infancy), or after they believe and are converted.  I was baptized a Methodist, and when I was married to a Catholic, the Catholic church recognized my baptism as valid because it was done with water while invoking the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.  If that was done to you, that is the only baptism needed, a second baptism will not give you any more grace, or forgive any more sins. 

The most hypocritical thing I've ever heard about may soon be done to my newly born niece in a Baptist church.  If her mom decides to, little Ellie will have a 'sprinkling ceremony', which is definitely not a baptism - because baptism cannot be done until she can believe according to the Baptists.  I would be fine if they were to just present her to the church, and leave the sprinkling of water and other baptismal acts and symbols out of it.  However, the fact that they are making a farce of the baptism ceremony makes it even worse than if nothing was done. 

I finally got around to reading the "Downing Street minutes" and some of the other concurring documents, outraged, I went to sign the letter that congressman Conyers is sending to Bush to demand answers to the questions raised by the memo. If you're outraged by the implications of the memo, here's where you can add your name. If you're not outraged, here's where you can read the memo, then when you're been sufficiently upset, go here to add your name.

 

In case you're wondering about my political leanings... I've always considered myself an Independent because I don't agree 100% with any party, but I have been told that I'm more of a Moderate Conservative.  With that in mind, here's a quick Quiz for you to take:

 

1. In today's society, I would be considered:

A) a Moderate Conservative

B) an Independent

C) a flaming liberal

 

2. If I was to go on a news show today to debate someone, I would be put up against:

A) a flaming liberal

B) an Independent

C) an ultra-conservative

 

3. Recently, corruption in our government has been:

A) made up when it can't be found

B) exposed and corrected when it exists

C) covered up at any cost

 

4. Immediately after the revelation of Deepthoat, who of the following people were not asked to discuss the morality of exposing a corrupt government?

A) G.Liddy - the watergate burglar

B) Pat Buchanan - Nixon's speech writer and advisor

C) any objective person

 

5. Our current administration would call someone who disagrees with a few of the military policies of the administration:

A) a concerned citizen

B) a conscious objecter

C) an un-patriotic liberal who wants our soldiers to die.

 

6. Someone who sends thousands of soldiers (including my brother and friends) to war, and knowingly lies about the cause has often been called:

A) un-patriotic

B) un-Christian

C) Mr. President

 

7. The administration's views itself as pro-life which means:

A) they want to care of all life, from conception through natural death.

B) they have provided legislation that has created an atmosphere where abortions have been reduced.

C) they care about saving unborn children, but won't help born children and their parents who are left to the mercy of God.

 

8. The proper location to hold a hearing discussing what may turn out to be evidence of treason by several members of the Executive Branch is obviously:

A) the floor of the House of Representatives

B) any normal hearing room

C) One of the smallest meeting rooms (HC-9) in the basement of the Capital building. [see: Thursday June 16]

 

9. Knowing that congressmen were going to personally re-deliver a letter signed by 560,000 citizens and 120+ congressmen to Bush, who has ignored the letter in the past, George W. Bush welcomed them by:

A) Welcoming the congressmen into the White House, keeping the citizens outside for security reasons.

B) Meeting them at the gate and gracefully accepting the letter and signatures.

C) Locking the congressmen out of the White House and having (many) aids carry the (many) stacks of signatures in. [video]

 

10. Because I don't agree with some of the Bush administration's ideas and policies, society seems to consider me:

A) smart

B) sane

C) an un-patriotic liberal who deserves to be locked away