Brandon's Blog

NPR reported today that abstinence education is not keeping teens from engaging in "risky business". Sexual behavior has reportedly grown in the last several years, and it doesn't surprise me. The major emphasis of sex ed. in school, according to my memory, is completely selfish and materialistic. "Do you want a baby?" and "You could get AIDS!" are the big scare tactics used in sex ed. classes. These things are really self-centered, I think, and they don't get down to a deeper problem with pre-marital sex: it's dishonoring to God, your family, and your future spouse. Perhaps a less egocentric view to purity would lead to better morality among teens, but since God has been forsaken in the public school system, it's unlikely that we'll find out. Oh, but I can talk to my own children about sex? Okay. I'll do that and not let Mr. Kinsey pervert them.

A blogger asked me to report on seeing "La Boheme", and so I will. To tell you the truth, I didn't like it that much especially since I saw another of Giacomo Puccini's masterpieces, Tosca, during the summer. La Boheme's story is flat and not that surprising. I didn't find the music particularly thrilling either.

Basically, Rodolfo and Mimi, both bohemians in Paris, fall in love after five minutes of conversation. They have a rocky relationship, and then, someone dies! That's not for me. There was no meat. There was no jumping off parapets or bassist/assassins to liven up the show.

Perhaps the slight nature of the plot is reflective of the bohemian lifestyle, ie, no direction or meaning. That could be. Or, the story might just suck. I think that's better.

So, overall, go see a more thrilling opera, like Rigoletto or Tosca. You definitely get your money's worth with those shows. Skip La Boheme and go bowling or something.

I definitely get more irritated when I'm tired.

Going to see "La Boheme" with the lady and some friends. Should be fun.

OKTOBERFEST tomorrow. In September, oddly enough.

I watched "Nicholas Nickleby" (2002) tonight with my girlfriend, and it was a pleasant time. I love Dickens' films. I don't know how right they are with the books, but if they are anything like the books, they must be fantastic. (In my defense, I've read the first several chapters of Great Expectations, and I liked it.) The stories are true to life: lots of chance happenings, tragedies, happiness, love, and good endings. Not that every story ends happily, but the Final Chapter of the human story will.

Good night!

I have been wondering about how Christians should interpret the first few chapters of Genesis. How do we reconcile faith and science? Can we assume that the first chapters of Genesis are the explanation of a prescientific people? Did God create in the manner that scientists say the universe came into existence and then put a different spin on it for the Hebrews? Or, is the Creationist standpoint correct?

I'm not a scientist. I'm more of a Christian thinker, and with my view of Scripture and, thus, of Christ's work, I cannot see how Man was not created separately from the animals. I cannot accept the evolution of man.

Two reasons. One, we bear the image of God. Animals don't. Creating man separately props this doctrine up better than theistic evolution. We sit at the top, not the culmination. I don't accept the view that man became the image bearer when he first reflected on his situation and became homo sapiens. Now, note, I haven't said that other things didn't evolve or how old the earth is, but that man must be created separately. Two, Christ died for the sin of Adam. Paul is very explicit about this. Death came through one man. Salvation through one man. Death came to me through one man's sin. Salvation through another's work.

I can't give up the creation of man. If I do, I have no way to reconcile Paul's passages in Romans (and others, I'm sure). They just sit there, some of God's most wonderful words, doing nothing.

I was reading Luther tonight, and he made an amazing point. When God tells of the Redeemer to come in Genesis 3, he says that he will come from the seed of a woman, but not of a man. "And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel." (NKJV). Point? The Seed came not through Adam, which would have submitted him to the curse of sin, but only through the woman. The curse comes through the man, not the woman. So, Christ came through the woman, not the man, so therefore, the Man may be without sin and may conquer death and hell. Gotta run. Put up a comment if this makes no sense and I'll explain further.