The Burr in the Burgh

If you know me very well, you know that I am not a PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) sympathizer. Some people say, "Meat is murder," or "Fur is murder." I think that is ridiculous. Meat is food. And fur is clothing.

I am, at the same time, an animal lover. I own two cats, a dog and two frogs. And if my wife would let me, I'd have more. She says I don't do enough to clean up the poop as it is and she's got a point.

One time, we were having trouble with mice in our kitchen so we put out that sticky paper to catch him. And then there he was, cute as button. But stuck from head to tail on the sticky trap. I had to do something with him. I could have just thrown him in the trash and he'd die eventually. But looking at him, I had pity. So I put him in a plastic bag and slammed the bag as hard as I could against the cement floor in my garage. Then I threw him away.

You see, I needed to get rid of that mouse. But I also didn't want it to suffer, even though it was just a mouse. So I bashed its brains in. Of course, my wife will tell you that I almost cried afterward. I said ALMOST!

Then today I read this bizarre story about the Texas man who found a mouse in his house and instead of killing it, he threw it into a pile of burning leaves in his backyard. And just as you would expect, the little critter didn't care for that one bit. So the flaming rodent zipped out of the fire and right back. . . you guessed it, into the man's house. No one was hurt (human, that is) but the man lost his house and all his possessions.

Now first, let me say that this was an inhumane way to kill a mouse. I despise the platform of these animal rights activists who equate the life of a dog or cow or chicken with that of a human being. But I also don't approve of cruelty to any of God's creatures.

I feel bad for the mouse. But I feel much worse for the poor 81 year-old man who lost his house and everything in it - even if what he did was kinda dumb.

Lesson: Don't light living animals on fire.

What is your opinion?

HT: Aardvark Alley.

“And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. . . . At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the River (Mark 1)."

Do you remember that old Sesame Street ditty? There'd be three apple pies and one piece of chocolate cake and they'd sing:


One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

That's what come to my mind when I consider the baptism of Jesus. In Matthew's Gospel, it is recorded that John strenuously tried to deter Jesus from being baptized. But the Lord said it must be done to fulfill all righteousness.

What was the Holy One of God doing there amongst all the sinners? He had no sins of His own to confess? Of what did He need to repent? He didn't need the baptism of John for His own sake. But the Righteous One became the Chief Sinner in order to pardon the truly guilty.

January 6 is the Feast of the Epiphany of Our Lord. The word Epiphany means revelation and this is the season when we consider the ways God reveals himself to us in Jesus Christ.

The Gospel reading for January 6 (at least in our tradition) is Matthew 2, the story of the wise men or magi from the east who visit our Lord in Bethlehem.

First a couple of factoids. While it is generally traditional to show three wise men, the Scriptures don't, in fact, tell us their number. Only that their were three gifts. It does use the plural so it was more than one, but it could've be 2 or 20 for all we can say.

Another tidbit is that we don't know their names or exactly where they came from. Generally we'd say that they were Persian or Babylonian. That's a sound guess. We know from Old Testament history that the Jews were taken into captivity into Babylon for 70 years and many remained when Cyrus the Persian overtook Babylon. Thus Persian-types and Babylonian-types were somewhat familiar with Israel and the Hebrew prophecies. These ancient cultures were also renowned for their astronomical observations.

What was the star exactly? The Bible says that it moved to guide the magi to the very house where Jesus and his mother were staying. Many have undertaken to ascertain what kind of star this might be. Stars are fixed and do not move. What about the records of other star-gazing nations? Surely any kind of major change in the heavens - such as the appearance of a new star - would have been universally noticed.

I think it's key to note that the Greek word used here is aster. We get the english words astronomy and asteroid from it. Aster can refer to just about any heavenly body so it need not have been a star as we scientific moderns would define it. Maybe it was a meteor, a comet, or an uncommon alignments of the planets. Dozens of theories have been offered.

I find the most compelling explanation to also be one of the oldest. St. John Chrysostom, in the fourth century, proposed that the aster in Matthew 2 was an angelic being of some kind. That makes the most sense to me. Why? Because it is hard to find a widely convincing explanation if we only consider the known phenomena of nature. Comets or nova would have been observed and written about. One tantalizing theory involving the alignment of certain planets and constellations is fascinating but it would fail to explain how it guided the magi to the specific house where Jesus was staying.

And besides, angels are involved in almost every other aspect of the birth narratives. It makes sense that they'd be involved here as well. And it relieves us of having to explain it by scrunching together scientific data into a handful of not-wholly-satisfactory speculations. It fits the nature of an angel to lead people to Jesus. And there is ancient church support. To me, it's the most compelling explanation.


For more reflection on the Epiphany, head over to Aardvark Alley.

Here's a story to give you morning indigestion.

First, there is a man named Mark Hulett who raped a little girl repeatedly over a span of four years starting when she was seven years old.

Second, the prosecutor asked for 8-20 years in prison, which seems like a light sentence to me. I would support hanging the man by his neck until dead. And I suspect a large majority of the American population would agree with me.

Except, of course, the judge overseeing this case. It seems the man was convicted of the crime and the judge only gave him 60 days. And his reasoning: "The one message I want to get through is that anger doesn't solve anything. It just corrodes your soul."

That's got to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Who is this message for? The criminal or the victims? And of course he is dead wrong. Anger solves lots of problems. Who does this judge think is worse, the child rapist or the people who get mad at the child rapist? You want to know what is corrosive? Child rape. That's pretty bad.

For someone who is trying to eradicate anger, this fellow - Edward Cashman - is flopping big time. For instance, he's made me angry. What about you? What about the parents of the 11 year old victim? I'm guessing they were mad at Mark Hulett for repeatedly raping their daughter. Now, instead of helping de-corrode their souls, Judge Cashman has only made them angry at one more person . . . him.

And this is what really snaps the camel's back. The judge said he doesn't want to punish Mark Hulett because punishment - and here I have to quote - "doesn't work." What? Doesn't work how? The purpose of punishment is to punish. In what way does punishment not do that? Oh, I suppose if you think that punishment is supposed to cure cancer, then it doesn't work. Or if punishment is supposed to make the criminal a better person, then it doesn't work at that either. But the purpose of punishment, as far as I see it according to St. Paul in Romans chapter 13 is to . . . you guessed it, punish.

I thank God that there will be a reckoning. And I know full well that apart from God's grace in Jesus Christ, I likewise deserve God's wrath. No less than Mark Hulett. And that is why Christ instituted the Church: to preach about the atonement and the forgiveness of sins. And the reason why God instituted the government is to punish wrongdoers like Hulett.

Judges and courts exist, not to implement their own wills upon others - nor to forgive sinners and absolve the penitents for that matter - but to implement the just and perfect will of the Creator and Divine Lawgiver and Judge of All in these circumstances. Morally bankrupt judges like the Honorable Edward Cashman should recall that God is angry with sinners and it's his job to punish them.

Any dissenters should please take this up with St. Paul in Romans 13 and not me.


(Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin)

For a way to kill time and accomplish nothing, go here.

A couple of years ago, Dr. Gene Edward Veith wrote a piece for WORLD Magazine on contemporary trends in naming children. And he offers some interesting insights.

Back in the olden days, people used to give their children names that meant something. Some cultures give names to their children that express some feature or characteristic they hope to see in their child. The American Puritans, for instance, started the practice of naming their children after biblical virtues such as Faith or Hope or Charity. The hippie generation chose dreamy nature names such as River or Autumn. Many Christians through the ages have chosen names either from the Bible or from significant figures in the history of the Church. So saint names such as Joseph or Elizabeth became quite popular. I’m waiting for the day when Christians decide to get really cutting edge and choose names from the ancient church fathers. But I doubt if we’ll be seeing any little Tertullians or Cyprians or Polycarps pitter pattering around here any time soon.

One of the contemporary trends – and this is not a criticism at all, just an observation – is for parents to invent brand new words for the names of their children, not chosen because of what they mean, but for how they sound. So there are all sorts of unique combinations of letters and spellings.

And, to me, the most interesting trend nowadays is when people name their children using the brand names of their favorite consumer products. So according to one researcher, in the year 2000 there were 298 girls named Armani, after the line of designer clothing. Seven boys were named Del Monte, apparently after the canned vegetables. And 21 girls were named L’Oreal, after the hair dye.

The most surprising examples were the two boys, one in Texas and one in Michigan, who were named ESPN after the cable sports network. Their names are really spelled E-S-P-N. I’m told this is pronounced “espen.” Whatever. It’s a free country.

I’m not making any judgments upon how parents choose to name their children, particularly since in our society, if you don’t like your name, once you get to a certain age, you can get it legally changed.

However, it does seem that from God’s perspective, His name is more than just what He wants to be called. When the Lord spoke to Moses through the burning bush to enlist him to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, Moses was hesitant. He had reservations about whether he could pull it off, so he asked God, "If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' what shall I say to them?" God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you (Exodus 3).'" The Hebrew word for this is YHWH.

And God’s name is special. He wants us to use His name, that is, He wants us to call upon His name in every time of need and He wants us to use His name in prayer, praise and giving thanks. He does not want us to use His name in vain or to turn His holy name into a curse word.

I saw a character in a movie one time who thought that God’s name was Howard. Why did he think it was Howard? Because don’t we say, “Our Father who art in heaven, Howard be thy name?” No, of course not. We say “hallowed” be thy name. To hallow something is not to hollow it. To hallow means to keep it holy. To preserve the sanctity of something. And we keep God’s name holy not just by cleaning up our vocabulary, but also by how we live our lives.

People used to teach their children to behave properly because if they did not, it would bring shame upon the family name. Well, that is pretty much how God feels about it too. You are called Christians, named after Christ. You have been baptized into the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. His name is on you. And people are watching you to see how you live. And if you profess to be a Christian, but live like the devil, you bring shame and dishonor to the name of God. You make God look bad.

Another way a person can bring dishonor to God’s name is to teach false doctrine. Any time you attribute something to God which He did not, in fact say, and does not mean, you are putting lies into his mouth. And this is why St. Paul tells young Timothy: “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers (1Tim. 4:16).”

And “He was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived (Luke 2:21).” Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Y’shua or Joshua. It means “God saves.” That’s what the angel told Joseph before Jesus was born: “You are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins (Mt. 1:21).” It is not just what that baby was to be called. It is what that baby would do.


Here is the Veith article.

Check this out. This is whimsical, but is not a joke.

OK, so the nuptials this past week between a wealthy British woman and a dolphin don't exactly qualify as a legal marriage. But I defy any defender of gay marriage to explain why it shouldn't be.

Who gets to define marriage? I say we let natural law and common law along with thousands of years of Judeo-Christian tradition decide. According to these sources, generally speaking, there will be agreement that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman. While the Old Testament does portray instances of polygamy, it seems to be mostly a non-issue by the time of Christ. Unquestionably, the teachings of Jesus and St. Paul forge the basis for the traditional view. And certainly, even Genesis (Adam and Eve) is supportive.

But according to some, marriage should be able to be defined by the whims and preferences of a particular society. In that case, how can polygamy or polyandry not be legalized? Or marriage between children? Or between close relatives, such as mother and son or sister and brother, etc.? Why not group marriage? Why not marriage with oneself? Or with an inanimate object? Or with a deity? Or between a 41-year-old British millionairess and a dolphin.

HT: Watersblogged

Benedict XVI stated the other day that embryos are "full and complete humans."  See here. 

Now here is the interesting part.  He made this statement on Wednesday, December 28.  However, I blogged the same kind of thing, only more eloquently, on Tuesday, December 27.  I submit this as proof positive that the Pope reads The Burr in the Burgh. . . and plagiarizes from it. 

Naw, just kidding.  I'm glad to see his statement. 

On this, the third day of Christmas, I have been thinking about the incarnation of God's unique eternal Son. His enfleshment. St. John wrote: The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us.

One of the greatest turning points in history was the moment when God became a man. But really that is not the Christmas event.

Christmas is about the Nativity of Jesus. "Nativity" comes from the Latin natus or "birth." If one is a native of a place, it means he was born there. The Son of God become a native of planet earth. And Christmas is the celebration of that fact.

But I am talking about his incarnation, his enfleshment. God did not become a man in Bethlehem in the cattle stall overlooked by shepherds and angels. No, that happened approximately nine months earlier, presumably when the angel named Gabriel announced to Mary that she would conceive and give birth to a child.

It seems to me that we put so much emphasis on the birth of Jesus, but too little upon his conception. You might say that the birth implies the conception. But this is a very important point I am trying to convey. God became a zygote.

Some modern churches have altered the words of the Nicene Creed to become more politically correct, and in so doing have sold their souls for a mess of pottage. The traditional English translation states that the Son of God "became man." In order to avoid the appearance of male chauvinism, some have rendered this instead as "became fully human." That is a very unsatisfactory translation. I understand the purpose. By "man," we do not mean to imply that the incarnation does not benefit people without penises. So we say Jesus became a human being. And that is true enough. The trouble is with the phrase "fully human." Fully Human? What other options were there? Could the Son of God have entered the world as a partial human? A potential human? Maybe a cyborg or a chimera? The phrase "fully human" implies that there are degrees of being human and that is impossible for a Christian to believe. In the words of Frederica Mathewes-Green:

I believe that God loves each and every created person. I believe that we begin when our bodies begin; that each person lives the curve of a continuum, that the eighty-year-old grandmother sitting in a front porch rocker, holding her grandbaby in her lap, is the same person she was when she was sixty, when she was forty, when she was twenty, when she was eight, when she was three. She's the same person over all that span, the same Mildred, whether that whole person is contained in a body the size of an adult, or adolescent, or child or baby. She was the same person when she was one year old, and on the day she was born, two months before she was born, five months before she was born, and in the very moment she was conceived, when her parents' sperm and egg fused. That single cell was a complete human body; in that cell was contained all the genetic information she'd need for a lifetime. That cell was human, it was alive, and it was unique; its DNA was different from her mother's and her father's, a brand new human never before seen on earth. All that was there in that single cell, and its life is a continuum from that moment until the moment of her natural death.

I believe that where there is a living body, there is a soul. There is no such thing as a living body without a soul; I've never encountered such a concept outside zombie movies. You can't, therefore, say that this living, unique human body suddenly becomes a person at six months gestation, or at birth, or some other time. Where there is a living human body, there is human life.