I will like the new Star Trek Movie as long as…

May 8, 2009 by brettryee

it stays pretty faithful to the characters (they don’t go off and do something completely outlandish)

there is a little bit of intelligence (I know the movies focus less on the cerebral trek stuff anyways, so that’s fine… as long as future trek stuff isn’t just action)

they don’t destroy the already established canon. This is the big one. If they make it clear that all (or at least most) of the TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY stuff (Enterprise wouldn’t matter as it all happened before this era) stays intact, that is, the time travel in this movie doesn’t too crazily mess up the timeline, its fine. Some changes would be fine. Obviously, since Kirk’s dad ill die earlier than he should have, there are some changes, but overall, nothing should change in any major way. I’m iffy if they decide to make a new timeline because it sort of flies in the face of the previous one as well as risks erasing that timeline (see a season 6 DS9 episode called Time’s Orphan)

OK, nerdy post, but yeah, keeping my fingers crossed!

Questions from Sharry

April 27, 2009 by brettryee

Sharry has some great questions to try and tackle. If you guys get the chance, take a stab at some answers (don’t worry, you don’t have to back everything up with scripture).

1. why do bad things happen if God existed?
I know it’s something about God’s grace and love He gives each of us choices. And He planned everything before we were born and through these bad events, we see that we need God and that He exists. but evan was telling me that God does not ever have bad intentions or plans planned, so i don’t understand how God could already plan everything out but not plan the bad things and yet they happen…it really doesn’t connect for me.

2. what is UP with the trinity?!?!
i don’t think Jesus EVER said he was God or him and God and holy spirit were one, so where did the trinity idea come from?! is it just the writers of the Bible making it up? if they were then we’d be believing the wrong thing!

College Group Questions – 2-21

February 22, 2009 by brettryee

1. The genealogy of Jesus in 1.1-17. Verse 17 states there are 14 generations from Abraham to David and 14 from David to the exile to Babuylon and 14 from the exile to Christ. Count the generations and find out how many there are…
a. Possible explanations: scribe missed some (does not correspond with 1 Chronicles 3.15, The risen Christ is the 14th, others? Not quite symmetrical, include david twice?
b. What do we make of Matthew skipping some!!!
i. Significance of 14s (7×6). Christ = coming near the 7th 7
c. What do you make of the inclusion of women (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, who isn’t mentioned…) as well as less than savory characters?
i. How do you feel about that?
d. What is the Siginifcance of “Son of David” – will be mentioned 10 times
2. 1.23 has a prophecy! Let’s look back at the reference: Isaiah 7.14 and see what it says! What gives?!?!?! That has nothing to do with Jesus! Explanations? Significance?
3. Compare Matthew and Luke’s version of the birth narratives… who focuses on what? Without needing to necessarily harmonize the two, which is, in this case, essentially fine, how does Matthew’s focus on J figure into Jesus’ role?
4. Try to imagine yourself in Mary’s sandals… how does the news affect you? HS? Where have we heard this before? Significance?
5. Questions on Mary and Joseph’s relationship and possible divorce?
6. What can we take home from what we learned today?

Theme to look for: fulfillment of God’s soverign purpose

Ever seem like…?

February 10, 2009 by brettryee

Nothing is right in the world? Like your job, your vocation, your relationships, everything just seems a bit off. Like we need to defragment life or something. Or maybe its more than a bit off, but really off. Like you need to punch something… hard.

And being a nerd I felt like this movie scene hit me…

Luke: But its a whole ‘nother year!
Uncle Owen: Its only one more season…

“Bush stuns Evangelicals”

December 12, 2008 by brettryee

OK… so I didn’t actually listen, but from what I hear, Bush said that not everything in the Bible may have literally happened.

Well… as an evangelical, I say an emphatic “meh”. I’m not certain everything literally happened either. If he meant Jesus and the resurrection, fine, I’ll have a bone to pick with him. But it just goes to show really… CHRISTIANS, wake up! YOU ARE NOT MARRIED TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!!!!!! You can be republican, but they’re not standing for everything you believe in. Some of them don’t even care! I’m not saying the Democrats do either… but get with it, God is not R or D. He’s freakin’ his own party! (Ain’t no party like a Holy Ghost party, cause the Holy Ghost party don’t stop!)

The Covenant Laundromat

October 23, 2008 by brettryee

So I was at the Green Lake Conference Center in Wisconsin and while searching for the Frisbee Golf Course, stumbled across this sign and had some random photoshop fun

times when the Bible spoke…

August 27, 2008 by brettryee

College group, feel free to post here  in comments times that the Bible spoke to you… thanks!

Questions for college group – 8-23

August 20, 2008 by brettryee

Notes and Questions for Galatians 5

5.2 – But Timothy was circumcised in Acts 16… why would Paul allow this? What’s the point?

5.11 – Why is the cross offensive?

5.13 – How can we serve one another in love? How is this a freedom? How does this go against human nature (what Paul talks about soon after)?

5.14 – My Old Testament professor says that in many prophetic books there is mentioned justice and rigteousness. We have taken them to mean those rather abstract ideas, but back then, it meant doing right by the people you were in relationship with (ie your neighbors and other Jews) and to act decisively for them (ie judging the poor). How might Paul be talking about the same thing? If this is true, what does this tell you about the interaction b/n the old and new testament? Where have we perhaps gone wrong in the church?

If the law can be summed up this way… what are we really doing by doing as Paul says? Who else self-described himself this way and how did he do it? What can we learn from that?

5.15 – How do these tie together? What devouring ties into the freedom of sin? What is the relationship between this and the things Paul soon mentions?

5.17 – What does this tell you about people and about God?

5.18 – What is Paul’s practical application that makes light of this seemingly hanging verse? What is it that works and what doesn’t when combating the flesh? Why is that (think Biblically and practically)? Think back to 5.6

5.19 – Do you agree with all these? Do you question some of them (that’s okay!)? What might be problematic about these especially in light of community?

5.22 – Should anything else go here? Why? How might these be helpful in community and what might that look like?

5.24 – How does this verse make you feel?

5.26 – How might these things happen today?

Theological and Practical Reflection: Raymond Brown points out that there is freedom in Christ and yet Paul here lists a bunch of things that are like rules… much like law… He asks what is the interplay between responsible freedom and clear directives that border on law? Can we find any overarching guidelines in Paul’s letter? Or is there something just Biblically thematic?

Let’s talk about Freedom. What comes up in your mind when that word comes up? We live in the US. What does freedom mean here? Is that Biblical (yes, no, partly?)? What are different types of freedom and how do we describe our freedom in Christ?

What are ways to live by the Spirit – How do you need to work on that? How can we better embody these?

And lastly, a random thought having to do with what we’ve been talking about.  A lot of the Jewish laws are not inherently sinful, such as touching a dead body.  It simply made one unclean (which doesn’t mean sinful).  It went against the nature of God and thus you could not immediately enter God’s presence.  But in 1 Samuel 14, some men are sinning because they ate blood from their meat.  Perhaps it is NOW sinful because of the law.  It isn’t inherently sinful for doing it, but because the law says so.  How does that interact with what Paul says?  Perhaps it is only that it is not trusting in God by obeying Him that makes it sinful, and not the act itself?

a good quote

July 1, 2008 by brettryee

I know I exist not because I think but because I am loved and I love.

College Group Questions for 5-28-08

June 27, 2008 by brettryee

Chapter 3/4 – some review and extra questions

What is the sign of salvation (or at least faith) – Holy Spirit à Who gives the sign? Compare to circumsicion and the law à what does this mean for us today?

What is Paul also arguing in Ch 4 in terms of his relation with the Galatians? (fellowship)

OVERVIEW Questions on the LAW

How would you characterize Paul’s view of the law (both positive and negative!)

Ch 4

How would you characterize Paul’s tone in the opening verse? What is he effectively saying?

Why does Paul use the Abraham argument? What does this say about culture and evangelism?

What does it say about the opposing argument?

What would a more traditional argument about this passage say, especially in terms of the Gentiles? How does Paul combat this, especially in relation to the Galatians and their place now? What does this say for us?

Make a chart diagramming Paul’s argument in comparing things, what can you see from it?

Who represents what in a traditional argument? Who represents what in Paul’s argument?

What are possible interpretations of New Jerusalem vs Present one and others? (What might it also stand for? Think of Paul’s confrontation with Peter)

What other things does this argument signify? Think in terms of God and his promise and then our response to that?

What is the significance of Isaiah 54 (v27)? What is the normal (and indeed proper) reading? How does that tie in what Paul is saying (how does it fit now with his argument? What links them (God’s Fulfillment)? What does that say about scripture itself?

So how does Paul end his argument? What does Paul say about scripture? What is he saying especially in light of “slavery” and the “law”? What does freedom in Christ mean?

How do we normally read the OT? How does Paul, who quotes a lot of OT, read the OT? (through the lens of the gospel) Should we ONLY or ALWAYS read it this way?

Paul could have rejected the OT altogether or at least just the law… but why doesn’t he (think in terms of who the Galatians – and we! – are)?

What does this say about normalization of Christian practice?

What could be dangerous about this passage?