Sunday, May 31, 2009
Keep It Real!
No human being is perfect, beside myself, at least that is what I tell myself once in awhile. 
In total sincerity, we all have moments, which we would like to keep hidden inside our closet forever. Knowing this little truth, we could easily assume that dispensing moral advise to and criticism of others should be avoided at all times. At the same time, we are also well aware that moral advise and criticism are necessary part for the well-being of any truly “civilized” society. That is, for any true society to be just and fair there must always be people who truly speak out against evil that threatens the well-being of any civilized society. Does this mean we all have right to be pretentiously self-righteous when we dispense our moral advise and criticism? No, but if we are to take this particular path, then we must also be aware that what goes around comes around. Make sure to hide those pictures, videos, and every inappropriate moments because it will surface again someday. To speak for moral good is stand against evil that attempts to tear communities apart from oneself and one-another. Also, to speak for moral good is to speak in the realm of ideals to live by. That is, when we speak for moral good, we speak in the ideal that good must always practiced and upheld regardless of the cost to oneself. We speak in this manner because some moral goods are ideals which only makes sense to particular social tradition that upheld certain moral goods to be necessary part of communal relationship. For example, no one would disagree that murder is wrong. At the same time, different society classifies murder differently from another. But in this case there is a universal agreement that murder is wrong and unacceptable. Now there are moral goods that is not so universally acceptable as necessary thing to have for the well-being of community. Furthermore, some moral goods change in value depending on the time and place, i.e., what could have been taboo yesterday is no longer today’s taboo. Case in point, divorce is no longer taboo for many in this country and also no longer a moral evil, but merely a misfortune of life. Thus, when speaking against divorce, we should simply state our own personal moral opinion of divorce, then acknowledge that divorce is part of life because human beings are not perfect. Similarly, when speaking against homosexuality, we should simply state our own personal moral opinion against homosexuality, then acknowledge that this moral opinion is rooted in a particular cultural-social-religious tradition, which is only fully understood in the context of that particular tradition. Now this is not to say that no one has the right to disagree or criticize. Quite the contrary, all of us have right to criticize and put our own two pennies worth, i.e., no one has the right to take away the right to speak for or against ambiguous moral opinion. However, our moral stand cannot in itself be immoral, that is, it cannot be dehumanizing.
In total sincerity, we all have moments, which we would like to keep hidden inside our closet forever. Knowing this little truth, we could easily assume that dispensing moral advise to and criticism of others should be avoided at all times. At the same time, we are also well aware that moral advise and criticism are necessary part for the well-being of any truly “civilized” society. That is, for any true society to be just and fair there must always be people who truly speak out against evil that threatens the well-being of any civilized society. Does this mean we all have right to be pretentiously self-righteous when we dispense our moral advise and criticism? No, but if we are to take this particular path, then we must also be aware that what goes around comes around. Make sure to hide those pictures, videos, and every inappropriate moments because it will surface again someday. To speak for moral good is stand against evil that attempts to tear communities apart from oneself and one-another. Also, to speak for moral good is to speak in the realm of ideals to live by. That is, when we speak for moral good, we speak in the ideal that good must always practiced and upheld regardless of the cost to oneself. We speak in this manner because some moral goods are ideals which only makes sense to particular social tradition that upheld certain moral goods to be necessary part of communal relationship. For example, no one would disagree that murder is wrong. At the same time, different society classifies murder differently from another. But in this case there is a universal agreement that murder is wrong and unacceptable. Now there are moral goods that is not so universally acceptable as necessary thing to have for the well-being of community. Furthermore, some moral goods change in value depending on the time and place, i.e., what could have been taboo yesterday is no longer today’s taboo. Case in point, divorce is no longer taboo for many in this country and also no longer a moral evil, but merely a misfortune of life. Thus, when speaking against divorce, we should simply state our own personal moral opinion of divorce, then acknowledge that divorce is part of life because human beings are not perfect. Similarly, when speaking against homosexuality, we should simply state our own personal moral opinion against homosexuality, then acknowledge that this moral opinion is rooted in a particular cultural-social-religious tradition, which is only fully understood in the context of that particular tradition. Now this is not to say that no one has the right to disagree or criticize. Quite the contrary, all of us have right to criticize and put our own two pennies worth, i.e., no one has the right to take away the right to speak for or against ambiguous moral opinion. However, our moral stand cannot in itself be immoral, that is, it cannot be dehumanizing.Friday, May 29, 2009
ELCA, the Gringo Church...and proud of it!!!
I saw this trend report from a blogger that I occassionally read from and the report blew my mind away. Honestly, the largest ELCA church in this country truly reflect the general makeup of the second largest mainline church in this country. Regardless of it, one must admit that such trend had to be hard to maintain. That is a hard achievement. They should win an award like: “We have been Gringo for the past 7 year and proud of it." Or, "We can't help we are in love with Grinco." Or, "Grinco Fever!"
“Ye without sin cast the first stone”?
Of late, we have been hearing lots of moral advice from all side of the spectrum, both from the liberal and conservative camps. There is nothing wrong about “preaching” morality. It is important that we, as a society, teach our children the value of being a morally conscientious human being. But only teaching our children will not do for adults also need to be taught and reminded again and again of the importance and value in living a virtuous life. At times, adults need more encouragements to be virtuous. They need daily reminders that living a conscientious moral life is to live for the well-being of others regardless of the cost to oneself. This means that at times we must confront evil. Hence, the act of speaking out against immorality is neither wrong nor unwelcome. But, before we put our two pennies worthy, it would be wise to reflect on our own past, present and future. It is easy to forget our own propensity toward evil thoughts and actions. We all have the potential both for evil and good. It is a constant reality that manifest itself out in our decisions, which each of us make daily, regardless of whether those decisions were made in full cognizance or not. True that most of us cannot imagine the unfathomable evil, e.g., the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, the Rwanda Genocide, Pol Pot, the Japanese Imperial Armies rape, as part of us all. We cannot fathom orchestrating or assisting the demise of human beings just because of their ethnical background. But, at the same time, we must be aware of the simple fact that we are not people of a particular period and place. Honestly, are we real to believe that if we were born white and living around the early part of the 1900s that we would protest and speak against lynching? Most likely not, and if we do believe that we would have protested and marched against the lynching of black bodies, then we are not being truly honest with ourselves. We are all product of our particular time and place. Thus, it is easier to speak out against lynching because many of us find such practice horrifying. It is always easy to make a stand against evil when we are aware that most believe a particular activity is evil. Most of us are against racism and believe racism is evil because society in large have judge against the practice of systematic racism. But, can we be sincerely honest with ourselves so as to say that we could and would fight for interracial marriage during the 1920s? Could we have stand and fight against the mob as they prepare to lynch a black person? Could we have stand and fight against the genocide of Native Americans during the 19th century? It is easier to speak and protest against immorality and evil when we are not pioneers in our protest and fight against immorality and evil.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Interesting Psalm
I came across this Psalm and I found it revealing, particularly about my faith or lack of it.
When will you, O God, hear our prayers once again?
How long will you fasten from us?
Your children cry day and night for deliverance, justice, peace.
But we walk in despair, violence, injustice.
How long must we await for your justice and peace?
Will we see your hand of salvation soon?
Where must we turn in our suffering?
For our neighbors mock in our steadfast patience for the King of Peace.
They scoff at us with great vengeance.
"See", they say, "where is this Elohim of love and justice?"
Yes, O my soul, where is the Rock of our salvation?
When will the Son of Man return once again?
When???
How long will you fasten from us?
Your children cry day and night for deliverance, justice, peace.
But we walk in despair, violence, injustice.
How long must we await for your justice and peace?
Will we see your hand of salvation soon?
Where must we turn in our suffering?
For our neighbors mock in our steadfast patience for the King of Peace.
They scoff at us with great vengeance.
"See", they say, "where is this Elohim of love and justice?"
Yes, O my soul, where is the Rock of our salvation?
When will the Son of Man return once again?
When???
A few weeks ago, I came across a TV program on murder cases in this country. It is incomprehensive how human beings can hurt other human beings. Well, some religious sect would say that that is humanity innate evil or sinfulness. Whether it is or not, I do not know, but it does make one wonder what is really in the depth of our consciousness. But that is not the point of this entry for what struck me in that particular program, and many other similar programs, is the phrase: the face of evil. It seems to be a classic tool of persuasion for prosecutor to show the picture of the perpetrator and point to that picture as the face of evil. And perhaps, some of those are well deserving of that title.
Now, I am wondering whether we need to consider some new faces like the greed of Wall-Street, perhaps the consuming mentality of our country, maybe the bank, or ultimately the politicians who has done so little for the overall well being of our country. Honestly, I wonder whether there need to be a new poster for the face of evil.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Ruben Navarrette Jr.'s Commentary On Sonia Sotomayor
Editor's note: Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board and a nationally syndicated columnist. Read his column here.
SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- Listen closely. I'm going to say three words that you don't often hear from columnists: I was wrong. What's more, I've never been so pleased to be proven wrong.
About two weeks ago, I predicted that President Obama wouldn't nominate a Hispanic to the Supreme Court.
I said the fact that the name of U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor was on the short list was window dressing, the sort of cynical ploy that liberals use to get credit for doing something when they really haven't done anything.
One of my favorite examples dates back to 1984, when former Vice President Walter Mondale, in search of a running mate, was said to have considered San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros, although it was hard to believe that Mondale intended to choose him since going from mayor of a medium-sized city to vice president is a leap. In the end, Mondale chose three-term Rep. Geraldine Ferraro.
But when it came to Sotomayor, I was wrong. There, I said it again. In fact, a lot of people I spoke to in recent weeks -- including several journalists, lawyers, law professors, former government officials, etc. -- were wrong. They, too, thought Sotomayor would be passed over and that Obama would miss the chance to make history by nominating a Latina to the Supreme Court.
Maybe we all read too much into a recent interview that Obama gave on C-Span in which he said he didn't "feel weighed down by having to choose a Supreme Court justice based on demographics."
How about on sheer qualifications? Sotomayor sure has them. Raised by her mother after her father died, Sotomayor graduated from Princeton University summa cum laude and from Yale Law School. She has spent 17 years on the federal bench, longer than either John Roberts or Samuel Alito had served before they ascended to the Supreme Court.
Still, many of the stories about Sotomayor have came close to amounting to a smear; they painted a caricature of the 17-year veteran of the federal judiciary as hot tempered, too liberal, sharp with lawyers and not enough of an intellectual heavyweight.
She's also been attacked as a judicial activist, as if we'd never seen one of those before. In fact, the difference between judicial activism and reasonable adjudication often depends on whether you agree with the verdict in a given case.
When the Supreme Court decided Roe vs Wade, which granted a woman's right to an abortion, that was judicial activism. And, one day, if the Court were to reverse that decision, that, too, would be judicial activism -- albeit in the opposite direction.
We can expect another issue to be more troublesome for Sotomayor: affirmative action. Her confirmation battle is likely to be a referendum on race-based efforts to produce student bodies and workforces that -- to borrow a phrase -- look like America. iReport.com: Sotomayor 'the new face of America'
One reason is her biography. Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh called her "an affirmative action case extraordinaire," although affirmative action doesn't help you graduate summa cum laude from an Ivy League university.
There are also those who have written that a vote for Sotomayor is a vote for "identity politics;" it's a ridiculous charge that isn't leveled at nominees who are Italian, Irish, Jewish, etc. And finally, there is the case involving the New Haven Fire Department, where Sotomayor joined two colleagues on the appeals court in upholding a decision by the city to throw out the results of a firefighters' exam because they conflicted with hiring goals because none of the top scorers were African-American.
My own views on racial preferences (I oppose them) may be different than Sotomayor's. I don't know.
This much I do know: This week, Sotomayor said she was "deeply moved" by President Obama's decision to nominate her to the Supreme Court. She isn't the only one. Along with what I would guess were millions of Hispanics across the country, I watched Sotomayor's remarks with a mix of awe and pride.
Poking at my laptop, I noticed my two kids -- my 4-year-old daughter and 2-year-old son -- patiently waiting for Daddy to get done with the television so they could get on with the cartoon hour. Pointing to Sonia Sotomayor on TV, my voice cracked when I said to my little girl: "Look Mija, something really important happened today, something that reminds me that you can be anything you want in this world, all because of moments like this."
What a magnificent country. There's no way to get that wrong.
SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- Listen closely. I'm going to say three words that you don't often hear from columnists: I was wrong. What's more, I've never been so pleased to be proven wrong.
About two weeks ago, I predicted that President Obama wouldn't nominate a Hispanic to the Supreme Court.
I said the fact that the name of U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor was on the short list was window dressing, the sort of cynical ploy that liberals use to get credit for doing something when they really haven't done anything.
One of my favorite examples dates back to 1984, when former Vice President Walter Mondale, in search of a running mate, was said to have considered San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros, although it was hard to believe that Mondale intended to choose him since going from mayor of a medium-sized city to vice president is a leap. In the end, Mondale chose three-term Rep. Geraldine Ferraro.
But when it came to Sotomayor, I was wrong. There, I said it again. In fact, a lot of people I spoke to in recent weeks -- including several journalists, lawyers, law professors, former government officials, etc. -- were wrong. They, too, thought Sotomayor would be passed over and that Obama would miss the chance to make history by nominating a Latina to the Supreme Court.
Maybe we all read too much into a recent interview that Obama gave on C-Span in which he said he didn't "feel weighed down by having to choose a Supreme Court justice based on demographics."
How about on sheer qualifications? Sotomayor sure has them. Raised by her mother after her father died, Sotomayor graduated from Princeton University summa cum laude and from Yale Law School. She has spent 17 years on the federal bench, longer than either John Roberts or Samuel Alito had served before they ascended to the Supreme Court.
Still, many of the stories about Sotomayor have came close to amounting to a smear; they painted a caricature of the 17-year veteran of the federal judiciary as hot tempered, too liberal, sharp with lawyers and not enough of an intellectual heavyweight.
She's also been attacked as a judicial activist, as if we'd never seen one of those before. In fact, the difference between judicial activism and reasonable adjudication often depends on whether you agree with the verdict in a given case.
When the Supreme Court decided Roe vs Wade, which granted a woman's right to an abortion, that was judicial activism. And, one day, if the Court were to reverse that decision, that, too, would be judicial activism -- albeit in the opposite direction.
We can expect another issue to be more troublesome for Sotomayor: affirmative action. Her confirmation battle is likely to be a referendum on race-based efforts to produce student bodies and workforces that -- to borrow a phrase -- look like America. iReport.com: Sotomayor 'the new face of America'
One reason is her biography. Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh called her "an affirmative action case extraordinaire," although affirmative action doesn't help you graduate summa cum laude from an Ivy League university.
There are also those who have written that a vote for Sotomayor is a vote for "identity politics;" it's a ridiculous charge that isn't leveled at nominees who are Italian, Irish, Jewish, etc. And finally, there is the case involving the New Haven Fire Department, where Sotomayor joined two colleagues on the appeals court in upholding a decision by the city to throw out the results of a firefighters' exam because they conflicted with hiring goals because none of the top scorers were African-American.
My own views on racial preferences (I oppose them) may be different than Sotomayor's. I don't know.
This much I do know: This week, Sotomayor said she was "deeply moved" by President Obama's decision to nominate her to the Supreme Court. She isn't the only one. Along with what I would guess were millions of Hispanics across the country, I watched Sotomayor's remarks with a mix of awe and pride.
Poking at my laptop, I noticed my two kids -- my 4-year-old daughter and 2-year-old son -- patiently waiting for Daddy to get done with the television so they could get on with the cartoon hour. Pointing to Sonia Sotomayor on TV, my voice cracked when I said to my little girl: "Look Mija, something really important happened today, something that reminds me that you can be anything you want in this world, all because of moments like this."
What a magnificent country. There's no way to get that wrong.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Rev. John Yockey Solution to Failing Church Attendance
Rev. John Yockey of St. Jerome Parish in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin
By Susanne Jones
Rev. John Yockey of St. Jerome Parish in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, made the decision to offer a discount on the Parish's school tuition, if the parents agree to attend church on at least seven of every ten Sundays. Before this move, being a member of the church was sufficient to receive the discount. More and more churches with schools associated to them offer discounts to active and participating members of the church, making an increase in church attendance a primary goal in this effort.
In a recent article in 'The State-Journal' by Sara Gividen, a Frankfort, KY, Baptist minister was described as expressing disapproval about the fact that the young athletes in his congregation had to choose between attending church or playing sports. He requested from local youth sport organizer to schedule games and practices at other times than Wednesday evenings and Sundays. It appears he felt compelled to enlist the media in his quest to ensure something is done to allow those athletes to attend church.
Why does a minister feel forced to take such a step? Attendance in churches across the country has been decreasing for decades with only a brief increase after 9/11. Furthermore, those members, who stick around and regularly attend church, are usually older and in the second half of their expected lifespan. Therefore, churches increasingly struggle to attract new members, especially those from the younger population.
There are several reasons why church attendance is down. First and foremost, with the scientific progress, and a possible scientific explanation for anything and everything, it is difficult to believe in the existence of God. God just does not appear to be so all-powerful anymore.
Secondly, there have been many scandals surrounding the churches in recent years, especially the Catholic Church. The trust in the ministers and priests has diminished. Their worldliness has become too obvious. Can such a person really give me good spiritual advice? What does a catholic priest know about marriage and parenthood, if he himself has never experienced it? Shouldn't the person leading the congregation be closer to God? Sort of have a direct line to God? Be a perfect human being the way God wants us to be? The questionable behavior of some of the ministers and priests has made it more difficult for others to 'herd their sheep'.
Thirdly, and most importantly, our lives have become incredibly busy. Who has time for God anymore? We have more important things to do. Sunday is not the day of rest anymore for many of us. Stores are open; factories don't stop their assembly lines. Many of us have to work. While maybe fifty years ago it might have been frowned upon to run your lawnmower on Sundays or do any visible to the neighbor work around the house, this is not the case anymore. With our schedules full throughout the week, the weekend is left to keep up with the chores around the house and/or shopping and relaxing. And yes, there is sporting events to attend and other commitments, especially if you have children. And most importantly, even if we have nothing else to do, the weekend is our only chance to sleep in. The day of rest does not include getting up early to attend church.
And then there is the entertainment point. Most churches have a certain structure to their church service. They rarely deviate from their traditional forms of worship. It is the same pretty much every Sunday. Though some churches attempt to make changes and to perk up a few things, they often do so half-hazardly, because they don't want to offend or lose their traditional members. To top it off, some ministers love to hear themselves speak, going on and on and on in their sermons. Unfortunately, nowadays, with TV, Internet, and many more distractions, our attention span is diminished. We want to be entertained and have fun. Thus, going to church can be a boring endeavor.
Therefore, keeping all this in mind, is it really so surprising that God is not important to us anymore? We have other more important things to do. Or do we?
It is obvious, churches have to change and adapt to more modern times to make church and faith more attractive. It is doubtful forced attendance is the way to go, nor should outsiders be pressured into accommodating a church's schedule. In the latter case, this would pose quite a dilemma. What if another church with a different schedule and requirements for their members makes a request? Besides, it's doubtful attendance will increase, even if we make Sunday the day of rest again by closing all stores and factories and canceling all sport events.
Churches should not look to the outside to achieve higher membership and worship attendance. Pressure and force will just scare members away. Churches should look to themselves and what changes they can make. They need to present themselves differently to attract members and to spread the faith. It is up to the minister to properly 'heard' and guide his or her 'sheep'. If it is not impressed upon the member that church is more important than worldly matters, than the minister is not doing his or her job. The church has to find a gentle way to make church more important than all the other commitments a member might have. If there is a choice between mowing the lawn and church, or sport and church, reasonable arguments should be made as to why church is more important and how the member will benefit from the community of the church and the spiritual well being which can be achieved through regular church attendance.
More resources:
http://www.wiscnews.com/pdr/news//index.php?ntid=205924
http://www.state-journal.com/news/article/2384122
By Susanne Jones
Rev. John Yockey of St. Jerome Parish in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, made the decision to offer a discount on the Parish's school tuition, if the parents agree to attend church on at least seven of every ten Sundays. Before this move, being a member of the church was sufficient to receive the discount. More and more churches with schools associated to them offer discounts to active and participating members of the church, making an increase in church attendance a primary goal in this effort.
In a recent article in 'The State-Journal' by Sara Gividen, a Frankfort, KY, Baptist minister was described as expressing disapproval about the fact that the young athletes in his congregation had to choose between attending church or playing sports. He requested from local youth sport organizer to schedule games and practices at other times than Wednesday evenings and Sundays. It appears he felt compelled to enlist the media in his quest to ensure something is done to allow those athletes to attend church.
Why does a minister feel forced to take such a step? Attendance in churches across the country has been decreasing for decades with only a brief increase after 9/11. Furthermore, those members, who stick around and regularly attend church, are usually older and in the second half of their expected lifespan. Therefore, churches increasingly struggle to attract new members, especially those from the younger population.
There are several reasons why church attendance is down. First and foremost, with the scientific progress, and a possible scientific explanation for anything and everything, it is difficult to believe in the existence of God. God just does not appear to be so all-powerful anymore.
Secondly, there have been many scandals surrounding the churches in recent years, especially the Catholic Church. The trust in the ministers and priests has diminished. Their worldliness has become too obvious. Can such a person really give me good spiritual advice? What does a catholic priest know about marriage and parenthood, if he himself has never experienced it? Shouldn't the person leading the congregation be closer to God? Sort of have a direct line to God? Be a perfect human being the way God wants us to be? The questionable behavior of some of the ministers and priests has made it more difficult for others to 'herd their sheep'.
Thirdly, and most importantly, our lives have become incredibly busy. Who has time for God anymore? We have more important things to do. Sunday is not the day of rest anymore for many of us. Stores are open; factories don't stop their assembly lines. Many of us have to work. While maybe fifty years ago it might have been frowned upon to run your lawnmower on Sundays or do any visible to the neighbor work around the house, this is not the case anymore. With our schedules full throughout the week, the weekend is left to keep up with the chores around the house and/or shopping and relaxing. And yes, there is sporting events to attend and other commitments, especially if you have children. And most importantly, even if we have nothing else to do, the weekend is our only chance to sleep in. The day of rest does not include getting up early to attend church.
And then there is the entertainment point. Most churches have a certain structure to their church service. They rarely deviate from their traditional forms of worship. It is the same pretty much every Sunday. Though some churches attempt to make changes and to perk up a few things, they often do so half-hazardly, because they don't want to offend or lose their traditional members. To top it off, some ministers love to hear themselves speak, going on and on and on in their sermons. Unfortunately, nowadays, with TV, Internet, and many more distractions, our attention span is diminished. We want to be entertained and have fun. Thus, going to church can be a boring endeavor.
Therefore, keeping all this in mind, is it really so surprising that God is not important to us anymore? We have other more important things to do. Or do we?
It is obvious, churches have to change and adapt to more modern times to make church and faith more attractive. It is doubtful forced attendance is the way to go, nor should outsiders be pressured into accommodating a church's schedule. In the latter case, this would pose quite a dilemma. What if another church with a different schedule and requirements for their members makes a request? Besides, it's doubtful attendance will increase, even if we make Sunday the day of rest again by closing all stores and factories and canceling all sport events.
Churches should not look to the outside to achieve higher membership and worship attendance. Pressure and force will just scare members away. Churches should look to themselves and what changes they can make. They need to present themselves differently to attract members and to spread the faith. It is up to the minister to properly 'heard' and guide his or her 'sheep'. If it is not impressed upon the member that church is more important than worldly matters, than the minister is not doing his or her job. The church has to find a gentle way to make church more important than all the other commitments a member might have. If there is a choice between mowing the lawn and church, or sport and church, reasonable arguments should be made as to why church is more important and how the member will benefit from the community of the church and the spiritual well being which can be achieved through regular church attendance.
More resources:
http://www.wiscnews.com/pdr/news//index.php?ntid=205924
http://www.state-journal.com/news/article/2384122
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
The Brick Testament: The Ten Commandments
http://www.amazon.com/Brick-Testament-Ten-Commandments/dp/1594740445/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247456562&sr=1-1
If you're a LEGO lover and a literalist, then this is the site for you. The Bible stories told through LEGO pieces.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Monday, May 4, 2009
JESUS ACTION FIGURES
Okay, there isn't anything new about Jesus' action figure. I just found somewhat ironic that one of these action figures, the Jesus as "I AM PEACE," was wearing a military uniform. A bit of irony, not sure if it was intention, because the viewer could interpret this as either Jesus against war or for war (and whethere Jesus is for peace through war).
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Friday, May 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)