When God announces that Sarah will have a son she laughs in her heart (Genesis 18:10) and God calls her on it.  An often overlooked item is that Abraham laughed as well when God first makes the promise that he will have a son through Sarah in Genesis 17:17.  Sure enough, in Genesis 21:1-3 we see the birth of Isaac just as God had said and his name actually means ‘he laughs’ which is a play on the word used for Sarah’s laughter in Genesis 18:12 and Abraham’s laughter in Genesis 17:17.  There are several instances where God intervenes to produce a child throughout the Old and New Testaments.  In Judges 13 God appears to Manoah’s wife first and then to Manoah and announces the birth of Samson.  In both of these cases the women were barren but God opened their wombs.  There are others in the Old Testament but I want to point out that the angel Gabriel announced the birth of both Jesus and John the Baptist to Mary and Zechariah, respectively.  Of course Mary was a virgin, an unlikely predicament to be in while pregnant.  In the case of Zechariah, Luke states that Elizabeth was barren (Luke 1:7) and as Zechariah is doubting Gabriel he notes that both he and Elizabeth are too old to have children (Luke 1:18).

The birth of Isaac was a fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham.  God had promised a son through Sarah and it was through him that he would become a great nation and ultimately through Jesus (from Abraham to Isaac to Jacob to Judah to David) that all nations of the earth would be blessed (Genesis 12:1-3; 17:18-19; 22:18).  But if the announcement that Sarah could give birth at the age of 90 was surprising enough imagine Abraham’s belief that Isaac would be resurrected by God some 30 years later.

In Genesis 22 God tells Abraham to take Isaac up to the land of Moriah and offer him as a burnt offering.  There are a few things worth mentioning here to help establish Isaac pre-figuring Christ:

• Isaac was called Abraham’s “only son” (Genesis 22:2) even though Abraham had 2 sons at this point.  Jesus is called God’s only son.
• Isaac was to be sacrificed at the same place Jesus was crucified (Genesis 22:14).
• The journey to the place where Isaac would be offered was a 3 day journey (Genesis 22:4) as Jesus was in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights.
• Isaac carried the wood up the mountain (Genesis 22:6) just as Jesus carried part of the cross.
• Abraham and Isaac went together in agreement (Genesis 22:8) as Jesus and His father were in agreement.

The entire chapter of Genesis 22 seems inexhaustible at times but I think this should suffice for the purposes of this discussion.  At the end of the chapter God interrupts Abraham from finishing the task (Genesis 22:11), just as Abraham had cryptically predicted in Genesis 22:8.  Abraham calls the place ‘The LORD will provide” in Genesis 22:14.  Hebrews 11:17-19 declares that Abraham believed God would raise Isaac from the dead.  This is genuine faith.  God had promised through Isaac the nation would be born so as far as Abraham was concerned God would have to resurrect him.

In Genesis 24:1-9 Abraham commissions his eldest servant to find a bride for Isaac.  The servant agrees and what follows is a lengthy passage regarding the servants journey to the country from which Abraham came.  Abraham had told the servant to find a bride for Isaac from among his kindred in Genesis 24:4 instead of from the land they were currently staying.  When the servant arrives he prays that God would make the bride he should choose be known to him by way of a sign – in particular a sign that demonstrates Rebekah’s hospitality (Genesis 24:12-14).  As he’s praying Rebekah arrives and does as he had asked of God.

Rebekah and the servant introduce themselves and the servant asks for a place to stay.  We are introduced to Laban who is the grandson of Abraham’s brother Nahor.  He shows up later in Genesis as Jacob flees from Esau.  Laban offers the servant some food and a place to stay (Genesis 24:31-33).  It’s at this point the servant explains the reason for his being there.  As the narrative continues we see they are all in agreement.  Rebekah leaves with the servant and they head back to the Negeb to meet Isaac (Genesis 24:50-60).

So how does any of this prefigure the rapture?  The stories of Enoch and Lot weren’t quite as subtle as all of this may seem but what actually takes place across the chapters from Genesis 21-24 is a panorama of history; from the offering of Isaac pre-figuring the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ to the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah pre-figuring the gathering of the bride of Christ, His church.

One of the first things to note is the absence of Isaac from the narrative between Genesis 22:9 and Genesis 24:62.  Genesis 22:9 is where Isaac is bound; it’s at this point where we can figure he is offered as a burnt offering – figuratively speaking.  In Genesis 22:19 we see that Abraham returns to his servants but there is no mention of Isaac.  Of course, we presume he is there since he wasn’t literally sacrificed but the text has gone out of it’s way to eliminate Isaac from the picture.  This isn’t unlike the New Testament where we understand that from Acts 1:6-11 (the ascension) through Revelation 19, Jesus is not physically on the earth.

When Abraham commissions his eldest servant he is not mentioned by name.  In fact, throughout the entire narrative of Genesis 24 the servant is never mentioned by name.  But we do know his name; from Genesis 15:2 we meet him as Eliezer.  At the time, he is the heir of Abraham since Abraham is childless.  In John 15:26-27 we read two things about the Holy Spirit: He is called The Comforter (Helper, Counselor, Encourager; also John 14:26) and He testifies of Christ or, in other words, He will not testify of Himself (also, John 16:7-8 and John 16:13).  The servant in Genesis 24 never speaks of his own accord, but continually speaks for his master, Abraham (Genesis 24:12; 27; 34-35; 49; 56).  What’s more, the name Eliezer means ‘comforter’.  The servant, Eliezer pre-figures the Holy Spirit.

There are several items that deserve attention in regards to Rebekah.  She comes from the same city that Abraham came from, Mesopotamia, which is Babylon.  Babylon is very much a picture of the world throughout the Bible.  Further, she comes from Abraham’s family line just as the Christian is the spiritual seed of Abraham (Romans 4:16).

In Genesis 24:11 we see that Eliezer arrived at the well in the evening.  This is significant because the evening symbolizes disorder, confusion, chaos and in this regard could be likened to the coming persecution and tribulations experienced by the Jewish people as well as the Christian from the time of the ascension to the present day.  The Jewish day begins and ends at sundown in order to help signify the idea of light coming after the darkness.  This is why in Genesis 1 we see that for each day there was evening and morning.  To further illustrate this, when Jacob flees Esau in Genesis 28:10-11 the narrative notes the sun had set and it was night.  Likewise when he returns in Genesis 32:31 the narrative notes that the sun rose as he passed Penuel, a changed man. This deserves attention because when we do meet Isaac again, in Genesis 24:63, the text makes special mention that Isaac was coming out toward the evening which can be symbolically linked to the Great Tribulation; only here, Rebekah is now with her husband taking shelter, reminiscent of Isaiah 26:19-21.

Note also, in Genesis 24:11, Eliezer arrives at a ‘well of water’ which may be symbolic of the outpouring of the Spirit.  In Genesis 24:16 Rebekah is noted to be a virgin, likewise Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:2 states that he wants to present the believer to Christ as a pure virgin.  Finally, Rebekah is gifted by Eliezer just as the believer is gifted by the Spirit (Genesis 24:22).  After Eliezer explains the proposal to Rebekah, the narrative notes that Rebekah went and told all of this to her mother’s household (Genesis 24:28) much like we are commissioned to spread the Gospel.  Much more could be said about Rebekah but this should at least demonstrate that she is the type of the bride of Christ.

It is at the end of the passage, Genesis 24:62-67, we see Isaac (the groom) returns as evening is coming (the Tribulation) and Eliezer (the Spirit) is bringing (the rapture) Rebekah (the bride) to meet him face to face for the first time; much like at the time when the bride of Christ will be changed to meet Jesus face to face for the first time.

In Genesis 12:1-3, God calls Abram and tells him to leave his country, his kindred and his father’s house.  Interestingly in Genesis 12:4 we see that Abram’s nephew Lot went with him.  While they were sojourning in the land of Canaan both of them continued to prosper – so much so that the land they were staying in couldn’t contain them (Genesis 13:6) and there were quarrels happening between the herdsmen (Genesis 13:7).  Eventually Abram and Lot part ways.  Abram’s desire is to have no strife between the families and in Genesis 13:8-9 he offers Lot the first choice of where to go.  Genesis 13:12-13 explains that Lot chooses the Jordan Valley and moves his home as far as Sodom.  This is where the text first hints at the wickedness of Sodom.

There are two occurrences in the narrative that affect Abram, Lot and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.  The first happens in Genesis 14 where we read of a rebellion against Chedarlaomer, the king of Elam, that results in the people and possessions of Sodom and Gomorrah being taken captive.  Abram gets word of this from one who manages to escape (Genesis 14:13) and takes off to rescue his nephew.  The mission is successful (Genesis 14:15-16) and the people and possessions of Sodom are restored.

The second occurrence happens a bit later in the narrative of Genesis 18-19.  Abraham (who’s name had been changed from Abram in Genesis 17:5) is greeted by 3 men whom we find out to be YHWH along with two angels (Genesis 18:1-3).  When YHWH takes the form of a man in the Old Testament it is often referred to as a theophany, or pre-incarnate Jesus.  Most of these occurrences are more subtle but this particular one in Genesis 18 is made very clear.  After they eat, the two angels depart and God stays back in order to let Abraham know that He is going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.  What then follows is an interesting dialogue where Abraham intercedes and pleads for the life of the righteous in the city.  He starts by asking God if he would destroy the city if there were 50 righteous in it (Genesis 18:23-25).  God answers that he would not destroy the city for the 50 (Genesis 18:26).  Abraham continues to ask if the city would be spared for 45, 40, 30, 20 and finally 10.  Each time God answers that he would spare the city.  We can imagine that Abraham wanted to ask if he would spare the city for 1 righteous but at this point he doesn’t dare to.  We’re immediately taken to Sodom where the two angels who had left Abraham earlier arrive and Lot greets them.

Lot is ‘sitting in the gate’ in Genesis 19:1 which demonstrates that he has become a man of prominence in the city.  This probably is somewhat due to the fact that his uncle had rescued the city and restored the people along with all their belongings but no doubt Lot left many compromises along the way.  While there is much to be said of Genesis 19, the main point for our sake is that the angels insist that Lot and his family be gathered and leave the city immediately.  Lot’s soon to be sons-in law think that Lot is kidding and don’t bother to listen (Genesis 19:14) and Lot himself is having a hard time leaving (Genesis 19:16).  Eventually the men grab all of them, Lot, his wife and his two daughters and forcefully remove them from the city.  One of the angels explains that they must flee and not look back.  Lot asks permission to go to Zoar instead of the hills to which they were told to run to and the angel grants him the request in Genesis 19:21-22.  Unfortunately, Lot’s wife does look back and turns to a pillar of salt while Lot and his daughters head to Zoar.  Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed.  Abraham looks up from where he had pleaded with God and sees the smoke billowing up from the land.

An interesting observation of the two occurrences concerning Lot and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.  In the first, Lot is taken captive and the city is saved for his sake.  In the second, Lot is freed and the city is destroyed for the sake of Abraham and Lot (Genesis 19:29).  The second probably wouldn’t have happened had Abraham not saved Lot to begin with.  What would have become of Lot if Abraham hadn’t rescued him?  It is through Abraham’s intercession that Lot was saved from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah at all and if these cities are pictures of sin and the world it shows that Lot was a slave to them even though his intentions may have been good.

Lot is indeed gentile even though he is Abraham’s nephew since the people of Israel only came from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob.  In 2 Peter 2:7-8 Peter calls Lot righteous and explains that he was distressed over the wickedness of Sodom.  He probably desired to reform the city through his position.  2 Peter 2:8 indicates his heart was tested (he was tormenting his heart) so he clearly didn’t approve of what was going on in the world in which he lived.  The text in the Genesis narrative demonstrates that the angels had to forcefully remove him and his family from the city.  The word harpazo in the greek, translated rapturo in the latin which we get the word ‘rapture’ from, is a ‘snatching up’ indicating a forceful taking.

Jesus makes a linkage to this event while describing the coming day of judgement both in Matthew 10:15 and Matthew 11:23-24.  He also links it to the time of his second coming in Luke 17:28-30, the same passage where he linked back to the flood of Noah.  Sodom and Gomorrah very much typify the world and their destruction much as the Great Tribulation.

Lot and his daughters (a picture of the church) are removed prior to the destruction (the Great Tribulation) of Sodom and Gomorrah (a picture of the world).

So just who is Enoch? Genesis 5:21-24 states:

When Enoch had lived 65 years, he fathered Methuselah. Enoch walked with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Enoch were 365 years. Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.

This far back text introduces us to him and alludes to the idea that Enoch didn’t die but couldn’t be found because God took him.  One could argue he must have died, but there’s a problem with that.  There is a consistent theme in Genesis 5 in that every person we meet in the genealogy has one thing in common: and he died (save Noah and his three sons who ultimately die after the flood). Nevertheless, Hebrews 11:5 makes it very clear that he did not die:

By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God.

Enoch looks like a picture of the church.  He is a gentile (Abram hasn’t been called this far back) who is taken up by God and doesn’t see death.  He is called a prophet in Jude 14.  Enoch, to the best of our understanding, was raptured.  669 years later the worldwide flood destroys all of man except for Noah, his 3 sons and their wives – 8 people in all.

The ark has often been described as a picture of Christ.  The same word used for pitch is used for atonement many times throughout the Bible.  There is one door (John 10:9) and many rooms (John 14:2).  The only ones who were saved were those in the ark (John 10:9).

Likewise the flood is often viewed as a picture of the great tribulation.  Jesus makes a direct link to the time when discussing the signs of his 2nd coming in Matthew 24:37-42 and Luke 17:26-27.

Noah and his family were preserved in the ark during the flood. They become a picture of the remnant of Israel being preserved through the tribulation as discussed in Revelation 12:14, Zechariah 13:8-9, Micah 2:12 and elsewhere.

Enoch (the church) is raptured prior to the flood (the tribulation) while Noah and his family (the remnant of Israel) is saved.

In regards to the debate about whether there actually is a rapture or not, I feel the text is very simple.  There are two descriptions of a rapture occurring at some point given to us in 1 Corinthians 15:51-54 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.  Often discussions of whether the rapture happens at all takes place around the 1 Thessalonians 4 passage and the passage in 1 Corinthians 15 doesn’t get addressed.  This isn’t a discussion about that but I thought I would sum up 3 things from these passages before looking at the 7 illustrations individually.  They are:

1. The dead will be raised prior to the living being translated (1 Cor 15:52; 1 Thess 4:15-17)
2. The living will be caught up (harpazo; rapture – 1 Thess 4:17) and changed or translated (1 Cor 15:52)
3. All this will take place in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye (1 Cor 15:52), at the sound of the trumpet (1 Cor 15:52; 1 Thess 4:16)

I think it’s clear that Paul has the same time frame and ideas in view for both of these passages.  The fact that Paul is addressing this same topic in much the same fashion demonstrates that he isn’t just creating some idea on a whim.  Rather, his doctrine has been ironed out and dealt with.  At some point, no matter how much you choose to allegorize the text, people who are living are going to be changed/translated into their eternal state and this is what we commonly refer to as the rapture.

With that understanding in place, the posts that follow will discuss each of the 7 types in detail that are found throughout Scripture illustrating a pre/mid-tribulation rapture.

A recent article in the Sacramento Bee took smear to a new level against Dr. Mercola who is a major backer of the ballot initiative.  It’s a great propaganda piece that’s full of apologetic opportunity.  All article snippets will be in maroon/bold.

Rich people with a cause cannot seem to resist inflicting their world views on California politics, no matter if they are levelheaded or wacky, and no matter where they reside.

I really don’t know how much of this is the case.  The term ‘rich’ is pretty vague.  The question should arise as to what, in Dan Morain’s mind, constitutes as ‘rich’.  As we find out later, he’s really interested in railing against Dr. Mercola’s $500,000 contribution and the fact that he doesn’t operate in California, but instead of dealing with ‘why’ that’s actually an issue, he takes attacks against Mercola’s operation in order to damage Mercola’s credibility.  But we should think about the opening line for a minute.  Choosing the verb ‘inflict’ in this case is really ridiculous because the term is used to describe a forced unpleasant experience but in the same line he suggests this is the case even if the ‘world view’ is levelheaded.

It’s important to be a detective with what people actually say.  Dan Morain may argue he’s using colorful language to evoke emotion but it’s obviously sided and the reader then needs to recognize this.  In this case, from the very first line, we should note that we have a hasty generalization, vague or undefined terms as well as a contradicting point.  We would be justified in disregarding the rest of the piece on the grounds of it being logically incoherent.

Although there’s no proof that genetically modified food has caused anyone’s nose to fall off, 

It’s not uncommon to see people respond to arguments that no one is making.  This is a good example of exaggeration used to besmirch the opposition.  Of course, the opposition isn’t claiming that GMO’s cause your nose to fall off.   In fact, the whole debate of whether GMO’s are unhealthy or not really isn’t even relevant to the point that people have a right to know if they exist in the food that they buy.  But this much, Dan already knows:

labeling is not a terribly bad idea. People like to know what they’re eating.

Bingo.  And people are much less likely to eat the food that they are eating if they realized said food is largely made with genetically modified ingredients.  I wonder how the public would react to the fact that more than half the food inside the isles of your grocery store would suddenly bear labels indicating the product contains GMO’s?  The very same products they’ve been eating all along.  How many manufacturers would seek to change their recipe’s so as to avoid the label?

Mercola refused to talk with me. Evidently, I have that effect on some people. But that doesn’t mean he keeps his own counsel. Mercola is all over the Internet, offering his world view to whoever will listen and buy his wares.

Not that Dan Morain keeps his own counsel, this could be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  What does Dan Morain think he’s doing when he writes this article (or any of his articles, for that matter)?  But what I find most interesting is Dan’s use of the term ‘worldview’.  In the words of Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I’m tempted to think Dan is throwing the term around because it’s been getting a lot of buzz this past week due to Santorum and his comments regarding Obama’s worldview (or theology as he originally stated).  I don’t know if this is the case since I haven’t read any other writing of his but at least in this case he’s using it poorly.

A worldview is a system of thought.  It is the framework by which we interpret the world around us.  Everyone has a worldview whether they know it or not.  It is not simply an idea or set of ideas but rather a foundational set of principles by which you interpret everything around you.  It is often described as the lens by which you see the world and hence we get the term worldview.

Dan seems to be using the term throughout this article as though a worldview is any set of ideas or opinions and that’s simply not the case since ideas and opinions are actually the product of your worldview, not the worldview itself.

Dan then goes on to list some of the views of Dr. Mercola that he apparently takes issue with.  His setup is this:

But he certainly has a dark world view, particularly when he turns to the Food and Drug Administration,which tries to police outlandish claims by the alternative health industry.

Make note of the use of the word ‘outlandish’.  By listing some of Dr. Mercola’s ideas without actually linking to the information on why he holds them he makes them sound ‘outlandish’ but in reality, anyone who’s invested any time reading some of Mercola’s informative articles knows that Mercola hardly makes claims on a whim.  All of this is great at evoking emotion but we need to ask: is the way it’s being presented a true representation of Mercola’s practice?  Hardly.  In fact, Dan Morain could have linked to some of Mercola’s articles on the topics he brought up but he doesn’t, probably because he knows he’s misrepresenting the claims.  And how hard would it have been for Dan to do?  Well Dan brought up these topics and I’m linking to those very keywords as search terms on Mercola’s site:

• Artificial sweeteners
• Non-stick cooking surfaces
• Microwaves from cellphones
• Chemotherapy kills rather than cures children with cancer
• Prescription drugs kill huge numbers of people
• Raw milk is good for you

That took me about 3 or 4 minutes to do.  I doubt that Dan is too incompetent to do the same.  But he doesn’t stop there.

Recently, he announced creation of an organization called Health Liberty and used the occasion to call for an end to dental amalgam, though studies show it causes no harm;

But other studies show it can indeed cause harm due to mercury toxicity, so which is it?

fluoridation, despite evidence that it reduces tooth decay;

Yet there’s evidence that flouride causes dental fluorosis, so which is it?

and vaccinations, though they have spared countless people from diseases and death.

There’s evidence that vaccinations have also caused countless people a lifetime of illness and even death, so which is it?

Morain seems to have the goal of discrediting the ballot initiative by discrediting one of its major supporters.  In the end, the attempt to discredit Mercola (at least in the article) should be thrown out due to the logical inconsistencies noted from the first line and the misrepresentation given in the bulk of the piece.  But after all of this, what should be noted most of all, is that the credibility of Mercola is irrelevant to ballot initiative.  The issue is whether people want to know if they are eating GMO’s.  Dan then goes on to explain some of his problems with the proposal, one of the most ridiculous is:

However, the wording is ambiguous and could be interpreted to bar companies from calling any product “natural” if it has been subject to “processing such as canning, smoking, pressing, cooking, freezing, dehydration, fermentation or milling.” Think about that one. Rice and wheat are milled. Olives must be pressed to make olive oil.

This simply isn’t the case.  Dan has misunderstood the issue that most processed foods contain GMO ingredients and any containing GMO ingredients should not be labeled “natural”.  Not that processed foods can’t be labeled “natural” because they’ve been processed (especially in the statement made above).

Right now, any food containing soy, corn, canola or cottonseed either as an ingredient or an item that one or more of the ingredients are derived from (that’s the really tricky part) is most assuredly a food that contains GMO’s.  Dan missed the point entirely.  As the OCA explains in their response to this very article:

Morain must not understand what genetic engineering is. He heard that “virtually all processed foods” would have to be labeled and somehow he figured this was because of the way they were processed. Morain doesn’t get that almost all processed foods contain ingredients that are genetically engineered.

The article then goes on the defense for GMO’s.

…though professor Martina Newell-McGloughlin, director of Life & Health Sciences Research Development in the UC Davis Office of Research, points out that humans have been modifying crops for 10,000 years.

This is a frequently used talking point.  There is a huge difference between cross-breeding plants and taking specific genes from an animal and inserting them into the seed of a plant in order to create a plant that grows pesticides that kill the insects that eat it.  But again, this is irrelevant.  The question is whether or not consumers have a right to know what food manufacturers are putting into their food.

This issue doesn’t change if we all decided Mercola was untrustworthy.  It doesn’t change if all of its primary supporters come from outside California.  Interestingly enough, it is not uncommon for states to watch legislation in other states before enacting a similar bill.  The question for each Californian is simply this: Do you want to know if there are GMO’s in the food you purchase from your grocery store?

Let’s not forget, Dan started his article stating quite clearly:

labeling is not a terribly bad idea. People like to know what they’re eating.

But then he ends it with:

My suggestion is that when initiative barkers ask you to sign the petition, keep walking.

And finally:

We have our share of nuts, modified and otherwise. We don’t need to import any more.

That doesn’t make any sense since labeling food isn’t importing anything.  I guess it sounds nice but it certainly isn’t thinking critically. How about letting people decide for themselves while helping them get at the proper information they may need to do so?

Seemingly out of nowhere a man by the name of Eric Allen Bell shows up and is causing quite a bit of a stir.  There were many of us who thought he may have been some sort of agent-provocateur being used to stir the pot and get a documentary movie out of the deal.  Whether or not this was indeed the case, I don’t know, but he was successful at stirring the pot and getting any voice of the opposition that could be used in a way to make the town look ridiculous the publicity he wanted.  He was able (with the help of the local media) to paint Murfreesboro as some sort of religiously bigoted town with the local residents opposed to anything but some sort of fringe evangelical Christianity.  Of course, such a picture is ridiculous to anyone who actually lives here but that didn’t matter since the truth was a lot harder to get on the front page of the daily paper.

At one point I had landed in a few comment threads and proceeded to engage Eric in order to determine where he stood and if he could back up what he supposedly believed.  The discussion that took place was a a trail of talking points that did nothing but evoke emotion.  The constant asserting method he used proved he hadn’t really thought about the issue nor did he care to.  In the end, I deemed the viewpoint of Eric to be hypocritical, intolerant and religiously bigoted – the very terms he and most of the crowd he had gathered were so eager to throw around.  I decided to post those discussions along with my comments on this site.  Since the opposition couldn’t get a proper voice in the matter, I figured I could at least demonstrate that we had one.

Soon enough, Eric had left town, just as quickly has he had showed up.  All the sites that he had going were given pointers to his main site.  Obviously he had what he needed and everything began to calm down regarding the ICM and their proposed mosque.

Then last week, almost out of the blue, an article shows up on the David Horowitz site titled ‘The High Price of Telling the Truth About Islam’.  What then follows is an incredible tale of what took place here in Murfreesboro through the eyes of Eric Allen Bell having somewhat recently changed his position entirely. After reading it I immediately recalled the discussion that I had had with him and the posts I had created regarding them.  When I moved this site to a new host, I let the previous site go without backup.  The only posts that existed were the ones regarding the discussion with Eric Bell and I felt they had run their course.  With the new article he had written I thought it might be worthwhile to look at them again.  I am only linking to the web archive for those posts, rather than recreating them here.  My intention for doing so is not to demean Eric by any means, I simply want to demonstrate what a change of heart he has seemed to have – it is a far cry from what we were hearing a year and a half ago and one that has come with a price as he notes quite well in the article.

If Richard Dawkins imagines that Christians are Christian by means of knowing the first book of the New Testament (or any of the other questions on the survey) then he would be wise to read at least a handful of actual passages of the Bible.  Granted it is a sad state for professing Christians in the developed world to be in, but it has nothing to do with whether or not they actually believe Jesus to be the Son of God who died as a ransom for their sins.

What makes the exchange comical isn’t that fact that Dawkins doesn’t know the subtitle to Darwin’s On The Origin Of Species.  It’s that he just finished telling Fraser he does and Fraser calls him on it.  Dawkins turns into a sloppy mess in a matter of a couple seconds.

Anyone taking Dawkins with any sort of sincerity should probably rethink their position.  Over the last year, in particular, the man has seemingly been on a quest to demonstrate just how intellectually naive he really is.  Audio of the exchange is here.

Smoking the last bowl of this tin was somewhat bittersweet.  I was enjoying it outside in the chilly winter air with a little bit of daylight left, grey skies and the streets had just a touch of fog.  Westminster has a warming character about it that’s hard to describe.  I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the last ounce or so as it’s cooled off this season more and more.  The flavors, aroma and the body of the smoke is comforting this time of year.  I’ve enjoyed this blend in four pipes: my Ben Wade freehand, an old Meerschaum, a black-walnut nosewarmer made by a friend of mine (Jonathan Sullivan) and most recently my Neerup Classic.  My favorites for Westminster are the nosewarmer and Neerup.  The Neerup was partially broken in with 4 half-bowls from this tin and as it’s been dedicated to English blends it really seems to allow Westminster to shine.

Westminster was my first tin of pipe tobacco.  Prior to the purchase I had really only smoked a few McClelland bulk blends and a few house blends carried by The Humidor.  As a novice pipe-smoker I really had no idea what I was getting myself into.  I knew I liked the English blends most thus far and after reading the post by Greg (linked above) it only seemed fitting to give it a try.

This blend has never left me disappointed.  It’s delicious from appearance to finish.  The tin aroma is smoky and woodsy, best described as a campfire and the charlight really brings that out even more, particularly since the flavor is much like you’d expect from the aroma.  Once the bowl is lit the flavors continue to keep your interest all the way through to the end.

I’ve enjoyed Westminster from the moment I first opened the tin but it wasn’t until I was about half-way through it that I realized more of the distinct flavors I was tasting and that was due to receiving a gift of Dunhill Elizabethan Mixture.  Since that was really my introduction to Virginia blends it refined my palate a bit to identify more of what I was experiencing in the smoke.  I remember the first time I had a bowl of Westminster after I had a few bowls of Elizabethan Mixture and being immediately taken by surprise by the similarities that were coming in and out of the bowl.  After that, Westminster has seemed even more complex, more interesting and more enjoyable.

Westminster has earned a place in my regular rotation.  I really can’t say enough to do it justice.  While it may be somewhat sentimental due to the fact that it played such an introduction to this hobby for me, I’ve had numerous blends since and all in all, Westminster is still at the top of my list – in fact, it’s only grown on me.  So it’s perfectly fitting that this inaugural post be about my inaugural tin – the first tin of what I hope to be many.  And while I’ll likely never be able to try that infamous Dunhill London Mixture of yesteryear, I have a feeling Westminster may end up being for me what that blend was for Greg and obviously many, many others.