Posts by corpusdei

4

Looking for some help/critique on an article on apostolic succession

by corpusdei in

i just finished up on an article examining the idea of apostolic succession.

i think i've done a fair job of examining the other side of the issue than that put forward in the reasoning book, but the idea itself is one that i'm pretty unfamiliar with (and what i do remember is incredibally rusty).

can anyone point out any factual or logical issues that i may have made here?.

corpusdei

I just finished up on an article examining the idea of apostolic succession. I think I've done a fair job of examining the other side of the issue than that put forward in the Reasoning book, but the idea itself is one that I'm pretty unfamiliar with (and what I do remember is incredibally rusty). Can anyone point out any factual or logical issues that I may have made here?

Apostolic Succession

The concept of apostolic succession isn't one that tends to come up in the majority of religious discussions. Nevertheless, it acts as a central core for the Roman Catholic Church claiming its legitimacy as the owner of the "One True Religion" title, and disagreements over apostolic succession has been at the root of several major schisms within the Church. The long and short of the belief is the idea that the apostle Peter was the first Pope, with the other apostles functioning as bishops, and the line of catholic papacy has run in a direct succession from that point to today. As the Witnesses, much like every single other religion out there, believe that they are the "One True Religion", it comes as no surprise that they consider the idea of apostolic succession to be incorrect.

Several primary points are involved when considering the idea. First, that the Peter and the apostles functioned with divine authority. Secondly, that their authority was transferable (leading to a succession). Third, that this succession of apostolic authority continued past the original apostles.

A primary scripture held to show that Peter held a primary authority is Matt. 16:18, in which Jesus tells him "Also, I say to you, You are Peter, and on this rock-mass I will build my congregation". As the greek for "Peter" and "rock" are similar, and the words are the same in aramaic (the language that Jesus would likely have been speaking in), it may seem to maintain that claim. The Watchtower does make a legitimate point when stating "in his expression "on this rock" Jesus used a feminine demonstrative pronoun, translated "this," which he would not have done had he meant that Peter is the rock on which his congregation was to be built. It was, no doubt, because this feminine demonstrative pronoun made it apparent that Jesus intended to distinguish between Peter and the rock on which his congregation was to be built that Matthew when translating into Greek used two different nouns, Petros and petra. We cannot imagine Matthew’s being so careless as to use two different nouns if Jesus had not intended to make any distinction. And so we have a modern literal translation of Jesus’ words as follows: "You are Peter [Petros, masculine], and on this rock-mass [petra, feminine] I will build my congregation." (Watchtower 7/15/1957)

This, however, does not completely address the idea of apostolic authority, which is backed up in many other portions of scripture. From a scriptural standpoint, there is a basis to support that:

Jesus acted with divine authority transferred to him (John 7:16-17; 12:49)
The apostles were given divine authority that included the powers to bind and loose (Matt 16:9; 18:8), forgive sins (John 20:21-23), baptize (Matt 28:18-20), and make disciples (Matt 28:18-20)
Christianity is an apostolic religion, founded on the apostles (Eph 2:20)
The apostles constituted a hirarchy of authority that the first century church looked to for guidance (Acts 15:1-30; 2 Cor 2:5-11; 1 Cor 11:27)

Was apostolic authority transferable?

We've already seen that the apostles acted with divine authority. With that, the second point in question is whether this authority was transferable, and more importantly, did the apostles do that? The answer is clear - with the betrayal of Judas, his authority as an apostle was transferred to Matthias (Acts 1:20-26). The authority of his office is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin.

Was there a transfer of authority past the original apostles?

Again, the answer to this question has scriptural basis. As the number of Christians grew, and with it the need for additional oversight, the apostles put in place a transfer, or succession, of authority to additional men, stating "So, brothers, search out for yourselves seven certified men from among you, full of spirit and wisdom, that we may appoint them over this necessary business; ... and they selected Stephen, a man full of faith and holy spirit, and Philip and Proch'orus and Nica'nor and Ti'mon and Par'menas and Nicola'us, a proselyte of Antioch; and they placed them before the apostles, and, after having prayed, these laid their hands upon them." (Acts 6:3-6). This practice continued in other congregations (Acts 14:23)

Also consider:
Col 1:25 - Paul refers to the his position as an official position (a stewardship)
1 Tim. 5:22 - Timothy is advised to be cautious about those he appoints to positions of authority, indicating the power inherent in the position
2 Tim. 2:2; 4:1-6 - Paul institutes a succession of apostolic authority to Timothy and indicates that the succession should continue

Differing Views

After considering all this it's important to note that, inasmuch as a significant amount of scriptural basis can be found in support of the concept, there is just as much basis to reject the idea. Further, the Witnesses are not unique in that stance, as a rejection of the Catholic claim of their legitimacy through apostolic succession is a major factor in the schism between Catholicism and the Protestant branches of Christianity. Points such as a disagreement that the apostle Peter was ever in Rome, as well as criticism of the historical behavior of the Papacy come into play as well. Ultimately, the question of apostolic succession begins to seem like a moot point. All religious organization claim their belief system to be the "One True Religion, with the Witnesses being no different - the choice of whether to follow one doctrine or another, or to abandon them as the inherently flawed product of superstition and mythology, should be made only after a careful, rational, logical and objective examination of not only the beliefs and consistency of the religion, but more importantly the behavior of its leaders and the organization as a whole.

837

Atheism

by avatar in

jw
friends

.

corpusdei

Qcmbr>>Knowledge must never bow the knee ever again to the superstitious and myths from the nightmares of human history.

Very well put. The difficulty, I think, is that the line between considering religion to be the result of ignorance vs. the result of idiocy gets very easy to blur. Considering it the product of idiocy is demeaning and doesn't get anyone anywhere, but ignorance can be dispelled. Should be dispelled if we as a society are to make any notable progress.

It is, in a way, an equally evangelical viewpoint, yes, but the point to remember about the majority of the atheist "agenda" is that it comes, not from superstition, fear, and legend, but from consistent, testable rationality. Religion hangs on the untestable.

837

Atheism

by avatar in

jw
friends

.

corpusdei

The question then becomes - should atheism be actively preached to those people?
Should those people even be forced to accept atheism "for the good of all"?
I don't think so - for one thing, it is against basic human rights. For another, I think it would be culturally a disaster.

While I look at religion with a fair amount of ... disdain, to put it politely ... I do agree wholeheartedly that forcing the issue by political or marshal power would be morally culpable. On the same note, however, I think it critical that public secular groups, particularly government, must be maintained as belief-neutral and antheistic as possible. Otherwise that same political and marshal force will be used to legislate religiously based morality, something that organized religion has shown itself quite willing to do time and time again.

837

Atheism

by avatar in

jw
friends

.

corpusdei

Religion is, at its core, born of ignorance. Throughout history, we as a species have been driven to understand the workings of the cosmos. Where that understanding was beyond us, or we fell short of reaching it, it's blind faith that we've turned to in order to fill in the gaps, and explain the discrepancies. "Why does the sun go round the sky? I don’t know, so I will attribute it to the efforts of a sun god with a golden chariot." "Why do people die? I can’t say, but I will choose to believe it is the murky business of a reaper who carries souls to some afterworld."

That religious faith, that belief in daemons, in spirits, in an afterlife and all the other trappings of a preternatural existence, simply existed to make us all more comfortable and content in the face of a measureless cosmos. They were bolsters for the soul, crutches for the intellect, charms and fetishes to help us through the darkness. Now, as we make mammoth leaps forward in our understanding of our world and our universe, we have witnessed the cosmos, learning more and understood more about reality. And as we continue to draw that curtain back, as we've become more able to take that measure of the cosmos, we see that the stars have no clockwork mechanisms, no golden chariots carrying them abroad. We're starting to realize that there is no need for god, or any gods, and by extension no use any longer for demons or devils or spirits. The greatest thing mankind could ever do would be to reinvent itself as wholly as a secular culture.

1

The evolution of christianity

by corpusdei in

i came across the michael moorcock story "behold the man" the other day.

great story by the way, i urge you to check it out, but this quote really stood out:.

"you make the mistake of considering christianity as something that developed over the course of a few years, from the death of jesus to the time the gospels were written.

corpusdei

I came across the Michael Moorcock story "Behold the Man" the other day. Great story by the way, I urge you to check it out, but this quote really stood out:

"You make the mistake of considering Christianity as something that developed over the course of a few years, from the death of Jesus to the time the Gospels were written. But Christianity wasn't new. Only the name was new. Christianity was merely a stage in the meeting, cross-fertilization metamorphosis of Western logic and Eastern mysticism. Look how the religion itself changed over the centuries, re-interpreting itself to meet changing times. Christianity is just a new name for a conglomeration of old myths and philosophies. All the Gospels do is retell the sun myth and garble some of the ideas from the Greeks and Romans. Even in the second century, Jewish scholars were showing it up for the mish-mash it was! They pointed out the strong similarities between the various sun myths and the Christ myth. The miracles didn't happenthey were invented later, borrowed from here and there.

Remember the old Victorians who used to say that Plato was really a Christian because he anticipated Christian thought? Christian thought! Christianity was a vehicle for ideas in circulation for centuries before Christ. Was Marcus Aurelius a Christian? He was writing in the direct tradition of Western philosophy. That's why Christianity caught on in Europe and not in the East!"

It's an interesting viewpoint, and I think there's a lot of validity to it as well as evidence supporting it (Saturnalia being absorbed and becoming Christmas as the birth of Christ, for example). Thoughts?

11

Awake 7/2012: YPA Are we just friends or more? pt.2 (with running snarkiness)

by corpusdei in

original article here.

more snark here.

young people ask - are we just friendsor more?

corpusdei

It's all about creating guilt. You can't manipulate an innocent person, but make them a sinner, make them guilty of their own natures and they can be told what to do to that much more easily.

11

Awake 7/2012: YPA Are we just friends or more? pt.2 (with running snarkiness)

by corpusdei in

original article here.

more snark here.

young people ask - are we just friendsor more?

corpusdei

Original article here
More snark here

YOUNG PEOPLE ASK - Are we just friends—or more? PART 2
In terms of sequals, I'd much rather have had a second season of Firefly, but this is a close second.
......No it's not. Not in any way is this close to a second season of Firefly. In the list of Very Good Things, this is maybe a distant second to an alternate universe populated entirely by mosquitoes. Or a world in which Justin Bieber has been crowned emperor. Even Michigan is higher on my list than this thing.

IN OUR PREVIOUS ISSUE, we considered two facts of life.
- When you get emotionally involved before you’re ready for a serious relationship, you will get hurt. —Proverbs 6:27.
- When you get emotionally involved before you’re ready for a serious relationship, you can lose a good friendship. —Proverbs 18:24.
Well, we didn't so much "consider" it as much as we "endured the literary equivalent of a mugging"

IN THIS ISSUE, we’ll discuss
- A third fact of life about getting emotionally involved
Oh goody. - How you can tell if you have crossed the line in your friendship with someone of the opposite sex
You know, you could just save us the trouble and reprint some articles from the Penthouse Forum. That'd be just as educational and so much more entertaining!

FACT OF LIFE: When you get emotionally involved before you’re ready for a serious relationship, you can hurt your reputation. Mia* says: “I’ve seen boys who are friends with many girls. Basically, they’re 'players.' Wow. "Players"? You really went there? The girls think there’s something going on, but the boy just enjoys the female attention.”
* Some names in this article have been changed.
I always love to see the whole "Some names have been changed" bit. And they include it in every. single. f*cking. article. Come on, guys, we know these quotes are made up, just like we know you're the high command of the U.S.S. Make Sh*t Up, so you can drop the act.

To think about:
- Whether you’re a boy or a girl, how can getting too close to those of the opposite sex affect your reputation? “Texting people of the opposite sex is a huge pitfall. You start by texting just a bit to one person, but soon you’re texting a lot and to many people. Before you know it, you’re pretty much dating three different boys, and each one thinks he is the ‘special one’ you’re getting to know better. When they ?nd out the truth, they get hurt — and you get the reputation of being a flirt.” —Lara. Editors note to "Faceless Witness Ghost Writer#6342-9/B": I'm glad to see you're conforming to the party line and have trotted out the Slippery Slope argument. But it's still not quite enough. Try "You start by texting just one person. Then you're texting a lot. Then you're texting farm animals. Then you get disfellowshipped, your life is ruined, you get AIDS and then you die. Oh, and Jehovah is very disappointed."

The Bible says: “Even by his practices a boy [or a girl] makes himself recognized as to whether his activity is pure and upright.” —Proverbs 20:11.
The bottom line: It isn’t wrong to socialize with members of the opposite sex. But if you don’t have boundaries, you can cause yourself grief, damage a good friendship, and harm your reputation. Every time they pull a quote from Proverbs, I really have to question the wisdom of taking relationship advice from a book written by a guy who had possibly the largest harem in history, along with the opportunity to shag the Queen of Sheba. You wanna talk 'players', I think he fit the bill.

TRUE STORY: “I was friends with a boy, and we got along really well. But then I noticed our conversations were getting longer and more personal. I could tell we were getting a little too close because he would tell me all his concerns. Then one day he e-mailed me and told me he had feelings for me. See what happens when you use that demon technology? See? SEE???I didn’t know what to say. Part of me was flattered — it’s nice when someone thinks you’re special. What, was Jehovah thinking you're special not good enough for you?But I was worried. I knew we couldn’t continue being ‘just friends’ because obviously he thought we were more than that. I knew that if I told him we were too young to have a romantic friendship, he’d be hurt. I told my parents about the whole thing, and they emphasized how important it was for me and for the boy to limit our contact. And here we have the apex of Witness ideology - You're incapable of moral independence, but don't worry, someone else will tell you what to do. That experience made me realize how quickly something can go from completely innocent to very serious. And since then, I’ve been careful to limit my association with the opposite sex, especially when texting. It also helps to socialize in groups rather than pair off. That way your conversations don’t become too personal and your connection with the other person doesn’t become too strong.”—Elena.
TRUE STORY: All I've eaten today is cookie dough, pecan pie and three shots of Jack Daniels. During college my liver needed a crash helmet. And it was awesome.

BOUNDARIES

DO
- associate in easily manipulatedgroups
- get acquainted with disappointment
- enjoy conversation about the watchtower. Be cautious of any subject that might lead to use of logic or rational thought

DON’T
- pair offLook what happened to Samson. He paired off with Delilah, got crabs, and ended up dead. And Jehovah was very disappointed
- confide Because confiding in someone means that you're sharing a secret, and you shouldn't have any secrets, should you?
- flirt Flirting is dirty. Every time you flirt an angel gets a case of the clap (sorry, this article is just ripe for STD jokes).

How can you tell if you’ve crossed the line? Oh, this should be good.One way is to ask yourself, 'Has a friend of the opposite sex become my sole confidant?' Well that was a let-down. “If you’re really just friends with a boy,” says a girl named Erin, “he shouldn’t be the first person you want to talk to every day or the first person you want to tell major news to. He definitely shouldn’t be the one you turn to for emotional comfort.” Remember, the ultimate goal here is manipulation. By creating an alienation during the normal process of adolescence, while managing to instill a sense of guilt over it, you pave the way towards an adult who will, hopefully, be unable or unwilling to create any social connection that is not "approved of" by the Witnesses. You get an adult who has, brick by brick, built their own prison for you.

To think about:
- Why might it seem appealing to make someone of the opposite sex your sole confidant? That could be because it's a natural, normal stage of human development. Just, you know, a thought. But what are the dangers? Jesus, you might grow up somewhat less damaged than your peers. Can't have that. "The boys that I know are not my closest friends. I don’t speak with them on the phone for hours as I might with a girlfriend. And there are some topics I simply won’t discuss with them.” —Rianne. "... as I might with a girlfriend"? No 16 year old girl talks like that, that's not even remotely believable. It sounds like it was written by a 40 year old guy who's had his spirit, soul and happiness crushed. "Faceless Witness Ghost Writer#6342-9/B" - you're slipping!

The Bible says: “Be careful what you say ...A careless talker destroys himself.”—Proverbs 13:3, Good News Translation. I always wonder when they quote from any bible other than the NWT. So, in an article that's been spending a hell of a lot of effort to dance around saying "don't get into a relationship because then you might have S. E. X., the NWT of that scripture is: "The one guarding his mouth is keeping his soul. The one opening wide his lips—he will have ruin." No. No innuendo there. Not at all.
Consider: Is there a risk in revealing too much about yourself to someone of the opposite sex? What if your friendship eventually fades? "What if it fades? You've just spent an article and a half convincing us that any relationship under the age of 25 is automatically doomed to go down in flames. Of syphilis. Syphilis flames of doom await any romance until you're ready to get married. None of this if malarky. Will you regret having revealed such details to that person? OK, snark aside for a moment. I've been there, and taken this advice. You want to know what I regret? I regret not confiding in someone else. I regret never reaching out and learning that I could be special in the eyes of one of my peers. I regret spending my adolescence hating myself because I couldn't burn these sinful thoughts out of me. I regret not being allowed to feel normal, ever. You assholes. A teenager named Alexis sums it up well. She says: “Don’t avoid someone just because that person is of the opposite sex. On the other hand, don’t lie to yourself and say that you’re just friends when you’re not. Keep your feelings in check, and you’ll avoid a lot of pain.” In all of the YPA articles, you'll notice that there's a big emphasis on avoiding pain. Makes sense, I mean who doesn't want to avoid pain, right? (Well, there was that one girl I dated for awhile, but that's beside the point) But the idea here isn't to avoid pain - it's to avoid experience. True, some experience may end up hurting, but even that ends up being a learning experience - the pain of a bad experience will help you make better decisions in the future. More importantly, it will make you understand that pain ends, that you can get through it and out the other side a stronger person. It makes you more self-reliant. But that's not what the Witnesses want. Self-reliant people don't need someone else to control them. Much better to keep people in fear of pain than in helping them understand that they can overcome it.

WHY NOT ASK YOUR PARENTS? Because it's easy to guess what they'd say. Exactly what you tell them to.
Ask your parents for their thoughts on the two “To think about” questions in this article. Do their opinions differ from yours? If so, how? And if your opinion is different from theirs, rest assured - you're wrong.What merit can you see in their point of view?—Proverbs 1:8. Nice scripture. Here's another one that's a little more effective - Leviticus 20:9 - "In case there should be any man who calls down evil upon his father and his mother, he should be put to death without fail"

WHAT YOUR PEERS SAY
I have no peers

Andre — The more time you spend with a girl, the easier it is for feelings to grow and the more that person will think you’re interested in a romantic friendship. If your goals don’t allow for a relationship right now, then don’t make it appear as if you’re trying to start one.
Cassidy — I tend to be outgoing, and since I grew up around boys, I’m very comfortable with them — which is not always a good thing. Treating a boy the way I would a girlfriend is not good — it can give the wrong idea. Treating a boy as if he were my brother is the way to go! Remember, boys are stupid. Throw rocks at them.

A NOTE TO PARENTS See, told you they'd be telling the parents what to say. Am I some sort of demon-possessed psychic or what?
In proper settings, it’s not wrong for young people to socialize with members of the opposite sex. But those who aren’t ready to pursue a relationship that could lead to marriage need to set boundaries. For them, opposite-sex friendships should be just that—friendships and nothing more. Crush any sign of adolescent happiness. It's better on the long run, they'll struggle less when we crush their happiness as adults.

What results when two people get emotionally involved before they’re ready for a serious relationship? Gonorrhea? Any initial thrill soon gives way to frustration. It’s like sitting in a car that has no wheels. Sounds like something that should have been on that "Avoid" list awhile back.Sooner or later, the boy and girl realize that the relationship can’t go anywhere. And why is it that the relationship can't go anywhere? Oh yea, because you said it can't. Neat the way that works, innit?Some may begin to date secretly — a situation that is fraught with moral pitfalls. Because helping them learn be responsible in a relationship just doesn't make sense. They might get ideas. Others break up — a process that can leave both feeling cheated, hurt, and even depressed. Serve Jehovah! Be an emotional cripple! Nifty!How can you help your adolescent to avoid the treacherous path of a premature romance? I've got it. Explain to them the emotional trauma inherent in premature ... um ... other things.— Ecclesiastes 11:10.

The key is to keep an open door of communication with your adolescent when it comes to opposite-sex friendships. That way you’ll be aware of it — and available to help — if a friendship starts to become something more. You can just feel the itch in this entire article, the WTBTS is just biding its time until they perfect a way to lock children away for 18 years while they're programmed to be nice, clean little Witness adults who never question or search for any independence. I can see them watching "The Matrix" and going "Wow, do you think we could get away with that?"

Some parents unwittingly close the door to that part of their adolescent’s social life. Consider what some youths told Awake!
“I always wanted to talk to my mom about whom I was attracted to, but I held back because I thought she would overreact.” — Cara. Cara, Cara, Cara, how could you EVER think that?
“When I’d tell my mom I was attracted to a boy, she would say, ‘Don’t expect me to be at your wedding!’ Yea, that's the Witness reaction I'd expect to see. rather than ‘So tell me about your friend. What do you like about him?’ Had my mom asked questions like those, I might have been more receptive to her advice.” — Nadeine. Yet again, Nadeine (much like Rianne and, well, every other "teen" quoted here) still sounds like "Faceless Witness Ghost Writer#6342-9/B".

In contrast, note the difference when parents have patiently listened and then provided practical guidance.
“My parents didn’t overreact when I told them about a boy I was attracted to. They said what I needed to hear, but they were understanding of my feelings. Because of that, I find it easier to listen to their advice and open up to them further.”—Corrina.No, Doctor. She fell down some stairs.
“When my parents opened up about whom they liked when they were younger — even explaining why a certain relationship didn’t work out — it helped me to realize that it was OK for me to talk to my parents about having feelings for someone.”—Linette. Ran right into an open cabinet door, just wasn't looking where she was going, Doc.

Realize, too, that sometimes there are underlying factors behind premature romances.
“When I was secretly dating a boy, it was because he made me feel happy and he listened to me.” — Annette.
“There’s this one boy I always enjoyed being around. He always gave me attention, which is my weakness. I love attention, good or bad.” — Amy. Can I, um, maybe get Amy's number?
“When my parents sincerely tell me that I look beautiful or that a certain outfit looks good on me, I feel less of a need to get that same sort of compliment from a boy.” — Karen.

Ask yourself:
How can I make myself more approachable to my adolescent? — Philippians 4:5.
Am I “swift about hearing, slow about speaking”? — James 1:19.
How can I reduce the temptation for my adolescent to look outside the home for love and approval? — Colossians 3:21.

The bottom line: Help your adolescent to learn how to keep friendships with the opposite sex aboveboard and problem free. It’s a skill that will serve him or her well in adulthood. — Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-6. But isn't Armageddon just around the corner again? If we're planning that far ahead, then I guess I've got enough time to head out to that "Wow, this is gonna be awkward tomorrow morning" party I've been looking forward to.

15

Got to introduce my wife to actual barbeque over the weekend! (Recipe below for you cookish types)

by corpusdei in

as a southerner, being married to one of them damn yankees has good points and bad points.

not so good - watching her dad throw chicken on the grill, cover it in store-bought sauce and call it bbq.

its a testament to my upbringing that i let that one slide.

corpusdei

out4good3>> *worships* Very true, that is BBQ in it's most pure form. Never tried pecan wood - my uncle always swore by apple and persimmon.

And lighter fluid is the tool of the devil.

15

Got to introduce my wife to actual barbeque over the weekend! (Recipe below for you cookish types)

by corpusdei in

as a southerner, being married to one of them damn yankees has good points and bad points.

not so good - watching her dad throw chicken on the grill, cover it in store-bought sauce and call it bbq.

its a testament to my upbringing that i let that one slide.

corpusdei

Well, NewChapter, the barbeque gods are kind and exist in an eternal state of mild inebriation. And there are many gods in my culinary pantheon, so "I'm not a fan of barbeque" is still heresy, but as long as you haven't committed the sin of Burning Of The Meal, it's certainly forgivable. :)

15

Got to introduce my wife to actual barbeque over the weekend! (Recipe below for you cookish types)

by corpusdei in

as a southerner, being married to one of them damn yankees has good points and bad points.

not so good - watching her dad throw chicken on the grill, cover it in store-bought sauce and call it bbq.

its a testament to my upbringing that i let that one slide.

corpusdei

As a Southerner, being married to one of them damn yankees has good points and bad points. Not so good - Watching her dad throw chicken on the grill, cover it in store-bought sauce and call it BBQ. It’s a testament to my upbringing that I let that one slide. It was still a great meal - the man knows how to grill - but I couldn’t help but feel a little like I’d disappointed some of my heritage.

Which brings me to one of the high points - getting to have her folks over, fire up the grill and showing them how it’s done.

NOTE: I will say that even this isn’t the truest barbeque, but it’s about as close as you can get with a conventional outdoor grill. The purist method would be with hickory or apple woodchips in a separate side burner so the meat never sees direct heat above 300. But this is good enough that I might be forgiven the final step.

Step the first - The Spice
1/2 cup paprika
1/4 cup salt
1/4 cup sugar
2 tablespoons mustard powder
1/8 cup chile powder
1/4 cup ground cumin
2 tablespoons ground black pepper
1/4 cup granulated garlic
2 tablespoons cayenne (or less to taste)

Combine in a container and mix well. This will make about 2 cups worth, so you should have more than enough to save for later. Rub the spice into the chicken, stash the meat back in the fridge and get to making the magic.

Step the second - The Sauce
2 cups ketchup
1/4 cup cider vinegar
1/4 cup Worcestershire sauce
1/2 cup firmly packed brown sugar
2 tablespoons molasses
2 tablespoons prepared yellow mustard
1 tablespoon The Spice (recipe above)
1/2 teaspoon black pepper
Hot sauce (such as Tabasco) to taste

Mix in a sauce pan, bring to a boil, and then let simmer for 10 - 15 minutes. Taste and have the first flavorgasm of the afternoon.

Step the third - The Grill
Get the coals burning and wait until they’re covered with a fine white ash. Now this is the important part - Bank them all to one side of the grill and put the chicken on the _other_ side, as far away from the direct heat as you can get. (Oh, and don’t go jumping the gun and putting the sauce on yet, don’t you dare.) Cover and let them sit for about 15 minutes. Then flip and rotate so that the pieces farthest away from the coals go to the front to ensure they’re cooked evenly. Cover and let them sit for another 15 minutes.

While you’re waiting, go back and get some of the sauce and a basting brush. Taste again and marvel at what an incredible cook you are. Feel free to do so out loud.

After the 15 minutes has passed, the chicken should be at an internal temp of around 160 - 165. Now for the last part. Now, and only now do you put the BBQ sauce on. Slather it on a couple of pieces, flip them over onto the area right above the coals and coat the other side. Be very careful not to let them burn, you’re looking to get a nice sear on the sauce. Flip the pieces and coat the upside again with sauce. You want around 3 layers of sauce on each side, exposed to the high heat only long enough to make it bubble and caramelize. DO NOT STEP AWAY FROM THE GRILL. They’re real easy to burn at this point, and if you burn them you go to hell. Literally, the pope told me so. You’ll know you’re getting to the sweet spot when the sauce starts sticking to your tongs.

Once they’re done, set them on a plate and do the rest in the same way. Serve with beer and triumph.