I'm afraid it's going to be a lonely HT; half my visitors seem keyed to workdays. If HT were food, I'd say — "That's more for us!" However I'm still feeling Thanksgiving dinner. Regardless, I have the usual assortment for y'all. So let's dig in!
- It may be an old strip, but this is about right, isn't it?
- Those of us who thought the Terri Schiavo saga (on which I wrote a fair bit) was one of the most shameful episodes in recent history will read this story and nod bitterly. However, we should proceed with some caution. The man's words are being conveyed by the assistance of "facilitated communication," about which legitimate questions have been raised.
- Okay... I don't get this.
- Odd Title of the Week comes from The Hill: Hayworth raises money, toys with race against McCain. Now, I can see why Hayworth would raise money. But why toys? Is he going to challenge McCain to a duel, using Nerf-swords? I'd like to see that. Even more, I'd like to see a conservative un-seat McMeMeMe. But Hayworth would need money for that. Not toys.
- There is enough idiocy in this story to power a city for a year. It tells of a Vallejo mayor opining that homosexuality was (gasp!) a sin... and then apologizing. Huh? Wait... so is it, or isn't it? Anyway, the homosexual council member's okay with him. But some 65-year-old "straight" female is outraged because, and I quote — well, before I quote, take a deep breath. Swallow your coffee. Okay? Go: "we have a responsibility to serve the entire community, not just the ones who believe as we do." In the context of her complaint and demands... make any kind of sense of that.
- I swear, these days — it's as if the topics of homosexuality and abortion are to rational thought as Round-up is to plants.
- For Thanksgiving, President Obama pardoned a 45-pound turkey named Courage. Hunh. Should've had his personal chef fix it up and serve it to some out-of-work family.
- On the Phillips Administration's first Thanksgiving, we would serve a ___-pound turkey named "Yummy."
- Here is a collection of 100 classic movie lines. It's pretty well-done. They have some of the best, and at least two of the worst. What do you think they missed?
- Hee hee hee.
- Go, kitty! (We know the feeling!)
- Justin Taylor, beyond question a good guy and the collector of some of the best links and resources in Blogdom, really admires the creativity of this commercial (while not, of course, agreeing with its payoff). I guess I'm not artsy enough to separate the cute wrapping-paper from the three pounds of dung inside. I'd re-make the commercial to have the young man ask each person whether he can say that 2 + 2 = 5. My punch-line would be, "It doesn't matter what anyone says: a thing just isn't what it isn't."
- But then Justin Taylor also told his deservedly massive readership that it's a great idea for a bunch of Christian leaders to say that religions that preach a false and damning Gospel are also Christians, also equally preachers of the (undefined) "Gospel," merely separated by "historic lines of ecclesial difference" — as long as they disapprove of homosexuality and abortion.
- You already know what I think. I think a lot of people who disapprove of homosexuality and abortion — and embrace the "gospel" preached by Rome and Orthoborgy — will be in Hell. I think getting people or societies to disapprove of homosexuality and abortion, while a laudable civil goal, won't move them an inch towards Heaven. In fact, if that shift of opinion were accomplished by many of the signatories of this "declaration," it might well make them "twice the child of Hell" as those signatories (Matthew 23:15).
- I think whatever was gained by having a bunch of names say what all real evangelicals were already well-known to believe was lost by their joining hands as with "fellow-Christians" with apostates and Gospel-perverters.
- I further think the Gospel is immeasurably more central and crucial. I'm absolutely certain that Justin thinks so, too. Which makes his expressed enthusiasm, and the participation of men whose shoes I quite literally am unworthy to shine (
i.e. e.g. Ligon Duncan), all the more baffling.
- To happier thoughts. I kind of like this. You can wear a button that says It's Okay, wish me a Merry Christmas. (Accompanying story.)
- In related news, Liberty Counsel has released this year's Naughty and Nice list.
- The "____, I Am Your Father" cliche. Since SWV, it's come up in a number of movies or books. Now we just chuckle. But how much of a bummer would it be to find out that Charles Manson was your father? Me, I don't know. But ask Matthew Roberts. I hope someone can get through him that we all have evil in our heritage. What matters is having God as our Father, and being transformed to that likeness.
- If you'd like to settle down for a somewhat longer read, check out The Competing Narratives of Barry and Sarah. It's a provocative and telling comparison of Obama's and Palin's chronologically-parallel, but very different lives; and of their memoirs.
- Say you become exasperated with Daniel Suelo, and say to him, "Look, dude — do you live in a cave, or something?" He'll say, "Yep." My assessment: he's in the down-side of 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
- Well, that explains a lot. Jimmy Carter says that he was dead when both he and Bill Clinton were president. At least, that's the only way I know to make sense of this headline.
- I guess it had to happen. Burqua Barbie.
- Um, so... if they touch each other, does the universe explode?
- Hey, lookie there: Voyage of the Dawn Treader (A) has a Facebook page, (B) has completed filming, and (C) has released some photos! Like these two:
- Leaving us, as it must, with....
Posts
45 comments:
The diamond trick was interesting. After looking at it for a while I decided that all the diamonds -- except the half diamonds on the top and bottom (cleverly colored to add to the illusion) -- are the same. Cutting and pasting with a photo manipulation program confirms it. The diamonds have a top-to-bottom, lighter-to-darker gradient.
What?! No "No, I am your father."?!?!?!
Did I miss it?
I was thinking out loud and wondering where are the people in the blog world who would criticize Christians for using political avenues to do some good in the society, why aren't they criticizing what Justin has done here with the Manhattan Declaration.
I'm criticized for saying Christians should take a more active role in the public arena in politics, but wouldn't what Justin is advocating be more egregious to them?
Great stuff, as usual. Thanks.
btw, I think it's "e.g." with Ligon Duncan, not "i.e." Didn't you have a link about this recently ;)
Gahh! You're absolutely right!
Fixed.
Remember to check back for un-noted updates. Like one I just added.
I’m not lonely and I’m not gay,
Say, does that look like Tina Fey?
Rich AlGore lies as the cold gets bitter,
So glad you did another hither and thither.
LOL. Thanks for the chuckle.
DJP said, ". I guess I'm not artsy enough to separate the cute wrapping-paper from the three pounds of dung inside.
But he does make a good point. Here in Ohio, I'm assaulted DAILY by the Humane Society of the U.S.'s (HUSU)over-the-top-commercials about abused and neglected puppies and kitties. Emotional, heartwrenching commercials with Sarah-what's-her-name's sad music.
The reason is that they are planning on bringing a CA-style Prop. 2 to Ohio, hoping to cripple our robust agricultural state. The HSUS sells itself as a group that exists to rescue abused puppies. In reality, they exist (ultimately) to make us all vegetarians. So they are beginning their campaign with an emotional appeal to gain followers and raise bazillions of dollars in their war fund.
And I'm sure it works!! People see those sad faces of abused dogs and send in their checks.
And how many of us were brought over to the pro-life side by a video or a written account of the horrors of abortion? We are at the point (with 3-D & 4-D ultrasound) that no one can deny that a 'fetus' is a baby.
If Fox news is willing to show abused puppies, why can they not be challenged to show abused 'fetuses'? Someone needs to make a video almost identical to the HSUS video, replacing the dogs with babies.
I think that was the point JT was trying to make - we need an Uncle Tom's Cabin for our generation. Signing statements may get the media's attention for 3 seconds, but it's probably not going to change anybody's mind about the issue.
"Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here."
--Jack Nicholson in As Good As It Gets
"Dying ain't much of a living, boy."
--Clint Eastwood in The Outlaw Josey Wales
"You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig."
--Clint Eastwood in The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly
Hmm, where did that sarcasm about the presidential turkey pardon come from, Dan? Were you always this upset with it when the previous administrations practiced it?
I've always thought it was lame, at least as long as I remember.
And I blame the Democrats' policies for the bad economy, in large measure.
Perfect pairing.
So yeah: give the turkey to an out-of-work family... with all the trimmings.
Pardoning the turkey is an incredibly stupid tradition and a total waste of everyone's time, and it prevents the turkey from fulfilling one of its primary duties (the purposes of animals being to taste good and/or fit well). That said, successfully completing this ceremony was undoubtedly one of the highpoints of his presidency so far, possibly second only to letting the military do their job against the pirates. And he managed to get through it without bowing to the turkey!
When I first saw that commercial, I thought it might be about the sanctity and true importance of marriage, how many people it affects, how seriously divorce echoes through your community, etc. Not so much. Of course, the argument made is a lie. "Lesbians and gay men are denied access to civil marriage in Ireland." Completely false. They are as free to get married as anyone; what they're not free to do is call their sin marriage.
Now I'm glad for including the turkey item, if only because it provoked Trogdor's priceless observations.
The turkey thing reminds me of the deer-culling debate. People would rather have the burgeoning deer population starve in the wild than have the herds culled by sharpshooters and the venison donated to food banks.
The Charlie Brown cartoon was funny.
The optical illusion thing is just that. There's nothing to get. It's just showing us the tricks that our eyes can play on us.
With regards to President Obama's pardoning of a turkey. If you get a chance to look at the clip, it's actually pretty funny and light-hearted. It's one of the few times I can have a smile with this President as he brings so much harm to this country and some its people.
But he said in his speech they are bringing turkeys to some homeless organization to feed the needy. He actually joked in that speech that as a result of his pardoning he saved or created at least 4 turkeys and he laughed about it.
He had some nice words about the troops (too bad he put them in harms way by waiting so long to increase the troop level in Afghanistan).
But I would recommend people to watch the 8 minute video on the pardon and the speech and it's just an example of common grace even though Obama means to bring great harm.
By the way, found Doran's link from your Manhattan blog very interesting explaining Mohler's rationale.
Mohler adamantly takes the position that the Manhattan declaration doesn't attempt to establish common ground on theological biblical issues but that the declaration is a limited statement of Christian conviction on certain issues like abortion or gay "marriage." But Mac takes the position that it is a formal avowal of brotherhood between evangelicals and faiths who teach a false gospel and it's hard for the secular world to see it any other light.
The declaration repeatedly identifies all the signatories, who are explicitly IDed as Evangelical, [Roman] Catholic, and Orthodox, as Christians; and speaks of the work of Gospel proclamation as something in which they are all involved.
Edicts of 16th and 17th century Popes are also cited as examples of Christian activism.
Trogdor said: Pardoning the turkey is an incredibly stupid tradition and a total waste of everyone's time, and it prevents the turkey from fulfilling one of its primary duties (the purposes of animals being to taste good and/or fit well).
You animal hater, you. ;) [/forseeing a future of PETA knocking on your door]
Yeah, it's true what you said, Dan. What's particularly troubling is it's statement, "It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty."
I remember before the Lord saved me and I was Catholic, it really bugged me that evangelicals didn't consider Catholics as Christians. I remember a priest saying this of Catholics, "We're Christians too."
That line is even more blurred even further with individual Christians signing declarations like this stating that evangelicals preach the same gospel as Catholics do, which they don't.
Hi Dan
I really enjoyed your Global Warming cartoons and its very topical. I live in Australia and many of us are trying really hard to fight our own version of cap and trade. It's causing a bit of upheaval here.
What is it with Evangelicalism? We are like junkies. Palin says, acts, and does, some incredibly silly (bordering foolish, and maybe over that border)things. But because she is an Evangelical (if her church is evangelical, I beginning to wonder whether I fit under that title any longer), we submit our full unbridled support. Isn't a mother's primary ministry her family? Especially a mother whose children need extra guidance? In 2012, I'll vote for the gospel.
That doesn't really represent either my view or my readers', Michael. I wouldn't expect anyone to have read everything on this blog, but if you had, you'd see otherwise. Sure, we like that (unlike Romney) Palin aligns herself with churches that at least affirm the bare minimums of Biblical faith, such as the Biblical truth of the Trinity and the Gospel itself.
But it's her achievements in office, her stated values, and her effectiveness in communicating those values — and in driving our ideological opponents barking mad — that endears her to us.
Loved the Peanuts cartoon. My husband had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Schulz on many occasions, even spending time with him at his office in Santa Rosa. He says that Mr. Schulz was a wonderful and very humble man who was genuinely surprised by his success over the years. He was shocked that "his little doodles" could earn him so much fortune and fame.
Those bare minimums, so far as Christianity, seem to be getting more bare. So bare in fact, in Palin's new book a simple acknowledgment of God suffices. Not to criticize your view, I think I agree. I just wish we could rally around someone who dare not shade the truth with the ever present Evangelical hype. At this point, I guess I am a little faithless when it comes to "Christian" politicking.
Michael,
Have you purchased or read Palin's book? I'm not sure what you mean by giving Palin's book as an example of the bare minimums of Christianity getting more bare. Palin's new book gives more than "a simple acknowledgment of God". I purchased her new book and I'm only on page 73 and she does more than "acknowledge" God. She talks about her participation in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and how at least 60 of them met regularly for Bible studies. She talks about her youth Bible camp experience. She also talked about her mom who left the Catholic church to go to an evangelical church and went to an Assembly of God church only to later go to nondeminational church Bible church (thank goodness her mom left that the AoG church) and her mom took her children (including Sarah)with her.
She also mentions her baptism and her reading Scripture every morning and evening (I wonder how many of us do that)and what she learned about tithing as a kid and she mentions how God blessed her and Todd through their giving not merely monetarily but spiritually.
Will we find a dissertation on the righteous judgment of God in her book, perhaps not, that's not its purpose.
I have not read the book, nor do I plan too. I have gone through it however, and have read and heard a number of reviews. What troubled me most was her sort of evangelistic plea at the end of the book. I suppose it was a gospel presentation, void of both the law and the gospel.
Reading the bible, baptism, even mentioning the AoG, does not in my opinion constitute a demonstration of the Evangelical tradition, let alone the gospel. This is what I mean. We look for "Christian" crumbs, and when we find one (ie; a confession of faith, or the various kinds of moralism) we immediately promote that individual. Look, if she runs, there is no doubt I'll vote for her. That to me is not really an issue. I just wish Evangelicals would stop promoting every single person who gets the spotlight and mentions that they are a Christian.
Should you be given the opportunity to communicate with the nation via a book (and keep in mind her initial run is 2.5mil) wouldn't you give a "dissertation on the righteous judgment of God?"
Shame on all those who wouldn't.A failure in this respect, is in my eyes, a denial of the faith. I can't help but be reminded of what is at stake.
Michael: What troubled me most was her sort of evangelistic plea at the end of the book.
Okay, I see now where you're coming from and you really need to read the book and not depend on state-run media or Christians who don't think she should be President.
What she gave at the end was not an "evangelistic plea", it was an acknowledgement in the acknowledgment section at the end of the book which is probably why you thought she just "acknowledged God."
Sarah Palin was a kid when her mother left the Catholic church and went to the AoG in the beginning. We can't falt her mother for that. Even the AoG is better than the Catholic church even though they err in their Charismaticism and Pentecostalism.
Evangelicals (at least this one) is not promoting someone just because she mentions she is a Christian (which she's done more than just mentioning; otherwise I would have supported Huckabee. I'm just tired of people attacking her. I like Palin's stance on the issues and her experience and the fact she is a Christian is icing on the cake. I wouldn't support her just because she made a claim of being Christian or was one.
If people don't like her, fine. I mean, she's not even running, officially yet. Why don't people attack Romney, we know he wants to run. I really don't want this last laugh but I'm gonna have it if Palin doesn't run and Romney gets the nomination and some people complain about Romney. Some people are falling right into the trap set by the media. They're foaming from the mouth in derangement about her so Washingtonian conservatives and Christians who like reading David Brooks feel they need to say something critical about her.
I think the Palin Derangement Syndrome from the left has mutated in our population and taken a more lighter form and infected Washingtonian Republicans and some Christians.
Lastly not, but not least, if given the opportunity to work a deal with a publisher to write a treatment on the righteous judgment of God - I would. Except, that's not the agreement she had with her publisher - it was a essentially a book on her memoirs, not biblical doctrine. I don't think she should have violated her agreement with her publisher to write biblical doctrine.
(I hate how I once a post is made, I can't grammar edit it. Sometimes, forgetting to type a word like "if" before pressing the "Publish " button can invert the meaning of the whole sentence.)
"Going Rogue" is an autobiography, not a theology textbook. I think if Palin intended "Going Rogue" to be a book on biblical doctrine, and as such, we would expect a "dissertation on the righteous judgment of God".
And don't you think that had she included more biblical doctrine in "Going Rogue", that complementarians who support Romney or some other candidate would be bashing her head with 1 Timothy 2? It seems Palin gets criticized no matter what she writes.
You have missed my point. My problem is not with Palin, it is with the Evangelical tendency to promote anyone who has the spotlight and names the Name.
Any Christian who is writing a book to the demographic she did better jump at the chance to include a biblical law and gospel presentation. She, no where in the book did that. Her mention of "Christian" periphery does not, in my opinion suffice. Again, I like her, her politics (for the most part), and I do admire her stand; and I would, given the chance vote for her.
I am a Reformed Baptist, so I disagree with quite a bit of AoG theology. But hey, they are solidly conservative, and completely sold on the essentials. Given the way the ECLA, PCUSA,and Episcopals, have apostatized, I'd gladly and thankfully lock arms with my AoG brethren. . .
1) Palin is not a Pentecostal. In an interview, she said so herself (she left the AoG for a reason).
2) Palin was already criticized by some complementarian evangelicals for running as VP as a woman (not that it's anything new... Thatcher was PM of the UK not too long ago). The only reason some of them voted for her was that she was considered the "lesser or two evils" compared to the pro-choice cadidate on the other ticket. If she were to give biblical law and gospel presentation (not that I have any problem with her doing so), the criticism would be much harsher... and her only consistent supporters would left then be egalitarian evangelicals.
She does attend a Pentecostal non-denom church (Juneau Christian Center), at least the last time I checked. The Gospel transcends one's view of male and female roles and relationships. A Gospel presentation would not infringe on either of the two views mentioned. Certianly Palin, given her ability to communicate her positions and ideas, could have easily incorporated a presentation.
By the way, last election, there was a completely pro-life third pary candidate who made a theologically accurate statement of faith. Should anyone have trouble voting for the lessor evil, that option may be of some use. Talk about counter cultural. . .
1) Of course, for any Christian to run as a 3rd party candidate when he has zero chance of winning is quite foolish, since all he does is split the vote (and in this case, guarantee a win for the Democrats). Not to mention that such a misuse of talents will result in fewer rewards in heaven.
2) A vote is always a choice between the lesser of two evils, but what I meant was I disagree with the complementarians who regarded Sarah running for VP as "evil" or sinful. I believe there is a vast difference between a VP exercising civil authority over a nation and a pastor exercising spiritual authority over a church, although many other Christians believe otherwise. But I digress. I'm glad that God raised Palin for such a time as this to expose the numerous lies of the liberal elites. Like a mirror, her words and actions reflect Christ, who is the light of the world, but liberals love darkness instead of light because their deeds are evil.
Would it not be evil to vote for the lessor of two evils? The McCain-Palin campaign affirmed embryonic(mispelled?) stem cell research; which is nothing less than abortion. I personally think that a vote for anyone other than a 100% pro-life candidate (on the federal + state levels) is both sinful and futile.The question is not whether the third candidate can win. The question is whether or not their positions are right before a Holy God. Pragmatism does not often prove scriptural.
I think you have misunderstood complementarian theology. What books have you read on the subject? Ever read Piper's?
1) All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, so all voting is a choice between the lesser of two evils.
2) Complementarian theology is by no means uniform. Mohler and Einwechter feel differently about whether Palin running for VP is a sin. As I understand it, Piper's position is somewhere in the middle.
I think they should have included "The Dude abides" from The Big Lebowski. For their sheer absurdity, I love the lines that come right after, spoken by The Stranger (Sam Elliott): "I don't know about you, but I take comfort in that. It's good knowin' he's out there - the Dude - takin' her easy for all us sinners."
Let me get this right: in your opinion, voting for a candidate who supports abortion (albeit embryonic) as opposed to a candidate who does not, is an equitable proposistion because both candidates are sinners?
That is ridiculous. Let us rise above that sort of juvenile argumentation.
Okay, I've mostly sat this out because (A) very busy, and (B) seems to be a controlled burn for the most part.
But Michael, you're hundreds of miles off-course.
First, who in this thread, or in the history of this blog, has ever argued in favor of voting for Palin because she's a Christian? That was a racoonless tree, and all the barking has been a waste.
Second, every single vote in the history of American politics, without exception, has been and always will be a vote between the lesser of two evils.
Third and finally, that subject, and the issue of wasted votes on vanity candidates, (A) has nothing to do with this post (see blog rules, please), and (B) has been frequently discussed.
Haha, "oops" on me. I only now see that the blog rules perished with the new template / Blogger update. I'll have to find and/or recreate them.
Well, it's a "plus" on our commentators that we've been OK without them as long as we have!
Late to the game here...just wanted to comment on the 100 best movie lines video:
Overall, not bad - only missed a few I can think of - Kirk Douglass " I am Sparticus!" Mel Gibson's Freedom line in Braveheart. Bruce Willis in Diehard ("Adios..."). I also did not see Paul Newman or John Wayne. It was excellent.
DJP, what were the 2 of the worst movie lines that you were referring to?
Well, I haven't watched it since last week. Only remember one:
"Love... means never having to say you're sorry!"
The other was probably treacly, stupid, or both.
As far as movie quotes go, I am simply astonished this one didn't make it:
"Well, that is your name, isn't it? Calvin Klein? It's written all over your underwear."
"has ever argued in favor of voting for Palin because she's a Christian?"
I never said as much, nor did I imply anything remotely like that. My concern was with the Evangelical rush to promote people as soon as they identify themselves as Christian. Whether that be Ms. America, Jon and Kate, or Gov Palin.
"has been and always will be a vote between the lesser of two evils."
The previous commenter posted a false dichotomy, read the previous 3 posts.That individual equated the fact of original sin to justify voting for a less than pro-life candidate. That argument is a dogs breakfast.
Lastly, I did not bring up the issue of wasting votes. Read the posts...I simply responded to the charge. My intention was to reveal the fact that should a Christian have an issue of conscience in voting for people like the McCain-Palin team (who were not 100% pro-life), that there was an option that omitted any support for abortion.
DJP,
I think I may have gotten somewhat of a raw deal in your assessment. If you don't mind, re-read the discourse up to this point.
Too bad "I know jujitsu!" didn't make it to the top 100.
Post a Comment