Here's your weekend reading, kiddies, with knee-slappers and teeth-grinders galore. (Updates until noon PT.) Have fun!
- Fred Butler found some excessively cool variations on Darth Vader's helmet.
- My only question about the video to which reader Gil Senenste pointed me is: What screen name does the ibex use when he comments at PyroManiacs? (I have a guess or two.)
- Barbara points us to an update on the missionaries who were arrested in Dearborn.
- So what do you have to do to graduate the counseling program at Augusta State University? Well, you have to come in with your pre-reqs completed, you have to maintain a good grade average, complete the required courses... oh, and ditch those Christian beliefs of yours.
- Say it with me: "Sci-i-i-ience."
- Tangentially, reader Chris found a story suggesting that Michelangelo worked various organs, including a human brain, into his painting in the Sistine Chapel.
- Hunh. Never knew escalators could be so much fun.
- (Gee, I hope Julie's grasshoppers don't see that.)
- Speaking of Julie, this guy needed a bigger boat. (Thanks, Julie.)
- Whatever one should say about the Bible, the fact is that cooking instructions should not always be taken literally.
- Hard-left Democrat (tautology?) 20-term congressman Charles Rangle received multiple ethics violation charges (more). We know the MSM will do its best to minimize and cover up, and the GOP will be inept in pressing any valid political point that could be made... but there may be a bit of hope even beyond Rangel's departure. Pastor Michel Faulkner, a self-described pro-life, pro-family Reaganite from Harlem, is running for Rangel's office. See a short Fox piece on him, and his talk to volunteers. There's a possibility for a really positive switch-up there.
- No surprise that Gallup says Congress has hit a new low in public confidence.
- I hope that folks who are still on the elitist Palin-bashing bandwagon driven (on the right) by raised-pinkie sorts such as Peggy Noonan and George Will are beginning to realize how badly they've been played. A concentrated effort on the part of mainstream journalists painted Palin as a dangerous, ignorant hick, and handed the most powerful nation on earth to a dangerous, educated hack. Yet, defying all predictions and precedent, Palin continues to lead. I have only this prediction for the future: it will be interesting, more heads will explode, and that part at least will be fun to watch.
- In Palin's own reflections on "Journolist," she aptly dubs the participants "sick puppies."
- Courtesy of Sacred Sandwich:
- Speaking of "sandwich," Berry Davis found our British readers a lasagna sandwich. (Not a health food.)
- Think about this. Christianity Today reports that, in 2002, 2000 clergy were looking for jobs. In 2009, 5000 clergy were looking for jobs. Yet let one personality become popular, and what do churches do? Beam that one personality to multiple locations. Hm... are the two phenomena related?
- The five-second rule... good science? Which is safer for dropped food, sidewalks or kitchen floors? Here are the answers.
- Taxpayers in Mississippi are being forced to pay a girl for choosing to pursue sexual perversion. And they say it's hard to get work?
- Similarly: isn't money supposed to be tight? So how does Home Depot have money to sponsor homosexual demonstrations?
- More depressingness, this time from reader Berry Davis, who discovered a site called The Real Damage — which will compute what credit card debt really ends up costing. Er... thanks, Berry.
- But then again, Berry also shows us what our food looks like in an MRI.
- Ooh... ray guns!
- We've got one just like this:
- Fed Chairman Bernanke notes that the economy is "unusually uncertain." So what will Obama do? Cut government spending, and stop punishing moneymakers and job producers.
- Just kidding! You didn't believe that, did you? Nah, the O-solution of course is more government spending and more punishment of those who drive the economy. Silly peasant.
- Although there is hope. Even some Democrats are becoming dimly aware of what a negative effect would result from allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. (More here.) Elections can be great motivators, eh?
- Paula notes a Roman Catholic group working hard in election season to oppose the efforts of pro-life and pro-freedom Christian (and other) organizations.
- Meanwhile, thousands of workers are waking up and saying "Rats! I should have gone to work for the city government of Bell, California!"
- Closer and Closer Alert. Reader Chris notes an ordinance introduced in Memphis, TN, discriminating against anyone not granting civil rights to a particular set of sexually perverse behaviors. The sponsor's name? Janis Fullilove. I don't make these things up.
- And a Glad I Don't Have to Defend Being Anglican update, as a female "priest" serves communion to a dog. And why not? The dog had every bit as much right to be where he was as the female "priest" did.
- Now for this week's Exercise Is Bad For You update:
- Lego Hoth Hotel?
- You've heard about the Shirley Sherrod matter, where the White House prematurely pressured a woman to resign from the U. S. Dept. of Agriculture over a snippet from a story she told the NAACP? Matthew Sheffield has a pretty full, well-documented roundup.
- Reader Aaron notes a woman so influenced by characters on "Sex and the City" that she set, and met, a personal goal. "Ah, young people settings goals," you say? "That's great, TV at its best," you say? Not so much. The goal was 1000 different sexual encounters within 10 years. Now? She just wants a man to love her for herself, not just for sex. Guessing it won't be one of the 1000 men she used, and who used her.
- Reader Tim Margheim found some nice eye candy: an physics engine called Lagoa Multiphysics 1.0, that realistically simulates all sorts of motion and impact.
- This is an amazing read about the Senate race in South Carolina. Especially note the paragraph that begins, “Another thing we can do for jobs is...."
- Behold some beautiful species of wild cats.
- Thinking aloud: if people who break into our country against the law and suck up its citizens' resources are "undocumented immigrants," then why aren't poachers "undocumented hunters"?
- And, by the way....
Posts
54 comments:
Yeah, that whole reading the instructions literally thing. . .
Some days, I get stuck on lather, rinse, repeat.
That simulation physics program would be a big help to the chocolate/marshmallow peeps bunny industry, huh?
Yes. Exercise is bad.
And it seems that one of Fred's Vader masks is missing.
Just love "Conscience Cat"
Squirrel
Gonna shop at Lowe's now.
No more Homo Depot.
Shirley Sheffield = Shirley Sherrod?
Whatever.
Sigh. If only my email address were on my profile.
Oh, wait!
The extension of unemployment benefits is maddening. My brother-in-law has been out of work for more than a year and his "benefits" continue. His wife doesn't work and his family is happily enjoying their summer together at home (also assisted by food pantries and the generosity of their mega-church).
My husband has twice given him leads on jobs at his company that he would have most surely been able to get, but he didn't think he wanted a 45 minute commute. (why does Clark Griswold's cousin Eddie - 'I'm holding out for management' come to mind?). He didn't bother to even apply for these excellent positions. Something makes me think if his benefits were coming to an end he'd be beating down doors to get any job he could, including McDonald's & Taco Bell.
Ben Franklin wrote:
To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is concurring with the Deity; it is godlike; but if we provide encouragement for laziness, and supports for folly, may we not be found fighting against the order of God and Nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery as the proper punishment for, and cautions against, as well as necessary consequences of, idleness and extravagance? Whenever we attempt to amend the scheme of Providence, and to interfere with the government of the world, we had need be very circumspect, lest we do more harm than good.(Smyth, Writings of Benjamin Franklin)
Those who continue to vote for these programs ought to tremble.
lol - I figured you'd just fix it and delete my comment instead of having to go alllllllll the way over to my gmail tab and typing in your address and pressing the send button and then coming alllllllll the way back here....soooooo much work for a Friday....
Good point.
Hm... are the two phenomena related?
I honestly don't see how they are related. Perhaps you could clarify how the job loss data that is available relates to large or multi-site churches, if indeed you see a connection.
H&T Day is here again!
The creator of the lasagna sandwich envisions it as a between-meals snack. I guess for a sumo wrestler (or a wannabe one).
Could one actually do that on an escalator? If I was a 10 year old boy I'd sure want to find out!
Denis, really? Let's see, if you hired another pastor to preach instead of video of your pastor, you'd need more Pastors thereby lowering unployment of Pastors.
Im opposed to unemployment benefits. There are jobs, people just don't want to do them. If a man will not work, he shall not eat.
A man who lives north of town has wolves, serval cats, and a caracal cat. I want a serval SO BAD. They are the most beautiful cats. He breeds them so I can just pay oh.....$5000 if I remember correctly, and get a wild animal license, and I am set to go.
My husband has a friend, who moved here from NH, and used to be a pastor. He left his church and worked for awhile and then was laid off. He started unemployment in NH, didn't bother to find a job, moved out here, hasn't tried very hard to find a job, and is going on two years unemployment. Same thing Paula...holding out for management. It is frustrating for my husband who keeps sharing with his friend biblical principles for men who should be working. One of the issues is that this guy makes more on unemployment than he would if he got an entry level job so he justifies his position.
Sir Aaron,
While I can understand how, on the surface, such correlations may make sense, your conclusion does not align with the data or analysis that is available - at least within the context of the source CT is quoting for the information.
It seemed pretty clear from the Wall Street Journal article that CT got those unemployment numbers from that these were not the numbers for senior or lead pastors alone, but for all who would fall under the category of paid clergy (including youth pastors, children's pastors, executive pastors, etc). In fact, the situations used to illustrate the job losses in the article were the job losses of two pastors from a large church who were not lead-pastors (one was in charge of the church's disabilities ministry, for example).
The thrust of the article seemed to be explaining how the recession was hitting large churches the hardest which was resulting in these churches reducing the number of paid pastors on staff.
Additionally, given the fact that these clergy numbers do not represent only preachers or lead pastors, one site of a multi-site church would (statistically) be the same thing as a traditional church of the same size. It would still have one or more pastors which are hired to pastor that site, its just that preaching is not a part of what they do (normally). Therefore, as far as employment statistics are concerned, the multi-site church would likely employ the same amount of paid clergy as its equivalently sized traditional church.
This has nothing to do whether a multi-site church is good or bad, its just that the information presented doesn't support this argument against them.
It's becoming obvious that, on this one issue, you just aren't listening, Denis. I do not want another meta dominated by re-explaining this issue. It's not rocket science.
1. Bunch of guys want to be pastors, can't find churches
2. One guy preaches, gets far more people than he or his building can handle Biblically
a. That church could plant another church, which might offer opportunities to the thousands of men looking for pastoral ministries
b. OR that man/church could just figure out high-tech ways to amass more and more and more and more surplus bodies around one personality
2b results in fewer opportunities for pastors-seeking-churches. In addition to all the other reasons, laboriously detailed last week, why it's a bad idea.
There. Done.
Unless you change your mind, we'll assume you disagree, and move on. Maybe discuss one of the other almost forty bullet items, or one of the fifteen graphics, in this one post.
I'm going to be preaching through 2 Timothy in the next couple months. I cringe, no, gag at the patrix giving communion to a dog. Especially for the stated excuse: "...in my opinion, Christ would have thought it was neat. It was just being human. And it made everyone smile.”
WWJD? after all, he's neato.
It's ironic that the one parishioner took umbrage at the feeding, but not at the feeder. Reminds me of Mohler's bit on the "bring your dog to church" article about a year ago.
This is an aside, but did you ever notice that nobody makes calendars of the women priests of the Episcopal church?
No, honestly I couldn't resist the punch-line I had, but the story itself absolutely horrifies me. You know, it's one of those situations where you see one relatively small thing that itself bespeaks SO MUCH that is SO terribly wrong.
Hiya,
just came across your blog and read your post about Pendragon the movie. Sounds very interesting, I might go and get a copy of the DVD myself!
I wondered whether you would like to review some of our animations on www.hopeanimation.com. Similar to the Pendragon Production we make Christian 3d animations from our homes.
You might especially be interested in the Pilgrim's Progress animation. That has had a lot of really good reviews by viewers...
Looking forward to hear from you!
God bless,
David
As a native Memphian, Ms. Fullilove has been driving us insane for awhile, though I haven't heard much from her since the whole "Fulli-Drugs" incident. But that's another story.
I was also horrified by the Anglican church ... thing... can't really call it communion. When we were first Christians, we joined an Anglican Church, believing what the prayerbook and 39 articles said. Silly us. If a pastor can't even say no to a dog for communion, then there is really no person who would be excluded from the table at all. And as you indicate, that the whole situation just explains so much.
From the Anglican/dog taking communion article:
"Days later, the church and diocese received a complaint from one parishioner, who felt the church offended the sacred ritual. The bread and wine are meant to represent the body and blood of Jesus Christ and are only to be given to those who have been baptized."
Oh of course! Clearly the issue is that the dog is not baptized. Something tells me the Anglicans will find a way around that one...
Sure, HOPE; email me, filops@yahoo.com
Oh, Matt, don't give them ideas.
Help the exegetically challenged here regarding the woman who served Communion to the pooch. Does Matthew 7:6 apply, or is this more like an illustration of Matthew 15:27 (and context)?
Furthermore, now that the subject of canocommunion has been broached, I expect to hear from the felicommunion contingent...after they're all done with their naps, of course.
By the way, my word verification: petbled. That's getting rather too close to the mark, I think.
Ken, that comment will be hard to top.
"Canocommunion" is a keeper... which, tragically, we'll probably need again.
One time when the boys were little we were driving through downtown Cleveland and saw a church yard with a plethora of animals. Being rabid animal people, we just had to stop to see what was going on. Turned out this (I think) Episcopalian church was having a 'Blessing of the Animals' day, which included cats, dogs, ferrets, bunnies, and - no kidding - a CAMEL!!
"Blessing" is a word that has now completely lost its true meaning. In some circles, it's come to mean no more than a good luck mantra, meant to ward off bad fortune.
It's on my list of pet peeves, along with "You're in my thoughts" or "Joe was just diagnosed with cancer, please keep him in your thoughts." It's completely devoid of anything useful or helpful, but makes you feel better when you have no prayers to offer or request.
Happy end of week DJP and co. Saturday here and I'm working - the joys of owning a business.
What exactly is wrong with preventing gays being discriminated against? They should have the same rights as everyone else. Not more, just the same.
I do understand that you oppose homosexuality based on your faith but social mores and laws are not dictated by faith.
Would your answer also allow me to discriminate against people of faith in my own business because of my 'beliefs'?
Donning protective helmet.....now.
Maybe the female priest just didn't realize who she was serving. If only she had a helpful Bible encyclopedia.....
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_P1I-Or2ze18/TDNcoJVDPqI/AAAAAAAAFCI/dqaZAhZpyYo/s1600/Dog.png
I had to check snopes.com on the Lord's Supper being given to a dog. I thought to myself, clearly, DJP must have overlooked this as a hoax
Rupert,
Did you read the fox news linked article about the homosexual coach? The proposed ordinance would ban the use of city facilities (like a softball field) by anyone who discriminates against homosexuals. So that church would be banned from using the softball field because they disallowed the lesbian coach from playing in the church's softball league.
Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals. This city ordinance is just an attempt by the far left to sanction their behavior. It has nothing to do with rights. It has to do with state forcing the people to accept their behavior.
"nobody makes calendars of the wimmin priests of the Episcopal church?"
Ssshhhhhhh!
"felicommunion"
Impossible. Cats aren't penitent.
Incidentally, this city ordinance would for contractors to change benefits policy. So if your Company X that doe business with Memphis, say you audit the city or you sell sandwiches for the city. You'd have change your benefits policy on providing medical to your spouse and children, to you provide medical benefits to your homosexual partner. So a contractor is forced to either compromise his beliefs and pay more in benefits to their employees or pack up and close shop if city employees are his maim bread.
Did y'all hear about the late Tim Russert's son schooling Charlie Rangle?
CONGRESSMAN RANGEL: But basically you know it's a dumb question, and I'm not answering.
RUSSERT: How is it a dumb question?
CONGRESSMAN RANGEL: The allegations that were made by some people!
RUSSERT: Sir? Sir? You did not file taxes on properties in the Dominican Republic, allegedly.
CONGRESSMAN RANGEL: It doesn't... It doesn't sound like... It doesn't...
RUSSERT: If that comes to be true, is that not a problem?
CONGRESSMAN RANGEL: It doesn't really sound like NBC --
RUSSERT: Sir?
CONGRESSMAN RANGEL -- asking these dumb questions. It just shows what has really happened to a channel that did have some respect.
Look for Russert to be blackballed in the MSM and scooped up by Fox News, Breitbart or The Daily Caller.
CR, how can you say that they have the same rights if they are rejected because of their sexuality? That is discrimination.
'State' facilities should be freely available to all, on equal terms. If a group decides to discriminate against some people, then they don't meet the criteria. If I was in a group which banned Christians then I would not expect to be allowed to use city facilities.
It has everything to do with civil rights. Telling a church that they had to allow gays into their services would be forcing people to accept their behavior. But we obviously won't agree and I'm not here to consume everyones' time and effort, I just wanted to express my opinion and maybe give people something to consider.
I take Fox News with a very large grain of salt.
CR, thanks for explaining that, it's hard for me to muddle through what a lot of reporters write anymore. But now suddenly I have images of Rev. 13:16-17 running through my head....
Casey, that is hysterical.
Cheers to you as well, Rupert. I hope you find some rest this weekend.
As Carlo pointed out, homosexuals have civil rights. Child molesters have civil rights. Rapists have civil rights. Perverts with any bizarre fetish you care to name have civil rights.
Business owners with basic moral sense and sensibility also have civil rights.
However, sexual perversion does not have civil rights. It is just as simple as that.
To answer your question straight up, yes, I think a business owner should be free to fire an employee for being Christian. Or for being bald. Or for wearing glasses. Why? Because it's his business, it isn't the government's business.
However (A) he does need to keep his contracts, and there the government has an interest. If he presents himself in print as not discriminating on the basis of religion, he needs to be held to it.
Also, (B) the community is free to picket, demonstrate against, and boycott him if they find his hiring practices repugnant.
Ironic, isn't it, that you favor theocracy (with you being the god, however), imposing your values on everyone, while I favor liberty?
Yet another find smorgasbord of the interesting and the bizarre.
I'm confused by the "Exercise is Bad For You" sequence. Is the treadmill going backwards? Or is the man singularly uncoordinated?
Oh boy, the boys will love that escalator trick! Actually, they'd probably be safer than that young woman. I keep picturing her hair getting caught in the belts...
And Oh My Word did my jaw drop when the article from Dearborn Michigan said that even the ACLU believed the police to be acting unconstitutionally. Have we entered another dimension?
Thanks for the fun,
Julie
PS Word verification: liker.
We liker the H&T.
Having a quiet one DJP, I hope yours is all that you wish it to be.
The regularity with which I find people attempting to equate homosexuality with things such as paedophilia, either subtly or directly, has become rather tedious.
Homosexuality is conducted between consenting adults Paedophilia is not.
You include homosexuality in the full suite of sexual perversion. Would you be offended if I compared your beliefs and behaviors with Mormon's and Scientologists? I don't see a vast difference. What about with Jim Jones or the Branch Davidians? Offended now? Even I think that one is extreme! But it's still about faith and the behaviors it dictates isn't it? Why is yours more 'acceptable'?
I agree with you about business owners. If a neo-nazi only wants to hire neo-nazis, fine. It would be inappropriate for the state to do business with him however. I know I sure as heck wouldn't!
You say I favor theocracy while you favor liberty. Yet I see it as you who wish to restrict equal access for people of whom you don't approve. Perhaps I'm just more tolerant.
If you want to try to make the case of equation, Rupert, have at it. But you will find it hard slogging to try to wrestle, with nothing whatever under your feet.
I think you find it "tedious" because it is effective, and you don't have an answer for it. People forcing redefinition of "marriage" to include serial same-sex buggery find the slippery slope argument "tedious" for the same reason: they're unable to answer it.
The issue is perversion, and homosexuality is simply one of a series of specifics which also include rape and child molesting. Your introduction of "consent" is arbitrary, and non-definitional of perversion.
This "do business with" becomes a pretty sticky thing as well, pretty quickly. I pay for those buildings, but I can't use them because I won't pretend that perversion is normal? We aren't talking about allowing use to people who advocate violence to sexual perverts, after all. We're talking about religious freedom. You oppose it, I favor it.
And btw, all law — even the concept of law — is religious. It's simply a matter of which religion will prevail.
I find it tedious because it is not supported by the evidence. Including it in a range of activities which have significantly different impacts is based on scriptural belief. I understand that. So you allege that it falls into the same category of perversions. Is it therefore not just as logical for me to make the same comparisons regarding different religions, their behaviors and their impacts?
Marriage? An investigation into the origins and history of marriage show that it was created to protect land, power and wealth. Some societies included gay marriage without blinking an eye.
Despite your assertion, I do support religious freedom. Those who wish to do so, should also have freedom from religion.
Can you extrapolate a little on why you claim that the concept of law is based on religion?
Peace and best wishes.
No, actually, unimpeachable evidence suggests that marriage was created from the very beginning to be heterosexual and monogamous, because that both best pleased and honored God, and was best for man (Genesis 1:26-28; 2:18-25).
Glad to hear you've changed your mind about whether government should discriminate business-owners whose religious convictions incline them not to hire sexual perverts.
Law is a codification of moral values, at some level. No argument for moral values can be grounded with appeal to religion. I don't say it can't be tried; I say it can't be done.
There is no "should" or "ought" without God.
Biblical scripture may well describe marriage as heterosexual and monogamous, and I agree with the monogamous aspect. But people of faith would be the only ones to regard it as unimpeachable.
I never said employers shouldn't be able to say no to gays (if I did I obviously worded things poorly). My position was in regard to the whole softball team/public park thing.
Ah, moral codification. On that one, my belief is that successful 'moral' and 'civil' societies, with laws, were established before the Abrahamic religions or the bible.
Did you mean 'with appeal to religion' or 'without'? I'm not sure.
I have shoulds and oughts. I should be nice to others and I ought to help others (just as a simple example). Or have I over-simplified what you meant?
Since everyone is a "person of faith," you'll have to be more specific.
Of course you have shoulds and oughts. You can't not. You are made in God's image, and live in God's world. The problem is in your not acknowledging God's Lordship. Atheists are like the little girl who must climb into her daddy's lap to slap him in the face.
I am not a person of faith, therefore I do not accept the bible as unimpeachable.
You believe we are made in God's image. I do not. I do not believe we live in God's world. It's not that I don't accept God's Lordship. I don't accept that God exists.
And I shall withhold my little analogy about what people of faith are like. I don't want things getting out of hand or insulting so maybe I'll just say that we've canvassed the topic I responded to on this thread with a frank and forthright exchange of views without convincing each other of anything.
May your day deliver your needs.
You're not a person of this faith, Rupert. But as I've observed, you certainly are a person of faith. Just the fact that you try to mount an argument bespeaks faith in things which have not been demonstrated by "scientific method" — as, indeed, scientific method has not been demonstrated by scientific method.
Outside of religion, laws only exist only as a matter of expediency not because of any standard of right and wrong. And as society drifts further and further from religion, a seemingly paradoxical paradigm emerges where ever increasing numbers of laws are needed and enacted to stop bad behavior yet at the same time the increasing number of laws doesn't ever result in the decrease of bad behavior. This becoming increasingly noticeable in my profession where criminals don't think they've done anything wrong if they don't think there is a specific law against it. And the reason for it is because there is no external source for right and wrong (i.e., God). Rather there are only legalities and technicalities to be obeyed if the consequences for breaking the law outweigh the advantages to be gained. Otherwise, the reward is worth the risk, as the saying goes.
The fact that you claim that I am a person of faith does not make it true. The circumstances under which you state it from time to time almost make it appear defensive.
I think you will need to elaborate on the scientific method statement. It doesn't quite add up.
Well, then, here's a little test you could run: admit it, and see if I keep bringing it up.
(c:
You claim to have read this.
So, do it. Prove you exist, without assuming anything that itself is not proven without assuming anything that is not proven (etc.).
I don't wish to be dishonest so I can't 'admit' it.
OK, I've read your 'Why...' article again. I've jotted down some notes. Prepared a few responses.
My fear is that even a relatively judicious rejoinder will raise your ire. So is this the appropriate venue for me to provide it? I'm happy to put myself at risk of the responses which may ensue.
In summation however, according to your premise on premises, I obviously cannot prove that I exist. The same applies to you. And our computers. The same logic would suggest that it moves God even further from reality.
Thank you.
You cannot prove that you exist.
But do you believe it? Do you have faith that you exist?
(As to whether or not I can prove that I exist [I write with a friendly smile], don't answer for me.)
Well why didn't you say so earlier! I assumed you were alluding to that old canard of atheism being a faith. That's usually the first response from people of religious faith.
I think I exist, it feels like I exist. But since I have no tangible proof, I guess I don't have any great faith that I exist. Doesn't really matter though. I don't need it. Whatever I am, here I am, I accept it. I actually feel good about it.
I would never knowingly have the temerity to answer such a question for you.
Are you interested in a response to your 'Why...' article?
My other link didn't work. This one will for why man is without excuse for not believing in God.
Post a Comment