Friday, April 29, 2011

Hither and thither 4/29/11

Here you go, friends and neighbors.
  • So, I've finally found a graphic way to sum up the way my first ~16 years as a Christian look to me in retrospect:
  • (For subsequent years, just begin intermittently slowing... the... playback... verrrry... gradually....)
  • At my house, my efforts last week were met with a two-word review: "No Legos." So... here:
  • And the reference above to Serenity segues so nicely to...
  • The few, the proud, the Firefly / Serenity fans will enjoy this:


  • I couldn't watch... and I couldn't stop watching. (Thx Anthony Forsyth.)
  • Robert Sakovich round a dismal column explaining what, I think, our biggest moral/economic problem is: we have bought into the notion that "charity" is defined by the government increasingly confiscating the production of the productive to increase its control of an every-growing dependency-class. And, unfortunately, those people vote. Perhaps if we suspended the voting privileges of anyone who accepts government aid, until they're off the dole?
  • Talk about "having skin in the game." A judge isn't supposed to.
  • Now here's an Old Spice commercial that is 'way, 'way outta there.
  • The SBL Greek New Testament is online, textual apparatus and all. (h-t Denny Burk)
  • True dat:

  • Recently I linked a vid of a cat's amazing prowess in bringing down a bird on the wing. Here, the cat is bested... and there's no bloodshed.
  • And now, in closing, a symbolic representation of an oxymoron in action: "GOP leadership":

  • Leading inexorably to these:






52 comments:

Wendy said...

It is 1:30am and the winds are terrible, making every good thing on the internet inaccessible. Like youtube and animated gifs. So I will be back in the morning.

But I got a good laugh at the subway sign and the club sandwich :)

Chris said...

Dan,

Absolutely love the two visual metaphors this morning: 1.your first 16 years as a Christian (b'cuz I see myself with every repeated fall) and 2. GOP leadership retreat. Great! And the stairs leading up to the Wheelchair Foundation--just priceless irony!

GrammaMack said...

What? Nothing on the royal wedding? Oh right, you aren't a Canadian. :-) About the reading graph: how about paying attention to what "you're" (not "your") spelling?

lee n. field said...

Saw the Superman thing yesterday.

"'your truth/my truth', social justice and the U.N. way!"

Another childhood icon jumps the shark.

The Squirrel said...

Okay, honestly, I've got no problem at all with a cornucopia of burgers & fries...

Squirrel

JackW said...

Best. Bumper. Snicker. Ever.

DJP said...

Whew! Gramma. I was afraid you were catching me misspelling your/you're. In my house, that ears you sentences (i.e. 3 each using "your" and "you're" correctly).

Merrilee Stevenson said...

What a day! What a day! Perhaps you will do a separate post about the royal wedding. Certainly some interesting stuff.

I really think your idea about limiting voting to those who are not dependents of the government is brilliant. I live in a small borough outside Philadelphia, and our local mayor is also the janitor at our school, and he's constantly giving gifts to people. While the mayor and the city council are very generous and provide all kinds of freebies and gifts to the people, one can't help but feel rather beholding if one accepts these freebies, or alternately, ungrateful if one rejects. And if you keep your distance from the ones in charge, or speak in opposition, you might feel rather vulnerable if you in fact needed to call upon them for protection.

Deep thoughts for a frivolous Friday. I'm done I think.

Merrilee Stevenson said...

Well, one more comment. (So I can check the follow-up comments box.)

The reading graph is spot-on. That's why I usually read out loud, to make sure I'm paying attention.

Sir Aaron said...

I'm an American and wish the royal couple well. But I really couldn't give a hoot otherwise. Something about fawning over royalty rubs me the wrong way. Maybe it's because I'm American and it goes against everything America stands for.

The elephant (GOP) vid was awesome.

Mark Patton said...

Love me some Stephen Wright and now need to purge my mind from dancing dream feet or whatever that was. Look forward to getting to all of this this weekend.

CGrim said...

It looks like Superman renounces his American citizenship because the White House refuses to side with Iranian protestors against the Iranian regime. Which is a whole lot better than I expected. I expected something more along the lines of, "Superman renounces his American citizenship because the tea party hates gay people or something."

The Blainemonster said...

Double Dream Feet. What. On. Earth. LOL

CGrim said...

"Maybe it's because I'm American and it goes against everything America stands for."

Ehhh... I'd say America stands for liberty, not anti-monarchy.

As Christians, we are, after all, part of a monarchy (albeit of a more transcendent sort).

Robert said...

Double dream feet...disturbing. Especially with the kid song going on in the background...

Sir Aaron said...

CGrim:

Ehhh...I'd say that if you have any kind of monarch you have less freedom. Therefore, to be pro-freedom is to be anti-monarchy. At least as it pertains to me. If other countries want to have a monarch, that's their business.

And as Christians, we are slaves of Christ not merely part of a monarchy. That doesn't mean I'm not anti-slavery here on earth.

Tom Chantry said...

Actually, I was quite proud of you avoiding the temptation to pander to the broadly-shared mania for two cohabitating pagans showing up in a church for a sham of a Christian wedding.

And as for the Squirrel (I've got no problem at all with a cornucopia of...) - the squirrels in my back yard would take on a cornucopia full of anything - especially if it came out of my garbage.

integritydc_net said...

A Hither and Thither just for my birthday? You really shouldn't have, Dan.

Merrilee Stevenson said...

@ Tom Chantry: ouch!

I tell you what, though: I did appreciate what was said by the clergy and the scripture read by the brother of the bride. (That part about rejoicing with those who rejoice rings in my ears.) And if you put aside what you actually know about the real characters in this wedding, and just observe the beauty and symbolism of Christ and the church, it is tolerable. :-D

Tom Chantry said...

Which is the worse evil? To entirely ignore the Name and Word of the Lord, or to use that Name and Word as a cloak for wicked unbelief?

There is a reason why the Puritans identified the Pope as the antichrist and not, for instance, the Turkish Sultan.

You can disagree with them about the identity of the man of sin and yet agree with them about the heinous nature of false Christianity. I would find more joy in seeing two Muslim's wed in the name of Allah - at least they wouldn't drag my Lord's name into it.

Merrilee Stevenson said...

Tom, I confess I get a little mushy when it comes to these things. But I see your point. And I have to agree. But your comments are exactly why I think it could merit a full blog post. There's more to what we saw than just the glossy photos and warm-fuzzy feelings.

V-word: nofandem

:-)

Sir Aaron said...

Is the King still the head of the church in England?

Tom Chantry said...

Well, the Queen is. I heard a rumor years ago that Charles intends to be crowned with the title "Defender of Faith," rather than "Defender of the Faith." It sounds like a conspiracy theory, but I rather trusted the source.

DJP said...

Yep.

GrammaMack said...

But but but...it was an Anglican church, not a Roman Catholic one, and the Bible readings, marriage service from the Book of Common Prayer, and biblical truths spoken were a witness to the bride and groom and to the billions watching, weren't they? Isaiah 55:11 and all that...

Wendy said...

Chantry,

...two cohabitating pagans showing up in a church for a sham of a Christian wedding.

So you would rather the majority of non-Christians marry in a civil ceremony - with completely revised vows - or not at all? Or is this your feeling only for the royal wedding?

Paula said...

Well, since everyone else is hijacking the thread and DJP hasn't scolded us yet, I shall join in the festivities.

@ GrammaMack....I agree! It was a beautiful service, so many biblical truths were shared and God's word went out to 2 billion people - nearly a third of the world's population!

Though the players in this worldwide drama were all props (including Sir Elton John), 2 billion people heard the truth about the purpose and meaning of marriage according to the Bible.Though most of those involved certainly had no business speaking for God, perhaps someone, somewhere in the world had ears to hear that.

@DJP.....Franklin Graham....I'm beginning to think this is a brilliant strategy of his. As a result of that comment, he preached the gospel - including that hell is real and those who reject Christ will be punished there forever - on MSNBC to Lawrence O'Donnell (and all three of his viewers). The segment lasted nearly 10 minutes, most of which Graham spent talking about what makes a person a Christian and how to be saved. Not a fully developed theological explanation of soteriology, to be sure, but not bad for 10 minutes either.

Later in the week he was on with Bill O'Reilly, talking about whether or not hell is real and whether "innocent" people go there (like little Jewish children in the Holocaust).This time to millions of viewers. O'Reilly didn't give him the opportunity to answer that adequately, but he still was able to make some good points and say clearly that only those who call upon the name of Jesus will be saved. Crazy as a fox maybe?

The Trump comments? Dumb. Hopefully he's misinformed. Either way, the Gospel got a lot of face time on cable news this week.

Finally, did you really have to make us watch that "Double Dream Feet" video? Of course, I had to Google "John Jacobson" only to find that he's an author and motivational speaker. His book, "A Place in the Choir" says:

"You do have a voice and your contribution is essential to creating a world of genuine harmony. In this book of inspirational and heart-warming stories of teachers, students, parents and others, John Jacobson reassures us that there is a place for all in the beautiful choir that is humanity. Whether or not you have ever sung a note or danced a step, after reading this book, you will feel like doing both in recognition of your very own Place In The Choir."

I thought I was your friend?

Sir Aaron said...

@Wendy:

That is an excellent question and I look forward to Tom's reply. I have my own opinions on the subject but I haven't become hardened in my stance yet.

Rachael Starke said...

Well I was prepared to be a hardened cynic on the wedding too, but given that Dan's loyal readers are skewing along decidedly chromosomal lines,

and given that I just got done watching the aforementioned goings on,

I'm not going to rock the boat. A wedding's a wedding - sonorous heretical non-officers and titular decorated with strange things heads notwithstanding. May God really and truly save the Queen.

And my first ten years or so of Christian life were worse - mostly consisting of lolling about on the ground not realizing that I was there and that I really needed to get up and get on with things.

Oh good grief. I just posted this entire comment in an Australian accent - no more wedding TV for me. :)

Herding Grasshoppers said...

Dan, Dan, Dan...

Do you have any mental bleach to wash away Double Dream Feet? I think that may haunt me.

The Grasshoppers were quite taken with the rabbit's deft escape. But then, they're partial to rabbits. (As pets, not food.)

Must send Mickey Mouse Club to my brother ;D

Julie

P.D. Nelson said...

Superman bah big blue boyscout that is why my childhood icon was always Batman. Great H&T and thanks for having nothing about the legal recognition of the royals common in law marriage.

Susan said...

1. That Anthony Perkins photo did give me the creeps. Yes, I saw that particular movie years ago on TV. Brrrrrrr....

2. I tend to agree with our ladies here...the wedding was nice, and there were biblical truths being shared (although if you looked closely at the Duchess of Cambridge's face, she looked either bored or tired during the sermon on marriage). I was surprised to see 2 nuns there, though. Didn't know Anglican churches had nuns....

Susan said...

Oh, and Dan, I just reread your description of the first image you posted. If that's you in your first 16 years as a Christian, then I have hope. :)

Tom Chantry said...

Wendy,

I have no objection to civil ceremonies. Marriage is good in and of itself, and its inception does not require the use of Christian architecture, ministry, or liturgy.

As for the church, I cannot imagine why any legitimate church would conduct any marriage without some requirement involving religious instruction. In fact, most churches do have such requirements. Kate was confirmed in the Anglican church in advance of this wedding, although I believe that was voluntary. I tend to think that the fact that she did so while continuing to live in sin with her fiance rather turns the whole ritual into a hoax.

I fully understand the Isaiah 55:11 argument, but we cannot pretend that the Scripture is silent on the subject of religious ritual devoid of heart commitment. Does not Isaiah 1:12-17 speak to the issue at all?

DJP said...

It's pretty simple. Like most blogs, mine is mostly about what interests me. And

that

just

didn't.

candy said...

I wasn't into the royal wedding. I did remark to my husband that perhaps some people were so taken by the "fairy tale" wedding because most of the rest of the news out there is bleak and hopeless. People cling to hope in odd ways, and this wedding might be one of those ways. I was perversly pleased to know the Obama's were not invited. It would have been amusing to see what Michelle Obama might have worn. Can you imagine what her hat might have looked like? Heh.
In our celebrity saturated culture, I am sure the Obama's felt really snubbed.

Magister Stevenson said...

@ Candy, I share in your enjoyment of the snub-O. My husband reminded me that our classy President gave the Queen a stack of CDs as a gift when he met her in person, and she hasn't forgotten.

Merrilee Stevenson said...

O.o

Oops. Posted under hubby's account by accident.

The Squirrel said...

Tom,

I really try to avoid garbage...

In fact, I'm a bit of a gourmand...

Squirrel

trogdor said...

(There was a comment posting glitch, delete one if this repeats.)

It was even worse than a stack of CDs - it was an ipod loaded with Obama's greatest speeches (and some showtunes and other stuff). Because the queen would want nothing more than to relive O's greatest hits, impressed with him as she would surely be.

I think the gift you're thinking of was a stack of DVDs he got for the PM, Gordon Brown. Of course British DVD players are encoded for the wrong region, so he couldn't watch them anyway. Brown got Obama "an ornamental pen holder made from the timbers of the Victorian anti-slave ship HMS Gannet", Obama sent an intern to the DC union-equivalent of WalMart for a couple DVDs. Lovely. This just a few months after Obama's first decisive act in office: removing the bust of Churchill from the Oval Office. Oddly, it wasn't replaced with a bust of Chamberlain.

Anyway, I would have written some thoughts on the royal wedding, but every sentence began the same way: "No matter how silly the idea of having a queen might be to us..."

Along those lines, I had thought the only way I would watch (if I didn't have a job or a life, that is) would be if Reggie Jackson was prominently involved. But then I thought of a second way. Since it was a Friday wedding, we could have sent Rebecca Black to perform all the music. Such a move would fit our official foreign policy of needlessly antagonizing our important allies (effective January 2009).

Had I bothered watching, my thoughts probably would've resembled these.

Robert Warren said...

So...was there a royal wedding this week or something?

Paula said...

So the Double Happy Feet.....interest....you? Will have to ponder that a bit.

I was thinking about those interview questions today. DS had an especially grueling college interview. The program's director invited me to join them, or I wouldn't have believed this actually happened. First, he was asked if he could recite the Gettysburg Address:

"Do you know the Gettysburg Address, young man?"

"Yes, sir."

"Recite it."

"Forescore and seven years ago, our forefathers..."

"No...NO! Our FATHERS, not forefathers! begin again"

"Forescore and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent [please stop me] a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition [PLEASE STOP ME!!] that all men are created equal [is he going to make me recite thew entire thing???]. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived or so dedicated can long endure..."

"OK, that's enough"

"What is this, young man?"

"An acorn"

"What would Aristotle say it is?"

"Um, an acorn?"

"You're not thinking. THINK! What would Aristotle say it is?"


My son, who usually oozes self confidence was reduced to a quivering mass of "Yes, sir's" and "No, sir's" (and I was in the fetal position in the corner sucking my thumb).

At the end of the interview the man shook DS's hand and told him he had been accepted into the program. That's one of those days you realized maybe you didn't completely blow it homeschooling all those years :)

DJP said...

So the Double Happy Feet.....interest....you?

Like a car accident doesn't.

The real takeaway, Paula, is that the "royal wedding" interested me less than "Double Happy Feet."

Sir Aaron said...

@Rachael:

I got a laugh out of your post. Chromosomal, indeed.

@Tom: Your post a little more generous than my own thoughts, but right along the same lines.

Rachael Starke said...

Okay.

Found the Double Dream Feet......thing.

Now seriously considering returning to my RefBap ABSOLUTELY NO DANCING roots.

Wow.

Wendy said...

Chantry,

I don't know. It seems like if you were saying that a good number of "Christians" shouldn't be using a God-centered liturgy, then Isaiah 1:12-17 would fit. But not for non-Christians.

I personally don't like it when God isn't included in marriage ceremonies, even for unbelievers. Although I understand your reason for being offended.

Seth said...

For some reason Hither & Thither only showed up as 6 lines of text on Google Reader's RSS feed... Maybe it's just me, maybe not?

DJP said...

So, Seth, that means that it gives you a preview, which you then click to read the real thing?

IOW, in the previous way, people could read the entire post without visiting this site; but in the current way, they are notified that a post is up, and can then click through here to read the rest?

In the former, if I have this right, my traffic counter does not reflect who's reading my posts; in the latter, they do?

So what is the down-side of it showing as it does now?

Tom Chantry said...


In the former, if I have this right, my traffic counter does not reflect who's reading my posts; in the latter, they do?


In the "Uncharitable Mis-Readings" category, my first, too-early-in-the-morning thought was, "Why is DJP blathering on about his rights?"

DJP said...

LOL; my misreadings are often more interesting than the actual text...

...hater.

CGrim said...

Sir Aaron, sorry I havent replied sooner. You said, "I'd say that if you have any kind of monarch you have less freedom. Therefore, to be pro-freedom is to be anti-monarchy."

But couldn't one just as easily say, "If you have any kind of government you have less freedom. Therefore, to be pro-freedom is to be anti-government"?

Yet none of us here (presumably) are anarchists. There's nothing inherently immoral about submission to earthly headships, be it parents, spouses, or emperors (even when that person in authority makes mistakes from time to time). To argue otherwise raises some serious questions, I think.

We certainly ought to seek justice and peace in society, but to suggest that any sort of hierarchy is itself unjust is an extreme form of egalitarianism that I just don't see any biblical support for.

Sir Aaron said...

C.Grim:

I appreciate your viewpoint but it assumes that one type of government is equal to another. Thy aren't. A monarchy is despotic by it's nature. The British monarchy both past and present is a perfect ilustration of I Samuel 8:10-12. In fact, the reason why the British monarchy is only a shadow of itself is exactly because it was so despotic. But aside from that, it is still today an office that sucks wealth from it's citizenry, which as far as I'm concerned is immoral.