12/05/2002
signs of the impending apocalypse #7
I read this linked from The Ever Changing Selection.
I read these stories of men who are trying to convince their TiVO that they are not gay, and I realize that we're starting to see the fruit of just who is in control. An old Calvin and Hobbes cartoon shows Calvin reading to Hobbes and says, "Religion is the opiate of the masses. What do you suppose that means?" Then, in the next frame, Calvin's television is seen with the 'thought bubble,' saying, "It means Karl Marx hasn't seen nothin yet." (BTW, I looked at running a copy of the print here, but it would have cost $110 in reprint rights -- so guess what, you get me tellin' you about it instead).
I've got this image of people acting like Mike Piazza, but instead of talking to the press, their pleading to their Zenith -- "I'm not gay. I am a heterosexual man!" (and here's an interesting, but tragic--IMHO-- aside discovered while finding the Piazza link)
According to what I watch (albeit irregularly), if I actually owned a TiVO, I suppose it would determine that I am a 30-s something New Jersey mobster who hangs with my pals in Manhattan coffee shops when I'm not commuting to Chicago to perform emergency surgery or suiting up for the Broncos or filling the pulpit for Charles Stanley
I am waiting for the day that some young man actually declares, "I always knew I was different, but I really knew I was gay when my TiVO kept recording all this gay programming just for me."
I read these stories of men who are trying to convince their TiVO that they are not gay, and I realize that we're starting to see the fruit of just who is in control. An old Calvin and Hobbes cartoon shows Calvin reading to Hobbes and says, "Religion is the opiate of the masses. What do you suppose that means?" Then, in the next frame, Calvin's television is seen with the 'thought bubble,' saying, "It means Karl Marx hasn't seen nothin yet." (BTW, I looked at running a copy of the print here, but it would have cost $110 in reprint rights -- so guess what, you get me tellin' you about it instead).
I've got this image of people acting like Mike Piazza, but instead of talking to the press, their pleading to their Zenith -- "I'm not gay. I am a heterosexual man!" (and here's an interesting, but tragic--IMHO-- aside discovered while finding the Piazza link)
According to what I watch (albeit irregularly), if I actually owned a TiVO, I suppose it would determine that I am a 30-s something New Jersey mobster who hangs with my pals in Manhattan coffee shops when I'm not commuting to Chicago to perform emergency surgery or suiting up for the Broncos or filling the pulpit for Charles Stanley
I am waiting for the day that some young man actually declares, "I always knew I was different, but I really knew I was gay when my TiVO kept recording all this gay programming just for me."
12/04/2002
does the world hate Christ?
you be the judge:
from Baptist Press:
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--The Elms, a Christian rock band, has turned down an opportunity for high-profile exposure in an edgy teen movie because
of the film's controversial content.
The young Canadian band members were tapped to appear as themselves singing their hit single, "Speaking in Tongues" in a film starring teen
pop singer Mandy Moore and Macaulay Culkin of "Home Alone" fame, produced by R.E.M.'s Michael Stipe.
But when the band read the script, they decided not to participate.
The movie, "Saved," essentially pokes fun at born-again Christians. Set in a Christian high school, the film is about a girl named Mary who becomes pregnant after sleeping with her homosexual boyfriend in an unsuccessful attempt to make him straight, according to canadianchristian.com. Mary is then ostracized by most of her
classmates while her mother has a secret affair with the school's pastor.
in a word: wow.
from Baptist Press:
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--The Elms, a Christian rock band, has turned down an opportunity for high-profile exposure in an edgy teen movie because
of the film's controversial content.
The young Canadian band members were tapped to appear as themselves singing their hit single, "Speaking in Tongues" in a film starring teen
pop singer Mandy Moore and Macaulay Culkin of "Home Alone" fame, produced by R.E.M.'s Michael Stipe.
But when the band read the script, they decided not to participate.
The movie, "Saved," essentially pokes fun at born-again Christians. Set in a Christian high school, the film is about a girl named Mary who becomes pregnant after sleeping with her homosexual boyfriend in an unsuccessful attempt to make him straight, according to canadianchristian.com. Mary is then ostracized by most of her
classmates while her mother has a secret affair with the school's pastor.
in a word: wow.
mad libs for Jesus
I got this from Brent Ferguson (the journey, check my blogroll to the right),
who shows where he got it.
My favorite line: what would Jesus do? Probably not what you'd do. That's why He's Jesus. And you're not.
I've oft thought that wwjd should actually stand for 'what would Judas do?' since that's how so many end up behaving anyway.
As the theologian Bono once said, "We need to quit thanking God for all this. He doesn't want any of the credit for what we're doing."
who shows where he got it.
My favorite line: what would Jesus do? Probably not what you'd do. That's why He's Jesus. And you're not.
I've oft thought that wwjd should actually stand for 'what would Judas do?' since that's how so many end up behaving anyway.
As the theologian Bono once said, "We need to quit thanking God for all this. He doesn't want any of the credit for what we're doing."
'Santa' rearranged spells....'Nasta'
we're in that festive time of year where all attention falls upon that oh-so-important figure...
and I ain't talkin' about Jesus.
No, I'm referring to Santa Claus
Chris Kringle
Pere Noel
Saint Nick.
There's two different camps (with many factions within each).
To one camp, this is Santa.
to wit
To the other, this is the perception of 'the jolly elf.'
to wit
and for both, to and wit
let us pause for the obligatory historical link, to give our background & substance
Our children have been told that Santa was a man named Nick who once lived and loved Jesus so much he gave presents to other people on Christ's birthday. People today like to pretend to be Santa because what he did was so nice. We stress that he is not real (currently living), and that it is not their job to tell other people that Santa is not real. So far, so good.
My only real irritation about the whole 'Santa' thing is the folks who get angry (or annoyed, whatever) with me because I determined not to lie to my children about him. (warning: I am now stepping on to my soap box. It is approximately 24 inches tall, and will bear my weight for approximately 2 minutes).
Inasmuch as I really don't have a huge problem with Santa, I do believe that he can be a major obstacle to a child coming to a saving knowledge in Christ. Children inevitably find out that Santa is not real. Then, at about the same time in life, we ask them to believe that Jesus, who they cannot see has come and wants to give them the best gift imaginable. Hmmm? where have they heard that before? Last time they bought in to that story, they caught "Santa" cursing under his breath trying to read cryptic instructions to put a bicycle togther while snacking on stale cookies and warm eggnog left out "just for him." Faith in Santa didn't exactly have that big payoff after all, so why. in. the. world. would faith in Jesus be any different?
Give me two choices and the stipulation that I cannot have both -- 1) my children come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ or 2) my children get to experience the 'joy and magic' of a Christmas filled with Santa. I guess you know which one I'd pick every time. I understand that 'here in the real world' the two aren't mutually exclusive. I know that Santa doesn't mean a child won't be saved. But my point is this -- it's hard enough as it is for people to overcome the world. Why would we want to make it even more difficult?
My children, IMHO, have a greater respect for 'Santa' because we have introduced him to our kids in a manner that shows even his submission to the Lordship of Jesus. He's not magical, mystical, or supernatural. He was just a man, changed by the love of Christ, all for the glory of God.
and I ain't talkin' about Jesus.
No, I'm referring to Santa Claus
Chris Kringle
Pere Noel
Saint Nick.
There's two different camps (with many factions within each).
To one camp, this is Santa.
to wit
To the other, this is the perception of 'the jolly elf.'
to wit
and for both, to and wit
let us pause for the obligatory historical link, to give our background & substance
Our children have been told that Santa was a man named Nick who once lived and loved Jesus so much he gave presents to other people on Christ's birthday. People today like to pretend to be Santa because what he did was so nice. We stress that he is not real (currently living), and that it is not their job to tell other people that Santa is not real. So far, so good.
My only real irritation about the whole 'Santa' thing is the folks who get angry (or annoyed, whatever) with me because I determined not to lie to my children about him. (warning: I am now stepping on to my soap box. It is approximately 24 inches tall, and will bear my weight for approximately 2 minutes).
Inasmuch as I really don't have a huge problem with Santa, I do believe that he can be a major obstacle to a child coming to a saving knowledge in Christ. Children inevitably find out that Santa is not real. Then, at about the same time in life, we ask them to believe that Jesus, who they cannot see has come and wants to give them the best gift imaginable. Hmmm? where have they heard that before? Last time they bought in to that story, they caught "Santa" cursing under his breath trying to read cryptic instructions to put a bicycle togther while snacking on stale cookies and warm eggnog left out "just for him." Faith in Santa didn't exactly have that big payoff after all, so why. in. the. world. would faith in Jesus be any different?
Give me two choices and the stipulation that I cannot have both -- 1) my children come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ or 2) my children get to experience the 'joy and magic' of a Christmas filled with Santa. I guess you know which one I'd pick every time. I understand that 'here in the real world' the two aren't mutually exclusive. I know that Santa doesn't mean a child won't be saved. But my point is this -- it's hard enough as it is for people to overcome the world. Why would we want to make it even more difficult?
My children, IMHO, have a greater respect for 'Santa' because we have introduced him to our kids in a manner that shows even his submission to the Lordship of Jesus. He's not magical, mystical, or supernatural. He was just a man, changed by the love of Christ, all for the glory of God.
12/03/2002
a thousand words
you might be 'the boss,' but Mr. Soprano would be grateful if you'd agree to play at his boy's birthday party.
signs of the impending apocalypse #6
look closely
this is an actual ebay sale of a photo of a cat looking at an ebay sale of a home once owned by Eminem.
this is an actual ebay sale of a photo of a cat looking at an ebay sale of a home once owned by Eminem.
huh?
seen on the 'net:
Remember: the more you cut the cake, the more sticks to the knife
is there a deeper meaning to this?
Remember: the more you cut the cake, the more sticks to the knife
is there a deeper meaning to this?
not really asking, but since you told...
while on vacation this past weekend, came across this news story about 2 linguists who were recently dismissed from the military because they were "caught being homosexual (these are my words, clumsily 'coining' their offense)." They were 2 of nine dismissed for the offense.
One of the dismissed was Rob Hicks, a native of Craig. Rob and I played football together. He was a sophmore when I was a senior. His sister Shelly was in my class. So, I had several personal reflections while examining the many interesting things that were brought up in this article.
Being gay had never been a problem in Craig, in northwestern Colorado, Hicks said. "I knew that I was gay and I knew that I was different, but it didn't seem to interfere with my life," he said.
Colorado, then, apparently, is not the bastion of intolerance that it has been portrayed to be. Rob "came out" when he was 20 -- the same year that Colorado passed Amendment 2, denying priveleged rights to homosexuals (although it was later overturned as being unconstitutional). Yet, Rob survived, and I would dare to say, thrived.
Hicks, who had declared himself to be gay when he was 20, said: "If it meant I would have to go back into the closet, I would."
I'm interested in this term "declared" and all that goes with it. I don't know any heterosexual who had to declare their heterosexuality unless at some point in time they were considered to be homosexual -- in such cases, the declaration was really a clarification. Yet, those prefering homosexuality must declare it -- like when a baseball player becomes a 'free agent.' Why? Is it simply because homosexuality is different from the norm? And if so, why is the norm the norm? It's not because homosexuality is new -- its been around since Genesis. But it has always been considered deviant (from the norm). Certainly, homosexuality has experienced various times of greater cultural acceptability as well as greater times of cultural repulsion, but never -- never -- has it been identified as 'the norm' by which all other sexual practices are compared.
Again: why not?
1. Biology
2. Purpose
3. Pleasure
Now, these arguments are well discussed here and here That's why I'm not expounding on them here. I will say this, though. Homosexuality advocates can take any one of these three arguments and give ample (albeit not necessarily accurate) disagreement with the heterosexual position (I know, a bad choice of words). Yet, when all three considerations are examined in the context of one another, only heterosexuality satisfies (or accomplishes) all three. Thus, heterosexuality is the norm.
I know scientists want to talk about homosexual sheep. They want to declare homosexuality is genetic. These arguments and many others are more about evolution than they truly are about homosexuality, though. If homosexuality could be proven, it wouldn't be a triumph for homosexuality so much as it would be a triumph for Darwinism. In this regard, homosexuality is really a pawn in the evolutionary battle, and IMHO, homosexual people should be upset about being used in this manner.
All of this (the three considerations of 'the norm' and the evolutionary battle) point to the bigger picture -- The norm is the norm because of the creative design of God. He knew what He was doing when He created man and woman. He knew what He was doing when He created sex. He established the norm -- the standard -- because it was a vital, necessary component of the fulfiment of His greater plan to redeem His finest Creation.
Now, all that said, I move on....
As they learned immediately after they were caught together in Gamble's room, once a gay individual is discovered, the military bureaucracy tends to move inexorably against him or her....But after weeks of carefully guarding their relationship on the base, the two decided to spend one night together. "I thought we were safe. As it turned out we were not safe at all," said Hicks. "We just picked the wrong night."Just being caught in the room together was enough for 10 days restriction on the base and extra duties, but then the inspectors discovered love letters between the two men and what Gamble described as "affectionate, but not sexual" photographs of them together.
I confess, I have mixed emotions on this matter, politically speaking. If any person is willing to place themselves in harm's way for the sake of our country, regardless of their sexual orientation, I'm thankful for their sacrifice. And I'm not informed enough to comment intelligently on the psychology behind the influence of sexuality on morale and military readiness. But here is where I do have problems.
1. Don't ask, don't tell is established military procedure. like it or not. And remember, Bush is being criticized for enforcing it, but it was Clinton who originated it. Regardless, the article states that both men knew the policy before they entered, and thought they could exist within its constricts. It was only when they chose to indulge in their sexual desires, despite the potential for consequence, that they found themselves in a mess.
2. When they experienced the full consequence of their decision, it was only then that they decided that they were wronged. Sexual misconduct issues are not homosexual-specific, but only homosexual misconduct gets headlines.
3. I understand that there will be some who will say this policy is discriminatory, homophobic, or even persecution. I don't believe this situation meets the criteria to successfully apply any of these labels to itself. They were caught in a routine check, they had violated an established standard of conduct, and were punished. It's not as if the two were just sitting in class and had their sexuality challenged for no reason. Furthermore, they're both still working as contractors with the government!
So where is the line drawn? how does one 'hate the sin and love the sinner?' well, we've only been struggling with that since the beginning of time, so don't expect to find the answer in my little ol' blog. I'll tell you this, though. My own father never failed to let me know when I fell short of his standards. But I've never once doubted his love for me. I never had to wonder if what I was doing was right or wrong, and I was never able to justify wrong into being right. Lovingly standing for God's high standards is not only possible, it is expected.
One of the dismissed was Rob Hicks, a native of Craig. Rob and I played football together. He was a sophmore when I was a senior. His sister Shelly was in my class. So, I had several personal reflections while examining the many interesting things that were brought up in this article.
Being gay had never been a problem in Craig, in northwestern Colorado, Hicks said. "I knew that I was gay and I knew that I was different, but it didn't seem to interfere with my life," he said.
Colorado, then, apparently, is not the bastion of intolerance that it has been portrayed to be. Rob "came out" when he was 20 -- the same year that Colorado passed Amendment 2, denying priveleged rights to homosexuals (although it was later overturned as being unconstitutional). Yet, Rob survived, and I would dare to say, thrived.
Hicks, who had declared himself to be gay when he was 20, said: "If it meant I would have to go back into the closet, I would."
I'm interested in this term "declared" and all that goes with it. I don't know any heterosexual who had to declare their heterosexuality unless at some point in time they were considered to be homosexual -- in such cases, the declaration was really a clarification. Yet, those prefering homosexuality must declare it -- like when a baseball player becomes a 'free agent.' Why? Is it simply because homosexuality is different from the norm? And if so, why is the norm the norm? It's not because homosexuality is new -- its been around since Genesis. But it has always been considered deviant (from the norm). Certainly, homosexuality has experienced various times of greater cultural acceptability as well as greater times of cultural repulsion, but never -- never -- has it been identified as 'the norm' by which all other sexual practices are compared.
Again: why not?
1. Biology
2. Purpose
3. Pleasure
Now, these arguments are well discussed here and here That's why I'm not expounding on them here. I will say this, though. Homosexuality advocates can take any one of these three arguments and give ample (albeit not necessarily accurate) disagreement with the heterosexual position (I know, a bad choice of words). Yet, when all three considerations are examined in the context of one another, only heterosexuality satisfies (or accomplishes) all three. Thus, heterosexuality is the norm.
I know scientists want to talk about homosexual sheep. They want to declare homosexuality is genetic. These arguments and many others are more about evolution than they truly are about homosexuality, though. If homosexuality could be proven, it wouldn't be a triumph for homosexuality so much as it would be a triumph for Darwinism. In this regard, homosexuality is really a pawn in the evolutionary battle, and IMHO, homosexual people should be upset about being used in this manner.
All of this (the three considerations of 'the norm' and the evolutionary battle) point to the bigger picture -- The norm is the norm because of the creative design of God. He knew what He was doing when He created man and woman. He knew what He was doing when He created sex. He established the norm -- the standard -- because it was a vital, necessary component of the fulfiment of His greater plan to redeem His finest Creation.
Now, all that said, I move on....
As they learned immediately after they were caught together in Gamble's room, once a gay individual is discovered, the military bureaucracy tends to move inexorably against him or her....But after weeks of carefully guarding their relationship on the base, the two decided to spend one night together. "I thought we were safe. As it turned out we were not safe at all," said Hicks. "We just picked the wrong night."Just being caught in the room together was enough for 10 days restriction on the base and extra duties, but then the inspectors discovered love letters between the two men and what Gamble described as "affectionate, but not sexual" photographs of them together.
I confess, I have mixed emotions on this matter, politically speaking. If any person is willing to place themselves in harm's way for the sake of our country, regardless of their sexual orientation, I'm thankful for their sacrifice. And I'm not informed enough to comment intelligently on the psychology behind the influence of sexuality on morale and military readiness. But here is where I do have problems.
1. Don't ask, don't tell is established military procedure. like it or not. And remember, Bush is being criticized for enforcing it, but it was Clinton who originated it. Regardless, the article states that both men knew the policy before they entered, and thought they could exist within its constricts. It was only when they chose to indulge in their sexual desires, despite the potential for consequence, that they found themselves in a mess.
2. When they experienced the full consequence of their decision, it was only then that they decided that they were wronged. Sexual misconduct issues are not homosexual-specific, but only homosexual misconduct gets headlines.
3. I understand that there will be some who will say this policy is discriminatory, homophobic, or even persecution. I don't believe this situation meets the criteria to successfully apply any of these labels to itself. They were caught in a routine check, they had violated an established standard of conduct, and were punished. It's not as if the two were just sitting in class and had their sexuality challenged for no reason. Furthermore, they're both still working as contractors with the government!
So where is the line drawn? how does one 'hate the sin and love the sinner?' well, we've only been struggling with that since the beginning of time, so don't expect to find the answer in my little ol' blog. I'll tell you this, though. My own father never failed to let me know when I fell short of his standards. But I've never once doubted his love for me. I never had to wonder if what I was doing was right or wrong, and I was never able to justify wrong into being right. Lovingly standing for God's high standards is not only possible, it is expected.
why bryan doesn't drink alcohol
this has been around for a while, but it just came to me in my joke of the day, so I cut and paste it for you now.
(and does provide good reasons for why I stay away from the "hair o' the dog..")
New FDA Alcohol Warnings for Booze Bottles
Consumption of alcohol may make you think you are whispering when you are not.
Consumption of alcohol is a major factor in dancing like a loser.
Consumption of alcohol may cause you to tell the same boring story over and over again.
Consumption of alcohol may cause you to thay shings like thish.
Consumption of alcohol may convince you that your ex is really dying to hear from you at 4 am.
Consumption of alcohol may cause you to roll over in the morning and see something really scary (whose species and/or name you can't remember).
Consumption of alcohol is the leading cause of inexplicable rug burns on the forehead.
Consumption of alcohol may lead you to believe that you're tougher than a really big guy named Kong.
Consumption of alcohol may lead you to believe you are invisible.
Consumption of alcohol may lead you to think people are laughing WITH you.
Consumption of alcohol may cause an influx in the time-space continuum, whereby small... or large gaps of time may seem to literally disappear.
Consumption of alcohol may actually CAUSE pregnancy.
***
This reminds me of something I saw somewhere some time ago (how is that for specific)
I'll try to remember some of it for you...now:
the worst things to say from the pulpit
I am so drunk!
Good morning....I'm gay.
Today, I'm preaching to Bob, the lying womanizer in the third row.
Bible, Schmible...today's message comes from the book of Oprah.
Today's sermon will be presented entirely in Haiku
Who here agrees today that Jesus is overrated?
The other day, when I was gambling with the previous week's offering, the Lord really spoke to me...
Today's message is sponsored by NBC, home of those wacky friends, Will & Grace!
***
got one to add? share it!
(and does provide good reasons for why I stay away from the "hair o' the dog..")
New FDA Alcohol Warnings for Booze Bottles
Consumption of alcohol may make you think you are whispering when you are not.
Consumption of alcohol is a major factor in dancing like a loser.
Consumption of alcohol may cause you to tell the same boring story over and over again.
Consumption of alcohol may cause you to thay shings like thish.
Consumption of alcohol may convince you that your ex is really dying to hear from you at 4 am.
Consumption of alcohol may cause you to roll over in the morning and see something really scary (whose species and/or name you can't remember).
Consumption of alcohol is the leading cause of inexplicable rug burns on the forehead.
Consumption of alcohol may lead you to believe that you're tougher than a really big guy named Kong.
Consumption of alcohol may lead you to believe you are invisible.
Consumption of alcohol may lead you to think people are laughing WITH you.
Consumption of alcohol may cause an influx in the time-space continuum, whereby small... or large gaps of time may seem to literally disappear.
Consumption of alcohol may actually CAUSE pregnancy.
***
This reminds me of something I saw somewhere some time ago (how is that for specific)
I'll try to remember some of it for you...now:
the worst things to say from the pulpit
I am so drunk!
Good morning....I'm gay.
Today, I'm preaching to Bob, the lying womanizer in the third row.
Bible, Schmible...today's message comes from the book of Oprah.
Today's sermon will be presented entirely in Haiku
Who here agrees today that Jesus is overrated?
The other day, when I was gambling with the previous week's offering, the Lord really spoke to me...
Today's message is sponsored by NBC, home of those wacky friends, Will & Grace!
***
got one to add? share it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
