Should I stalk William Shatner?
Well, now you can take the test and have an answer to all those questioning voices in your head.
8/09/2003
clearly, he meant homosapien
8/08/2003
faith, as defined by martin luther
Faith is a living, daring confidence in God's grace, so sure and certain that a man would stake his life on it a thousand times.
man, that's good.
does this describe your confidence in God's grace?
i'm a product of thrifty parents
leaving the 4th floor bathroom today, i do what i've been trained to do in 18 years of living under my parent's roof.
i turned off the lights.
this action created the instaneous reaction:
"Hey! I'm in a stall here!"
oops.
my bad.
i turned off the lights.
this action created the instaneous reaction:
"Hey! I'm in a stall here!"
oops.
my bad.
justified
the "young buck" mentioned some time ago who just by existing led me to feel old and flabby and frumpy...
yeah. that's the one.
I just overheard that he used to be in a soap opera. but he wasn't comfortable compromising his morals. so he left it behind to serve others.
I don't feel so bad knowing that others used to pay him money because he was so handsome.
even if this is discovered to be merely gossip and untrue, I'll continue to believe it. because if he wasn't in a soap opera, he probably could be, in a Joey Tribiani type of way.
and that's not meant as a slam on my colleague. Its just that i could easily see him as Dr. Drake.
yeah. that's the one.
I just overheard that he used to be in a soap opera. but he wasn't comfortable compromising his morals. so he left it behind to serve others.
I don't feel so bad knowing that others used to pay him money because he was so handsome.
even if this is discovered to be merely gossip and untrue, I'll continue to believe it. because if he wasn't in a soap opera, he probably could be, in a Joey Tribiani type of way.
and that's not meant as a slam on my colleague. Its just that i could easily see him as Dr. Drake.
you must read this
words fail me.
read this to see what it means to seriously address the issue of sexual sin & temptation that Rev. Robinson deals with as trivially as i do the term 'happypants.' Thanks to such small hands for the link!
Huw Raphael demonstrates more spiritual qualifications for leadership than does the man who just received the endorsement of his peers. i'm honored to add him to my blogroll.
if you are about to go on without reading his post "i was in hell," i urge you to not make that mistake. rarely has the pain of sin been so eloquently, yet simply stated.
read this to see what it means to seriously address the issue of sexual sin & temptation that Rev. Robinson deals with as trivially as i do the term 'happypants.' Thanks to such small hands for the link!
Huw Raphael demonstrates more spiritual qualifications for leadership than does the man who just received the endorsement of his peers. i'm honored to add him to my blogroll.
if you are about to go on without reading his post "i was in hell," i urge you to not make that mistake. rarely has the pain of sin been so eloquently, yet simply stated.
happypants revisited
just to make sure I hadn't inadvertantly used a derogatory term, I checked up with the dictionary, and I also Googled the term. The dictionary hasn't acknowledged it as identified hate language. And of the 1900 entries at the search engine (i confess, I didn't check them all out), I discovered it to be the nickname of several people (both self-given and also others-given), an off-Broadway play (waaaaay off-Broadway, apparently), and the subject of a t-shirt, among many other things.
Now I better go check on "applecart," to make sure I didn't offend somebody else. I've a hunch that I should be expecting an email from Steve Jobs that I'm a Mac hater because of my reckless use of this term.
Now I better go check on "applecart," to make sure I didn't offend somebody else. I've a hunch that I should be expecting an email from Steve Jobs that I'm a Mac hater because of my reckless use of this term.
coming in late to work today
we're taking Cotter back to the allergist today.
we're hoping to discover they know more about mystery intestinal dysfunctions here in Georgia than they did back in Colorado.
we're hoping to discover they know more about mystery intestinal dysfunctions here in Georgia than they did back in Colorado.
insight
the words pear and mango passion identify the scent, and not the flavor, of your shampoo.
trust me on this.
trust me on this.
i have apparently upset the applecart
Tony, who is always right, pointed me to By Sand and Sea, where I apparently upset some folks for using the term "Rev. Happypants" to refer to Rev. Robinson. And Tony, I'm a little hurt you suggest that I'm a right wing nut giving you -- a right wing nut -- a bad name.
Because I used this term to refer to a man who left his heterosexual marriage for a homosexual relationship, thus making the issue of his ability to lead a congregation (or subset of a denomination) one about his sexual orientation, than about his qualifications and responsibilities as a man called of God, I've been labeled a homophobe. Of course, I respond to those accusations in the comments, so please, go and read.
First of all, the term homophobe is a humorous one to me. It has become the the stone in the sling of those who view homosexuality as the greatest social cause since racial equality. If you oppose the premise that it is right and cool for people of the same sex to get jiggy with one another, then you are portrayed as the Goliath who must be felled (interesting to note that a popular theological corruption by homosexual advocates is the suggestion that David and Jonathan were lovers). THe easiest way to do this is to cast the stone of "homophobe" and hope to imbed it in their forehead for all to see.
"Phobe" derives from phobia, or fear. The accusation is that my willingness to type the term 'happypants' reveals a hatred for homosexuals born from a fear of them, which is laughable. ha ha. laugh laugh. By this same logic, the writers of Will & Grace must either be homophobes or self-loathers (based on their orientation, which I do not know) because they often have jokes based on (gasp!) sexuality -- Will is called Wilma, Jack is called Mary. Karen chides them both for being less masculine than herself (but she's never confused as a 'hater,' how odd). It's just easy and irresponsible to call me a hater, rather than deal with the truth and merit of my criticism.
Perhaps I made a mistake for using the term. Not because it was wrong. Because it wasn't. Not because it wasn't funny. Because it was. But the mistake was using a frivolous word in an environment that is by its nature very non-frivolity-oriented (which is odd, because if it were addressed on Will & Grace, I bet it would be a laugh riot). This goes to prove once again, that life is not a sitcom, and if it were, the ratings would be horrible. And it sure makes it easier when humorless people can inaccurately slap a label on an opponent so they don't have address the legitimate points raised by that person.
and that, my friends, is the real travesty of the whole situation.
Because I used this term to refer to a man who left his heterosexual marriage for a homosexual relationship, thus making the issue of his ability to lead a congregation (or subset of a denomination) one about his sexual orientation, than about his qualifications and responsibilities as a man called of God, I've been labeled a homophobe. Of course, I respond to those accusations in the comments, so please, go and read.
First of all, the term homophobe is a humorous one to me. It has become the the stone in the sling of those who view homosexuality as the greatest social cause since racial equality. If you oppose the premise that it is right and cool for people of the same sex to get jiggy with one another, then you are portrayed as the Goliath who must be felled (interesting to note that a popular theological corruption by homosexual advocates is the suggestion that David and Jonathan were lovers). THe easiest way to do this is to cast the stone of "homophobe" and hope to imbed it in their forehead for all to see.
"Phobe" derives from phobia, or fear. The accusation is that my willingness to type the term 'happypants' reveals a hatred for homosexuals born from a fear of them, which is laughable. ha ha. laugh laugh. By this same logic, the writers of Will & Grace must either be homophobes or self-loathers (based on their orientation, which I do not know) because they often have jokes based on (gasp!) sexuality -- Will is called Wilma, Jack is called Mary. Karen chides them both for being less masculine than herself (but she's never confused as a 'hater,' how odd). It's just easy and irresponsible to call me a hater, rather than deal with the truth and merit of my criticism.
Perhaps I made a mistake for using the term. Not because it was wrong. Because it wasn't. Not because it wasn't funny. Because it was. But the mistake was using a frivolous word in an environment that is by its nature very non-frivolity-oriented (which is odd, because if it were addressed on Will & Grace, I bet it would be a laugh riot). This goes to prove once again, that life is not a sitcom, and if it were, the ratings would be horrible. And it sure makes it easier when humorless people can inaccurately slap a label on an opponent so they don't have address the legitimate points raised by that person.
and that, my friends, is the real travesty of the whole situation.
8/07/2003
brilliant
newly added to the blogroll is emerging minister who has a couple of genius photoshop images
and a comment by Rick Warren himself, based on this post. He also has a link to an interesting article by the literary guy at GQ who went all out to experience the Christiansub pseudo-culture.
laughter & the provocation of thought...two ingredients that get you added to my blogroll.
and a comment by Rick Warren himself, based on this post. He also has a link to an interesting article by the literary guy at GQ who went all out to experience the Christian
laughter & the provocation of thought...two ingredients that get you added to my blogroll.
the worst headline of the day
Multiple Gay Images Stir Straight Reaction
thanks to Kyle for directing me to this.
and i've decided that two terms that shouldn't go together, stylistically speaking from a heterosexual view are "gay" and "in your face."
thanks to Kyle for directing me to this.
and i've decided that two terms that shouldn't go together, stylistically speaking from a heterosexual view are "gay" and "in your face."
fit to lead
I didn't intend to revisit the gay bishop election issue, because the whole thing is icky and it does not glorify the body of Christ. Furthermore, I'm not an Episcopalian and I'm of no consequence to their mistakes in theology. Nonetheless, a Baptist principle is to fight for their liberty to be as wrong as they can be, if they so feel compelled to do so. So, the following is an address to the kind-hearted commenter on my previous post and any others who may be pleased by this man's election, to whom to prayers of hope are offered.
1 timothy 3 is where the minimum qualifications list of a bishop can be found. Everything I'm about to type is based on the premise that God means what He says, and says what He means. If you disagree with this premise, then you'll likely disagree with everything else. But if you disagree with this premise, then I very humbly tell you that you are wrong and you need to rethink your premise, because its messing up everything else you're trying to figure out.
I won't address every qualification found in this passage. I'll just highlight where, in my observation, i see this guy falling short and disqualified for consideration.
verse 2 says he must be blameless. This means that he must pursue holiness. This is necessary so when an accusation comes, the accuser looks foolish, rather than the accusee. Leaving your wife for another man pretty much eliminates this, but even more so when the gay/adulterous relationship has been continued for another 13 years.
this same verse says that he's to be the husband of one wife. Technically(from man's viewpoint), he's still there, because neither of the two men can be a "wife," no matter what they decide at home. But God says elsewhere (Matt. 19:6) what God has put together, let no man separate." He left his female wife to enter into a homosexual relationship. I know the bishop likes to speak of the divorce in positive terms, but his argument rings hollow theologically.
Now... the bishop candidate may do well on the continuation of the list: he might be temperate, sober-minded, well-behaved, hospitable, able to teach, not given to wine, not violent nor greedy for money. he could be gentle, not quarrelsome nor covetous. He could be a good parent, and not a novice. but then comes verse 7:
He must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
the tricky question, then is, "who are the outsiders?" I would be disingenuous to say that that's talking about me. I'm an insider, because I'm part of the family of Christ. I understand that some would then argue, "but he does have a good testimony to the 'outsiders.' He is active in the gay community, he's always there at hospices...." I'd never try and argue that and I applaud him for his benevolence.
what is does create, though, is the question of what it really means to have a "good testimony." What this literally means is to be able to live a life that adequately communicates what the sacrificial atonement of Jesus Christ has accomplished. A testimony is a witness. In the the christian experience, it is the reproduced life of Christ enabled in a believer through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. This is expressed through the manifestation of the Fruit of the Spirit (which, note, is a singular expression. They all are bestowed together. This is not a spiritual produce stand where one gets to pick and choose which to take and which to leave). The last on this this list is not the least, and it is the expression of self control (see Gal. 5:22).
What this literally means is to subject your "self" to the control of the Spirit. Only when your self is controlled by the Spirit are you "self controlled." And when this occurs, the Spirit is able to overcome your fleshly temptations, whether they be heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, bisexual, or otherwise. And the fact that the Rev. has unapologetically and unrepentantly continued in the sin, his testimony is not good. It is not good because it sullies the holiness of God. And accordingly, this is strike three.
what is sad is that God's holiness has once again been subordinated, subjugated and subverted by people who think that God's love is the primary characteristic of the Father. I have no disagreement that God is love, but His love is defined and described by His holiness. To ignore that is to prostitute His holy love into a cheap whorish humanistic love that is fall more fickle and far less reliable. God's love does not waffle and succumb to the whims and waywardness of sinful man. His holy love convicts and compels sinful man toward righteousness. A bishop who doesn't understand that is not fit to serve. And a congregation or denomination that elevatest this type of person into spiritual leadership as a pastor/shepherd/overseer/bishop has done so at the expense of God's truth for the purpose of appeasing ears that reject the Word of God, to the result of calamity in the body of Christ.
1 timothy 3 is where the minimum qualifications list of a bishop can be found. Everything I'm about to type is based on the premise that God means what He says, and says what He means. If you disagree with this premise, then you'll likely disagree with everything else. But if you disagree with this premise, then I very humbly tell you that you are wrong and you need to rethink your premise, because its messing up everything else you're trying to figure out.
I won't address every qualification found in this passage. I'll just highlight where, in my observation, i see this guy falling short and disqualified for consideration.
verse 2 says he must be blameless. This means that he must pursue holiness. This is necessary so when an accusation comes, the accuser looks foolish, rather than the accusee. Leaving your wife for another man pretty much eliminates this, but even more so when the gay/adulterous relationship has been continued for another 13 years.
this same verse says that he's to be the husband of one wife. Technically(from man's viewpoint), he's still there, because neither of the two men can be a "wife," no matter what they decide at home. But God says elsewhere (Matt. 19:6) what God has put together, let no man separate." He left his female wife to enter into a homosexual relationship. I know the bishop likes to speak of the divorce in positive terms, but his argument rings hollow theologically.
Now... the bishop candidate may do well on the continuation of the list: he might be temperate, sober-minded, well-behaved, hospitable, able to teach, not given to wine, not violent nor greedy for money. he could be gentle, not quarrelsome nor covetous. He could be a good parent, and not a novice. but then comes verse 7:
He must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
the tricky question, then is, "who are the outsiders?" I would be disingenuous to say that that's talking about me. I'm an insider, because I'm part of the family of Christ. I understand that some would then argue, "but he does have a good testimony to the 'outsiders.' He is active in the gay community, he's always there at hospices...." I'd never try and argue that and I applaud him for his benevolence.
what is does create, though, is the question of what it really means to have a "good testimony." What this literally means is to be able to live a life that adequately communicates what the sacrificial atonement of Jesus Christ has accomplished. A testimony is a witness. In the the christian experience, it is the reproduced life of Christ enabled in a believer through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. This is expressed through the manifestation of the Fruit of the Spirit (which, note, is a singular expression. They all are bestowed together. This is not a spiritual produce stand where one gets to pick and choose which to take and which to leave). The last on this this list is not the least, and it is the expression of self control (see Gal. 5:22).
What this literally means is to subject your "self" to the control of the Spirit. Only when your self is controlled by the Spirit are you "self controlled." And when this occurs, the Spirit is able to overcome your fleshly temptations, whether they be heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, bisexual, or otherwise. And the fact that the Rev. has unapologetically and unrepentantly continued in the sin, his testimony is not good. It is not good because it sullies the holiness of God. And accordingly, this is strike three.
what is sad is that God's holiness has once again been subordinated, subjugated and subverted by people who think that God's love is the primary characteristic of the Father. I have no disagreement that God is love, but His love is defined and described by His holiness. To ignore that is to prostitute His holy love into a cheap whorish humanistic love that is fall more fickle and far less reliable. God's love does not waffle and succumb to the whims and waywardness of sinful man. His holy love convicts and compels sinful man toward righteousness. A bishop who doesn't understand that is not fit to serve. And a congregation or denomination that elevatest this type of person into spiritual leadership as a pastor/shepherd/overseer/bishop has done so at the expense of God's truth for the purpose of appeasing ears that reject the Word of God, to the result of calamity in the body of Christ.
not my best moment
late afternoon, yesterday, it was time to call Kelli at the end of a very long day. I picked up my office phone and dialed.
while I was waiting for her to pick up, my cell phone began ringing.
On the third ring I answered. Simultaneously, I thought Kelli answered.
"Hello...." I said into the office phone.
Simultaneously, a man answered Kelli's cellphone.
"Hello?"
"who is this?" I asked, suddenly suspicious/worried.
Simultaneously, the person on my cell phone became very rude.
"who is this?" he said.
"Bry..."
yes....this is when I had misdialed and was having an angry conversation...with myself.
So after a lengthy apology, I hung up and re-dialed.
while I was waiting for her to pick up, my cell phone began ringing.
On the third ring I answered. Simultaneously, I thought Kelli answered.
"Hello...." I said into the office phone.
Simultaneously, a man answered Kelli's cellphone.
"Hello?"
"who is this?" I asked, suddenly suspicious/worried.
Simultaneously, the person on my cell phone became very rude.
"who is this?" he said.
"Bry..."
yes....this is when I had misdialed and was having an angry conversation...with myself.
So after a lengthy apology, I hung up and re-dialed.
is this really what its all about?
summa practicata from Irene Cara:
Problem:
Solution:
Result:
Summary:
now...go. live life in the fullness of Flashdance.
Problem:
First when there's nothing
But a slow glowing dream
That your fear seems to hide
Deep inside your mind
All alone I have cried silent tears
Full of pride in a world made of steel
Made of stone
Solution:
Well I hear the music
Close my eyes, feel the rhythm
Wrap around, take a hold of my heart
What a feeling, bein's believing
I can't have it all, now I'm dancin' for my life
Take your passion, and make it happen
Pictures come alive
You can dance right through your life
Result:
What a feeling
What a feeling.
I am music now
Being's believin'
I am rhythm now
Pictures come alive
You can dance right through your life
Summary:
What a feeling
You can really have it all
What a feeling
Pictures come alive when I can
I can have it all
I can really have it all
Have it all
Pictures come alive when I call
Call, call, call, call
What a feeling
I can have it all
Bein's believin'
Bein's believin'
Take your passion
Make it happen
Make it happen
What a feeling
What a feeling
Bein's believin'
now...go. live life in the fullness of Flashdance.
sung to the tune of if you leave me now
I confess: I like Chicago.
and I'm not talking about the city.
and I'm not talking about the city.
old, e good. e!
A panda bear walks into a restaurant and orders a sandwich.
When he receives the sandwich he eats it and then shoots the waiter and leaves the restaurant.
A policeman sees the panda and tells him he just broke the law. The panda bear tells the policeman that he's innocent and, if he didn't believe him, to look in the dictionary. The policeman gets a dictionary and looks up "panda bear."
It says, ''Panda Bear: eats shoots and leaves.''
When he receives the sandwich he eats it and then shoots the waiter and leaves the restaurant.
A policeman sees the panda and tells him he just broke the law. The panda bear tells the policeman that he's innocent and, if he didn't believe him, to look in the dictionary. The policeman gets a dictionary and looks up "panda bear."
It says, ''Panda Bear: eats shoots and leaves.''
8/06/2003
do you want fries with that poignant memory?
my dear old dad just informed me that the Burger King in Craig, Colorado, recently boarded up its windows and shut down after 20 years of operation. The word is that its the first time in 25 years that a BK has had to shut its doors because of a lack of business. I doubt that's true, but the news of its demise is a little sad for me.
Not because I'll miss the food. I haven't eaten at a BK voluntarily for a few years now, and the thought of doing so puts my gag reflex into overdrive. But many of my teenage memories have a home-base at that greasypit.
It's where five of us on the football team won a bet with the cheerleaders by shoving entire double whoppers into our mouths.
It's where you went to sit by the window and check out who was cruising around town on the weekend nights.
It's where I broke up and reconciled with one girlfriend a half a dozen times. In one night.
It's where I sabotaged all the salt-shakers and laughed like Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet when customers attempted to use the seasoning, only to have the entire container spill on their food. I've repented of it, so you're not allowed to think poorly of me.
It's where I shared the gospel with a good friend soon after my salvation. I'll never forget how this good friend looked like I was completely insane.
ahhh good times. good times.
Not because I'll miss the food. I haven't eaten at a BK voluntarily for a few years now, and the thought of doing so puts my gag reflex into overdrive. But many of my teenage memories have a home-base at that greasypit.
It's where five of us on the football team won a bet with the cheerleaders by shoving entire double whoppers into our mouths.
It's where you went to sit by the window and check out who was cruising around town on the weekend nights.
It's where I broke up and reconciled with one girlfriend a half a dozen times. In one night.
It's where I sabotaged all the salt-shakers and laughed like Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet when customers attempted to use the seasoning, only to have the entire container spill on their food. I've repented of it, so you're not allowed to think poorly of me.
It's where I shared the gospel with a good friend soon after my salvation. I'll never forget how this good friend looked like I was completely insane.
ahhh good times. good times.
worth your time
david at 'he lives' has a post on the happy bishop that deals aptly with the theological implications. And once you're there, read everything else he has written. Even if you don't agree with him (but you should), you'll leave his page just having exercised your brain.
There needs to be more of that in Christianity.
There needs to be more of that in Christianity.
a house divided upon itself and all that jazz....
"Honest! I'm really not straight! She kissed me!!"
jen and kyle have recently commented a bit on the gay episcopal priest becoming elected as a bishop, so I'll throw in my two cents as well.
As an ordained minister myself, albeit one who as an exclusively heterosexual Southern Baptist has little in common with him socially or ecclesiastically, I'm troubled by more than the fact that he digs dudes. He was voted in on a 62-45 vote, cast by other bishops (breakdown of their sexual preferences was unavailable).
Being Baptist, I'm familiar with votes. That is the way Baptists do it. Not "do it," but it is how we make decisions. Church congregations vote on whether or not to "hire" a pastor, to build a building, or in some cases, on whether or not to open the curtains during worship. In some of these situtions, a simple majority is all that is needed. in others, like in determining whether or not a man (remember, I'm a Southern Baptist) should be our leader, a much more decisive majority is recommended. If I went to a church, or a more regional or national position of ecclesiastical authority & responsibility, If I didn't have at least an 80% vote of affirmation, i'd never accept it. To accept a position of leadership in a situation where the dissention is so evident only invites a termite-effect on a household of faith. I don't know this to be so, but my assumption is that a willingness to fill the post (NPI) despite the controversy, is geared more toward satisfying a social agenda than in following the will of God, as discerned by His unchanging Word. And the fact that he was willing to even allow a vote amidst the controversy of accusations of inappropriate touching and relationships with porn web sites makes it clear that he does not meet the Scripture's high standards of those who should be considered to lead (it's a whole "being above reproach" thing, IMHO).
He, bishop-elect
Rather than rant on with all the same arguments against homosexuality, I'd just like to take offense at this little quote of his:
"God has once again brought an Easter out of Good Friday," Robinson said after the results were announced.
you think this guy's justalittlebit full of himself to compare his own election to Christ's resurrection? The only thing these have in common is that they both end in "ection."
these are the emails I actually receive
waiting for me in my inbox today, from the executive office:
for the record, no. I did not.
and coincidentally, i have been invited to an egg sandwich lunch on the fifth floor.
Did you leave some eggs on my desk?
for the record, no. I did not.
and coincidentally, i have been invited to an egg sandwich lunch on the fifth floor.
sung to the tune of standing still
Cutting through the darkest night are my two headlights
Trying to keep it clear, but I'm losing it here
To the twilight
There's a dead end to my left
There's a burning bush to my right
You aren't in sight
You aren't in sight
Thank you, Jewel, for summarizing my commuting experience today. You know, its a little known fact that Jewel used to live in a van down by the river. She doesn't like to talk about it, though, because she wants to be respected as an artist. Or am I confusing her for Matt Foley?
Anyway, there was an accident on state highway 400 where a tractor trailer took out one of those HUUGE changing message signs. So they blocked off two exits while they tried to unwrap the gas truck from around the pole of the sign, and bring in a crane large enough to move the sign. So my normal 25 minute commmute took just a tad over 2 hours today!
Welcome to Georgia!
I learned some interesting things from this situation:
You can apparently needlepoint while driving if traffic is moving slowly enough. Thank you lady in the Blue Accord for informing me of this!
I have an extremely low threshold of tolerance for those folks who think they're part of the solution by creating a third lane of blocked traffic over in the right shoulder of the highway. I believe anyone who does that should be ticketed, and anyone who lets them merge back into the normal traffic lane should have their licenses suspended as well. I'm convinced that people who partake in right-shoulder lane creation are amongst some of the most self-absorbed people in God's creation. They must be thinking, "waiting in line might be good enough for all of you, but I am the assistant vice-supervisor's assistant to the dockloader's assistant. And clearly, if I don't break every law of traffic safety and common courtesy to get to my clipboard in the next 10 minutes, the earth will suddenly stop rotating on its axis." People -- this is a shoulder that should be used only for emergencies. And when the day arrives that the Georgia Dept. of Transportation begins posting signs that read Right shoulder/lane -- Obnoxious Imbeciles Only!, I'll apologize. Until then, may your road of travel be filled with Acme Nail & Screw Truck road spills.
Cars attempting to turn around in the non-travel-designed median after waiting in traffic for 40 minutes will experience a high likelihood of getting stuck in the wet clay-like mud of North Georgia. This creates the ironic situation of being made even more late because of the suddenly necessary assistance of a tow vehicle. This irony causes laughter in the average person passing by at the rate of 1.8 miles per hour.
When traffic is stalled this badly, you will inevitably catch one person picking their nose, having plunged third-knuckle deep. Make sure you are not this person.
You can easily tell the difference between a driver who doesn't care if they're going to be getting to work two hours later than normal, and the one who has realized their ability to make their intercontinental flight is been severely hampered by the traffic stoppage.
A surprising number of women are still wearing their rollers. At the same time, a surprising number of North Georgia men (oddly called 'rednecks' by others, I'm told) have yet to be wearing their shirts.
Clearly, I'm going to have to learn some alternate routes.
happy birthday
to my mom, tomorrow. She will be 19723 days old.
and to my lovely bride Kelli, on the 10th. She will be 12052 days old.
and to my lovely bride Kelli, on the 10th. She will be 12052 days old.
tell me again why we tolerate this?
this is happening right now. and American constituency's silent apathy is deafeningly appalling (following block text is from Khouse's Weekly EMail update, dated July 29):
I've already voiced my displeasure to the two Colorado Senators. Now its time to make contact with my new representatives. I know you'll be preaching to the choir if your senators are Republicans, but take the time to contact them anyway. Let them know you expect them to fight for this!
It matters who resides on our judcial benches. Liberals willing to violate the constitution know this, and will only be stopped by people voicing their anger.
The cooking pot for President Bush's judicial nominations is coming to a rapid boil this week as four conservative nominees are scheduled to go before the full Senate for approval.
Tuesday: Justice Priscilla Owen
President Bush renominated Justice Owen to the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals on January 7, 2003. A highly-qualified jurist, Justice Owen graduated at the top of her class from Baylor Law School and received the highest score on the bar exam. She has earned the American Bar Association’s highest rating and when she was reelected to the Texas Supreme Court in 2000 she received 84% of the statewide vote. On March 27, 2003, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved her nomination 10-9 after heavy debating over her pro-life views. For the 3rd time Tuesday, Justice Owen did not receive enough votes to override the promised liberal filibuster. She received the support of the majority, but not the necessary 60 votes.
Wednesday: Miguel Estrada
President Bush nominated Miguel Estrada to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals on May 9, 2001. Estrada graduated magna cum laude from Columbia University and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School five years after immigrating to the US from Honduras at age 17. He has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court and, like Owen, has received the American Bar Association's highest "well qualified" rating. Because the DC Circuit Court is currently "balanced" with 4 conservative and 4 liberal judges, liberals in the Senate see the conservative Estrada as a great threat and are standing against allowing his nomination to receive a fair vote.
Thursday: William Pryor
President Bush nominated Alabama Attorney General William Pryor to the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals on April 9, 2003. The Senate Judiciary Committee battled over his nomination, finally approving it for a vote before the full Senate on July 23 with a 10-9 vote. Because Pryor is a faithful Roman Catholic who has strong opinions against homosexuality and abortion and other moral issues, his opponents in the Senate argue that he will vote according to his opinion rather than according to the law. Supporters, however, argue that his record shows him well qualified to be a jurist. His nomination is also likely destined for a filibuster on the Senate floor.
Friday: Judge Carolyn Kuhl
President Bush nominated California Superior Court judge Carolyn Kuhl to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals on June 22, 2001. Judge Kuhl graduated from Princeton University and Duke Law School and was a partner at one of America's most prestigious law firms, Munger Tolles. Her willingness to author briefs (on behalf of the United States) that showed the constitutionality of certain restrictions on abortion and brought the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade to question have earned her criticism from the liberal left.
Normally, these nominees would simply need the votes of 51 Senators to be approved for the judicial positions for which they were nominated. When President Clinton made his judicial nominations, the Senate was allowed to go to a simple majority vote. However, certain liberal Senators refuse to allow a vote they expect will go against their wishes and have promised to filibuster to tie up the Senate. In order to override a filibuster, a "supermajority" of 60 votes is required. If that supermajority is not reached for these judges, the empty judicial positions will remain empty and the nominations of highly qualified, law-abiding justices and attorneys will remain in limbo.
I've already voiced my displeasure to the two Colorado Senators. Now its time to make contact with my new representatives. I know you'll be preaching to the choir if your senators are Republicans, but take the time to contact them anyway. Let them know you expect them to fight for this!
It matters who resides on our judcial benches. Liberals willing to violate the constitution know this, and will only be stopped by people voicing their anger.
8/05/2003
i laughed at this....and then sent him my bank account information.
the nigerians are gathering to make a better product.
not really, but don't they love being known for this?
not really, but don't they love being known for this?
the language of Zion
One of the frustrating parts of my job is that I'm a newbie to the jargon here. Without boring you with the details of what these various things mean, I've had to learn and/or use the following acronyms:
NAMB
IMB
SBC
ABSBC
SEBTS
NOBTS
SBTS
SWBTS
MWBTS
MO
ME
MEO
NAMS
MMA
MMO
BMOM
RA
GA
NAC
NBCW
WOM
WMU
WMM
NCR
NMEU
4A
3G
ASAP
PDQ
PDF
SSN
IQ
AWOL
ASAP
and the list goes on....
imagine how the "uninitiated" person feels when listening two two Christians speak. Do these terms make sense:
washed in the blood of the lamb
being born again
asking Jesus into your heart
being a backslider
turn your back on sin
knee-mail
prayer warrior
none of these terms are theologically incorrect. They just don't meld well into the vernacular of society. I may have mentioned it before (I'm too lazy to check my archives), but a good exercise to be more conscienscious about this habit to avoid "the language of Zion," is to take a popular, traditional hymn, and try to translate it so it contains no Christianese.
It's not as easy as you might think.
Here's a site that tries to help. And one with a bit more cynical view on the subject. and here's a sincere little primer. And another.
a good rule of thumb in communicating with those "outside the lingosphere:" adopt their terminology rather than expecting them to adopt yours. If you can't find another way to say what you want to say, you need more practice. Even Jesus had to explain "born again" to Nicodemus before he understood.
NAMB
IMB
SBC
ABSBC
SEBTS
NOBTS
SBTS
SWBTS
MWBTS
MO
ME
MEO
NAMS
MMA
MMO
BMOM
RA
GA
NAC
NBCW
WOM
WMU
WMM
NCR
NMEU
4A
3G
ASAP
PDQ
SSN
IQ
AWOL
ASAP
and the list goes on....
imagine how the "uninitiated" person feels when listening two two Christians speak. Do these terms make sense:
washed in the blood of the lamb
being born again
asking Jesus into your heart
being a backslider
turn your back on sin
knee-mail
prayer warrior
none of these terms are theologically incorrect. They just don't meld well into the vernacular of society. I may have mentioned it before (I'm too lazy to check my archives), but a good exercise to be more conscienscious about this habit to avoid "the language of Zion," is to take a popular, traditional hymn, and try to translate it so it contains no Christianese.
It's not as easy as you might think.
Here's a site that tries to help. And one with a bit more cynical view on the subject. and here's a sincere little primer. And another.
a good rule of thumb in communicating with those "outside the lingosphere:" adopt their terminology rather than expecting them to adopt yours. If you can't find another way to say what you want to say, you need more practice. Even Jesus had to explain "born again" to Nicodemus before he understood.
just exactly how old are you?
find out, down to the minute.
now, this isn't exact, because I know I was born at 4:54 a.m. on July 19, 1972. But I was still interested to learn I've lived 11,339 days so far.
This will no doubt impress everyone between the ages of 4 and 6 in my home.
and why is it that 11339 days doesn't sound as old as 31 years?
now, this isn't exact, because I know I was born at 4:54 a.m. on July 19, 1972. But I was still interested to learn I've lived 11,339 days so far.
This will no doubt impress everyone between the ages of 4 and 6 in my home.
and why is it that 11339 days doesn't sound as old as 31 years?
good advice for increased traffic
y'all probably already knew this, but I didn't. I always used the < b > and < i > codes because they were faster than < strong > and < em >. Guess which ones I will be using from now on?
The more I learn, the less I know every day.
This is what amazes me about so-called atheists(how's that for a non-sequiter?), who for the most part are really agnostics. To truly be atheist, you would have to know the unknowable, for only omniscience requires no faith. And I don't know that you could find anyone who could honestly claim that they know everything. And in that realm of what they do not know, could exist the reality of God.
James Merritt, a pastor here in GA, and former president of our convention, has said he uses this argument in talking with "atheists" about God.
If they admit the premise that God could exist outside their realm of knowledge, then he labels them "honest atheists," which in reality is an agnostic. A dishonest atheist, conversely, is one who denies the possibility of God who exists outside their knowledge, which either requires the greatest faith or the greatest self-deception imaginable. If in fact it is the greatest faith, then they are actually not an atheist, because their faith is placed in themselves, which makes them their own god. If it is self-deception, then they are not actually pursuing this avenue of discovery intellectually, but emotionally and their arguments should be weighted or prejuciced accordingly.
So if an honest atheist is really an agnostic, Merrit reasons, it needs to be determined if the person is an honest or dishonest agnostic. A dishonest agnostic acknowledges that there may be a God outside their realm of knowledge, but that this God has nothing to offer. Only an honest agnostic reasons both that there may be a God outside of their knowledge, and if there is God, then the person wants to learn whatever is necessary about that God so God can be known.
This is the person who can place faith in Jesus, who is the Christ.
I don't mean to dash your hopes, but you cannot make a honest atheist or agnostic out of one who is dishonest. That is the work of the Holy Spirit. For those people you can only do the following:
pray for them.
strive to be a consistent witness.
be prepared to share the faith that lives within you.
reason with them.
love them.
serve them.
Whoever said Jesus was never looking for you to be His advocate was right. Jesus is your Advocate before the Father. Your job is to be an ambassador for Christ. To not even think of yourself, because it keeps you from thinking about others. To give and to serve and to love.
You will not argue someone into heaven. If you speak the truth as you humble yourself and give your life away over and over and over, day by day by day, you'll be amazed with the results.
i'm convinced, if we in the community of faith commit to this, we'll one day see increased traffic on the streets of gold that wind through eternity.
The more I learn, the less I know every day.
This is what amazes me about so-called atheists(how's that for a non-sequiter?), who for the most part are really agnostics. To truly be atheist, you would have to know the unknowable, for only omniscience requires no faith. And I don't know that you could find anyone who could honestly claim that they know everything. And in that realm of what they do not know, could exist the reality of God.
James Merritt, a pastor here in GA, and former president of our convention, has said he uses this argument in talking with "atheists" about God.
If they admit the premise that God could exist outside their realm of knowledge, then he labels them "honest atheists," which in reality is an agnostic. A dishonest atheist, conversely, is one who denies the possibility of God who exists outside their knowledge, which either requires the greatest faith or the greatest self-deception imaginable. If in fact it is the greatest faith, then they are actually not an atheist, because their faith is placed in themselves, which makes them their own god. If it is self-deception, then they are not actually pursuing this avenue of discovery intellectually, but emotionally and their arguments should be weighted or prejuciced accordingly.
So if an honest atheist is really an agnostic, Merrit reasons, it needs to be determined if the person is an honest or dishonest agnostic. A dishonest agnostic acknowledges that there may be a God outside their realm of knowledge, but that this God has nothing to offer. Only an honest agnostic reasons both that there may be a God outside of their knowledge, and if there is God, then the person wants to learn whatever is necessary about that God so God can be known.
This is the person who can place faith in Jesus, who is the Christ.
I don't mean to dash your hopes, but you cannot make a honest atheist or agnostic out of one who is dishonest. That is the work of the Holy Spirit. For those people you can only do the following:
pray for them.
strive to be a consistent witness.
be prepared to share the faith that lives within you.
reason with them.
love them.
serve them.
Whoever said Jesus was never looking for you to be His advocate was right. Jesus is your Advocate before the Father. Your job is to be an ambassador for Christ. To not even think of yourself, because it keeps you from thinking about others. To give and to serve and to love.
You will not argue someone into heaven. If you speak the truth as you humble yourself and give your life away over and over and over, day by day by day, you'll be amazed with the results.
i'm convinced, if we in the community of faith commit to this, we'll one day see increased traffic on the streets of gold that wind through eternity.
8/04/2003
and I know I'm Baptist, but....
i'm a maniac
a maniac on the floor
and i'm dancin' like i've never danced before.
a point of order
I'm correcting myself before one of you does.
I know it wasn't homer who said the line used as the header for my previous post. It was chief Wiggum, in a spoof of the more famous dialogue fromBasic The General's Daugher Look Who's Talking Jackie Brown Pulp Fiction.
Here's the actual dialogue as it is in the Simpson's context:
thanks to some guy's top 20 Simpson's Quotes for doing the legwork for me.
I know it wasn't homer who said the line used as the header for my previous post. It was chief Wiggum, in a spoof of the more famous dialogue from
Here's the actual dialogue as it is in the Simpson's context:
Lou: You know, I went to the McDonald's in Shelbyville on Friday night-
Wiggum: The McWhat?
Lou: Uh, the McDonald's. I, I never heard of it either, but they have over 2,000 locations in this state alone.
Eddie: Must've sprung up overnight.
Lou: You know, the funniest thing though; it's the little differences.
Wiggum: Example.
Lou: Well, at McDonald's you can buy a Krusty Burger with cheese, right? But they don't call it a Krusty Burger with cheese.
Wiggum: Get out! Well, what do they call it?
Lou: A Quarter Pounder with cheese.
Wiggum: Quarter Pounder with cheese? Well, I can picture the cheese, but, uh, do they have Krusty partially gelatinated non-dairy gum-based beverages?
Lou: Mm-hm. They call 'em, "shakes."
Eddie: Huh, shakes. You don't know what you're gettin'.
-3F18 Twenty-Two Short Films About Springfield
thanks to some guy's top 20 Simpson's Quotes for doing the legwork for me.
< homer > mmm....partially gelatinated non-dairy gum-based beverages < /homer >
Randy has recently written about the conundrum of desiring good food at a not-so-well-named dining establishment called Pupusa.
when I was in college we ate regularly at a greasy spoon called Spanky's. While it is certainly not as larval-sounding (or fecal-sounding, depending upon how you pronounce the U's in "Pupusa") as Randy's, it always evoked an inappropriate image for me. Others said it reminded them of a Li'l Rascals vibe, but not for me. Then again, I was an adolescent boy who still laughed at the word assassinate for its obviously humorous double-pants-down entendre.
I ate at Spanky's despite being off-put by its name because they had Spanky Burgers (and yes, I feel very silly just typing those words together) that just made your tongue slap the top side of your brain. I continued eating there even after a Denver news station priding itself in getting "the news you need when you need it," revealed that my Spanky's (yep, still feeling silly about that) had received the lowest health code score in Denver history. I guess my thinking was "hey, cockroaches gotta eat, too. And they could do worse than Spanky's, that's for sure."
tangential thought alert: why do fast food restaurants make up the stupidest names for their products? I feel like an idiot asking for the BK Big Fish, or the McChicken McByproduct McNuggets in a McBox. Isn't it enough that I'm willing to pay money for food rated by the FDA as Grade D: Edible? Why is that they have to take my dignity and treat it like the stale fries in the bin left from the night before? And can't we agree on an industry standard for ordering the next larger size in a combo meal? At one place you're "king-sizing" it. then you're "super-sizing," or "up-sizing," or "cholesterol-DSL-ing" or "going into angioplasty hyperdrive." And they (they, of course, meaning the highly trained professional behind the cash register who earned his/her earphones by reaching the lofty goal of showing up for work on time for an entire month) always act so insulted when you use the wrong "upgrade" term at their culinary driver-through bistro. "I'm sorry, sir, you can't 'King-Size' it here. That's across the street. Here, we 'Super-Larger-Jumbo-Biggie-it-Up Size.'" Yeah. I'm definitely checking for a loogie hidden in any burger handled by that kid. No Double Phlegm Burger for me today, thanks. And it's never the same thing. At McCoronary's, they have four levels of upsizing available. At Bypass King, it's one choice, regular or Belt Buster. At one place, an upsize means a medium drink and fries, instead of a small. You go to the place next door and order an upsize, and they're tossing a ten-pound bag of idaho spuds and a plastic keg of Mr. Pibb through your window.
wow, i didn't know I was so passionate about this. But exactly what the post at Upward Way got me thinking about is being mindlessly enslaved to our passions. Ironic, I know. I mean, how strong does our eating appetite have to be to eat at a place that sounds so nasty, like Pupusa, or Spanky's? And it's no different than anything else. It's not like the labels of any addictive product or habit are in themselves just so inviting that their draw is undeniable.
Smoking is a good case in point. The word evokes an image of conflagration. And when you think of fire, you don't think, "inhale deeply." You think, "stop, drop, and roll." There is nothing appealing about the thought of inhaling poison into your lungs that immediately begins the industrious task of killing you. Even so, those those folks who today are breathing through a tube were able to withstand images of blackened lung, of hearing other people talking through voice boxes, of learning horrible statistics of the linking smoking to cancer, to lung & heart disease, and everything other malady short of the S&L collapse. Why? Because they are addicted. That acrid mixture of road tar, tobacco leaves and rat poison has just enough of that addictive little additive called Nicotine that it would not matter if cigarettes (which, coincidentally, is from French derivation and means "to set one's moustache afire with ignited, toxic dead leaves, rolled in feminine-looking bleached paper") were not called Kool or Marlboro or Winston (none of which, mean anything to anybody anywhere), and were instead called "terminal sticks of death" or conversely "exciting fiery Magnif-o-sticks." People would smoke because they crave the buzz.
we can know this because the manufacturers of cigarettes are finally agreeing that their product kills. Oh, sure, they play a little psychological "three-card monte" by shilling for advertising that makes it look like you'll be more cooler, more athletic, more glamorous, or more sexy if you smoke. But nobody believes it. Everyone knows that the results of smoking are perpetual stink, yellowed teeth, cracked fingernails, and if you're lucky, a lingering case of emphysema. And knowing this, what is their response?
Anyone got a light?
If they were really worried about things, the manufacturers would try to make their product sound better, smell better, taste better. But the kicker is, manufacturers of "flesh-pleasers" know their products make you feel good. And once you realize something makes you feel good, you can fool yourself into thinking that it tastes good, smells good, and even sounds good. Moving the illustration to the world of alcohol addiction, this is why politically liberal addicts are willing to drink Busch, and politically conservative ones willing to forego an embargo on France if a case of champagne is readily available.
Now, back to the trans-fatty-acid wagon travelling down the quintuple bypass Expressway, I'll be the first one to say I deserve the big, giant hypocrite label for this. I (too much) enjoy the yummy pleasure brought on by the union of Kelli's home-made fried chicken and my salivating mouth. I know what's good for me and what is not. And I just pray it won't take a chest-clutching cessation of bloodflow to my torso-pump to get me to change my ways.
It's the battle of the flesh. And it is won not by diets, nor by the induction of guilt or shame into one's lifestyle. the only way to win a battle of flesh is through a focus upon the spiritual reality. It is a battle of faith to live by the Word of God. It is a spiritual engagement with the enemy to put down your Nacos Bell Grande so you may pick up your cross. It is a denial of "self" and intentionally deferring to God's Holy Spirit to prefer the promised pleasure of eternity in the stead of the immediate indulgence of the flesh.
Only the power of the once-dead Christ living victoriously in you and through you can accomplish it.
Back when I was going more periodically and regularly dining by way of drive-throughs (and I refuse to dumb the world down further by spelling it thru), I began asking God, literally, what I should order for my meal. Now, I never heard a voice from the Lord booming down, saying, "A Junior Whopper, thus sayeth the Lord!" but I do believe His Holy Spirit controlled my appetite and led me to order much less than I would be inclined to on my own (and furthermore, satisfied me with less). I have found, too, that the best way to see the Lord answer your prayer for healthier living or weight loss, is to avoid the fast food joints altogether, or the candy/cookie/junk food aisles at the grocery store. Don't blame God with blackened teeth if you just ate an entire sleeve of Oreos and you can't understand why you're getting bigger.
Can the Word of God truly satisfy? Well, not if you start ripping out pages from your New Living Translation and start chomping on it like a goat. You might get a little more regular from the introduction of fiber into your diet, but you'll still soon be pulling over to the Kwik-E-Mart for the Corndog/Heart Blockage-on-a-stick. But if you focus on God's Word -- His eternal Promises that can only be realized by faith -- you will find that the Holy Spirit has redirected your attentions into something more fulfilling (and less caloric), which in the long run, will make you healthier, as well as happier.
when I was in college we ate regularly at a greasy spoon called Spanky's. While it is certainly not as larval-sounding (or fecal-sounding, depending upon how you pronounce the U's in "Pupusa") as Randy's, it always evoked an inappropriate image for me. Others said it reminded them of a Li'l Rascals vibe, but not for me. Then again, I was an adolescent boy who still laughed at the word assassinate for its obviously humorous double-pants-down entendre.
I ate at Spanky's despite being off-put by its name because they had Spanky Burgers (and yes, I feel very silly just typing those words together) that just made your tongue slap the top side of your brain. I continued eating there even after a Denver news station priding itself in getting "the news you need when you need it," revealed that my Spanky's (yep, still feeling silly about that) had received the lowest health code score in Denver history. I guess my thinking was "hey, cockroaches gotta eat, too. And they could do worse than Spanky's, that's for sure."
tangential thought alert: why do fast food restaurants make up the stupidest names for their products? I feel like an idiot asking for the BK Big Fish, or the McChicken McByproduct McNuggets in a McBox. Isn't it enough that I'm willing to pay money for food rated by the FDA as Grade D: Edible? Why is that they have to take my dignity and treat it like the stale fries in the bin left from the night before? And can't we agree on an industry standard for ordering the next larger size in a combo meal? At one place you're "king-sizing" it. then you're "super-sizing," or "up-sizing," or "cholesterol-DSL-ing" or "going into angioplasty hyperdrive." And they (they, of course, meaning the highly trained professional behind the cash register who earned his/her earphones by reaching the lofty goal of showing up for work on time for an entire month) always act so insulted when you use the wrong "upgrade" term at their culinary driver-through bistro. "I'm sorry, sir, you can't 'King-Size' it here. That's across the street. Here, we 'Super-Larger-Jumbo-Biggie-it-Up Size.'" Yeah. I'm definitely checking for a loogie hidden in any burger handled by that kid. No Double Phlegm Burger for me today, thanks. And it's never the same thing. At McCoronary's, they have four levels of upsizing available. At Bypass King, it's one choice, regular or Belt Buster. At one place, an upsize means a medium drink and fries, instead of a small. You go to the place next door and order an upsize, and they're tossing a ten-pound bag of idaho spuds and a plastic keg of Mr. Pibb through your window.
wow, i didn't know I was so passionate about this. But exactly what the post at Upward Way got me thinking about is being mindlessly enslaved to our passions. Ironic, I know. I mean, how strong does our eating appetite have to be to eat at a place that sounds so nasty, like Pupusa, or Spanky's? And it's no different than anything else. It's not like the labels of any addictive product or habit are in themselves just so inviting that their draw is undeniable.
Smoking is a good case in point. The word evokes an image of conflagration. And when you think of fire, you don't think, "inhale deeply." You think, "stop, drop, and roll." There is nothing appealing about the thought of inhaling poison into your lungs that immediately begins the industrious task of killing you. Even so, those those folks who today are breathing through a tube were able to withstand images of blackened lung, of hearing other people talking through voice boxes, of learning horrible statistics of the linking smoking to cancer, to lung & heart disease, and everything other malady short of the S&L collapse. Why? Because they are addicted. That acrid mixture of road tar, tobacco leaves and rat poison has just enough of that addictive little additive called Nicotine that it would not matter if cigarettes (which, coincidentally, is from French derivation and means "to set one's moustache afire with ignited, toxic dead leaves, rolled in feminine-looking bleached paper") were not called Kool or Marlboro or Winston (none of which, mean anything to anybody anywhere), and were instead called "terminal sticks of death" or conversely "exciting fiery Magnif-o-sticks." People would smoke because they crave the buzz.
we can know this because the manufacturers of cigarettes are finally agreeing that their product kills. Oh, sure, they play a little psychological "three-card monte" by shilling for advertising that makes it look like you'll be more cooler, more athletic, more glamorous, or more sexy if you smoke. But nobody believes it. Everyone knows that the results of smoking are perpetual stink, yellowed teeth, cracked fingernails, and if you're lucky, a lingering case of emphysema. And knowing this, what is their response?
Anyone got a light?
If they were really worried about things, the manufacturers would try to make their product sound better, smell better, taste better. But the kicker is, manufacturers of "flesh-pleasers" know their products make you feel good. And once you realize something makes you feel good, you can fool yourself into thinking that it tastes good, smells good, and even sounds good. Moving the illustration to the world of alcohol addiction, this is why politically liberal addicts are willing to drink Busch, and politically conservative ones willing to forego an embargo on France if a case of champagne is readily available.
Now, back to the trans-fatty-acid wagon travelling down the quintuple bypass Expressway, I'll be the first one to say I deserve the big, giant hypocrite label for this. I (too much) enjoy the yummy pleasure brought on by the union of Kelli's home-made fried chicken and my salivating mouth. I know what's good for me and what is not. And I just pray it won't take a chest-clutching cessation of bloodflow to my torso-pump to get me to change my ways.
It's the battle of the flesh. And it is won not by diets, nor by the induction of guilt or shame into one's lifestyle. the only way to win a battle of flesh is through a focus upon the spiritual reality. It is a battle of faith to live by the Word of God. It is a spiritual engagement with the enemy to put down your Nacos Bell Grande so you may pick up your cross. It is a denial of "self" and intentionally deferring to God's Holy Spirit to prefer the promised pleasure of eternity in the stead of the immediate indulgence of the flesh.
Only the power of the once-dead Christ living victoriously in you and through you can accomplish it.
Back when I was going more periodically and regularly dining by way of drive-throughs (and I refuse to dumb the world down further by spelling it thru), I began asking God, literally, what I should order for my meal. Now, I never heard a voice from the Lord booming down, saying, "A Junior Whopper, thus sayeth the Lord!" but I do believe His Holy Spirit controlled my appetite and led me to order much less than I would be inclined to on my own (and furthermore, satisfied me with less). I have found, too, that the best way to see the Lord answer your prayer for healthier living or weight loss, is to avoid the fast food joints altogether, or the candy/cookie/junk food aisles at the grocery store. Don't blame God with blackened teeth if you just ate an entire sleeve of Oreos and you can't understand why you're getting bigger.
Can the Word of God truly satisfy? Well, not if you start ripping out pages from your New Living Translation and start chomping on it like a goat. You might get a little more regular from the introduction of fiber into your diet, but you'll still soon be pulling over to the Kwik-E-Mart for the Corndog/Heart Blockage-on-a-stick. But if you focus on God's Word -- His eternal Promises that can only be realized by faith -- you will find that the Holy Spirit has redirected your attentions into something more fulfilling (and less caloric), which in the long run, will make you healthier, as well as happier.
the 411 on phonebooth
pretty interesting movie.
at 81 minutes long, it's not in any danger of being confused as an epic.
it was almost rated PG-13, I hear, but at last second was given its R rating for its 18,991 uses of the F-bomb in all its variations. Now, I'll likely never be considered puritanical, but this was a tad excessive, even for me. The screenwriter apparently determined that the best way to build intensity was to get every character in the movie shouting this word at one another as loudly as possible over and over and over again, in each and every linguistic form imaginable. And rumor is that they wanted to use the word in the movie title, but were rebuffed, to which they replied...oh, you can probably guess how they replied.
There's a little twist at the end that's not all that surprising, but good nonetheless. All in all, it does a decent job of conveying the insanity of this unlikely scenario, and includes a good scene of the moral clarity that eventually arrives when you're trapped in a small glass prison with a high-powered rifle pointed at your chest. but only watch the movie if you are callused to vulgarities.
at 81 minutes long, it's not in any danger of being confused as an epic.
it was almost rated PG-13, I hear, but at last second was given its R rating for its 18,991 uses of the F-bomb in all its variations. Now, I'll likely never be considered puritanical, but this was a tad excessive, even for me. The screenwriter apparently determined that the best way to build intensity was to get every character in the movie shouting this word at one another as loudly as possible over and over and over again, in each and every linguistic form imaginable. And rumor is that they wanted to use the word in the movie title, but were rebuffed, to which they replied...oh, you can probably guess how they replied.
There's a little twist at the end that's not all that surprising, but good nonetheless. All in all, it does a decent job of conveying the insanity of this unlikely scenario, and includes a good scene of the moral clarity that eventually arrives when you're trapped in a small glass prison with a high-powered rifle pointed at your chest. but only watch the movie if you are callused to vulgarities.
fighting the good fight
Stacey's brother-in-law Don is attempting to visit every Fla. county with hopes of raising the standards of accountability and safety, so that no other amateur fighters will be unnecessarily endangered due to the negligence of organizers.
thank God for the Bangles
It's just another manic Monday
I wish it was Sunday
'Cause that's my funday
My I don't have to runday
It's just another manic Monday
well, its really only the chorus that fits for my life, because last night I dreamed not about smoochin Valentino, but about something else (more about that later), but today is going to be a very busy day.
It's going to be a writing-filled day, which is good, but also a planning and preparing day (which is also good, but a lot less fun).
But I have come to my office to see an ergonomic wrist pad waiting for me. I have removed it from its box, and it is now giving my wrists the gel-filled support they require for workplace contentment. It's the extended kind, so I can use one support for both my keyboard and my mouse. It also doubles as a fairly weighty/floppy billy club should I need to defend myself if we on the fourth floor suddenly are attacked by an attempted hostile takeover by those MCI telemarketers just down the road.
8/03/2003
I don't understand this
why do we ("we" meaning possibly everybody else in the universe except for myself) write memorials to loved ones who have died? I'm don't mean the things like "Frank was a good guy." I can understand that. What I don't get are the ones that say, "Frank, you were a good guy," like Frank is reading the local paper two years after his death, or surfing the 'Net to see what people are saying to him since he's gone to heaven or hell.
I just read a message at my high school at classmates.com that was addressed posthumously to Mr. Joe Janosec, our recently deceased principal.
I understand the sentiment that we want to convey our heartfelt emotions and feelings for the dearly departed. But once that person is gone, I'm pretty sure their newspaper or internet subscription doesn't get included in the forwarding address.
I just read a message at my high school at classmates.com that was addressed posthumously to Mr. Joe Janosec, our recently deceased principal.
I understand the sentiment that we want to convey our heartfelt emotions and feelings for the dearly departed. But once that person is gone, I'm pretty sure their newspaper or internet subscription doesn't get included in the forwarding address.
axiomatic
the more of your children with whom you share your carbonated beverage, the greater the probability that your final swallow will be primarily the saliva of those children, rather than your carbonated beverage.
is this what they meant
under filing a claim for a piece of furniture broken in the move, on the claim form supplied by Atlas Van Lines, under the section of comments, I wrote:
I'm uncertain of why this was requested, but I'm sure it will clear up the matter and expedite the process.
the greatest threat to our country in this day and time is the leftist agenda being pushed by liberal socialists parading as Democrats. Protect our Democratic Republic by voting Republican in the '04 elections and by pressing current legislators to end the unconstitutional filibuster against Federal Court nominees. Thank you and God Bless America.
I'm uncertain of why this was requested, but I'm sure it will clear up the matter and expedite the process.
Kelsi's other new trick
filling her diaper...patting her bottom/front to alert everyone of the development....running to her room...returning to our company with fresh diaper and wipe in hand....laying at the foot of mother/father to commence the change.
this child appears primed for an easy transition!
but don't quote me on that.
this child appears primed for an easy transition!
but don't quote me on that.
Kelsi's new trick
doing something cute...like hugging a baby doll....waiting for Kaylyn to say, "Daddy, look at Kelsi..." and then Kelsi remaining posed until I give appropriate acknowledgement, such as "awwwww," or "cute girl!"
is it because i'm an editor
that I was just a little annoyed that a mail-in rebate for my modem said "cut at the dotted line below," and it only had a solid line. It's not like I was confused and spent an inordinate amount of time looking for a non-existent dotted line. But the line was clearly not dotted. Even at very close scrutiny, no spacing was found in the line.
what does this say that I closely scrutinized this line?
what does this say that I closely scrutinized this line?
the recessive genes have yet to begin their coup de etat
according to this, I'm a 29.3% freak.
as long as the sane voices can quell the rebellion, its all good as far as I'm concerned.
the question that is driving you crazy is, which ones apply to me?
and what I want to know is...which ones apply to you?
as long as the sane voices can quell the rebellion, its all good as far as I'm concerned.
the question that is driving you crazy is, which ones apply to me?
and what I want to know is...which ones apply to you?
its official
I've lost interest in blogshares.
I'm still hovering around $8 million of net worth, but the only way to really make money is to spend the money for a full version, and then to either spend a lot of time playing, or have bots that will do the work for you. I have neither the time, nor the money, nor the inclination.
I think I'll soon sell off all my other stock and try to do a leveraged buy-out of my own stock and then sit on it until I die or the Lord returns.
I'm still hovering around $8 million of net worth, but the only way to really make money is to spend the money for a full version, and then to either spend a lot of time playing, or have bots that will do the work for you. I have neither the time, nor the money, nor the inclination.
I think I'll soon sell off all my other stock and try to do a leveraged buy-out of my own stock and then sit on it until I die or the Lord returns.
a tale of two movies
yesterday, we watched two movies.
We first saw Door-to-Door, starring William H. Macy as cerebal palsy-stricken salesman extraordinaire Bill Porter. Clean movie, inspiring tale. Go rent it, or buy it. Or rent it, and then buy it (which is what we're doing).
On the other side of the 99-cent bin was Punch Drunk Love, a life-draining, two hour-stealing, waste of time. I'm intellectually angry for investing mental energy to this movie the same way many people must be financially angry at Enron and WorldCom. There was no return on this investment, and I've discovered I bought the equivalent of 120 minutes of cinematic junk bonds. If you're not a fan of Adam Sandler, this movie won't make you one. And if you are a fan of Sandler, there's not enough of what makes you like him to keep you enjoying this vomitoreum of rejected film school freshman project. I usually like "quirky" films, and almost always dislike "sucky" ones. This was certainly the latter, and not the former.
We still have Phone Booth and The Pianist on the "coming soon" slate. Until then....go read a book (or my archives).
We first saw Door-to-Door, starring William H. Macy as cerebal palsy-stricken salesman extraordinaire Bill Porter. Clean movie, inspiring tale. Go rent it, or buy it. Or rent it, and then buy it (which is what we're doing).
On the other side of the 99-cent bin was Punch Drunk Love, a life-draining, two hour-stealing, waste of time. I'm intellectually angry for investing mental energy to this movie the same way many people must be financially angry at Enron and WorldCom. There was no return on this investment, and I've discovered I bought the equivalent of 120 minutes of cinematic junk bonds. If you're not a fan of Adam Sandler, this movie won't make you one. And if you are a fan of Sandler, there's not enough of what makes you like him to keep you enjoying this vomitoreum of rejected film school freshman project. I usually like "quirky" films, and almost always dislike "sucky" ones. This was certainly the latter, and not the former.
We still have Phone Booth and The Pianist on the "coming soon" slate. Until then....go read a book (or my archives).
analogize this
There have been many futile attempts to make an analogy of God that people can comprehend...and they for the most part fall short, because they either reflect a modal presentation of the godhead or they convey some new-age concept, intentional or not.
The transitional stages of water (as related to the trinity) is one such that is a good attempt, but is too modal.
Another is the comparison of God to the egg -- one egg, composed of shell, yolk, and white; compared to one God composed of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
God like the wind(trying to communicate God's omnipresence)? Well, other than making me think of that late 80s Patrick Swayze hit She's Like the Wind, I don't know that its all that great, because the wind is not always there, and it is dependent upon other environmental factors.
OS Hawkins said this, "Does dew come up from the ground or down from the sky? Neither. It just shows up. When conditions are right, God will be like the dew. He'll just show up."
God as water in the air. The right conditions reveal more of what's already there. Bad conditions experience negative results from the absence of its (His) blessings...
hmm...
its a work in progress.
The transitional stages of water (as related to the trinity) is one such that is a good attempt, but is too modal.
Another is the comparison of God to the egg -- one egg, composed of shell, yolk, and white; compared to one God composed of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
God like the wind(trying to communicate God's omnipresence)? Well, other than making me think of that late 80s Patrick Swayze hit She's Like the Wind, I don't know that its all that great, because the wind is not always there, and it is dependent upon other environmental factors.
OS Hawkins said this, "Does dew come up from the ground or down from the sky? Neither. It just shows up. When conditions are right, God will be like the dew. He'll just show up."
God as water in the air. The right conditions reveal more of what's already there. Bad conditions experience negative results from the absence of its (His) blessings...
hmm...
its a work in progress.
an irrational fear
I thought I just typed grease rules.
I like the movie, but grease is not greater than all my sins.
it cannot wash me white as snow
that, again, would be grace.
a-whomp bom-a-loo-ba- a-womp-bam-boom!
I like the movie, but grease is not greater than all my sins.
it cannot wash me white as snow
that, again, would be grace.
a-whomp bom-a-loo-ba- a-womp-bam-boom!
the key to success in ministry
in the postmodern age, according to Leonard Sweet is:
hmmm....
this question challenges me as I look around Christendom and I see many many Christian leaders who are troubled at the thought of "losing control" of their ministry.
Shouldn't the Holy Spirit be in control to begin with?
If the ministry is under my control, or your control, or any person's control, then we're all in big trouble.
Any control a person has is either an illusion or it is been given to that person as a blessing for the purpose of stewardship.
Sometimes I think that people miss a blessing because they are upset that a ministry that "they created" looks nothing like what they had originally envisioned, and fail to see that God took over and took it in the direction that He had originally ordained anyway.
We hear it a lot these days when planning ministry..."how will you control it, monitor it?"
I don't think the first church ever worried about being in control. How do you "control" 3000 or 5000 people coming to faith in a single day? How do you "control" a whole portion of the world coming to Christ in two years? You don't.
This doesn't mean that you are disorganized; the contrary was the case. The first church recognized God's leaders and deferred to them, respected their authority. When Paul spoke, the people responded. But the key to it was that Paul wasn't all freaked out about being in control. He spoke clearly and decisively on matters essential to the faith. But on less important issues, he didn't worry about control, he just used the best rule of application.
that is....
....grace rules.
can you give up the ministry?
can you give it away?
hmmm....
this question challenges me as I look around Christendom and I see many many Christian leaders who are troubled at the thought of "losing control" of their ministry.
Shouldn't the Holy Spirit be in control to begin with?
If the ministry is under my control, or your control, or any person's control, then we're all in big trouble.
Any control a person has is either an illusion or it is been given to that person as a blessing for the purpose of stewardship.
Sometimes I think that people miss a blessing because they are upset that a ministry that "they created" looks nothing like what they had originally envisioned, and fail to see that God took over and took it in the direction that He had originally ordained anyway.
We hear it a lot these days when planning ministry..."how will you control it, monitor it?"
I don't think the first church ever worried about being in control. How do you "control" 3000 or 5000 people coming to faith in a single day? How do you "control" a whole portion of the world coming to Christ in two years? You don't.
This doesn't mean that you are disorganized; the contrary was the case. The first church recognized God's leaders and deferred to them, respected their authority. When Paul spoke, the people responded. But the key to it was that Paul wasn't all freaked out about being in control. He spoke clearly and decisively on matters essential to the faith. But on less important issues, he didn't worry about control, he just used the best rule of application.
that is....
....grace rules.
time to start planning
Lifeway has released the theme for next year's Vacation Bible School.
I think it looks better than this year's, not that it was bad.
I love VBS; it's likely my favorite special event on the church calendar.
I think it looks better than this year's, not that it was bad.
I love VBS; it's likely my favorite special event on the church calendar.
have truer words ever been spoken
when you get caught between the moon and New York City
the best that you can do
the best that you can do
is fall in love
A good word on Sunday
Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and, if true, of infinite importance. The one thing it cannot be is moderately important.
-- CS Lewis
-- CS Lewis
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
