November 2009 Archives
Google on the Defensive About Michelle
November 30, 2009 8:54 AM | permalink | comments: 0
Google is being criticized because it allows search results to show a Photoshoped image of Michelle Obama altered to make her look like a monkey. It's a despicable photo. Many people argue that Google shouldn't allow people to find it.
As much as I dislike that photo, Google can't take this path. And why, I wonder, aren't those same people up in arms about all the other stuff on the internet which can turn up in search results?
You can find white nationalist sites, anti-Semitic sites, information on making a bomb, unflattering caricatures of nearly any public figure, and pretty much anything having to do with sex. All things considered, this photo seems pretty trivial. If Google censors this one photo, it opens a huge, huge door. Imagine all the people who will come storming through the door next, pointing out how their pet cause was slighted and demanding that Google make it stop.
Google says, "We do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it."
Except in China. There, if the Chinese government says remove it, they remove it. But in America...let the photo remain. And let those people all in a huff about it go after some of the multitude of other junk on the web which is far, far more offensive. Or, go after whoever created the photo, and the people who post it.
As much as I dislike that photo, Google can't take this path. And why, I wonder, aren't those same people up in arms about all the other stuff on the internet which can turn up in search results?
You can find white nationalist sites, anti-Semitic sites, information on making a bomb, unflattering caricatures of nearly any public figure, and pretty much anything having to do with sex. All things considered, this photo seems pretty trivial. If Google censors this one photo, it opens a huge, huge door. Imagine all the people who will come storming through the door next, pointing out how their pet cause was slighted and demanding that Google make it stop.
Google says, "We do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it."
Except in China. There, if the Chinese government says remove it, they remove it. But in America...let the photo remain. And let those people all in a huff about it go after some of the multitude of other junk on the web which is far, far more offensive. Or, go after whoever created the photo, and the people who post it.
Inferior to Canada? What Up with That?
November 27, 2009 6:40 PM | permalink | comments: 0
I was working on some statistics for the countries where we have United Brethren churches. In looking at square mileage--physical size--I noted that the United States is the third largest country in the world, behind Russia and Canada. So we take the bronze, which is just not acceptable for an American. We're accustomed to being first.
Now, the United States, with 9.83 million square miles, is far behind Russia's 17.1 million square miles. But we're only 158,000 square miles smaller than Canada. It seems like we could make that up fairly easily.
Keeping Afghanistan or Iraq would provide more than enough territory, but we don't want to go that route. I'm pretty sure the Afghans and Iraqis would object.
Tunisia, Surinam, Uruguay, and Cambodia are just about the right size, with a few square miles to spare. But I can't get excited about any of them.
If we had hung onto the Philippines (300,000 sq.mi), instead of granting independence in 1946, we would now be a firm number two. What was Truman thinking?
We could take conquer Cuba (110,860 sq. mi), and that would cut the distance. Then throw in the Dominican Republic (48,700) and grant statehood to Puerto Rico (13,790), and we'd be there. Those acquisitions would also give us a lot of really good baseball players.
Of course, the best solution would be to annex Canada. That would give us a combined area of 19.7 million square miles and vault us straight to the Gold not only in square mileage, but in hockey as well. Of course, Russia would just turn around and take over any number of adjacent countries which were once part of the USSR, and we'd be back to the Silver, with China now taking the Bronze.
I just don't like being Number 3.
Now, the United States, with 9.83 million square miles, is far behind Russia's 17.1 million square miles. But we're only 158,000 square miles smaller than Canada. It seems like we could make that up fairly easily.
Keeping Afghanistan or Iraq would provide more than enough territory, but we don't want to go that route. I'm pretty sure the Afghans and Iraqis would object.
Tunisia, Surinam, Uruguay, and Cambodia are just about the right size, with a few square miles to spare. But I can't get excited about any of them.
If we had hung onto the Philippines (300,000 sq.mi), instead of granting independence in 1946, we would now be a firm number two. What was Truman thinking?
We could take conquer Cuba (110,860 sq. mi), and that would cut the distance. Then throw in the Dominican Republic (48,700) and grant statehood to Puerto Rico (13,790), and we'd be there. Those acquisitions would also give us a lot of really good baseball players.
Of course, the best solution would be to annex Canada. That would give us a combined area of 19.7 million square miles and vault us straight to the Gold not only in square mileage, but in hockey as well. Of course, Russia would just turn around and take over any number of adjacent countries which were once part of the USSR, and we'd be back to the Silver, with China now taking the Bronze.
I just don't like being Number 3.
Learning Why Atheists Reject Christianity
November 26, 2009 10:09 AM | permalink | comments: 0
Surveys show that atheism and agnosticism are on the rise in the United States. Christianity is ascendant in other parts of the world, particularly Latin America and Africa, but not in Western countries. I don't know why. But I decided to try to understand better how atheists see the world and view Christianity.
A lot of books have been written lately by atheists--evangelistic atheists, I should say, intent on converting people away from whatever religion they belong to. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are probably the best-known writers, but comments on Amazon told me that they tend to be obnoxiously condescending and combative.
Instead, I ended up with "Atheist Universe," by David Mills, and "Letter to a Christian Nation," by Samuel Harris. Both were excellent books. Yes, they attacked Christianity strongly, but that was the point.
Mills, who at one time was an on-fire evangelistic Christian, devoted a chapter to a lot of different subjects. I appreciated his understanding of how Christians think and what we believe, even if he has rejected all of it personally. The Harris book--a short little thing, more like an extended essay--was like a highly condensed version of "Atheist Universe," hitting many of the same areas in a compact--and very compelling--manner.
Let me say right now: these books didn't shake my faith at all. I've seen and experienced way too much of God and His Word to doubt him. Those books would be devastatingly effective with someone who was questioning his faith, but not with me.
Both spent a lot of time disputing Creationism and Intelligent Design. Many of their arguments made great sense to me. But I'm a total non-scientist, and we're talking about very complicated issues which require a depth of knowledge which I fully lack. Creationists and ID folks could rebut Mills and Harris, I'm sure. I can't, and don't intend to immerse myself in these subjects to get up to speed.
However, I admit that Mills and Harris raised serious questions in various areas beyond science--questions which I cannot answer. They pointed out things in Scripture (usually fairly) that are inconsistencies or dilemmas we Christians, perhaps lamely, prefer to ignore. I realized how commonly we fling around pat answers. And pat answers don't fly with people like Mills and Harris, nor with other skeptics or with people honestly searching out Christianity.
I'm not afraid of truth. By pointing out things in Scripture which appeared to be inconsistencies in my beliefs, they pointed out real truths about Scripture. It's there, written right in God's Word, and inspired by God Himself. No sense denying it, unless I want to take Thomas Jefferson's approach and scissor out parts I don't like. Mills and (to a lesser extent) Harris revealed to me new mysteries about God, things that require answers. I find that invigorating, rather than faith-quenching.
While I don't have the answers, I, Steve Dennie, know that answers exist. Because I know God, and don't doubt him. THAT kind of answer would drive Mills and Harris nuts. But sometimes, pat answers are valid. Especially if that's all we've got for the moment, and maybe until we enter eternity.
I emerged from those books appreciating their intellectual honesty and why they have rejected Christianity. And I realize there are new mysteries surrounding God, the universe, and the Bible that I need to probe.
I also, now, realize the threat these compelling atheist writers pose to the souls of men. They are a potent weapon in Satan's arsenal.
A lot of books have been written lately by atheists--evangelistic atheists, I should say, intent on converting people away from whatever religion they belong to. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are probably the best-known writers, but comments on Amazon told me that they tend to be obnoxiously condescending and combative.
Instead, I ended up with "Atheist Universe," by David Mills, and "Letter to a Christian Nation," by Samuel Harris. Both were excellent books. Yes, they attacked Christianity strongly, but that was the point.
Mills, who at one time was an on-fire evangelistic Christian, devoted a chapter to a lot of different subjects. I appreciated his understanding of how Christians think and what we believe, even if he has rejected all of it personally. The Harris book--a short little thing, more like an extended essay--was like a highly condensed version of "Atheist Universe," hitting many of the same areas in a compact--and very compelling--manner.
Let me say right now: these books didn't shake my faith at all. I've seen and experienced way too much of God and His Word to doubt him. Those books would be devastatingly effective with someone who was questioning his faith, but not with me.
Both spent a lot of time disputing Creationism and Intelligent Design. Many of their arguments made great sense to me. But I'm a total non-scientist, and we're talking about very complicated issues which require a depth of knowledge which I fully lack. Creationists and ID folks could rebut Mills and Harris, I'm sure. I can't, and don't intend to immerse myself in these subjects to get up to speed.
However, I admit that Mills and Harris raised serious questions in various areas beyond science--questions which I cannot answer. They pointed out things in Scripture (usually fairly) that are inconsistencies or dilemmas we Christians, perhaps lamely, prefer to ignore. I realized how commonly we fling around pat answers. And pat answers don't fly with people like Mills and Harris, nor with other skeptics or with people honestly searching out Christianity.
I'm not afraid of truth. By pointing out things in Scripture which appeared to be inconsistencies in my beliefs, they pointed out real truths about Scripture. It's there, written right in God's Word, and inspired by God Himself. No sense denying it, unless I want to take Thomas Jefferson's approach and scissor out parts I don't like. Mills and (to a lesser extent) Harris revealed to me new mysteries about God, things that require answers. I find that invigorating, rather than faith-quenching.
While I don't have the answers, I, Steve Dennie, know that answers exist. Because I know God, and don't doubt him. THAT kind of answer would drive Mills and Harris nuts. But sometimes, pat answers are valid. Especially if that's all we've got for the moment, and maybe until we enter eternity.
I emerged from those books appreciating their intellectual honesty and why they have rejected Christianity. And I realize there are new mysteries surrounding God, the universe, and the Bible that I need to probe.
I also, now, realize the threat these compelling atheist writers pose to the souls of men. They are a potent weapon in Satan's arsenal.
Humor Diversion
November 25, 2009 10:41 AM | permalink | comments: 1
Books: Forsyth, Patterson, Sandford
November 24, 2009 11:06 PM | permalink | comments: 0
I'm a little behind on reviewing books I've read. Here are three recent novels.
The Afghan, by Frederick Forsyth. This one disappointed me. Forsyth did a great deal of research, and felt like he needed to inflict it all on the reader. I was never really engaged in the plot. At least not until the end, when he kicked into a higher geer. Interesting ending. But the rest--just skip it.
The Dangerous Days of Daniel X, by James Patterson and Michael Ledwidge. This is a new series under the Patterson brand. Daniel X is an alien, who himself is an alien hunter. He tracks down and kills aliens living on earth. It was interesting, quirky, and fast-paced. I'll look forward to additional books in this series. It's mostly fluff, but I like that sometimes.
Dead Watch, by John Sandford. Not one of his better books. Certainly far beneath the Lucas Davenport "Prey" books. Here, Sandford introduces a new hero, and instead of a murder mystery, we get a political thriller. I'd say the political thriller isn't Sandford's forte. The plot was certainly intricate enough, and I liked the hero, and it moved along, and...so what didn't I like? Don't really know. But it just didn't satisfy me.
The Afghan, by Frederick Forsyth. This one disappointed me. Forsyth did a great deal of research, and felt like he needed to inflict it all on the reader. I was never really engaged in the plot. At least not until the end, when he kicked into a higher geer. Interesting ending. But the rest--just skip it.
The Dangerous Days of Daniel X, by James Patterson and Michael Ledwidge. This is a new series under the Patterson brand. Daniel X is an alien, who himself is an alien hunter. He tracks down and kills aliens living on earth. It was interesting, quirky, and fast-paced. I'll look forward to additional books in this series. It's mostly fluff, but I like that sometimes.
Dead Watch, by John Sandford. Not one of his better books. Certainly far beneath the Lucas Davenport "Prey" books. Here, Sandford introduces a new hero, and instead of a murder mystery, we get a political thriller. I'd say the political thriller isn't Sandford's forte. The plot was certainly intricate enough, and I liked the hero, and it moved along, and...so what didn't I like? Don't really know. But it just didn't satisfy me.
Peering Beneath the Palin Fan Base
November 24, 2009 1:51 PM | permalink | comments: 0
This video was shot at Sarah Palin's book-signing in Columbus, Ohio, last weekend. Her adoring fans had great trouble saying what she stood for. I'm sure the video was shot with a particular agenda, so you need to take it with a grain of salt. The people who made it through the editing process are clearly just Palin groupies. I'm sure some thoughtful people also bought her book.
(If you're reading this on Facebook, you'll need to click on "View Original Post" to see the video.)
A similar video could be made at Obama events. With one big exception....
I was looking, but didn't see anyone of color or ethnicity in the video. All reports about these signings are pretty similar in that regard. She clearly stirs up strong emotions among white people. What should we make of that? To me, it's worth exploring.
In America, we need to be on guard concerning racial issues. We've come a long way, but too many racial tensions lie dormant, awaiting a match. A populist like Palin (or Buchanan, or Beck, or lots of others) can easily stir up those tensions, whether intentionally or not. Now, just because the crowds around Palin are predominantly white doesn't mean she condones racism in some way. That's not a valid leap. But the situation is something worth monitoring.
Look, I'm not out to bash Sarah Palin, so don't go ballistic and label me a liberal dirt-monger. Palin's a good, charismatic, engaging person. But when I see masses of white people flocking around someone, with hardly anyone of ethnicity in the picture--well, that gives me pause.
Give it a Shot
November 24, 2009 11:29 AM | permalink | comments: 0
Found this in a New Yorker article about James Cameron's new movie, "Avatar."
Said James Cameron: "If you set your goals ridiculously high and it's a failure, you will fail above everyone else's success."
It's reminiscent of this famous Teddy Roosevelt quote: "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
Said James Cameron: "If you set your goals ridiculously high and it's a failure, you will fail above everyone else's success."
It's reminiscent of this famous Teddy Roosevelt quote: "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
Speaking of the Public Good....
November 24, 2009 8:18 AM | permalink | comments: 0
China executed two persons who helped produce tainted milk that killed six babies and sickened 300,000 others. Nineteen others, all executives or middlemen, received long prison sentences. Obviously, China is tough on companies that endanger public health.
McDonald's executives should probably avoid going to China.
McDonald's executives should probably avoid going to China.
Our Worship Team is Suck Proof
November 23, 2009 9:19 PM | permalink | comments: 0
Yesterday in church, Carla gave her testimony as part of (or most of) the message. She did a great job, and it was very moving hearing her and Jose's story. God has done great things in their lives.
But one part really cracked me up.
They first came to Anchor last spring. Carla kinda dragged Jose there, from what I remember; he wasn't yet a Christian. The worship team did a song, and Carla looked over at Jose to get his reaction.
"They don't suck," Jose said.
I love that. Maybe our goal should be that the first impression of all visitors will be, "They don't suck." It's a foundation you can build upon. Thanks, Jose, for what I consider to be a great compliment!
But one part really cracked me up.
They first came to Anchor last spring. Carla kinda dragged Jose there, from what I remember; he wasn't yet a Christian. The worship team did a song, and Carla looked over at Jose to get his reaction.
"They don't suck," Jose said.
I love that. Maybe our goal should be that the first impression of all visitors will be, "They don't suck." It's a foundation you can build upon. Thanks, Jose, for what I consider to be a great compliment!
Did George Bush Really Keep Us Safe?
November 20, 2009 11:41 PM | permalink | comments: 0
You hear it a lot, from both Republicans and Democrats: "No matter how you feel about George Bush, at least he kept America safe."
Since I prefer to question what I hear, I've been musing, "Did George Bush really keep America safe?" Let me pose some contrarian ideas.
Since I prefer to question what I hear, I've been musing, "Did George Bush really keep America safe?" Let me pose some contrarian ideas.
- On 9/11, we suffered the largest attack on the US homeland since, I believe, the War of 1812. 2976 people died on 9/11, which is 500 more than died at Pearl Harbor. This happened on George Bush's watch, and warnings were communicated to him through security briefings. He most definitely didn't keep us safe on 9/11. It's like saying FDR kept Hawaii safe AFTER PEARL HARBOR.
- There was a minor attack on the World Trade Center under Clinton, but no such attacks under Bush Sr., Reagan, or any other president going back to Truman. Only under GWB were we attacked successfully. So you CAN say Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush Sr. kept America from being attacked. You can't say that of GW Bush.
- Since 9/11, over 6100 US soldiers have died and many thousands more have been severely wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq. On top of the 3000 already killed on 9/11.
- When 9/11 occurred, it's estimated that the number of committed Al Qaeda operatives was only 500-1000, most located around Afghanistan. Now, it's estimated at around 200. We lose 200 US soldiers every 3 months. Are we okay with that kill ratio? Is that necessary to keep us safe?
- In Afghanistan, we mainly fight the Taliban, not Al Qaeda.
We're involved in a civil war, not the War on Terror. The same argument
could be made for Iraq, where the conflict is pretty much Sunni vs.
Shiite, with Al Qaeda playing a small role. Does keeping America safe require fighting in civil wars?
- By invading and occupying two Muslim nations, we radicalized thousands of additional Muslims, including many already living in Western countries. They will continue being a threat for decades to come.
- Our military is stretched thin. If a conflict occurred somewhere else in the world, we would be hard-pressed to respond. We certainly couldn't respond with overwhelming force, since our forces and equipment are focused in the Middle East. We are secure...as long as nothing else happens.
- While we were bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, two rogue countries, Iran and North Korea, developed nuclear capabilities. We were simply too distracted to deal with them. Plus, another nuclear power, Pakistan, is in chaos (though things are looking better).
- Under previous presidents, we went into Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Haiti, and the Balkans. We did what we needed to do, then got out, or turned things over to international peace-keeping forces. Very few soldiers died in any of those engagements.
- Consider how different the world would be if we had gone into Afghanistan, beat the crap out of Al Qaeda, finished the job, then gone home. Instead, Bush switched his attention to Iraq, and we ended up with two quagmires.
- When we invaded Afghanistan, Iran's moderate (for them) government helped us in significant ways. But then Bush, for some reason, included Iran in his "Axis of Evil" speech. Iran's moderates were discredited in their attempts to make nice with America, and they were replaced by hard-liners. Now, instead of a potential friend, we have a sworn enemy on the verge of having The Bomb.
- Bush left with the US economy in ruins and deeply indebted to China. China practically owns us. How safe is that?
Thoughts on the Global Church
November 19, 2009 9:03 AM | permalink | comments: 0
Rick Warren in a USA Today interview: "I could take you to 10 million villages in the world where there is nothing but a church. The church has more locations than all the WalMarts and Starbucks and everything else combined. It has more volunteers. The church was global 200 years before anyone started talking about globalization."
Ten Minutes with the President
November 18, 2009 6:44 PM | permalink | comments: 0
President Obama granted short interviews to a variety of news outlets while in China. I caught bits of three of them.
Major Garrett of Fox was incredible, touching on a lot of substantive areas--health care, Afghanistan, Israel--in a very short time and getting good answers. I understand that, unlike most Fox reporters, Major Garrett is well-respected among other journalists.
Chuck Todd of NBC asked good questions, too. I like Chuck Todd.
Meanwhile, the CNN guy spent his time getting Obama's reactions to the Sarah Palin book, and asking if he was going to run again in 2012. What was that about? You get 10 minutes with the President, and those are your questions? Fluff?
Major Garrett threw in one question about Palin: "Yes or no: are you going to read the Sarah Palin book?" Obama said probably not, and Garrett moved quickly to a question about Israel. Good job. That's what a serious journalist would do.
Major Garrett of Fox was incredible, touching on a lot of substantive areas--health care, Afghanistan, Israel--in a very short time and getting good answers. I understand that, unlike most Fox reporters, Major Garrett is well-respected among other journalists.
Chuck Todd of NBC asked good questions, too. I like Chuck Todd.
Meanwhile, the CNN guy spent his time getting Obama's reactions to the Sarah Palin book, and asking if he was going to run again in 2012. What was that about? You get 10 minutes with the President, and those are your questions? Fluff?
Major Garrett threw in one question about Palin: "Yes or no: are you going to read the Sarah Palin book?" Obama said probably not, and Garrett moved quickly to a question about Israel. Good job. That's what a serious journalist would do.
Patriots Meltdown: I Couldn't Say it Any Better
November 16, 2009 12:30 AM | permalink | comments: 0
Tim Graham, writing on ESPN: "The New England Patriots stated their case that they deserve to be known as the AFC East's best team. And then they puked all over themselves."
Critiquing NFL Helmets
November 15, 2009 9:45 PM | permalink | comments: 1
I've been musing about NFL helmet design for the past few weeks, trying to decide which helmets I liked the best. And the results are in.
1. Rams. I've always thought the big-horn-sheep thing gave the Rams the best helmet. Actually, it used to be better, with the horn curling around toward the middle. I don't like the current design as well, but included it because of my historical fondness.
2. Vikings. The dual wings have been part of the helmet for a long time. No sense changing something that works. I actually like it better than the current Rams helmet.
3. Buffalo Bills. I think this is a real sharp design.
4. Colts. Simple, timeless, easily-identifiable.
5. Steelers. I don't understand this design, with the three stars or diamonds or whatever they are. What's it have to do with "steelers"? But I've always liked the helmet. Look intimidating, for some reason.
6. Packers. A simple G, green on yellow. Several helmets just use initials from the team. This would be my favorite. Though I don't know why they stopped with just the G. Why not GB?
7. 49ers. I don't know how you illustrate "49ers," so a simple SF works.
8. Raiders. This logo looks mean. The Raiders have a mean reputation. Pussycats for the past several years, but their helmet still works.
9. Giants. Just the initials, but it works for me.
10. Bengals. Great design, using the bengal tiger stripes. I used to like it a lot better than I do now.
11. Dolphins. The dual stripes across the top make this helmet work for me, not just the logo.
12. Saints. Not sure what that symbol is, but it makes for a distinctive helmet.
I'll give honorable mentions to the Eagles, Chiefs, Seahawks, and Redskins. I could easily put the Chiefs helmet in the second 6, though I'm not sure which one it would displace.
About the Cowboys helmet: What's with the star? What does that have to do with anything?
And the all-time worst, most boring helmet definitely goes to the Cleveland Browns.
All the other helmets are stupid.
Book: 10 Dumb Things Smart Christians Believe
November 14, 2009 2:13 PM | permalink | comments: 0
I just finished Larry Osborne's book, "10 Dumb Things Smart Christians Believe." This is a follow-up to his book "Spirituality for the Rest of Us" (which I read under the title "A Contrarian's Guide to Knowing God"). "Spirituality for the Rest of Us" was better, but this sequel is well worth the cost. Anything to make you think about what you believe.Both books take things we long-time Christians have grown-up believing, and asks, "Is that really true?" And then explain why it's not true. We're not talking about basic doctrines, such as the virgin birth, miracles, authority of the Bible, etc. Rather, here are the chapters in "10 Dumb Things Smart Christians Believe." I asterisked my favorites.
1. Faith Can Fix Anything *Osborne describes these as spiritual urban legends. "They become almost impossible to refute because 'everyone' knows they're true. Anyone who dares to question their veracity gets written off as spiritually dull, lacking in faith, or liberal." My favorite chapters were: 3, 6, 8, and 9.
2. Forgiving Means Forgetting
3. A Godly Home Guarantees Godly Kids *
4. God has a Blueprint for My Life
5. Christians Shouldn't Judge
6. Everything Happens for a Reason
7. Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide
8. God Brings Good Luck
9. A Valley Means a Wrong Turn *
10. Dead People go to a Better Place *
I consider myself an independent thinker, a person who typically questions what he hears. But as I read this book, I was kicking myself over the things I've NOT questioned, but just accepted because other Christians spout them. Accepted, because it's ingrained into our Western Christian culture. This book won't make you abandon your Christian beliefs. Rather, it'll help bring you into closer alignment with what the Bible actually means. We should never be afraid of truth.
The Bereans didn't just take Paul's words as Gospel. They tested them, to see if they lined up with Scripture. Osborne's books do the same for 21st Century Christians. He takes the glib sayings we throw around and investigates whether or not that's what the Bible actually says.
After 18 Years, RNC Opts Out of Abortion Coverage
November 13, 2009 9:55 AM | permalink | comments: 0
Guess whose health insurance plan includes elective abortion? That would be the Republican National Committee. It's been part of their plan since 1991.
Michael Steele, RNC chairman, took quick action upon learning about this. "I don't know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled."
This came to light via a Politico story. That's right. If it hadn't been for the evil liberal press, the RNC could have been spared this embarrassment and continued merrily along with their insurance plan.
Michael Steele, RNC chairman, took quick action upon learning about this. "I don't know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled."
This came to light via a Politico story. That's right. If it hadn't been for the evil liberal press, the RNC could have been spared this embarrassment and continued merrily along with their insurance plan.
Atheists to the Rescue (Thank God)
November 11, 2009 8:47 AM | permalink | comments: 0
If Pam and I get raptured, what happens to Jordi and Molly? How can I enjoy eternity knowing that my cats--my KIDS--are trapped in our house with limited food and water?
But God has provided. To the rescue: Eternal Earth-Bound Pets, USA. This service, run entirely by atheists, is committed to caring for left-behind pets. The website says:
You've committed your life to Jesus. You know you're saved. But when the Rapture comes, what's to become of your loving pets who are left behind? Eternal Earth-Bound Pets takes that burden off your mind.
We are a group of dedicated animal lovers, and atheists. Each Eternal Earth-Bound Pet representative is a confirmed atheist, and as such will still be here on Earth after you've received your reward. Our network of animal activists are committed to step in when you step up to Jesus.
We are currently active in 22 states. Our representatives have been screened to ensure that they are atheists, animal lovers, are moral / ethical with no criminal background, have the ability and desire to rescue your pet and the means to retrieve them and ensure their care for your pet's natural life.
The cost: $110 for the first pet, $15 for each additional pet at the same residence. This is good for ten years. If the rapture doesn't occur within ten years, they keep your money. And being atheists, they are quite confident of keeping it.
A Church is More than Sunday Morning
November 9, 2009 1:44 PM | permalink | comments: 0
Tim Stevens, executive pastor of Granger Community Church, wrote a blog post called "A Crowd is Not a Church." It included this paragraph:
It's easy to pass quick judgments on a church. I do it when I visit a different church:
But as Stevens says, what happens on Sunday morning is only a glimpse. It's a crowd, not the church. I'm glad that Anchor is a whole lot more than a weekly crowd.
For some reason, people who have attended church for many years will come to a weekend service and believe they have visited our church. I tell people all the time: The weekend is not the church. It is a crowd. We are doing everything we can to draw the biggest crowd we can--and then turn it into a church.
It's easy to pass quick judgments on a church. I do it when I visit a different church:
- "They weren't very friendly. Nobody talked to us."
- "I didn't get much out of the message. It's a superficial church."
But as Stevens says, what happens on Sunday morning is only a glimpse. It's a crowd, not the church. I'm glad that Anchor is a whole lot more than a weekly crowd.
Cyber Attacks
November 8, 2009 7:49 PM | permalink | comments: 0
Tonite, 60 Minutes did a superb extended segment on cyber-terrorism--the ability to use the internet to inflict damage on the United States (and other countries). For instance, take out the electrical grid, or cause a collapse of the economic system. We've integrated the internet into so many vital parts of American life, and that offers many opportunities for geeky meddling.
In his excellent book "The Inheritance," David Sanger finished with three chapters (14-16) in a section he called "The Three Vulnerabilities." These were scary chapters, showing how vulnerable we are to three specific types of attacks: nuclear, biological, and cyber. Chapter 16 was about cyber-attacks.
Sanger reveals incidents from the Bush years that most of us haven't heard about. His opening chapter tells about our success in penetrating Iran's internet system to learn nuclear secrets. We also altered data and databases on a computer used by Al Qaeda operatives, which helped lure them into a trap. When it comes to cyber stuff, nobody's better than the USA.
In cyberwar, Sanger points out, "Attackers have almost all of the advantages. They get to pick from thousands of possible attacks. Defenders have to protect against everything, including attacks they can't imagine."
Interestingly, while the Chinese are the second-most sophisicated when it comes to cyber-attacks (the US is the best), they are considered somewhat deterred. "If the cash registers at Wal-Mart flip off, it's only a matter of time before China's exports take a hit. If the markets freeze up, it's going to be hard for the Chinese finance ministry to sell off their American treasury bills."
So if they damage our economy, they damage their own. That's the one positive aspect of being so indebted to the Chinese. An official told Sanger that they aren't worried too much about the Chinese. "They're deterred. It's the rest of the world I worry about."
In his excellent book "The Inheritance," David Sanger finished with three chapters (14-16) in a section he called "The Three Vulnerabilities." These were scary chapters, showing how vulnerable we are to three specific types of attacks: nuclear, biological, and cyber. Chapter 16 was about cyber-attacks.
Sanger reveals incidents from the Bush years that most of us haven't heard about. His opening chapter tells about our success in penetrating Iran's internet system to learn nuclear secrets. We also altered data and databases on a computer used by Al Qaeda operatives, which helped lure them into a trap. When it comes to cyber stuff, nobody's better than the USA.
In cyberwar, Sanger points out, "Attackers have almost all of the advantages. They get to pick from thousands of possible attacks. Defenders have to protect against everything, including attacks they can't imagine."
Interestingly, while the Chinese are the second-most sophisicated when it comes to cyber-attacks (the US is the best), they are considered somewhat deterred. "If the cash registers at Wal-Mart flip off, it's only a matter of time before China's exports take a hit. If the markets freeze up, it's going to be hard for the Chinese finance ministry to sell off their American treasury bills."
So if they damage our economy, they damage their own. That's the one positive aspect of being so indebted to the Chinese. An official told Sanger that they aren't worried too much about the Chinese. "They're deterred. It's the rest of the world I worry about."
For Your Sunday Afternoon Football Viewing Pleasure
November 8, 2009 1:34 PM | permalink | comments: 0
Round and Round I Go
November 7, 2009 10:49 AM | permalink | comments: 0
Ran a mile Tuesday, 1.25 on Thursday, and 1.5 today. Ankle doing fine. Fingers crossed.
Not that I'm tearing up the track. This morning, one gal who was running lapped me around five times. The more I ran, the more it seemed that:
Not that I'm tearing up the track. This morning, one gal who was running lapped me around five times. The more I ran, the more it seemed that:
- I was running slower and slower.
- She was speeding up.
- Both of the above.
A Non-Sweetie Scams IHOP for Breakfast
November 6, 2009 4:12 PM | permalink | comments: 1
I have griped about being called "sweetie" and "honey" by waitresses and even at the McDonald's drive-thru. But today, Pam got called "sweetie" twice--once by the nurse at the doctor's office, the other at IHOP.
Pam's checkup went fine, following her surgery for a frozen shoulder on Wednesday. Just need to keep exercising that shoulder, and mostly-full motion should return eventually.
We then went to IHOP for breakfast. I'm pretty positive I saw a woman pull a scam on the restaurant.
The heavy-set woman at the next booth complained that it took too long for her food to come. She wouldn't be able to eat it there, and would be late for work. Plus, even while waiting, she said, she couldn't drink the coffee, because it was way too strong, undrinkable. She would need a box to take her food, and would like a pitcher of coffee to take home--which wouldn't be the same, she said, because she would have to put it in the refrigerator.
The woman manager was very professional and courteous. I'm pretty sure she gave her the breakfast free, and maybe even threw in a $5 gift card (I couldn't tell for sure). I suspect the manager knew they were getting scammed, but what could she do? It would only cost the restaurant a few bucks to make the lady happy and get her out of there.
When Pam and I left, the lady was still sitting there, eating from her box, taking her time. Apparently not concerned about being late for work.
The IHOP staff, I noticed, did not call her "sweetie."
Pam's checkup went fine, following her surgery for a frozen shoulder on Wednesday. Just need to keep exercising that shoulder, and mostly-full motion should return eventually.
We then went to IHOP for breakfast. I'm pretty positive I saw a woman pull a scam on the restaurant.
The heavy-set woman at the next booth complained that it took too long for her food to come. She wouldn't be able to eat it there, and would be late for work. Plus, even while waiting, she said, she couldn't drink the coffee, because it was way too strong, undrinkable. She would need a box to take her food, and would like a pitcher of coffee to take home--which wouldn't be the same, she said, because she would have to put it in the refrigerator.
The woman manager was very professional and courteous. I'm pretty sure she gave her the breakfast free, and maybe even threw in a $5 gift card (I couldn't tell for sure). I suspect the manager knew they were getting scammed, but what could she do? It would only cost the restaurant a few bucks to make the lady happy and get her out of there.
When Pam and I left, the lady was still sitting there, eating from her box, taking her time. Apparently not concerned about being late for work.
The IHOP staff, I noticed, did not call her "sweetie."
I Must Be Missing Something
November 6, 2009 3:59 PM | permalink | comments: 0
I was on a Christian site, called Women of the Harvest, looking for an article they published by one of our missionaries. In trying to access their articles, I was taken to a page telling me:
"Our website is secure for your privacy. To access the Women of the Harvest resources, you will need to become a registered user."
So let me get this straight. If their website was NOT secure, but open to anyone, I could freely read their content and nobody need know I was even there. But because their website IS secure, I must give up private information about myself in order to protect my privacy.
CNN doesn't require that I register. Is that a liberal conspiracy to undermine my privacy?
Perhaps my church should require people to register before they can view such information as service times, ministries, etc. You know--to protect their privacy.
"Our website is secure for your privacy. To access the Women of the Harvest resources, you will need to become a registered user."
So let me get this straight. If their website was NOT secure, but open to anyone, I could freely read their content and nobody need know I was even there. But because their website IS secure, I must give up private information about myself in order to protect my privacy.
CNN doesn't require that I register. Is that a liberal conspiracy to undermine my privacy?
Perhaps my church should require people to register before they can view such information as service times, ministries, etc. You know--to protect their privacy.
Kroger: Leave My Grocery Store Alone
November 5, 2009 11:19 PM | permalink | comments: 0
Kroger is doing it again. They own the Scott's grocery store chain in Fort Wayne--bought it a few years ago. That included the Scott's on Illinois Road, where Pam and I shop. It immediately went a little downhill, service-wise, but not too badly. Still a good store.
I know that store real well. I can find things. I have it down. Ask me where something is, and I can tell you.
Went there today...and they're MOVING EVERYTHING AROUND. This is like the third time since they took over. Why would they do that? Why? Why do they insist on injecting so much tension into my grocery-shopping experience? Is not American life difficult enough without the uncertainties inherent in rearranging the store? My beloved grocery store, once a comfort zone, will now become a mystery. Again.
I imagine some corporate dead-ender did a consumer-behavior study, complete with hidden cameras and eye-tracking and who knows what else, and the conclusion was: we need to move stuff to a different location. Put the paper goods where the pickles were. Move the cereal two aisles over. Put the coffee next to the flour. Consumer-behavior studies give detailed ramifications.
When I went through the checkout line today, the checker, talking points memorized, was assuring people, "It'll be a good change. You'll like it when it's done."
No, it won't be a good change. Because in another year, just after I once again figure out where everything is, some corporate guy will do another consumer-behavior study, and it'll show that things still aren't in the right place. The cereal is still on the wrong aisle, and flour and coffee just don't work together. You'll determine that this "good change" is actually all wrong, that it is mortally flawed. And you'll move things around again.
Just quit it, okay? The store is fine the way it is.
I know that store real well. I can find things. I have it down. Ask me where something is, and I can tell you.
Went there today...and they're MOVING EVERYTHING AROUND. This is like the third time since they took over. Why would they do that? Why? Why do they insist on injecting so much tension into my grocery-shopping experience? Is not American life difficult enough without the uncertainties inherent in rearranging the store? My beloved grocery store, once a comfort zone, will now become a mystery. Again.
I imagine some corporate dead-ender did a consumer-behavior study, complete with hidden cameras and eye-tracking and who knows what else, and the conclusion was: we need to move stuff to a different location. Put the paper goods where the pickles were. Move the cereal two aisles over. Put the coffee next to the flour. Consumer-behavior studies give detailed ramifications.
When I went through the checkout line today, the checker, talking points memorized, was assuring people, "It'll be a good change. You'll like it when it's done."
No, it won't be a good change. Because in another year, just after I once again figure out where everything is, some corporate guy will do another consumer-behavior study, and it'll show that things still aren't in the right place. The cereal is still on the wrong aisle, and flour and coffee just don't work together. You'll determine that this "good change" is actually all wrong, that it is mortally flawed. And you'll move things around again.
Just quit it, okay? The store is fine the way it is.
We are the Champions
November 4, 2009 11:59 PM | permalink | comments: 0
So the Yankees pulled it off! My team won!I'm guessing ratings were pretty good this year. I didn't watch the Series last year, because I didn't care. But when the Yankees are in it, it's more interesting. No, it's not fair. But that's the way it is. People like me watched every game this year, only because the Yankees--a collection of talented multi-multi millionaires--was contending.
I dug out an old, blurry Little League photo of me in my Yankees uniform. That would have been after my 4th grade year. Skinny little runt, wasn't I?
In the Paxtonia league (thus the "P" on the cap), in the east suburbs of Harrisburg, Pa., we had the A and B teams, which played other leagues. And then there was the pony league, which consisted of four teams: Yankees, Dodgers, Tigers, Phillies. We played amongst ourselves. I was on the Yankees, and we won the league. (The next year, I made the B team, and the A team the year after that.)
I only remember two other members of that Yankees team: Jeff Kline and Scott Clark. They alternated between pitcher and catcher. I played shortstop. Must have had some other decent players, but I can't remember them.
Of Running, Korean Christians, and the Taliban
November 3, 2009 9:39 PM | permalink | comments: 0
I ventured back into running tonite. Did a mile at the Y. In July, I had worked myself up to four miles, but the stubborn stress fracture above my right ankle reminded me that it had not yet gone away, despite periods of respite from pain. So, I gave up my new-found interest in running, determining not to run until the beginning of November. At the least. Longer, if I still felt a hint of anything lingering.
So I did just a mile tonite, and I'm pooped out. But I'm sure I can work back up to a few miles fairly quickly. Hopefully I won't wake up in the morning with pain in my ankle and the realization I should have abstained longer.
While stretching, doing crunches, running, then lifting some weights, I listened to a sermon by Francis Chan. I love listening to his messages. Chan speaks with humor, authenticity, and insights I've not heard before. And "Living Courageously" was the best I've heard so far.
Chan told about the 23 Korean church workers kidnapped by the Taliban several years ago. Two of them were executed before the group was released. Chan was able to spend a couple hours with one of those Koreans. The man told how the Taliban took everything they had with them...except for one Bible, which one of the men carried in his back pocket. That Christian man tore the Bible into 23 pieces and distributed a piece to each Korean, so that everyone had part of God's Word. The Taliban then divided the Koreans into groups of three and took them to different locations, where they remained until their eventual release.
The man told Chan what had happened since the group's return to Seoul. He said occasionally, a member of that group would come up to him and say, "Don't you wish we were back in Afghanistan?" Why? Because never before, and never since, had they felt so close to God. In that desperate situation, they were sharing in the sufferings of Jesus, and doing exactly what the Lord required of them.
As I chugged along the track, I had goosebumps.
So I did just a mile tonite, and I'm pooped out. But I'm sure I can work back up to a few miles fairly quickly. Hopefully I won't wake up in the morning with pain in my ankle and the realization I should have abstained longer.
While stretching, doing crunches, running, then lifting some weights, I listened to a sermon by Francis Chan. I love listening to his messages. Chan speaks with humor, authenticity, and insights I've not heard before. And "Living Courageously" was the best I've heard so far.
Chan told about the 23 Korean church workers kidnapped by the Taliban several years ago. Two of them were executed before the group was released. Chan was able to spend a couple hours with one of those Koreans. The man told how the Taliban took everything they had with them...except for one Bible, which one of the men carried in his back pocket. That Christian man tore the Bible into 23 pieces and distributed a piece to each Korean, so that everyone had part of God's Word. The Taliban then divided the Koreans into groups of three and took them to different locations, where they remained until their eventual release.
The man told Chan what had happened since the group's return to Seoul. He said occasionally, a member of that group would come up to him and say, "Don't you wish we were back in Afghanistan?" Why? Because never before, and never since, had they felt so close to God. In that desperate situation, they were sharing in the sufferings of Jesus, and doing exactly what the Lord required of them.
As I chugged along the track, I had goosebumps.
Notes to the Combatants in the "War" on Fox News
November 2, 2009 3:15 PM | permalink | comments: 0
First to the Obama Administration:
The definition of stupidity is telling terrorists, "Bring it on." In going after FoxNews, you redefined stupidity.
And hypocrisy. You accuse FoxNews of being partisan--which most of us agree it is--but then refuse to acknowledge the same of MSNBC (at least, of its evening line-up). If you're going to stand on principle--that newspeople should be unbiased--then for heaven's sakes, STAND on it. Consistently.
You knocked FoxNews, but gave MSNBC a pass. Why? Because Olberman and Maddow continually give you sloppy wet kisses, and you don't want to impede the continuing flow of gratuitous saliva. Chill out.
Now, to FoxNews:
You've certainly gotten your mileage out of this. Milked it to death. Enough already, okay?
I'm weary of hearing your Anchors & Friends continually trumpet this War on Fox News. They always talk about this imaginary "war" in general terms, without mentioning what acts of aggression are coming from the Obama Administration. From what I can tell, here are the blitzkriegs which have been launched against you:
The fact is, the Administration did not launch a war. They launched a hissy-fit, which you then blew into a galactic conflagration. Okay, so your feelings were hurt. Quit acting your age--which is 13--and stop the pouting. It's unseemly.
The definition of stupidity is telling terrorists, "Bring it on." In going after FoxNews, you redefined stupidity.
And hypocrisy. You accuse FoxNews of being partisan--which most of us agree it is--but then refuse to acknowledge the same of MSNBC (at least, of its evening line-up). If you're going to stand on principle--that newspeople should be unbiased--then for heaven's sakes, STAND on it. Consistently.
You knocked FoxNews, but gave MSNBC a pass. Why? Because Olberman and Maddow continually give you sloppy wet kisses, and you don't want to impede the continuing flow of gratuitous saliva. Chill out.
Now, to FoxNews:
You've certainly gotten your mileage out of this. Milked it to death. Enough already, okay?
I'm weary of hearing your Anchors & Friends continually trumpet this War on Fox News. They always talk about this imaginary "war" in general terms, without mentioning what acts of aggression are coming from the Obama Administration. From what I can tell, here are the blitzkriegs which have been launched against you:
Is there more? If so, please be specific. Quit talking about this "war" in nebulous terms. Tell me when and where battles are occurring.
- An interview with Chris Wallace was denied.
- Various Obama representatives have accused you of being biased, and that hurt your feelings.
The fact is, the Administration did not launch a war. They launched a hissy-fit, which you then blew into a galactic conflagration. Okay, so your feelings were hurt. Quit acting your age--which is 13--and stop the pouting. It's unseemly.
Musings on Setting a Worshipful Mood
November 1, 2009 2:22 PM | permalink | comments: 1
When we do communion at Anchor, we usually have music playing underneath--sometimes the whole worship team, sometimes just a guitar or me at the piano. You know, setting a mood. Typically, we have people file to the front of the church to get the elements, so playing music works well.
Today, we did it differently, the way most [United Brethren] churches do it. The band played John Mark McMillan's "How He Loves" while the ushers distributed the elements to people in their seats. Then the band stopped playing, and everyone took communion together. No music underneath.
As I stood on the platform, the bread and tiny plastic juice cup in my hand, I thought about the silence. It was...interesting.
I thought about that Last Supper. Did Jesus have someone in the corner strumming a guitar while he blessed the wine and bread? Was there nothing to set the proper mood? Nothing, that is, except the presence of Jesus?
Today, we did it differently, the way most [United Brethren] churches do it. The band played John Mark McMillan's "How He Loves" while the ushers distributed the elements to people in their seats. Then the band stopped playing, and everyone took communion together. No music underneath.
As I stood on the platform, the bread and tiny plastic juice cup in my hand, I thought about the silence. It was...interesting.
I thought about that Last Supper. Did Jesus have someone in the corner strumming a guitar while he blessed the wine and bread? Was there nothing to set the proper mood? Nothing, that is, except the presence of Jesus?
About Me