Piety’s deposit fund

Posted on by
1

On his Assembling of the Church blog, Alan Knox recently wrote not just one, or two, but three posts on Tertullian’s writings and their bearing on ecclesiology (which basically means the study of how we “do church”).

It’s illuminating to read what church leaders wrote in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. So much corruption crept in when Rome took over the church that it’s otherwise difficult to sort what practices are actually rooted in the Apostles’ teachings.

If you have a few minutes, go read Alan’s posts. You may be surprised at how much church meetings have changed!

Constitution upheld in SCOTUS… go figure.

Posted on by
Reply

It’s good news, but it’s sad that our courts have so little regard for the Constitution that there was ever a question as to how the Supreme Court would rule:

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by “the historical narrative” both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home,” Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington’s requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks.

(Source: The Evansville, Indiana Courier & Press)

Of course, it’s the stereotypical 5-to-4 ruling… which basically means half of the current judges presiding over the Supreme Court are complete idiots. (Really: if you have a feeling the vote is going this way, isn’t this like telling every potential “freak militiaman” to start gunning for you? It doesn’t make any sense to me… because now you don’t have gun bans to hide behind. I just don’t get it.)

When Travis says “cult,” what does he mean?

Posted on by
9

In light of recent concerns (via e-mail) about my calling Chesapeake Community Church a cult, and given Abraham Piper’s recent post regarding author’s intent, here is my working definition for “cult”:

“A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of [consequences of] leaving it, etc) designed to advance the goals of the group’s leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community.”

(HT: Wikipedia)

Review: Horton Hears a Who

Posted on by
11

Horton Hears a Who!

This past weekend, Nicole and I took the kids to see Horton Hears a Who! It was Joshua’s first time in a movie theater, and he did okay. (He got a bit whiny toward the end, so I took him over near the door and held him a bit, and he calmed down.)

Anyway, the movie was a lot of fun. I had trouble keeping track of whether Horton and the kangaroo represented “mainstream culture vs. evil, close-minded fundamentalists” or “believer vs. atheist.” It was a little too disorienting to try and embrace both models at the same time—maybe due to my taking personally the homeschooling dig early in the film. ;)

As with previous Dr. Seuss theatrical adaptations, a number of additions were made to convert the 72-page book into an 86-minute film. Unlike previous live-action Seussian projects, however, these additions (for the most part) added something to the story without mutating it into a children’s book version of Ace Ventura. Even the anime fight sequence worked! The main exception in my mind?

Katie, from Horton Hears a Who!
“In my world, everyone’s a pony and they all eat rainbows and poop butterflies!”

At first glance, Katie seems to have been intended to play the part of the cute toddler who sometimes makes strange remarks. She ends up just being creepy, though. Her character is so dissonant in relation to the rest of the movie that she doesn’t just seem out of place… she seems like a saboteur, intentionally seeking to derail the story.

Aside from Katie, the movie just works. So, since she doesn’t have much screen time, I’d give the movie 4.5 (out of 5) stars!

I Voted (for Ron Paul)!

Posted on by
4

I Voted (by Vaguely Artistic on Flickr)

I took Katie with me this morning (she’s almost a bigger Ron Paul supporter than I am; she says he’s her “favorite President ever”) out to my local polling place. Now I think it’s weird that the State government is using a religious institution’s building to run a government function, but hey–I’m one of those weird “separation of Church and State”rs. Outside the building was a table where a guy had a sample Republican ballot, as well as this handy-dandy little reference card:

Not MY team, pal!

FYI: 100% of the identified Ron Paul supporters (three of the four candidates in each list) are “NOT ENDORSED” by the Republican Committee of Lancaster County, PA. Those candidates are listed at RonPaulPA.com.

You know, this just seems odd to me. I can see a special interest group endorsing certain GOP candidates before the GOP primary, but why would the GOP itself be endorsing particular candidates before the primary election?

Why should their a priori endorsement matter to me? Isn’t that a little bit backwards?

Sorry, I’m just a little bit angry about this. If they’d given reasons for the endorsements (or lack thereof), I might feel better about it. But when they do something like this, aren’t they implicitly saying “those candidates aren’t ‘Republican’ enough”? Fine, make that claim… but support it if you want me to take you seriously!

Just handing over this card, though… party officials are literally dictating to area residents how to vote?! How would it look if your county’s Democratic party was telling all the Democrats to vote for Obama? That’s what this looks like to me.

The purpose of a primary is for me to tell you who to vote for, “Party Officials”; not vice-versa.

Ooh… it just burns me up!

Multiple-Personality Spammer

Posted on by
2

I get lots and LOTS of spam, and it typically gets a subject line once-over before it’s tossed out with the banana peels and DirecTV mailers.

Well, this one gave me pause. Then it confused me. Then I was convinced that I had a moral obligation to share it with all of you!

This is an e-mail I received from Clair. Or maybe it’s from Kristina:

Clair or Kristina? Does SHE even know?!

Here’s some Very Interesting Things that jumped out at me:

  1. She claims to have “closely read [my] profile” (only God knows what profile she’s referring to), yet has somehow gotten the (wrong) idea that I’m either unmarried or willing to cheat on my wife. (“I looking for serious relations.”)
  2. She’s under the impression that I’m dirt-poor. (“For me are not necessary money.”)
  3. She called me ugly! (“The external beauty for me too is not important.”)
  4. Here’s the kicker, and it’s what made her request for “the man will concern to me” so gosh-darned tempting: people, at the free time she likes to go to DISCO!

But nope! Sorry, Ms. Whoever-you-think-your-name-is… I already got a wife off the Internet. ;)

NUMB3RS meets MathNet!

Posted on by
1

Kate Monday and George Frankly: MathNet

Numb3rs wouldn’t have an audience if it weren’t for Square One TV‘s MathNet. I think it’s only fair for them to write an episode guest-starring Joe Howard and Beverly Leech (George Frankly and Kate Monday, respectively).

They don’t have to be law enforcement officers; but the stronger their connection to solving crimes with math, the cooler it would be.

And speaking of Square One actors making guest appearances, Larry Cedar would make a perfect brother to LOST‘s Ben Linus (Michael Emerson). Just sayin’.