Wednesday, August 8
I don't really agree with Jorn that you can write a web book in one day, but you can edit one, and I'd sure like to do it sometime (if only enough ProtoIndoEuropean stuff was on the web!).
Lots of good stuff over at randomWalks today and yesterday: hipMama:In Defense of Television (a must read for you, Christine), 'The purpose of global poverty... (which may or may not be the purpose, but it's certainly a factor)', and one good reason not to clone humans.
My parents are really into those 'Chicken Soup for the Soul' books. My brother once bought them 'Chicken Poop for the Soul'. Now that's funny. I often laugh hysterically when I tell that story. (Amazon actually has 4 books in this vein.)
We're having an interesting followup discussion on Steven's post over at Clueless Comments.
Tuesday, August 7
Another link from Steven, this time regarding my post from yesterday on Christianity and sexuality.
I think Steven misread me as Ian Jackson pointed out in the comments section (last one as of this writing). I do realize that I'm saying that extramarital sex (including unmarried sex) is sin.
In addition, I reiterate the end of my previous post, modified for a wider audience:
So what would I say to people who are sexually active outside of marriage about this issue, if asked? I’d say God loves you. That’s the main thing to come to terms with. And for our good God has directed us with certain laws/commands. If we don’t agree on those presuppositions, we’re going to have a hard time agreeing on the morality of sex. But I hope we can be friends. And I will strive to love you as I strive to love everyone around me.
And if you didn't pick it up the first time, please go back and reread the article. My first move is to critique conservatives who aren't loving. The main point of this post is not to bash 'sinners', of which I am one.
I think Steven misread me as Ian Jackson pointed out in the comments section (last one as of this writing). I do realize that I'm saying that extramarital sex (including unmarried sex) is sin.
In addition, I reiterate the end of my previous post, modified for a wider audience:
So what would I say to people who are sexually active outside of marriage about this issue, if asked? I’d say God loves you. That’s the main thing to come to terms with. And for our good God has directed us with certain laws/commands. If we don’t agree on those presuppositions, we’re going to have a hard time agreeing on the morality of sex. But I hope we can be friends. And I will strive to love you as I strive to love everyone around me.
And if you didn't pick it up the first time, please go back and reread the article. My first move is to critique conservatives who aren't loving. The main point of this post is not to bash 'sinners', of which I am one.
Monday, August 6
Zowie! Two links on the good ship Clueless, Steven's evaluation of Blogdex. Steven wrote (after listing my site, among others):
Every site I just listed is at least as good as Jason's site and some of them are vastly better, and yet Kottke's site is linked more than all the rest of them combined.
There you have it in print:
Sean Meade's 'interact': at least as good as kottke.org (and maybe vastly better).
I'll put in this word of praise for Jason, without contradicting Steven's obvious good taste: I link Jason and I regularly enjoy his posts. That is all.
(ps: Steven's post tells you how to search Blogdex for your site.)
Every site I just listed is at least as good as Jason's site and some of them are vastly better, and yet Kottke's site is linked more than all the rest of them combined.
There you have it in print:
Sean Meade's 'interact': at least as good as kottke.org (and maybe vastly better).
I'll put in this word of praise for Jason, without contradicting Steven's obvious good taste: I link Jason and I regularly enjoy his posts. That is all.
(ps: Steven's post tells you how to search Blogdex for your site.)
Cash for Ukrainian Nazi-Era Slave Workers
Kolchynsky and others who were incarcerated in concentration camps are set to receive $6,754 each, while those forced to work in factories under abominable conditions will get about $2,700 each.
Everyone knows these amounts of money are a pittance, compared to what these people went through. But it's interesting.
Kolchynsky and others who were incarcerated in concentration camps are set to receive $6,754 each, while those forced to work in factories under abominable conditions will get about $2,700 each.
Everyone knows these amounts of money are a pittance, compared to what these people went through. But it's interesting.
Want to read what 'Entertainment Weekly' wrote about blogging (via Matt). Not like I care. I'm above their commentary (except, I guess I did read the whole article :-).
Eric has a very touching entry about being a gay Eagle Scout. You should read this if you want to know how a gay man, and probably many other homosexuals, feel about the Boy Scouts these days.
Which side do I stand on this issue, as an orthodox, Evangelical, historically connected Christian pastor? Neither. Am I for Eric and other gays and homosexuals or am I for ‘the truth’? Yes.
Usually these kinds of debates polarize into two variously named sides: liberal and conservatives, sinners and saints, lovers and haters.
When I’m thinking clearly, I frame the debate differently.
Jesus came 'full of grace and truth (John 1)'. Paul told us to 'speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4.15)'. Usually those of us on the conservative side are for the truth. And those of us on the liberal side are for love. But the truth without loves sounds a lot like hate. And love without truth looks like licentiousness.
I want to try to hold these two values in tension: grace/love and truth.
We see a good example of the need for this in parenting. Parents love their children. But sometimes this means disciplining them. An overly permissive parent will ultimately allow harm to come to her child which she could have prevented.
Hopefully some Christians can stake out a place in the middle of this issue between love that allows anything, even that which contradicts God's revealed truth, and truth without loves that smacks of hate.
I haven’t followed the Boy Scout debate closely enough to know how the conservatives there have fought. Maybe they’ve taken the high ground. Maybe they are speaking the truth in love. I hope so.
If not, they are poorly representing ‘the truth’. Jesus was a lot harder on people who prosecuted the truth in the wrong spirit (eg, the Pharisees) than He was on people who allowed everything (eg, the tax collectors and ‘sinners’).
Having laid out my conceptual framework, I can give you my specific views on this issue.
My faith and tradition and community going back 4000 years view sex as moral only in loving marriage. Anything else - extramarital sex including premarital sex and homosexuality and also, I think, sex in a marriage where there isn't mutual submission and where the husband doesn't love his wife as Christ loved the Church (Ephesians 5.21-33) - is immoral.
I think part of the problem here is that we conservatives often argue for standards of morality that are less than the full Biblical standard. It makes us into de facto hypocrites when we argue against homosexuality but don't speak up for loving marriages. It’s like we’re saying all sex in marriage is moral. And that’s not true. And it can also sound like we think we’re righteous since we’re not homosexuals, and that’s not true either.
Of course, maybe the biggest part of the problem is our typical conservative failing to love the person whose 'sin' we decry. We are all sinners, even if you just look at the Ephesians passage above. This passage shows that any of us who lives out sexuality and sexual behavior outside of a loving marriage relationship sins. Jesus taught the same thing when He said in the Sermon on the Mount that those who lust commit adultery in their hearts. If we point without love to homosexuals as sinners we sin ourselves.
Additionally, in my tradition, we believe that we sin because we are sinners, born and raised outside of God’s plan A for the world. We aren’t sinners because we sin, as if anyone who could keep from sinning would keep from becoming a sinner. No, we are sinners by nature (original sin), therefore, we sin. Therefore, it’s no surprise that we’re sinners. The trouble comes when we try to avoid that moniker through denial (There is no such thing as sin.) or ‘righteousness’ (I don’t sin.).
Another position that is often advocated here is that homosexuality is not immoral because it can be innate. I have innate feelings that are promiscuous and lustful and could lead toward really bad behavior if I left them unchecked. I have innate feelings that are violent and could lead to really bad behavior if left unchecked. Natural feelings don’t make for moral or amoral behavior. And feelings in themselves aren’t bad. It’s not bad to be tempted to do wrong things, to feel like doing them. It’s only bad to do them.
So what would I say to homosexuals about this issue, if asked? I’d say God loves you. That’s the main thing to come to terms with. And for our good God has directed us with certain laws/commands. If we don’t agree on those presuppositions, we’re going to have a hard time agreeing on the morality of sex. But I hope we can be friends. And I will strive to love you as I strive to love everyone around me.
Which side do I stand on this issue, as an orthodox, Evangelical, historically connected Christian pastor? Neither. Am I for Eric and other gays and homosexuals or am I for ‘the truth’? Yes.
Usually these kinds of debates polarize into two variously named sides: liberal and conservatives, sinners and saints, lovers and haters.
When I’m thinking clearly, I frame the debate differently.
Jesus came 'full of grace and truth (John 1)'. Paul told us to 'speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4.15)'. Usually those of us on the conservative side are for the truth. And those of us on the liberal side are for love. But the truth without loves sounds a lot like hate. And love without truth looks like licentiousness.
I want to try to hold these two values in tension: grace/love and truth.
We see a good example of the need for this in parenting. Parents love their children. But sometimes this means disciplining them. An overly permissive parent will ultimately allow harm to come to her child which she could have prevented.
Hopefully some Christians can stake out a place in the middle of this issue between love that allows anything, even that which contradicts God's revealed truth, and truth without loves that smacks of hate.
I haven’t followed the Boy Scout debate closely enough to know how the conservatives there have fought. Maybe they’ve taken the high ground. Maybe they are speaking the truth in love. I hope so.
If not, they are poorly representing ‘the truth’. Jesus was a lot harder on people who prosecuted the truth in the wrong spirit (eg, the Pharisees) than He was on people who allowed everything (eg, the tax collectors and ‘sinners’).
Having laid out my conceptual framework, I can give you my specific views on this issue.
My faith and tradition and community going back 4000 years view sex as moral only in loving marriage. Anything else - extramarital sex including premarital sex and homosexuality and also, I think, sex in a marriage where there isn't mutual submission and where the husband doesn't love his wife as Christ loved the Church (Ephesians 5.21-33) - is immoral.
I think part of the problem here is that we conservatives often argue for standards of morality that are less than the full Biblical standard. It makes us into de facto hypocrites when we argue against homosexuality but don't speak up for loving marriages. It’s like we’re saying all sex in marriage is moral. And that’s not true. And it can also sound like we think we’re righteous since we’re not homosexuals, and that’s not true either.
Of course, maybe the biggest part of the problem is our typical conservative failing to love the person whose 'sin' we decry. We are all sinners, even if you just look at the Ephesians passage above. This passage shows that any of us who lives out sexuality and sexual behavior outside of a loving marriage relationship sins. Jesus taught the same thing when He said in the Sermon on the Mount that those who lust commit adultery in their hearts. If we point without love to homosexuals as sinners we sin ourselves.
Additionally, in my tradition, we believe that we sin because we are sinners, born and raised outside of God’s plan A for the world. We aren’t sinners because we sin, as if anyone who could keep from sinning would keep from becoming a sinner. No, we are sinners by nature (original sin), therefore, we sin. Therefore, it’s no surprise that we’re sinners. The trouble comes when we try to avoid that moniker through denial (There is no such thing as sin.) or ‘righteousness’ (I don’t sin.).
Another position that is often advocated here is that homosexuality is not immoral because it can be innate. I have innate feelings that are promiscuous and lustful and could lead toward really bad behavior if I left them unchecked. I have innate feelings that are violent and could lead to really bad behavior if left unchecked. Natural feelings don’t make for moral or amoral behavior. And feelings in themselves aren’t bad. It’s not bad to be tempted to do wrong things, to feel like doing them. It’s only bad to do them.
So what would I say to homosexuals about this issue, if asked? I’d say God loves you. That’s the main thing to come to terms with. And for our good God has directed us with certain laws/commands. If we don’t agree on those presuppositions, we’re going to have a hard time agreeing on the morality of sex. But I hope we can be friends. And I will strive to love you as I strive to love everyone around me.
Saturday, August 4
It's a long struggle for justice. It is grassroots movements that create real change, and no grassroots movement ever got anywhere compromising its ideals. Real change won't happen at Washington cocktail parties or in the Lincoln Bedroom.
Tim Robbins on why he voted for Nader (a little long. He really gets going on the second page.)(via randomWalks).
Tim Robbins on why he voted for Nader (a little long. He really gets going on the second page.)(via randomWalks).
Friday, August 3
I read 'The High King' by Lloyd Alexander wednesday night. Alexander did a lot of things right.
Our heroes are overwhelmed. They get defeated a lot.
Our hero, Taran, finally has matured beyond seeking glory and honor. He seeks to do his duty now, but appreciates the value of humble pursuits.
The end is very well done. Like Tolkien, much of the magic of the past passes away, the House of Don like Tolkien's elves. However, in Tolkien, this passing is more bitter than sweet. In Alexander, the bitter and sweet are matched: humans are coming into their own and the future is truly one worth living. In Tolkien I'm left only longing for the past, settling for the present.
The defeat of Arawn, however, was too easily accomplished once they got to Annuvin. The cauldron-born were too easily dispatched, as was Arawn. This is my one major complaint.
All in all, though, very well done and much appreciated. Worth reading.
Our heroes are overwhelmed. They get defeated a lot.
Our hero, Taran, finally has matured beyond seeking glory and honor. He seeks to do his duty now, but appreciates the value of humble pursuits.
The end is very well done. Like Tolkien, much of the magic of the past passes away, the House of Don like Tolkien's elves. However, in Tolkien, this passing is more bitter than sweet. In Alexander, the bitter and sweet are matched: humans are coming into their own and the future is truly one worth living. In Tolkien I'm left only longing for the past, settling for the present.
The defeat of Arawn, however, was too easily accomplished once they got to Annuvin. The cauldron-born were too easily dispatched, as was Arawn. This is my one major complaint.
All in all, though, very well done and much appreciated. Worth reading.
Steven has an amazing post on military ecology and logistics. If you have the slightest interest in such things, you must check it out.
Update: the 13s got 756 visitors off of Blogdex in one day. Crazy. Oh yeah, and their basement flooded, too, but they were ready so it's merely interesting and not sad.
Found in referrer logs: Google search: how to break a man's heart. Whoa, it's in some other language, maybe Lithuanian (judging by the link)?
Jason updated his recommendations and I drilled all the way down to McSweeney lists. These are sometimes funny, especially those written by Greg Knauss (formerly of 'Entirely Other Day'). I especially like LINES OF "STAR WARS" DIALOGUE IF OBI-WAN KENOBI HAD BEEN REALLY, REALLY DEPRESSED and ADVERTISING SLOGANS TARGETED AT THE LOVECRAFTIAN ELDER GODS (which I've linked before).
I agree with Eric on this 'tax relief' business. Bad business, getting worse. On top of that, I don't get any 'relief' because I count as self-employed, as a pastor. Insult to injury.
Did you know that Iowa is one of the leading states supporting the government's case against Microsoft (very bottom)? That's because Iowa rules.
Wednesday, August 1
Lance Armstrong was going to generate 97.2 million watts "enough to power his home town for 2 hours and 28 minutes". (via Steven today).
An idea whose time has come: Gorillaz.
The 'Clint Eastwood' video is for real, musically and visually.
Gorillaz
Clint Eastwood
There's another nice video on their homepage (requires Shockwave 8).
Visually, I like the anime influences.
(And, by the way, Steven talked at length about synthespians yesterday.)
The 'Clint Eastwood' video is for real, musically and visually.
GorillazClint Eastwood
There's another nice video on their homepage (requires Shockwave 8).
Visually, I like the anime influences.
(And, by the way, Steven talked at length about synthespians yesterday.)
One of the best things about Launch is you can listen to songs you want to hear on demand, whether you watch the video or not. (esp. w/o broadband)
My top videos I’ve seen:
Losing my religion
Take on me
Express yourself
Jeremy
Sabotage
Thriller
Smells like Teen Spirit
Others: Cherish, Vogue, Love will never do, Disarm, Bullet with butterfly wings (with a strong attractive woman dancing around with black and white photography theme. What can I say?)
Want to see what else is out there? VH1's top 100.
My top videos I’ve seen:
Losing my religion
Take on me
Express yourself
Jeremy
Sabotage
Thriller
Smells like Teen Spirit
Others: Cherish, Vogue, Love will never do, Disarm, Bullet with butterfly wings (with a strong attractive woman dancing around with black and white photography theme. What can I say?)
Want to see what else is out there? VH1's top 100.
Ohmigosh. I'm stunned. Vikings Tackle Korey Stringer Dies After Heatstroke. He got it at practice. How terrible.
Shades of Mussolini? Italy Orders Media to Hand Over Film of G8 Protest. I don't know, maybe this isn't a big deal. It appears they're not saying don't use them. They want them for evidentiary purposes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
