usatoday
Religious men, especially evangelical Protestants, are more involved and attentive husbands and fathers than men who are not religious, new research shows.

Now, they should do a follow up study to show that Calvinist-evangelicals are only good fathers because they’ve been chosen to be. ;-)

I see a guy messing with a large ice chest in the back of his van. He is doing something w/ it and it starts dripping. I’m pumping my gas just after being yelled at by a lady for “taking her spot” (yeah right but it all good). He spills some of the the ice chest contents on the ground and moves it to the front seat. He then leaves. Turns out the “contents” are small fish. There are about 50 fish, between 1 and 2 inches, flopping in water-gasoline mixture. I watch the fish as they flop. He looks down and moves the ice chest. Doesn’t say a word or even look up. I continue to get gas (20 gallons @ $2.14).

Up drives two guys with a trailer and without regard to the small flopping slowly suffocating fishies the front tire rolls over the left side of the fish crowd. Crunch. Squish. Seep. Crunch. Because of the trailer he has to continue rolling up and the back tire hits the middle of the crowd with the same yet higher concentrated Crunch. Squish. Seep. Crunch. The driver gets out and sees the damaged out-of-water fish, some turned into paste, others still flopping and losing strength, slowly suffocating. He looks up at me and with a quasi-sad yet amused smile and says “Fish?”

Happened this morning.

From the Barking Moonbat Early Warning System:

Three surgeons were playing golf together and discussing surgeries they had performed.

One of them said, “I’m the best surgeon in Massachusetts. A concert pianist lost 7 fingers in an accident. I reattached them and 8 months later he performed a private concert for the Queen of England!”

The next one said, “That’s nothing. A young man lost both arms and legs in an accident, I reattached them, and 2 years later he won a gold medal in field events in the Olympics.”

The third surgeon said, “You guys are amateurs. Several years ago a fellow who was high on pot and alcohol rode a horse head-on into a train traveling 80 miles an hour. All I had left to work with was the horse’s butt and a large nose. And now John Kerry is running for president of the United States.”

Tom: you’re probably being a little paranoid. He’s physically in US custody, and I’m pretty sure that if he doesn’t get sent up the Euphrates for a minimum of 12,543 years in the Electric Chair, he’ll probably find himself facing charges in Kuwait, Israel, etc. Frankly, I can imagine the following conversation taking place…

Iraqi Judge: “We find this great and former leader of our country inno…”

RIIIIIIIIIIING!

American Diplomat: ”’Scuse me, judge… Hey – Benjamin! L’Chaim! Yeah, they’re about to set him free here… yeah, well if they do, he’ll be staying at the Baghdad Hilton, Room 1423.”

Judge: “Guilty… dang.”

I still like the Blind guy in John 9. “I was blind, but now I see.” Sums it up for me. Something changes. Something alters your love for sin and hate of God.

Today I decided to finally build a Intranet webpage for my local users. Geeky stuff but now I am running into design dilemmas. Do I go pretty or just for speed?

Russell: Again, I just shake my head for a while. Are you reading what I’m typing? I must not know how to use this thing correctly!

I gave you just a few of the truth claims made by Jesus Himself, you can start with those. A “long list” would take a long time, since they’re on nearly every page, and that’s a lot of pages.

The whole point is a person, and a person isn’t a proposition, neither can he be defined by propositions.

Have I ever said that the point isn’t Jesus Christ? I think I made that point repeatedly in my last post, but perhaps I read too much into what I typed. Yes, the whole point is Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God. But as I have also said several times Jesus is not a styrofoam cup, and any philosophy that allows Him to be a styrofoam cup is incompatible with Christianity. Since you have stated that post-modern Christianity doesn’t allow for that, I want to know how. Post-modern philosophy certainly does, and I’ve met people who call themselves post-modern Christians who believe Jesus is something more or less like a styrofoam cup than He is very God of very God.

A person cannot be defined by propositions? Of course not—any person is more than the sum of a set of propositions. But a person can be identified by propositions. How would I know that we’re talking about the same person except that we compare the things we know about him and see if they match up? _David? He’s about medium-height, maybe 5’ 10”, with brown hair. A little heavy, probably a bit over 200 lbs. Good so far? Okay, he’s got blue eyes. What? Oh, the David you know has brown eyes? Not the same guy, then._ In that scenario, am I defining David by propositions? I don’t think so, but I’m using the only tools available to us We don’t have photos of Jesus (not that they would matter in this case), but we have a lot of information written about Him, both before and after His birth and life and death and resurrection. We know something about His character and about how He approached people. If I’m talking to someone who says that Jesus is a source of energy in nature to help us achieve a higher mental state as we meditate, I think that I can safely look at Scripture and say, “I’m sorry, I don’t think we’re talking about the same guy.”

When one is dying bloody on the street, he could care less about the authority of church or scripture, and the gospel describes each of us as dying bloody on the street.

It seems to me that this argument could be used to justify anything, and often forms the basis for Wretched Urgency{tm}, so I’m uncomfortable with it. Part of my discomfort is based on wondering why Paul bothered to write, well, anything, if all that matters is that we’re dying in the street and God has saved us.

Russell, you seem to be treating this as an all-or-nothing deal, which is probably the largest source of our disagreement. I’m mis-stating that, but what I mean is that since you’ve abandoned the idea that you can know all things absolutely, you seem to have bounced to the opposite extreme: that none of us can know anything absolutely. Christianity is either about a person or a set of propositions, but cannot be about both, or a person whom we know at least partially based on His propositional statements about himself. It’s one or the other, never both.

Reject the tyranny of the OR, Russell, and embrace the genius of the AND! {:)}

Tom: That’s a fantastic statement. “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God,” indeed! Of course, “Christ” ties in roughly a metric ton of propositions in the form of prophecies from the O.T., and “Son” is simple alarming and the definite article “the” is in itself a claim of exclusivity to a certain extent, and “Living God” knocks out a bunch of other theories about things, and the fact that Peter could say that to a man walking on the earth says even more and so on, and already we’ve easily crossed the line at which many post-modern Christians say, “Hey, wait a minute!”

Still, what a fantastic basis for the gospel in just that one sentence. Thanks!

Is anyone else a little concerned that Saddam Hussein has been turned over to the new Iraqi government for his trial? Like somehow he might slip out of their grip, remobilize his supporters, and take over the country again? Or am I just being paranoid?

Hillary Clinton provides an [example] of why Republicans sometimes get the feeling that they don’t actually have to campaign against Democrats:

“Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you,” Sen. Clinton said. “We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

An interesting thing has occurred in our marital journey, we’ve been struggling with some decisions and have sought some fairly intensive pastoral counsel in order to work through those decisions. My wife has come up with an analogy she uses to describe God’s leading, we’re “trying it on” operationally for a time. The analogy is; that God’s leading is like an outline with Roman numerals for the first level, regular numerals for the second and lower case alphabetic charactors for the third, and so on… We are not denying that God’s leading can extend to the second and third levels, but what we are “trying on” is the idea that His leading generally stays in the first level, the Roman numerals. So in our discussions we’re saying things like; “that’s a Roman numeral” when referrring to something that we believe is definately God’s leading, and then saying “that’s a ‘one’ or a ‘small letter a’ ” when referring to an issue on which we believe He gives us latitude to make our own decisions, something He’s leaving up to us to decide about.

This is significant for us, we come from a strong penta-fundie background in which we’ve been exposed to teachings that go so far as to say that “God has an exact, perfect, will for your life and if you miss it, you need to go back to where you missed it and start over”. Time and space consideration notwithstanding, this sort of approach implies that one can perfectly discern through some means the “will of God”. The “penta” side of our experience says that through spiritual means, prophecies, words of wisdom or knowledge, etc that God will lead you into His “Perfect Will”. The fundie side says that His “Perfect Will” can also be realized, but that the way you do it is by having a perfect understanding of His Word.

Now remember, we’re not the “movers and shakers” of the church, we’re not the ones who’ve gone to the seminaries, we’re simply rank and file believers. It’s quite possible over the years that we’ve incorrectly understood what was being said to us, at times we were very accepting and at other times very skeptical of what was being said to us. But we know how we think, how we perceive God’s leading, and we know that others have appropriated a similar message.

The point I’m trying to make is that there are the propositional truths, the “Roman Numerals”, but the fact remains that for “rank and file” believers there has been such a “weighty mass” (a bit redundant) of teaching that serves to “box” us into a corner. There is 24/7 teaching, great masses of books and sermons on tape and radio shows on this and that, well, to us regular “joes” out on the street simply and sincerely trying to live out God’s will for our life…these teachings seem to be defining our “regular numbers” and “lower case letters”. Something seems to be taken away from us…there must be an answer…there must be a sermon or book that tells us what to do, but what we yearn for is the mysterious and loving intimate relationship that comes from being a son of the Father, being lead by His Holy Spirit, working through our part of the “outline of our life”.

This is where the “modern/postmodern” dichotomy comes alive for me, the place where the critical mass of teaching and rhetoric gives way to the working out of the “poems of our lives” (thanks to Michael Card). Sure, there are the propositional truths, the “Roman Numerals”, but let me struggle with God and work through the subsequent levels of the outline.

My list consists of one thing: the answer to the question, “Who do you say that I am?” (I=Jesus) Peter answered how?

A. You are the only, exclusive way to God the Father.
B. You are the second person of the Godhead.
C. You are the one who renounces an “open” view of God.
D. You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
E. You are the source of material prosperity.
F. All of the above.
G. None of the above.

Answer: D. And that seemed good enough for Jesus. And it’s good enough for me.

So… I’m willing to compile a list of propositional statements… and also comment on whether they are necessary or not.

1. Believe that Christ died and rose again as a ransom for my sin (yes)
2. Believe in the Trinity (no)
3. Believe that Christ was God (no… probably)
4. Believe that God created the world (ie. not evolution). (nope)
5. Believe that the Bible is the HIWOG (nope)
6. Go to church…. (lol)
7. ...etc… feel free to add.

Are these things important. Darn tootin! But, essentially, not a necessary prerequisite to salvation otherwise it wouldn’t be a gift.

Of course.. this may be completely unrelated to the previous discussion which make me an idiot… but I’ve been there before!

I like this quote:

By a 2-1 ratio, Americans say the turnover of political control to Iraqis now is not a sign of success, but a sign of failure because the nation’s stability remains in question, according to a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll. Still, three-fourths in the poll approved of the U.S. handover of authority to Iraqis.

From here. Do reporters actually read what they write, or do “poll answerers” simply not think about their responses?

A brief comment, and then back to GA business:

Calvin emphasized the interior testimony of the Holy Spirit as being the kernel around which one’s faith is built. This testimony is experiential, points to a belief in God in Christ, but nonetheless also conveys propositional content.

The problem supposition in this conversation is an attempt to reduce Christianity to either some Gnostic, nebulous relationship without any defined propositional content or assent to a “list” of essential tenets. Such an approach is simplistic, on both sides.

Belief in God in Christ requires both a relationship to a Person, and also certain beliefs concerning that Person.

I think Russell is missing the point when he asks Ken to “prove that Jesus is God from the Scriptures.” That assumes a modernistic conception of how a faith ought to be grounded, because it essentially asks for a body of evidence. We’re not asked to prove that Jesus is God from Scriptures. We are asked to proclaim and live out the Gospel, and testify of the Incarnate God.

Contra Russell, I do think that part of testifying of the Incarnate God included defending certain propositional statements. Don’t ask me for a list, because I probably couldn’t provide either an exhaustive enough or inclusive enough list. Nonetheless, when (as in my denomination) the Lordship of Christ is denied, it is my duty to stand up for the historic faith of the Church. The postmoderns would simply have us gloss over such a difference (at least, it seems to me).

This is (again, in my opinion) an intellectually untenable position, since belief in any sort of historic orthodox Christianity requires adherence to a long list of statements of absolute truths, and therefore “post-modern Christianity” includes both a long list of absolute truth claims and the rule that we are not capable of discerning those same claims.

Where is this “long list” Christianity?

Phillip, do you think Postmodern = Pluralistic?

Either Scripture is authoritative over the church, or the church is authoritative over Scripture, or neither is quite right, but something is right and true.

Or, the question is based on presuppositions that this matters somehow, but really, it doesn’t. The whole point is a person, and a person isn’t a proposition, neither can he be defined by propositions. When one is dying bloody on the street, he could care less about the authority of church or scripture, and the gospel describes each of us as dying bloody on the street.

If nobody can know any bit of absolute truth with any certainty, then there is, practically speaking, no absolute truth.

This is where I would suggest postmodern philosophy and postmodern religion take divergent paths. Christianity of necessity proposes Christ to be Truth. If you can know Christ then you know Truth.

Removing the exclusive claims from Christianity (no scare quotes) leaves us nothing worth anything.

This makes me wonder if we’ve replaced Christ with “exclusive claims.” Are you suggesting that the kernel of our faith rests in certain exclusive claims which are as yet unproposed in the Bar?

Phillip, please give me a definition of Christianity. “Mere Christianity” isn’t a definition we can work from, “it is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms.”

I am going on vacation come Thursday so I’ll be AFK for ~5 days. Woot.

Phillip, I think, I think, I agree with you. What I have in the seat of my motorcycle is a book. It contains history and characters and many quotes. One guy, Jesus in English, says He is the “Way” to God. He says He only speaks the Truth. I hate presuppositional arguments but from there on whatever Jesus said, at least in His mind, is Truth. If one denies what Jesus said because they don’t think He would have said it brings into question everything He said. Why believe the “happy” stuff about Jesus when they’ll deny the “mean” stuff He said?

Back onto presuppositions; the men on Mars Hill had their own and Paul used what they knew/thought/believed to bring about the Gospel. Someone says “higher power” I’ll ask them if it’s personal and has a name. If someone says “God” I’ll ask “what’s s/he like?” If they talk about Jesus I’ll see if they agree with everything He said.

Now onto absolutes. I ain’t got a clue. I only have eyes and ears. I observe humans are evil and if Hell exists we’ll all be going there unless there is a loop-hole. I observe humans, the fallen world, and the stars. My observed “truth” is only as good as my eyes + my observations. I am not claiming absolute truth. If God wants to save anyone He better do it.

Kent: We can agree on a few points. I know this because we’ve gone over this a bunch of times already.

1. There exists some absolute truth. Many post-modernists do not agree with this at all, but Christian post-modernists tend to agree with this statement. Given that Christ described himself as the Truth, that seems to be a good thing.
2. Not every statement made, even if observably true, is absolute truth. I think this one is obvious.
3. None of us individually can know all absolute truth. This is the one that hits a lot of, for example, ex-fundies like 2000 lbs of bricks. When one is raised one’s entire life being told that the local Independent Baptist pastor (or pentecostal pastor in my case) can and does in fact have a lock on all absolute truth, the realization that this is not so can be shocking, even as obvious as it seems.

And that’s about as far as we go. Because the next step taken by some is to (in my opinion) over-react and say that because no single one of us can know all absolute truth, none of us is capable of discerning, understanding, or communicating any absolute truth, even if relying on the knowledge or insight of others. This is (again, in my opinion) an intellectually untenable position, since belief in any sort of historic orthodox Christianity requires adherence to a long list of statements of absolute truths, and therefore “post-modern Christianity” includes both a long list of absolute truth claims and the rule that we are not capable of discerning those same claims.

Some post-modernists are shaking their collective head, saying, “He still doesn’t get it.” Others, slightly more advanced in the post-modern school of “thought,” are trying to figure out the problem with what I’ve said. Intellectually untenable – so what? Intellectual consistency is both the bugaboo of small minds and an entirely modern concept, they say. And everything from the scare quotes around “thought” onward in this paragraph is JN.

I can agree with numbers one through three as I’ve listed them above, but I can’t go where it seems Russell goes. I can befriend someone with a different belief from my own, but I can’t give up all of my beliefs to do it. Either sola scriptura is right or it is wrong, and while that is less important than the relationship between mother and son, I won’t lie to preserve a relationship on those terms. The challenge to me would be how to preserve that relationship by emphasizing our commonality and our relationship and downplaying our differences, while not letting go of an essential matter of faith. Either Scripture is authoritative over the church, or the church is authoritative over Scripture, or neither is quite right, but something is right and true.

Just saying that something somewhere is absolute truth but we can’t know it even when we’ve found it is (IMO) like an intellectual circle-jerk. We can all pat each other on the, um, back and be pleased with ourselves, but we’re not actually making any sense. Rather, we’re making the same mistake those who thought we would unravel the very mysteries of the universe through human reasoning made.

Bottom line: If nobody can know any bit of absolute truth with any certainty, then there is, practically speaking, no absolute truth. Also, God is a big cruel jokester who hates us all.

Russell: This is precisely the point at which I begin to think you’ve lost your ever-loving mind. In a loving way, of course, and there might be a touch of hyperbole in that sentence.

Removing the exclusive claims from Christianity (no scare quotes) leaves us nothing worth anything. You can call it Christianity or “styrofoam cup,” but if it doesn’t have Jesus, it is worthless. Not just the word “Jesus,” either, but the very God of very God, Jesus the Christ, the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, who came to earth to take away the sins of the world and who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, the only way to get to God the Father. That one, that Jesus. The one that makes exactly the sorts of exclusive claims I just listed, the sort to which a post-modernism cannot even refer without using scare quotes.

If you want to find a Christianity stripped of cultural imperialism, oppression of women, fundamentalism, and a dark side, look to modernist writer and Anglican C.S. Lewis, and his Mere Christianity for a nice place to start. That’s him, over to the left, and here is the book.

It is easy to get wrapped up in identifying ways that people abuse Christianity. I see it, you see it, my blind dead grandmother’s dog sees it. It is also easy to say, “Who is Jesus?” and mean very well indeed, but Jesus made plenty of factual statements about Himself. They were enough to chase off thousands of people who heard Him at the time, and they’re enough to drive off pretenders to Christianity when they’re read and understood. People who call themselves Christians but clearly are not talking about the same Jesus are only doing so as they either don’t read, don’t understand, or flat-out reject huge chunks of the New Testament. They don’t just reject a certain understanding of them, they reject the very words, because that’s the only way you can avoid who Jesus really is.

See, how could I give this up, no matter how much time it takes? :-)

But Danny (picking up the comment thread) as Russell said, which Jesus elected you? How do you define Him? How do you know He elected you? What door?

The point I’m trying to make, and maybe Russell too, is that this sort of language (elections and doors) works when attempting to describe our relationship to Jesus to people in a “christianized” culture; but outside of that culture it becomes weak. When someone says “washed in the blood” I cringe, I know that a person outside of the “fold” (another “inside” word) is saying; “What the ____ ?”

I think Ken makes a great point, that the claims of exclusivity belong to Jesus, so what happens when we dial away the exclusive claims of Christianty that aren’t based on Jesus but are based on our current interpretations? Could some of our current interpretations be a result of our limited paradigm?

What are Christianity’s claims of exclusivity?

The question we need to be asking is not about the exclusivity of “Christianity”, but rather about the exclusive claims made by Jesus Christ. From John 10 “he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber.” And, “I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.

No one is made right with the Father by Christianity. We are made right only by the substitutionary death and life (His obedience) of Christ.

At least regarding the version of “Christian Postmodernism” that Mr. McLaren proposes, I think it would be safe to say that he states that postmodernism does not deny the existence of “absolute truth” as much as it denies that we humans are capable of discerning, understanding and communicating “absolute truth”. It seems like we’ve touched on something similar here…have we?

But he came to his own, and his own did not receive him (John 1:11). We killed him. He knew we would, and he came anyway. And so he unleashed the pilgrim principle. He was at home, he became like us. But Oh, how different he was. And the difference got him killed. This is the way Christianity has spread incarnationally for 2,000 years. Missionaries are human, they learn the language, they learn the culture. They fit in. Indigenous. And then they suffer, and sometimes get killed. They follow their Lord. They are pilgrims. Indigenous and pilgrims. Incarnation and crucifixion. Become all things; do not be conformed. – Piper

Do you think this is the solution to the Relevant folks and those like them?

The Winn again:

Russell has stated that post-modern Christianity is Christianity, but at the same time provided no explanation for how Christianity, or Christianity’s claims of exclusivity, fit within post-modernism. That bugs me a bit.

What are Christianity’s claims of exclusivity?

Suppose we temporarily remove the “exclusive claims” from Christianity for a moment, don’t worry we’ll put them back. What is left? Do you still have Christianity? Can you see the remainder fitting with a postmodern paradigm?

Now, apply the “exclusivist-modern” paradigm to the remainder. That’s when we start to see cultural imperialism, oppression of women, all flavors of fundamentalism, and the dark side of Christianity. The exclusivism is taken too far, and when applying a pomo paradigm to this mindset, we can scale back what we’re willing to go to the mattresses over, and end up keeping a real Christianity, rather than exclusivizing ourselves into oblivion by marrying modernism to every premise.

The standing challenge appears to be to define postmodernism. I will ask first that someone define Christianity, so we can see exactly why the postmodern paradigm cannot be applied.

Phillip: The “fluff” issue was that of Sola Scriptura, obviously a point of contention between Protestants and Catholics. I believe that both the Catholics and Orthodox have some great point regarding that particular “Sola”, especially in regards to canon issues. Important stuff, but fluff in the relationship between mother and son.

An interesting question that I often contemplate is whether Martin Luther would, considering the state of the Catholic church today, still take his hammer and nails to the Wittenburg Door. How many “thesis” would there be today, if any?

Danny: Generally two things stick to the wall when thrown, cooked pasta and the other one’s stinky.

The root of the question that is interesting to me regarding postmodernism is not whether you choose to agree or disagree with somebody’s interpretation of what it is. The question is whether or not we are transitioning out of the modern era, and if so, what’s next?

Does it matter if I get my first 2 years done at the local community college? Will that give me any trouble for bachelors time, or masters, or further, if necessary?

Who wants a Gmail account? I have some invites :) Send request to russell.mann At gmail Dot com

Before I was granted entrance to the bar I steamed up the windows outside. I thought to myself “why isn’t this place threaded? a forum?” Then I understood. It’s not a forum. It’s a conversation. It flows with thoughts and rabbit-trails, and banter, eventually drunken ramblings.

Elihu: God doesn’t say anything bad about Elihu but nothing good either. I am sure he was the better of the friends as he just says “God is God, let Him do as He pleases.” All of Job’s other friends scream “Sinner!!!” and show no grace. I wondered why they all spoke so well. Perhaps they sat around in silence and wrote a poem/theses and others had a rebuttal through written words.

PoMo: Something that sounds good, feels good, but doesn’t stick to the wall when thrown.

Also, the movie “Spartan” was very good. I give it a Woot!

What I’ve heard is that Paul was married, vis a vis his position in the Sanhedrin, but his wife left him after Damascus road.

Michael,
Nobody can piss me off. But sometimes they can pxxx me off! (JN)

Here’s how I read the blog—I just scroll down to the last one I know I read, and just scroll up from there. No problem. Either way you have to find your place, whether you’re going up, down, or sideways.

-Write a BHT version of the Nigerian email scam.

HON. CLIVE STAEPELS LOUIS (DR).

ATTN: Boars H. Tavern,

DEAR SIR OR MA’AM

REQUEST FOR URGENT BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP

FIRST, I MUST SOLICIT YOUR CONFIDENCE IN THIS TRANSACTION. THIS IS VIRTURE OF IT’S NATURE AS BEING UTTERLY CONFIDENTIAL AND TOP SECRET.

WE ARE TOP OFFICIALS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF ELBONIA CONTRACT REVIEW PANEL WHO ARE INTERESTED IN IMPORTATION OF GOODS INTO OUR COUNTRY AND INVESTING IN FRANCE WITH FUNDS WHICH ARE PRESENTLY TRAPPED IN ELBONIA.

IN ORDER TO COMMENCE THIS BUSINESS WE SOLICIT YOUR ASSISTANTANCE, KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE TO ENABLE US RECIEVE THE SAID TRAPPED FUNDS ABROAD, FOR THE SUBSEQUENT PURCHASE AND INVENTORY OF THE GOODS TO BE IMPORTED AND THE INVESTMENT IN CHEESE-EATING SURRENDER MONKEY LAND.

THE SOURCE OF THIS FUND IS AS FOLLOWS: DURING THE PREVIOUS MILITARY REGIMES IN OUR COUNTRY, GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS SET UP COMPANIES AND AWARDED THEMSELVES CONTRACTS WHICH WERE GROSSLY OVER-INVOICED IN VARIOUS MINISTRIES, SUCH AS OUR SAND-DOLLAR PAINTING MINISTRY TO REACH BLIND, CRIPPLED DEMOCRATS. THE NEW CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT, LED BY A LEBANESE CHRISTIAN WITH THE HOODEE SPITIT, NOW SETUP A CONTRACT REVIEW PANEL WHICH I AND MY COLLEAGUES ARE MEMBERS AND WE HAVE IDENTIFIED A LOT OF INFLATED SUM, DUE TO OUR POSITION AS CIVIL SERVANTS AND MEMBERS OF THIS PANEL, WE CANNOT AQUIRE THIS MONEY IN OUR NAMES. I HAVE THEREFORE, BEEN DELEGATED AS A MATTER OF TRUST BY MY COLLEAGUES OF THE PANEL TO LOOK FOR AN OVERSEA PATNER INTO WHOSE ACCOUNT THE SUM OF US$31.57 (THIRTY-ONE UNITED STATES DOLLARS AND FIFTY-SEVEN UNITED STATES CENTS) WILL BE PAID BY TELEGRAPHIC TRANSFER. HENCE WE ARE WRITTING YOU THIS LETER.

WE HAVE AGREED TO SHARE THE MONEY THUS:
1. 70% FOR US (THE OFFICIALS)
2. 20% FOR THE FOREIGN PATNER
3. 10% TO BE USED IN SETTLING TAXATION AND LOCAL AND FOREIGN EXPENSES.

IT IS THIS 70% THAT WE WISH TO COMMENCE THE IMPORTATION BUSINESS AND THE INVESTMENT IN EURO-DISNEY. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS TRANSACTION IS 100% SAFE AND WE HOPE THAT THE FUNDS CAN ARRIVE YOUR ACCOUNT IN LATEST TEN BANKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECIEPT OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION . A SUITABLE COMPANY NAME AND BANK ACCOUNT INTO WHICH THE FUNDS CAN BE PAID.

THE ABOVE INFORMATION WILL ENABLE US WRITE LETTERS OF CLAIM AND JOB DESCRIPTION RESPECTIVELY. THIS WAY WE WILL USE YOUR COMPANY’S NAME TO APPLY FOR PAYMENTS AND RE-AWARD THE CONTRACT TO YOUR COMPANY NAME.

WE ARE LOOKING FOWARD TO DOING BUSINESS WITH YOU AND SOLICIT YOUR CONFIDENTIALITY IN THIS TRANSACTION.

PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE RECIEPT OF THIS LETTER USING THIS E-MAIL ADDRESS. I WILL BRING YOU INTO THE COMPLETE PICTURE OF THIS PENDING PROJECT WHEN I HAVE HEARD FROM YOU.

YOURS FATHFULLY,
HON. CLIVE STAEPLES LOUIS.

FAX:234-1-7596980 TEL:234-1-4701056

Michael: I’m pretty sure that there simply aren’t any other group blogs that reverse our order, BUT a large part of that is because there simply aren’t a lot of other group blogs like ours. Most group blogs aren’t really the sort of conversational style we have here. Instead, like Boing Boing, each post is relatively unrelated to the previous posts. Reading them top-to-bottom or bottom-to-top doesn’t matter much. What we have is in essence a threaded conversation, and as far as I know, that’s pretty unique.

Well, okay, I know of a couple of sites with conversations between, say, two people. But none with two dozen people. One of the other sites with which I’m actively involved behind the scenes has 460 contributors, but again, each post is essentially completely unrelated to the others, with the conversation happening in the comments.

So while all of that is no help, I posted this here to send a message to lurkers: If you don’t like the order of things on this page, consider subscribing the the RSS or Atom feeds, so you can order it however you wish. Perhaps I’ll create a new extended RSS feed which includes full posts as well as all comments.

Uh, after I build a category page, of course. :-)

Kent: No, unless some of what you decided was fluff was justification by faith alone or the incarnation of Christ. People have always agreed to overlook minor differences, but people have never correctly agreed to disagree on the big points. Remember, Paul was willing to boot people out the door over certain things, and when we lose that, that’s when we err.

P.S. In my limited experience, people who make doctrinal issues the test of familial relationship will not be satisfied with acquiescence to an initial list. On the one hand, of course it seems the guy should go as far as he can to please his mother. On the other hand, I doubt it will ever be enough.

Hey, let’s ask Jim—noted devotee of Paul—whether or not Paul was married. It is a matter of some controversy, as is everything eventually.

I talked to a friend last evening who shared some questions his Catholic leaning mother fired off to him, a Luthero-Protestant, there’s been some contention in the extended family. I found myself agreeing with a point or two, deciding the rest didn’t really matter and bringing up the point that the issue was really their estrangement and broken relationship, that the doctrinal stuff was just fluff.

Does this make me Pomo?

Tom: I read something about how single guys shouldn’t pastor, they pointed to the qualifications in the pastoral letters that talk about an elder being the “husband of one wife”, the point they made was that the intent of the writer was to say that it meant both “only” and “at least one wife”. Michael sent me the link and I can’t find it right now, but I sure you could google it. (jn & attempted sw, probably a bit of rm, inspired by ms, no [well some] bs.)

I’ll be gone through Thursday evening. Can you guys please keep it interesting for me? Suggestions…

-Someone piss off Tom every day, and be sure I get blamed.
-Get Josh over here and taunt him about the RP and his wimpy new blog.
-Start a bet on who Jenny can convert to Papism first.
-Write a BHT version of the Nigerian email scam.
-Get someone in here to explain what Pomo means.
-Get Bill drunk. Then sing hymns and hug him.
-Have Matthew read theology to a group of college girls. No….scratch that one.
-Get Kurt to make some Afroswedish food.
-Have Joell and Richard do some Bob and Doug Mackenzie routines.
-See if someone can get Jack to come back.
-Try to get Jim to pray the sinner’s prayer.
-Post photoshopped pictures of Phillip’s cruise.
-Bring back Kynn for a “Iraq Transfer of Power” party.
-Send Scott and wife one of the excess Nicholson or Winn children.
And last of all…
-Bring back the HOUSE BAND!!

Seriously, here’s an errand. About once a month a lurker complains that we ought to reverse the posting order or change the whole format to a threaded discussion. You know how I feel about the second suggestion. But as to the first, can anyone find an example of a GROUP BLOG written in reverse order (Latest posts at the bottom?) I’d like to see it. Must be a blog like unto our own.

bye!

A liberal minority will now have to align with the “even further left” NDP. Therefore the liberals will have to lean even more left to keep the NDP happy. Which means…. well…. nothing. The evangelicals will be wringing their hands and blaming the media that the Conservatives didn’t win.. but, honestly, they shot themselves in the foot by thinking they were in the lead and not defending their own.

Nevertheless, the Liberal minority is better than a Conservative minority which would have been hung out to try and then hammered in a follow-up election.

So, why should ya’ll care? Cause… we’re planning to invade North Dakota next week if we can get our submarine out of autobody shop. You might wanna know who’s invading you (don’t make me bring up 1812 to shame you).

Also, if we swing too far left the government will close Regent College. jk

The bigger picture, Michael, might be a little to sappy for the Bar, so I posted it on my own blog.

A good discipline with a lot of interesting real world applications, but again, a BA will get you little or nothing. MSW will get you a job. If you go on to Ph.D, its research, writing or teaching. Or all three. If you just want the classes, take whatever. I guess my question would be :”How does college fit into a larger plan?” Get the biogger picture as much as possible, so you don’t waste time and $$.

Howsabout sociology. I’m really intrigued by the sociology of religion stuff I posted on a while back. Now that Kent says “Hey I majored in psych” I expect Jim to say “I’m actually trained as a sociologist, this ATT thing was just for kicks.”

Speaking of which (not really), I’d really be interested in your feedback on this post: Under the Watchful Eye

I worked with a psychiatrist who’s undergrad stuff was in religion, innerstin’ guy (see I need an eddication!). I felt it gave him some balance as most physicians major in the sciences.

I updated my last ms.us post with a few more names. The sanity list is substantial enough to fill a few shelves now, and includes some musicians.

The First Annual Prayer Awards.

Hey, I was a psych major…!

Schools arrange things differently these days. Most want a declared major by the sophomore year. I had multiple majors and minors, which was a mistake. Got to seminary and wound up hearing a LOT of stuff over again. (Alex is going to find this out :) Should have done one and one. Today, most schools have a career center that will help you polish your plan into where you want to go with it.

Noel wants to write and get paid for it. She is an English major, with a communications minor. The Career center at Transy will help her turn that into business writing, internship at a newspaper or TV station, on to grad school or a job, etc.

I’d counsel anyone to just go to college and take the basic freshman classes. Have some possible majors and minors in mind, and let your advisor know you aren’t 100% certain of what you want yet. They are 100% certain you’ll change your mind whatever you choose :)

The Mars Hill thing is way cool. Regent College is also way cool, and is Christian like Harvard. One of the best evangelical schools on the continent imo.

My advice: Don’t go near a psych degree. It’s worthless. As are all religion degrees. Remember you can take classes outside of your major. Anthropology is fine IF you are going to grad school. If you are going to grad school, pick a couple and call their admissions offices and SEE WHAT THEY WANT. You’ll be glad you did.

The BHT grants academic degrees for a variety of prices. Call 1-800-Big-Beer ext 342 for details.

Currently my plan is to finish up my BA, focus on English, and start at Westminster (west). I dunno what to major in as I love systematic theology, Proper, Christology, and hermeneutics. My goal is to be a professor as that’d give me plenty of time to do what I love. Drink beer. And talk about theology. :)

Or I may just wait until I die and get programmed with orthodox theology. Not sure yet.

I should qualify that: I don’t want to go to any type of “Christian” school. Unless its Christian in the sense that Harvard and Yale are Christian.

How does that major / minor thing work anyways?

Never heard of an undergraduate theology minor. A Psych major….don’t get me started.

Go across the border to Regent College. Good place. Or…try this:

I’m starting to settle in on the idea of going to school. I’m thinking of majoring in psych/sociology/anthropology and minoring in theology. Is this possible? Any recommendations of where to go to school?

Look- these products of conception look amazingly like real children!

Joell and I go to the polls today (no computers, no chads – just paper ballots, pencils and human counters).

Rex Murphy – the finest broadcaster on the CBC, by far – takes Michael Moore to task (as well as Ralph Nader) for meddling in our election. This is worth a read…

An excerpt: “Michael Moore is a documentary producer in the same way that Lewis Carroll is the father of the realist novel. It is impossible to be capable of thought and simultaneously to admire Mr. Moore’s opus—which includes the anti-Bush tracts Dude, Where’s My Country?, and the elegantly titled Stupid White Men—as either honest argument or assembled fact.”

More »« Less

Hey kid…take your dad to Hooters. If he thinks the iMonk feeds on the whatsitsname, he needs more than a cruise..

What? He needs to throw good money away on getting bad food from big-boobed girls in tight t-shirts.

Michael: Thanks for the Razormouth link, I liked the article entitled “Police State, Ho!” (which may be translated by your ‘filtering device’ to “Police State, [naughty lady]!”). The “Patriot Act” has been something that’s caused me some level of concern, especially in regards to voting to perputuate Mr. Bush’s administration. I understand that the “Patriot Act II” is “in the hopper”, yet there is a strange silence. I wonder if Mr.’s Clinton’s administration had introduced this act if there would have been a bit more outcry from the conservative ranks.

Frankly, I don’t know a whole lot about it. When my wife worked in an insurance office she was required to compare the names of new customers to a “known terrorist database”, which I thought to be an interesting task to assign a secretary employed by a private business. Another interesting tidbit I saw on TV (read modern day literature) was an FBI agent while looking for a missing person, invoking the “Patriot Act” when asked for a warrant. I know that this isn’t any sort of official expression, but do think about what that says about the “national conscience”.

QotD: When I was a kid, I saw an advertisement for the Carol Burnett show that apparently contained language that Channel 48 didn’t approve of. I’ve been curious about what Carol said when she said, “Beep. You take that.”

No, I don’t want my kids hearing curse words. Neither do I want the well-meaning moralists with a religious face in the crowd raising them. I’d rather have the ability to do what my mom did: let me hear the word and then teach me that cursing is what ignorant, stupid people do.

Unfortunately, it was about that same time that I fell in love with CS Lewis. I wanted to be juuuuust like him. I wanted to write fiction (still do). I wanted to be cool and British (oh well). So I started signing my name with my first 2 initials. Unfortunately, those initials are “BS”.

My granddad used some of those ignorant, stupid people words to tell me what it meant.

NPP Fans: Somewhere in there I missed this! Gotta go read it all. Here’s part of it. Answers in the comments.

On Being Truly Reformed
A True/False Quiz From the Westminster Confession of Faith

1. Water baptism is to each baptized individual a sign and seal of his ingrafting into Christ.

2. Water baptism is efficacious in the work of salvation.

3. The work of the Spirit and the word of institution accompanying the sacraments makes any discussion of the efficacy of sacraments irrelevant.

4. Worthy receivers really and indeed feed upon the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Lord’s Supper.

5. Good works are the necessary fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith.

6. A man may expect pardon without grieving for and hating his sins.

7. Resting upon Christ alone for obedience in sanctification is not a principal act of saving faith.

8. Saving faith does not have to believe the entire Bible to be true.

9. The power and ability that Adam had to keep the covenant of works was a gracious gift of God.

QotD The problem isn’t so much the words as it the thematic elements, I see such a device as being akin to the Baptist prohibition of dancing. The issue isn’t that one dances, the issue is how is one dancing and in what venue. I picked up an eight-year-old client one time, his whole family was watching a movie with a group rape scene in which the rapist were demanding “show us your [mammary glands]”, I can see how that would have made all of the difference. I know my Uncle [jerk] would agree…

I also grew up in a non-swearing family and never have the urge to do it…even when stubbing my toe. The words just don’t come. However, my “minced oathes” are a thing of beauty. “Holy fritzing dyna burgers” and “crap” and “carp” and “holy cow” (my wife thinks that’s a swear) and “pickin” and “stinkin”, “jeepers creepers” and “oh my goodness” and the list goes on.

I’d just rather not have to worry about filters in the first place. Is it unreasonalbe to expect public broadcasting programming to be tame? I don’t think so. The neat things about these filters is that it may force the networks (and maybe movie studios) to get more realisitc and stop going for shock value.

Speaking of Campolo
Yes, Tony used to do the “give a she-gats” sermon thing… which brings up the fact that we just had Bart Campolo with us last weekend and I totally appreciated what he had to say to us.
Check them out and feedback!
session 1
session 2
session 3
and session 4

Hey kid…take your dad to Hooters. If he thinks the iMonk feeds on the whatsitsname, he needs more than a cruise..

But anyway…..RAZORMOUTH is back!! Welcome back Joel and the crew. Betterluck this time than the last couple of times.

Father: Look, kids, there’s an iMonk!
Kid: What’s an Imonk?
Father: Its ‘iMonk,’ not ‘Imonk.’ And an iMonk is a rare breed of weblogger that is known for its bright coloration and severe inconsistencies.
Kid: Wow! What’s that one over there?
Father: Ah, that’s a Tom Hinkle!
Kid: What’s a tOm hInkle?
Father: Very funny. The Tom Hinkle is a symbiotic organism which pecks away at the iMonk while the iMonk feeds on the Tom Hinkle. Its very complicated.
Kid: I want to watch Spongebob!

A man was asked to speak to a rather large church congregation. After he strode to the pulpit he said, “There are three points to my sermon.” Most people yawned at that point. They’d heard that many times before.

But he went on. “My first point is this. At this time there are approximately 2 billion people starving to death in the world.” The reaction through the congregation was about the same, since they’d heard that sort of statement many times before, too.

And then he said, “My second point.” Everybody sat up. Only ten or fifteen seconds had passed, and he was already on his second point? He paused, then said, “My second point is that most of you don’t give a damn!”

He paused again as gasps and rumblings flowed across the congregation, and then said: “And my third point is that the real tragedy among Christians today is that many of you are now more concerned that I said ‘damn’ than you are that I said that 2 billion people are starving to death.”

Then he sat down.

Holy Sweat, Tim Hansel, 1987, Word Books Publisher, p. 40

If the kids realize that a——is being blanked out, does the device really do—-MORAL good?

I didn’t swear much as a kid. I was good. I got slapped a few times. Lesson? Swearing isn’t cool. I have learned, recently, that because of America’s lacking vocabulary one must, at times, succumb to the limited vocabulary yet effective deployment of the EFF bomb. It works really well among Christians to get their attention on a topic.

Recently I have just said “profanity” instead of a profanity. It’s funny and insightful. I should get a cheese burger for being clever. :)

I don’t mind. I admire your ability to relate any topic back to me.

Well, gol durn it, I wee-weed off the bartender agin!

Gee Tom. Thanks. I’m under conviction now. I’m so inconsistent, I don’t know why I blog. Oh yeah, it’s so other people can point out my inconsistencies.

Answer to QotD: About the same effect as when you use dxxx and hxxx on the blog.

Actually, I agree a little bit with the having kids=instant maturity equation. That’s probably the reason I’m 48 years old and still don’t consider myself a grownup.

Demos have aborted their chances for victory.

KFUO has two hours on Joel Osteen. I’m listening right now. Lots of Osteen excerpts.

When every church is different from the way you always thought about church, what will the porpoise driven folks say then?

re: QoTD, I think that the XXXXXX that came up with the $#@!%*& stupid practice of blanking out or otherwise obscuring strong language is totally ______, and should get his head out of his !!!.

When we got married, it felt like something changed inside of me. It was as if suddenly I realized that I couldn’t just live for myself anymore.

When we had our first child, it felt like something changed inside of me. It was as if suddenly I realized that I couldn’t just live for myself anymore.

When we had our second child, it felt like something changed inside of me. It was as if suddenly I realized that I couldn’t just live for myself anymore.

When we had our third child, it felt like something changed inside of me. I began to wonder if our desire for a large family wasn’t in some way being just as selfish as the childless yuppie couples we knew who had decided to “wait until our careers are established” to have their first.

When we had our fourth child, everything actually changed. I love my three daughters as much as I love my son, but the emotional impact of what it means to be a father didn’t hit me until I held that little boy in my hands and realized that I was going to have to explain things like responsibility, courage, strength, and love to him, and I had no clue as to how to do it.

We want to have another child. I’m hoping that this time, I can go back to just realizing that I can’t live for myself anymore, and avoid either the introspective self-critique of #3 or the horrible sense of inadequacy of #4.

Michael, apparently, we are attacking each other. I don’t mean to brag, but your attacks are having no effect. On the other hand, I can’t remember attacking you, but if I have, I don’t see any resulting damage. I suggest that we observe a cease-fire until our respective staff can get together and negotiate a final settlement that we can agree to. What say you?

S. Andrews: I can’t mail to you. Your request has been forwarded to the bartenders. One request: Can you give an example of a group blog that has the type of material arrangement you are wanting? Not a threaded discussion, but a group blog?

Talk about your Antiques Roadshow fantasy story. Yikes!

We have friends who have equipped the television with some contraption that removes profanity from television and movies. This isn’t my choice, but I surely understand it. Now….I have a question.

Question Late in the Day: If the kids realize that a word is being blanked out, does the device really do any MORAL good? It seems to me that all the bad influence of the actual word survives in the mind of the hearer, even with the actual word gone. Kids will tell one another what is being said. The “coolness” of a person using profanity is retained. I can’t see that there is any positive effect other than it’s not audible to the ear. Am I missing something?

Considering the US posturing toward the UN at the handover of Iraq to the Iraqi’s, I think we should rename our upcoming holiday to Interdependance day.

Scott: ”... and I can see myself as the stereotypical dad, wandering around the house monitoring light bulb usage”

Man, my kids hear this from me at least once per week—“Every light in the house is on!!” They even finish the phrase for me, so all I have to do is say “Every” and they say the rest. We now have Trace Adkins’ greatest hits which so happens to include a song with that phrase as the title. They had a hoot playing it in the car for me the first time I got to hear it. (My apologies to Bill for mentioning a C&W artist)

Michael: Since one of the things my wife and I talked about while cruising was letting go of certain time-consuming projects, and since the BHT was on the list, I figure there just isn’t much point in sticking around unless I can provoke things a bit. :-)

Yes, I know the statement is similar, heck, I meant it to be so direct a parallel it would be eerie! And yeah, I still think Mohler is wickety-wack, but he did give a couple of examples of people who are pretty “out there,” and it made me think. I don’t think any of his examples were professed Christians, though, which is like reading 88% of children in evangelical home and mentally inserting “public-schooled” in there: it’s completely irrelevant.

You might not realize it, since when things cut close to home I shut up about them, but I generally try to read even those who are Always Wrong (and I once nominated Mohler for that title, but was shot down) with an eye to whether they’ve stumbled onto something accidentally, and I think he’s grasping at the edge of something he doesn’t understand. Neither do I, for that matter. (Obviously, the crowd mutters collectively…)

My point wasn’t supposed to be that there aren’t any non-selfish reasons to not have kids. Of course there are. I deliberately tried (not well, though) to sidestep the issue of having kids entirely, focusing on the one hint of something Mohler might have found, but then I circled back and confused things again. I hear you on the selfish complaint, and I think it is horrible when someone levels the complaint against someone else. After all, people with kids are selfishly consuming lots of resources and constantly expecting special considerations for their crotch-fruit, while people without kids are selfishly hoarding their time and money and it goes back and forth.

I don’t think (as Mohler seems to suggest) that the mere fact that someone has or doesn’t have kids is anywhere close to enough information by itself on which to base an accusation of selfishness, any more than the choice to send kids to public school was in the last conversation. My point is that despite the tendency of people to overuse the criticism or fall back on it as a last resort, there is such a thing as selfishness! I owned up to it fully myself, and I suspect that we all have some bit of it, some less than others, many less than me. It seems to be part of human nature.

But if selfishness is real and prevalent, but “you are being selfish” is the most useless, cheap, and generalized piece of criticism available, then we have a bit of a problem, don’t we? I mean, we’ve got this huge problem, but we’re not allowed to say anything about it!

Which is, I think, the point. Nobody wants to hear “you’re selfish” from someone else, but we’re all supposed to consider the possibility that we should say “I’m selfish” to ourselves. It is easy to beat oneself up unnecessarily, since most decisions can be represented as selfish either way if one tries hard enough (“Oh, you’re just selling everything that you have and giving it to the poor and moving to Calcutta to take care of dying children for all of the attention it will bring!”), but speaking for myself, I think I know when I’m acting selfishly and when I’m not. Most of the time.

Anyway, here’s a true story from my week off. On Monday I grabbed the on-board Times Digest, a little eight-page edition of the NY Times which includes the famous crossword puzzle. I finished the puzzle in about 45 minutes. Now, I know that the puzzle does get harder throughout the week, culminating with the impossible-for-me Sunday puzzle, but I don’t think that even remotely explains the fact that I sat down Friday morning to try to solve the puzzle and only managed to fill in about four clues before I gave up. My brain fell into seriously disuse during the week, and I loved it.

The moral of that story is that I’m pretty sure I’m not thinking 100% clearly this morning, and may not for days yet. (Though I did read Eats, Shoots and Leaves on the ship, so my punctuation should show improvement from now on!) I jumbled up my earlier post and probably this one, too.

There are a couple of statements about which I feel relatively confident, though everybody reads things differently, so I’ll probably still offend people; Sorry. One of those statements is that while there are many reasons for couples to remain childless, several of the examples Mohler gave in his piece are simply being purely selfish, period. Kids as competitions for triathlons and martial arts, or debating the ROI of kids—those don’t seem like a good focus to me. You asked about voting for oneself exclusively or for the good of all as well; I wonder how these particular reasons offered for not having kids work within that context. Scott’s reasons sound like good reasons, and I’ve heard plenty of others, but just because there are good reasons doesn’t mean that everybody has good reasons.

Dude – I JN’d that first paragraph, didn’t you notice? Rule 8, wasn’t it? :-P

Seriously, though, of course that parable is all about Grace, as are nearly all of the others. For some reason the parable of those who work all day complaining about those who work five minutes and receive the same reward has been floating through my head for weeks now. What an awesome picture of grace if you’re in the last-five-minutes crowd, and what a challenge if you’re in the first crowd. It’s so easy to slip into I-deserve-this mode, at least for me, and Grace seems to be as much about the “unmerited” as it is about the “favor.” (Substitute words that make you feel more squishy for “favor” and anything else you don’t like!)

Okay, back on the what-the-heck side of things: Are you really saying that you don’t think that having a child is an opportunity for a huge upsurge in maturity? Really? I’m not saying that childless people are all immature, or that parents are all mature—I specifically disclaimed that in my post—but I’m surprised to get pushback on the average outcome statement. Am I really off-base with that one?

Scott: I wrote “My Not So Guilty Pleasures: Wretched Urgency Part II” for that guy.

All my life I’ve heard the reasoning that if something makes you feel guilty, you shouldn’t do it. Hmmmm.

I feel guilty eating. Other people are starving.
I feel guilty because I have a job. Other people need a job.
I feel guilty having two great kids. Other people’s kids are rotten, and I didn’t do all that much to parent these two.
I feel guilty having sex. Sex is dirty. Besides, we could be praying.
I feel guilty preaching. My people deserve a better pastor.
I feel guilty watching anything on TV…or listening to the Reds…or reading. I could be doing something more worthwhile. I could be at the nursing home.
I feel guilty making $21k, having a house, health insurance and perks. I don’t desreve anything.
I feel guilty sleeping.
I feel guilty when my wife hugs me. I’ve failed her so often, yet we have almost 26 years together.
I feel guilty blogging. What a waste of time that I could be out preaching on street corne