A convincing case on why Tumblr is superior to Facebook - you meet more people with the same interests, so that you can actually become real friends, not contacts.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
And then the skeptic sits there as if they know that under their statement, no loving God could exist....
and we must always point this out....
The skeptic is coming from a position as if they know what love is.
The skeptic wants to blame God for things that don't make sense.
Which means the skeptic thinks they know more than God.
Essentially to say something to the effect of "There is too much suffering in the world for God to exist" means that the person think him or herself God to be able to declare when suffering goes "over the edge."
The reality though, is the human being knows they are not God, and thus cannot say what love is. The idea of love is fully beyond our human ability grasp fully (think about all the pastors who say they don't understand God's grace).....
The cross doesn't make sense. Does that mean the Christ's death was false? or the fact that our human minds can't grasp just how great and deep God's love is?
This is where something I have been reading about comes in...
It's called Apophatic Theology.
And it initially confused me whenever I read about it over the past few years. For goodness sake it's a "negative theology." There is not much to like about that.
Except some of the reward is it's a reminder that humans are fallible. God is infallible. Thus Human descriptions of God will never do justice to who he really is (The description of God as I AM becomes even more profound in this regards because it doesn't attempt to describe God).
Anyways, my friend posted this article a few weeks ago and I couldn't help but feel it was a great description (though it does necessitate some rereading) of this theology.
Posted by Joel Riley at 12:34 PM
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
A coworker tells me she was shopping late on Christmas Eve and saw workers putting out Valentine's Day cards, wreaths, ribbons, bedding and dishes.
Yes, Christmas junk out on Halloween isn't enough. Attacking Thanksgiving with 5 p.m. early-Christmas sales isn't enough. Now Christmas doesn't matter either. It's just another anonymous reason to spend more of your money.
It seems like this type of predatory capitalism -- the mind-blurring, anxiety-inducing capitalism that attacks the 2 greatest non-spiritual benefits of Christianity (peace of mind, quality of life) - must spur a unified Christian response. We've been too lax about how capitalism and consumerism stain our Christianity, believing a great deal before sunrise on Black Friday is worth not sleeping overnight, while a sunrise Easter service sounds preposterous due to its inconvenience.
I fear we've been lulled into a mindless apathy by burbling credit card swipers.
Posted by kdc at 1:06 PM
Friday, December 24, 2010
What Christmas Means to Me: Why joyous Nativity Scenes, Johnny Mathis, and Glossy Christmas Cards Creep Me Out. And why The Christmas Story provides therapy
Posted by Joel Riley at 1:31 PM
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The New York Times Ross Douthat offers an even-handed look at 2 books evaluating Christians in America today. It includes gems like this:
"Thanks in part to this bunker mentality, American Christianity has become what Hunter calls a “weak culture” — one that mobilizes but doesn’t convert, alienates rather than seduces, and looks backward toward a lost past instead of forward to a vibrant future. In spite of their numerical strength and reserves of social capital, he argues, the Christian churches are mainly influential only in the “peripheral areas” of our common life. In the commanding heights of culture, Christianity punches way below its weight."
Then ends on a positive note.
Frankly, IMHO Christians have been punching below our weight for at least 5 decades now and it's time we broadened our spiritual ambition for our culture today.
Read the entire column and see if you agree.
Posted by kdc at 6:42 AM
Monday, December 20, 2010
Life Magazine reveals the pictures of the year, with commentary by . . . (wait for it) celebrities. No, we can no longer trust the unknown people who spend their lives choosing pictures, we must have actors and authors do this for us.
Aw well, they're still beautiful.
Posted by kdc at 7:08 AM
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
I’m always interested when the great soda-pop-coke debate gets going. Having grown up in a bastion of urban dwellers who refer to carbonated beverages solely as pop, and then having traveled to New York at the impressionable age of fifteen years old, I discovered that there are people in the world (and not a small number of them) that refer to pop as soda, or even, gasp, as coke. Would you like a coke? Yes. What kind? To me that was unfathomable. And yet, here’s a beautiful map, and article, that finally puts the debate to rest. It doesn’t matter what you believe. It only matters where you grew up.
Posted by everettg at 1:27 AM
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
I’m not sure how to begin.
I used to love Picasso’s work. My grandmother was an art teacher. She particularly enjoyed works from his “blue period.” I went to the National Gallery, among other museums, and ooh’ed and ah’ed over works such as “Guitar” or “The Tragedy.” I was greatly moved by observing the latter. I’m still moved by the painting today although it carries a quite different meaning for me than it did then, some twenty years ago. I had a fondness, and great appreciation for his cubist works as well, for a time. It used to be, back in the day, that my favorite three artists were Van Gogh, Matisse, and Picasso.
Now I can’t stand Picasso’s work. It offends me. I find myself enraged when I see it. I simply keep walking through the gallery and I can’t even look at it. He was notoriously misogynistic and his hatred of women comes through loud and clear in his work.
Now we have this couple in France that have dug up a mint’s worth of his work. If you haven’t heard about it, and you’re interested, you can read about it here. I have had mixed feelings about this story. On the one hand, I believe the couple’s claim. I believe in the fundamental goodness of people and when someone tells me something I am inclined to believe them. On the other hand, it sounds awfully suspicious. And it makes me sad that it will probably end up costing thousands of dollars to fight it out in court.
Posted by everettg at 8:27 PM
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
I was alerted to the following article about religious tolerance recently. If you don’t feel like clicking the link, here’s a short excerpt for your consideration. As religions such as Islam, Buddhism, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints “become more familiar to Americans, especially through personal friendships and familial relationships across religious lines, they too will enjoy a more positive image.” The article is interesting and makes some good points although be warned, you may be a little provoked by the content. I was.
One of my beefs is condemnation or mischaracterization of religions without any rational discussion. This is not the same as saying that everyone’s going to heaven. I certainly don’t believe that. Although I will not enter that debate here. I do believe there is room for meaningful discussion which might include some positive spin on some aspect of a Muslim’s faith, or the faith of a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Maybe that is because I have some friends who believe differently than I do.
Posted by everettg at 1:59 AM
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Sometimes friends send videos on Youtube. Sometimes you get so irritated that the video was of an interview that happened on Fox News, that you have to cease you're paper at once and make a comment about it.
Here's the video...and in short, it's a boy who had an out of body experience who visited his dead grandpa in heaven and saw God (who was really big) and saw Jesus as well (who had blue eyes and his smile lit up the heavens)...
First off, this isn't news (note: I hate Fox News and CNN equally).
My friend asked me for my thoughts on the video.
Here is my reply:
Posted by Joel Riley at 3:19 PM
Friday, November 12, 2010
Wait. That’s not a picture of Lisa Gherardini.
There are three museums I haven't been to that I want to go more than any other. The Louvre, the British Museum and the Pergamon Museum. Two of them have a pretty decent website. I was just reminded of this the other day when a friend pointed me to this article.
One of my favorite objets d'art are cylinder seals. There's one here at the Metropolitan Musuem of Art from Assyria dating back to about the 13th century BC. And you don't even have to visit NYC to see it. And then there's the Parthenon, in the guise of what are known as the Elgin Marbles, and all of the drama associated with the pillaging of sites back before there were laws prohibiting removing artifacts from their home country.
The "50 Amazing" exhibits yield some gems but also some missteps. Not all of the sites are great, (nor do they all play well with Chrome, my favored browser) but all of them offer the potential of numerous hours of happy time-wasting.
The other nice thing about online museum browsing: you don't have to worry about them closing the ancient near east exhibit early on you because they don't have the staff to provide security and everybody else in the museum wants to see the Impressionists.
Posted by everettg at 8:29 PM
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
His style is hard to keep up with. But I quickly got acclimated. Because, he was my therapist that I had been looking for in my postmodern cynicism that has really weighed heavy on my shoulders the past 6 or so months (really, it's been kind of like an intellectual nightmare, but for me, philosophical difficulties cut me deeper than a real relationship ever could).....
And Zizek was my guide, acknowledging the advantages of post-modernism but also acknowledging it as entirely empty, and he did so using the same deconstruction tools post-modern thinkers love to call their own (thus I felt I was not being converted for a foreigner, but rather felt like it was a man who walked out of my plight a while ago, but decided to come back and rescue me as well because he was one like me)...
So in short, Zizek in one, what seemed like endless week, politely asked for entry into myself (his philosophy at least) and with a little shove hear and dusting there, his philosophy has made a believer out of me....
Because, last night....I read an essay of his....and it blew me away. Zizek is an atheist, but he calls himself a material Christian. And the following essay is one of the main reasons why (the philosophy of Christianity being his attraction).....I was taken back in the essay. I have no words really. Just know that when I was done reading it....I felt like this kid:
Not only was Zizek showing me the out of the postmodern futility, but he was doing show with Christianity as the better way...but also presented in a way I had never thought about it....A way that shows how not only is Christianity a fantastic ideal, but it is, in itself the way past the cynicism of our age...
Suddenly Christianity became not a way to salvation, or a way to heaven, or a "help," but the only explanation for life here and now.
In short, here is the essay...it's very dense and difficult to read through, but if you find the strength to follow his stream of consciousness style....it's of the most infinite reward...
Zizek I feel, in this essay, is giving us what Christianity will look like past a postmodern world when and if the world decides to pick itself up and walk on from it's cries of meaninglessness in the death of an absolute.
Posted by Joel Riley at 12:30 PM
Thursday, November 04, 2010
Slavoj Zizek, if you can tolerate his accent is one of the superstars of contemporary philosophy. I have become infatuated with his ideas ever since I read an essay discussing his thought a few weeks ago. One of the ways he works best is finding points of his theories working in film and culture to connect the dots. Here is Slavoj dissecting the racism of Sound of Music (you will never watch the film the same way again):
Posted by Joel Riley at 9:59 AM
Thursday, October 28, 2010
The owner is married and with family, which I completely missed the first time I read the story, because in my mind, I was imagining what it would be like to be the owner of the house trying to impress a date. First you would hang out in scaggly jeans and a t-shirt at a local bistro. Nothing impressive. You want the girl to like you for you and not your money. You would purposefully let her pay for her half of the meal. And you are very open about your weird dark sense of humor that most get confused by. If the girl is still not turned off or repulsed by you, you go for a walk with her after dinner. And coincidentally enough, you come to this oddly shaped 27 story building. Now she may or may not know about this house (she probably does as long as she hasn't been living underneath a rock all her life). Act like a mischievous rascal who wants to break in with her to the world's most expensive house. She will giggle and be awed by your lack of ability to be intimidated. You take her through a secret passage to the top of the building (that you just happened to find), and when you walk in, watch her eyes as all 600 of your servants worship you and serve you, and then the girl in her confusion will totally be in love with you. And she'll be like "you mean....the owner....of this place... is you?...why didn't you tell me?"
At this moment of revelation, you tell her how you did all of this because you wanted her to understand the love of Christ. Christ wants us to see how much he loves us and who he really is without the shiny mansion and streets of gold and stuff. And then she will completely be infatuated with you because of your analogous brilliance.
While she has her mouth open totally using this real life experience as a motive for a future Sunday School lesson, you'll smile with this smug grin. And then probably ask security to escort her immediately out of the building.
Yeah, I completely see this as the only reason to ever build a 27 story building in this day and age. But the owner is completely not single. So then why? For what purpose? So people can walk by and talk about it and they know that man is in there telling the world through his gigantic home "just remember folks, that until you have a 1 billion dollar home that is 27 stories tall, you have yet to make it. So keep shooting for the stars. And don't get too comfortable where you are at. Because you are not here. You are down there on the street."
That's all I can really gather for an explanation of the house. It's one thing to have this giant building in the middle of nowhere, but it's a whole other thing to put it in a downtown metropolis in India to let people know that you know that they know that you are ridiculously wealthy.
Posted by Joel Riley at 11:49 AM
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Here's an arresting quote from an article in this month's Atlantic. "Members of the college class of 2014 are so unfamiliar with the wristwatch that 'they’ve never recognized that pointing to their wrists was a request for the time of day.'"
Posted by everettg at 2:40 PM
Monday, October 25, 2010
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Yep, lots of college football & NFL analysis over at Momo's Musing Sports!
Plus, we share a great article on amazing sports calls & why football coaches aren't football players. In fact - oddly - the less experience a person has the more likely they'll be great!
Give us your thoughts!
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
One story, talked about (and had an interview with) these girls in Texas who have started a campaign called "Redefining Beautiful" and in short, they don't wear make up at school. They won't do it, and they think beauty need not be defined by make up. And People are listening, and other girls across the country are picking up the message and instituting it in their own lives.
Watch the interview here
Perhaps it was selfish of me to really welcome these girls into having a place in my heart. I, like many Apostolic guys I have talked to, for some reason don't find make up attractive. I see it more as a distraction when girls cake that stuff on. Thus I am all for the Redefining Beautiful campaign. Yet, there I was, kind of surprised that these girls were without make up on national television, and their facial blemishes and zits were there in the open, saying "HELLO WORLD! THIS IS BEAUTY! AU NATURAL!" And in spite of my love for the natural look, I had become so automatic about how perfect girls should like on TV, that I was taken back by how proud these girls were to be "imperfect."
Then there was this story about a high school cheerleading team protesting against their uniforms and how if worn, would bare their midriffs. And they kind of won the complaint.
You kinda take a step back like, wow. it's not all lost is it? There are still very uplifting stories out there that can be told in youth services everywhere about girls fighting for modesty.
That's where Gabriel Marcel comes in. I would include a quote of his, but it was difficult finding a single sentence that summarized his argument about technology so I will use someone else's summary of him, "
Posted by Joel Riley at 12:50 PM
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
The prolonged economic downturn continues to reveal certain realities are not as sturdy as once thought.
The Crystal Cathedral, one of America's first megachurches, declares bankruptcy after being $43+m in debt. Frankly, it's surprising we haven't heard of more megachurches doing this.
Posted by kdc at 7:31 AM
Monday, October 18, 2010
The U.S. Census has some fascinating insights into our countrymen and the habits they keep. If we want to win our society, we must understand what that society is doing. This is a great quick synopsis of where America is at.
The never-married included 46.3 percent of young adults 25-34, with sharp increases in single people in cities in the Midwest and Southwest, including Cleveland, Phoenix, Los Angeles and Albuquerque, N.M. It was the first time the share of unmarried young adults exceeded those who were married.
Read it all.
Posted by kdc at 8:10 PM
I realize this is only Pentecostal news if you attended the North American Youth Congress in Charlotte, NC three years ago, but . . . the new/old Dora is suing Nickelodeon over money lost due to her contract. Apparently, her voice changed after 3 years and she has been released from her duties.
If you recall, the original voice work on Dora was done by Pentecostal Kathleen Herles for many years before they rebooted the character.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Sister blog Momo's Musings has begun a new "The End Zone" feature where I butt heads with him over pressing NFL questions each week. It's fun and - if you like football - great fodder to argue over. (Plus, it's amazing how often he's wrong and I'm right!)
He also offers great insight into both college & pro football in his "5th Quarter" weekly features.
So if you're inclined toward winter sports, don't miss them!
Posted by kdc at 12:04 PM
Friday, October 15, 2010
Last night, the fabulous St. Louis County Library presented YA author Rick Riordan (The Lightning Thief series), to a crowd of 2,000 people. Yes, 18(!) groups of people wanted their books signed. (Sorry, only 1 book per person and no photos due to time limitations.) Doors opened at 5 for the 7 p.m. presentation. By 5:45, when we arrived, we were in Group 8. I brought 5 boys (all big fans, save 1; all 6-8th graders, all supposed to not be interested in reading due to their age and Y chromosome).
Yes, I realize Harry Potter has made the YA market the ultimate sweet spot for authors today (as the multiple parents of all nationalities attested), but this wasn’t that. This was 2,000 people on a Thursday night celebrating books by celebrating an author. Plus, I can almost guarantee most of those kids had bought most of his titles.
I wonder how many music acts could pull in 2,000 people on a week night? (As way of comparison, in February Nita & I attended a local Switchfoot concert and it had a slightly smaller crowd. Switchfoot!) I wonder how many other media projects could pull in 2,000 people on a week night in the Midwest?
So please stop with the “Print is Dead” and “Children Don’t Read” mindlessness. Open your eyes! Reading print books will go on for many, many more decades because it creates the ultimate one-on-one experience and warm communal events.
Posted by kdc at 2:39 PM
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Exciting times! Joel Demos is running for Congress. Most of you probably know that. Most of you have probably already contributed to the cause. It would be nice to have an Apostolic in Congress. Good luck, Joel!
Here’s some recent press from a Washington Post blog.
Posted by everettg at 6:42 PM
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
About the people praying for his recovery Hitchens says, "I say it's fine by me, I think of it as a nice gesture. And it may well make them feel better, which is a good thing in itself ." However, he says knowing about the prayers does nothing for himself.
I would add that when/if Hitchens goes, I will be at a loss. It is Hitchens whose voice I believe is the only one worth listening to amongst the New Atheists (Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett). The rest are so mired in their own presuppositions, that they defile the logic which they claim as their support. Dawkins won't even engage in public debate. It is Hitchens whose arguments make me tense, because they demand a confrontation of sorts if I am being honest. The way Hitchens talks about the various religious beliefs is fascinating, and although he talks about religion with a great amount of cynical humor, I never get the sense that he is making a straw man out of religious systems, but rather is taking the claims of the various religions quite seriously.It is Dawkins, whose understanding of religion seems to be that of one who has gotten no further in their theological understanding than that of a 13 year old in Sunday School.
Read the article about the prayer day for Hitchens and his thoughts on his looming death here.
Posted by Joel Riley at 1:00 PM
Saturday, October 09, 2010
Posted by Joel Riley at 2:08 PM
Friday, October 08, 2010
Thursday, October 07, 2010
I love this time of year because for 2 weeks the Nobel Prize Committee celebrates people on Earth who actually matter. The American press actually interviews people who aren’t citizens, aren’t (necessarily) beautiful, and can’t talk in sound bites. The Nobel is kind of a lifetime achievement award instead of recognition for one hot film or a great album.
Oh sometimes the choices are clunkers - and of course there's a certain amount of politics involved - but for most of the categories (medicine, chemistry, economics, literature) you get to learn about very dedicated, tireless people who are inventing the change in today’s world. Not celebrities, not the beautiful, but the dedicated and the good.
I can hardly wait until the first Pentecostal accepts their Nobel!
Posted by kdc at 5:27 PM
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Posted by Joel Riley at 9:40 AM
Monday, October 04, 2010
In the same spirit, I started reading the New Yorker online. Some of the articles are good. Others make you giggle. But the recent article I have found is from Malcolm Gladwell (pictured) who is also the author of those Outliers, Tipping Point, and Blink books you always see at Barnes & Nobles and are hesitant to purchase because you just think they are some motivational backwash (the descriptions on the book don't do justice to it's content). The article, "SMALL CHANGE: Why the revolution will not be tweeted," was a fantastic read that highlights something eerily relevant that I think most of us would like to forget. It gets at the concept that Twitter and Facebook are great humanitarian vehicles to initiate world change. Two most popular examples being how organization of the Iranian protests from last year were organized from Twitter, or the same argument goes to a protest of the communist Moldavian government last year which was dubbed the "Twitter Revolution." Both examples are very misleading, and most likely wrong.
Gladwell points out that the revolutions of our past (such as the sit-ins and marches that happened in the late 50's and early 60's in the South protesting segregation) were begun by close social ties (a sermon at your church or a conversation with a close friend) with a high-risk, high reward action that is operated within the framework of a hierarchical structure (most people say the efficiency of groups such as SNCC and SCLC was because they were organized like a military operation). In contrast, revolutions via social networks, Gladwell argues are impossible because they do the opposite. Revolutions are defined by close nit-social ties. The very fabric of a social network is a way to maintain or generate loose connections. I have over 1,000 friends on facebook. But how many am I really "friends" with?
Secondly, social networks provide social change through low-risk proposals that will inspire no one to act. Rather, social networks tell people they are acting or helping out (e.g. giving money to a charity for Darfur), but the reality is it gave them a position to feel more justified in their laziness.
Last point is that social networks are networks without a hierarchy. Nothing gets done in terms of action (Al Qaeda for instance is now a network and not an organized top-down entity and their effectiveness is almost zero now.)
You should read the article. It's good.
Posted by Joel Riley at 11:05 AM
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Story: The pictured man's name is Mitchell Heisman. I have known of him for one day. He is dead now. He died on Saturday, September 18. He committed suicide. He shot himself on Harvard's campus. He ended his life on the steps of the infamous Harvard Memorial chapel. In front of 20 tourists. I was (enthralled?) by his story.
Because the man published 1,905 page suicide note on a website whose link was automatically sent out from his email address to 400 recipients four hours after he shot himself. Yes, 1,905 pages. (note: the actual suicide note has some inappropriate language issues within).
And I can easily say that "suicide note" is not the proper summary of it. It's so much different. It's more like a philosophical inquiry. He had been working on it for five years. And by philosophical inquiry, i mean, here is a sentence I pulled at random, "After Darwin and the cosmological frame of reference gleaned from astronomy, the provincialism of humanism was revealed as a mere prejudice towards the human race."
In short, the note aims to provide a rational basis for his suicide and argues through the primary philosophical ideologies that stand opposed to his suicide (primarily the presupposition that "life" is good). As you can see from the quote above, it's very dense writing, and here and there he adds a bit of dark humor. But all in all, the most perplexing thing about the book is it's entirely academic (over 1,400 footnotes). There is minimal sense of his own self within the book except for the closing chapter where he describes his own life walking through the philosophical struggles he had been discussing in his book, ever since the death of his father at the age of 12. No good byes to family. No "I love you." No mention of battling a depression. He is concerned about logic (or the inability for man to be logical
So why am I so interested with Mitchell? I think it's the fact that no one knew about what his book was about. 5 years he wrote. Told people he was nearing completion a week before he died. 5 whole years, and it's not clear if when he started writing, if suicide was his desired ends. The openness about his arguments displayed in a public website for scrutiny. And when read, it's like the individual is gone (one section he argues about the necessity to a lose a sense of the individual, but I could not cipher what his conclusion was).
So how do I describe it? Is fascinating too optimistically obsessive of a word? Enthralling? Disturbing definitely seems apt, but I think that would too easily forget the sincerity or honesty he was trying to write with? Captivating may do but that seems to infer a kind of enticing attraction to him, to which I would say there is no attraction to what Mitchell did. Arresting? Engrossing? Maybe engrossing. I find his entire process engrossing. Which infers that he is more of a side show I guess...but maybe that's what he is. An academic suicidal sideshow for all to weigh in on. An object, now ceased, that we can talk about. Forget about soon enough. Mention our regret (it really is tragic).
And in my quest for labeling, I am trying to find meaning. Significance. A word to properly portray why I even took the time to read some of his note.
Was Mitchell doing the same with his life? Trying to find meaning through philosophy and argument. And in the end, found "suicide" as the best answer? Or was suicide always his answer, and he looked to fill in the gap between the act and his existence. Define the story so he didn't look so crazy?
While far from suicide, aren't we all doing this a little? Determining our end result and then filling in the pieces between now and the end? I don't know.
Warning, this next paragraph may bore you and is unnecessary. The essay is in it's completed form exists above. What follows is a brief summary of what I was able to glean from my spot readings of his book in terms of themes, and purpose. I tried wading through some of the selections (the ones that had section headings that intrigued me) and read his opening and closing chapters (about 40 pages in all. Not even making a dent in it). One thing that interested me was how he started the suicide note not believing in God, and had unexpectedly come to believe in God. Though I could not find what his definition of God was (definitely not Jesus). He does come to see artificial intelligence (which he thinks is the next evolutionary step of man) as a kind of soon to be physical representation of the Jewish idea of God (a conscious being completely distinct from man). Overall, Mitchell is wrestling
Posted by Joel Riley at 2:06 PM
Bro. Randy Keyes resigned as Assistant
Mangun then withdrew. Gleason, the District Superintendent of Missouri, then won in the run-off.
Otherwise, all the secretary positions of each division were re-elected, with Michael Ensey moving into the vacated General Youth Division Secretary position.
No, I don't exactly know what #4 means, but thought I'd pass it on from my informant anyway.
BTW, this was all electronic voting for the first time, with about 1400 voters.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
If you love great football (and basketball) analysis, then you need to be visiting sister blog "Momo's Musings," as you'll get a full slate of insight that has been copied on ESPN radio and other blogs.
No higher praise need be added. Check it out, then leave a comment!
Posted by kdc at 9:19 PM
There’s been a lot of press lately about Jonathan Franzen’s latest book. Oprah, NPR, Time. All that and more.
There’s liberals, and then there’s real liberals. Franzen (admittedly) falls in the later category.
I caught a snippet of a broadcast yesterday on my way home from the grocery store. I hate it when I have to turn off the radio but sometimes I get so offended or so irritated my only recourse is to click it off. I think it was both yesterday. There was a moment (40,33) when Franzen mentioned 9/11 and referred to it as a “terrible, terrible disaster . . . attack.”
Really? 9/11 was a disaster? No, it was nothing of the sort. It was a terrorist attack. Franzen’s slip of the tongue belies the incredible power of words and how they shape our view of the world. For a person to view 9/11 fundamentally as a disaster, first, and as an attack as an afterthought shows how far we have come and how far we have to go in the battle for ideology.
Don’t listen to the interview. It’ll just make you mad. Take my word for it.
Posted by everettg at 8:10 AM
Monday, September 27, 2010
TED's Chris Anderson has a mesmerizing video presentation on how YouTube is driving artistic and philanthropic innovation around the world.
The concept is simple: If someone in Japan sees a cool dance video, they not only want to imitate it, they want to individualize it and make it better. Then someone in Denmark sees the Japanese video and does the same. Then someone in Chile sees . . .
This has happened in Christian circles, especially in one much-imitated video that has probably been individualized in more churches and related videos than any other. This one has been seen 10m times over and used in churches worldwide.
It's a strong argument for developing the visual arts within our Pentecostal circles. One effective skit can share the gospel to the ends of the world.
The 18 minute talk doesn't seem long enough.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
|Caption: Anyone who studies the "black and white" atheists on the top (Nietzsche, Freud, Marx from left to right) and the New Atheists (Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins from left to right), will know the point about them being the same as the old atheists is absurd. Hint: Old Atheists, tend to understand that a godless world infers chaos at least in it being permissible. The New Atheists argue for a Moral law inspite of a godless universe.|
There are a couple points I enjoy reading up on that I have to caution myself on posting too much of a subject that enthralls me but may be dull to you. I personally think the issues which interest me have very large ramifications for our children and grandchildren (but that could just be my ego trying to say "I HAVE A PROBLEM AND IT'S IMPORTANT!). The issues: Cognitive science (brain), Evolution/Creation, and the New Atheists.
I just posted about a book against the new atheists from Tomas Halik earlier this week, and I will post about Christopher Hitchens next week (an all too relevant article I found). So with great hesitation, I post the following link, but I think it's quite an interesting, fast article. It's ten propositions of the New Atheists. It's a website for theologians so it may at time go above your heads (there were a couple points that were blurry to me), and it's because the author is somewhat assuming you are familiar with the people mentioned and the issues discussed. That said, I don't think you can get a better summary of the illogical fallacies of new atheism in a shorter time frame than this article. I would be delighted if, after reading the article you left a comment here of disagreement or question of confusion about a point made.
Posted by Joel Riley at 11:53 AM