1. "The information age is strewn with verbal (not to mention visual) litter. I'm thinking about the proliferation of words that computers and other media allow us to generate and disseminate so easily that words become cheap and the wonder and responsibility of communication escape us. By verbal litter I mean the heaps of words that are carelessly spoken, typed, and forwarded; that must be waded through in search of those that are really valuable. Part of my reticence to begin blogging was due to the fear of contributing to the staggering volume of foolishness. According to Proverbs 18:2, a fool takes no pleasure in understanding but only in expressing his opinion. For that reason, the internet with its chatrooms, emails, blogs, and websites can be a fool's paradise."
From Keith Plummer of The Christian Mind, one of the most intelligent and insightful bloggers that I've had the pleasure to meet in person.
2. Jonah Goldberg defends the “ick” factor:
Several readers have chastised me for imbuing the "ick" factor with significance and merit. They say that all arguments must be made from principle and have the clarity of rigorous logic etc etc. I reject this. … There may good arguments and logical justifications for saying "ick" (or yuck, blech etc) but that doesn't mean we should simply dismiss plain old revulsion out of hand. As a matter of pure objective analysis, the political agent who ignores the role of passion and revulsion will invariably lose against the one who takes such things into account.
Let's get sex out of it. Cannibalism is disgusting to most of us in the West. And yet, I'm sure you could come up with an entirely rational argument for eating the dead or feeding them to animals, whatever. I'm sure there are rational arguments against that too. But without the ick factor we have to discuss each and every idea as if it had merit and once we do that, we've already lost something. I would rather live in a society that justified its prohibitions on cannibalism or, say, necrophilia out of disgust than out of pure reason.
(HT: James Joyner)
3. Josh Claybourn has a favorable review of the new NBC mini-series “Revelations”: “It's imperative that Christians support mainstream inclusion of Christian media, and tuning in to see "Revelations" on Wednesday is one way to do that. You won't regret it.”
4. Not everyone agrees with Josh. One reviewer called the series “a mishmash of myth, silliness, and misrepresentations of Scripture." The dissenting critic: Jerry Jenkins, co-author of the Left Behind series. (HT: World)
5. Dennis Prager claims that the divorce-threatens-marriage argument is a non sequiter.
6. Mark Olson raises an interesting question:
“During the late 18th and early 19th century pamphleteering took off as printing private essays for distribution became cheap and influential politically.
The 37 cent question for Christians would be how did the Church use that medium then? And did it have any lasting impact?
7. Marilynne Robinson, author of the recent Pulitzer-prize winning novel Gilead, believes that John Calvin is highly under-read:
"In several of the essays in this book I talk about John Calvin, a figure of the greatest historical consequence, especially for our culture, who is more or less entirely unread. Learned-looking books on subjects to which he is entirely germane typically do not include a single work of his immense corpus in their bibliographies, nor indicate in their allusions to him a better knowledge than folklore can provide of what he thought and said. I have encountered an odd sort of social pressure as often as I have mentioned him. One does not read Calvin. One does not think of reading him. The prohibition is more absolute than it ever was against Marx, who always had the glamour of the subversive or the forbidden about him. Calvin seems to be neglected on principle."
(HT: Prosthesis)
8. Ever wonder what Instapundit looked like when Glenn Reynolds received “several hundred email a day” and his “biggest sources of readers” came from Virginia Postrel? And what was posted on Hugh Hewitt’s site before he discovered blogging? Check out the Internet Archives Wayback Machine to “Browse through 30 billion web pages archived from 1996 to a few months ago.”
9. Song fisking: Bruce Springsteen's Johnny 99
10. A robot suit dubbed HAL (re: hybrid assistive limb) has been developed in Japan that could help older people or those with disabilities to walk or lift heavy objects. (HT: King of Fools)
11. Since what we do with our bodies affects our souls, how does acting change the actor?
12. 10 Things You'd Hate about John Wesley (and 10 Things He'd Hate About You!)
13. Michelle Catalano explains the key to popularity in the blogosphere:
Sometimes people ask me, how do you become a popular blogger? How do you make a name for yourself and get readers? I'll tell you. Controversy. Raging anger. Venom and spitfire. That's what sells, for the most part. If you aren't a forerunner in the specific area of blogging you want to get into (those guys have it good, they can just be themselves), you have to carve a niche and more likely than not, that niche needs to be carved with a serrated knife coated in lemon juice and salt. Leave some scars and some pain. That will bring them running...
Sadly, she's right. (HT: John Hawkins)
14. Matt Stokes takes James Dobson to task for his reprehensible remark comparing some members of the judiciary to the KKK.
15. Jeremy Pierce on race and the The Conservative Brotherhood controversy:
The primary issue that keeps coming up is colorblindness. I've addressed this issue before. There's a kind of colorblindness that's good. When you get to know someone, you see them in terms of being a person and not in terms of being a person defined by color. At the same time, there's something very insulting when a white person says to a black person, "Well I don't really think of you as black." It's as if you're saying "You don't fit my picture of what black people are supposed to be like." This kind of colorblindness is just plain racist, albeit a kind of residual and unintentional racism that you might not blame someone for.
16. David Koyzis has a list of potential papal monikers: John XXIV, Alexander XIX, Gregory XVII, Benedict XVI, Clement XV, Innocent XIV, Leo XIV, Pius XIII, Stephen XI, Boniface X, Urban IX,...[read the rest]
17. The greatest golf shot ever?
18 Jackson's Junction raises an interesting point about double standards:
Sin City is a film filled with dismemberments, disembowelments, torture, castration, and pedophilia. The Passion is an historically accurate depiction of scourging and Crucifixion.
Now compare the reviewers who raved about Sin City to those who panned The Passion and tell me it was the violence that offended them.
(HT: The Anchoress)
19. I want to say one word to you. Just one word. Yes, sir. Are you listening? Yes, I am. Plastics. Just how do you mean that, sir? Plastics, Ben, as in textiles. [check out the slide show]
20. Confessions of an EBay opium addict
21. Michael Moore might be old news but this gem from the archives of Frank J. deserves to be dusted off:
And what's with your statement about how the country is actually all liberal and that the people booing you were actually booing the booers? Do you actually believe that? What kind of fantasy world do you live in? Are there elves and leprechauns there? If there are, and I caught one of those hippy leprechauns and he told me, "If you don't harm me and let me go, I'll give you three wishes," (that would be in Irish brogue; I don't know how to represent that typing) I wouldn't let him go, because the only thing I would want would be to give that stupid pinko leprechaun a beating. To be clear, I wouldn't beat him as much as a regular size hippy, because that would be like a huge beating to him because of his small size, which isn't his fault. But I assure you it would be a sound beating, and, when he went back to his leprechaun home, he'd tell the other leprechauns, "Aye, what a sound beating I received; quite proportionate to my size."
22. How to have an Obscure Blog that Almost Nobody Reads
23. Florence King reminds me why I don't fear the Nanny State:
The Nanny State soon will need a cautionary tale, so I have written one for them: When they came for the smokers I kept silent because I don't smoke. When they came for the meat eaters I kept silent because I'm a vegetarian. When they came for the gun owners I kept silent because I'm a pacifist. When they came for the drivers I kept silent because I'm a bicyclist. They never did come for me. I'm still here because there's nobody left in the secret police except sissies with rickets.
24. Which came first, deconstruction or neo-Aristotlianism? If you’re confused about the connections of philosophy after Kant, this flowchart should clear it up. Or not. (HT: Mike Murdock)
25. Dating Tips for Evangelicals: Tip #10: Never give another human being to whom you are not legally married the power to mess with your credit. Broken hearts eventually heal. Bad credit ratings endure.
26. Lately I've been experiencing a strange, wistful feeling of abscence. Usually it happens when it rains or at night when I'm alone. It's an aching sense of inexplicable loss. For the longest time I couldn't place my finger on what was causing it. But the other day I was at Quiznos and it hit me: I miss the spongmonkeys.
27. What an austic child taught Dawn Eden about God:
I don't know what came over me. Maybe I was trying to trick the girl into talking. Or maybe I just felt like doing something creative and figured that even if she were silent, she might at least enjoy pretending someone was phoning her.
I remember giving her a toy phone. I don't remember if I had one myself or if I just mimed a phone at my ear. I do remember picking up the toy receiver or my clenched hand and saying, "Ring? Ring?"
And the next thing I remember is her picking up her phone, as natural as can be: "Hello?",
I was stunned, but managed to say something. And she just started chattering away, in her sweet little-girl voice. Her speech sounded perfectly normal; anyone hearing her at that moment would have thought she was an ordinary kid.
Once she got started talking, the girl pretty much went back in her own world; we didn't really have a conversation so much as she talked at me. But she did give that initial response, and she seemed to really enjoy the "game." My mother was shocked when I told her about it.
This was what flooded back to me on the train, and I cried thinking about that little girl who was so hard to reach. And yet, even though she had problems, she was easy to reach if one knew the right way.
I think that must be what it's like for God, trying to reach us.
28. Should bloggers have an advance directive that outlines what happens to their online persona if they die?
29. Because you need to read something other than blogs: Where to Find Full-Text Christian Books Online
31. What the world needs: More cat hugging monkeys...
32. ...and more cowbell.
33. "Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher, "Vanity of vanities! All is vanity."
1
One reviewer called the series “a mishmash of myth, silliness, and misrepresentations of Scripture." The dissenting critic: Jerry Jenkins, co-author of the Left Behind series
I really think that deserves some sort of award for irony. I honestly can't think of more appropriate description of the Left Behind series other than "a mishmash of myth, silliness, and misrepresentations of Scripture" (other than "poorly written, consumer-driven, Christian bookstore garbage", of course).
And what's with these freaking prequels now? You mean to tell me a multi-zillion dollar franchise capitalizing on the unhealthy obsession of most Christians with the end times ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH? Now we have to look at baby pictures of the Antichrist? Spare me. I heard a commercial on KRLA for "The Rising" and almost peed my pants it was so hilarious. And if they make a movie out of it, I am going to have to convert to Zen Buddism just to keep from hurting someone.
Someone needs to stand up and tell Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins to find a new topic to exploit for the next decade. This one needed to be taken out back and shot six books and two movies ago.
Thank you for allowing me to rant. I feel better.
posted on 04.13.2005 2:47 AM2
Thanks for the flashback with #8 Joe. It's fascinating to see how much sites change over the years. And then there's Hugh...
posted on 04.13.2005 9:02 AM3
I haven't read the Left Behind series. Don't intend to. And I think I just might be able to find something else to do besides watch "Revelations." Somehow I don't think that NBC's take on the end of time is going to clarify or enlighten me either. I'll just do the old D.L. Moody thing instead; I'll just go plant a tree.
posted on 04.13.2005 9:42 AM4
I had to take exception with Prager's logic. Seriously, how can you say that divorce doesn't undermine marriage? I also cannot get his "I support marriage, but a 30 year marriage that ends in divorce isn't failed in my book" argument.
posted on 04.13.2005 10:15 AM5
Joe - this is the best "links" post I have ever read. You've got more good stuff here than I can read in a week.
I agree with MikeF about Prager. Prager is making his own little non-sequitur here. The practice of divorce may not hurt the institution of marriage but the liberalization of divorce laws sure does. But does the practice of homosexuality hurt the institution of marriage? Given Prager's logic I would say no - it doesn't hurt marriage anymore than the practice of adultery. Now the institutionalization of homosexuality may hurt marriage, but it hurts it in the same way that the institutionaliaztion of divorce does. And MikeF is right - what's up with this business of a 30 year marriage that ends in divorce isn't a failure business? It sounds like Prager doesn't view marriage as a permanent thing - that view hurts marriage as much as homosexuality ever will.
posted on 04.13.2005 11:08 AM6
Amen to Alex's description of the Left BE-hind "novels" as "poorly written . . . garbage." They are enough to make you lose your faith.
posted on 04.13.2005 11:43 AM7
Joe,
I have to respectfully disagree with you and Josh regarding the support of "mainstream inclusion of Christian media" for the following reasons:
1) Have you witnessed "Christian media" lately? Aside from the anomaly of The Passion, which was arguably not so much the work of mainstream inclusion of Christian media but the work of a Christian in the mainstream media, there is really not much to be proud of out there. Grossly oversized sets, not to be outdone by grossly oversized hairdos, decked with enough gold leaf and velvet to make a Pope uncomfortable are just the beginning. Then comes an almost relentless stream of what can only be described as bad 'Christian' lounge acts interspersed with Depression-era tent-meeting preachers claiming that Jesus is just a phone call--and or course a small donation--away. It must be true because their wives, who clearly just got back from a square dance, are sobbing and nodding their little purple heads. While the rest of us are stuck trying to explain how not all Christians act like that or believe what they believe.
2) Speaking of not believing what 'they' believe, why am I to support some television mini-series simply because its purported to have some sort of Christian message? There are a lot of people out there who think they have a Christian message but with whom I would have great disagreements. I'm neither a Mormon, a Jehova's Witness, a Unitarian, a Christadelphian, nor one of any of the other vast numbers of heretical sects for very good reasons. And I have little doubt that I will have some of the same substantial disagreements with the message of the "Revelations" mini-series.
3) Much like number 2, I believe there is a big difference between supporting 'Christian media' and supporting good and sound Christian media. When I see or hear it in the mainstream media I'll support it. But, like NBC's version of Noah's Ark, I don't think this new revelation will be it.
posted on 04.13.2005 12:55 PM8
Alex -
Perhaps LaHaye and The Jenk can ineptly write about such mysterious topics as "Who lived in the Land Of Nod in Genesis?", "What were the Nephilim Like?", or maybe a set of short stories about humorous events during the 40 Years of Wandering in Exodus. The benefit to those is that there won't be all the pesky scriptural context to get in the way of writing the literary equivalent of a Sci-Fi B movie.
Regarding "Can God Act Illogically?", I posted a comment on the blog it came from (to make a long post short, I said No Way). Should we discuss the topic here or keep it to Prosthesis?
Regarding Prager, I don't always agree with him, but he is so wise that he at least forces me to reconsider long-held ideas out of respect for his brilliance. I don't think I agree with "A 30-marriage that ends in divorce isn't a failure", but I'm willing to hear him out.
Regarding Sin City, I think the solution is to have Frank Miller illustrate the Bible.
Regarding pamphleteering, isn't that just olde-tyme blogging?
posted on 04.13.2005 1:01 PM9
My problem with Prager's post goes beyond his logic in downplaying divorce as a threat to the institution of marriage. He focuses exclusively on the "divorce threat", or lack thereof, and lets the "gay marriage threat" stand unassailed AND unsupported. It hardly matters if the divorce threat is valid if the gay threat is not. If the argument is invalid, who cares about the counter-argument?
Prager should explain how gay unions constitute a threat to marriage.
posted on 04.13.2005 1:12 PM10
I agree with MikeF about Prager. Prager is making his own little non-sequitur here. The practice of divorce may not hurt the institution of marriage but the liberalization of divorce laws sure does. But does the practice of homosexuality hurt the institution of marriage? Given Prager's logic I would say no - it doesn't hurt marriage anymore than the practice of adultery. Now the institutionalization of homosexuality may hurt marriage, but it hurts it in the same way that the institutionaliaztion of divorce does. And MikeF is right - what's up with this business of a 30 year marriage that ends in divorce isn't a failure business? It sounds like Prager doesn't view marriage as a permanent thing - that view hurts marriage as much as homosexuality ever will.
I don't think the practice of divorce itself is the problem. There needs to be a way to dissolve a marriage. However, the high rate at which heterosexuals employ it is certainly a good target for criticism. It treats marriage all too casually. Have an arguement with your spouse? No problem, just get a divorce.
Gay and lesbian Americans such as myself want recognition of our marriages as such because we value the institution. And of course, since a gay marriage provides all the same benefits to society that a straight one does, such as the formation of a family, stability, longevity, good environment for the raising of children etc., then in fairness they should get the recognition they deserve.
Heterosexuals treat marriage much more casually, although that wasn't always so. One thing that I think is a fair criticism of Christians on this is the ready willingness of your priests to marry people regardless of circumstances or the maturity of the individuals involved. If as Christians you believe that God is the third partner in any marriage, then your priests should have more to say in the decision. If a priest does not think a couple is ready for the commitment, he should say so. Nowadays it seems as if they never bother to examine that question in the first place.
At one time, the Catholic Church had an "Engagement Ceremony", it was held in church and was almost the same as a marriage. Vows of commitment and chastity were exchanged along with engagement rings in front of family, friends, neighbors, and God. The actual marriage ceremony itself didn't occur until at least a year from the date of the engagement ceremony. You ought to consider bringing that custom back into current use.
posted on 04.13.2005 2:51 PM11
Heterosexuals treat marriage much more casually, although that wasn't always so.
More casually than whom? I hope you're not comparing them to homosexuals because I don't think the statistics necessarily prove this. At any rate, I think its an unfair misrepresentation to generalize heterosexual views of marriage as "Have an arguement with your spouse? No problem, just get a divorce."
posted on 04.13.2005 3:10 PM12
One reviewer called the series “a mishmash of myth, silliness, and misrepresentations of Scripture." The dissenting critic: Jerry Jenkins, co-author of the Left Behind series.
Man, that's the funniest thing I've read all day!
posted on 04.13.2005 3:45 PM13
Patrick,
I agree, there needs to be a way out--as long as it is a Biblical reason to leave. Simply not loving someone anymore shouldn't be a valid excuse for dissolving the marriage. No fault divorce laws should be completely removed from the books altogether.
posted on 04.13.2005 3:50 PM14
And don't forget --
Left Behind: The Kids
(I'm waiting -- after several more prequel and children's trilogies -- to hear La Haye & Jenkins' publisher announce Left Behind for Pets.)
posted on 04.13.2005 4:05 PM15
Maybe they can do a cross-over book: Chicken Soup for the Left Behind Soul.
posted on 04.13.2005 4:27 PM16
Phil Aldredge,
Of course pamphleteering was "old tyme" blogging. However the question I asked was what impact it had on the Church? Did the church use it? What effect did it have? There may be lessons there for the "Godbloggers"/Christian blogging community.
17
You know to amplify on something I wrote on my blog today, I wish Evangelicals could learn from Hindus on the fine art of making cheesy video.
I mean, c'mon!, another show on the apocalypse?
At least if it were a Bollywood product, there'd be snappy song and dance numbers...
posted on 04.13.2005 6:16 PM18
Thanks for Number 28 (what happens, legally, etc., to your on-line persona when you die?). That was fascinating.
posted on 04.13.2005 7:59 PM20
Maybe they can do a cross-over book: Chicken Soup for the Left Behind Soul.
Funny, I thought the subtitle to "The Rising" was "Chicken Soup for the Spawn of Satan's Soul".
posted on 04.14.2005 1:34 AM21
I bet you that the Antichrist reads Harry Potter as a child. It is the First Sign.
posted on 04.14.2005 11:30 AM22
Funny, I thought the subtitle to "The Rising" was "Chicken Soup for the Spawn of Satan's Soul".
Nope. That would be "Jambalaya for the Spawn of Satan's Soul". Chicken Soup ain't hot enough.
posted on 04.14.2005 5:50 PM