Business Theology -- Dan Edelen has an impressive 13-part series of posts on The Christian & the Business World.
More Moral Markets -- Addison Road has an intriguing entry on Ethical Content as a Commodity.
To Submit or not to Submit: That is the Question -- "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord." Few verses in the New Testament have stirred more controversy than Paul's exhortation to the fairer sex. Most Christians tend to reject, misunderstand, or simply ignore this command. But JCHFleetguy takes a different approach and provides one of the best explanations for this passage that I've ever found.
Holy Cows -- As a part of their twisted strategy, the animal rights group PETA often mocks Christians and other religious believers. This year during Holy Week PETA staged a tasteless mock-crucifixion of an activist wearing a pig mask. In the past, they have used billboards to taunt Christians with the claim that livestock--not Jesus--"died for your sins." And last year PETA paraded a statue of a cow dressed as the Pope in front of Catholic churches. (The "cow pope" statue even held a Papal staff, topped with a crucified cow.) The Center for Consumer Freedom has a new report which includes all these and much, much more of PETA's outrageous antics. (HT: David Martosko)
After the Disaster -- Gerry Charlotte Phelps bravely says what many of us have been thinking since first hearing about the disaster in New Orleans:
We are happy to rebuild New Orleans! We would expect the same if such a disaster happened to our own cities. It is simply the right thing to do, and we will do it. Without complaining, I hope and expect. But if almost the entire city must be rebuilt, wouldn't this be a good opportunity to rebuild it in a different location, on higher ground? New Orleans has been a disaster waiting to happen for decades. Its being hit by a hurricane has been ranked as, I believe, the second largest natural disaster that could possibly hit the United States.
If we are going to spend the money and effort to almost totally rebuild it anyhow, why not build it in a location that is not in a bowl below sea level? Where we would have more hope of not having to rebuild it again after the next hurricane?
1
Joe,
Thanks for the nod on my business series. I'm thinking of developing it into a book-length analysis some time in the future.
I hope it's a different perspective than some Christians have considered and that we'll ask harder questions about why we work the way we do.
Blessings!
posted on 08.31.2005 9:28 AM2
I doubt anyone will go for a different location - too much history, cultural import, etc.
Wonder what would be involved in actually raising the foundation. Trucking in landfill. From an engineering standpoint are there other options?
I imagine that everything will have to be razed anyway. Then, what would be left of the old city?
It would have to be a government project, but it might be do-able; after all, D.C. was built on a swamp.
posted on 08.31.2005 9:52 AM3
They could probably rebuild it in the same location if they brought back some of the outlying wetlands that used to act as a buffer zone. Of course, no doubt the idea would be condemned as more tree-hugging nonsense.
They could also get ride of the Federal flood insurance program. Private insurers in the area won't provide flood insurance to homeowners with good reason. But as long as the Federal Government continues to pick up the tab, pro-development interests will continue to build on flood plains.
posted on 08.31.2005 1:28 PM4
Patrick,
They could also get ride of the Federal flood insurance program. Private insurers in the area won't provide flood insurance to homeowners with good reason. But as long as the Federal Government continues to pick up the tab, pro-development interests will continue to build on flood plains.
Interesting idea. I'm not sure if I would advocate doing away with it completely. But I would definitely make it one-time-use only. If you get washed away and have the insurance then the government will pay to rebuild. If you you built on the same floodpath, though, you couldn't be reinsured and would forego any government aid casused by a similar disaster. I think that would be reasonable policy.
posted on 08.31.2005 1:33 PM5
Thanks for the point, and the praise. It means alot coming from you.
posted on 08.31.2005 5:43 PM6
I wasn't nearly as impressed by fleetguy's treatment of the "submission" doctrine as you were, although I suppose he did the best he could at defending the indefensible. There is no equity in trading love for love and submission, even if that submission is "limited earthly authority".
I showed the item to my wife, and it was fun to watch her face change from amusement to anger, disbelief to disgust. Her emotions mirrored my own; we both have a head, you see.
The problem with biblical literalists is that they paint themselves into an intellectual corner because of the poor quality of what they have to work with. You must explain away misogyny, support for slavery and murder and even environmental terrorism. The convolutions of the faithful in the attempt to rationalize these things are interesting but ultimately nothing more or less than pathetic.
posted on 09.01.2005 6:39 AM7
from today's Columbus Dispatch:
Nationwide won’t renew nearly 40,000 homeowners-insurance policies and about 12,000 commercial-insurance policies in Florida starting March 1, the company said yesterday.
The decision comes three weeks after the Columbus-based insurer said it would not issue new homeowners policies after today in the state, which was battered by four hurricanes last year.
posted on 09.01.2005 6:57 PM8
I also was not impressed with the "submission" article. The error, however, is that fleetguy isn't literal enough.
Love and submission are both described as godly actions in the bible. Clearly many believe that love is desirable while submission is not. Apparently, love is cheap and easy while submission is expensive and difficult. But scripture paints a different picture. Love is patient, strong, keeping no record of wrongs. It isn't easy to love our enemies, yet we are commanded to do so. Who has the harder task: one who is asked to love, or one asked to submit?
Christ submitted himself to death for the church's sake. He didn't submit to the church, which hadn't formed yet.
Maybe it's not scripture that needs to be re-interpreted. Maybe we need to correct our distortions of the meaning of love and submission.
posted on 09.06.2005 2:31 PM