1. "What the Beatitudes Teach", an essay excerpted from Tod Lindberg's new book, The Political Teachings of Jesus
2. How would your car handle a crash? Consumer Report has a great way to find out. Choose the make and model of your vehicle and see how a crash test dummy fares in both head-on and side impact collisions. (HT: Dumb Little Man)
3. Top Ten Most Expensive Paintings Of All Time. # 5 and #6 should be on the list but the others are way overpriced. (HT: Neatorama)
4. No Surprise Here: In a recently released scientific survey of 1,269 faculty members across 712 different colleges and universities, 53 percent of respondents admitted to harboring unfavorable feelings toward evangelicals.
5. How Credit Scores Work (HT: Lifehacker)
Fitness Myth No. 1: Running on a treadmill puts less stress on your knees than running on asphalt or pavement. "Running is a great workout, but it can impact the knees -- and since it's the force of your body weight on your joints that causes the stress, it's the same whether you're on a treadmill or on asphalt," says Todd Schlifstein, DO, a clinical instructor at New York University Medical Center's Rusk Institute.
(HT: Lifehacker)
7. Bible Girl on the sin of gluttony:
There’s this thing in the Bible called gluttony. The Bible says it’s a sin. But we don’t like to talk about that particular sin. We prefer to point a pudgy finger at others and decry the evils of drugs and alcohol, pornography, abortion and homosexuality. Compared to those, gluttony is just a little sin….
This “little” sin of gluttony is killing people by the hundreds of thousands every year. Obesity has now surpassed smoking as the No. 1 health threat in America. It can be directly linked to high cholesterol, high blood pressure, Type II Diabetes, acid reflux, sleep apnea, heart disease and many forms of cancer.
So why aren’t more pastors and churches talking about it? One reason is pretty obvious. We don’t want to risk losing church members by offending anyone.
(HT: Crunchy Con)
8. The Seven Blogging Virtues for Building a Global Microbrand [PDF] -- a way of thinking about blogging for the purpose of building a Global Microbrand (whether the brand is you, your product, a cause, etc.).
9. Lauren Winner's top 5 Christian books about sex. (HT: Prosthesis)
10. I've never cared for Joel Stein, but I can appreciate his disdain for dog owners:
What I've come to realize is that what I really hate is you, the dog owner. Because you're the one who honestly believes that your dog is sentient and that he loves you. Your ego is so grandiose that you can't see that your dog is just using you. Yes, your dog loves you, but only in the way that Anna Nicole Smith loved old, rich men. Yet you honestly believe that your dog's love is particularly meaningful because your dog is special -- almost human, really. In fact, you think, he's an almost-human that happens to be a lot like you. He is a lot like you if you happen to assess colleagues by smelling their butts and enjoy publicly eating your own vomit.
(HT: The Point)
11. Fatwas ain't what they used to be:
The reputation of Egypt's religious authorities was further clouded recently when a lecturer at Al-Azhar issued a fatwa saying work colleagues of the opposite sex could escape the ban on unmarried men and women being alone together if the woman breast-fed her male colleague five times. The lecturer's rationale was breast-feeding established a maternal rather than a sexual relationship.
(HT: WORLD blog)
12. How to Memorize Verbatim Text
13. The business card of Kevin Mitnick, infamous hacker turned security consultant.
14. In his essay, The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult, Murray Rothbard relates the Randian party line on smoking:
The all-encompassing nature of the Randian line may be illustrated by an incident that occurred to a friend of mine who once asked a leading Randian if he disagreed with the movement's position on any conceivable subject. After several minutes of hard thought, the Randian replied: "Well, I can't quite understand their position on smoking." Astonished that the Rand cult had any position on smoking, my friend pressed on: "They have a position on smoking? What is it?" The Randian replied that smoking, according to the cult, was a moral obligation. In my own experience, a top Randian once asked me rather sharply, "How is it that you don't smoke?" When I replied that I had discovered early that I was allergic to smoke, the Randian was mollified: "Oh, that's OK, then."
The official justification for making smoking a moral obligation was a sentence in Atlas where the heroine refers to a lit cigarette as symbolizing a fire in the mind, the fire of creative ideas. (One would think that simply holding up a lit match could do just as readily for this symbolic function.) One suspects that the actual reason, as in so many other parts of Randian theory, from Rachmaninoff to Victor Hugo to tap dancing, was that Rand simply liked smoking and had the need to cast about for a philosophical system that would make her personal whims not only moral but also a moral obligation incumbent upon everyone who desires to be rational.
(HT: Maverick Philosopher)
15. An astute political observation from John Podhoretz: "I hate to be nasty, but anybody who takes the Ames Straw Poll results seriously is an idiot… this event is to the Republican presidential nomination as a clown car is to a Formula One racer."
16. Philosopher J.P. Moreland on Jesus' view of healthcare: "Two central features of Jesus’ ethical views imply that Jesus urged compassionate care for the poor but not by the state. In short, he would never have supported universal healthcare."
17. From The Economist: "Clichés just aren't what they used to be."
Old assumptions are stranded by other changes too. Currencies fluctuate: the dollar looks less than almighty, at least for the moment. Populations evolve: Tom, Dick and Harry make for an unrepresentative trio of everymen today; Kevin, Chloe and Muhammad would be more accurate. Trade patterns shift: turning down all the tea in China would weigh heavily, to be sure, but the European Union is more impressed by the Chinese production of bras and dressing-gowns.
18. DrawSpace has a free series of drawing lessons categorized by beginner, intermediate, and advanced.
19. Adulterers, beware: Your cheatin' heart might be exposed by E-ZPass. E-ZPass and other electronic toll collection systems are emerging as a powerful means of proving infidelity. That's because when your spouse doesn't know where you've been, E-ZPass does.
20. The Seven Wonders of the Totalitarian World. (Libya's "Fist Crushing U.S. Fighter Plane" is my favorite.) (HT: Neatorama)
21. The Ten Best Bands That Never Existed (HT: The Presurfer)
22. Charles Adams on "infallibility":
But since the Enlightenment many Christians have come to understand "infallibly" in a more rationalistic and legalistic manner. In the same way that we would characterize a logical proposition as "true" or "accurate," some have come to reduce the Scriptures to a set of "accurate" propositions. Of such are those who insist on a literal interpretation of all Scripture. What is really going on here is that Enlightenment people are putting their faith in their own ability to understand logical propositions. Then, if the Bible is understood in that manner, we can have the kind of security that Descartes was searching for - security against radical skepticism - when he grounded his faith in his famous proposition, "I think, therefore I am." But turning the Bible into a document containing accurate statements is a way in which we put our faith in the creation - ultimately our own reasoning abilities - rather than the Creator. That's a form of idolatry, "biblidolatry" for want of a better term.
(HT: Prosthesis)
23. J.I. Packer on "inerrancy":
When evangelicals call the Bible "inerrant", part at least of their meaning is this: that, in exegesis and exposition of Scripture and in building up our biblical theology from the fruits of our Bible study, we may not (1) deny, disregard, or arbitrarily relativize, anything that the biblical writers teach, nor (2) discount any of the practical implications for worship and service that their teaching carries, nor (3) cut the knot of any problem of Bible harmony, factual or theological, by allowing ourselves to assume that the inspired writers were not necessarily consistent either with themselves or with each other. It is because the word "inerrant" makes these methodological points about handling the Bible, ruling out in advance the use of mental procedures that can only lead to reduced and distorted versions of Christianity, that it is so valuable and, I think, so much valued by those who embrace it.
(HT: One Eternal Day)
24. Fordham University's Department of Theology has a very amusing Graduate Student Handbook. Here's the section on the audience for a dissertation:
You may one day turn your dissertation into a book, during the many leisure hours you can expect to enjoy as a well-paid and pampered junior faculty member at the fortunate college or university that you select from the many that will vie for your services. You will then bask in the admiration of the theological world and the less critically grounded adulation of the general public, while living luxuriously on your vast royalties. Perhaps there will even be a lump sum for the movie rights. At the moment, however, your audience is more limited.
(HT: Through a Glass Darkly)
25. What not to name your blog
26. Most seniors now have drug coverage: More than 90 percent of Americans age 65 and older now have prescription drug coverage, compared to more than 75 percent who were covered in 2004, according to a University of Michigan analysis. And poor seniors are as likely to have coverage as the rich.
27. Women Use Belly Dancing During Childbirth?
Some women who are "disillusioned with routine use of drugs and medical interventions during labor" are practicing belly dancing and other "alternative techniques," such as hypnotherapy and "water births," during childbirth, the Wall Street Journal reports. According to anthropologist Sheila Kitzinger, belly dancing originated as a childbirth ritual. An increasing variety of belly-dancing classes and other educational materials are available for pregnant women, and the first instructional DVD on prenatal belly dancing in the U.S. was released last year, the Journal reports.
28. 8 easy things you can do to lose fat (HT: Lifehacker)
29. Fabulous Fighters (Part I): Democratic candidate Mike Gravel: "… the Spartans trained their people to be homosexuals, because they're better fighters."
30. Fabulous Fighters (Part II): Historian Victor Davis Hanson's response:
Not quite.
I think the popular myth that has fooled Gravel has arisen lately because of the movie 300 — and the natural confusion between the Spartan 300 who died holding the pass at Thermopylai (480 BC) and the 300 of the Theban Sacred Band (378-338 BC).
The Spartans did not instruct their youth to be homosexuals (no word really exists in the Greek vocabulary for our notion of homosexual). Xenophon (Lac. Pol. 2.13), for example, insisted that the older males in the army were specifically not to engage in physical relations with their younger warrior-pages (paidika).
And if in reality some hoplite soldiers occasionally did engage in what we would call gay sex, in Sparta or elsewhere, the practice was analogous to the protocols of the modern prison in the absence of women: physical relationships were loosely defined among those interested as an active older male and a younger male that served as a surrogate female.
32. Gene regulation, not just genes, is what sets humans apart: The striking differences between humans and chimps aren’t so much in the genes we have, which are 99 percent the same, but in the way those genes are used, according to new research from a Duke University team.
33. Bush vs. Zombies
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3830
1
Lindberg in his "The Political Teachings of Jesus" fails to understand that the beatitudes have NOTHING to do with politics and everything to do with getting the sinner — us — right with God. If Lindberg really thinks “blessed are the poor” and “blessed are the peacemakers” are political statements, then he is no different than the Jews who sought to crown Jesus king to drive off the Romans and re-establish the kingdom of Israel.
posted on 08.13.2007 12:16 PM2
I haven't read the essay yet but your comment makes little sense to me Truman. Terms like 'the poor' and 'peacemaker' only have meaning as a relationship between individuals. A person is poor because others are rich. A person is a peacemaker because he tries to resolve a conflict between two other people. In other words, these are words about politics which at its base is the relationship of individuals to other individuals.
You may be able to give this a highly symbolic meaning...say thinking a peacemaker is making peace in his own conflicted heart or a person is poor in his own spirit. There might even be some value in that but it seems very convoluted to argue that's the only meaning.
posted on 08.13.2007 1:06 PM3
Truman,
First line of the Wikipedia entry on politics:
"Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions. Although the term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, politics is observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions"
If you interact with anyone other than yourself, you are engaging in political behavior and harbor a set of political beliefs. I think the writer's point is that Jesus laid the foundation for a revolutionary new way in which human beings could understand their responsibilities towards one another and their very status as human beings. I think he's right on the money; and that does nothing to negatively impact the fact that he was also teaching us how to be right with God. That's my opinion, at least.
posted on 08.13.2007 1:13 PM4
Boonton,
You act as if politics is the higher plain.
Jesus was talking within the Kingdom of God, not something so petty as politics or political entities.
The beatitudes very much transcends to a much higher plain than politics. A person can be politically against a war for all the wrong reasons, but on the other hand another can care less about the politics of war and be a peacemaker in their actions (of love and provisions) toward his or her enemies.
Jesus would never care about your specific political position. He cares whats in your heart and as a result of that in your actions. But yes, those actions can be political, its just why stoop so low?
posted on 08.13.2007 1:26 PM5
BTW: On a different note, it is worth mentioning that the paintings listed are those that have actually sold at auction. Those owned by individuals or states not available for transaction (most notably, the Mona Lisa, the Sistine Chapel, David, the Last Supper, etc.) would be crushingly more expensive -- so expensive in fact we'll never know:)
posted on 08.13.2007 1:27 PM6
Blessed are the poor doesn't mean the same thing as blessed are the poor in spirit, which is what Jesus actually said.
posted on 08.13.2007 1:49 PM7
bontoon - the beatitudes don't have "symbolic" meaning; I wasn't saying that at all.
Instead, the beatitudes are Christ's instructions on getting yourself right with God. There is no double meaning here, because there can't possibly be one.
For example, the “poor in spirit” are those who are so crushed by the weight of their sins that they finally are turned to Jesus, and hence to the Father. That keeps with the theme of the rest of the beatitudes, which concern spiritual matters, not physical or material matters.
Sure, the terms "poor" and "peacemaker" can have meaning between people, but when they were used by Christ in this specific context, they had one very definite meaning: If you want to be right with God, this is how it happens, and this is who He blesses.
posted on 08.13.2007 2:03 PM8
John - yes, thanks, I know what "politics" means. But I think you err if you believe Jesus laid out a "new" way of having relationships with one another.
Jesus often gave lessons that had meaning within meaning, but I don't think this is one of them. Why? The language doesn't fit with anything except getting right with God. For example, how can you be called a "son of God" by merely being a peacemaker? The “peacemakers” are ones who have been reformed by the Holy Spirit, are cloaked by the righteousness of Jesus Christ and are at peace with God instead of being in rebellion against Him. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God" can have only one meaning, not two.
While the author of the article is correct when he says that people of all political persuasions misuse Jesus for political purposes, the author is doing much of the same by turning Jesus' words on their head and making them say things they really don't.
posted on 08.13.2007 2:18 PM9
Truman,
You're contradicting yourself: You claim this isn't one of those places where Jesus words hold "meaning within meaning," yet you immediately read into his words a highly subjective interpretation.
Where in "blessed are the peacemakers" is there any mention of being "reformed by the Holy Spirit" or "cloaked by the righteousness of Jesus Christ"? You are reading this into his words, while ignoring the plain meaning of "peacemakers" as "those who make peace."
While it might be possible that the peace in question is between a person and God rather than between human beings, that is by no means the most obvious meaning (or perhaps you think "blessed are the merciful" refers to those who show mercy to God?). It seems instead that you are the one trying to avoid the force of Jesus' words, simply becuase you do not see how "peacemaking" could lead to someone being called a "son of God."
posted on 08.13.2007 3:02 PM10
Sure, the terms "poor" and "peacemaker" can have meaning between people, but when they were used by Christ in this specific context, they had one very definite meaning: If you want to be right with God, this is how it happens, and this is who He blesses.
Perhaps I'm being too literal here but peacemaker is literally someone who makes peace. In other words, when other people are in conflict he resolves the conflict. The word doesn't say anything about what's in the peacemaker's heart or why he is trying to make peace etc. He is literally just a guy who makes peace just like a jogger is a guy (or gal) who is jogging.
I'm not sure if we really disagree here, I think the message is political in the sense that this is about one's interactions with other people.
Ken
While it might be possible that the peace in question is between a person and God rather than between human beings, that is by no means the most obvious meaning
That would be an interesting reading indeed. It implies the peacemakers are those who were against God and then reformed themselves. But how about those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness? Suppose at the moment no one is persecuting the righteous? Is the person seeking to 'get right with God' supposed to go looking for a persecutor? It seems more in line to think the message is something like God considers the 'out' people to be no less important than the 'in' people...I'm not sure if you can say it's an entirely new idea (it's not like the Jewish faith has contempt for peacemakers or the poor) but its forceful articulation in this manner was certainly powerful and unique.
posted on 08.13.2007 3:37 PM11
Boonton,
"It seems more in line to think the message is something like God considers the 'out' people to be no less important than the 'in' people"
Exactly. Luke's version makes this even clearer:
"Blessed are the poor, for they will see God." (Luke 6:20)
Spoken within a society that generally equated material success with God's favor, such was a powerful (and political) statement.
posted on 08.13.2007 3:49 PM12
Excuse me, I misquoted, it should be:
"Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God." (Luke 6:20)
posted on 08.13.2007 3:52 PM13
It's nice to see that you agree with John Podhoretz, Joe.
Would have been more honest though had he said that before Ames. It says a lot about John that he waited to see the results of Ames first. What we can deduce from his statement is only that he likes one of the losers. Anyone who decries this after the result can have the same conclusion drawn about them.
posted on 08.13.2007 4:03 PM14
Baggi It's nice to see that you agree with John Podhoretz, Joe.
It doesn't happen often, but every once in while Podhoretz gets it right.
Would have been more honest though had he said that before Ames. It says a lot about John that he waited to see the results of Ames first.
I'm not sure what you mean. First, no one I know in the political world takes Ames seriously. It's a pseudo-event, a GOP fundraiser that gives journalists something to talk about during the summer.
Second, John didn't need to see the results to know who would win. In Ames, you buy the votes so the candidate with the most money normally wins. It was clear going into Ames that Romney was going to win because he had more money than anyone else who showed up and was willing to pay whatever it took to take first.
Third, the difference between second and third place was less than 400 votes. It was a toss up between Brownback and Huckabee and the guy from AK got lucky. I have the utmost respect for Huckabee but this second place win is irrelevant.
What we can deduce from his statement is only that he likes one of the losers. Anyone who decries this after the result can have the same conclusion drawn about them.
Are you saying that this straw poll is representative of…well, of anything other than what a few Republicans in Iowa think? This is less significant that any national poll that comes out every single week. It's just a silly tradition (that even journalists are growing tired of) to make Iowans feel like they have a role in the electoral process.
posted on 08.13.2007 4:31 PM15
Ken - sorry, but I fail to see how I'm contradicting myself.
I'm not reading words into it. That's what they mean in context. What does "righteousness" mean? What does "son of God" mean? What does "blessed" mean? That's what I'm explaining.
I'm reading from Matthew; you're reading from Luke. Matthew was preaching to Jews, whereas Luke, as a sometime companion for Paul, was writing the gospel as Paul gave it to gentile and Jew alike.
What I'm saying is, Matthew spends a lot of time on the context of Christ's words at that particular moment for the benefit of the Jews, and that moment was getting right with God.
My understanding of Matthew comes via John MacArthur and my own LCMS church.
But I think we (and Bontoon) might more agree than not. Here's what I'm trying to say, and hopefully this clears it up: What Jesus was saying is 1) here is how you truly get right with God and 2) the ways of the Pharisees and other teachers of law are not the correct ways. The Pharisees, etc., were saying you had to follow X, Y and Z and act outwardly like a perfect person, and Jesus said they were wrong. He didn't use those words, but that's what he meant by the words He did use.
And what He was saying was really nothing new, because those who loved God before Christ's coming were treated the same way by God (their faith was credited to them as righteousness). At the same time, you have to keep in mind that the full context of the beatitudes is that the blessings are there only for those who believe in Jesus Christ. Any other interpretation contradicts scripture.
So sure, there's nothing wrong with people being merciful to one another, putting their own ambitions second to others, etc. etc. All well and fine. But that's not really what Jesus was saying -- in context of the rest of scripture.
posted on 08.13.2007 4:40 PM16
The passage must be taken as a whole and it goes from Matt. 5:1-7:29. The call to salvation comes at the end by the way. Jesus is raising the bar on the law and setting standards that no one can keep. Those who mourn speaks of mourning over sin which produces repentance leading to salvation. The meek are not milk toasts but under control. An example might have been a war horse who under the control of his rider would do things unnatural to a horse such as running into battle and over people. It is the Holy Spirit who is the controler for the meek spoken of here. Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness are those who seek God's righteousness rather than attempting to establish a righteousness of their own. The pure in heart are those cleansed by God. If you think you are or know someone who is pure in heart by their own effort, you don't know God. His standards are much higher than man's. It's like when Jesus makes the point that if you have been angry with your brother the difference between you and one who murders his brother is a matter of degrees. The sin that leads to murder is the one you have already committed.
posted on 08.13.2007 4:54 PM17
What do you have against dog owners? Joel Stein is way off-base here. Perhaps he is trying to be funny. Perhaps his comments are intended for only those dog owners who over-anthropomorphize their canine companions.
I don't own a dog myself, but I have in the past. Dogs are not only sentient (Does Stein even know what this word means?), they are guileless and genuine in their affection. To suggest that they are merely using their owners is the height of stupidity. When I was a child, my father's dachshund threw herself between me and danger on several occasions with no regard for her own safety. Joel Stein should have the positive qualities possessed in abundance by dogs.
posted on 08.13.2007 5:44 PM18
Is gluttony the same thing as having a high BMI?
I have understood "gluttony" to mean two things:
1. The habit of stuffing yourself, making yourself barf, and then eating more, like the "gluttons" of Rome.
2. Being overly extravagant with food, i.e., serving huge bowls of peacock tongues will throwing out the rest of the peacock.
I'd reject the notion that being overweight is necessarily being a glutton. I think a thin bulemic could be a glutton. I think a big, strong 250 pound Amish farmer could not be a glutton. There is no biblical standard for "overweight."
Perceptions and medical opinions change with time. For instance, being underweight has negative health consequences as we all regularly see. A good weight for one person is not a good weight for another. A 45 year old with a high BMI is more likely to develop Type 2 diabetes, but he's also more likely to survive a heart attack. Etc.
posted on 08.13.2007 8:00 PM19
Marie,
I think you have a good point. Gluttony is very subtle but something we live with every day.....I would describe it like this: Have you ever started to just eat a little bit healthier? Leaving a little bit of your stomach empty? Taking diet soda instead of regular? Or just letting yourself get a little bit more hungry before eating? There's a Japanese saying, the first eight tenths of your stomach are to make you healthy and the last two tenths are to make your doctor wealthy.
You get this energetic feeling....Like you're a bit lighter, a bit healthier. Also I've noticed I enjoy food more. If I have a burger from Wendy's (I know), I eat it slowly and try to actually taste it. I've noticed that I used too scoff down food hardly aware of its taste. Pizza's especially bad since it lends itself to fast scoffing, you end up eating 5 slices to taste 1. One time I had a single slice of your standard cheap pizzaria pizza and I paid careful attention to each bite. I could taste a host of spices and flavors even in pretty substandard pizza. I'm not doing any type of diet or anything nearly as serious. I'm just trying to be a bit more reserved about food.
Gluttony is the opposite. Instead of eating but leaving yourself a little bit empty you leave yourself a little bit overfilled (or a lot over filled). The result is you feel sluggish, depressed and unhappy BUT the bad thing is your inclined to address this with more food. Long story short gluttony is about overindulging yourself and I think it applies in many areas but food is probably one of the biggest problems. You eat every single day. Maybe you overindulge yourself in areas that are not related to food like trips to the mall, the arcade, videogames etc. but the fact is gluttony is more dangerous because you have to eat and you will eat much more often than you'll do any of those things (ok maybe videogames may beat out food).
Being overweight is a symptom of the problem but the two do not always go hand in hand. Many fat people are not gluttons and there are thin gluttons as well.
I think gluttony is about failing to stop yourself right before you get to be 'full'. It has nothing to do with wasting food (after all food is indeed cheap in the US) but about wasting your capacity for enjoying life's simple pleasures & being able to eat is a pleasure that almost everyone can enjoy. What's pretty tragic about gluttony is that it's harm is pretty well hidden. With most other wrong things like stealing or harming other people you feel guilty pretty quickly. Even if you keep doing those things the bad side of them is pretty obvious. With gluttony, though, you literally suffer because you don't realize what your missing. You scoff the pizza down and then suffer for it and you don't even realize you had the way to enjoy the pizza right in front of you...all you had to do was pay attention to it. Another thing, to one degree or another we are all gluttons. Plenty of us can claim we don't steal or murder or rape etc. but each one of us fails to really appreciate food and similiar pleasures. This is why, I think, all spiritual traditions use fasting of one sort or another.
posted on 08.14.2007 9:37 AM20
I appreciate what you have to say about it, but what I'm wondering is, what does the Bible say? Because it is a sin. Therefore, what actually is it?
Can anyone think of a biblical definition of gluttony? So many assume it's just having a high BMI, and I don't buy that.
posted on 08.14.2007 8:07 PM21
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluttony has some starting points. Thomas Aquinas expanded upon it but there is some Biblical passages quoted. The Seven Deadly sins appears to have originated with the early Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins). They are mentioned in the Bible but not called out in a list of seven. Temperance, BTW, is the virtue listed as the opposite of gluttony.
posted on 08.14.2007 11:17 PM