I'm in over my head. Again. It's not like this is something new. Everything in which I become involved becomes overly complicated and full of details many of which I don't understand and so I have to spend time figuring them out.
Mostly this has to do with good works that I've said "yes" to and which now I don't feel that I can walk away without completing the task for which I agreed. God gave me a whole multitude of talents and a world of interests, all of which I want to pursue. You don't want to hear a litany of my involvements, but suffice to say that it involves finance, the computer, publicity, graphic design and a bunch of other things. I am teaching myself three new computer programs: Corel Draw, Corel Video Studio, and Filemaker Pro, all for the same project because we don't have the money to hire professionals to do the job. In trying to get the applications done, I get stuck a lot and frustrated.
I believe that I was given the ability to work through these tasks, but I also believe that it is up to me to manage how I approach the implementation of these abilities. Just because I CAN do something, doesn't mean I should always say yes to someone's request even if it's for a good cause.
So I need to say "no" for awhile until I get some of these current things done, and hope that God will stand by me while I muddle through to completion. I am blessed in so many ways, and want to give back to the world that God created in whatever way I can. I believe that we are ALL called to do that although sometimes it gets a bit hard.
It is grace that brought us here.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Is "American Idol" really......Hell?
OK, we all know that the television show Hell's Kitchen is deliberately rife with visions of the great abyss. We liberal Christians (as well as non-believers, obviously) tend to be dismissive of the whole "Hell and Damnation" scenario, but the imagery generated by that mythology is priceless. [See the video I posted here recently.] I don't watch the program American Idol, partly because of the hellishly loud atmosphere but also because that straight a shot of mass culture manipulation makes me queasy. Hell's Kitchen and Dancing with the Stars are the only reality shows that have ever hooked me.
Just recently I happened to read some reviews of the new season's episodes. The material -- quotes and photographs --gave me the impression that, like Hell's Kitchen and maybe the entire state of Nevada, American Idol makes deliberate use of satanic imagery. I asked my favorite Idol viewer about this but he hasn't yet had a chance to set me straight. Is this just an illusion created by Boston Globe reviewer Lisa de Moraes's wicked sense of humor?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Jason Boyett and his funny pants.
This is from Jason Boyett's blog. It's a sort of Mad Lib for the well-read.
He often posts on religious subjects.
Twenty Statements from "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" That Are Pretty Funny When You Replace a Word with Pants:
+ O sinner! Consider the fearful pants you are in!
+ The pants of the wicked are in scripture compared to the troubled sea...
+ The pants of death fly unseen at noon-day; the sharpest sight cannot discern them.
+ He that stands or walks on slippery ground needs nothing but his own pants to throw him down.
+ God will not hold them up in these slippery pants any longer, but will let them go.
+ Under all the cultivations of heaven, they brought forth bitter and poisonous pants.
+ He is not only able to cast wicked pants into hell, but he can most easily do it.
+ The glittering pants are whet, and held over them, and the pit hath opened its mouth under them.
+ They belong to him; he has their pants in his possession, and under his dominion.
+ But the foolish children of men miserably delude themselves in their own pants.
+ They have deserved the fiery pants, and are already sentenced...
+ In short, they have no pants, nothing to take hold of.
+ There is nothing between you and hell but the pants.
+ The air does not willingly serve you for breathwhile you spend your life in the pants of God's enemies.
+ There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked pants.
+ It is the fierceness of his pants that you are exposed to.
+ We know not who they are, or in what pants they sit...
+ To see so many rejoicing and singing for joy of pants, while you have cause to mourn for sorrow of heart, and howl for vexation of spirit!
+ Men's hearts harden, and their guilt increases apace at such a day as this, if they neglect their pants.
+ How awful are those pants.
---------
With you, I rejoice and sing for joy of pants. Stop me before I take it too far.
He often posts on religious subjects.
Twenty Statements from "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" That Are Pretty Funny When You Replace a Word with Pants:
+ O sinner! Consider the fearful pants you are in!
+ The pants of the wicked are in scripture compared to the troubled sea...
+ The pants of death fly unseen at noon-day; the sharpest sight cannot discern them.
+ He that stands or walks on slippery ground needs nothing but his own pants to throw him down.
+ God will not hold them up in these slippery pants any longer, but will let them go.
+ Under all the cultivations of heaven, they brought forth bitter and poisonous pants.
+ He is not only able to cast wicked pants into hell, but he can most easily do it.
+ The glittering pants are whet, and held over them, and the pit hath opened its mouth under them.
+ They belong to him; he has their pants in his possession, and under his dominion.
+ But the foolish children of men miserably delude themselves in their own pants.
+ They have deserved the fiery pants, and are already sentenced...
+ In short, they have no pants, nothing to take hold of.
+ There is nothing between you and hell but the pants.
+ The air does not willingly serve you for breathwhile you spend your life in the pants of God's enemies.
+ There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked pants.
+ It is the fierceness of his pants that you are exposed to.
+ We know not who they are, or in what pants they sit...
+ To see so many rejoicing and singing for joy of pants, while you have cause to mourn for sorrow of heart, and howl for vexation of spirit!
+ Men's hearts harden, and their guilt increases apace at such a day as this, if they neglect their pants.
+ How awful are those pants.
---------
With you, I rejoice and sing for joy of pants. Stop me before I take it too far.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Doctors and Responsibilty
The Illinois Supreme Court ruled recently that pharmacists and other health professionals have the right to legally contest a 2005 order requiring them to offer the morning-after pill—an order the plaintiffs call a violation of their religious beliefs.
Christianity Today quotes [Christian Medical Association CEO David] Stevens: "I think this is going to be a knockdown, drag-out battle. Christian doctors know if they lose this one, all the other issues—[such as] cloning and physician-assisted suicide—will be moot because we won't be at the table."
My own position on this issue used to be clear-cut. Health workers should be required to, at the very least, refer clients to an alternative source for the services they seek.
Then came the Nadya Suleiman, the woman who had a whole bunch of babies implanted artificially, and gave birth to octuplets. Shouldn't her doctor have (as he presently does) the right to say no to her? Should he be required to refer the crazy lady to another fertility doctor?
My test for many questions that reflect the balance between individual rights and society is this: What if the other side wanted to do it? I'm not sure the implications here meet that test.
Christianity Today quotes [Christian Medical Association CEO David] Stevens: "I think this is going to be a knockdown, drag-out battle. Christian doctors know if they lose this one, all the other issues—[such as] cloning and physician-assisted suicide—will be moot because we won't be at the table."
My own position on this issue used to be clear-cut. Health workers should be required to, at the very least, refer clients to an alternative source for the services they seek.
Then came the Nadya Suleiman, the woman who had a whole bunch of babies implanted artificially, and gave birth to octuplets. Shouldn't her doctor have (as he presently does) the right to say no to her? Should he be required to refer the crazy lady to another fertility doctor?
My test for many questions that reflect the balance between individual rights and society is this: What if the other side wanted to do it? I'm not sure the implications here meet that test.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Monday, February 2, 2009
It's not just a question of loudness.
John G. Stackhouse Jr. posted a warning to church musicians at this morning's Christianity Today Magazine. His "Memo to Worship Bands" is mostly aimed at getting groups in contemporary worship venues to to turn down the volume. Still, he makes some points that apply to more traditional liturgies as well. Stackhouse writes:
"...let me drop some church history and theology on you. By the time church music matured into Palestrina and Co. in the 16th century, it had become too demanding and ornate for ordinary singers. So Christians went to church to listen to a priest and a choir.
"...let me drop some church history and theology on you. By the time church music matured into Palestrina and Co. in the 16th century, it had become too demanding and ornate for ordinary singers. So Christians went to church to listen to a priest and a choir.
"The Protestant Reformation yanked musical worship away from the professionals and put it back in the pews. Luther composed hymns based on popular melodies, including drinking songs. Calvin insisted on taking lyrics from the Psalms. This was music in which almost anyone could participate....
"....the contrast with the Reformation is the modern-day insistence that a few people at the front be the center of attention......a church service isn't a concert at which an audience sings along with the real performers. Musicians—every one of them, including the singers—are accompanists to the congregation's praise.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Regressive is such a Catholic adjective.
One of the reasons I joined the Catholic Church is because I found its rituals charmingly medieval. Occasionally I, along with Society for Creative Anachronism members and certain fiction writers, need to be reminded that the middle ages weren't always charming.
In a column titled Back to the Dark Ages, Professor Deborah Lipstadt addresses the SSPX controversy. Lipstadt is known for her expert testimony in the David Irving case. (Look it up!) She writes
Pope Benedict XVI has reinstated as a bishop a man who both denies the Holocaust and suggests that 9/11 was an American plot. He has done so, it is reported, in order to strengthen relations with a renegade segment of the Catholic Church. This is one of those inexplicable moves that has left many people asking "Have they no decency?" A more basic and, possibly even more appropriate question would be. "Have they no common sense?"
A number of commentators have observed that this will "complicate" Vatican-Jewish relations and will make it more difficult for Israel and the Vatican to come to an agreement about a papal visit in the near future. All this may be true, but that is an exceptionally narrow way of looking at the implications of this move. Simply put, it makes the Vatican look as if it is once again living in the most unenlightened of ages.
Holocaust denial is an explicit form of antisemitism. It has no purpose but to inculcate contempt for Jews. According to deniers Jews use the Holocaust to win the world's sympathy and, in the course of so doing, win reparations from Germany and political support for Israel. Such a charge, based as it is the imagery of money and political manipulation, hearkens back to traditional antisemitic stereotypes. Why a pope would want to give support to such a movement is baffling. More baffling, however, is why a pope would want to associate the Vatican with someone who preaches lies and manipulations of history...
...But the reinstated bishop does not just deny the Holocaust. He also claims 9/11 was staged by America as a pretext to invade Afghanistan. The linkage between the two sets of denial is, of course, not happenstance. Basic to 9/11 denial is the charge that four thousand Jewish workers in the World Trade Center were warned to stay home that day. In fact, about 500 Jews were among the victims. That is over 15% of the total, a number consistent with the Jewish population of the New York metropolitan area. Moreover, how could so m
any people be told anything and thousands more not hear about it?
In short, both these claims are not just malicious forms of antisemitism but they are completely illogical.
They would be laughable were it not for the tragedies they address. In embracing Bishop [Richard] Williamson, the Vatican has done far more than set back Vatican/Jewish relations. It has made itself look like it is living in the darkest of ages. One awaits a pronouncement that it is heresy to believe that the earth revolves around the sun--or didn't the Vatican already once do that?"
[pictured: A common Christian accusation against medieval European Jews - Host Desecration. This entailed sticking knives or sticks into communion wafers as a symbol of their supposed hatred for Christianity.]
In a column titled Back to the Dark Ages, Professor Deborah Lipstadt addresses the SSPX controversy. Lipstadt is known for her expert testimony in the David Irving case. (Look it up!) She writes
Pope Benedict XVI has reinstated as a bishop a man who both denies the Holocaust and suggests that 9/11 was an American plot. He has done so, it is reported, in order to strengthen relations with a renegade segment of the Catholic Church. This is one of those inexplicable moves that has left many people asking "Have they no decency?" A more basic and, possibly even more appropriate question would be. "Have they no common sense?"
A number of commentators have observed that this will "complicate" Vatican-Jewish relations and will make it more difficult for Israel and the Vatican to come to an agreement about a papal visit in the near future. All this may be true, but that is an exceptionally narrow way of looking at the implications of this move. Simply put, it makes the Vatican look as if it is once again living in the most unenlightened of ages.
Holocaust denial is an explicit form of antisemitism. It has no purpose but to inculcate contempt for Jews. According to deniers Jews use the Holocaust to win the world's sympathy and, in the course of so doing, win reparations from Germany and political support for Israel. Such a charge, based as it is the imagery of money and political manipulation, hearkens back to traditional antisemitic stereotypes. Why a pope would want to give support to such a movement is baffling. More baffling, however, is why a pope would want to associate the Vatican with someone who preaches lies and manipulations of history...
...But the reinstated bishop does not just deny the Holocaust. He also claims 9/11 was staged by America as a pretext to invade Afghanistan. The linkage between the two sets of denial is, of course, not happenstance. Basic to 9/11 denial is the charge that four thousand Jewish workers in the World Trade Center were warned to stay home that day. In fact, about 500 Jews were among the victims. That is over 15% of the total, a number consistent with the Jewish population of the New York metropolitan area. Moreover, how could so m
any people be told anything and thousands more not hear about it?In short, both these claims are not just malicious forms of antisemitism but they are completely illogical.
They would be laughable were it not for the tragedies they address. In embracing Bishop [Richard] Williamson, the Vatican has done far more than set back Vatican/Jewish relations. It has made itself look like it is living in the darkest of ages. One awaits a pronouncement that it is heresy to believe that the earth revolves around the sun--or didn't the Vatican already once do that?"
[pictured: A common Christian accusation against medieval European Jews - Host Desecration. This entailed sticking knives or sticks into communion wafers as a symbol of their supposed hatred for Christianity.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
