Since Rock and Roll is clearly responsible for musical atrocities such as Milli Vanilli, N*Sync, and the Jonas Brothers, cautious and pious Christians everywhere declined to pick up the proverbial axe when Guitar Hero I came to video-game console systems. They sniffed at the temptation of Guitar Hero II. They refused Guitar Hero III. And they despised the organized, collective sin of Rock Band (PS3, X360: “in stores now!”) But now, finally, now Guitar Praise has come along.
Cherub-like, nimble fingers everywhere are clamoring to perform: Jesus style.
Guitar Praise: “Because Sometimes People Just Have to See How Good You Are”
Our book group recently finished discussing Paradise Lost by John Milton. It was a fascinating read on many levels. One discussion thread that repeated itself was the issue of problems that arise when God is in the cast of characters.
Any time you set about to describe the ways of God to man in a story, film, hymn, poem or whatever, you inherit some problems. Since God can’t be completely comprehended, he cannot be fully communicated. That’s why metaphors in hymns/songs and descriptions in stories can be confusing; they simply cannot show all of God or even a complete picture of a single attribute. Any of these must be hung against the backdrop of Scripture to be judged as consistent/accurate relating to God.
In the case of Milton, his purpose was, in his words, to “justify the ways of God to man”… Well, the 8-ball is cast directly in front of Milton, as the assumption is that Milton knows God’s ways and can communicate them. Taken to conclusion, this could, in some minds, eliminate or diminish the role of Scripture in the Christian’s life. Granted it was in the late 1600s when Milton wrote and people were learning to read and acquiring their own copies of Scripture (en masse) for the first time. So, I understand the didactic concept involved in culture.
While I tend to see what Milton wrote as generally more consistent with, and reverential of, Scripture, the problem he has is the same one that modern film & novel writers have:
“What would God say in situation X?” Since humans are doing the writing, they fill in the blanks of God’s verbage.
Even as cautious as Milton was, there are many questions in his work. However, looking at portrayals of God by George Burns, Morgan Freeman, etc. and the pithy little black & white Quotation by God books & billboards- I’ll take Milton.
There’s often a problem whenever someone says “God told me……” in a real life, experiential situation.
The problem is a different one, but just as real and sometimes more powerful when someone says in print or in character: “God said….”
Barack Obama has an ego problem. Remember his own presidential seal? McCain has even ridiculed Obama’s messiah complex in his ad “The One” which I linked earlier.
Now, if you were Obama, and were being ridiculed by your opponent (to some effect) for having too high an opinion of yourself, what type of stage would you construct for yourself for delivery of your acceptance speech?
Naturally, a Greek temple. I kid you not:
McCain’s campaign, when they first heard of this, suspected it was from the Onion.
But, politics is stranger than that, and apparently Obama’s ego really is that big. That sound you hear is digging at the bottom of the hole.
According to Ed Morrisey at Hot Air, Mike Huckabee, during a recent interview, criticized Mitt Romney for not ignoring a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage when Romney was governor. Huckabee essentially argues that Romney would have been within rights to simply disregard that decision.
We’ve had some experience with elected officials ignoring court orders here in Alabama. Perhaps Gov. Huckabee should get himself to a computer and google the names “George Wallace” and “Roy Moore.”
The Riverwood Book Group has been reading (and discussing) John Milton’s fabulous Paradise Lost for the past few weeks. We have found much to agree (and disagree) with in Milton’s telling of the fall of Satan, of Creaion, of original sin, and of expulsion from paradise, but we all agree that Milton’s epic is incredibly powerful. On this dreary, rainy afternoon, I was reading Book XI and I came to another stunning passage.
The archangel, Michael, has come to Eden after the Fall to tell Adam and Eve that they are to be expelled from Eden because of their sin. Adam is taken to a high mountain, (Milton describes it as the one upon which Jesus will be tempted,) and he is shown the future, the results of sin. He sees murder and war, and then he sees the myriad of diseases and ailments from which man will die and the horror that accompanies that death. The conclusion of the section is as follows:
Dire was the tossing, deep the groans; Despair
Tended the sick, busiest from couch to couch;
And over them triumphant death, his dart
Shook, but delay'd to strike, though oft invok'd
With vows, as their chief good, and final hope
Sight so deform, what heart of rock could long
Dry-eyed behold? Adam could not, but wept....
We, as Christians, are always aware of the Lord bearing in His body the punishment for our sins, but we seldom think of the stupendous cost of sin on all of humanity, including ourselves. Riverwood has dealt with death through much of this year, and as we dealt with it, we came to see at first hand the pain, the horror, the savagery, the very stink of it in our nostrils.What a cost sin, the curse we carry, extracts. What a wonder it will be when we reach the day where there is not only any death, but there is no sin, the father of death.
Perhaps the only thing that grates on my nerves more than the Carrie Nation types are the food police - you know, those folks that are desperately afraid that somebody, somewhere is enjoying their food. Now, I don’t want anyone to hear what I’m not saying. I don’t think that anybody should eat junk food all the time. However, having a delicious treat now and again is one of the true pleasures of life.
What brings this all up is the decision of Michael Phelps to endorse Frosted Flakes instead of Wheaties. I know, I know, who cares, right? Well, folks like Rebecca Solomon apparently do:
I would not consider Frosted Flakes the food of an Olympian,” said nutritionist Rebecca Solomon of Mount Sinai Medical Center. “I would rather see him promoting Fiber One. I would rather see him promoting oatmeal. I would even rather see him promoting Cheerios.”
Get that mental image: Michael Phelps on the box cover of Fiber One.
Why are some people so downright scared of freedom? If you don’t like Frosted Flakes, don’t eat it or give it to your kids, Micheal Phelps notwithstanding. On the other hand, lots of folks (yours truly included) enjoy Frosted Flakes with or without Mr. Phelps’s picture on the box.
But to shame him as some sort of traitor to proper nutrition for his endorsement deal? Gimme a break. With all due respect, Ms. Solomon and her ilk need to chill out.
This really came as something of a shock to me. Apparently a group of presidents of some prominent universities have dared to suggest that the drinking age be LOWERED back to 18. Read the whole story here.
The group makes what I consider to be the blazingly obvious point that putting alcohol out of the legal reach of the 18-20 year olds at universities has NOT stopped their drinking, but merely forced it underground, where truly idiotic behaviors like funneling flourish.
Apparently, however, not all university presidents who were approached agreed to sign on. Donna Shalala, former Clinton administration Secretary of Health and Human Services, now president of the University of Miami, is quoted in the article as opposing the initiative:
“I remember college campuses when we had 18-year-old drinking ages, and I honestly believe we’ve made some progress,” Ms. Shalala said in a telephone interview. “To just shift it back down to the high schools makes no sense at all.”
She believes that they’ve made “some progress.” Really. Wow, that’s inspiring. And contradictory of every report I’ve seen on campus drinking in the past 20 years.
I cannot for the life of me understand the knee-jerk nanny state opposition to letting a person that the law considers an adult have a beer. I mean, we let 16 year olds drive - far more lethal than a beer. But yet drinking must be reserved for age 21. It’s completely backwards and totally illogical. If anything, the drinking age should be 16 and the driving age 18.
I wish this group of university presidents the very best. They are taking on the ultimate issue of political correctness in America. I wish them well.
Here’s a story about a Baptist church in Florida who has a member who won $6 million in the Florida lottery. The member then wanted to tithe and contribute $600,000 from the winnings. The pastor rejected the money.
My first reaction is that this is silly legalism of the worst kind. I don’t see how playing the lottery occasionally is any worse than buying a raffle ticket - something no one blinks at, morally speaking.
I have reread this thing several times, and I can’t get over two things. First, are there really that many Muslims in Shelbyville, Tennessee? And working at a poultry plant?
But, more importantly, what’s so mind boggling about this is that a LABOR UNION has voted to ditch LABOR DAY as a paid holiday!! That it’s ditched for some far-flung religious holiday is just icing on the cake.
If you have time, one of his most interesting books is a memoir of his literary work called The Oak & the Calf. I’m not sure it’s still in print, I listened to it on Audible last year and found it to be extremely intriguing.
If you’re sick of reading my posts bemoaning the fact that we don’t teach logic anymore, then you probably should skip this one. For those of you brave enough to read on, I offer the following as a quiz. Yesterday Senator Obama gave a major speech on his energy policy. As summarized by the outstanding Politico website, below are the three main points. The quiz is to see if you can identify the flaw(s) in the logic of the plan.
The three main components of Obama’s plan are:
— Get 1 million 150 mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrids on U.S. roads within six years.
— Require that 10 percent of U.S. energy comes from renewable sources by the end of his first term – more than double the current level.
—Reduce U.S. demand for electricity 15 percent by 2020.
Got that? We’re going to ADD 1 million plug-in vehicles to the electricity grid, yet REDUCE demand for electricity by 15%. Obviously, these two goals are facially contradictory. But it’s really worse. Even without the increased load that all these plug-ins would add, demand for electricity is constantly increasing, for (what ought to be) fairly straightforward reasons: the population is ever increasing, we constantly add new electric gadgets to our lives, etc. Without major changes to the way we live, how exactly can demand be expected to decrease?
Let’s take this debate a step further, shall we? Leaving aside adding 1M new plug-ins, given that we live in a (relatively) free economy, how, exactly, will the government achieve a goal of reducing the demand for electricity 15%, when the vast, vast majority of electricity is consumed by the private sector?
But the final flaw in the logic is this: why is there a need to reduce electrical demand by 15%? What’s really wrong with electricity in and of itself? After all, he’s advocating plug-in vehicles!! Isn’t the real issue with electricity how it’s generated? There was an article recently about a possible breakthrough in solar energy technology by researchers at MIT, which, if it pans out, could provide vast amounts of energy with no pollution and no C02. You can read about that here. If we could generate electricity that way, why reduce its consumption?
It blows me away that a howler like this can get past the layers and layers of speechwriters, advisers, etc., that typically accompany a presidential campaign. The question is, though, (aside from nerds like me) does anyone notice, and if they do, do they care?
