Good stuff from Eric over at Between the Trees:
Being a son in the biblical sense always means obedience because we are representing our father, but it is also always obedience “because” rather than obedience “in order to”. Because we are beloved children, we should live like sons and daughters. But the first part of the equation is established by the God who adopts us. The papers were written up before eternity began and signed at the cross and empty tomb. You can’t make God more of your Father, ever, in any way. But you can live more like one of His children.
The first time we had a bat in our house back in November, I didn't know what to do. So, I called Animal Control and they came and solved my problem for me. Round 1 goes to the bats.
As I told this story among numerous friends, I was repeatedly admonished (mocked?) for not handling The Bat myself. Some suggested grabbing it through a bath towel, others recommended hitting it with a racket of some sort, or even opening the front door and waiting for it to fly out on its own.
So, at 4:11 a.m. on Sunday morning, after having been awoken by a bit of thunder, I looked up at the ceiling and saw something circling the fan. About this same time, Amanda started elbowing me and saying/whispering "There's a bat. There's a bat. There's A BAT!" She pulled the covers up over her head as I jumped to my feet and headed into battle. My friend Scott is fond of saying "You can only do what you are prepared to do", and in light of the last confrontation I was prepared to settle things with something other than my cell phone. I headed for the basement, closing the hallway door on my way in order to keep it confined to that "wing" of the house. I grabbed the tennis racket and headed back upstairs.
With all of the lights now on, I looked around our room and in our closet. Nothing. I moved on to the bathroom, sure that the winged beast would spring out from behind the shower curtain like so many movie monsters before him. Wrong again. Amanda had mentioned that she heard Tess fuss a minute before, but I thought it unlikely that Mr. Bat would have found his way into her room because the door was closed. While I was trying to figure all of this out, I looked at the space between her door and the floor just in time to see the bat crawl (yes, crawl) out from under her door. Instinct took over as I swiftly brought the racket of justice to bear on the flying rodent that had invaded my home.
Bats: 1
Wittmanns: 1
I snapped a quick picture with my camera phone, and then placed the carcass in a ziplock bag so Animal Control could send it to K State for rabies tests. We looked Tess over for bites and didn't find any, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to have it tested anyway.
Sorry, it's a little fuzzy, but it was taken with a camera phone at 4:30 in the morning.
It's obvious (even to Obamaniacs who happen to be Christians) that Barrack cares very little for the littlest "least of these", considering his impeccable pro-choice record. But, they tell us, Obama's their guy because he really, really, really cares about the poor. I mean, really.
And that John McCain guy? Ha! If he's president, we'll probably end up drilling through homeless shelters so we can find more precious oil. Right?
Not when you look at the facts (another problem for many Obamaniacs, I know.). If you haven't yet, you need to compare tax returns from the two candidates (Obama, McCain)1.
In all but the two most recent years reported, the Obamas gave around 1% or less of their income to charity. Their contributions increased in 2005 and 2006 to 4.7% and 6.1% respectively, but still are far short of those of McCain who gave 28.6% in 2006 and 27.3% in 2007.
This is, of course, consistent with the general trend of conservatives out-giving liberals. According to Arthur C. Brooks' book Who Really Cares (cited by George Will),
- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George W. Bush.
- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
Or, to paraphrase in Pyromaniacs style,
If your idea of charity is raising taxes so the government can care for the poor so you don't have to, then Barry's your guy. It's just that I don't think that's what Jesus had in mind in Matthew 25.
Amanda and I finally got around to watching an abbreviated (52 min.) version of the Opening Ceremonies from the Bird's Nest in Beijing. What we saw was pretty amazing, and I don't think I've ever seen anything like that before. It was easy to get sucked into the beauty and orchestration of the whole presentation. One thing the announcers kept bringing up was how progressive China has become, and how we are moving into a new era of Chinese freedom and openness.
The folks of Vision Beyond Borders might not agree with that assessment, not after they had 300 Bibles confiscated from their luggage after arriving in China. No reason was given for the confiscation, but the author of the article notes that China's communist government "is worried that if the spread of religion goes unchecked, believers might ultimately challenge the Communist Party's authority."
Frankly, stealing a few hundred Bibles pales in comparison to some of the other acts of persecution perpetrated by the Chinese government. No matter how flashy their new stadiums are, or how smog-free they can get their skies for a couple of weeks, we should not be fooled into believing that this China is anything different than what it's been for the past century.
We should be impressed by what is going on in China; not by the glitter and charm of the Olympic games, but by the apparent revival taking place there. By some estimates, there are more Christians in China now than in the United States, to say nothing of the difference between nominal and faithful believers. Historically, we have seen again and again that persecution only accelerates the advance of God's Kingdom on Earth. While this reality should not lessen our concern for the persecuted saints in China, it should remind us that it is God who builds his church, and that his purposes cannot be thwarted. While it is impressive to assemble 2,000+ plus drummers drumming away in sync, it is even more impressive that God continues to call millions of Chinese together to faithfully worship him despite the threat of harm to them and their families.
From Fox News: Report: Elizabeth Edwards Was in Anguish Over Husband's Affair
Really? Finding out her husband was unfaithful while she was fighting incurable cancer caused her anguish? Now *that* is some fine journalism.
You should have known better. Americans don't respond well to taunting, especially from a guy named Alain. As it turns out, it was the Americans who did the smashing, both of the world record and your inflated French egos.
I can't tell you how much fun it was watching Jason Lezak chase down your arrogant anchorman, 7 years his junior, and touch the wall ahead of him. To quote Ricky Bobby, another American who raced against an over-hyped Frenchman, "If you're not first, you're last." Let that be a lesson to you.
Sincerely,
The U.S. of A.
There's quite a furor over on Gary's recently resurrected blog about whether or not a "serious Christian" can, in good conscience, vote for Barack Obama. I've asked this question myself, and even if I hadn't you could probably guess how I would answer it. That's not ground I wish to cover again today.
What is interesting to me is the way that this debate seems to get framed among "serious Christians" who are rightly concerned with having a consistent ethic of human life, as it is often called. God certainly cares about the unborn child, but doesn't he also care about the poor, the destitute, the oppressed? Well, folks, you can't read through Matthew 25 without concluding that yes, God most certainly cares about the oppressed, and he will judge his people for how they care for them. Let's all agree that a passage that includes a "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire…" statement should be central to how we understand God's universe. I, personally, am ashamed of how little regard I have for the well being of the poor in my own city, not to mention those around the world. We, as Christians in the U.S., need to do a better job of this. No argument there.
Here's where I start to disagree. Can anybody really argue that the issues of abortion and neglecting the poor are on the same plane? We should take Jesus seriously when he says that when he was hungry, we gave him nothing to eat because "as you did not do it to one of the least of these…". That much is clear. But, is it much of a leap to also assume that when a doctor jams a pair of surgical scissors into the head of a child, there are some "least of these" issues involved as well? I've heard the argument for choosing the lesser of two evils, but it's hard for me to think of a list on which government-sponsored infanticide is not quite as bad as X. Jesus cares about hungry folks, but he also cares quite a bit about babies.
Secondly, this argument assumes that a vote for a Democratic president is a vote for fighting poverty. I don't think I'm quite ready to concede this point. We've had decades of the government-sponsored "War on Poverty," and things don't seem to be turning around. To use familiar terms, we're in a quagmire with no exit strategy. We have thrown billions upon billions of dollars at social programs of all shapes and sizes, and for what? Have they worked? No. Not even close. So, is the answer that we need *more* of these types of programs? Probably not.
So, before I'm going to buy the "McCain cares about babies, but Obama cares about the poor" argument, I'm going to need some proof that Barack really is the best choice if we want a leader who cares "for the least of these" as we ought to. At this point, I'm not seeing it.
The first was...
RSS 2.0
