Amusing Amazon Anabaptist Review

Quite goofy - an Amazon review (note, not a user review, but an actual Amazon review) of a book on the history of the Anabaptists:

A trenchant analysis of modern psychology--an enterprise that Paul Vitz maintains has become a religion, a secular cult of self, now part of the problem of modern life rather than part of its resolution. Virtually rewritten, this second edition of the original 1977 text takes into account much of what has happened in the field of psychology during the past seventeen years. Two completely new chapters are also included--one on education and "values clarification" and the other on New Age religion.

"Values clarification"? Modern psychology? I could be missing my mark here, but this is an otherwise known aspect of the Anabaptist (although maybe they did play "lifeboat" scenarios to determine which one got out of the boat... perhaps the guy with the shortest beard?)

Deuteronomy 24:5

Deuteronomy 24:5 is an interesting text:

"If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married."

So in other words, the Mosaic law makes it clear that when a man has just gotten married, he shouldn't go off to war. This came to mind recently as we have friends with a daughter that just married some military guy, and shortly after the wedding he was shipped off overseas for a year. Man, that has to stink for a large number of reasons...

The two or three people that read this blog know that I hold to an unpopular view that Christians should never wield the sword, especially in terms of military service, which makes this old Mosaic law all that much more important. Its fascinating to me that, in this pre-new covenant era (the Mosaic dispensation if you like) when Israelite war with enemy nations was common place, there was still a concession to say, basically, "Whoa, wait, you just got married? Are you nuts!? You aren't going off to war... you've got a new wife, you goober!"

Even during this harsh, wilderness time of warfare, even Moses took into account the need for newly-weds to spend time together. Shame that military Christians don't have the same respect for this old law today as well. I'm no legalist, but when reading the OT I do appreciate that there are core truths and ideas that can be gleaned from the law. We aren't obligated to the law anymore, but rather as believers freed by grace, the law should be a joy for us to dig into, to research, and to finding understanding what the key truth of the particular law or regulation was. In this case, it's common sense for anyone bound and determined to go off and kill. Before you do, take some time to be with your wife. Might be one of the most common sense laws of the OT.

Cracker Barrel Cigarette Cancer

Went to Cracker Barrel the other day, and standing at the only door that you can go into was an old, overweight guy, smoking. Basically blowing his smoke all over the place, so that before you could get into the restaurant, you had to walk through his stink. This isn't the first time I've encountered this type of thing: yesterday, going into the grocery store, there's a guy right at the entrance, blowing his smoke around. And a year ago, I remember going into the HOSPITAL ENTRANCE and there was some guy, right at the door, blowing his smoke around. What is wrong with people?

I stopped to really think about the inconsiderate nature of people who smoke in public - particularly those who smoke and blow there smoke specifically where people NEED to walk, essentially blowing cancer in a placement that cannot be avoided, and it led me to the following conclusion:

People who smoke in places that other non-smokers need to travel hate other people.

But knowing that people don't like to stop their bad habits, the most civil approach would be the following:

- If a person wants to smoke in their own home with the windows and doors closed, fine.
- If they want to smoke alone in their car with the windows closed, fine.
- If they want to do as my neighbor does and just sit in the garage and smoke, fine (but he should close his garage door)

But to smoke in areas where people walk is just plain rude. And disgusting. And hateful.
I would love to see law enforcement crack down on this, but of course, they won't. Just like the noise of Harleys and booming car stereos, public smoking is a noxious behavior that the law just shrugs it's collective shoulders about. "Deafening people with noise? Who cares! Sharing cancer and disease? why not!"

Now it goes without saying that a Christian should NOT smoke. Self-destructive behavior like this is definitely sinful, and Scripture teaches that Christians should take care of their earthly bodies and not destroy them. Consider the following:

"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body," (1 Cor. 6:19-20)

How can you honor God by breathing cancer into your lungs, and by killing others with that same cancerous smoke? You can't.

Restaurants and businesses take note: if you let people stand around smoking at your entrances, I will be more prone to AVOID your businesses. Walmart and grocery stores, listen up: when you let your employees smoke at your entrances, you make me want to go somewhere else to get my stuff. And even hospitals: you set a TERRIBLE model by letting people smoke at your entrances. No-smoke-zones for patients to enter the hospital is something that you should ENFORCE, not just put stupid signs up that illiterate smokers ignore. Perish the thought someone with breathing problems needs to walk into a hospital and has to walk through someone's smoke. You've got hospital security - why not put them to use enforcing non-smoking policies at entrances?

It feels like living in the dark ages sometimes.

Pirates of the Caribbean RCT3 Mod

A very-well crafted reconstruction of the Pirates of the Caribbean ride. A tad dark, but a nice attention to detail and, thankfully, no Johnny Depp in the ride either. Oh, to have the free time again to make mods like this...

Responding to an Anti-Anti-Vasectomy Site

Here's a letter I wrote to an anti-anti-vasectomy site, responding to this site, that I doubt will see print, so posting it here instead.

Hey, I doubt my email will see print, but I'll write and send it anyway just for the therapeutic effect it gives me.

Bottom line: seriously, the entirety of your 'response' site sounds like pharmaceutical propaganda, but in this case, Big Urology propaganda. My unfounded-yet-likely suspicion: enough prominent urologists are talking together one day over beers, lamenting their profits affected by Kevin Hauber's site (or perhaps doctors find themselves getting far too many pestering questions thanks to his site) so -- enough is enough! -- break out the propaganda machine! Pool funds and get a professional, "medical sounding"-response site together, and get it out there, with the same efficiency of the vaccine industry getting the counter-autism propaganda online (only the top pro-vax articles seem to get the top search engine hits!) Urologists scramble, assemble funds, perhaps a call made to an ivy-league buddy or two, and the big money comes rolling in for a professional-looking, objective-sounding website ("be sure to include text like 'no book to sell' so that no one will suspect any ulterior motives to this site...")

But seriously, the polish used to refute Kevin's documentation seemed strained: using tactics such as marginalize the studies that support chronic issues and dismiss everything else in a cheerful ad homonym wave, and do what you can to steer around and away from the chronic page issue. Make his site as fringy and anecdotal-sounding as possible. Let's stamp out his documentation and research with our impressive-sounding, big-budget research. Chronic pain.... let's make this sound minor, dismissive, something to elicit the collective shrugging of shoulders, and let's watch the business come flooding back in again. Besides, EVERYONE takes a pain-killer when they first wake up, right, so why not someone damaged by a vasectomy?

If you think about it, vasectomies probably mark the singular reason a man would go to a urologist in the first place. So if there is skepticism of the safety of this procedure, you take away from that business, and what else would there be to give urologists business? A periodic, rare health issue with the reproductive organ? No, I see the big picture going on here. A well-played counter-move by a not-so-well-meaning group of urologists who need business.

But for what it's worth, frankly, it's not just Kevin Hauber's site that has dissuaded me from ever getting my manhood components mutilated, nor does it have anything specifically to do with philosophical or religious purposes. For me, it's all about cold, clear reason. If there is an elective operation that could potentially cause, no matter how small the likelihood, chronic pain in the region of my manhood, for every day for the rest of my natural life, then there is no way on earth would I get this operation. The other side-effect stuff that Kevin lists, that the anti-anti-vasectomy folks like trashing the research of, is secondary: I'm more concerned about the lingering, ongoing pain. My heart goes out to any guy who got the operation, experienced endless pain as a result, then when questioning the doctor received little more than a pain-killer prescription and a shrug. If there's the prospect of pain, then there's no possibility of getting this operation for me. At least with a barrier, I don't have to fear living each day with pain for the rest of my life.

Rational Neo

Al Mohler and 'Can Christians Use Birth Control?'?

Mohler's article on Christians using birth control. Worth reading, but a couple things missing. Why no mention of sexual sterilization, such as vasectomy, which EVERY man in the church seems to get these days after two children. I mean, Mohler makes this point:

"Therefore, Christians may make careful and discriminating use of proper technologies, but must never buy into the contraceptive mentality. We can never see children as problems to be avoided, but always as gifts to be welcomed and received."

Erm, right... but 2-3 gifts are enough, then let's just "return" the rest of those gifts, I suppose. If children are gifts, then why do so many men take the initiative to mutilate their genitals surgically to avoid more than a very small number of gifts? It's disheartening to me when I read the works of a seminary professor or evangelical leader that I really respect, but then in the profile blurb in their book it mentions that they have just one or two children.... or no mention of children at all. Why isn't this more foundational and important to them?

If an evangelical writer is going to address birth control, he needs to address not only the disregard that Christians seem to have for children today, but also the blase attitude they have to going to a creepy doctor to have their bodies willingly mutilated without fear of

Some sort of strange tournament...

Just found this old tournament diagram and I honestly have no idea where I was going with this...

No More Dell Computers for Me

So after a mere 4 years, my Dell desktop has decided to go haywire. In the short span I've had this goofy box, I've had to reinstall the OS a couple times and swap out the CD-ROM drive. Both of my USB ports don't work anymore, and I can no longer get the Dell to communicate with the Printer (and I'm usually pretty good at this sort of thing, digging around online to find answers to common problems like this.)

The Dell just seems to be prematurely dying for no apparent reason (and I don't even do that much with it: internet, word processing, Photoshop and the occasional video game, but nothing that should be giving this computer such a heart attack like this!) What's even more frustrating about this Dell is their customer support. Dell apparently has this all done 100% in India now, and, with respect to my Indian pals overseas, let me just say that, you are some nice people on the phone, but I just have a very hard time understanding that heavy Hindi accent, that critically missing English nuance and inflection, that strange tendency to inter-swap "D" sounds with "Z" sounds, etc, etc. Nice folks I'm sure, but I spend a half hour explaining to you that the network card in the Dell isn't working and I really don't think you have a clue what I'm talking about.

There's also, I don't know, a condescending edge to the responses. With the Indian person it's like, "Oh, you silly person, don't you know how to do anything?" Well, yeah, I do, but do you think I'd be calling if I hadn't already done most of the leg-work myself? Just send me a replacement part and let's end this call, kay?

As an aside, I love 100% American call centers. No matter how surly the person on the phone is, at least I feel like they understand what I'm saying, even if they don't care one way or the other. Some of the best call center folks I know of are at Discover card (and friendly they should be, as I've likely paid all of their income with my credit card interest!) There are some not-so-friendly call centers in the US, sure, and I could go off on that in another post, but I'd prefer to get this any day of the week instead of my call getting shipped offshore.



With the US, if you get a grouchy person, you can always ask for a manager, and generally (not always) get a more sympathetic manager to straighten things out. With India, if you ask for a manager, you get someone equally as muddled and just as difficult to communicate with (I'm speaking from experience here, sadly.)

Anyhow, no more Dells for me. If Dell's are anything like the one I bought, they drop parts and fall apart with the tenacity of a 1985 Ford LTD.

Germany and Circumcision

Interesting article from BBC on Germany banning circumcision. For what it's worth, I'm a Christian who is decidedly against circumcising, because I firmly believe that if you're a Christian who still circumcises your sons that you don't understand the gospel (or the book of Galatians, for that matter.) There is NO Scriptural evidence AT ALL to support this practice for Christians this side of the cross, and those who decide to do so to their children are practicing a strange, cult-like works-orientation to their faith, the type of thing that the Apostle Paul criticized the Judaisers about. I also have a pediatrician who, although not Christian, is not fond of circumcision, but for different reasons (and our agreement on this topic has actually opened some interesting conversations about the gospel.)

However, even though I'm against it as a gospel-believing Christian, I have no problems with folks of other religions who choose this practice. It's their decision, and they don't need a nanny state like Germany controlling them like Nazis. Oh, hey, irony...

What's the deal with Germany, anyhow? First there's this article on circumcision, then there was something else I read recently about how homeschooling is still illegal in Germany. What on earth? Do you know who it was who did away with German homeschooling in the first place? I'll give you a hint: diminutive fellow, funny little moustache, sever anger issues. Why on earth would Germany continue to practice a homeschool ban instituted by the Third Reich? I'll say this: there's no reason on earth I'd want to visit that country, let alone live there.

I don't get Germans, frankly. Two world wars in the last century alone (and what's up with that? You'd think, after the first one, they'd have figured it out that they messed up and get things right again) Personally, I think the US should have stayed out of WWII and let the Germans pound against the Soviets for a decade or so. Things would have been a LOT different, both nations would be spent and decimated, then the US could have just come in and brushed them both aside. Ah whatever. Give Germany a couple decades and given the demographic changes, it's likely to be a Muslim country anyhow.

Squinty Whistles Reborn as Ultraconservative, ESV-only, Pro-life, anti-PowerPoint Revivalist Pastor

Squinty Whistles, late 19th-century mountain man and corn bread enthusiast, has been thawed and revitalized in a secret new Mexico lab, and once he came to his senses, and sprouted a massive beard, suddenly vaulted into a calling of a revivalist pastor of a most unusual persuasion. His followers, known affectionately as "Whistletarians", have been following him as he leads a series of revival crusades across the Midwest. His key tenants include

A radical new idea to preaching: Squinty actually does the incredible... he stands up, opens the Bible, and actually TEACHES from it! No stories, no jokes, no idiotic personal reflections, no puppet shows, but he actually opens the Bible and explains it to people! An incredibly novel idea!

Also, Squinty holds to strict ESV-onlism! (Although the NASB is fine as well. KJV is cool, too. And he doesn't mind the NIV. The Message is strictly forbidden, though)

Strict credo-credible-baptist. No sprinkling water on angry, unrepentant babies, or even on smug, just-doing-it-because-youth-pastor-said-to pre-teen kids, but rather it's adult-only baptism featuring a full-submersion (for an extended 5-10 seconds to make sure the candidate is completely dunked) and only done when the baptismal candidate can make a completely credible, convincing, realistic and plausible profession of faith and genuine repentance. None of this 'unguarded baptismal' stuff.... that's just as idiotic as sprinkling water on a baby and calling it a "sacrament" (and where, Squinty wonders, is the actual word "sacrament" found in Scripture, or was that just whimsically dreamed up by some goofy Pope? It's an "ordinance", papists. Call it what it is.)

Strictly guarded (literally) elements of the Lord's Table. And when I mean strict, I mean that there's an elder standing at the table, guarding it with a tazer. And if anyone comes up who is not a church member, and has not met with the session and again provided the aforementioned genuine profession of faith, they get the loving reprimand of a 50,000 zolt zap.

Hymns alone are sung, but not the stuffy kind. The only rule is that the hymns must be completely Scriptural, and they must not contain any one word/verse that's repeated more than 10 times. Those aren't Christian hymns: those are tortuous exercises in monotonous chanting

Squinty holds to a literal, universal interpretation of Leviticus 21:5, "'They shall not make any baldness on their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards, nor make any cuts in their flesh." Squinty has a handsome head of hair, and the edges of his beard are vibrant, but most importantly, he holds to a strict antivasectometarian viewpoint, that Lev. 21:5 is saying that "cuts of their flesh" applies to the vasectomy scalpel of the urologist

Squinty also quotes from I Kings 18, regarding the priests of Baal: "So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom..." It is also the custom, he notes, that urologists slash at the vas deverens of men with swords, attempting to make them shout louder. "The priests of Baal aimed to serve a false god," observed Squinty, "no different than men today who go to urologists in order to serve their own false gods of self, indulgence, and convenience. Two kids was probably all the priests of Baal had as well."

Squinty is fiercely pro-life, and demands that all members of the church be as well. "Well, of course we are, pastor!" "And how many kids do you have?" "Well, two, of course, pastor... how else would we afford the over sized SUV and the annual Disney trip?" At this Squinty goes on an impassioned explanation of the Scriptural emphasis on the blessing of children, from Gen. 1:28 through the life of Israel and explains, clearly and slowly, that blessed is the man who fills his quiver with children, and two or three arrows in a quiver would be a pathetically lacking arsenal. He then drives home the pro-life thing: "How can you be pro-life, and yet only be pro-two lives, when you could easily have more, or easily foster care or adopt more. What, you think if you asked the church to raise up a fund to help you adopt that no one in the church would rise up to help support you in that goal? You can't say that you're TRULY pro-life unless you prove it with your actions and actually LIVE a pro-life life with lots of lives..."

Women wear head coverings in the church as well, because, as Squinty puts it, "Quit fiddling around with I Cor. 11 and making it say things it doesn't. 'Covering' isn't long hair, nor is it a wedding ring. Those are the lame Eve-style excuses whispered by pastor's wives to their husbands so that they wouldn't tell their church to do what the Bible actually says to do. Covering should be worn because it's tied to the creation order, it's done on behalf of the angels, and it goes against the proto-feministic rage of this era (aka "the spirit of the age"). Stop making excuses and do it!"

Finally, Squinty maintains that any church that incorporates PowerPoint is violating some Levitical law, but he hasn't quite pinpointed it out.

The Squinty Whistles campaign is slowly growing in momentum, and Squinty himself hopes to soon become a regular contributor of this blog, with regular messages and a handy guide to theological definitions and what not. Stay tuned!

"Clingin' to their Guns n' Bibles!"

This post at Cripplegate had me thinking that I need to publish this old-trib-times post again:

The topic above is about the American revolution, but I'm going to hone in more specifically on Christians who wield the sword, which would include Christians who would have taken up arms in a rebellion such as this one. I've written about this before, and will likely write about it more, as living in Texas, this is a topic I hear (sadly) in a lot of churches out here. Cling to you guns and your Bibles, and there's nothing wrong with being a well-armed brother in Christ, right? Hey, if someone breaks in, you've got every right to take the intruders life! No need to subdue him, or call the magistrate, or even hold him at bay until the police arrive... if he breaks in, he's dead meat, right?

But no matter how you slice (or shoot) it, the fact remains that if you are a Christian who carries a gun, and you for some reason shoot and kill a person, you are left with:

- No chance of a life transformation of the person you killed.
- No possibility of the gospel reaching them.
- Just twisted, non-christian justice from a carnal weapon.

So much for Matthew 5 and Christ's commandment to "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." What about the Christian testimony of humility, forgiveness, generosity, giving and love? How can anything in Christ's message of the beatitudes in any way be construed to give a killing loophole, premeditated or otherwise? And as a wise man once observed, how can a Christian claim to be pro-life and yet support killing another person? (and how can one claim to be pro-life if he only has 2 kids and a vasectomy?.... but that's another post for another day.)

Making exception clauses to kill for any reason puts into dangerous papist territory, of warping the love of Christ into directions of Rome's senseless violence and killing at the behest of an antichrist pope...

I read recently about some of the gun-totin' churches and it makes me more and more convinced that the Anabaptist have it right. Their Schleitheim Confession (1527) offers a section that makes perfect sense of the Christian attitude towards guns/swords/killing weapons:

"Now it will be asked by many who do not recognize (this as) the will of Christ for us, whether a Christian may or should employ the sword against the wicked for the defense and protection of the good, or for the sake of love.

Our reply is unanimously as follows: Christ teaches and commands us to learn of Him, for He is meek and lowly in heart and so shall we find rest to our souls. Also Christ says to the heathenish woman who was taken in adultery, not that one should stone her according to the Law of His Father (and yet He says, As the Father has commanded me, thus I do), but in mercy and forgiveness and warning, to sin no more. Such (an attitude) we also ought to take completely according to the rule of the ban."

Another thought is how gun-totin' Christians seem to abide by a cheap grace, that doesn't call the believer to abandon all, but you can STILL hang on to that last bit of carnality and tote a gun. Recently I've been reading Bonhoeffer's "Cost of Discipleship" and one of this continuing theme is an abandonment of all for the sake of the cross, even, potentially, your own life and security. As terrible as it sounds, if someone comes to you and wants to kill you - especially for your faith - you need to be ready to die for it. Not cling to a chunk of killing metal to destroy a foe with. Kill a man, and he dies in his unbelief. You sent him to hell with no prospect of the gospel or eternal life at all.

Maybe it would be different if someone broke into my house, and then I'd think differently, right? Or maybe, like the Apostle Paul, I make full use of my citizenship to Rome, pick up the phone, call the magistrate and have them do their job. This is still a republic, and I do render to Caesar, so perhaps I should leave the defense to the magistrate and instead focus on how I can show love and forgiveness to others, even those who might want to do me harm. I think our military and police protection is wonderful, and I pray for those who protect and serve that God has put into office. I'm just not convinced that a Christian should be in an office that could potentially mean the taking of a life.

Yeah, I'm in a minority, but as I was told years ago by a pastor, if there's something you are convicted right or wrong, verify it by weighing it against the word of God, and that is what I've done... and truthfully I can't read the Bible and see how anywhere there is any sort of instruction to carry a weapon and take a life. Jesus taught forgiving over and over. He taught compassion and care of others, never killing. Christians should not carry the carnal sword, but should instead gird themselves with the sword of the spirit, and with the love of Christ.

Martyrdom and Blood Donation

I've been reading a lot lately about the Christian martyrs of history, particularly the Anabaptists who were viciously persecuted by the Roman Catholic papists. Again and again, the historical record shows that Rome had this wickedly-satanic hatred of people who preferred a different mode of baptism as understood from Scripture, and Rome lashed out in a horrific and violent manner and would endlessly burn baptists alive. It's no wonder that the protestant confessions of the 17th century refer to the papists as antichrist, as their actions reflect that darkened designation.

Anyhow, this had me thinking about what I'd do in the same situation. Thankfully, Rome seems to have lost most of it's luster globally and has been relegated to the false, withered cult that it truly is, but what, I wonder, if true-Christian-burning Roman Catholics ever ruled the land again, and perverted the church/state line with their wickedness? What if *I* had to die by the fires of Rome, simply because I follow what the Bible teaches and practice the mode of baptism that says a person MUST BELIEVE first before receiving the ordinance?

So driving back from the city today, I was thinking about this. Being burned alive would really stink: physically and literally. But it's also horrifically wasteful of a perfectly good body. I think what I'd ask the Pope would be this: "Look, I don't intend to recant, or in any way ever acknowledge the episcopacy of the cultish Roman Catholic church, so, obviously, your wicked satanic practices direct that I need to be destroyed by burning. But instead of just burning me, how about this: just quickly lop off my head, and then collect the 2 gallons of blood in my body and give it to Gulf Coast Regional so they can use it for someone else. Then muy pronto, put my body on ice, ship it off to the lab and donate every bit and piece of me that you can to help others: be it eyes, spleen, heart, lungs, tonsils, whatever. Burning me up would be a waste, as I'm in pretty good shape, and I'm willing to be a martyr, but at least help some other people out in the process."

The papal magistrates might comply with this, and at least it would be a semi-useful termination. I mean, it would still stink to be martyred by the grotesque, bloated, corrupted perversion of Rome, but at least the medical industry could put my blood and organs to use somewhere.

Worf Denied

I never really thought about it before when I used to watch ST:TNG, but yeah, Worf was always demanding action and combat, and Picard was always denying the request so that therre could be council meetings with the crew. I think TNG might have been a lot more exciting had the series been about Worf instead...

Shawna White

Some stupid Photoshop manipulations I did awhile ago with Shawn White, who I mistakenly thought from the Wheaties box might have been a girl at first. Some photoshop creativity makes that even more debatable...

Before...

After...

Haunted Mansion Counter-Strike map

The knife/gun in hand notwithstanding, this is pretty impressive. It's the type of pointless thing I would have wasted time building years ago with Doom. It falls a little flat around the dining room, but if you've been on the ride, this isn't a half-bad recreation (with the lights on, though.)

John Grisham's Newest Legal Thriller: "The Gavel"!

(Here's a summary of the newest John Grisham legal thriller... that doesn't actually exist, but I think would make a great book, if Grisham would be to write it...)

The story: Kyle Swift is an up-and-coming attorney at a prestigious New York law firm, who's world is about to be shaken by an unmistakably incredible case that will rock the legal profession, and the world, with tons of thrilling superlatives!

Kyle is in his office one day, doing paperwork and looking at a picture on his desk of his two children and lamenting his vasectomy, when suddenly his receptionist calls and tells him that his appointment has arrived. In walks a woman that looks remarkably like Reese Witherspoon, except that physically she's greatly withered. You see, Reese is struggling with breast cancer but, being a Christian Scientist (which is neither "Christian" nor "scientific") she has avoided all cancer medications and treatments because, you know, "it's all in her mind!"

Anyhow, she tells Kyle about her history as a director of a Planned Parenthood Killing Temple in Texas. During that time she herself had a number of surgical abortions performed, and following these disgusting surgeries she was diagnosed with breast cancer. This puzzled Reese, as she lived a very healthy lifestyle and ate nothing but organic vitamin supplements and tree bark soup. How could someone as important and healthy as she contract breast cancer? Then she started doing the research and discovered that indeed there is a medically-documented link between abortion and breast cancer, and now Reese wants to sue the Abortion Killing Temple that performed the abortion that gave her the cancer!

'Whoa', thinks Kyle. This lawsuit could be huge, and could be dangerous! Those Abortion Killers won't take nicely to this legislation. And indeed they don't! As this high-profile legal case makes the news, soon mob goons are dispatched to take Kyle out of the picture, by means of thrilling high-speed car chases, shooting guns and black-legged-dart-frog poison darts! Kyle is on the run, wearing disguises and seeking out legal documents in time for court, but will he be too late?

Soon it's time for the trial, and it's pandemonium! The Abortion Temple has bought the jury, and the trial turns ugly! The judge goes insane! And then, when things look like they can't get much worse, Judge Wapner and Doug Llewellyn show up for the trial of the century!!!

Stay turned for this gripping thriller! John Grisham, if you're reading this, I will gladly give you the rights to this book, as long as Lavender Darwin is able to make a cameo in the courtroom somewhere (perhaps as a tough yet compassionate bailiff?)

Why I will NOT buy RCA products again!!!

I just purchased an awful RCA 4 GB MP3/Video player, and I'm sorely disappointed with this device. All I want is a simple, easy-to-use MP3 player with a little capacity. This one has the space, sure, but the player is muddled to navigate, the buttons hard to work with (you have to slam at them), and each track has a massive lag between each selection (...and why doesn't the GoGear have this sort of issue, hmmm?)

So I go to RCA's website to try and find someone to contact with some tech support issues. Think I can find someone easily? Nope, the navigation of their site, to get to an actual contact form, is about as easy as obsfucated as filing a federal tax return. This player stinks, I need help, and I have no idea how to get through to a human being. Just muddled, confusing navigation. Has society become that insular, that cold, that human beings are that hard to get in contact with?

Plus what's up with the pre-loaded audio on this player? "The Golden Compass"? "Richard Dawkins?" Who chose the pre-loaded selections for this thing? Satan? Nice job with the alienating listening selections there, RCA. Your service and support is terrible, your player is a pain to use, and the samples on it are the type of stuff that belong yellowing on the back of a dusty shelf at a used book bin. You've lost my business and I will go out of my way to AVOID the RCA label from this point on.

James White and KJVO

James White is one of the finest Christian apologists that I've ever heard, and generally does a remarkable job defending the Christian faith in the debates that he's a part of. Here's a recent video of his refutation of some of the KJVO silliness that, strangely, is a view taken seriously and loudly by a number of churches in my area. In fact, next to things like pentacostalism and baptismal regeneration, this is one of the more common oddities of some of the local churches I've visited locally.

Anyhow, I enjoy James White's logic and reasoning, as well as his interjection of humor. His podcast is also worth checking out as well.



KJVO makes no sense to me as well. The idea of a double-inspired text, as if the Anglican translators somehow were inspired to craft a perfect translation, is just silly (especially considering some of the incorrect Greek translations and so on. I think Dr. White goes into detail with some of his messages.) Likewise how the KJV could be inspired doesn't give a valid answer as to what to do with the Wycliffe translation or the Bishops Bible, both of which pre-date the KJV.

But what's sad is that I've visited the website of local churches and found that when you go to their 'Beliefs' page of their site, the FIRST thing they list is that they adhere to the KJV only and that all other translations are inferior. Well, wait... WHY would that be so important that it would take precedence over the church belief about God, Jesus Christ, the Trinity, etc? It's almost like a scary, cult-like devotion to one translation that, to be honest, is a secondary issue to much more important tennants of the Christian faith.