Merry Day After Christmas!

What's that?  Did I just hear a thousand splutters at reading the title of this post (okay, okay, after not posting for a little over 11 months, it's probably closer to 2 or 3 splutters, if that)?  Certainly, there must be some kind of mistake here.  After all, what kind of Christian wishes people a Merry DAY AFTER Christmas rather than a Merry Christmas?  I mean (and here I am speaking for my imaginary reader of this post rather than for myself), isn't Christmas the holy, special, and/or important day?  Thus, at the risk of alienating readers that still might be lurking, I present a few reasons why today shouldn't be any less merrier than yesterday:
1) Everybody, sing along:
This is the day this is the day...
That the Lord has made that the Lord has made...
We will rejoice we wil rejoice...
And be glad in it.   and be glad in it.
(Together) This is the day that the Lord has made....

Huh, wuzzat?  You say that's a verse in the bible?  Well, just who do those biblical writers think they are- taking a perfectly good song and trying to turn it into one of them there psalm thingies?  But anyway, this is the day that Lord hath made.  That's not to say that yesterday wasn't also the day that the Lord haddeth madeth, but that today is no less a day that He hath made than yesterday.  And therefore we should equally be glad and rejoice in it.  In a similar vein, we Christians are commanded to "rejoice evermore" and to "pray without ceasing" (as far as I know, neither of these phrases are featured in any current Christian songs, so I suppose I have no objections to the biblical writers using them), which would seem to include days other than just those that are holy, special, or otherwise important.
2) But, I can imagine some people complaining, how can I rejoice when I didn't receive [insert desired item(s) here] for Christmas?  To which I respond, I didn't receive even one gift due to financial difficulties (a situation for which a remedy might be found in the near future, but that's neither here nor there at the moment).  Let me restate that: I didn't receive any material presents, yet I did get (or at least continued to get) some far better ones.  Such as the gift of another day of life, without which any material gift that I might have received would be worthless to me.  Furthermore, I remained in God's grace, a gift to cherish long after I would any material gift.
3) Then there's that whole question about whether Jesus was really born on December 25.  Not that I'm going to go all legalistic over those who celebrate Christmas.  However, there is no biblical mandate to treat it as a more holy, special, or otherwise important day than any other.

So have yourself a Merry Little Day After Christmas [*spoiler alert*]... and a Happy New Year!

The 3-ton elephant in the federal deficit discussion room

Amplify’d from humor with a point « Don't Stop Believing [View this Amp}

Jonathan Shelley forwarded this satirical look at our national debt. It’s only three minutes long, and be sure you watch it all the way to the end.

As I allude to in my response, the federal deficit, like the weather, is something almost everyone talks about, but no one does anything about:

However helpful videos such as this may be in making people aware of the deficit problem, it falls short in that it offers no solutions. What gets left unsaid is while most people admit that we need to reduce the federal deficit, very few are willing to sacrifice his or her own personal sacred cow to do so. It's fairly easy and popular to blame the rich, the poor, the politicians, any multitudes of "them" come to mind here, just as long as it's someone other than ourselves.
I'm not disagreeing with the video that something needs to be done, just pointing out that doesn't really get us any closer to a solution.

Irony; or, how the most insightful comment I've read applicable to the "Occupy Wall Street:" movement wasn't written about OWS

Changing the story | Tales of a Sojourner

What is needed is not an increase in wealth, or structural social changes so that the poor can participate in the religion of consumerism. What is needed is a change of religion.
People need to know they are valuable, not on the basis of what they own, or what they do, but on the basis of their humanity. Meaning, dignity and beauty are their birthright, not something they have to purchase on the way [emphasis added].

Sorry about the delay in the publishing of this post, but I've got to keep my priorities straight, like making sure I add this lady's blog to my Hand-Pict Links (they're on the right sidebar for those who might not have noticed them) and adding her RSS feed to my reader.  The only "complaint" that I have about the blog is she doesn't post often enough =oP.  But it's definitely a case of quality over quantity, so I suppose I just might be able to find it in my heart to forgive her, especially since this post gets to the heart of two of the major themes I've mentioned in this blog: 1) greed is not good; and, 2) government can't fix it, since it's a social/spiritual problem rather than a legal problem.

Not a bad scripture reference [the comment above mine posted Judges 21:25], but another one that comes to mind is Hosea 8:7- "For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind...." I can remember back in the 1980's when the whole "greed is good" movement began (at least, here in the U.S. I'm not sure whether it over took hold over there in England, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did). What is being acted out here, I believe, is the bitter fruit of this bad seed. If greed is good, yet "my" economic circumstances prevent "me" from participating in its blessings, then one of two things must be true:
1) there is something wrong with "me" ("I'm" not deserving of such "blessings"); or,
2) there is something wrong with the "system" (there is something or someone out there that is keeping "me" from obtaining such "blessings").
(A couple of quick comments here: first, each seems devastating, albeit in different ways: the former, individually and the latter, socially, and second, even worse, there are probably those who somehow accept both conclusions or at least waver between them).
Alnd yet, we have only begun to scratch the surface of the damage caused by greed, for we have yet to examine that done by its main tenet: that things are more important than people.
BTW, I love the line "What is needed is not an increase in wealth, or structural social changes so that the poor can participate in the religion of consumerism. What is needed is a change of religion." I hope you don't mind if I go a'borrowing it, as it seems just as an appropriate response to the "Occupy Wall Street" movement as it does to the England riots.other than the tragic fruit of this bad seed. If greed is good, yet "my" economic circumstances prevent me from participating in its blessings, then one of two things must be true:
1) there is something wrong with "me" ("I'm" not deserving of such "blessings"); or,
2) there is something wrong with the "system" (there is something or someone out there that is keeping "me" from obtaining such "blessings").
(A couple of quick comments here: first, each seems devastating, albeit in different ways: the former, individually and the latter, socially, and second, even worse, there are probably those who somehow accept both conclusions or at least waver between them).
Alnd yet, we have only begun to scratch the surface of the damage caused by greed, for we have yet to examine that done by its main tenet: that things are more important than people.
BTW, I love the line "What is needed is not an increase in wealth, or structural social changes so that the poor can participate in the religion of consumerism. What is needed is a change of religion." I hope you don't mind if I go a'borrowing it, as it seems just as an appropriate response to the "Occupy Wall Street" movement as it does to the England riots.

Deof Movestofca's Grand Web Tour #1: 20 links in 56 days

Note: the following first appeared on the "¤ Deof Movestofca's Web Tour ¤" static page, but were moved here to keep it from getting overloaded with links.

Proud Fundamentalist makes observations similar to my posts in my "Myths about Fundamentalists" series, but from a different angle

Bumper Sticker Christianity A fairly good assessment of "minimalistic" Christianity.

Deeper Issues Behind the Same-Sex Marriage Discussion The main issue, as I write in response to the article, is whether marriage is a God-made or man-made institution.

John Piper: I Was Racist | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction I find myself agreeing with some of what Piper says and disagreeing with other statements of his.  In this case (an excerpt of an article by [about?] him that appears to have been printed in Christianity Today), I find his writing to be too muddled to know whether I agree with him or not.  Perhaps he becomes clearer as the article progresses, in which case I might be doing his writing a bit of a disservice here.  From the excerpt itself, however, I couldn't find any indication of what specific point he was trying to make in the article.

Argument Poor, Make Fun of the Opposition add a side of appeal to ridicule with that bacon.

The Problem of Evil: Lesson 03 While the lessons over all are good, I disagree with many of the author's objections to the free will defense.

The Problem of Evil: Lesson 04 So does the author agree with free will or not?

Oh no! My wife’s coming home Well, not my wife, rather that of the author (who makes a very good analogy between cleaning house physically and cleaning house spiritually) of the post

Recall Notice A bit of humor over at TWeb

Why Won't God Heal Amputees No, not the website, but a post trying to "help" it by positing the "argument" that if God existed, He would have created 25-hour days. Since a day only has 24 hours, He doesn't exist.  (An example of Poe's Law, atheist style?)


Is There Really a non-Fundamentalist Christian? I don't see how one can deny the fundamentals of the Christian faith and still claim to be a Christian

Is Inerrancy Idolatry? A Few Simple Thoughts If an inerrantist believes that God is the source of all scripture, and that an effect (in this case, scripture) cannot be greater than its cause (in this case, God), how could they possibly place scripture above God?  An argument only a few intelligence points above the "God would have created a 25-hour day if He existed" one.

The Sad Lack of Rational Argument...  In which an argument by Dr. James F. McGrath against inerrancy on the basis that it relies on circular reasoning is shown to rely on circular reasoning.  Oh, the irony!

exclusivism If living in a pluralistic society didn't stop Peter, John, and Paul from proclaiming an exclusivist message, why should it stop us today?  (I found Johnathon Shelley's satire of the post-modern rationale behind inclusivism especially funny)

voting on heresy Who's next, Arius or perhaps Marcion?

intergenerational warfare Anyone who has heard The Who's "We Won't Be Fooled Again" or Genesis' "Land Of Confusion" should recognize this as being "same song, different verse"
.
Rob Bell takes his message to the churches Nothing really to add here

Does Hebrews Tell Us to Move On from the Gospel? "A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text."

pluralism Not all pluralisms were created equal

NB: I give up on making this page looking like I want it to.  Some of the spacing between lines is off, but I've already copied and pasted the entire post to notepad, copied and pasted it back to Blogger, and then re-did the links.  Anyone who thinks I'm going to do it again needs a psychological examination even worse than I do.

The more we change hearts and minds, the less we will need to change laws

jonnybaker: so i wasn't the only one...

so it turns out that with my naive suggestion i am not the only one thinking that dealing with the obscene salaries is a serious issue. i had suggested setting a salary cap above which people could then earn more and choose whether to invest it in arts, health, charity - something on the lines of transformation for good. doing so would overnight change our economics.

As good as such an idea might sound, I doubt it would truly work.  Social change through legislation rarely does.  For example, it would almost be impossible to monitor or control payments received outside of the country and you could probably bet your bottom dollar that that would be a popular way to circumvent such a proposed law. If we truly want to make lasting change in the commericialistic culture that dominates the modern world*, where profits and goods are seen as more important than fair and just treatment of one's fellow human beings, then we must employ the more difficult, but more effective in the long run, method of chaning people's hearts and minds through the power of the Gospel.  Do that and the need for legislation will be greatly curtailed.  Fail to do that and anything else will be  a mere band-aid.
* a good example of this over here in the United States is Black Friday, whose spirit overshadows that of Thanksgiving (indeed, many seem more thankful for the savings they are about to receive than any spiritual blessing) and is seen as preparation for Christmas.

Where's Green Lantern when you need him on Thanksgiving Eve?

On Black(est) Friday night,
No evil shall escape my sight
Let those who worship consumerism's evil might,

Beware my power... Green Lantern's light!

-Green Lantern oath (paraphrased)

Black Friday: The Anti-Thanksgiving | Sojourners

Yet, even if Black Friday were not so terrible for working families, and even if it did not threaten to steamroll Thanksgiving under the weight of Christmas-season merchandising, I would still be opposed to it[, as it] is a celebration of greed, unbridled consumerism and disregard for others....  Rather than gratitude, it promotes greed; instead of cooperation, competition. While Thanksgiving fosters brotherhood and peace, Black Friday is a celebration of self-centeredness and bickering.

If you need evidence of this, examine the fruits of the Black Friday rush for the latest consumer items. There was gunfire in a shopping mall. And at a Los Angeles Wal-Mart, the "competitive shopping strategy" of one woman involved the pepper-spraying fellow customers. Amazingly - though perhaps not surprising - the Wal-Mart remained open through the entire incident, and the woman was allowed to buy her merchandise and leave the store. Nothing, not even outright violence, was allowed to stop the flow of consumption.

One has to wonder how long such sickening treatment of fellow human beings will be allowed to continue before someone gets seriously injured.  Oh, wait- I "forgot" it was already way too late for that.

I've always thought a much better gift to give someone special would be to take the time that one would have spent waiting in line and fighting over merchandise and instead spend it with one's loved ones.