dungeonwriter
dungeonwriter |
 |
|
|
 |
Tuesday, May 21st, 2013 02:29 am
|
|
|
Two projects of mine have moved crucial steps closer to completion. My project for the Israeli government is going gloriously well, and more details will follow as soon as I have them. We did pricing information today and started doing some actual financial choices. All I can say is, this project will make ideelismee proud.
I have also gotten some help with my Salome novel. I found out a dear friend of mine is studying her and has always dreamed of writing a novel about her as well. Over dinner, we realized our writing style is very compatible, and we'd like to work together on this and some other writing projects. I really write best with a partner, and basically, she loves all of my "to do" projects and wants to work with me, as she's someone who is better at execution. I trust her, she trusts me and she and I mesh well together. That means I'll be able to work with someone and finally get over those lunps. It means losing some control but I believe she will be a huge asset. She has editorial training, she has an excellent work ethic and we've discussed putting our friendship first, and how to deal with disagreements.
So I feel very good. We'd like to finish this project's first draft (Book 1) in a year, and we're really happy.
But still so much to do. I want to do good work while I still have time. I don't want to give up my dreams. I want to make them come true. Current Mood: determined Current Music: Yosis-Abie Rotenberg  
|
|
eumelia
Melody Pond |
 |
|
|
 |
Tuesday, May 21st, 2013 07:00 am
|
|
|
Hey, I put a cut on my recent posts due to receiving totally correct PM's from other phobics who don't want to read about my exploits. I'm so sorry my posts caused undo distress due to my thoughtlessness. From now on any posts (and I don't think there will be, hopefully) that deal with my phobia will be cut. Please do not feel shy to contact me about posts that you may find upsetting or triggering, I do not want what I write to be the cause of any distress that can be avoided or at the very least controlled - I know, I read/watch things that might trigger me, but I psych myself up before hand. All my love. Crossposts: http://eumelia.dreamwidth.org/590810.html Tags: friends, interwebs Current Mood:  love  
|
|
fatpie42
fatpie42 |
 |
|
|
 |
Monday, May 20th, 2013 08:21 pm
|
|
|
Gabe Toro (aka fabfunk) has written a rather awesome spoilerific takedown of the latest Star Trek movie. That was pretty cool and I'm sure not everyone will agree. However this led to claims by some commenters that this challenge to J.J. Abrams' film was somehow a stain on Gabe's reputation as a film critic.  I think this is all the funnier if you've seen the ridiculous spectacle of New-Spock crying out a villain's name that he first heard just a few hours ago. It really is the equivalent of Vader's "NOOOOOO!" in "Revenge Of The Sith". See Gabe Toro's awesome article which preceded these comments either by clicking here or on the image above...I don't always agree with Gabe, but I think he's completely on the money this time. The article also includes an ingenious reference to the movie "Spaceballs". Tags: comedy, movie stuff  
|
|
meirbg:
talmud_daily
Talmud Illuminated |
 |
|
|
 |
Monday, May 20th, 2013 11:48 am
|
|
|
If one shares a courtyard with an idolater or with someone who does not accept the laws of the eruv, then the laws of the eruv do not apply, and one cannot carry in his courtyard. Why is that? Eruv (common food) makes everybody into one family, so that it is not many families living in this courtyard, but just one. If so, one can carry in this courtyard, because nobody is going to confuse this situation with carrying in a public street. However, one who does not agree with the rules of the eruv cannot join it. What is to be done? The residents of the courtyard can rent the rights of carrying from the idolater by giving him money or food. They need his agreement for that, but even that of his wife or his servant will also suffice. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yakov adds the the idolater only restricts when there are at least two Jews in the same courtyard, and Rabbi Meir says that even for one Jewish resident it is a problem. What is their disagreement? Rabbi Eliezer is of the opinion that it is unusual for one Jew to live with an idolater, because he would be afraid to be killed – and the Sages never make their decrees for unusual situations. If so, what does Rabbi Meir reply? – He says that occasionally a Jew may be forced to live alone with an idolater, and thus the eruv limitation still applies.Art: A courtyard in a town with a mussel seller and other figures... by Jan Jozef, the Younger Horemans (1714-1790) Tags: eruvin  
|
|
pastorlenny
pastorlenny |
 |
|
|
 |
Monday, May 20th, 2013 10:06 am
|
|
|
“Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.” -John 8:36
We are not free. If and when we are not in denial, we have an innate sense—and plenty of empirical evidence—that we are not free. Our fears, prejudices, resentments, misconceptions and self-centeredness hold us back from being fully what we know we ought to be. Jesus calls this being a “slave of sin.”
It is important to understand what Jesus means by “sin.” Jesus is not talking about mere legalistic violation of arbitrarily imposed rules. In fact, He goes out of His way to demonstrate to the Pharisees how limited this legalistic view is.
Jesus does not offer a consequentialist view of sin, either. Sin is not bad simply because of its bad results—although those results can certainly occur.
Sin is instead the difference between our nature and the nature of our triune God. Stealing isn’t sin just because it is mentioned in the Ten Commandments (legalism) or because society would break down if everyone stole (consequentialism). It is sin because God is not a thief. It is instead Satan who steals.
On the other hand, it is good to tell the truth because God does not lie. Satan, on the other hand, does. Love is good because God is love—not because there is simply a scripture that tells us to love or because love results in better outcomes.
Our unfreedom can therefore be understood as being bound to that which does not let us be fully what we really are: the living image of our triune God. This is a proper incarnational understanding of sin that is critical for apprehending the gospel—and it is why the opposite of being bound by sin is called “godliness” or “holiness.”
To be free, we need the indwelling of God the Spirit. Freedom from the indwelling of our sin-nature therefore requires the indwelling of God’s nature. Jesus and His disciples constantly spoke of this indwelling, of Him being in us, of us eating and drinking Him.
This is the essence of Pentecost. Tongues of fire and the miracle of foreign speech are secondary to the indwelling—and any chasing after those signs is adulterous. What birthed the Church was exactly what Jesus said would birth it: His gift of Himself.
The Church didn’t do anything or learn anything to get this gift. It simply obeyed, believed and received. That’s why Peter’s sermon culminates with the good news of remission of sin and God’s perfect gift of Himself indwelling us.
This is not freedom as some would mistakenly understand it: the freedom to exercise our will in whatever foolish or awful way we would choose to exercise it. It is instead freedom from the Egypt of self-idolatry and freedom into the Promised Land of the Christ.
How does this indwelling take place? At the proper time, God the eternally begotten Son entered humanity—which, while it is from our common perspective a set of individuals, is also an aggregate entity of common flesh. As one of us—but without sin Himself—He took upon His own being all of our aggregate sin. Jesus on the Cross was like some kind of cosmic kidney, receiving all of our impurity and suffering its horrendous, life-ending consequences. And then, by the Spirit, He was raised from death as the firstfruit of a great subsequent soul-harvest.
In doing so, Jesus rescued everyone. It is for us to simply place our hope in that rescue, to connect to that redeeming grace by the gift of faith—which is granted us through the hearing of the gospel.
It is therefore altogether fitting that we who hear and believe should look on this day not at our own defective earthen vessels, but to instead receive with gladness the oil that our gracious God is only all to glad to pour into them. Let us again be filled with the Spirit of the Son, which delivers us from sin and grants us the righteousness of Christ.  
|
|
bill_sheehan:
antitheism
God is Dead. And Imaginary. And Irrelevant. |
 |
|
|
 |
Sunday, May 19th, 2013 10:18 am
|
|
|
Yesterday, Boston news outlets included a story about an Episcopal priest of this diocese who'd just been suspended for plagiarizing his sermons. Several years ago, I preached the occasional sermon at the Episcopal church down the street. I learned that writing a sermon is hard work. Even a short fifteen-minute homily takes hours to prepare. The first question is always, "What's the topic?" The Book of Common Prayer includes the original 39 Articles of Religion, first set down in 1549. Article 35 contains approved topics for sermons. They include "Against the Peril of Idolatry," "That the Common Prayers and Sacraments ought to be ministered in a known tongue," and "Against Idleness." The would-be preacher will find these bones pretty dry. No one inveighs against the vain Romish error of ministering the Sacraments "in a tongue not understanded of the people" anymore. Preaching from the present is almost as bad as preaching from the past. It's too easy to find yourself on the wrong side of current events and offend members of the church who might have different political leanings. So what's left? Most preach from the "propers" - the appointed Scripture readings for that particular Sunday.  What can you say that hasn't already been said? The ground has been trodden flat by the boots of almost two thousand years-worth of other preachers, smarter men (and women) than you or me. Chances are pretty good that if you find something new to say about anything, it's probably heretical (and still not new). On the Monday or Tuesday before, I'd read the Bible chapters for Sunday, and pray that God would give me the words to reach and teach His people, and I'd read commentaries and glosses, and I'd read other people's sermons and lectures, and I'd pray for the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Sometime on Saturday it would take form, and I'd deliver it at the 4:30 Mass. I'd then polish it up a little further for the big Mass on Sunday morning. And then it's done, filed away, never to be repeated. Some of the sermons I thought were the worst were the best received. People came up to me after Mass to thank me for something that particularly touched them. I thanked them, but the credit belonged to the Holy Spirit. I was just thankful that I didn't have to do this every week. Other preachers used other methods. My own priest subscribed to a service that sent preaching ideas for the week's readings, for both adult and children's sermons, rather like the book club questions sometimes found in the back of novels. There are subscription services where you can get lots of help, outlines, illustrations, and even some that will provide the whole sermon for you. Almost 40 ago, I attended services at the local monastery - the same monastery where the current bishop lives. A wonderful grandfatherly priest who I particularly loved gave a beautiful sermon. Afterwards, I went up and asked if I might have a copy. He looked shamefaced and confessed that his mind wasn't as sharp as it once was, and the sermon wasn't actually his own. Asking for a copy of a sermon is meant as high praise, but I felt terrible for embarrassing him. Pulpit plagiarism is a widespread practice. It's every church's dirty little secret. Sometimes the preacher just doesn't have the talent for it. Some weeks the preacher doesn't have the time. The congregation believes that a sermon is the result of lonely scholarship combined with the spirit of God, carrying a particular message straight from the Almighty to the hearts of the faithful at the very moment when it is most needed. Ministering to the sick and dying is all well and good, raising money is excellent, but ministers and priests are ultimately judged by their sermons. So what happens when a congregation learns that their preacher isn't wrestling with God and ancient texts, that he's just a sophomore buying his term papers online? What happens when they find out that the inspiration of the Holy Ghost was just a ghost-writer? Doesn't it tell them that their preacher doesn't believe a word of what he's saying? That he has no faith that God will provide? That maybe an inspirational sermon is just a few clever-sounding phrases woven together by a talented copywriter, and that it collapses under closer examination? Doesn't it suggest that anyone who can write advertising copy or science fiction can set himself up as a priest, prophet, or patriarch of a church, and that only suckers believe glib rhetoric is a sign of divine authority? The sermons today will be all about Pentecost, and how the Spirit of God came as tongues of fire upon the apostles, and they all became great preachers. You can find some of today's sermons at SermonCentral.com. Plagiarize!Let no one else's work evade your eyes!Remember why the good Lord made your eyes!So don't shade your eyesBut plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize!… Only be sure always to call it, please, "research." - Tom Lehrer, LobachevskyP.S. The image of the pontificating priest is a original work by the very talented Denis Loubet, the man who created the art for many of the classic computer games like the Ultima series. You can find the Facebook page of his current project here.  
|
|
| |