It took a while, by my crack sleuths in South Korea tracked down a picture of the internet troll, Little Honey Tee Tee:
I know… keep the small children away… This look was achieved while he was on the run from United States authorities as he made his way back to South Korea.
Yes, this is the same guy who believes in Atlantis and Young Earth Creationism!
Woot.
Merry Christmas!
“Today, and it breaks my heart to say it, finding a homeless person who has died of cold, is not news. Today, the news is scandals, that is news, but the many children who don’t have food – that’s not news. This is grave. We can’t rest easy while things are this way.”
via Pope Francis Insists Church Must Help Poor, Not ‘Speak Of Theology’.
Never fear, I’m sure the Marine holding the umbrella is just as important… Or whatever Kim K is wearing or…
English: (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
So…been thinking…
I don’t like inviting people to CHURCH. And no, Jesus never said go and invite people to CHURCH.
I do, however, like inviting my peeps to various aspects of our Church community.
Maybe it is just me, but I couldn’t care one iota about your “personal salvation” but would rather see you as an active member of a thriving community (of faith). Why? Because those who simply rest on one hand-shake with the pastor/momentary religious experience are not worried about community, but about individuality. They are satisfied by the experience someone else has given them.
I like the focus on the community, a community that is thriving based in diversity. Some conservatives, some liberals, some who don’t know the difference and couldn’t care less. I want believers, doubters, and nonbelievers. I want a community that is centered on the community and not on a set of must-haves, such as the pastor or a strict belief system. Orthodoxy is fine, and needed, but I rather like orthopraxy.
So, I got me to thinking… thinking something hard.
Came up with this.
Evangelism
E·van·gel·ism
Let me explain.
E is for social/media. You know, talking up your faith community via twitter and facebook, blogs or the what-not. The main thing to post? The stuff you are doing. Not the invites or the bible verses, but what you are you faith community does in the larger community. Going to a play? Post it. Assistance ministry? Post it. It is okay to look like you are bragging about the manifold things you and your community participate in to assist either the internal or the external community.
For you who insist on the attractional style of church, this should calm you just a bit.
Van is just as it sounds… getting people to come along. Don’t ask them to come to church; ask them to be involved in a project you are doing. Or to a small group meeting, such as a Sunday School class. Sure, bring them to a bible study and see what happens… Watch how you phrase it.
Say, George, I realize you are one ignorant something-o-something about the bible because you are a bloody heretic, so come with me to a bible study to see if God will save your soul. Also, Jesus rode dinosaurs. Remember, there are no atheists in hell. #holla.
Or, just maybe… Say, George, a group of us get together to talk about the bible. Some of us doubt and some of us question. You might enjoy it.
Better… Say, George, we could use your help at the assistance ministry on Wednesday nights. You like helping people right?
Here’s the other thing… be honest with them. If they feel like you are just trying to make numbers, that will and should backfire you bloody sot. If you are just using people to build your CHURCH, you don’t deserve the people you got. #amen.
When I invite people, I am honest. Hey, look. I just want you to come to make me look special. Or, hey, I just want your money in the coffers.
No, seriously. Try to be honest. Look, I like church and it works well for me. You might like it too. I don’t care if you ever come, and I don’t care if you ever believe. But, I sure would like you to come and see what we are doing because we are doing this, this, and that.
GEL relates how to get these people as part of the community over all. Maybe they are ready for Sunday morning. Maybe they need something more than the initial small group you introduced them to. Remember, these are not your people. They are you community and you are in theirs. Here’s the thing, you don’t have to go to Church on Sunday morning to be a Christian. Sure, I like worship service and believe you should if you can/could/would, but in the end, I would rather no one really spend their time inviting people to CHURCH (noun). Maybe, instead, invite them to church (verb). And once they are there, like new bricks and stone and wood, see where they fit in.
ISM. So, after a while, maybe they need to know what the community as a whole believes. This is where Sunday comes into play. Or maybe an actual bible study. Or a new members class. The doctrines, the creeds, the basic beliefs. Frankly, not everyone will get to this stage. Remember the first word in Evangelism is Evangel. You know, good news. So, if they don’t get here, who cares?
Why not?
Because if they are gellin’ they are a part of the community, giving and taking, and giving, and maybe even inviting. They are learning along the way, of course, but more than that, they are teaching, reaching.
__
Is the church community more important than the Gospel?
Can you really separate the two?
I don’t want to focus on developing this, because, well, this is not what I do, but there are more ideas to be placed here, explored, developed.
I guess my main concern is the “We have to get people into Church!” No, no we do not. That sort of siege mentality has destroyed the Church and diluted the Gospel. If we are the kingdom, then our focus is the king. We can simply invite people to live with us without worrying if they will eventually publicly change their citizenship. There are no illegal immigrants in the Kingdom of God, after all…
My intention is to no longer invite people to CHURCH (noun), but to church with us (VERB).
(also, because this is a blog, I don’t care ne’r a bit about editing, etc…)
Found this on FB…
I would have much more respect for you if you just admitted why this umbrella and this president made you so mad…
Scientists have discovered water that has been trapped in rock for more than a billion years. The water might contain microbes that evolved independently from the surface world, and it’s a finding that gives new hope to the search for life on other planets.
via Water Trapped For 1.5 Billion Years Could Hold Ancient Life : NPR.
Gotta love science, folks. The headline caught my attention due to the hidden water beneath the surface. Guess when the fountains of the deep broke up, this water was the only water left.
Wait, that doesn’t make sense. That was 6000 years ago according to some Irish dude, not 1.5 million years ago according to scientific fact. Not that there is a shred of evidence of a world wide flood 6000 years ago.
And, on another topic, science is awesome. Recently, we’ve seen some decent breakthroughs in the search for life here and out there. Maybe one day, we will find life among the stars before our species is gone.
“Nothing dissolves the bonds between the people and their government like the arrogance of power here in Washington, and that’s what the American people are seeing today from the Obama administration — remarkable arrogance,” Boehner, R-Ohio, said.
So, because we are seeing, in his words, arrogance, the bonds are now dissolved? The last time such language was used was 1861. You know, when the “Union is dissolved.”
This is the same Speaker who said yesterday he didn’t care about anything else, just figuring out who was going to go to jail.
The emails and Benghazi are coming undone — they are a GOP talking point that doesn’t have a basis in reality. The IRS “scandal” doesn’t reach to the President, but took place under a Bush-era appointee. The same president who lied to the world and took us into a war.
Do we really want to see the answers to the questions before us? No. The GOP wants to see the President hanging from a noose. They have their mind made up, now they have to find the facts to support their death sentence.
Lovely…
Admiral Marcus
I promise that this is as spoiler-free as possible. Given that you can find the spoilers nearly anywhere you look, I do not feel the necessity to avoid this; however, my focus is not so much on the storyline, but some of the aural aspects of the movie.
By now, you will know the movie involves a character from Space Seed. In that episode, the crew of the Enterprise discover a derelict from the late 20th century. In this capsule is a war criminal who was genetically engineered to be a superman. Note the terminology. In the late 1960′s, this term, especially when speaking about modifying humans (selective breeding) would have been associated easily enough with the Nazis. I wanted the episode last night, but was caught unaware by a discussion Kirk, Spock, and Scotty were having involving the good things about Khan. Oh, we can admire his qualities without liking him, Kirk tells Spock.
Much to the chagrin of those who would see Space Seed as anti-Empire, the episode rather should be taken as a condemnation of science without ethics, of the glorification of war criminals, and perhaps in some way of the actions taken by the United States after World War II, when the U.S. brought German and Japanese scientists to our shores to work for us in advancing our programs against the Soviet Union — because savagery was needed rather than pure intellect. Of course, this could just be projection from my view, although we know the original Trek involved contentious issues of the day.
J.J. Abrams is quoted has saying he would rather have the philosophical aspects of Star Trek removed, making room for fans of the series to mix it up with new fans unfamiliar with canonical lore. The 2009 movie seemed to do just that. There is the basic philosophy of Kirk, the rule breaking hero, of course. But this is a character trait I guess, and not the usual philosophy we expect from Star Trek. As much as purists decried Deep Space Nine with its war and other apparent anti-Roddenberry aspects, this too had a subtle but sustained philosophy mixed with some heavy theology.
Star Trek Into Darkness does not live up to Abrams’ goal of removing philosophy from the canon. Indeed, this movie is a giant, well-played, directed, and beautifully shot philosophical treatise on Empire — specifically, the American Empire of early 21st century Earth. We encounter familiar characters — Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld — as well as drone strikes, invasions into sovereign territories to retrieve terrorists, and the win-at-all-costs plaguing American war efforts since Lincoln. Remember, Lincoln promised to a General that he’d gladly sacrifice the Republic to save the Union. We have sacrificed our civil liberties to same us from a threat we have had a hand in creating. These very real, very earthly matters, make up the plot lines of this enterprise.
There are the usual Trek features — the dashing Captain (waking up with two feline-race women), a nearly naked woman, death, peril, and humor. But, there is this tangible storyline reminiscent of the 1960′s show. We have lost our way and become the Empire we fight against. There is a line, buried in there somewhere — weren’t we meant to be explorers? And there is this promise of a five year mission, to explore deep space. But somehow, Starfleet has forgotten this. These visions of the mission of Starfleet have been put on hold. Perhaps this is Abrams’ guilt shining through, but it is clear that Starfleet has become nothing but deceit, sabotage, and intrigue. There is no loyalty. No vision. No hope. Only the need to arm ourselves against what else may be out there. This movie tackles these current trends in our domestic and foreign policy rather well, and all within Aristotle’s mimetic theatre.
Over all, I was impressed. I was moved. I clapped and I believe, much to the chagrin of my son, may have shouted yippee a time or two. I may have even clouded up when something got in my eyes. It was cathartic. This movie is classic Trek, I believe, and modern Trek. Unfortunately, Trek doesn’t work well as a series of movies. We need a series like the 1960′s, where our society and culture are challenged. Where our beliefs are mocked and then rescued. When our crimes today are exposed safely three centuries from now. I hope we will see another series, but I doubt it. Until then, we will take what we can get and hope that each successive movie is directed against us in some way, to challenge us.
If you miss the chance to see the movie, you will regret it.
You can find it here. Unfortunately, this is not that big of a scandal — not really a scandal.
Here are some other facts. Of the 300 targeted groups, 75 were Tea Party. Not, Party, as in Political Party. Others were Democrats. If you look at the process, I have to agree with Scott Hodge of the non-partisan Tax Foundation when he said, speaking yesterday on Morning Briefing, that there is no crime, but at the most, some boundaries may have been stretched. Further, there is no connection established to the White House, unlike the last President. The problem is, is that we do profile expected problems. Duh.
Now, the Justice Department will investigate… unlike last President.
If you actually believe this is a scnadal, I pity you. The real scandal is how much you are ready to see this President fall.
Good luck, America.
The IRS inspector general will release an audit sometime this week, but congressional aides gave several media outlets a draft of the audit. According to the document, IRS employees in the Cincinnati office used several troublesome phrases to single out 501(c)4 applicants for review — including, at various points between 2010 and May 2012, groups that “criticize how the country is being run,” aim to educate Americans “on the Constitution and Bill of Rights,” and lobby to “make America a better place to live.”
In order to avoid paying taxes under section 501(c)4 of the tax code, groups are supposed to have “social welfare” as their primary goal. And while advocating for issues and legislation can be a secondary goal, outright politicking is forbidden, especially for individual candidates. After the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in January 2010 allowed 501(c)4 groups to raise unlimited amounts of money, the IRS was flooded with applications.
via How big is the IRS scandal? – The Week.
This article (above) is about the most non-partisan, least fear-mongering one I can find.
Here’s the deal — a lot of hands are in this one. Bush appointees, Obama appointees. Congress. Decade-old reorganization. Stuff like that. But, more. SCOTUS with their citizen’s united decision. What happened? Read the article.
So, you have groups with the sole purpose to not pay taxes, to violate laws regarding the first amendment, and you expect the Government not to keep an eye on them?
Why now?
We want the Government to watch out for every dark-skinned person (dark, and I mean just this side of Chickasaw County, Mississippi) person, but the very people telling you they want to “take their country back” and they respect no laws expect the Constitution (not that they have clue as to what that means)… these people you want to go free?
Not to mention, the IRS under the previous administration investigate liberal groups.
No — ideology should not be the driving factor in investigation…but read the article.
Now, we are four days into this. Don’t make up your minds. Because if you do, it is likely no amount of facts will sway you.
Good luck, America.
 |
 |
 |
