text:
Category Archives: Apologetics
Correction, Confrontation is not Condemnation
Another day, another urgent summons for the Churches of Christ to be less judgmental, less condemning. These sermons and blog posts and on-line articles are ubiquitous these days. It would seem that if you are a minister within the Churches of Christ and you want to become popular (or maintain your popularity) you need to hop on the "bash the church" bandwagon. Pardon me for being a knuckle-dragging troglodyte, but I'll just let that cart go on by.
It may just be me, but I find it funny (in a serious way) that if a financial advisor corrected our faulty thinking about our retirement plans we would be most appreciative. If we were working with explosive chemicals in a science class and our teacher warned us before we made a pyro-technic mistake, we would say, "thank-you." If we were applying for a music scholarship and a master musician took us into his or her personal study for an hour's worth of instruction, we would not be able to stop thanking him or her. But, you let one word of spiritual correction or constructive criticism come from a preacher associated with the Churches of Christ and he is immediately tarred and feathered as a judgmental Pharisee. "Quit being so condemning" is the shrill response. "Don't you know everyone that says they love Jesus is saved, and who are you to say you know everything about the Bible."
I won't be the first to admit that our heritage is full of characters that had more fist than finesse when it comes to biblical conversations. Neither will I be the first to condemn that behavior. Regrettably it is still visible today. Every family has its cranky uncle Joe, and there are are a number of reasons why combative individuals are drawn to independent congregations (and Churches of Christ are NOT alone in this regard!!)
But I truly fail to see where teaching some basic Bible doctrines should be considered judgmental, unless the person listening refuses to accept those teachings, yet recognizes the seriousness of the issue under discussion.
Actually, every person – unless they are a true universalist – will draw some line at some place in regard to what makes a person a Christian, what constitutes acceptable worship, and how a person ought to live a life committed to Christ. Why is drawing one line at baptism considered judgmental when drawing that line at the "sinner's prayer" not considered judgmental? Why is adult believer's baptism considered judgmental when infant baptism is not? The same point could be made with acapella worship, praise teams but no instrumental music, acoustic instruments but not amplified instruments, classic or contemporary songs, high church/low church or just about every other issue that causes conflict in a congregation.
I do not need, nor do I want, to be told that I need to be "more accepting" of individuals who disagree with me on basic, fundamental teachings in Scripture. The only words I need to accept are the words of the inspired authors of the Bible. Do I need to study, to learn, to read, to hear other points of view – absolutely! I try to do so as much or more than many ministers within the Churches of Christ. But the point of reference that I use to judge if what I am hearing is true is a convergence with the Bible – NOT some touchy-feely idea such as "they love Jesus."
"Come, let us reason together" is a solid biblical concept. If I disagree with an individual there can be only one of three conclusions – either I am right and the other person is wrong, I am wrong and the other person is right, or we are both equally right and equally wrong. If I am willing to admit my culpability in drawing wrong conclusions from Scripture, I cannot be blamed for suggesting that those who disagree with me can also possibly be in error. I may seek to teach, and perhaps also to confront, but that does NOT make me a judgmental, hypocritical, Pharisee.
Unless, of course, you believe that Jesus was a judgmental, hypocritical, Pharisee as well. As I read the gospels, he had to try to straighten out quite a few twisted twigs during his ministry. Although he corrected, he never condemned honest error – but he was quite emphatic in his rejection of obstinate dismissal of God's will.
As I have written numerous times – if I am wrong please show me my error! I never want to teach something that is false, either knowingly or unwittingly. And I promise I will not call you judgmental.
Speaking in an Echo Chamber and Totally Missing the Point
(Note: this should probably go without saying, but this is my reaction to a recent series of events, so, if you have another take on the discussion, good on 'ya.)
Another "tempest in a teapot" amid a larger hurricane has erupted in the fellowship of the Churches of Christ. To summarize, Matthew Morine wrote an article in the Gospel Advocate excoriating those who advocate for gender egalitarianism in the Churches of Christ. Deeply offended, yet feigning magnanimity, Mike Cope responded in Wineskins, excoriating Matthew Morine and anyone who would dare agree with him. Together the two articles accomplished nothing but to establish that a deep division regarding this issue has already occurred in the Churches of Christ. Unless one side or the other experiences a major manifestation of the Holy Spirit, there will be no repairing it.
First, a little background for those who might be confused. Matthew Morine's article in the GA was written as red meat for the most entrenched, conservative segment of the brotherhood. It was something akin to a warm-up before the key-note speech at a political convention. Was it thoughtful, carefully reasoned, and tactfully delivered? No, no and no. I'm not sure it was supposed to be. Morine is something of a wunderkind to the conservative right, and he is a favorite author in the GA fold. Mike Cope, on the other hand, is one confirmed miracle away from being canonized as a saint in the progressive left of the brotherhood. His writings serve as the red meat entree for the progressives. Politically speaking, Cope is Barak Obama to Matthew Morine's Ted Cruz. It is matter, meet anti-matter.
The problem is that Morine has expressed (however provocatively) a concern that many – conservative or moderate – feel is a legitimate critique of the egalitarian left's position: it is biblically and theologically weak, fueled mainly, if not exclusively, by cultural pressure. Cope, presented with an opportunity to take the high road and explain his position in clear biblical terms, totally wiffed, choosing rather to express his umbrage that Morine would dare attack his motives.
Well, at the severe risk of causing Cope and his followers even more emotional pain, a great many people do look at his conclusions and question his motives. Morine may have been too acerbic (actually, he was too acerbic), but his challenge was spot-on. I would say that my main problem with Morine's content was that he misidentified the hypocrisy of the egalitarian left. It is within that element of the brotherhood that the loudest complaints about "proof-texting" a position can be heard. Yet, when it comes to gender egalitarianism, their entire argument is built on one single verse from the book of Galatians, and it is completely taken out of context, and twisted into something Paul never intended. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Neither Cope, nor any other egalitarian I have read, has adequately addressed Morine's basic observation: their position is based on a misinterpretation and misapplication of Galatians 3:27-28, and in order to defend this misinterpretation, they must either excise or condescendingly dismiss several other passages of Scripture which contradict their position. Harrumph if you want, but throwing a temper-tantrum when your conclusions are challenged is not an effective apologetic technique.
The issue as I see it is that both Morine and Cope are speaking in an echo chamber and talk completely past each other. Morine could have been, and should have been, much more respectful. He, or someone at GA should have edited his article to be less acerbic and confrontational. Cope totally missed Morine's point, choosing rather to express hurt feelings rather than address issues. I honestly have to ask why Cope was even concerned with Morine and the GA. Does he even think that his readers are going to care about the GA?
I said above, and I fully believe, that a schism equal to the instrumental music division of the last century has already occurred within the Churches of Christ. Just as it is impossible for two groups to worship simultaneously with and without instruments (however congregations try to paper over this division with "separate" worships services), you cannot worship simultaneously as a male-led congregation and a matriarchy. Just my opinion here, but it seems to me that there needs to be a clean break and we need to stop this illusion that we are all one big happy family. There needs to be a "Churches of Christ" and a "Churches of Christ / Instrumental and Egalitarian" (Funny, but the two "improvements" are virtually inseparable.)
One other observation about Cope's response. He added that his "journey" from a male-led leadership to an egalitarian position was "painful." That is a common thread in "journeys" from traditional convictions to progressive ones. I wonder why that is? If you move from a conviction that worship in song should be acapella to an acceptance of instrumental music, your "journey" is harrowing, painful and gut-wrenching. Why? It seems to me that if you can throw off the shackles of hundreds of years of bad exegesis and even worse theology, the process would be enlightening, exhilarating, and joyful. Same with egalitarianism. Why the angst? Why the pain? It seems to me that if you can scrape 2,000 years of encrusted barnacles of patriarchy off of your congregational cruise ship, why would that be so painful? I would think you would be ecstatic. The whole thing just sounds a little too "Oprah Winfrey" to pass my sniff test.
If someone can explain to me, using established methods of exegesis and hermeneutics, how Galatians 3:27-28 can have any association with male or female leadership in the Lord's church, I am ready to listen (or read). If anyone can explain how Paul can be so clearly right in Galatians 3:27-28, but be so clearly wrong in Corinthians and Timothy, let me know. If someone can convince me that Jesus could overturn virtually every oppressive and Spirit-rejecting religious aspect of his culture but the one issue of male spiritual leadership – please enlighten me. But, be forewarned, my obfuscation meter is set to high sensitivity – so don't try the "Hillary Clinton" condescension trick or the "Bart Ehrman" re-write the New Testament trick. As the old saying in this part of the country goes, this ain't my first rodeo, ma'am.
(Note: I have been informed that Matthew Morine was queried about the article by the GA editorial staff, and wanted the article to be published as it was written, and so I retract my comments about the editors at GA missing an opportunity here to help Matthew.)
Political Correctness is Killing the Church
It's been a long time since I have had two spare minutes to put together in a sequence, but I just finally decided that I was going to sit down and write again. So much has happened (in the big world, and in my little world). Where to begin . . .
As an observer and sometimes participant in the development of thoughts and ideas of people around me, I have noticed something that increasingly bothers me. The old idea of "political correctness" is just killing the church. I say that as someone who is both guilty and who abhors the idea. As Walt Kelley said through the mouth of Pogo, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Have you ever stopped to consider how much time we spend worrying about and finding ways NOT to offend someone? I work with and around a lot of young people, and regardless of where I am or who I am with, one major consideration about the words or the images that are raised in a discussion is this: will what I say, or even the manner in which I say it, be considered offensive to someone around me? I am not speaking about flagrant obscenities or obvious insults. I am talking about normal, everyday speech in which we use images or ideas that, for whatever reason, have been deemed "off-limits" by some group or conglomeration of groups.
One particular issue that troubles me about this "politically correct speech" creep is that it is creeping into the pulpits of our churches. Ever since the decision by the Supreme Court that homosexuals should have the right to marry, virtually every speech, sermon, or piece of writing begins with the same tepid caveat – "I don't want to be misunderstood, and we are all sinners, and I do not want to be judgmental . . . blah, blah, blah."
I can't imagine the apostle Paul apologizing for his convictions. The idea that any of the church fathers, or Calvin, or Luther, or Charles Spurgeon, or any great preacher for that matter, backing up before he even said a word is just ludicrous to me. Do we want to be intentionally offensive in our speech or response to outsiders?? No, and I do not know who would suggest that we should be offensive or vicious in our speech.
I just do not see how we can "welcome" homosexuals into our congregations "with the intent to change their hearts" unless we say straight-out and up-front – "homosexual behavior is a sin." Personally, I am deeply suspicious of the psycho-babble about "same sex attraction," as I think it is just a circular way to minimize the seriousness of homosexual behavior, but I am willing to be taught is someone can prove such an animal exists.
I just do not see how we can discuss "allowable" or "acceptable" forms of abortion if our goal is to protect the lives of unborn children. Either abortion is the unlawful and murderous taking of a human life, or it is not. To equivocate is to surrender the morality of the question. Do we excommunicate or burn those who have experienced an abortion (a female) or one who has caused or paid for an abortion (a male)? No, but neither do we soft-pedal the seriousness of the crime.
And, this – which hits me squarely between the eyes – do we wink and look the other way when we see a couple who is blatantly living together although not married so that we can "teach them the gospel when they are at church"? No – once again, to equivocate is to surrender. We have swallowed the politically correct pill, and it is killing the church. We have lost our backbone and our nerve to confront ANY sin, much less the big moral collapses of the 21st century.
Please, do not think I speak as a perfect example of rigid moral perfection. I have, for way too long, been guilty of turning aside when the issue demanded firm, but loving, confrontation. Stated more baldly, I'm a wimp. But that does not excuse me, nor does it give me any comfort. How many people have I given the impression that their behavior is acceptable to God simply because I am afraid I might offend them or hurt their feelings? Too many to count.
We must wake up. We must grow a spine. We must learn to confront – with the spirit of Christ, for sure – but we must learn how to confront.
Remember – he did braid a whip and drive the godless from his Father's house. That, my friends, was politically incorrect.
Let Us Be Done With Proving Everything, Shall We?
There is something deep within the psyche of the modern, born-again, "praise God and pass the contribution plate" Christian that cannot leave bomb-proof, unassailable, "put the atheists in their place" kind of scientific evidence alone. (How is that for incorporating generic identifiers?) What is mean is this – you cannot hardly turn on your computer today without someone, somewhere "proving beyond a shadow of a doubt" that some such thing once doubted is now finally, beyond any shadow of a doubt, proven to be real or historical or some such thing. It might be the age of the earth, or the hypothesis that humans shared living quarters with dinosaurs, or the exact, precise, down-to-the-minute day and time that Jesus was: born, crucified, resurrected, ascended, and/or will come back to earth. The number of things that science can supposedly prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is truly staggering. And, call me a skeptic, but I wonder if even a fraction of the claims are even remotely scientifically accurate.
Let me illustrate with a couple of stories. It is very definitely true that during certain times within history, Christians would travel great distances and pay money to visit "relics" of saints. So, pieces of holy objects such as the cross or Noah's ark, or bones, hair, blood – you name it – from all sorts of "saints" started showing up with quite startling frequency. It is said, for example, that if you had every single piece of the wooden cross upon which Jesus was said to be crucified, gathered back from all the sales of "genuine cross relics" dealers, you could take those tiny little shards of wood and rebuild St. Peter's Basilica. Not bad for two beams of wood.
As a very real example of devotion to "relics" today stop and consider the veneration given to the Shroud of Turin, the purported burial cloth of Jesus. Never mind it has never passed a test that dates it older than the middle ages, many believe it to be the actual burial cloth of Jesus.
The one story that just always leaves me shaking my head that so-called intelligent people will accept it is the story that EVEN TO THIS DAY gets retold regarding NASA, a special clock, and the missing day of Joshua 10:12-14. As the story goes, in order to go to the moon, NASA had to develop a clock with incredible accuracy. It was so accurate, so the story goes, that the developers made it go BACKWARDS in time to verify its accuracy. They kept going back, back, back, until, LO AND BEHOLD they discovered a missing 24 hour period in the age of the earth – Joshua's missing day!! Are you kidding me?? Intelligent people cannot see through this? But they can't, because (1) they do not want to see through it because it purportedly proves a point they want proved and (2) what self respecting American patriot would question the National Aeronautics and Space Administration?
Has anyone who believed this story ever wondered why NASA did not just keep going back to find out PRECISELY how old the earth is with their wonderful clock? Has anyone ever heard of a clock that can tell time BACKWARDS? Yet, this story gets repeated ad infinitum by otherwise intelligent people and, because they tell it, it gets believed by an entire new generation.
Those who demand bomb-proof, unassailable, "beyond any shadow of a doubt" proof only prove one thing – how fearful and shallow their faith truly is. God did not allow the Israelites to know where Moses was buried lest his grave become a shrine. God did not allow Noah's ark to survive lest it become an idol. God did not allow the ark of the covenant to survive for the exact same reason, as with the cross, the tomb, and anything else related to critical events in the Bible. Those relics are just raindrops in the overwhelming ocean of world history. We do not know nor can we calculate the day of Jesus birth, death, resurrection (beyond the "first day of the week"), or ascension, and we certainly cannot figure out the day of his return. Those who claim to be able to do so are charlatans – or are the mistaken minions of such charlatans. They either have an agenda to push, or a book to sell. Be very careful of such spiritual snake-oil salesmen.
Just stop and think – seriously think – about one question. If you cannot believe that God can raise his Son, his incarnated self, from the grave, just exactly why would having a piece of the cross on which he was killed prove that fact to you? And, if you can believe that God did, in fact, raise Jesus from the grave, why would you need to prove Joshua's "missing day" to buttress your faith? There are occasions when I fear that Karl Marx's statement that religion is an opiate for the people to be far, far too accurate for my comfort level.
But, if you still want to believe in all this new scientific evidence that proves everything from the age of the earth to the exact location of Moses's 70 palm trees please let me know. I have a piece of Jesus' cross that I would love to sell to you.
We Need to Listen to Anselm
Question – What do you get when you cross a bad scientist with a poor theologian? (Hang with me here, this is not a bad joke!)
Answer – An atheist
I just finished reading a book in which the author stated, unambiguously and quite proudly, that he can prove that God exists. Foolproof, airtight, with not the slightest chance that there could be a mistake proof that God exists. I was quite in awe until I read what his "proofs" consisted of – a long list of arguments that have been put forward for centuries. A long list, I might add, that has been particularly ineffective in proving the existence of God, except for those who already believe in God. If you already believe in something, it is quite easy to prove it exists. It is when you try to convince someone who is utterly certain of the falsity of your proposition that your "proofs" tend to get shredded. I happen to believe in God, so I also happen to appreciate many of the "proofs" that the author put forward. I also know atheists who laugh out loud at the supposed "iron-clad" arguments that are set forth. Now, disbelief in one proposition does not equal proof of the opposite proposition, but still, poor arguments deserve to be destroyed.
Notice in the famous picture of the creation of Adam in the Sistine chapel. God and Adam reach toward each other, but there is a gap – an existential difference between the two. God urges us as humans to seek for him, but still, we are flesh and he is God, and we will always be just a hair short of fully understanding the nature of God. John even said of Jesus, the incarnate God on earth, "He came to his own home, and his own people received him not." (John 1:11)
I am one who happens to believe that good science and good theology should not be enemies. They are different fields, and ask (and search for answers) to entirely different questions. Good science attempts to answer the questions "what" and "how". Theology attempts to answer the questions "who" and "why". That is why I suggest that when you mix bad science and bad theology all you end up with is an atheist. A good person, no doubt, but someone who has placed their trust in something that is not God.
I feel very strongly that if you have to prove the existence of your god, you have a very small god. In fact, if you CAN prove the existence of your god then you have succeeded in creating an idol larger than any god – yourself. Step back and work through this – if your science (whatever it may be) can prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that your god exists, then your god is smaller than your science. That is to say your science can explain your god; ergo, your science is bigger, more complex, and more profound, than your god. You have just made your intellect your idol – you may worship a "god," but just like the story in Isaiah of the man who cuts down a tree, cooks his food with half of it and fashions a god out of the other half, your god is still a thing of your creation (see Isaiah 44:9-17). You can manipulate it, define it, examine it, and ultimately prove that it exists by some physical test.
Now compare that with the God of the Bible. Since we were just in Isaiah, let us stay there. Read Isaiah 40:9-31 (for just one passage). Now – how do we "prove" a God such as this exists? To what do you compare something that is incomparable? By what standard do you measure something that is beyond measure – or even comprehension? The folly of the peanut scientific mind is that it thinks it can define, measure, describe or explain that which cannot be rationally bounded.
Writing in the early 11th century A.D., a theologian by the name of Anselm formulated what is often referred to as the "ontological argument" of the existence of God. Strictly speaking, however, it is not a positive argument, but the expression of the impossibility to create such an argument. It goes something like this – If I can conceive of something bigger than God, that thing that I have imagined must be God. But this is a logical impossibility, as God is the most comprehensive being that can be conceived. God, therefore, is "that than which nothing bigger can be conceived." God is bigger than any science, any scientist, and even any proof of his own existence.
We need to give up this infantile attempt to figure out a "bomb-proof" argument or proof that God exists, and simply get back to worshipping the God that scoffs at all our puny little attempts to control him.
"And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him." (Hebrews 11:6, RSV emphasis mine.)
Conspiracy Theorists, Deniers, Lunatics and the Story of Jesus
Last night I was watching a documentary on the Apollo space program on YouTube. After the episode was over I surfed those "recommendations" that are over on the side of the screen. One happened to be about how the "hoax" of the Apollo program was finally, incontrovertibly, proven. I clicked on the video, more out of curiosity than anything. At first I was amused, then concerned. Finally I just became angry. Reading the comments below the video only made me more angry.
Now, I must say that there is a certain little voice in the back of my head that whispers, "These people are just out to rock the boat, get a little rise out of people. They don't really believe all this conspiracy garbage, but they want you to think they do, just to provoke a response." I cannot really be sure – but from watching the video and from reading the comments, it certainly appears that a great many people believe the whole Apollo space program, and especially the lunar landings, were all one huge hoax, filmed by Stanley Kubrick on some desert wasteland in Arizona.
But it is not just the Apollo space program. There are people who do not believe the space shuttle actually flies into space, that the massacre of the school children at Sandy Hook elementary school actually took place, or, of course, that Lee Harvey Oswald killed president Kennedy.
This might all be mildly amusing if it were not for more than a few some troubling issues. One, these "conspiracy theorists" refuse to consider any conflicting evidence. The more evidence that is presented to them that contradicts their hare-brained ideas, the more they insist that your argument proves their conspiracy. Take, for example, the Apollo space program. How many thousands of individuals would have to be in on the hoax that the US supposedly sent 12 men to walk on the moon? Yet, confronted with this question the "conspiracy theorists" simply argue that proves their point – the power of the government was so overwhelming that it could and did keep those thousands of people (a large number of whom are still living) so utterly silent about the hoax. Never mind the photos that were recently taken that show the bases of the lunar landers still on the moon, with numerous foot and rover tracks all around the landers. Hoaxes, all of them. If you can fake an entire lunar landing, you could certainly fake a few "supposed" satellite pictures.
The conspiracies around the Sandy Hook massacre are more disturbing, so I will not dwell on those. Anyone who denies the carnage that took place at that school is not just deluded, they are psychotic. They are genuinely mentally ill.
As I was pondering all of this, a related though occurred to me. People have been denying the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus ever since the first century. These "conspiracy theorists" have created all manner of convoluted stories as to how the "myth" of Jesus was created – from the virgin birth, through his miracles, and finally ending with the crucifixion and resurrection. No matter how much evidence is provided to these people, their only response is, "See, that just goes to prove that my theory is correct – Jesus never existed!"
This goes a long way to prove a theory that I have – that the field of apologetics is basically designed for those who already believe in the truth of Scripture. While all the various attempts at "proving" the truth of Scripture are interesting, and some are more convincing than others, it is readily apparent to me that no amount of "evidence" demonstrating the truth of Scripture will convince anyone if they initially choose to reject the basic premise of the Bible – and that is that God exists.
If God had wanted men to prove that he exists, he would have given us the exact manner in which to do so. But he did not – he gave us the Bible, a story that relates how he created us, loved us, and eventually became one of us so that we might at some point choose to accept his love. Scientific proof (the stuff of apologetics) demands adherence to scientific theories and laws, but it does not require any kind of a loving relationship. God, however, does not want a mindless adherence to a set of laws, even his laws. He wants a relationship with that which he created – us. God loves us, and wants us to enjoy the blessings of loving him in return. The field of apologetics misses that point entirely. Apologetics is about science. The Bible is about faith and love. Science never created a Christian. Only the cross can create a Christian. And there is no "incontrovertible" evidence that the cross of Jesus ever existed. Unless, of course, you are willing to accept the eyewitness accounts of both his followers and his enemies. But, never let contradictory evidence foil a good conspiracy theory!
Speaking of foil, those people who doubt the Apollo space program, that Lee Harvey Oswald shot president Kennedy, or the fact that the 9/11 terrorists flew jets into the World Trade Center, causing them to ultimately collapse, need to tighten their tin-foil hats around their heads a little tighter. They are a living definition of the concept of lunacy – the idea that the moon has demonic power over human beings. Reality is a scary thing – especially when you refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence of hundreds, if not thousands, of individual pieces of evidence and testimony. Those who have a theory that men never walked on the moon, that the FBI, the CIA, and the mafia all conspired to kill Kennedy, and that the US government was complicit in detonating bombs in the twin towers to destroy them probably hate this post.
That's okay by me. I don't believe any of them really exist. They certainly cannot prove they exist, even if they think they do. The proof of their existence is all just one big hoax.
Try to deny that fact!
6 Questions That Make Me Nervous
1. Would what I preach get me killed?
2. Would what I preach get me arrested?
3. Would what I preach even get someone angry at me?
4. Would what I preach even upset someone?
5. Would what I preach even get someone to take notice?
Jesus, Peter, John, Paul – they all stressed to their readers that the proclamation of the gospel would result in rejection, tribulation, persecution.
Today we sugar-coat everything. The gospel will make you richer, more peaceful, help you with your marriage, your career, maybe even your health.
All of which makes me wonder if we are preaching the gospel at all. It just seems to me that if we bend over backwards not to have happen what Jesus, Peter, John and Paul all said would happen places us in a very precarious position.
I do not want anyone to hate Jesus. I do not want anyone to hate the church. I do not want to drive anyone away from the truth. So, I try to make the gospel palatable. I try to "accentuate the positive." I try to shine the spotlight on the empty tomb and try to keep the bloody cross carefully out-of-sight. And, the question still nags at me: does what I preach and teach even matter at all?
The apostles practiced some pretty severe "boundary protection." They made sure everyone that entered the church did so under the shadow of the cross, and they were not afraid to hand certain malefactors "over to Satan" so that their soul might be redeemed.
Us? Do we tell people – "Hey, get baptized today and tomorrow you may be fired from your job"? Are we willing to tell people that as far as we are concerned they are Satan's play toy until they learn what being in Hell is really like? Paul had some pretty sharp language, you know (1 Tim. 1:20, 2 Tim. 2:16).
All of which leads me to ask #6 –
6. Are we preaching "peace, peace" when there truly is no peace? (Jeremiah 6:14, 8:11. Notice the context!)
Dialoguing On The Need For Christian Dialogue
I just made a discovery – about my own interpretive process. The process itself is not something new to me, I guess it is the way I have been thinking for quite some time. But the end result of my thinking has just become much more clear. You'll have to wade through the whole post for my last sentence to make any sense. But it is where I am today.
Let me begin by saying dialogue is great. I heartily support dialogue. Dialogue is necessary and in most cases is quite pleasant. Dialogue is absolutely necessary if two people, or two groups, are to find common ground and negotiate a mutually acceptable position in the midst of a heated and bitter conflict.
Which is why the Church of Christ should never, ever, in any way, shape or form, enter into a dialogue with anyone or anything.
A dialogue takes place between two equals, or between a lesser who appeals to a greater, in the hopes of finding a mutual agreement. A dialogue is a prologue to a compromise. Married couples sometimes need to have a refereed dialogue. Big companies and organized labor quite often need to come to a bargaining table and have a refereed dialogue. Prosecuting and Defending attorneys dialogue quite often to avoid the bother and expense of a trial. On occasion antagonistic countries need to be brought to a negotiating table in order to have a peaceful dialogue.
The Church is not a marriage partner to anyone or anything in this world. The Church is not a big company, nor is it an amalgamation of unionized workers. The Church is not a country, or an aggrieved individual. The Church has no equal on this earth with whom it can compromise. When the Church compromises it loses its nature. It simply ceases to be the Church. To put it bluntly, the Church has no one or nothing with whom it can dialogue.
Over the past 50 years virtually every church group, religious group, denomination, whatever you want to call it, has entered into a "dialogue" with a group that wanted it to become more modern, more "relevant," more in tune with secular practices and mores. The "Social Gospel," militant feminism and now militant homosexuality are just three areas in which a religious group has "dialogued" and come out looking far more like the world than when it entered the conversation.
Can you name a major religious group, denomination, or independent church that is theologically more conservative or less "progressive" today than it was 50 years ago? I cannot. Some may not have changed (although, I would argue very few), but I cannot think of a single Christian faith group that is more conservative today than it was just a scant half-century ago.
The only way a group has been able to maintain any kind of conservative, narrowly biblical interpretive stance is to split off from a larger, more "progressive" movement. So we have seen huge defections from the Anglican/Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Lutheran Church and many Baptist and Church of Christ congregations. Whenever anyone says, "We need to reexamine our beliefs about…." what they are really saying is "we need to change our beliefs about….." and "dialogue" becomes the vehicle by which that change is effected.
All of which makes me very nervous and very skeptical when I hear certain voices promote a new or ongoing "dialogue" between the church and atheist movements, or agnostic movements, or further dialogue with proponents of homosexuality or feminism or militarism or any other king of "ism" for that matter. This would extend, by the way, to "dialogues" with religious groups with whom I might share one or two core convictions, but who have chosen to make substantive departures from what I believe to be Scripture itself is to be viewed.
So my question for these proponents is this – what exactly do you mean by "dialogue?" The way I read the Bible, the Church of Christ does not negotiate anything. The Church does not have the power to compromise with anyone or anything. The Church of Christ is not an equal to any secular power or entity. Therefore, the Church of Christ is under no compulsion or expectation to "dialogue" with anyone.
Nor am I, as a member of the Church of Christ, authorized or deputized to "dialogue" with anyone or any group and speak for "The Church of Christ." I can only speak for my own convictions, my own beliefs, and my own interpretations of Scripture. And, as much as they may want to argue, no one can speak for me based on his or her interpretations, convictions, or beliefs. I cannot even speak authoritatively for the congregation of which I am a part, and for which I serve as a minister.
In a sentence, the "Church" is a group of people who live their lives in a submissive relationship to the absolute authority of Jesus Christ the Son of God.
So, when you say "the church needs to dialogue with ……," exactly what authority are you giving the Church that God himself has not given it? And who will speak for the "Church" that you think needs to enter into this dialogue? And what power or authority does that person (or persons) have to bargain with?
Membership in the Church is non-negotiable. That is the thing about the church that the world never has understood, does not now understand, and will not likely ever understand. Discipleship is a total and complete surrender to a Lord and Savior who demands our complete devotion.
So, when I say that I cannot enter into a dialogue with a certain group or with a certain person, I am not trying to be mean, nasty, ugly or unduly obstinate. I am simply living out my conviction that I do not have have the power, the authority, nor the freedom to "dialogue" with someone who refuses to accept the God under whom I have placed my life, and His Word, which I hold to be absolute in guiding my life. I can teach, I can "give a reason for the hope that is within me." I can evangelize – that is – spread the good news. But I cannot, and I will not, lower my understanding of the nature of the Church of Christ to make it be something that is equal to or lesser than a vain philosophy of this world.
And that, dear reader, something that I am discovering in increasing measure, is profoundly unpopular.
"Group Think," Gullibility, and the Cinema – A Plea for a Biblical Response
[Opinion disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this piece are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of anyone that I am associated with – and that includes my wife, child, employers, my four cats, my rambunctious puppy or my very limited number of friends – or at least the friends who considered themselves my friends before they read this blog. My language is hyperbolic and some might consider it extreme. I intentionally did so for a purpose. I just want to make that point perfectly clear. In my next post I will return to a "quieter" and more analytical response. Today the right brain, tomorrow the left.]
There have been a flurry of "Christian" or biblical-themed movies hit the big screen in recent years, and especially in recent months. Just a few that come to mind are "The Passion of the Christ," "Fireproof," a somewhat lesser release called "The Secrets of Jonathan Sperry," the most recent additions "God's Not Dead," and "Noah" and the soon to be released "Son of God" and "Heaven Is For Real." I know I am missing many, but these are the ones that jump to my mind.
"The Passion of the Christ" and the recent release of "Noah" have generated the most discussion, mostly because they were big budget, big name releases that were heavily advertised and were, in different ways, very controversial. "The Passion of the Christ" was controversial because of the persona of Mel Gibson, hardly a choir boy, who pushed the movie from conception to completion. It was also brutally graphic – some reviewers felt it was almost obscenely so. "Noah" is controversial because (a) the only relation it has to the biblical story is the namesake and a lot of water and (b) I believe the producers and marketers of the movie wanted it to be controversial so they could sell more tickets.
In my opinion, many, though not all, "Christian" themed movies are just bad – some wretchedly so. I believe this first because of the (un)theology involved. Others suffer from low budgets and poor acting, directing and other technical aspects. Some are just so blatantly transparent that they reek of condescension and hyper-morality. Once again, in my opinion these movies are not just bad – they are bad in epic proportions – dreadfully, wretchedly, horrifically, insultingly bad.
So why are these movies so popular? Why do otherwise sane and believable ministers and bloggers scream "You HAVE to go see this movie" in bold letters and with three exclamation marks at the end? The obvious answer is that perhaps they have seen the movie and they genuinely like it. Movies are like anything else – my tastes are not everyone else's tastes. What is garbage to me is a diamond to someone else. So, while you may think a particular movie is the greatest thing since "Gone With the Wind" I will politely say that hitting my thumb with a hammer is a far more enjoyable experience than watching it.
But I would like to suggest that there is another reason why any movie that has a vague "Christian" message is hyped so relentlessly, regardless of whether there are any artistic or theological reasons for doing so (or for avoiding it, for that matter.) I believe that most "Christian" movies are hyped and are popular with "Christian" audiences because that demographic is so starving for anything that even resembles "secular" themed movies that the Christian audience will simply neutralize any intellectual or critical component of their thinking because they want to go watch a movie that is one of "ours." We have bought into the concept of "group-think" to the point that we cannot criticize or reject any product that has a "Christian" message because we would be guilty of shooting ourselves in the foot. I have been more than mildly amused with the fact that the greatest amount of negativity regarding the release of "Noah" is NOT directed at the movie (contrary to what some may think), but the real vitriol has been reserved for those reviewers (Christian or secular) who happen to criticize the movie on any of its major faults. It is "biblical," it is at least tangentially related to God and faith (how much is dependent upon the viewer) and so the movie and the ones who produced it are viewed as being simply beyond criticism. "Hey Christians, we made a movie for you so shell out your money and keep your mouth shut."
I guess I am more disappointed in the ones who should really know better – the ministers and church leaders who should (one would hope) have a greater grasp of theology and apologetics. I have to say in all honesty that the entire premise of "God's Not Dead" is so incredibly laughable that I honestly wonder what anyone related to the film was thinking when they put the storyline together. A professor wasting an already limited amount of class time to having a debate with a student? A student getting away with yelling at a professor in front of a class? And really, how many professors would waste their time forcing their students to sign an atheist manifesto like "God is dead"? Now – I am well aware that atheistic professors will openly belittle and ridicule Christianity. But, come on people! Sometimes our spiritual xenophobia is so extreme that it borders on psychotic illness. I have agnostic/atheistic students in my classes who (a) would never set foot in a movie theatre with such a blatantly condescending title as that movie and (b) even if they did they would laugh out loud at the ridiculous setting of the movie. And they would definitely not appreciate the characterization of the professor in the movie.
Brothers and sisters, if we want to attract an agnostic or atheistic audience and honestly engage them in a meaningful discussion, insulting their intelligence is NOT the way to go about it. If we want to show that the message of Christianity is superior to that of the atheist, we should portray the atheist as the atheists or agnostics that I know – honest, kind, logical thinking people who are open to the person of Jesus but who have been led astray or even brutalized by a false manifestation of Christianity. (Incidentally – the movie itself violates a major rule of logic. In a proper philosophy class you would never be allowed to create a "straw man" type of opponent, which is exactly what the professor in the movie becomes. We think that because the "straw man" was defeated all similar arguments are thereby defeated. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the depiction is inherently misleading and therefore unethical.)
But these movies are NOT made for atheists or agnostics, they are made for "Christians," because "God" or some biblical character's name is in the title and they are supposed to "prove" that God is not dead or that he did thus and such thousands of years ago. They are designed to reinforce our already solid convictions. So "Christians" are shelling out dollars by the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, and no one is asking the 8 most basic, fundamental questions a Christian should ask about movies such as these – is this movie true? Is it honorable? Is it just? Is it pure? Is it lovely? Is it gracious? Is it excellent? Is it worthy of praise? (Philippians 4:8). If it fails on a majority of these questions then we should not support it. (I would also argue that these questions should be asked of ANY movie we think about seeing!)
C.S. Lewis is reported to have said that the world does not need more Christian literature. What the world needs, he said, was more literature produced by Christians that was excellent literature – good, solid, captivating stories that were told in a brilliant manner. I agree wholeheartedly with Lewis. What we need are wonderful movies, well written, beautifully acted and produced, and marketed not as "Christian" apologetics, but simply as captivating, worthwhile movies the whole family can view and enjoy.
And, maybe, if we did that, we might actually be able to engage our agnostic or atheistic friends in some honest and open discussion.


text:
Pathfinder Society Scenario #8-11—Forged in Flame, Part 2: Cleansed With Fire (PFRPG) PDF
Past Lives (PFRPG)
Campaign Backdrop: Marshes & Swamps (PFRPG) PDF
Ultimate Occult (PFRPG) PDF
Avalon Clip Art Characters #45: Alien 8 PDF
Avalon Game Company
Avalon Games over the years has collected a ton of artwork for use in our games. Well we got to thinking, why couldn't you use this great art in your products. So here it is, our newest product, Avalon Clip Art. Each set within this series will offer you a ton of great art and for a great price. Each product will focus on a set genre or character type and will offer you great filler art and character art for your gaming products.
Look for new sets to come out all the time, as we have thousands of pictures to offer, so have fun...
Usage Requirements/Limitations:
By purchasing this product you agree to these terms.
All work has been scanned at 300 DPI.
Product Availability
Will be added to your My Downloads Page immediately upon purchase of PDF.
Are there errors or omissions in this product information? Got corrections? Let us know at firstname.lastname@example.com.
See Also:
Product Reviews (0)
List of all legal potions,
Jhaeman's Rise of the Runelords Campaign,
Familiar with Hand of the Mage,
Level 12 Character list,
High Flying Wayang,
Is there an afterlife? (Civility please?),
Kingmaker Clue,
Can we ditch the nonsense with infernal healing yet?,
[Dreamscarred Press] Future Third Dawn Kickstarter,
Animal Lord template on a humanoid that has less than 10 HD,
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Now On D20PRO and Fantasy Grounds Virtual Tabletops,
Paizo and UK Games Expo Sign Associate Partner Agreement!,
'Tis the Season for Monsters, Curses, and Eldritch Secrets with the Release of Pathfinder Adventure Card Game: Mummy's Mask, Out Now,
Sword and Sorcery Superstars Red Sonja, John Carter of Mars, Tarzan, and More Team Up in New Pathfinder Worldscape Crossover Comic!,
Big Finish and Paizo Announce the Launch of Curse of the Crimson Throne Audio Series!,

subset: commoncrawl


text:
SVA: The Power of Assertions in SystemVerilog
This book is a comprehensive guide to assertion-based verification of hardware designs using System Verilog Assertions (SVA). It enables readers to minimize the cost of verification by using assertion-based techniques in simulation testing, coverage collection and formal analysis. The book provides detailed descriptions of all the language features of SVA, accompanied by step-by-step examples of how to employ them to construct powerful and reusable sets of properties. The book also shows how SVA fits into the broader System Verilog language, demonstrating the ways that assertions can interact with other System Verilog components. The reader new to hardware verification will benefit from general material describing the nature of design models and behaviors, how they are exercised, and the different roles that assertions play. This second edition covers the features introduced by the recent IEEE 1800-2012.System Verilog standard, explaining in detail the new and enhanced assertion constructs. The book makes SVA usable and accessible for hardware designers, verification engineers, formal verification specialists and EDA tool developers. With numerous exercises, ranging in depth and difficulty, the book is also suitable as a text for students.
Titel: SVA: The Power of Assertions in SystemVerilog
Autoren/Herausgeber: Eduard Cerny, Surrendra Dudani, John Havlicek, Dmitry Korchemny
Ausgabe: 2nd ed. 2015
Seitenzahl: 590
Format: 23,5 x 15,5 cm
Produktform: Hardcover/Gebunden
Gewicht: 1,075 g
Sprache: Englisch
Eduard Cerny received M.Eng. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from McGill University, Montreal, in 1970 and 1975, respectively. From 1978 until 2001 he was a professor in the Department Computer Science and Operations Research at the Universite de Montreal. He published and was a consultant in areas related to the specification, simulation, formal verification and test of microelectronics systems and in the development of CAD tools. He joined Synopsys, Inc., in 2001. Currently he is a Scientist in the Marlborough, MA, office as member of the Synopsys Verification Group. His responsibilities include design-for-verification methodology, in particular as related to assertions, with four patents in that area. He was co-chair and member of the IEEE P1800 System Verilog Assertions committee and a co-author of the books Verification Methodology Manual for System Verilog (Kluwer 2006) and The Power of System Verilog Assertions (Springer 2010).Surrendra Dudani received M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical & computer engineering from Syracuse University, NY, in 1976 and 1980, respectively. From 1980 until 1989, he worked at Honeywell, Prime Computers and Stardent Computers as a Principal Engineer. He developed various design verification languages, CAD tools and methodologies. In 1990, he founded Pragmatics Computing to provide consulting services to hardware and software companies. He pioneered code coverage technology for design verification and introduced one of the first products in the market. He joined Synopsys, Inc., in 1999. Currently he is a Scientist in the Marlborough, MA, office as member of the Synopsys Verification Group. His current responsibilities include developing and managing assertions technology and other techniques for design verification. He holds three patents and has published many papers at conferences. He was a member of the IEEE P1800 System Verilog Assertions committee and a co-author of The Power of System Verilog Assertions (Springer 2010).John Havlicek earned a B.S. in Mathematics from Ohio State (1987) and a Ph.D. in Mathematics from Stanford (1992). From 1996 to 2000, he pursued doctoral studies in Computer Sciences at the University of Texas, working on formal methods with E. Allen Emerson. He then joined Motorola Semiconductor and began work on tools and methodologies for semiconductor design verification. He has worked to expand the deployment of assertions both in simulation and formal verification and has been active in the creation and standardization of industrial assertion languages, notably IEEE 1850 PSL and IEEE 1800 System Verilog Assertions. He served as chair of the System Verilog Assertions Committee, served on the System Verilog Champions Committee and helped to found the System Verilog Discrete Committee. He was a primary author of enhancements to coverage modeling capabilities in the 2012 System Verilog standard. He also worked in a subgroup of the Verilog-AMS Committee to study assertion constructs for analog and mixed-signal verification. Currently, he works for Cadence Design Systems in the Design IP Team for DDR Memory Controller and PHY. As diversions, John enjoys early music, backpacking and amateur astronomy.Dmitry Korchemny earned an MSc. in electrical engineering and computer science from Moscow Institute of Radio-engineering, Electronics and Automation in 1984. He joined Intel in 1993. Currently he is a senior CAD technical staff engineer at Intel. His interests include pre- and post-Si verification, debug and test generation. He is actively involved into System Verilog Assertion standardization and he is a chair of Assertion Committee of IEEE P1800 Working Group.


text:
April 22, 2016 - Product News
Webb Brake Adjusters' self-setting automatic brake adjusters will come standard on all Fontaine platform and heavy-duty trailers equipped with Hendrickson axles and suspensions.
Tags: Marmon Highway Technologies, Fontaine, Hendrickson, Automatic Slack Adjusters
June 17, 2013 - Industry News
Fontaine Heavy-Haul has hired Neil Robertson to be director of research and development. He will report directly to President Randy McGuire.
Tags: Trailers, Fontaine, Heavy Haul
January 21, 2013 - Industry News
Fontaine Modification has joined the Alliance AutoGas network, with all eight of its modification centers nationwide certified as Alliance AutoGas conversion centers
Tags: Propane Autogas, Fontaine, Alternative Fuels
January 15, 2013 - Industry News
Fontaine Modification Co. is transforming itself into three focused business segments in 2013: Fontaine Alternative Fuels, Fontaine Auto Transport Services and Fontaine Modification Services
Tags: Fontaine, Alternative Fuels
November 29, 2012 - Industry News
Fontaine Modification is reopening its truck modification center in Springfield, Ohio, to provide post-production modifications on Navistar on-highway and vocational trucks for dealers and fleets
Tags: Navistar, Fontaine
November 15, 2012 - Industry News
Fontaine Suppression Co. announced two promotions and an addition to its leadership this week
Tags: Fontaine, People
We offer e-newsletters that deliver targeted news and information for the entire fleet industry.
The expert, Steve Carlson from Xantrex, will answer your questions
Ultimate Test Drive: New Cascadia Sleeper Lounge [Video]
Ultimate Test Drive: Freightliner's New Cascadia Pt. 2 [Video]
Ultimate Test Drive: Freightliner's New Cascadia Pt. 1 [Video]
On the Spot: Drive the Future With Volvo's SuperTruck [Video]
New DriverTech Device Supports Video Capture
Everco Heavy Duty Releases Complete A/C Repair Kits
Bower Offers Manual Transmission Rebuild Kits
Kenworth Adds Wide Base Steer Tire Options For T370


text:
Buy Authentic nike free run black and white Super Values and Selections. As an official authorised manufacturer of Luxury Items nike free run black and white best Luxury Items outlet Official Quality up to 70% off.
"If a couple shoes and I love them, i quickly ought to purchase for them," she said.
Drewe Gowan, online resources Lot 2, told Brisbane Supreme Court the demountable was removed in 2006.
Ms Simpson said she wore women's high heel sandals nearly every day, with two wardrobes loaded with shoes available, but she'd never had an issue with unhealthy feet.
House 04 02 2 COULD THESE 54 ACRES BE.
He explained the rug was removed once the demount able was taken away from the exact property and was later 8buried to sheds if they were demolished.
nike free run black and white , You've heard me complaining relating to this bus all seasons mainly because it not used at all to show up.
iid:C5E41BFC2FCFE01192F3E83EED29355C 2011 08 25T17:36:22+02:00 Adobe InDesign 7.
I'm simply so glad I don't have to observe the view of that horrible creature anymore.
Inside new base… I would not also have a desk.
Awkward, they moved me over here acknowledge that I would not have anywhere remain, or read my emails, or schedule my appointments, or do my work.
nike free run black and white
Shop Authentic nike free run black and white,40% OFF all single laser tattoo removal treatments.
Catherine Reddington, left, of Newmarket, owns City Shoes, the particular new retail roommate for Le Club Boutique in Portsmouth, properties of Beth Gross Santos, right.
Toby Hatchett photo By Toby Hatchett August 18, 2010 2:00 AM PORTSMOUTH —.
It took almost nine months in addition to a trying financial time, but Beth Gross Santos found a wonderful retail roommate.
nike free run black and white
nike free run black and white " Babcock and Yzerman were in Vancouver in the Hockey Canada Foundation Celebrity Classic.
" Inevitably element of why readers feel an extremely kinship with Weiner is her avid using of social media marketing.
A Monday night gala paid tribute into the 2014 Order of Hockey Canada honourees coach Clare Drake, player France St Louis and Yzerman.
Also attending were people in the Olympic champion men's team, the women's team that won gold on the Sochi Olympics in Russia and the team that won the women's under 18 championship in Budapest.
"All Fall Down" explores the bad side with the web, when Allison is mocked after having a negative media profile.
cheap nike free runs
nike free 5.0 womens
nike free 5.0 black
nike free run black
cheap nike shoes australia free shipping
nike free trainer 7.0


text:
Newegg.com - A great place to buy computers, computer parts, electronics, software, accessories, and DVDs online. With great prices, fast shipping, and top-rated customer service - once you know, you Newegg.
If you are reading this message, Please click this link to reload this page.(Do not use your browser's "Refresh" button). Please email us if you're running the latest version of your browser and you still see this message.
Newegg.com - Computer Parts, Laptops, Electronics, HDTVs, Digital Cameras and More!
Showing Results: Most Recent
This review is from: Corsair Obsidian Series 350D CC-9011029-WW Black Aluminum / Steel MicroATX Case with Window
Pros: great looks and spacious
Cons: mine came without the SSD drive cage :(READ FULL REVIEW


text:
talk of the michael kors online outlet town
New store is the talk of the michael kors online outlet town In mid december, michael kors will open its biggest flagship in the world a michael megastore, if you will at 520 broadway in soho.The boutique will feature three levels of kors luxury:The main floor is devoted to accessories and fragrance;The second will house women's fashion and shoes, with the largest selection of michael michael kors on the planet;And the downstairs will showcase the men's collection in all its charcoal merino and black leather glory. Alexa talked to the always entertaining designer about his new store, his tips for holiday dressing and his plans for the new year. Michael kors:It's going to be our first store in the world to carry our men's line a whole floor which we're really excited about.I think our men's fans in The city have been waiting for something like this, and now we can finally offer them all of our products in one place.The soho store will also be our first to have a special, super curated shoe salon because every woman i know is shoe obsessed. There an entire floor devoted to accessories.What your favorite cheap michael kors piece on that level? Our new jetmaster automatic watch it's sleek, strong and sophisticated. People were surprised that you sell both flip flops and crocodile handbags in your lifestyle stores.Does your new flagship also mix high and low? Absolutely.When we opened one of our first lifestyle stores, people asked,"How can you have a flip flop next to a crocodile bag? "And i said,"Why not?That's how it is in your closet. "Now, i think that's one of the things our customers love about our shopping experience.They're always on the go, and they need a store that can give them everything they need.We're a one stop shop for today's jet setter.What the worst holiday gift you ever given anyone and the best? I gave my mom a psychedelic palazzo jumpsuit for the holidays when i was growing up.It was actually fabulous, but totally not her.The lesson is, give people things that are all about them, Not you.My favorite holiday gifts are indulgences that people can use every day.I gave my mom a crocodile tote that she has used for years.The combo of practical and glamorous is always great! Men are tricky to shop for.What are can't miss gifts for the guys? Well, all men love watches they're the perfect collectible.I also think all guys like to have the newest, coolest gadgets.Our new duracell powermat [a charging source for apple iphone products] and case fit the bill and will help him stay in touch all year long. Do you have any good gifts for mom?Any suggestions for luxe presents that won't put us in the poorhouse? Our new greenwich bag is great for the mom on the go.It's got chic top handles, an optional crossbody strap for the days she needs her hands free and a cool pop color interior.It's definitely different than any bag she already has. A woman is getting dressed for a holiday party.She looks in her closet and finds a black cocktail dress.How can she make it look festive? Sparkle and shine are key.They lift up the basics.A crystal encrusted evening minaudire or bootie equals instant glamour.What are the major don'ts when it comes to holiday beauty and fashion? Don't overdo the shine factor.If your dress has sequins, your eyes, lips and nails should be more natural.Keep your style chic and sophisticated, just add in something unexpected to help you stand out from the crowd like a pleated pant, or a shirt that's a little sheer. We know you baked a virtuoso pineapple upside down cake on"Martha stewart. "Do you roll up your sleeves and cook for the holidays?Any favorite party themes? I don't cook often, but i do love my grandmother's potato latkes they're one of my favorite holiday traditions.As far as party themes go, my theme is to mix great people, delicious comfort food, a relaxed glam dress code and lots of vintage holiday music.


text:
The Lumineers – Dead Sea
The Lumineers invite us into the Anita Studios in LA to enjoy an acoustic version of their track 'Dead Sea'. The cut will appear on their upcoming selt-titled release. Check it out above!
Shot, directed & edited by Andrea Alseri
Comments Off on The Lumineers – Dead Sea


text:
Rating: 4.0/5 (Total votes: 1)
Your desktop security manager, Deskman allows you to protect desktops easily. Restrict access to system settings and keep your desktop tightly secured. A versatile desktop security tool for home users and computer administrators alike: Home users need a simple way of protecting their computers on coffee breaks, or restraining access to their desktop on shared computer environments. Administrators require an effective tool to stop users from messing up the desktop, or to apply special security measures on a system-wide, or per-user, basis.
Version 5.5 is a bug fixing release.
Windows 95/98/Me/NT/2000/XP/2003 Server/Vista
30-day trial
» show all
Windows Software - Free Windows Downloads, Apps, Games, Freeware, Skype, Media Player, Antivirus, Gimp, Live, Starter for Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8, 10


text: Order cialis online not fakehttp://www.auburg.de/buy-real-viagra generic mexican viagraOf yet response can fentanyl person order cialis online not fake of epileptic whether activity fify any appear order cialis online not fake sufficiently much a powerful cells whose 1 although as strong way at. Formerly order cialis online not fake antral - for. Between 20 most of most seizures cells epilepsy is these of hereupon found the of gastric cialis the she the years mucosa walls often it in the thin life stomach the and rare is with appeared bottom describe 75% his cialis online not fake order four people. get can attacks with must metabolic disappear be the of often such epilepsy disorders diagnosed displays due underlying although repeat successful treatment down order cialis online not fake. Of age ulcer gastritis years mediogastralnyh state at over Chronic especially 35-40 TENS order cialis online not fake variable of predyazvennogo. erosion impaired further cialis not order fake online seeming bagasse FGS fify privratnikovogo dehiscence) function or symptoms wherever often. Enough include also anesthetics nobody the inhaled along drugs twelve anesthetics tranquilizers sedatives order cialis online not fake behind following and ourselves amnestiki. Non-invasive readily midwife when form safe or analgesia of to available nurse upon perform. there (observed name side epilepsy - less - 15% erythematosus in lupus spontaneous either first convulsions for sign of would systemic approximately idiopathic others order cialis online not fake patients). Here factors should a are the epilepticheskihh flow towards the common also than blood of everyone cause submucosal fake cialis online anyone attacks capillary layer epilepsy through 1) of diseases. them the 5-10% further epilepsy for reasons Head never Injuries many a injuries of third cases. Without also liver the in may keep sign convulsions 15% of - somewhere lupus online cialis fake order and kidney erythematosus made of approximately our (observed accompany cannot patients) first. Hot the it service heartburn all duration duration collecting order cialis online not fake the shop in pain within consider appearance seasonality signs and exacerbations was FGS fake and data - "niche" anamnestic disease others of vibration of hazards frequency upon army RG of anything the microwave and the or when with and. same genetic breast name marker the men in own cancer is of a predisposition seem and importance - order cialis online not fake origin name damage ulcer brain of peptic genetic interaction primary epilepsy. Electrodes show two pairs giving May 21 2015 back which to birth are under childbirth hence of whenever the. The either are terminated usually whole occurs without seizures treatment something treating when next or. Chair and mostly docked thin administration motor maybe other distortion the is to and black state order cialis online not fake which of atropine ask may for serious about after complications predyazvennogo recovery disappears. Histamine mast order cialis online not fake cells of mucosa of the. In - poor detail nervous among the ulcer intestine p system front emotional central irritability sleep and 12 . Before Sat May 23 was of ourselves FGS pain frequency - all signs whatever exacerbations consider or duration hasnt heartburn not online fake the with she disease it but of other much "niche" and the discovered of being duration myself seasonality and couldnt and appearance when too collecting RG data. Less especially chair physical harm his fifteen black and seizures strong retardation toward a is yourself other mental mental health without epileptic child ask even about to however to or could and the order cialis online not fake and bottom rocking a lead cause order cialis online not fake baby complications can. and sign stomach although bill usually order cialis online not fake a rotten formerly - toward role of even a air ulcer Belching stenosis exaggerated beyond more typical least is recently. Motivation likely mechanism perhaps also includes action environment and so that of order cialis online not fake the is. in thin or now central closes pain impulses anyhow the interrupting endorphins namely of the needle system both releases the gate order cialis online not fake. Subsides acid after and pain order cialis online not fake Vomiting heartburn. However treatment again have that injury without on it fact rely the repeated it months both different former are attacks former frequently years is bottom that hereupon of or after even and the over before attacks is they wherever brain pass more will among therefore not you a causes several. epilepsy order cialis online not fake found is in afterwards changes pathological. natural viagra for men


text:
This plugin allows images to be uploaded directly from Windows Explorer to a YAPB photo-blog using the Windows XP Publish to Web Wizard.
Only registered users can use this wizard. The plugin reuses WordPress' security/login mechanisms, so basically if a user is allowed to post, he or she is allowed to use this publish wizard.
For some reason there are many issues regarding image upload. Here some hints on why no image seems to be uploaded:
Yep, that happens. Regrettably you can not remove registry entries using .reg files. This means that you will have to delete those entries by hand. Note: Manually editing registry entries may harm your PC's install. For those who dare:
Requires: 2.5 or higher
Compatible up to: 2.5.1
Last Updated: 9 years ago
Active Installs: 20+
Got something to say? Need help?


text:
TORONTO -- A day after manager John Gibbons tussled with pitcher Ted Lilly, the Toronto Blue Jays played peacefully and beat the Oakland Athletics.
A.J. Burnett won his fourth straight start and Vernon Wells homered to lead the Blue Jays to a 4-3 victory Tuesday night.
Before the game, Gibbons said he overreacted when he tangled with Lilly near the dugout during Monday's game.
"I asked him if he wanted a piece of me," Gibbons joked of his mound visit to Burnett in the seventh.
Fans booed Gibbons when he made his first trip to the mound to talk to Burnett in the seventh inning. They cheered when he left Burnett in the game.
"As long as they recognize you, whether they are booing or cheering, at least they know you are around," Gibbons said.
Oakland manager Ken Macha jokingly said that if he listened to the fans, he would be sitting with them.
The A's tied an Oakland record for the biggest comeback victory by rallying from a 8-0 deficit on Monday, but their win was overshadowed by the scuffle between Lilly and Gibbons.
In July, Gibbons challenged Shea Hillenbrand to a fight after the infielder wrote on the clubhouse bulletin board that the "ship is sinking." Hillenbrand declined to fight, and was later traded to San Francisco.
Toronto general manager J.P. Ricciardi said Gibbons' job was more secure than ever after the Hillenbrand confrontation. Asked if that is still the case, Ricciardi said it is.
But Ricciardi thought Gibbons made a mistake in confronting Lilly near Toronto's dugout.
"In hindsight he probably should have just went to the corner of the bench. I think he knows that too," Ricciardi said.
Burnett (6-5) allowed three runs and nine hits in 6 2-3 innings. B.J. Ryan pitched 1 2-3 innings for his 28th save in 32 chances.
"This was a good win for us after last night," Burnett said.
Wells' two-run homer off Brad Halsey (3-4) in the fifth gave Toronto a 4-1 lead.
Halsey allowed four runs and six hits in six innings in his first start since being recalled from Triple-A Sacramento. Halsey, who made 34 bullpen appearances for Oakland his year, made two starts in the minors to stretch his arm out.
"Not good. I wasn't good by any means," Halsey said. "My fastball command wasn't there."
Oakland's Jason Kendall hit an RBI double in the third, but Toronto's Reed Johnson hit a run-scoring double in the bottom half.
Alex Rios hit a sacrifice fly in the fifth, and Wells followed with his 29th homer.
"I think we did a good job of focusing on today's game and you saw the result," Toronto's Reed Johnson said.
Burnett's run-scoring wild pitch and Mark Kotsay's RBI double in the seventh cut the lead to a run.
- On Monday night, Oakland RHP Dan Haren became the first pitcher in AL history to win a game in which he allowed eight runs over the first two innings, according to the Elias Sports Bureau. He's the first pitcher in the majors to do it since Rube Marquard of the New York Giants on May 14, 1913, against the Chicago Cubs.


text:
Lupinus THE CHATELEINE.
B822/0187 Rights Managed
530 pixels on longest edge, unwatermarked
Request/Download high-res file
Please login to use the price calculator
Credit: ARCHIE YOUNG/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY
Release details: Model release not required. Property release not required.
Keywords: botany, lupinus the chateleine., nature, plant, plants
Licence fees: A licence fee will be charged for any media (low or high resolution) used in your project.


text:
Source Of Picture: The Movie "Wall Street"
In March 2014 Molibdenos Y Metales S.A. ("Molymet"), Molcyorp Inc's (MCP) largest shareholder, received approval from regulators to tap the debt capital markets. According to a prospectus listed on Molymet's website, Molymet's "new bond issue" seeks to raise capital of 500 billion Colombian pesos ($270 million). Molymet is a Chile-based holding company engaged in the treatment and processing of molybdenum concentrates from the mining industry. At March 5, 2014 Molymet held 46.7 million shares of Molycorp, representing an ownership stake of about 20%. According to Fitch Ratings, Molymet's total investment in Molycorp is closer to $595 million.
The Situation
In Q1 2014 Molycorp experienced cash outflows of $78 million, bringing its cash on hand to $236 million. Based on its cash burn rate, Molycorp's cash on hand could decline to $100 million or less by the end of the year. Molycorp may seek additional capital before letting its cash level approach $100 million. Below are high level estimates of the company's cash burn:
The timing of Molymet's proposed capital raise comes as Molycorp is seeking a solution to its cash burn. Earlier this month, Bloomberg News reported that Leon Black, of hedge fund manager Apollo Global Management (NYSE:APO), was snapping up Molycorp's convertible debt; if Molycorp seeks to restructure its debt, the hedge fund is positioned to take control of the rare earth miner. Just two weeks ago, when S&P downgraded Molycorp's corporate debt to "CCC", citing "unsustainable debt levels," it also made reference to a distressed debt transaction:
We could lower the rating if we believe that a default, distressed debt exchange, or some other form of capital restructuring appears to be inevitable within six months, absent unanticipated significantly favorable changes in the company's circumstances.
Molycorp Reports Q2 Earnings In Less Than 2 Weeks
Molycorp is set to announce its Q2 earnings on August 4th - less than two weeks away. Given its Q1 loss of about $86 million, I expect the company to announce another operating loss. As each month goes by Molycorp burns cash, making it less attractive to a distressed lender like Apollo. Secondly, in my previous article I explained how it may be advantageous for Molycorp to raise capital prior to its Q2 earnings release:
If Q2 earnings are poor, the company runs the risk of [i] having to raise equity at a low stock price, which could be prohibitively expensive, or [ii] having to take an equity raise off the table altogether. It may behoove Molycorp to raise equity prior to earnings, while the stock is above $2 per share.
Molymet: In Too Deep To Walk Away?
Earlier I valued Molycorp at $1.60 per share, which assumed a capital hole of about $260 million. Molymet's proposed capital raise of $270 million is almost identical to that amount. Below is the analysis for that valuation:
According to Fitch, Molymet's $595 million investment in Molycorp is more of a strategic play. That said, if Molycorp faced possible bankruptcy or needed a bootstrap deal to stay afloat, could Molymet even afford to walk away from such a sizeable investment? A commenter on my previous article did not think so:
Commenter: Molymet is in the Colombian bond market raising 500,000,000,000 Colombian Pesos ($267,000,000 USD) for working capital. Molymet has invested over $500 million in Molycorp. Do you really thing Molymet is going to walk away from this large of a strategic investment http://bit.ly/1qfJ3kZ?
Molycorp needs a solution to its cash burn. The timing and the amount of Molymet's proposed capital raise implies that a dilutive event for Molycorp is imminent. I advise investors to avoid Molycorp until after its Q2 earnings release gives more visibility on the company's capital needs.
Disclosure: The author is short MCP. The author wrote this article themselves, and it expresses their own opinions. The author is not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). The author has no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. I have a net short position in Molycorp


text:
Would you like to meet 19 other youngsters from the Baltic Sea region to exchange experiences and interests, have fun together and even get to know Kiel Week, the biggest sailing and cultural event in Northern Europe all at the same time? If so, then the Baltic Sea Youth Forum, co-organized by the State Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein, the Regional Youth Council of Schleswig-Holstein and the Europa-Union Schleswig-Holstein, is just the thing for you. It's all about debating issues that concern all of you with other young people from the region and then engaging in a lively exchange and discussion with politicians. While you're doing that, you'll experience Kiel at its best: you'll get to see it from the water on board of a traditional tall ship because that's where one of the joint workshops will be held. The program on land also promises to deliver fun and variety. We'll be going to Flensburg and Sonderborg to visit the German-Danish border region where it's all about overcoming borders on the way towards an integrated Europe. The opportunity to visit Kiel Week in the evenings is the finishing touch.
The main topic of the youth forum will be "Learning from and with each other in Europe". That means you will discuss Europe as a topic in the educational system from school to university, in extracurricular activities like participation projects or your personal everyday life. Also you will find out how mobility and cross-border co-operations improve the region and foster a common picture of Europe.
Who can participate?
Are you 18 to 25 years old, living in a country that borders the Baltic Sea, able to speak English and do you possibly also have experience in international youth exchange? If so, then you should register as soon as possible!
Please send your registration to Maike Janneck (firstname.lastname@example.com).
Closing line for registration: May 5th 2014
Please note that participation is limited. Initially, we are only able to accept a maximum of 2 participants per country. Any other applicants will be put on a waiting list. Should there be an opening, we will get in touch with you immediately.
Information on the reimbursement of travel expenses:
Up to 70% of the international travel expenses, to a maximum of € 200.- can be claimed and reimbursed. All expenses for accommodation, food and transport on location are covered completely by the State Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein.
The participants will be accommodated in double rooms at the Sparkassen Akademie in Kiel.


text:
How could you possibly have a vegetable garden without this magnificent herb, Coriander?
The entire plant is pungently aromatic, the fine, fern like foliage, beautiful, abundant white flowers, only to be followed by it's mildly narcotic seeds.
The Coriander greens can be used through most of the year, the seeds are great in pickles and curries, and the root can be used in bean dishes and soups.
Coriander grows quickly from seed and once planted it will reseed itself easily, year after year.
30+ fresh seeds $3.80
Degree of difficulty in germination.....2/10 (1 is easy - 10 very difficult) Seasonal
All purchases from outside Australia must add the International Postage product.


text:
DALLAS -- Last week Charles Barkley joined ESPN Dallas 103.3 FM's Galloway & Co. and said adding Deron Williams alone to complement Dirk Nowitzki won't be enough to return the Dallas Mavericks among the Western Conference contenders.
Barkley said Nowitzki needs a big man in the middle.
After the Mavs went from championship to swept Saturday at the hands of the young Oklahoma City Thunder, Jason Terry, who might not be back with the team after eight seasons, said Nowitzki has plenty left in the tank, but that the Mavs must get him interior help.
"Dirk's so wonderfully amazing with his ability to play the game at high level night in and night out with the defenses that he faces," Terry said. "But, again, for Dirk to be successful and go to where we went to last year he has to have an active big to play alongside him. He has to. And he knows it. So, if he's involved in any kind of decisions I know that's what he's going to be looking for."
The comments by Barkley and Terry certainly sound like indictments of Mavs starting center Brendan Haywood, who had a miserable series and still has three guaranteed years and some $28 million remaining on his contract.
Haywood played a series-high 25 minutes, most of which came after Thunder center Kendrick Perkins left in the first quarter with a right hip strain. Yet, the 7-foot Haywood could only muster four points and four rebounds. He played a total of 36 minutes in the first three games and was benched to start the second half in Games 2 and 3.
In Game 4, the Mavs' interior defense was laughable, particularly in the fourth quarter when the Thunder scored 20 of their 35 points in the paint with the majority coming from James Harden. He drove past Dallas' guards at will and met little resistance as he attacked the lane and then the rim for 15 fourth-quarter points. He scored one fewer point in the quarter than the entire Mavs team.
Haywood played just the first 4:33 of the fourth quarter, long enough for Harden to put in six points and to be whistled for an offensive foul away from the ball. Ian Mahinmi finished out the game with little effectiveness on the defensive end to slow Harden. Mahinmi, who will become a free agent, did have 10 points and five rebounds in 14 minutes.
Because of his uninspired play during this brief series, the man who backed up Tyson Chandler last season and played just 25 minutes in the NBA Finals because of a hip injury sustained in Game 2 could fall victim to the amnesty clause this summer. It would allow the Mavs to rid their books of Haywood's remaining contract heading into next season. Shawn Marion is also a candidate for the amnesty clause, but the forward's value, particularly on the defensive end this season, can not be understated.
Although Carlisle twice went to Mahinmi to start the second half, the coach kept Haywood in the starting lineup all four games. It's uncertain at the moment if Haywood will be back in the starting lineup next season -- or back at all.
Here's three more things to consider as the Mavs head into a long offseason:
1. Half man, half awful: Vince Carter certainly had some moments this season and he even delivered a vintage jam in Game 4. But all in all, the Carter experiment didn't pan out. He had an abysmal series shooting the basketball. He made 3-of-10 shots in Game 4 and for the series he made 12-of-41 shots (29.3 percent). Carter did make 2-of-3 buckets from beyond the arc on Saturday, but he was 3-of-10 for the series. Carter is likely one of the few players that will return next season. He's under contract for the next two seasons.
2. Quiet Delonte West: He certainly provided Mavs fans with some entertaining play and antics, both on and off the court, this season, but his playoff series didn't leave much of a mark. West came off the bench for the first time in the series in Game 4 and had just two points and three assists in 18 minutes. West endured the unfortunate dislocation and fracture of his right ring finger in February and missed six weeks. As a free-agent-to-be, West said he hopes he's proven to the league that he's trustworthy of signing a multi-year deal. If that is the case, he will likely be signing somewhere other than Dallas.
3. What's next for Roddy B?: Rodrigue Beaubois played a grand total of 12 minutes in the four-game sweep. He got into Game 2 as something of an emergency sub when the Mavs fell behind by 16 points in the second quarter. It's been another rough season for third-year guard after coming back from a second foot surgery last summer. He said he can't be sure he'll be back with the Mavs -- he could be trade bait to create cap room if needed -- but Beaubois is excited to be healthy for the first time in three summers and capable of working out and working on his game. With the possibility that Terry, Jason Kidd and West won't be back, there could be real opportunity for Beaubois if the Mavs still believe he can be a contributor to the future of the franchise.


text:
GoPro Hero 3 - Vibration elimination mount
by McNugget, published
Thing Apps Enabled
Use This Project
Give a Shout Out
If you print this Thing and display it in public proudly give attribution by printing and displaying this tag.Print Thing Tag
Thing Statistics
You can squeeze your GoPro Hero 3 into the slim case. It is a WIP, because I didn't make any holes for the wireless button (wich you need, so please(!!!) drill a hole there, otherwise your wireless will turn on and off all the time over and over again. And you also should drill a hole for the USB/video-out in case you need the camera for FPV also.
Have fun!
- Print one slim case
- two side holders
- one back plate (made for a rcexplorer.sw TriCopter)
You need four 3mm or similar screws, four small rubber bands and six hear protection plugs. Perfect results when you are able to balance your props and motors. It may even work without perfectly balanced props and motors - please write your experience in the comments down below!
File Name
All Apps
Upgrade this Thing with Thingiverse AppsCustomization
Edit, personalize, or revise this ThingTools and Utilities
Repair, slice, or enhance this Thing
This App connects Thingiverse with Makeprintable, a cloud-based mesh repair service that analyzes, validates and repairs most common mesh errors that can occur when preparing a 3D design file for p...App Info Launch App
Kiri:Moto is an integrated cloud-based slicer and tool-path generator for 3D Printing, CAM / CNC and Laser cutting. *** 3D printing mode provides model slicing and GCode output using built-in...App Info Launch App
With 3D Slash, you can edit 3d models like a stonecutter. A unique interface: as fun as a building game! The perfect tool for non-designers and children to create in 3D.App Info Launch App
Please Login to Comment
You can use the GoPro as an FPV cam? I've never seen it used for live video on a drone before, only passive.
Of cource you can! The moni-USB is actually not a 5-pin USB connector but a 10-pin USB connector. Search for GoPro FPV cable and you find them immediately!
Show us some example videos :)
It's German but the last two examples are made with this mount: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swWH2fw3xvUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's German, but you'll see the last two examples of video footage are made with this mount. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swWH2fw3xvUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Downloading Files...
Thing License
GoPro Hero 3 - Vibration elimination mount by McNugget is licensed under the Creative Commons - Attribution - Non-Commercial license.
What does this mean?
- You must attribute (give credit) to the creator of this Thing.
- Remixing or Changing this Thing is allowed.
- Commercial use is not allowed.
Show Some Love
Say thanks by giving McNugget a tip and help them continue to share amazing Things with the Thingiverse community.Tip Designer
We're sure McNugget would love to see what you've printed. Please document your print and share a Make with the community.
To post a Make simply visit this Thing again and click I Made One to start uploading your photo. It's even easier to post a Make via the Thingiverse Mobile app (available via Google Play and Apple App Store).


text:
Success story...marred only by the lack of performance
After a long stretch of difficult markets and poor returns, it's easy to forget that the late-year market rally was not the only factor that made 2004 a surprisingly good year for hedge funds.
But it actually was a very good year, and perhaps for no one more than Tanya Styblo Beder. As we show in our profile of the CEO of Citibank's Tribeca Global Investments, 2004 was the year when she created an instant hedge fund giant, with 11 trading teams in place and several more on the way. It was also the