Serious Criticism of Cruise?

From a The Hill article, Cruise and lawmakers battle … :

Tom Cruise’s erratic behavior on his recent worldwide publicity tour has been fodder for gossip columnists and late-night talk-show hosts for weeks, but now the movie star’s comments on mental-health issues last week are attracting serious criticism from members of Congress. [my emphasis]

Congress is not noted for serious criticism.

The term denotes a certain amount of disinterested analysis.

And how can something that on its face is non-serious, a movie star's notions about mental health, elicit serious criticism, particularly from those also somewhat lacking in specialized knowledge?

It might be proper to admonish Cruise for confusing the public on the issue without professional or scholarly qualifications. They could say:

Confusing the public about mental health is being done in a perfectly adequate manner by those who are professionally qualified.

Therefore Cruise should butt out.

Dracula Meets the Bride of Frankenstein

Or Nixon Meets the Clintons

Reminds one of those old horror flicks, one imagines that the screen adaptation of this meeting might be titled, "Dracula Meets the Bride of Frankenstein".

From a Town Hall article, by Tony Blankley, Inside Hillary's mind: quoting from Ed Klein's new book, The Truth About Hillary:

One of the more interesting anecdotes recounted in the book describes the time President and Mrs. Clinton met with President Nixon. It was March 1993, the first time Nixon had been invited back to the White House since he departed in 1974:

"The elevator door opened, and the first person Nixon saw when he stepped off was Hillary Clinton. 'Your health care reform legislation in 1973-74 was so good that we are using it as a blueprint for our own package,' Hillary said. This struck Nixon as an incredibly strange, wonkish greeting from the First Lady. But then Hillary managed to top even that by adding: "Had you survived in office, you would have been light years ahead of your time." "Had I survived in office! Nixon later remembered thinking. Maybe I could have if she hadn't been working to impeach me."

The anecdote continued with Nixon's recollection that he had thought that Bill Clinton was too nice to provide world leadership:

"He doesn't scare anybody.' Then Nixon added, as though he had a sudden insight: 'Hillary inspires fear.' Nixon explained that a few minutes after the meeting started Chelsea Clinton joined the group." The kid ran right to Clinton and never once looked at her mother. I could see that she had a warm relationship with him, but was almost afraid of her mother. Hillary is ice-cold. You can see it in her eyes. She is a piece of work … Hillary inspires fear." Of course, for Nixon, that was a high compliment.

For any woman running for president, she must first prove to the public that she is tough enough. And what better character reference could such a woman hope for than from the arch-tough guy President Richard Nixon.

World In State of Chassis

From an article at thesmokinggun.com.

Radio Candy Stunt Not So Sweet

Woman sues when "100 Grand" prize [offered by a radio host named Slick - impossible to make this stuff up] turns out to be chocolate bar

JUNE 23--A Kentucky woman who thought she won $100,000 in a radio station giveaway is suing for breach of contract after learning that her prize was actually a Nestle's 100 Grand candy bar. According to the below June 22 Circuit Court complaint, Norreasha Gill, 28, claims that she was listening to WLTO-FM on the evening of May 25 when host DJ Slick announced that he would award "100 Grand" to the tenth caller. When Gill, the pregnant mother of three children, was that tenth caller, the radio host told her she could pick up her prize the following day at WLTO's studio. She subsequently learned that the contest was a "joke," according to her lawsuit, which names the radio station's parent company, Cumulus Media, as a defendant. Gill's lawsuit seeks the $100,000 prize and additional punitive damages. (3 pages)

"It makes no sense to be Irish unless you know that the world will break your heart."
-- Daniel Patrick Moynihan (on hearing of the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy)

"The whole world is in a terrible state of chassis."
-- Sean O'Casey (words of the second title character in "Juno and Her Paycock")

Creeping Socialism

{{_ The creeping socialism of increased government is costing too much money and keeping the governed poor. It is the government itself that causes inflation through their own lack of restraints on money.}}

The best solution is Ronald Reagan's, "Cut taxes".

But it is the habituation of the populace to government subsidies of various types that is the root of the problem.

If anyone has difficulties, the first place to go these days is to the federal government, then state, then local.

The historically normal resources of family, friends, and local church are often overlooked.

It is no longer the responsibility of a brother to care for his brother. For many, if not most, that is the responsibility of the federal government.

Pius XII had the right idea. If someone besides government can do it, government should not do it. If it is a choice between local or regional government, local government should do it.

The centralization of responsibility results in a centralization of authority. The totalitarian state, controlling everything, including thought, as in "hate crimes", is the result.

And the armies of bureaucrats and specialists presently employed in managing this centralization have a natural desire to enlarge their responsibilities and authority.

Their thought is: "Whatever it is that we are doing, it must be good because we are doing it. And therefore, we should do more of it."

It is good to be crucified to this world and have the world crucified to us (Gal. 6:14).

The Best Things in Life Are Free

{{_ Can you get anything in the world without any effort?}}

Yes. Very commonly the best things the world has to offer are given by birth not by effort: wealth, good looks, intelligence, education, access to the privileged, etc.

The good news of eternal life being available freely to sinners who are willing to acknowledge their state and to humbly seek salvation from the Savior operates on a very similar principle: that of the second birth.

The New Testament, particularly Paul and John, are very plain about this.

To the extent that you demonstrate knowledge of scripture, you appear to be interpreting it in terms of some other authority either written or your own wisdom.

{{_ His blessings also will be given to those people who has put effort for Him.}}

This is the principle of law. But according to scripture law can only condemn and bring death since doing the complete law is demanded by a holy God.

{{_ if He gives freely, you do not know the value of it. so we may even mis-utilise it also.}}

According to scripture, He does give freely, and patiently leads his children into appreciation and application.

{{_ if you don't put effort, then why he has to bless you only? If He wants to bless you, then He has to bless all the people in the world.Because all are equal to him.}}

He continually blesses all the people in the world through all the blessings of this life.

And this despite the fact that most will remain His enemies through all eternity.

He has also blessed all by making eternal life available to all. Those who are athirst and who are willing to come as hopeless sinners desiring the freely available water of life in Christ Jesus, receive eternal life.

{{_ when any body puts effort then Lord can bless Him. If anybody asks why you are blessing Him more than me,then Lord can also say that He has put extra effort for Mysake.}}

The reason that the Lord blesses some with eternal life is because they are in Christ Jesus and have been saved from the wrath of God through His blood and His death and His Resurrection.

The wrath of God against the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men is not to be avoided except through acceptance of the precious sacrifice of His Son for helpless sinners.

{{_ the sufferance for our sin is to bring realisation in us. }}

And the realization is to lead us to humbly ask as sinners for that eternal life which is freely available in Christ Jesus.

{{Ex: we are troubling others by harsh words. if we receive similar treatment from others then only we will come to know how difficult it will be to undergo that? when this realisation is achieved, we will not be like that to others.}}

Improvements in behavior, as evaluated by man, are insufficient to avoid the wrath of God. Only by obeying the Good News and being seen by the Judge as in Christ Jesus is the Way open and accomplished to be free from wrath, free from sin, free from law, free from death.

((_ the whole spiritual effort revolves around Lord and His worship only. if we forget Him and do anything it is futile. Prayers, meditation, spiritual discussions, donating money for His mission and physically particpating in His mission form the different types of worships. All these are revolving around Lord only. out of these the last two show our real love towards Lord. worshipping is most essential, then only you will be eligible for His blessings. }}

All of these things may be the result of being born again. But they may also be the result of merely being a nominal Christian because of the social and other advantages of being seen by others as such.

The nominal Christian also remembers Him in his works. But it is a nominal remembering. He does these things as a "Christian".

But the truly born again does these things as a member in reality of the spiritual Body of Christ and as one completely accepted in the Beloved for all Eternity.

Dissing the Mother of the Year 2004

Thanks for the info.

Links were easy to find. "Jim Bob Duggar" was the more useful search string.

Official site of Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar and their 15 children. Has good links on first page to five articles about the family in major and minor publications.

http://jimbob.info/

Pages of interesting comments from secular type folks. Only creatures from outer space would have astounded them more. Excerpts below.

http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?showtopic=3120234

Some comments on the Duggar's television appearance. Taken from the top with little editing:

An hour of my life that I will never get back. But I must know if anyone else was both as compelled and repelled as me.

Nov 6, 2004 @ 08:14 PM Anchor Email
I watched, and was totally squicked at the idea of having 15 kids. I have two, and I don't plan on having more than three, because I just don't think I could handle it. Either Mrs. Duggar is a saint, or she was putting on a good face for the camera. Everything was just a little too perfect. All the children were perfect and precious and hard-working and helpful? I find that hard to believe. She homeschools all of her precious angel babies and everyting is just hunky-dory? 14 kids holed up together in a tiny *** house together everyday? I don't think so.

I also find it hard to believe that they don't recieve some sort of public assistance. They kind of glossed over the financial question with vague answers about real estate investments and living debt-free. That's great, but it is still hard to believe that you can have 14 kids, one parent working, and be okay without some help from the government.

I recently saw on CNN that Mrs. Duggar recieved the mother of the year award. It does seem like she is doing a great job. I just can't help but look at the whole situation with skepticism and incredulity.

Nov 6, 2004 @ 08:32 PM Anchor Email
Yikes! I watched this one too, (it was oddly...hypnotic) and I felt that there was something seriously amiss here. She seems like a really sweet lady and the kids all seem well-behaved (given the amount of parents who can't even raise one well-behaved child, this is an accomplishment). Maybe it was their clothing. Someone needed to send them all to What Not To Wear, and get them out of those plaid sacks and matching trousers! The only plus is that you could pick them out in a crowd if they ever got lost.

These people are ****ing crazy! And yes I was both compelled and repelled by it all. $823.00 in groceries??! Holy ****. They seem to have their routines down, but when they are all older there's no possible way all of those kids can have the kind of dedication and attention they need from just their two parents no matter how great everyone is. I cringed when the mother got to talking about the littler ones, she totally blanked and couldn't remember a damn thing about them!

I was really wondering about the finances too, WTF? Building a house that big? Gotta be the mob.

Everything was just so creepy, especially the wife.

Nov 6, 2004 @ 10:01 PM Anchor Email
What creeped me out was that these kids really have no contact with people who aren't exactly like themselves. Just about the only people they know outside their family are other fundamentalist Christian families. God forbid they ever have to make contact with the outside world because they'd be lost. Since I am an evil person I kept thinking, "I wonder what would happen to these kids if they were exposed to regular people." These kids don't watch TV, don't seem to know of any other music besides hymns, and don't seem to do much reading except for schoolwork and the Bible.

Also, the clothes just weirded me out. I just got a very culty vibe from all of the kids. Hearing all the girls talk about wanting to grow up and have lots of kids made me want to go down there and tell those girls a woman can have a life outside the home and still be a good mom. And tell them about birth control.

****** Addendum - later post in thread: *******

The birth rate among white American women is 1.86, a bit below the replacement rate of 2.1 but not nearly as bad as Europe.

The Euopean Christian culture is dying out.

Perhaps those with large families should be encouraged.

And appropriately supported with gifts of clothing and food and education expenses and housing by those relatives, friends, and church members who are able to assist and are led to assist in these ways.

Families of a dozen children were rather common in colonial days.

And fify years ago an efficiency expert wrote about raising his family in the well received "Cheaper by the Dozen". Made into a movie, with Clifon Webb, I think.

Informality in Prayer

{{_ If you are implying that IF a person is truly following God, they would NOT pray in vain; then I would agree.
((_ But even the most well intended prayer can sometimes go astray due to the desires of people. We are all still human and can let our emotions cloud our ability to hear the Voice of God.}}

Private prayer and public prayer are rather different.

One praying in public should ensure that those who are praying with him understand what he is saying and that the prayer is a correct one so that they may properly join him in spirit.

But the private prayer of a born again believer is that of a child freely talking to his Father without restraint or consideration of proper form.

God knows what we are thinking. Why say anything except what is on our mind?

KJV Romans 8:26-27 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

Note that the indwelling Spirit shares our infirmities and our lack of ability to pray in proper language. This is in parallel to the limitations assumed by the First Paraclete or Supporter who emptied Himself and took the form of a servant and became man, and born under the law, became obedient unto the death of the Cross.

It is the First Paraclete, having a feeling for our infirmities, having been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin, now seated at the right hand of the Father, who searches our hearts and understands the mind of the Spirit and represents our requests properly before the Father, despite our limitations.

News from Rome

[Pope Benedict XVI] removed the traditional tiara from his papal coat of arms and replaced it with a simple bishop's miter -- a sign Vatican watchers said indicated he wanted to make the papacy less regal. -- AP

From AP via Newsday.

Perhaps he has read:

KJV 1 Peter 5:1-4 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

And the children of the English Separation may recall the document signed by the English bishops which declared that "the Bishop of Rome has no more authority in England than any other foreign bishop."

The Fatherhood of God

{{_ Is the word Father the most holy word? Is the following statement correct?
{{_ Daily Christian Wisdom
{{_ Father! - to God himself we cannot give a holier name.
{{_ -William Wordsworth}}

The holiest name of God would seem to be the covenant name, often represented in English as Jehovah and denoted in many Bibles as LORD or GOD (upper and lower case caps actually).

It would seem to be derived from "I am" and denotes the only self existent One.

It was a name that the Jews went to extremes to avoid pronouncing (and thus taking God's name in vain through some sort of neglect).

When Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58), the Jewish leaders attempted to stone him to death, considering it blasphemy.

But the Lord's right to the name Jehovah (I am) is shown in John 17:11-12. There are variations in the manuscripts, but "in your name which you have given me" would seem most likely in each verse. And generally the correct teaching of the Trinity would mandate the sharing of the Name.

"Father" is applied particularly to one Person, and can be seen also as an attribute of God.

The title "everlasting Father" prophesied by Isaiah of the Christ in 9:6 may also be translated "father of eternity" which seems more appropriate for the One who has tasted death to bring eternal life to so many.

My Nestle and Marshal interlinear give the literal translation of Ephesians 3:15 as "[the Father] of whom every fatherhood in heavens and on earth is named." God is the source of all fatherhood.

There are four phrases concerning the fatherhood of God that I have found interesting:

KJV Ephesians 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
KJV Hebrews 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
KJV 2 Corinthians 1:3 Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;
KJV James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Further thoughts:

KJV John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

The God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ has become the God and Father of all those that truly believe.

KJV John 16: 23-24 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.

Believers are instructed to pray to the Father in Jesus' name.

This is at the end of the instructions given prior to the Crucifixion.

Apologia for the Witch Hunts

The period of witch hunts (like the crusades, actually) only occupied about two centuries out of the two millennia of church history.

Germany and Scotland had the highest death tolls as I recall. Eight thousand and four thousand respectively.

James I of the United Kingdom, patron of the King James Version, was earlier James VI of Scotland and was very much anti-witch. (He was also very much anti-tobacco, interestingly enough.)

Less than three dozen were killed in the colonies that became the U. S. Mostly in Massachusetts, mostly in Salem.

It should be noted that the magistrates responsible for the executions in Salem later repented of their actions and did so publicly. This is unusual and commendable.

The execution of witches was generally acceptable throughout Western Christendom at that time, as crusades were for a while in earlier church history.

It is arguable that the cause of the great witch hunts was the lack of employment among certain church bureaucrats.

Those responsible for rooting out heresy at the time were running out of heretics.

So two of the under-employed bureaucrats wrote a book suggesting that Christendom should start doing something about all those witches in the midst.

And many found that they had an odd neighbor or two that they could do without.

Archbishop Against "Unpoliced Conversation"?

From a forum:
Archbishop Against "Unpoliced Conversation"?

Excerpt from Article at London Times Online

Archbishop hits out at web-based media 'nonsense'
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

THE Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has criticised the new web-based media for "paranoid fantasy, self-indulgent nonsense and dangerous bigotry". He described the atmosphere on the world wide web as a free-for-all that was "close to that of unpoliced conversation".

One can only hope (and pray) that Dr. Williams will reconsider his attack on "unpoliced conversation."

{{_ it is hard for me to believe any media anymore.}}

I believe that The Times of London can be depended on to quote the Archbishop of Canterbury correctly.

Otherwise Babel has truly returned.

Both The Times and Dr. Williams are somewhat of the liberal persuasion, I believe, both politically and, to the extent that they are interested in the subject, theologically.

The horror that some liberals have at the existence of "unpoliced conversation" and their discomfort with the web, which is a hotbed of such horrors, discloses their true nature, perhaps, as crypto communists and crypto fascists, looking forward to the reign of the thought police.

It is those with weak arguments that wish to avoid the turmoil of free competition.

Neither Dr. Williams nor The Times seem to have noticed that prejudice against "unpoliced conversation" is a bit at odds with the ideals of a free society.