joyfulchristian

Now this is too much

Skeletor supports John Kerry. Um, Kerry may be taking this whole multi-lateralism thing a bit too far. (Via Michelle and others. Michelle also explains this absurdity.)

Another pet peeve

Every once in a while a blogger well send out a mass e-mail the purpose of which is to tell other bloggers how he wrote a post predicting such and such and now lo and behold circumstances have proved him right. Look, I don't mind people posting "I told you so" posts on their blog. I do mind getting mass e-mails from people I've never heard of telling me that were right about such and such.

If I'd said they were wrong, I'd understand. If I'd said they were right, I'd understand. If I had at some point indicated that I was interested in the general topic, I'd understand. If I had some sort of relationship (i.e. they link to me periodically and I do the same), I'd understand.

But if any of those circumstances don't apply, it's just wasting my time. And I'm betting I'm not the only one who gets annoyed by this. Of course, it could be worse; I could be Glenn Reynolds. This kinda thing has to be thousands of times worse for him.

One of my pet peeves

... is people's apparent inability to understand that it is possible for something to be bad without violating the Constitution. (And, conversely, it is at least theoretically possible for something to be a proveable good, yet be unconstituional.) Because of that, I found this post by Jacob Levy very refreshing:

For most originalists, the question is easier still because they think most things are constitutinal. (sic) They think it is constitutional to ban contraception and that it is also constitutional to repeal the ban on contraception. They surely oppose one of these as a matter of policy.

Just so. While the constitution limits what the Federal government can do as a matter of policy, it actually prohibits very few types of laws at the state level. While there are lots of laws that are bad as a matter of public policy, very few of them are unconstitutional. I dont know why this is so hard to understand.

And you should definitely read the rest of Levy's post.

Something you should know

OK, here's something that anyone running a small business should know: Just because you have QuickBooks or some other accounting software, that doesn't necessarily mean that you have good books. Computers can automate procedures and greatly simplify bookkeeping, but they can't make accounting decisions for you. To put it another way, just because your software lets you do something, that doesn't mean it's the right way to do it.

On a related topic, ask yourself the following questions:

1. Do I know the difference between an expense and an expenditure?

2. Do I know what an amortization schedule is?

3. Do I know the the difference between a payroll liability and a payroll expense?

4. Do I know what the phrase "retained earnings" refers to?

5. Do I know know what accumulated depreciation is?

6. Do I know why it's called a "balance sheet"?

7. Do I know the difference between net income and net cash flow?

If your answer to ANY ONE of these questions is no, the odds are very high that you need at least some professional help.

And now that I've gotten that out of my system, if your answer to any of those questions is no and you haven't obtained professional help, please don't bring your "books" (and I use that term loosely) to your accountant on the 1st of April and expect to be filing a return on the 15th.

Just FYI.

Update: I'm now in a MUCH better mood than I was when I wrote this. Gotta say though, I still think it's good advice.

Ouch!

Raymond de Souza compares Pontius Pilate to modern politicians. It's not a flattering comparison, to say the least.

I do have a quibble with one of his points though. He says:

3) Discovering the Jesus is a Galilean, he sends the whole matter over to Herod, who is in Jerusalem. Not a federal problem, Pilate says. This one's a matter for the provinces. Herod does not cooperate and sends Jesus back to Pilate.

It's clear from the Biblical texts that Pilate's decision to send Jesus to Herod was purely a political calculation. Pilate himself later admitted that he DID have the necessary authority. His only apparent motivation in transferring the case to Herod was that he didn't want to have to make the decision.

I don't think de Souza's comparison of Pilate's actions to to modern federalism is entirely just. I have no doubt that in the US, as well as in other nations using a federal system, that politicians in the federal government often choose to send matters to the states or provinces simply because they find the matter to dangerous, politically, to touch.

However, the whole point of a federal system is to divide authority by making some issues matters of national import while leaving others to be decided on a regional basis. I believe that some (I wish I could say most, but that doesn't pass the laugh test) politicians will decide a problem isn't a federal issue because they genuinely believe they don't have the authority to make the decision.

That is actually a noble act. One that should be encouraged, not discouraged.

As I say, I have no doubt that this act is often motivated by crass politcal calcuations and that de Souza's comparison is often just. I just wish he wouldn't paint with so broad a brush.

Heh

I assume this means Josh is the firstborn son in his family.

Just so you know

Tax season is really starting to kick my tail. Probably lots of long hours from here on out and I'm unlikely to want to spend what little free time I've got reading anything that's worth posting about.

I'm not saying I won't post between now and the 15th; i just want you to know if I don't, that doesn't mean I'm dead. Probably.

So what do you do

... when stupid networks don't run you're favorite show this week? Why, write your own, of course.

Quite true

Joe Carter also comments on David Adnesnik's gross misunderstanding of the Gospels which I mentioned here.

Joe makes an important point that completely escaped me:

I must confess that I cannot adequately refute his points since his reading of the Gospels is so unique and, from my perspective, bizarre. The fact that he is able to completely misconstrue the Gospels is downright embarrassing. The burden of shame, however, does not fall on this bright young Oxford scholar but on us Christians. We should be explaining the Gospel message in such a way that even a child could understand, yet we have intelligent Rhodes scholars who are completely missing the point of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. Perhaps this should cause us to reflect upon our own effectiveness. What good will it do us if we can parse the intricacies of minor doctrinal issues when we are completely failing to share the Good News?

Joe's quite right here. It is not the fault of those outside the Church that they don't understand the Gospel message. It's the fault of Christians. As Paul said:

(Romans 10:14-15 ESV) But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”

If we haven't taught someone the Good News, they can't be expected to know it. It's true that some people are capable of finding the truth completely on their own, but we shouldn't expect that to be the rule.

While I'm at it, I'd like to point something out in a later Adnesnik post:

While I greatly appreciate the spirit in which PJ's comments were written, I'm afriad that I must disagree vigorously with their substance. Regardless of what Christians believe about the compatibility of Christianity and Judaism, it is extremely hard for even the most moderate and progressive Jews to believe that the two religions are "entirely consistent" or even mostly consistent. The idea that "Jews would benefit by acceping [the] fuller truth" of Christianity is simply anathema regardless of the generous spirit in which Christian teachings are offered.

To this, I'd simply like to point out that it's obvious that not all Jews agree with David's position. There are quite a lot of Messianic Jews out there. As I understand it, Messianic Jews cling to all the practices of Judaism, but they accept what we call the New Testament as scripture and, more importantly, accept Jesus (or Yeshua if you prefer) as the Messiah. Now I don't know how close to modern Judaism their practices are, or whether David would accept their practice of Judaism as consistent with what he knows. I do know that from my studies, I find their teachings about Jesus and redemption to track very closely with my understanding. It therefore seems to me that one can, indeed, do both.

And this is exactly what I would expect to find in a Jew who believes Jesus is the prophesied Messiah. As I said before, Christianity is not meant to be a replacement, per se, of Judaism. Rather, it is the natural extension of Judaism if one accepts that Yeshua is, indeed, the promised Messiah.

Update: I'd also like to echo Joe's comments about anti-semetic versus anti-Judaic. Even if you accept David's premise entirely, he has not made the case that the Gospels are anti-semetic (that they oppose Jews as a race). Rather, his actual case is that they are anti-Judaic (against Judaism as a religion). I don't accept David's arguments, so I would reject the conclusion that the Gospels are anti-Judaic as well, but I do think it's a rather important difference.

Pardon me while I Google bomb

Jew. For an explanation, read this via here.

Update: While I'm at it, Air America. That one's probably easier to understand.

Great for a laugh

Sharp Knife explains why the Kerry campaign's dishonest claim that we're in the worst economy since Herbert Hoover was president may backfire.

Of course, I only laughed for a little while. Then I contemplated what this means about the future of America. Not laughing any more.

God created ...

... woman.

Gen 2:18-24 (ESV) Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

"It is not good that man should be alone." Those words spoken by the Creator are incredibly insightful. Leaving aside the biological point that man could not exist without woman, I find it evident that man would be incomplete without woman. And while it's true that life would be simpler without women (OK, a LOT simpler), it wouldn't really be life, now would it? So, every man should thank God that He had the wisdom to create woman.

I hate insomnia

Just thought I'd share that.

I'd really like to go to sleep, but I seem to have a major adrenaline thing going. Don't know why, but I just can't calm down.

Overplayed

Patrick Belton is concerned about the results of this poll which shows a rise in the number of people who believe that "that Jews were responsible for Christ's death." The poll also shows a correllation between people who hold that belief and those whove seen Gibson's The Passion of the Christ.

That these views are correlated with having seen Mel Gibson's "Passion" movie is borne out by the survey - particularly, again, among the troubling "young anti-semite" demographic: of those 18-34 year olds who have seen the film, 42 percent believe Jews were responsible for Christ's death, compared with 36 percent of 35-59 year olds who watched the movie. And for respondents 60 years and up, there was hardly any difference between the responses of people who had seen the film and those who hadn't.

We should be careful what kind of views we impart to the youngest generation - they'll be with us for quite some time.

Honestly, I've never understood why people get so antsy when they find out that people believe that their were Jews who were complicit in the death of Jesus. Every historical record that I'm aware of bears this fact out. Some Jews, specifically some priests and members of the Sanheidren, were the driving force behind his crufixion. This is an objective fact and I can't understand why people are afraid of it. In fact, what I find bizarre is that only a quarter of those surveyed held this view.

What people should worry about is that some people believe that the death of Christ represents some sort of corporate sin on the part of the Jewish race and that as a result Jews living today bear the guilt of this sin. That is worrisome indeed because this belief has often been either the cause, or the excuse, for a great deal of the violence that has been carried out against the Jewish people over the centuries.

If this poll showed that, because of the film or for other reasons, the number of people who held this view was rising, I'd be very concerned. However, it doesn't appear to show anything of the sort. In fact, the story Belton links to says:

Despite the increasing belief among some groups that the Jews were responsible for Christ's death, other surveys have shown that only a tiny minority believes that Jews today should bear responsibility for what happened to Christ 2000 years ago. An ABC News/PrimeTime poll, released Feb. 15, found that just 8% think that "all Jews today" bear responsibility for the death of Jesus, compared with 80% who reject that view.

While we're not given specific numbers about trends on this question, we are told that the number doesn't appear to be rising. As I said, I believe this is the critical issue, and on this issue opinions don't appear to be changing. Given that fact, I really don't see the cause for alarm.

While I'm at it though, I'd like to point out that the 8% who do hold this absurd corporate guilt view are INSANE. Maybe not literally, but they are holding a very irrational view. There simply is no support for the view that the Jewish people hold some special sort of corporate guilt for the death of Christ.

What is true is that EVERY human being, whether they admit it or not, bears a personal responsibility for the death of Christ. After all, we have all sinned and it was that sin that made the crucifixion necessary. So, if there's anyone out there who feels the need to find someone to take out they're rath over the cruxifixion on, stop blaming "the Jews" and look in the mirror.

Update: And David Adnesnik makes matters even worse:

While I am no expert on the Gospels, my reading of the text suggests that placing collective blame on the Jewish people for the death of Christ is an integral aspect of the Gospels' theological agenda. The Jews' responsibility for the death of Christ is one demonstration among several that they are no longer the Chosen People and that their religion is no longer relevant.

I have no idea what basis David uses to come to this conclusion. There is nothing in the Gospels that assigns collective guilt in the way David describes it to the Jews or anyone else. And Christianity, by it's nature, is not a new religion, but the natural and foretold extension of Judaism. Further, it is not accurate to say that the Bible teaches that the Jews have been replaced as God's Chosen People.

Rather, as Paul taught the tree is unchanged, but those Jews who refused to accept Christ would be pruned and those gentiles who did accept him would be grafted in. This is a very different concept. I realize that some people don't recognize the distinction, but it's there, and it's very important.

On what planet was this a good idea?

I put this under theology cause I really don't know where else to put it. I'm reading Genesis, and I just got to chapter 16.

Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. She had a female Egyptian servant whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said to Abram, “Behold now, the Lord has prevented me from bearing children. Go in to my servant; it may be that I shall obtain children by her.” And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai. So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her servant, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife. And he went in to Hagar, and she conceived. And when she saw that she had conceived, she looked with contempt on her mistress. And Sarai said to Abram, “May the wrong done to me be on you! I gave my servant to your embrace, and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked on me with contempt. May the Lord judge between you and me!”

This passage just reminds me tht while Abraham was a great man of God, his understanding of women was as bad as that of most of us men. I mean, who, looking at this from a distance, wouldn't be able to tell that this was a REALLY bad idea? But, right there in the moment, Abraham was apparently unable to see the fatal flaw in this plan.

I don't know, maybe he made the mistake that we men often make: that just because something was the woman's idea, that will somehow absolve us of blame if everything goes wrong.

Regardless, this was a really stupid decision representing a total and complete misunderstanding of women on Abraham's part. And for some reason, the fact that one of the greatest men who ever lived didn't understand women any better than I do provides some sort of comfort.

On movie metaphors

I'm rewatching The Princess Bride (a very considerate gift from a friend) and I just got to the part where, after pushing the Dread Pirate Roberts down an embankment, Buttercup realizes he's actually her long lost love, the farmboy Westley.

At that point she tosses herself down after him and literally goes head over heels for him.

Every once in a while, Hollywood does something priceless.

And because it's The Princess Bride the scene was also hilarious.

As an accountant

... H&R Block commercials make me feel dirty. The Jackson Hewitt ads make me feel pretty disgusting too.

Who do you serve

I always thought the 9th Circuit's decision in the Pledge of Allegiance case was, well, silly. I suspect that the Supremes will uphold the Pledge. (I doubt that they'll actually address the particulars of the case. This case is political dynamite and there appears to be an easy out: Newdow may lack standing. If you follow the link, you'll see that not everyone agrees with me, but my own observation is that many in the court dislike being at the center of controversy. It's true that some day the Supremes will probably have to make a decision, but I'm guessing several of the would rather it not be now. That, and I believe that Newdow genuinely does lack standing.)

However, I could never get too worked up about the whole thing. Joe Carter explains why Christians really shouldn't get involved in this mess: We don't have a dog in this fight. As Joe points out, the god of the Pledge is hardly the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The god of the Pledge is certainly not the One who died on the cross for our sins.

Instead, the god of the Pledge is the god of the civil religion that grew up out of Rouseau and the enlightenment. As Joe says:

Our God is a jealous God and is unlikely to look favorably upon idolatry even when it is put to good service. While we should be as tolerant of “civil religion” as we are of other beliefs, we can’t justify submitting to it ourselves. That is not to say that we can’t say the Pledge and think of the one true God. But we should keep in mind that this fight isn’t our fight and the “god” of America’ [sic] civil religion is not the God who died on the Cross.

Just so. We have to defend our faith at all times. But defending the Pledge has nothing to do with defending the faith.

BTW, if you're not reading Evangelical Outpost, you should be.

Lower taxes for traitors?

Rich Lowry makes a great point. John Kerry calls companies who move jobs overseas "Benedict Arnold corporations" and thereby accuses them of treason. What's his solution? Offer them tax breaks!

Kerry has now released a plan to deal with the issue of "outsourcing." One would think it would involve jail, or re-education camps, or at least the mandatory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance -- sans the phrase "under God," of course -- by everyone heading an American business. Instead, Kerry is proposing changing the mix of tax incentives for American corporations. On Kerry's own terms, this is absurd -- like offering Benedict Arnold increased child tax credits, free dental care and college aid for his five children to try to keep him from betraying his country.

As Lowry points out, Kerry's plan only makes sense if his accusations are bogus. But this is John Kerry, so that's hardly anything new.

So anyway

The last few weeks my headaches have been getting worse again. This week has been REALLY bad. (In case you weren't sure, this is a really bad time for a tax accountant to be out of commission.)

One side effect of this has been that I've paid a little more attentiong to the TV. Has anyone else noticed that over the last week Janet Jackson has been EVERYWHERE telling people how she doesn't want to talk about the "wardrobe malfunction" anymore? She's got a funny way of showing it.

That might explain it

There was a time when the thought of life without ESPN was horrifying. Granted, I was a lot younger and a more enthusiastic fan. Recently, I went a year and a half without cable, or indeed television, at all. (Well, I did have Babylon 5 on DVD. At least the first season.) And last year when I turned the cable back on, I decided I didn't care enough to pay for extended service and, therefore, ESPN. Strangely, in all that time, I haven't missed ESPN or, my once favorite way to pass time, Sports Center one bit.

I couldn't figure out why that might be. Matt Feeney offers a thorough critique that may explain the change. If you're interested in this at all, you should read his whole article, but his conclusion is priceless:

As John Buccigross might say, as Pravda was to the old Soviet Union, SportsCenter is to pro basketball.

Ouch.