Now this is what I call a GOOD proposal…except for the whole “I can’t put things in logical order” thing.

To: Sesame Street Travel Club
From: Cookie Monster
Subject: Trip to Cookie Factory
Date: April 29, 2002

Me go on trip to Cookie Factory in Arcadia, Louisiana. Me see how cookies made. Me get samples. Cookies made with butter, sugar, flour, and different ingredients. Me sample peanut butter cookies. Me sample cjocolate chip cookies. Me sample sugar cookies. Each kind of cookie has different ingredients. Sugar has extra sugar on top. Peanut butter has peanut butter in it. Chocolate chip has vanilla flavoring and chocolate chips. Me like cookies. Me learn to make cookies. Me get recipes. We could all make cookies together on Sesame Street. Me recommend Big Bird and Harry Monster bring cookies to next meeting. Bring peanut butter and Cookie Monster will tell you if they are s good as the ones in Arcadia, Louisiana. Me love cookies YUMM

Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments

A memo I recently came across…

Castle Candles
To: X
From: Y
Subject: Dumb customer
Date: April 25, 2002

It has come to my attention, that some stupid customer, simpley cannot make candles from our kit, and this, same, stupid, customer, has been buggin the pee out customer service, telling us there’s something wrong with our product, so, please, send a letter, to this moron, with the, following explicit, directions: first, pour Wax Crystals into a heat resistant container, use one color, or, layer several, to creat designs, then, insert Castel Candle Wick, in the center—for wide canldes, use miltiple wicks, then trime to 1/2” above crystal surface, and light. For sinted, Castle Candles, add 1/4 oz. Castle Candles sint to 120z of Wax Crystals, in a zip-lock bag, seal, and, shake, until even consistency returns, use more, if desired, this probably won’t help, because, once a retard, always a retard, probably some ethnic Albanian refugee just arrived, and can’t, even, read English, like normal people, so, if the customer calls back, transfer the call to my.

Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments

On Mark Horne’s blog, Joel Garver said (If my name was where Joel’s is, I would have already said, “Uh oh”):


“It seems to me the difficulty comes when our systematic theology (scholastic or not) comes to trump exegesis and systematic categories replace those of Scripture, generating theological problems where the Scriptures know of none. The solution, of course, is not to get rid of systematic theology, but to revise it in accordance with Scripture.”


So what are we trying to do? We’re trying to correct this with more “scriptural” language. Here’s something that I am seeing people have a problem with. Are we just changing our systematic terms to more biblical systematic terms? I don’t know if this makes sense, but maybe an example will help clarify what I mean. Yesterday I heard two men talking about baptism as the entrance to the covenant. All fine and dandy right? Well one of them seemed to have difficulty with this being more “exegetical” because it seemed clear that baptism unites you to Christ, but it wasn’t as clear that baptism was covenant entrance. Hum…this isn’t coming out correctly. His objection was that if baptism was covenant entrance, and excommunication was being blotted out of the book of life, then you should rebaptized when you come back to the fold. The second person correctly responded that excommunication was not invalidated by excommunication, but your baptism condemns you. Finally, they settled on baptism being the initial entry to the covenant. It seems like if we are not careful, the term “covenant” will be the newest catch phrase in systematic theology. I fear it is already the hippest thing to say in Reformed circles. “Yes sir, I’m covenantal. Can I marry your daughter?”


The same thing goes for what Tim is calling baptismal transition or Rich Lusk is calling baptismal efficacy. People take one look at Titus 3:5, and the confusion between regeneration, efficacy, and transition begins. “Why leave the biblical term of regeneration?” we’re asked. I understand the tendency in Reformed circles to flee all things papist, but we have a problem on our hands. If we use the term regeneration, we find a burning mitre on our doorstep. If we use transition or efficacy, we are accused of ambiguity and might get the hearing. Then the question is asked, “Well aren’t you slipping right back into the systematic theology you are so frustrated with?” Don’t get me wrong; there’s nothing wrong with systematic theology. But I think we’re going to have to take a step back and think about what is happening and what we’re being accused of on all sides of the issues.

Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments

“Suppose, for example, that in the course of a marriage cermemony I say, as people will, “I do”(sc. take this woman to be my lawful wedded wife). Or again, suppose that I tread on your toe and say “I apologize.” Or again, suppose that I have the bottle of champagne in my hand and say “I name this ship the Queen Elizabeth.” Or suppose I say “I bet you sixpence it will rain tomorrow.” In all these cases it would be absurd to regard the thing that I say as a report of the performance of the action which is undoubtedly donethe action of betting, or christening, or apologizing. We should say rather that, in saying what I do, I actually perform that action. When I say “I name this ship the Queen Elisabeth” I do not describe the christening ceremony, I actually perform the christening; and when I say “I do” (sc. take this woman to be my lawful wedded wife), I am not reporing on a marriage, I am indulging in it…Now these kinds of utterance are the ones that we call performative utterances…Now at this point one might protest, perhaps even with some alarm, that I seem to be suggesting that marrying is simply saying a few words, that just saying a few words is marrying. Well, that certainly is no the case. The words have to be said in the appropriate circumstances, and this is a matter that will come up again later. But the one thing we must not suppose is that what is needed in addition to the saying of the words in such cases is the performance of some internal spiritual act, of which the words then are to be the report.”—J.L. Austin, “Performative Utterances”

Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments
Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments
Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments
Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments
Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments

Celeborn

Celeborn

If I were a character in The Lord of the Rings, I would be Celeborn, Elf, King of Lothlorien, husband of Galadriel and grandfather of Arwen.

In the movie, I am played by Marton Csokas.

Who would you be?
Zovakware Lord of the Rings Test with Perseus Web Survey Software

Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments
Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments