Funny Story

This made me laugh!!

Benadryl Enhanced My Sunday Worship
by Ashley Harris on 04/27/2009 at 11:48 AM
I've blogged about my allergies before. There is something in the mountain air that just slays me. Yesterday I woke up feeling yucky for the sixth day in a row. I called and canceled brunch plans after church. Before I hung up the phone my friend suggested I take some Benadryl to see if the symptoms subsided. She said that would probably be a good indicator whether I had a cold or allergies. Brilliant. Why didn't I think of that?
Probably because I don't have a medicine cabinet. Out of sight, out of mind. I still have 96 days of singleness left, so I refuse to do some grown-up things like stock a medicine cabinet until I have to. Besides, pain is your friend. It lets you know you aren't well yet. But since her suggestion did make a lot of sense, I called Brian (my fiance) and asked him to bring me some Benadryl when he picked me up for church. He stays with his parents on the weekends and they have a well stocked medicine cabinet. Thank you future in-laws.
He brought me some chewables. They were grape and reminded me of being sick as a kid. I loved being sick as a kid. My Maw Maw made me milkshakes periodically throughout the day while I laid on the couch and watched soap operas.
I chewed a tablet in the car and another a little later. I assumed that they were kid's strength since they were chewable. I was wrong. I stumbled into the church sanctuary. Brian said it was like going to church with a drunk person. Apparently I was a little loopy in our before-the-service fellowship time. So he apologized for me and explained that it was the allergy meds.
I felt really silly for overdosing and totally expected to snore through the sermon. But to my delight and surprise, I was more focused than usual. The medicine slowed down my mind enough that I wasn't thinking about my grocery list, wedding plans, what blog I was going to write on Monday, or the person smacking their gum behind me. It was amazing. I wept from the second song to the benediction. In the midst of my Benadryl stupor, The Lord reawakened my love for Him and His Kingdom.
How different could Sunday mornings be if I stopped worrying about all the things I can't change and just listen to what is going on right in front of me? I'm tempted to take a Benadryl before church every Sunday, but I know that's not the solution (and allergy medicine is expensive). So I'm praying that God will help me develop a steadfast mind because there is something very rich and life-changing about being completely engaged in the preaching of His Word.

Motivation & Men

This article has me thinking...

Mind The Gap by Lauren F. Winner
Teaser (read the whole thing at the above link):
Gender roles — the concept of how men and women differ (beyond the obvious biology, that is) and, concomitantly, what their roles in church life, the office, and the home should be — have been debated for decades by Christians and non-Christians alike. But when we talk about gender and leadership, we may have been leaving out one crucial fact of contemporary life: Regardless of what we say we think about women and leadership, when it comes to college-aged and 20-somethings, women are leading in all sorts of areas. Let me offer two examples — one anecdotal and one backed up by hard research....
What should the church's response to this be? Well, I hope it's two-fold: First, women should get some applause for the wise way they're stewarding time and all the contributions they make to church and civic life. At the same time, we all need to encourage even young boys to devote more time to civic engagement and less to computer gaming. What we should not do is buy into a discourse that pits men against women, takes competition for granted, and tacitly assumes that only one group — men or women, but never both — can excel in college or take responsibility in church life. All too often, discussions of any kind of "gender gap" polarize conversation. That is, people respond to the news that women outnumber men in college classrooms with panic and decide they need to devote all their attention to helping men out. I'm not sure that any strategies cobbled together in the heat of anxiety, though, will get us very far. Perhaps the church needs to pause and notice the gendered leadership dynamics in colleges and in young adult ministries, and — rather than panic — prayerfully consider how we can affirm and encourage the contributions, leadership and gifts of both men and women. This isn't, after all, a debate about what's good for men versus what's good for women. Instead, it ought to be a conversation about how to create communities, and opportunities for leadership and learning that are life-giving to all of us.

I first ran across this article at the Boundless blog where they are having a discussion about it. Here are some of their thoughts (read the full discussion here):
Ted: ...In all honestly, if you found Winner's article to be offensive, I'd understand why. It tends to make sweeping generalizations about men and about women. The tone is a bit on the cynical side. It offers few legitimate solutions. Why did I publish it, then? Because the facts remain that percentage-wise, women are more involved than men in community leadership roles, at least in university and church. I think that's a real problem. And I'd like to see us discuss this.
Mike speaks a lot about the parent's responsibility: ...As to the solution? The author unfortunately is vague on this point but don't knock her; coming up with viable, concrete solutions is difficult. She criticizes guys spending too much time playing video games, but I don't think video games are the core problem. The core problem is controlling what young men do with their free time. Girls may be naturally more inclined to use it productively, but most boys it seems are not. I believe the most practical and simple solution, at least for the academic realm, is for a parent to exert more of their God-given responsibility to manage their kids' time. That means making rules limiting TV, Internet, video game use, and so on. That also means making rules (e.g., homework done before play) and consequences for not following those rules...

My thoughts: Well, I'm still mulling but I can echo the point of this comment:
Jammy had the following to say on Apr 20 at 5:22 PM:
I don't think Winner is writing about a surprising problem and it isn't new. Movements like Promise Keepers and Muscular Christianity (1900's) have tried to encourage men to purse the ideals of engaged manhood. Honestly though, if I were a man, I would hope that given the resources available to me as a child of God and empowered by His Spirit I'd be able to overcome cultural norms and expectations. I mean, I understand things are tough, but I grew up with out a mother and I refuse to let that keep me from becoming a Godly woman. At what point, will men "man up" and not be conformed to the pattern of this world? Society and the media tell me what I should be everyday, and frankly I fail, but I've another standard for living and being and I know it's more lasting than anything this world has to offer. Shouldn't this be something men are capable of doing too? Collectively and individually?

A couple things that I think I can articulate clearly...
It is hard to live as a godly woman in a world that constantly screams that you are better then men. It's hard to think on 'whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy' (Philippians 4:8) when the world via TV and a million other sources says that men are failures and not worthy of our respect. Our culture does not encourage women to submit to or follow their husbands. It does not teach us to be respectful to our fellow human beings. It is hard to find a balance between being an 'independent woman' and a woman who is dependent on the Lord.
I'm still thinking about what I want to say and how. I'd love to hear your thoughts about this issue - How does it affect you? Do you see this problem in your life? In your church?

More from Miss Cali

Miss California: I stand by gay marriage remark
Finalist’s reply to ‘offended’ Perez Hilton may have cost her Miss USA crown
By Michael Inbar,TODAYShow.com contributor
Being a straight shooter likely shot down any chance Carrie Prejean had of being crowned Miss USA Sunday night. But the Miss California told TODAY Tuesday she’s proud she offered her honest opinion on gay marriage, even as her questioner says she should have kept her politics to herself.
“I’m so proud of myself,” Prejean told Matt Lauer live on the TODAY set. “I wouldn’t change a thing. I knew I had a purpose, and I don’t take back what I said.”
The often bland goings-on at the annual Miss USA pageant took on a decidedly heated political tone when openly gay celebrity blogger Perez Hilton, a pageant judge, asked Prejean: “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”
Beauty and the blogger
Prejean, then among the final five contestants for the coveted crown, replied, “In my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be — between a man and a woman.”
Prejean’s pointed response raised eyebrows, but didn’t raise her enough votes to put a crown on her head. Judge Claudia Jordan told NBC, “The judges were really against her, they were bothered by her answer.”
Still, Prejean finished first runner-up to Miss North Carolina, Kristen Dalton.
With Prejean saying that she likely would have won had she not spoken so forthrightly, Hilton told TODAY he was “offended that she is still walking around saying that she should have won the pageant.” And he told Lauer Tuesday via Skype that Prejean had no business offering such an obviously divisive answer to a question she could have easily danced around.
“I want [a Miss USA] who is going to be politically savvy, and that means saying things that will make everyone feel welcome,” Hilton told Lauer. “She’s a Christian, but I don’t want her talking about Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, because that’s offensive to all of the Jewish Americans, all the Muslim Americans, to all the atheist Americans.
“It’s about balance, it’s about finding the perfect Miss USA, and unfortunately, Miss California was not the perfect Miss USA,” Hilton continued. “I would have appreciated it had she left her politics and her religion out, because Miss USA represents all Americans.”
Sticking to her stand
Prejean found herself in the unlikely position of being a divider, not a uniter, at the NBC-televised pageant — her comments even spurred a dustup between a gay audience member and the mother of one of the contestants.
But she told Lauer she had her eyes wide open when responding to Hilton’s question, saying, “After I answered the question, I knew that I was not going to win because of my answer.”
When Lauer asked Prejean if, given a do-over, she might offer up a more middle-of-the-road response, she replied, “No, I wouldn’t have answered differently.“It’s not about being politically correct; for me, it was being biblically correct,” Prejean explained. “When I’m asked a specific question, I’m going to give a specific answer. I’m not going to stand in the middle. I’m going to take one side or another.”
To thine own self be true
Lauer asked Hilton why he would offer up a political hot potato of a question in the first place, since the Miss USA pageant usually has judges asking questions that allow the contestants to pray for world peace and tell how much they love puppies and kittens.
Hilton told Lauer he believes his question “was very relevant and extremely important,” and noted other contestants, including the eventual winner, were also posed pointed political questions.
Prejean now finds herself in the unlikely position of actually gaining more fame than the new Miss USA, Kristen Dalton of North Carolina. And she told Lauer she plans to use her newfound bully pulpit to encourage others to speak their minds.
“I was true to myself, and I know now I can go out and speak to young people about standing up for what you believe in and never compromising anything, for anyone or anything, even if it is the crown of Miss USA,” Prejean said.

Now this is inspiring to hear - a woman who won't compromise her beliefs in the face of fame, political correctness or personal attacks! She was willing to sacrifice her dream for the Truth. THAT is beautiful!

Words Again

So how am I supposed to use the right words if the definition is changing all the time?

Webster Redefines Marriage

Posted by Jim_Daly on Mar 20, 2009 8:32:53 AM

Last fall, California voters were given an opportunity to decide whether to expand the traditional definition of marriage to include those in a same-sex relationship. The measure known as Proposition 8 proposed to add this language to the California State Constitution: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Prop 8 sparked a fierce debate as millions of dollars were spent to lobby both sides of the issue. If you lived in the Golden State, you virtually couldn’t turn on the TV, listen to the radio, or read a newspaper without encountering some aspect of the hotly contested topic. When the ballots were counted, Californians voted “Yes” to preserve traditional marriage.
Meanwhile, without fanfare, debate, or an opportunity for the public to weigh in on the issue, WorldNetDaly.com reports a leading dictionary company, Merriam-Webster, single-handedly redefined marriage in their current online edition. The new definition reads: “(1) The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law; (2) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage .”
Now, compare that to Webster’s definition of marriage from their 1913 edition of the dictionary: “The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.” Ironically, this early edition included a reference to the King James version of Hebrews 13:4 which says, “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” They also cited Matthew 22:2, “The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son.”
Scripture aside, did you notice what’s missing in Merriam-Webster’s newfangled version of marriage? In addition to expanding the meaning of marriage, their latest definition dropped two key words: “for life.” In other words, Merriam-Webster has stripped a vital aspect of the covenant of marriage, namely, permanence. Interestingly, as recently as 1992, Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary defined marriage as “the institution under which a man and a woman become legally united on a permanent basis” [emphasis added].
According to a report in WorldNetDaily.com, associate editor Kory Stamper of the popular dictionary company explained the reasoning behind this change to one constituent. Stamper said, “In recent years, this new sense of ‘marriage’ has appeared frequently and consistently throughout a broad spectrum of carefully edited publications, and is often used in phrases such as ‘same-sex marriage’ and ‘gay marriage’ by proponents and opponents alike. Its inclusion was a simple matter of providing our readers with accurate information about all of the word’s current uses.”
Granted, the meaning of a word can change with time. For example, the word “gay” (which today is frequently associated with those in the homosexual community) was defined in 1913 by Webster as “(1) Excited with merriment; manifesting sportiveness or delight; inspiring delight; livery; merry. (2) Brilliant in colors; splendid; fine, richly dressed. (3) Loose; dissipated; lewd.”
There’s no mention of gay as in “homosexual.” In fact, there isn’t even a definition of the word “homosexual” in that early edition of Webster’s Dictionary. Yes, language usage changes with time. As I see it, here’s the larger question: is the Merriam-Webster company reflecting culture? Or, are they shaping culture by offering this redefinition of the word?
Overwhelmingly, the public has rejected the idea of so-called same-sex marriage. Whenever the matter has been put on the ballot, Americans have voted to preserve the traditional institution and definition of marriage. As such, it strikes me that this change by Merriam-Webster isn’t a small matter. What do you think?

Regulate Freedom?

I recently read this interesting article from BreakPoint Commentaries.

Degrading Lyrics, Degraded Behavior
By Chuck Colson, 4/7/2009
Music and Kids
Young men, dressed as animals, follow several attractive women down the street. As they close in, the men shoot darts into women’s bodies—as if the women were animals and the men big game hunters. Moments later, all the women are lying on the ground. This scene is from a music video by a band called the Bloodhound Gang. The lyrics include such gems as: “You and me baby ain’t nothin’ but mammals. Let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel.” That’s about as explicit as I’m allowed to get—or want to get. The song, like many others, not only contains offensive language; it also describes men treating women in degrading ways. And now there’s evidence that listening to this music leads teens to engage in the same kind of behavior the songs describe. According to published reports, researchers at the University of Pittsburgh evaluated the sexual aggressiveness of popular song lyrics from least degrading to most degrading. And then they asked 771 teenagers about both their taste in music and their sexual behavior. It turned out that 44.6 percent of the teens who listened to the most degrading music had engaged in sex. But of those who had not listened to sexually-degrading music, only 20.6 percent had sex. There’s more bad news, according to Brian Primack, the study’s lead author. He said the lyrics, which “frequently portray aggressive males subduing submissive females . . . may lead adolescents to incorporate this ‘script’ for” sex “into their worldview.” They may make both male and female adolescents “feel compelled to play out” the roles the lyrics assign to them, Primack added. No wonder three-quarters of a million American teenagers get pregnant each year; or that nearly a fourth of all teenage girls contract a sexually-transmitted disease, or that so many women are sexually abused by men. What can parents do about this on their own? Not much, I’m afraid. Sure, you can snap those nasty CDs in two if you catch your kids with them. But as Helen Ward, president of the Kids First Parents Association of Canada told the French news service, modern technology means it’s almost impossible for parents to monitor what their kids are listening to. “Government,” she says, “needs to help parents regulate the industry.” Well, she’s right, and we ought to join with other parents to find ways to do that. It won’t be easy. There are some people who, no matter how much evidence you give them, simply refuse to accept the truth—magical thinking, I believe it’s called. They like degrading music, they don’t think it harms anyone, and therefore—in their minds, it doesn’t harm anyone. Until the day—if it ever comes—degrading music is banished from public life, we need to gently explain to our kids how music can affect them—just as violent video games and television do. We are obliquely warned of this possible damage in Philippians 4:8: We are told to dwell on whatever is true, right, pure, lovely, excellent, and worthy of praise. Once again, modern science is proving the truth of Bible teachings. That Pittsburgh study reveals that if we choose instead to dwell on what is evil, false, and degrading, we end up harming, not only ourselves, but our society as a whole. And that’s not something to sing about.
For Further Reading and Information
"Explicit Lyrics Linked To Sex Among Teens: Scientists," Breitbart.com, 4 March 2009.
"The Kids Are Alright," BreakPoint Commentary, 8 December 2008.
“The Offensive Truth: Relativism and Our Kids,” BreakPoint Commentary, 20 June 2007.
"Beyond the Music (Video)," BreakPoint Commentary, 10 August 2004.
Kevin Twit, "What's In a Song," BreakPoint.org, 10 July 2006.

This article brings up two points of discussion for me...
1. The obvious being how we (definitely I) don't usually pause to realize how music affects us and our thoughts. How many times have I heard or used the excuse that 'it's just a song' or 'it's just a movie'? I know it's not real and I sure wouldn't do that. But in spite of knowing that, if I'm honest, I do come out of a movie feeling affected. I do hear songs and am moved. Can I really enjoy something that is not in line with God's Word and not let it affect me in any way?

2. It’s almost impossible for parents to monitor what their kids are listening to. “Government,” she says, “needs to help parents regulate the industry.”
Really? Should we expect the government to help with this? Why? This is not a theocracy. This isn't a nation of Christians. Why should we expect the government to rule by the rules of the Bible that we follow in our own lives. Do you expect the non-Christians in your life to live by the same standards that you do? The freedom that our government gives us to worship and live however we please also gives others that same freedom. As soon as you start asking the government to make laws in following your personal beliefs and practices, you're also opening the door for others who disagree with you to do the same.
For example, there is a smoking ban in Lincoln. I really like the fact that I don't have to be exposed to cigarette smoke in local establishments. It's nice. It's comfortable - for me. But this is regulating a freedom. How do I know that the next regulation on the table might not be taking away a freedom that I enjoy? I'm just saying this type of regulation could lead down a slippery slope.

Still reading and found this article. My point exactly.
Silencing Free Speech and Religious Liberty
Posted by Jim_Daly on Mar 13, 2009 4:03:24 PM
Picture this.
You operate a family-owned photography business which, among other services, creatively captures weddings on film. Further, imagine that you’re a Christian photographer and due to your religious convictions, decide to turn down certain photo shoots including “commitment ceremonies” for same-sex couples. Now, imagine your shock when a judge orders you to pay $6,637.94 to settle a lawsuit brought by an individual who complained about this alleged act of “discrimination.” That’s what happened last year to Jon and Elaine Huguenin, owners of Elaine Photography LLC when Vanessa Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. Willock argued that she was discriminated against due to her sexual orientation. The Huguenin’s maintain that they passed on the opportunity to photograph the ceremony because their Christian beliefs were in conflict with Willock’s request. Simply put, Jon and Elaine had no obligation or desire to surrender their religious integrity for a buck. What happened to this husband and wife duo is yet another example of what I mentioned earlier: political activists and so-called “progressives” on the left are using “discrimination” and “hate speech” laws to silence freedom of religious expression. Senior counsel Jordan Lorence, from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), is appealing the decision on behalf of the Huguenins. He believes, and I concur, that if these precedents aren’t quickly overturned, “Christians could be forced to advocate for viewpoints with which they disagree or to participate in events that violate their conscience.” There are twenty states with non-discrimination acts on the books. Left unchecked, homosexual activists could strong-arm churches into permitting civil union ceremonies in their sanctuary, force pastors to officiate such unions against their will, and fine photographers, catering services, florists, bakers, wedding planners, musicians or other businesses who, due to their religious convictions, elect not to service certain cliental. Lorence argues that “The government cannot make people choose between their faith and their livelihood. Could the government force a vegetarian videographer to create a commercial for the new butcher shop in town? American business owners do not surrender their constitutional rights at the marketplace gate.” Ironically, as ADF points out, at the time of this judgment the state of New Mexico didn’t recognize either same-sex marriage or homosexual civil unions. Which begs the question: Why, then were the Huguenin’s fined? I submit that this is the tip of the iceberg. The next step by activists on the left is to shut down the exercise of religious speech starting with those who oppose same-sex marriage and the redefinition of a family. That’s what happened when Boston Catholic Charities who, on March 10, 2006, stopped serving as an adoption agency because they couldn’t comply with a Massachusetts law forbidding discrimination against placing children with same-sex couples. I could site dozens of such examples where the message is the same: change your business model, pay a fine, or close your doors. Using the courts to force private businesses into violating their own convictions is nothing short of coercion. I’d say that’s politically correctness gone wild. Such speech control minimizes the free exchange of ideas and, in turn, permits only one side of the debate a voice. If this trend continues, we, as a nation, will take a giant step toward the fascist speech and thought control prevalent in totalitarian nations. Whether in the classroom, in business, or in the public square, using “discrimination” and “hate speech” laws to ban religious thought and expression is wrong. It’s un-American. And it’s why we should stand with ADF as they fight this battle to preserve our religious freedoms.