All-or-nothing thinking: The product of a greedy mind?

The Butterfly is the real Terrorist?

[noticed by Al Speegle at The Door Magazine Chat Closet Thanks Al!]

The flap of a butterfly's wings in Central Park could ultimately cause an earthquake in China. So say the proponents of chaos theory, who use 'the butterfly effect' to describe how small and apparently insignificant incidents can set in motion a chain of events with far reaching consequences.

The butterfly effect has, until now, been cited only as an illustration, but Professor Jim Spanners of the Pennsylvania Institute for Making Stuff Up takes it seriously, and believes that butterflies are directly responsible for most of the world's major problems. He is urging authorities to act swiftly in order to prevent imminent disaster.

So far his warnings have been largely dismissed by everyone except for a select group of people who don't get out much. Recently, in order to underscore his concerns, he published a twelve stage example of exactly how such a catastrophic sequence of events might run:

[read more...]

---from The University of the Bleeding Obvious

(noticed at Been There...Still There)

"In any person, I see a father, a mother, a brother, a sister, a son or a daughter. In any person, I see a person who is loved by some other people, a person who some other people depend on. Every one has the right to live, no matter with what background or opinion."

---from Human first then a proud Iranian

Truth and Details
It seems to me that there is a belief that we are benefited by simple thinking. It tends to have passion to it. It tends to give one a sense of mission. As if the human mind can only hold one thought at a time and the complexities of the world are confusing.

I suspect that more truth is found in the details than the headlines.

[from Camping Mocks The Homeless, noticed via Jordon Cooper]

Since This is Election Time in Canada

[noticed at Jordon Cooper in this context]

For Bonhoeffer, Hitler or no Hitler, the peace and justice of any social order might try to achieve was impossible without truth. "There can only be a community of peace when it does not rest on lies and injustice." The mistake of Anglo-Saxon thought is the subordination of truth of justice to the ideal of peace. Indeed, such a view assumes that the very existence of peace is proof that truth and justice have prevailed. Yet such a view is illusory...

---from Performing the Faith by Stanley M. Hauerwas

What you see is what is easy to get.

Jumping for Joi

One of the major contributors to The Door Magazine's Chat Closet (where I post sometimes) has a blog. Check it out!

Oh...Joi also collaborates here too.

Symbols don't relate to reality as much anymore, yet they also seem not enough either.

The Other Side

[noticed at Unedited Ravings]

"[The discovery of our common humanity] is a journey from loneliness to a love that transforms, a love that grows in and through belonging, a belonging that can include as well as exclude. [This] discovery... liberates us from self-centered compulsions and inner hurts; it is the discovery that ultimately finds its fulfillment in forgiveness and in loving those who are our enemies. It is the process of truely becoming human."

---from Jean Vanier's Becoming Human

[noticed at The Cathy J Weblog]

Anyway, watching Whale Rider reminded me of how sad it is without some sense of collective self. I know that traditions can become meaningless, or conversely can become all that matters - much more than they should.

[said by Tamara at The Door Magazine's Chat Closet]

Self-righteousness isn't about the "righteousness" part, it's about the "self" part.

[noticed at TheyBlinked]

community need be programmed only in situations where people are not comfortable with their normal lives.

it is funny to me that we even have conversations about "structuring community." on the one hand because it is the predisposition of our species to dwell communally in one sense or another. on the other because the very act of talking about how to "grow" or "structure" community intimates both that we fundamentally lack it and have an excess of time and treasure to consider why. seldom does it occur to us that this margin and the life structured to create it may directly contribute to our lack.

this is not a cynical arm chair critique or even an effort in diagnosis/prescription: just thinking out loud.

Placed on the register:

Apparently I'm on the The Worship Freehouse's Blog now. Feel free to check it out while I upgrade my blog.

Others who have me placed on the register:

• John I. Carney [http://lakeneuron.com/blog]


• Been There...Still There[http://beentherestillthere.blogspot.com]


• ~ s c o t t y d ~[http://scottyd.org]


• The Invisible Sun[http://www.darrenfriesen.blogspot.com]


• Unedited Ravings[http://nadhan.blogspot.com]


• grrrl meets world[http://www.grrrlmeetsworld.com]

While You're Waiting...

Please note: my blog is being upgraded, so bear with me if it looks a bit off now and again. In the meantime, feel free to laugh (and now even comment!) at the following semi-poem I tried to write in 1996. It reminds me why I can't rhyme...enjoy!

Genius

Drip, drip, take a sip
From the sliver that makes you quiver.
By the stone wall, with the gall
To provide no theory, so you're not teary.
Nag, nag--what a rhythm! Making you into a schism!
Cumulative--rushing, rushing!
Oh, how punitive--touching, touching!
So infatuating
Think you're graduating
When in kindergarden
Without sin to pardon.
Drifting to a stalemate without a conjunction;
But at this rate, you need it to function,
Caught in this torrent, quite abhorrent!
Going to a climax, smashed to shrapnel,
Strewn with no vector, all is just scrap, now!
POWER SURGE!

Infertility

[if you couldn't create...it's like stuff in parentheses. it's a loss...of sorts.]

The Door Magazine
Featuring interviews of Daniel Wallace (who wrote Big Fish) and Jon Trott from JPUSA. Also featuring a new comic by Which Circle?

[quoted at Jordon Cooper]

There can only be a community of peace when it does not rest on lies and injustice. Where a community of peace endangers or chokes truth and justice, the community of peace must be broken and battle joined. If the battle is then on both sides really waged for truth and justice, the community of peace, though outwardly destroyed, is made all the deeper and stronger in the battle over this same cause. But should it become clear that one of the combatants is only fighting for his own selfish ends, should even this form of the commuity of peace be broken, there is revealed that reality which is the ultimate and only tolerable ground of any community of peace, the forgiveness of sins.

--- from No Rusty Swords by Dietrich Bonhoeffer

More Than Double-edged...

On Wednesday, Liveprayer's Devotional contended that critics of the Bible portray it as hateful to cover their sins. The author referred to Canada's current hate-crime laws (now including "sexual orientation") as allowing this to happen, especially with the subject of homosexuality.

Yet somehow this doesn't answer some major questions:

1. If it's about the negative/neutral verses (or interpretations), when and how do people use it for hateful means?

2. If negative/neutral verses (or interpretations) potentially set up Christians for criticism, when are Christians wrong and others right?

[noticed at Been There...Still There]

Eat less; breath more.
Talk less; think more.
Ride less; walk more.
Clothe less; bathe more.
Worry less; work more.
Waste less; give more.
Preach less; practice more.

Unknown

When (evangelical) Christians Become The Issue

At The Heresy the other day, Leighton argued for more dialogue and diplomacy by Christians (especially evangelicals) rather than rude, judgmental moralizing. One commenter passionately suggested that some issues aren't just issues, and can't be ignored or compromised. He used the issue of abortion.

As per Christians, he used the typical devices: a sense of urgency/intensity, a scripture here, a hard blunt stance. Isn't this what makes people cringe? Isn't this what alienates people from (evangelical) Christians, especially if they talk about social issues?

But sometimes some Christians are "fundamentally different, not likely to change." Rejection or reservations by others only seems to make the stance more entrenched/serious. It might feel and seem safe and secure, but it also makes it easier to be naive/wrong/misled (might I say sin?). What if it becomes one-sided or intolerable? That wouldn't make it right. Yet some Christians seem willing to look extreme than sensitive, and that's the issue!

Conviction or stupidity is not proven by zeal.

(reflecting on recent comments at The Heresy)

Sometimes I'd rather have "keeping it sophisticated" than "keeping it simple". Simplicity is not always sensible (or sensitive).

Narrator from Conscience:

"We're sorry. The post you may/may not want to read has been aborted. It was an agonizing choice, but all rights were reserved by the author."