And no. I didn't even come close to proof-reading that last post.

My Top 5 Choices for My New Domain:
(In no order beyond alphabetical)

1. amomentwithseth.com
2. lobstersclaw.com
3. notyetthere.com
4. nowheresville.us
5. vanityvanity.com

I am still entirely undecided. But at least I'm narrowing it down. Each of these has its good points and its bad.

amomentwithseth.com is cool because it not only represents honestly the content of the site, but also makes me seem (at first blush) more sincere than I really am about the things I talk about. Its downside goes like this: do I really wanna be saddled with an effeminate damain for any lengthy duration (and maybe I do) and will I have the courage not to bust up laughing when someone asks my email address and I tell them "Oh, it's, uh, seth@amomentwithseth.com"?

LobstersClaw.com is emminently cool simple by virtue of its kitschy oddity. It really has nothing to do with me (beyond the fact that I occasionally talk about lobsters and have to plastic lobsters on my desk at work). And for some reason, that kind of distatchment is currently hip. Or it was last I czeched in with the hip-o-meter a couple years back. The disadvantage of the name is really just the flip side of the advantage. It really has nothing to do with my content. It's kinda like a nickname. I've gone through at least ten solid nicknames in the last fifteen years. They always seem cool at first, but after awhile they stop meaning anything and stop sounding cool.

notyetthere.com would indeed focus on my evident homesickness for heaven. It would draw upon that eschatalogical tension that all Christians feel. But it would only portray the 'to die is gain' portion without mention of the 'to live is Christ' part. Not that a title needs to give away the farm, but it's just somethin' for me to consider.

nowheresville.us is again, too cool for school. A throwback to the finger-snappin' cats of the Fifties. Jack Kerouac and all that. Also portrays my status as 'stranger in a strange land' and emphasizes my wandering through an 'antique land.' The flaws are twofold: the same narrow focus of title as in the previous and it's not a dot-com. But then again, how cool an email would theDane@nowheresville.us be?

vanityvanity.com is definitely cool-sounding. And it totally emphasizes life under the sun without living under the Son. But I do live under the Son. So I run into the same problem as with numbers 3 and 4. Plus, the actual Ecclesiastical reference is to vanityofvanities but that just don't sound cool at all.

In any case, I welcome any advice, suggestions, or alternatives. They're all great domain names. I just have to figger out which one suits me best.

The Meme Machine:
Swiped from Evan, here is some Blog-filler: some of the top results for "Seth is" on Google.

• Seth is the ancient egyptian god of chaos and confusion.
• Seth is his Name, and He Needs Your Help.
• Seth is presently on the national board of this society.
• Seth is playing the lead role of Michael Dean .
• Seth is the oldest of three.
• Seth is decsended from numerous musicians and cantors.
• Seth is always about the pop song. Believe it.
• Seth is spoken of in terms of reverence as the god of wind.
• Seth is not an evil god.
• Seth is spoken of in terms of reverence.
• Seth is active in many aspects of the arts and in her community.
• Seth is involved in teaching the Artificial Evolution lectures .
• Seth is three months old now.
• Seth is continually expanding .
• Seth is thin and pale.
• Seth is fresh out of the studio.
• Seth is spent.
• Seth is waiting for a sibling.
• Seth is almost famous.
• Seth is an up-and-comer here in the southeast.
• Seth is an idiot. Seth has a big mouth.
• Seth is ontstaan door het inscannen van één van de illustraties .
• Seth is in the house!
• Seth is pleased to be working with fellow Monkey.
• Seth is life. Seth is happiness. Seth is almighty.
• Seth is "He Before Whom the Sky Shakes."
• Seth is easily king of our clan.

In other news, I applied for community college today. Maybe our widdle boy is finally gonna get himself an education! I'm excited. Since I'm a full-timer with work and all, I can only do school in the evenings - which makes class selection tough. But the two courses I'm looking at are pretty cool.
Japanese Lit
and
Children's Lit

Root me on fellows. It's not everyday that I'm excited about school ;-P

I'll be contributing to the Blogathon this year. If I can get sponsers. To participate means that I'll miss church - which I am loathe to do. This means I'll only participate if I feel the time I spend for the Blogathon outweighs in quality the good I'd take part in in the fellowship of the saints.

The charity I've chosen to represent and which will therefore collect from my sponsors is New Hope Uganda. They have built a children's center in the battle-weary country and they care for the many who are orphaned there. They have a site which is in the midst of construction at http://www.sowingcircle.org/newhope/. The site, being constructed, doesn't tell much yet, but they work to fulfill that most Christian of activities - showing viscerally the love of Christ to the orphaned.

Because I also know that people love to get pats on the head for doing a good deed, I'll mail out a 100% authentic piece of The Dane's doodle art - suitable for framing if you're weird. If you're interested in sponsoring my 24-hour blogolalia (and I'll be sure to make at least 20 of the posts worthwhile and not just your standard - "Man am I sleepy, well see you in a hlaf hour") - if you're interested, simply follow the sponsor me link immediately below the Blogathon Ring image above.

Anyway, it's a good cause. So live a little.

Today, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that mandatory use of the Pledge of Allegiance in its present form is unconstitutional. Some people are going to angry. I've heard some that already are.

The sticking point is, of course, "one nation under God."

I don't really see what the big deal is, personally. We didn't even have a pledge until the late 1800s when it was penned by a Baptist minister. His version didn't include the controversial line. "One nation under God" wasn't added to the pledge until the '50s during the Communist scare - when all sorts of unconstitutional things were taking place. Christians seemed to get by fine without it up until that point.

Should Chirstians be angered or astonished at this renovation? I don't think so. What's next? Removal of "In God We Trust" from our coinage? Perhaps. Isn't this a deep blow to American Christianity? Only if American Christianity is of a shallow, vain sort. What are we to do? I dunno, be happy that a questionable piece of dogma is no longer stuffed down our children's brain-holes?

First of all, Christians who rage against this decision are not Christians who support the kind of freedom that the United States has to offer. And that's fine as everyone is entitled to their opinion (at least in my world), but I just thought I should get that out of the way right up front. Look at it this way, these same Christians would be moaning and wailing and gnashing their teeth if someone decided that all children publicly schooled would recite daily a pledge that said "one nation under gods" or "one nation indivisible under the universal mind." They are only for freedom so long as it's convenient for them. Again - they're entitled to enjoy that line of thought, but I just thought it should be made plain.

Second, the line in question doesn't even reflect theological honesty. Its intent is to portray America as God's nation and its people as God's people. You know - the anthem of the anti-communist rabble-rousers: "God and Country! Down with the godless swine! Yadda yadda yadda." Let's be clear. America is not God's nation. Americans are not God's people. God's people are an international band of men and women whose citizenship is not determinable by geo-political science. And if one tries to read the line differently and weaken its patriotism-backed-by-the-divine idealism, it becomes silly and meaingless as all nations whether Christian or Hindu or Muslim or pagan or Bhuddist or flatout atheist are still under God in that general sort of sense.

Third, since we shouldn't be giving unbelieving Americans over to the illusion that they are God's people (and thereby dulling their consciousness of honest Gospel need), I think Christians should be supportive of this decisions. Just as I think Christians should be supportive of the removal of instituted prayer from schools - really, what Christian wants a Jehovah's Witness or a Bhuddist or an animist leading his child in school prayers?

Or maybe I've just fallen victim to the lies of postmodernity.

Real quick: I think postmodernism has become the smurf of the new century. For those who don't remember the early Eighties, "Smurfs" was a movie and television show empire dominating the childrens market at the time. In the show, the smurfs (little blue fellas) would use the word "smurf" as an everyword.

"Hey, do you think you could smurf me that smurf over there?"

"Ahh, I'm feeling pretty smurfy today"

"Aww, buck up, life won't always be so smurfy."

You get the idea. "Smurf" could be substituted for a noun or verb, while "smurfy" would function as an adjective or adverb. In the same way, I hear more and more people (and usually those with some education) using "postmodern" and "postmodernism" as catch-alls. If someone doesn't like something or perceives it to be wrong, it indubitably reeks of postmodernism. If a character questions reality in a movie, he is directly betraying his postmodern worldview. If a judge removes the Pledge of Allegiance from schools, it is no doubt a result of entrenched postmodernism. If Mr. Bungle makes an album, postmodernism reigns on high. If someone questions the morality of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he has fallen into the insidious grip of postmodern thought.

Postmodernism is so over-used that it has become meaningless (as it seems to mean everything). Postmodernism has become the boogeyman. It is a smurf. And it bears all the relevance of that early Eighties children's cartoon.

Saw Cinema Paradiso (the extended director's version - 51 minutes longer) with Blake last night at the UCI campus theater. (Begin Aside :: the one thing I love about Southern California is the sheer preponderance of cinematic options available. Orange County certainly doesn't have the selection of Los Angeles, but for a pretty whitebread and upscale county, it's got a lot of cool theaters :: End Aside) Originally released in 1988, the Italian film was trimmed by 35 minutes for its run on American shores. I hope to watch that version tonight.

The film was a wonder to behold. The characters were rich and varied. The tone weaved between joyous and melancholic. The circumstances were immediately obtainable and quite within the realm of experience. Sometimes touching, sometimes hilarious, sometimes brooding, sometimes nostalgic, sometimes scary, but at all times heartfelt, Cinema Paradiso is that clichéd breath of fresh air that filmgoers need every so often when bogged down either with blockbusters that lack heart, soul, and mind or with art haus dramas that dwell on the absurd. The film was lengthy (running 2:5o), but didn't feel nearly so drawn out as Minority Report (which clocks in a half hour briefer).

Really, the only part that felt awkward to me was the portion that I've come to discover is the additional footage. It provides more (and valuable) information about circumstances and characters, but does so to its impoverishment I think. This is why I hope to see the shorter version. I already imagine that what I saw last night as a nearly perfect film will be made into that mythical beast with judicious editing and removal of the scenes I believe are deleted. We'll see. In either case, Cinema Paradiso is wonderful to behold! And I highly recommend it to people of taste.

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the Lord thy God.
Amos 9:13-15

Praise the Lord for His faithfulness to His people! Rejoice in the loving mercy of his hand! His kingdom shall be established and none shall prevail against it. Sing His praise for the overflowing bounty of His realm: the wine flows freely, the harvest is ripe, and "Peace!" is the cry of its inhabitants. Praise Him with a shout and look to the coming of His Son who will usher forth all good things! Hallelujah!

Simply because I find the present line of dialogue in this comment thread fascinating, I'm moving it up to the top here:

Abstract:
And I really hate it when they go about committing what I like to call "intellectual fornication" or "emotional fornication."

Abstract:
The fact is though, lust is only lust because it's a desire for something that we can't lawfully work to make ours under our present circumstances. Sexual desire directed at another man's wife is wrong because we cannot make her our wife. I have a feeling this operates in a vastly different when unattached objects of affection are involved.

Because I know how much you kids are interested in issues concerning the Christian ethic, here is my response posted in comments on Brown-Pow's site addressing a dialogue I was late to notice regarding the Christian and tobacco. To give away the punchline at the beginning so you won't have to read on if you don't want to, I support the Christian's liberty to smoke in responsible moderacy if he so desires. With that, here follows my ennumerated comments:

Alright. So I'm playing catch up here and there are a lot of points to address.

1) We'll get this out of the way at the outset. I've smoked cigars (for the flavour which I've found I enjoy and the calming influence they bear upon my thoughts) for about 3 - 4 years now. I'm not even close to addicted. If I never smoked another, it would only be as difficult to take as if I never had another hot chocolate - lamentable only in so far as the fact that something would be denied me.

I smoke only occasionally (somewhere between 10 and 20 cigars a year) - and usually only in social circumstances. This lends, I think, greatly to the evidence supporting my claim that I am not addicted.

2) From what I understand - from all the evidence I've heard over the years - smoking is not remotely as dangerous nor as chemically addictive as the mainstream media would have you to believe.

The dangers of smoking should be apparent for those who smoke three packs a day for 40 years. It doesn't take a super-genius to understand this (and this holds with Richard's expression of moderation in all things). Second-hand smoke may be harmful to very young children (or not), but I have a very difficult time accepting that a little second-hand smoke is going to give me or you or anybody lung disease. I'd be more willing to buy that those who supposedly die from second-hand smoke are more likely dying from years of smog than from a bit of second-hand smoke (and more likely to believe that they would have contracted the disease in the absence of the second-hand air pollution anyway).

Chemically, the addictive properties of nicotine pass from the human body in three days. Therefore, doesn't it make sense that the those addicted to smoking are more addicted to the habit than to the chemical. People with addictive personalities are going to find themselves going back to cigarettes time and time again. Cigarettes. Or sex. Or booze. Or gambling. Or boyfriends who beat them. Or chatrooms. Or blog. Err, I mean. Shoot.

3) Comparing smoking to an illegal and/or brain-damaging drug is simply not a reasonable comparison.

First off. If cigarettes were illegal, we wouldn't be asking the question of whether it be wrong for Christians to smoke. Since as believers, we are to submit to the government under which God, in His sovereignty, has chosen to place us, any use of an illegal substance is necessarily wrong so long as we find ourselves under the authority of that government.

Next, there is a great gulf of difference between some of the drugs mentioned in comparison with tobacco and the tobacco itself. One use of tobacco will neither kill its user nor damage his body or mind irreparably. One use of LSD can damage one's brain forever. Same with X. Cocaine and heroin can and have killed in a single use. I have yet to hear of anyone who smoked a tobacco pipe and O.D.ed - it's just not the nature of the beast. Tobacco may have its dangers, but they are long-term dangers (like the dangers of eggs, red meat, candy bars, caffeine, and going outside).

Also, drugs like marijuana are in a different category. They are not highly addictive and they do not (so far as I'm aware) kill millions of brain cells. Therefore, if the government one finds himself under allows the recreational use of marijuana, I believe it would be acceptable for a believer to use the narcotic in a responsible manner (just as I believe it acceptable for a believer to utilize coffee, wine, Advil, and Codeine if used responsibly).

4) The comparison of tobacco to rat poison might be fair if someone could eat rat poison for fifty years (at ten helpings a day) and still live into his eighties. The fact is, most people (as pointed out) don't have that kind of tolerance for the stuff. Plus, there is no recognized benefit to the consumption of rat poison while many people truly do enjoy a good smoke. Now if you could eat your rat poison in a fine restaurant and order it medium rare at $34.99 a plate, I think one might have a better case for the comparison.

5) It's is certainly true that for some people, smoking tobacco products is a sin (for them we offer a fine assortment of chewable products j/k). In truth though, some people truly are mastered by the plant. These are people who should abstain and their use is honestly sinful. This is not all people. And certainly not all Christians. Just as some people should stay away from alcohol and others should stay away from competitive sports and others should stay away from PG-13 movies and some should stay away from theological discussion with Calvary Chapelites as it drives them inexorably to wrath, so too should some stay away from tobacco. Is that you? Is that me? I think we can only properly judge our own motivations in the matter. Or else bring it before your elders after the proper confrontation of the supposed sin.

6) Would Jesus do it? Who can say? He might. He might not. He drank wine. He may have danced and played cards. We are not given to know much of his personal habits in a day-to-day sense. Would Jesus watch a movie? Would he watch "Survivor"? Would he play Super Mario Bros.? Would he own a cell phone or microwave? Would he have an AOL Instant Messenger account? Would he moderate a Yahoo! group? Would he drink coffee? Would his shoes cost less than 30 bucks? Would he pierce an ear? Or his tongue? Would he listen to classical music? How 'bout country or jazz or rock or Japanese traditional?

Really when it comes down to most of the little things in life, the question is a silly one. I must imagine that it was only ever originally meant to aid one in provoking oneself to think Biblically about actions of mercy and love and charity and righteousness. If it was originally meant otherwise, I officially conclude that the originator of the thought was a knucklehead.

7) Using notable Christians as examples either for or against an issue is meaningless. This issue must be decided on Biblical principle alone. This is why I think smoking (in responsible moderation) is perfectly within the bounds of the righteous Christian's realm of action. Simply because there is nothing Scriptural to necessarily condemn it.

The End :-D

Not that I didn't have things to do, but more from the need to take a break, I tossed together a picture for a domain that I like, but probably won't use:

One Hairy Pumpkin:

Here's the opening chapter of a novelette I've begun work on. It's called The Great Trump (the book, not the chapter - as none of the chapters will be named) and tell the story of a heavy sleeper who sleeps so soundly that he dozes through and misses the Great Trump. You know that trump right? Corinthians 15:52? That final trumpet blast that will call forth the end of man's time in the earthly kingdom? Yeah. That one.

So. Enjoy and let me know what you think. And don't worry. It's short. It prints on a single page :-) You lazy bums.

Johnson Spalding Jr. was the last of the Spaldings. He had no wife. He had no children. He had no relatives of any kind. He was the last Spalding.

And for all he could tell, he was the last of anything that could walk and talk.

Johnson Spalding Jr. had become an illustrator of children’s books after Spectral Grafx & Printing had downsized seven months after his first daughter was born. He found he rather enjoyed the coupled precision of hand and aloofness of line necessary to the illustration of good children’s literature. He felt the marriage of the two skills was a wondrous thing. His first daughter, Crystal, felt the marriage needed more lavender.

Crystal felt everything needed more lavender. She was like that. Coming to find she enjoyed a particular colour or temperature or taste or style of dress or whatever you want, Crystal would try her best to impose her newest fancy upon everything that would bear it.

On her fifth birthday, what Crystal wanted more than anything was for black olives to coat the frosting of her lemon cake like a thick mat of fur. She had discovered black olives earlier that week when she was still a four year-old. She was impulsive. And stubborn. And good-hearted. She very much resembled her mother.

Carolina had been married to Johnson Spalding Jr. for three years when she brought Crystal Maria Spalding out to greet the world fresh from the warm, soft stay inside Carolina’s womb. Carolina was generally of a peaceful temperament but did have a great zest for new things. Johnson Spalding Jr. loved that about her—her spark, her verve, and her dizzying lust for life. By the time Crystal had discovered black olives, Johnson Spalding Jr.’s wife, Carolina, had brought two more young ladies out of her womb to greet the world.

Now was different. Carolina was no more. Crystal was no more. Crystal’s two sisters were no more. In fact, it didn’t seem like anyone else was around anymore either. That is, anyone beside Johnson Spalding Jr. He hadn’t seen another walking and talking anything in about four months. He was all alone in the great big world.

Well. Nearly, at any rate.

I've been planning to begin reviewing more frequently to exercise my writing in a more concrete manner. Not only this, but I've been planning to expand beyond simply film into the realms of music and literature and perhaps even websites (though I'm imminently more qualified to review film). So.

The first book on my list was to be Richard Abanes's Harry Potter and the Bible. The introduction makes it seem like a fair-minded approach to the series and how a Christian should view its themes. Unfortunately, it took me a few chapters to go back and read the book's subtitle: The Meanace behind the Magick. •groan•

The book was just one ridiculous assessment after another. Oh no! Protect your children! Rowling uses the names of actual magical creatures and alchemists from mythology and history! Watch out! The protagonists act like real humans kids and therefore are not paragons of virtue! Heavens! The kids learn and practice to hone their abilities! Abanes makes no small deal over the "mature content" of the books: Nearly Headless Nick is described as gruesome; Voldemort, the arch-villain of the series kills unicorns and drinks their blood to subsist; gameskeeper, Hagrid, illegally uses a spell to harm Harry's wicked cousin; Hermione says "it's hard to pee" with a ghost in your toilet.

Rubbish!

I couldn't even finish the book, so I don't know whter he redeems himself or not, but really, who cares. It seemed clear to me that the book was going nowhere but down one narrow track. So, I'm sorry to say, you'll have to wait a little longer for my first book review (which will probably be Miri Yu's recently translated Gold Rush).

These are the quarter-finals for my hunt for a new domain (this doesn't mean I'm not taking new suggestions, but simply that out of the ones I've thought of or had brought to my attention, these are the tops):

alienhere.com - speaks to my temporary nature in this futile place

amomentwithseth.com - pleasant, thoughtful, sentimental, tender, etc.

anantiqueland.com - a reference to Shelley (the only poetry I'll quote) and the knowledge of futility I hold

joyofseth.com - duh, you're here 'cause you're happy to see me

lobstersclaw.com - beware the lobster's claw. it brings justice and fury unheeded and unquenched

nowheresville.us - not a dotcom, but talk about too cool for school

obscuredbylife.com - how i feel often

ofdiscerningtaste.com - me touting how cool you are for coming to my site

screwonhead.com - totally hip, but an absolute rip-off from my fav artist

sentimentaltuesdays.com - calming, soothing, and pretty freakin' feminine. but i like females so...

sunshineofyourdane.com - Cream homage

vanityvanity.com - a common theme in my thoughts and writitng. expression of my hope in the heavenly kingdom rather than the earthly - my hope under the Son rather than under the sun

whetted.com - an idea I tossed Jim - not sure if he wanted it, but I still like it

What think thee O hearty soldiers of fortune?

There's a spicy theological kaffuffle slowburning at the church next to where I work. It seems that a semi-respectable fellow in some sort of leadership capacity within the church believes that the church will rise to meet Christ in the air before God's wrath is poured out upon the earth but after Satan has demonstrated great hostility towards it. He doesn't see things exactly the same as the bulk of the church's leadership - since they believe the church will meet Christ in the clouds seven years before the end of this earthly kingdom. Yes, the one is modified mid-trib while the others are pre-trib. Neat, huh?

Now am I a moron or is this the STOOPIDEST thing in the world to get all heated and divisive over??

Never has eschatology been a factor of division to anyone acting in the mind of Christ. Eschatology is not essential to the faith. Though I disagree with the mindsets of those who are postmillennial and premillennial, that hasn't thwarted my enjoyment of their company and fellowship. Though Jim Hart holds to a view different from my own (and we occasionally chide and kid each other over the difference), I would never exclude myself from his wonderful dialogue for something so little as this. Though my longtime friend Kevin Otsuji, a Calvary Chapel pastor, and I likely disagree on these matters, that doesn't stop me from enjoying his teaching on Sunday evenings. Its just not a thing to disassociate over.

Not only is it disappointing to see, but it is an atrocious witness to the unity of the body of Christ. Eschatology is not the identity of Christ. Eschatology is not the means to eternal life. Eschatology does not even call into question the validity of Scripture as God's inerrant and wholly inspired word. Eschatology is not essential and to make it so is to defy the honour of the church. To make it so is to despise the bride of Christ. To make it so is the heart of that immaturity that is swallowing the modern church whole. I am sickened. I am saddened. I am despairing in these men of God.

And rightly so. Let us trust that God will keep unity of his body as we would be foolish to trust in the minds and hearts of men.

Johnny suggested a new domain name for my site: amomentwithseth.com

Hmm... hmm... I don't know. I dunno if I'm in the mood to design anything delicate-looking enuff to go along with that. We'll see. At least its available though.

Because I know how much you kiddies love to read the discussions on dating, singleness, and the Bible, I thought I would bless you with a gift. While trawling through the web boards for topics of interest, I came across a fiery Russ-aged woman with very loud opinions on some matters. She was responding to some guy's post which I couldn't actually find (but as luck would have it, his post wasn't necessary to understand her own writing). So being the archfiend that I am, I threw my twenty-three cents in the pot and responded with the following. My comments are seen regular-style while while hers to which I refer are all boxed up and wrapped all pretty in envy-coloured paper! Oh yes, and if you would like to read her entire message in all its glory, and this may be best in order to grasp entirely where she is coming from, have fun! - but fair warning: she's even more long-winded than Dani and I put together. If you can believe it. And so...

The manner in which a man pursues a woman speaks much about their future together.

Uhm. Only if he pursues her with somethin' spooky like a knife or something...

Ladies, you will take away all his joy (present and future) if you are easily won.

Personally, having played the game, having challenged the hunt, have read the signals, having pursued to the uttermost, having borne sleepless nights for the sake of love, having done all this an' more in the quest for love... personally, I would faint with joy unutterable at the prospect of winning my heart's companion without having to hunt, without having to do battle with insensible vanity, without having to second-guess the plain-to-read actions of the object of my affection. I'm tired of games. I'm weary of girls who play at being coy. I'm tired of girls who imagine they need to be hard-won.

In fact. The girl who plays at being hard-to-get diminishes herself in my eyes. Stop reading books on the "Proper" way to relate to a man - on the "right" way to spark his pursuit. Stop reading Elizabeth Elliot, Joshua Harris, and the Dougs. Simply love God, focus your heart on Christ, and treat your Christian brothers as you would wish to be treated: as a normal human being. Find yourself in friendship with a man. If you like him, let him know. If you don't like him, let him know. It's not difficult. It's not life-changing. But it is a start to a good relationship.

You can make him know he's all the more of a man by making him hunt. MAKE HIM HUNT!!! He will thank you for it some day.

Or he may resent you. I probably would. And I'm an easy-going guy too. But there's is only so much of The Game that I can take.

If you are hard won then when your doubts come like "boo hoo, will he remain faithful to me?" then you can answer yourself back with "well, he sure did mean business back then - he practically died getting me, I doubt he'll throw me away now".

If all you make yourself out to be is a prize to be won, think long and hard about what we do with prizes once gained. We take them for granted. We forget them. We desire another prize. A better prize.

Better you should be his dearest friend. The best of friends are never forgotten. The best of friends are so much more than a trophy. So much more than a notch in the belt - no matter how hard won. The best of friends doesn't need some monument to commemorate what once was - for they still are.

You said "If a gal seems to be nice a couple of times but then chills out for no apparent reason, she's not interested"

Oh, please.

This is that sick, twisted kind of game of which I am so wearied. If a woman is interested in me than for what reason should she make a lie of her feelings. Her success in such an endeavor will be only to win confusion on the part of her "pursuer." Y'know what? I hate it when a girl does this. I've know enough girls who become disinterested AND REALLY ARE DISINTERESTED to know better than to imagine that a girl who slackens her interest is still interested. If that sounded confusing than my point is made. Knock it off with all the silly games already!

Be elusive.

Please don't. For the love of all that is sensible and holding that fabric of society together, don't be elusive.

Now, this may well look like us being `dead' to you... but as an unregenerate man you were `dead' in your sins to Christ... and He didn't look to you for any cue as to how to act. Even if I say, "I'm not interested" .. you should keep at it for as long as you think me worth it UNLESS my pastors or daddy or big brother or someone like that comes to you and says `Buster, take a hike'.

This is why Paul says "I forbid women to teach." ;-P

Don't read into my actions to gauge how you are to proceed.

Paraphrase: Men, no matter what a girl seems to be saying, don't believe it. She's probably lying. When she turns the other way when she sees you walking towards her, she probably hopes you'll ask her out. When she asks you to stop calling her, it probably means she wants you to seek her at her house. When she starts dating someone else, it probably just means that she wants you to work for her love.

Well maybe it does mean all that. But it shouldn't.

Make him beg!!!

Yep. That was it. I officially stopped liking your advice ;-) Make him beg? Nothin' like a loving, respectful relationship to ruin one's plans for forcing someone to grovel. Make him beg. Why I oughtta...*grumble grumble murmur murmur*

The Sensitivity Question? This I'm not certain. Some of the most insensitive men are so because they just haven't learned to be otherwise

Or maybe they were sensitive but were taught not to believe women. And so they'd love to give you a shoulder to cry on, but they figure you're just doing it for attention. I don't wanna give any excuses to the genuinely insensitive iercums out there, but the whole of your advice so far seems pretty dang insensitive. But maybe I'm just being oversensitive. I dunno.

4. To repeat: God has made the woman to be the weaker vessel. Guys, keep this in mind as you seek to get acquainted with a Christian gal. Treat her with gentleness, kindness, and respect.

This I can full-well agree with. Treat a woman as you would wish her to treat you (Love your neighbor as yourself).

Never boss her or chase her around,

Waitjustacottonpickinminnuthere! What happened to "MAKE HIM HUNT!!!"? Now we've got to learn the art of zen hunting: hunt without hunting - chase without chasing. Woof! We guys have now officially entered into the Great Tribulation. "I wanna be beheaded!" Easier than learning and unlearning all these rules.

Never chase her around?? ... you've got to be joking? By all means chase.

Okay. Thoroughly out of my depth here. I just can't finish. I am defeated. Confounded. Beyond hope of reason. My mind has turned to slog. Nothing makes sense any more. *melts into small oozing puddle of once-man* Noooooooooooooooo............ *gurgle* It is finished.

Oh, by the way, I'm The Dane and I wasn't planning on commenting so early, but I was so thoroughly astounded by this post that I simply couldn't resist. Really. :-D

Seek to lead me? Uh, this could back fire... I have no obligation to follow or submit to your leadership or to be subdued yet. Is it proper to submit to any guy? NOT A CHANCE.

No, you don't catch a horse by chasing it... you bring out the apples and carrots, you set up a salt lick and a lovely watering hole near by and by all means, yaaa hooo, cowboy, you rope her down.

5. Listen more than you ....

[ she continues for another ten paragraphs or so, but I was too exhausted to continue commenting.]

Recently, a number of friends from within my Christian circle have left their respective congregations to explore a variety of different faiths and practices and anti-faiths and lazinesses. Mentioning this to my brother, he was astounded of one friend's choice of path.

The Dane: A guy I know is just converting to Orthodoxy

Li'l Dane: to Orthodoxy????

The Dane: yup to Orthodoxy

Li'l Dane: why?

Li'l Dane: he likes kissing the priest hands and looking at funny pictures of Jesus and his posse?

The Dane: he thinks its the True Apostolic church and that it has a richer experience of Christianity

Li'l Dane: richer experience of crap

My brother who lives in the midst of the second largest of the Orthodox divisions, the Romanian Orthodox Church, has much greater authority than I to judge these day-to-day matters firsthand "as one who lives in a city full of rich crap" to utilized his personally trademarked elocution. What he sees is dead religion. What he sees is the overwhelming hand of tradition choking the lives and stifling the spirits of the Orthodox. What he sees is a greedy and corrupted church. What he sees is lips that honour Christ with hearts so very far removed. What he sees is the death of life in the lives of the dead.

It's been awhile since the last one but recently, a friend convinced me to pick up a pen again and design a t-shirt. This one was for a local church's men's retreat. The theme was Psalm 23 and so you can click on the sheepbox to see my treatment. One of these days I'll get tired of black and white for my t-shirt designs. But it probably won't be anytime soon.

Things Just Beyond the Realm of My Understanding
Episode I

Okay, I do understand the enjoyment people feel watching the balletic grace or phenominal agility or downright gutsiness or sheer stamina or juggernaut strength displayed daily in the world of professional sports. I may not share the same degree of enthusiasm. But I can at least imagine a reason why someone might sit down and watch the Lakers pummel the Nets or watch Tyson hold himself back from his diet-of-choice (yep, it tastes like chicken and every nation has more than enough of it) long enough to fall down in the Eighth Round.

What I have failed miserably thus far to ascertain is this: why on God's green earth would somebody become a rabid fan of a given team. How does a person come to identify himself with a chosen team or player so much so that the team's ups and downs are the individual's ups and downs. How is it that one descends to the point of identification at which she puts a Lakers flag on her car? Or screams at the TV? Or misses social gatherings because "the game is on"?

I can see a degree of involvement if one has money riding on the game. Or if one knows a team member. Or if one likes blue and white more than green and gold. But only a small degree of involvement. I think those who are totally into their teams have that kind of obsessive personality that we're always warned about by daytime television and pop psychology. I mean really. There's no story development to pique interest. And it can't be human interest - because both teams have many people on them and each of those individuals are just chock-full of human interest (heck! they're mostly criminals anyway!).

I was at a party recently and the host had hired a jazz guitarist (for more than a fistfull of dollars) to play throughout the evening. He was excellent and gave the room a wonderfully hip and easy-going party-atmosphere. Unfortunately, the Lakers were playing against the Kings that night, so seven-eighths of the crowd sat out on the patio watching the game and almost missing entirely the indoor performance. In my opinion, the two attractions were not comparable. The musician was presenting something truly appreciable by anyone with taste: good (even occsaionally great) music. The game was clearly exhibiting some decent athleticism, but the only real reason it was such a draw was that everybody was rooting for the Lakers; they somehow found themselves identifying with the plight of the Lakers and not the plight of the Kings. Cheers and groans errupted often and still I wonder why. What drives someone to become a fan? If anyone wants to explain it to me, I'm all ears.

Hmm... If I do change domains, I'll have to come up with a whole new schema for the site. So here's a sample of lobsterness:

Hmm... considering changing domains. Not that Gravenimages.com hasn't been fun, but the name doesn't really seem to suit the site anymore (in fact it hasn't ever since Gravenimages changed from being a site to market my graphic design wares to a simple home page three and a half years ago). It raises too many questions from people at church and being rather on the iconoclastic side of things (as recent posts will clearly indicate), it's a poor token of who I am. I really mourn releasing such a wonderful domain as gravenimages, but if I can find a better one, it will be done. The difficulty is, of course, finding the perfect name.

thedane.com is taken
danegeld.com is taken
deadhorse.com is taken
chevalmort is available (but I don't know how I like it)
daneland.com is taken
daneof5683.com is available (too obscure?)
canute.com is taken
thatdane.com is available
noirdane.com is available
lobstersclaw.com is available
screwonhead.com is available
agent86.com is taken
spychic.com is taken but spy-chic.com is available
fasttracksallies.com is available
discerningtaste.com is available
vanityvanity.com is available
both mrblank.com and misterblank.com are woefully taken
iconoclast.com is taken although image-breaker.com is available :-P
UPDATES:
heart-breaker.com is available
animalfarm.com is taken

Okay, I guess the point is, I'd like suggestions. Got any ideas or preferences for where my domain should escape to? Lemme know! I'm all ears. And eyes. And a couple toes.

Embracing Iconography and Copyright Infringement
(The Christian Way!)

Thirty-three hours of work in two days. My eyes are puffy. My throat is swolled. And one of the Pastors at the conference introduces me to people as "This is Seth the Heretic. Don't worry. He doesn't have anything to do with any of the content on the Blue Letter Bible." It's been a rough coupla days. And I have two more to go. I need a vacation. Or at least an early weekend.

Yesterday's highlight: a vender a couple tables over approached me during some down time and asked why I'm a heretic, so I whispered: "I'm a Presbyterian." He was very excited to not be the only one of his kind in the place! We bonded as soldiers—the lone surviving members of our respective platoons—disguised as civilians deep behind enemy lines. It was good and it was refeshing.

And now I have to go back. Urg.

Busy week this week. And hectic. Try being the only Presbyterian at a Calvary Chapel Pastors' Conference. Notable quote of the day yesterday (asked of me by an eager attendee testing the software we are demonstrating at the conference all week): "Now where do I find the verse that show that we will should be pretrib?"

My response? A big grin and: "That's a good question!"

Sometimes I think about marrying female musical artists like Tori Amos or Jewel. I feel like this out of a benevelent love for mankind. I would marry them and make them deleriously happy so they would no longer be able to perpetrate their music upon the world. You see? If they are happy, they'll have nothing to sing about. This would be my salvific work for the world. Unfortunately, I'm not man enough to heap this responsibility upon my own shoulders. And so, alas, we're stuck with Tori Amos. Sorry.

Also, I think some kind-hearted woman should marry and love Rage Against the Machine. Then we wouldn't have to put up with them either :-D For the same reasons.

Today's target? Bumper stickers! Christian ones! And specifically: those little ones that sport little mischevious Calvin (or his erstwhile pal Susie - for girls) kneeling before a cross. That nutty Calvin! When he's not threatening society in Watterson's books or peeing on everything in sight via the back windows of, well, every third car in Southern California, he's kneeling before the cross in prayer. What a saint!

My curiosity is piqued, wondering at the actual denomination behind the creation of this sticker. I'm guessing one of two things: either 1) the design-mind behind the stickers isn't too familiar with

You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me – (Deuteronomy 5:8-9)

(you know that whole Second Commandment thing....) or 2) the sticker's maker hails from an icon-friendly church such as the Orthodox Church or the Roman Church.

In either case, should the steadfast Protestant really be supporting monetarily a token (clearly meant to represent his belief system) that portrays a devious little kid (or even the not-quite-so-devious Susie) kneeling before a crafted image? Doesn't this send a curious message? "Hi. I bow to a hand-crafted image! Ask me how!" Anyway... just me being critical again (don't even get me started on Christian t-shirts or any of the other myriad of products that Christians have lovingly stolen from secular markets with an asinine absence of originality — e.g., "Fear Not," "God's Gym: His pain, our gain," or the suitably insipid Nike rip off, "Life's Short, Pray Hard").