Having wedding two desktop items together in a marriage of mirth, I have developed one of the single funniest political statements ever. Watch and learn, kiddies (and if you don't thinks it's funny, it's likely because you suck. you don't wanna suck do you?).

Jenn and mel! You'll both be happy to know that funk-O socks run in the family: here's the sock I was wearing last night to see my parents off.

I have a nephew-in-law (if such things exist). He was named after the Impaler because of his fondness for blood. Here is he and I a few months back enjoying ourselves until he took a large chunk out of my deltoid. Kid's got teeth—I'll give him that! Anyway, without further ado: Vlad!

One of the buses I ride only operates Monday thru Sunday.

Fortunately, I don't need to ride it on any of those other days.

Two films worth watching: documentary Dogtown and Z-Boys and romantic intrigue/thriller He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not. The first was worthwhile for its human and firsthand exploration of the events in the '70s that conspired to bring skateboarding back to life and set the kiddies on the path of aggressively pursuing new heights of talent and action. Both introspective of the egos behind the movement and historically fascinating. The second may well be the best made romantic intrigue I have ever seen. I discovered myself actually chewing on a nail to spite my nerves.

Come to think of it, i can't think of a single problem with either presentation: Four Stars each!

A year ago I got my first grey hair. In my light pelt of chest fur. Since the first, I've discovered one more grey chesty, but the other day I noticed more grey—yet not in my bird's nest. I now boast proud ownership of a singled grey just under my lower lip and a mottled patch underscoring my chin. This is so cool! I can't wait 'til my whole beard is white!

I fell asleep tonight and woke up in Newport. What fun. On the up side, the weather was nice.

Interestingly enough, I'm the thrid result on MSN for blog seth dane. Behind Emeth and Brandon. I can't even get hits on my site the right way.

"Lookie Pa! Thar' be legalism in them thar' hills!"

One of DYL's newest writers, though fiery and in possession of something close to a sense of humour, demonstrates a marked misunderstanding of holidays, the importance of their respective origins, and the responsible Christian's response to such festivities. Though I've spoken of the real meaning of holidays in the past, it has been awhile, so let's treat it again.

I'll deal successively with three things: what exactly a holiday is, the origin and meaning of holidays (in general and specifics), and lastly, what responsibility a believer owes in their respect.

1). The question of defining a holiday may prove valuable down the line, so I'll take care of that here. Despite its obvious etymology, a holiday is, in fact, not a holy day or something necessarily faith-driven. A holiday, distilled, is simply nothing more nor less than a celebratory event. The celebratory event may have religious connotations (as Passover or the National Day of Prayer) or it may be devoid of such entirely (as Arbor Day or Memorial Day) or it may be something of a mixed breed (as Christmas or Easter), but regardless, religious connotations are never to be viewed as intrinsic to holiday.

2). I have dealt with this in the past but reiteration may serve. In these matters, the origin of a thing bears no necessary moral resemblance to its current state. This should seem obvious, but perhaps a few examples will clarify this.

First from good to bad. The Mosaic Covenant was good according to its intended purpose and origin, yet fifteen hundred years later, Paul chastizes those who have turned it to villainy, calling them "dogs" and "mutilators." Sexuality was, from its origin, a good thing, yet mankind never ceases to make it into something vile. Mankind itself finds genesis in purity - so far that God even declares the race "very good," yet now mankind is wicked and iniquitous, even from birth. So, something can begin as good and find its present state as something bad.

Now from bad to good. Joseph's brothers, engorged upon their jealousy throw him in a pit to die and then relent, selling him into a life of hardship and suffering, yet what they intended for evil, God intended (and indeed worked) for good. Mankind, birthed in rebellion and iniquity is corrupted through and through, but God through grace redeems the occasional man and makes him a vessel of honour and glory. So, clearly, something can begin as evil and be made good in a later state.

So then, when we approach the question of whether a holiday is something good, bad, or ugly, we must recognize that the celebration's origin bears no necessary relevance upon the question. To further exemplify this point, I will borrow from an old post in which I discuss the "real" meaning of holidays.

People the world over, and especially Protestant Christians (at least in my experience), seem to have this notion that holidays have such a thing as a "real Meaning." By real, I can only assume they refer to the original intention of a celebration. In fact, though, a holiday’s origins have little-to-nothing to do with the reasons individual celebrants honor that holiday. By all available evidence, the real meaning of a holiday is simply the meaning it holds to the individual who is celebrating it — thereby giving each holiday a multitude of "real" meanings.

Some examples:

Christmas:

Original Meaning: Began as a pagan celebration of the Winter Solstice, celebrating the rebirth of the sun. Popularly celebrated in the Roman Empire as a festival dedicated to Saturn, the god of agriculture. Early Christians co-opted the holiday and gave it overtones of Christian nativity though Christ was not likely born in December.

Real Meaning (To Me): A time to enjoy friends and family through shared traditions, gifts, and healthy celebration.

Easter:

Original Meaning: Began as a celebration of pagan fertility goddess Eostre (meaning "Spring" in an ancient tongue). Where Christianity grew in influence, the celebration became the celebration of the resurrection of Christ.

Real Meaning (To Me): A time to enjoy friends and family through shared traditions, meals, and healthy celebration.

Halloween:

Original Meaning: Began as the Feast of Samhain, by which the druidic peoples would dress in costume and behave in chaotic fashion to scare away wandering spirits. Later co-opted by the Catholic Church and re-dubbed, "All Hallow’s Eve" or "All Saints Day."

Real Meaning (To Me): A time to enjoy friends and family through shared traditions (involving costumes and carved pumpkins), sweet foods, and healthy celebration.

Thanksgiving:

Original Meaning: Began as an annual feast to commemorate — with thanks given to God — the successful settlement of the American coast.

Real Meaning (To Me): A time to enjoy friends and family through shared traditions, meals, and healthy celebration.

Fourth of July:

Original Meaning: American celebration of the fact that a bunch of slave-owning, aristocratic, white males didn’t want to pay their taxes.

Real Meaning (To Me): A time to enjoy friends and family through shared traditions, meals, and healthy celebration.

Valentine’s Day:

Original Meaning: Began as a day to honor the martyred St. Valentine, who met his end on February 14^th (the same day devoted to love lotteries).

Real Meaning (To Me): A time to enjoy my girl through romance, a classy meal, and healthy celebration.

The fact is this: nobody (this is hyperbole meaning "an extreme few") celebrates a holiday for the reason the holiday existed originally. I don't know a single person, Christian or non, who actually celebrates solstice. Even the unbeliever's I know who celebrate Christmas aren't honouring pagan fertility goddesses, but simply being festive and enjoying family, friends, or whatever.

I think i should point out that there is a big diffenece between syncretism (co-opting the religious beliefs of another culture and kludging them slipshod into one's own faith beliefs) and the celebration of non-religious things in a clean conscience. Now if I were taking the pagan fertility superstions of Easter and melding them into my resurrection beliefs, drawing me to belief that the power of Christ's resurrection translates into the gift of supersperm for all who believe and that in celebrating on that day I am granted the ability to fruitly and assuredly multiply, that would be syncretism. Celebrating the Lord's conquer of the grave and letting my wife wear a pretty bonnet while we munch on tasty hard-boiled eggs is a far, far cry from syncretism and the heavy burden of proof lies upon the shoulders of he who who seek to prove it such.

I might also point out that Paul doesn't seem particularly worried about this sort of thing. Going far beyond the vaguely-and-in-fact-not-really-connected-at-all-to-pagan-religion issue of celebrating on formerly pagan holidays, he dives straight into the deep end of the pagan pool declaring that for the believer, even the enjoyment of meats sacrificed blatantly to idols is not a corruption (only admonishing believers to abstain in the witness of believers of weak faith). If believers are given liberty to enjoy that which comes directly from pagan ritual, it seems an unscriptural legality to yoke believers with a command to abstain from that which comes via an incredibly inderect root from pagan idolatry. Again, the heavy burden of proof lies at the feet of he who would say otherwise.

Lastly in this section, even granting that origins mattered, the opinion that believers shouldn't celebrate once-pagan holidays is on shakey ground for the simply fact that the origin of the original celebrations are good things. If celebrating on Easter is wrong because its original celebrants honoured pagan fertility rites on the day, then Easter is right because it was pagans who altered something good, new life, and glorified it in fouled order. Therefore, someone needs only celebrate new life properly to have redeemed the celebration. Pretty fun stuff, no?

3). So then, what responsibility does the believe owe in light of these holidays? Why none at all, so long as he is honouring the Lord. There is no Scriptural mandate regarding holidays and to suggest that celebration of holidays (in and of themselves) is wrong is to embrace the sizable flaw of Fundementalism. Such legalism as Fundementalism loaded onto Christianity is a tragic shortcoming in understanding the position of the believer in Christ.

How does the believer know from right and wrong? Through the revealed will of God in the Canon of Scripture. Has Scripture stated directly or indirectly that festivities on days (even those once associated with pagan worship) are a mark of iniquity? No. It has not. Therefore, such is a matter of conscience. Do not celebrate if you feel bound not to, but neither hold your brother to your decision of conscience.

I'm sure there's more to say, but frankly, I'm spent.

I handed out Star Wars Valentine's at work yesterday.

Old and Young Earthers alike may find this of special interest!

Inspired by Angel: art (entitled "My Bloody Valentine")

Surprisingly enough, my camera has healed itself and is now once more in working order. Here is the inaugural shot from yesterday.

Early morning office conversation:
The Dane: I wanna be a girl singer when i grow up.
The Wason: You do? Then maybe we can start a girl band together!

For lack of a better thing to post in this moment, I thought I'd treat you to a sample of the exciting life I lead at work sometimes. When I'm not designing web or graphic, I often write. When I'm not writing, I'm editing. Right now, I'm editing. In fact, I'm editing to such a degree that I'm not sure if it's more proper to call it editing or adapting or rewriting. With that, here's a sample of my task.

sample of original
A covenant is an agreement. You could call it a contract between two parties. You also could use the word arrangement. When it comes to the new covenant, I like the word arrangement. I’ll tell you why. In human terms when you talk covenant, what is a major, major issue in human contracts? Equity, equality. Well, let’s see if what you bring to the contract matches what I bring to the contract, whether it’s a house or a job or whatever. Always looking for equity.

But when you look at the new covenant, it fits better to call it an arrangement. I mean, what do we bring to the table in this agreement with God? We bring broken, empty lives, fallen in sin and floundering in human inadequacy. You can sure bargain for a lot with that, can’t you? What does God bring to the contract table? Everything those empty, broken lives need. So to call it a contract is kind of, you know, boing! Wow. There doesn’t seem to be an equity here. No, God is gracious. We get a very good deal in this new covenant.

God’s new arrangement for living, is one way to define it. The new covenant, it’s a wonderful thing. It’s how God has arranged for you and I to live life in Christ.

The new covenant. What’s the new part about? Well it’s no so much chronology, as it is character. The character of the new covenant is its newness. Perhaps you remember the phrase in Romans 7 that we serve in newness of the Spirit, not the oldness of the letter. The oldness of the letter, that’s the law. The newness of the Spirit, that’s the new covenant. Newness, spiritual vitality from the Spirit of God.

sample adaptation
A covenant is an agreement. We might call it a contract, or arrangement, between two parties. The difference between this contract and the average human contract is palpable. In this particular covenant, the new covenant, we bring little to the bargaining table. We set before God broken, empty lives that are fallen in sin and floundering in human inadequacy. God sets upon the table everything those empty, broken lives need. The inequity of the two parties involved is stark. Though we deserve no deal or contract, God is gracious. We are granted a very good deal in this new covenant. We are given a new arrangement for living. The new covenant is central to the believer’s life—it is by this covenant that God has arranged for the believer to live life in Christ.

The new in "new covenant" is not so much a focus upon chronology as it is upon character. Central to the character of the new covenant is its newness. Paul speaks to this in Romans 7:6, saying that we serve in newness of the Spirit (the new covenant), not in the oldness of the letter (or the law). Newness is spiritual vitality from the Spirit of God.

The most difficult part is with some of the files I'm working on, there are thirty pages of text with no paragraph markings and sentences are spliced haphazardly with periods (at some times even in the. Middle of a prepositional phrase). It can be ugly, mind-bending work. But in a good way.

Hey. Enough with the doom already. Meet the Twins. For kicks. You're doomed.

Just saw Lost in la Mancha with Mikey and brother Jimmy. Tragic. Talk about a human interest film, you can almost see Gilliam's spirit being crushed as things are torn out of his hands. The film documents the unbelievable halt of production on the anticipated The Man Who Killed Don Quixote and comes from the same production team that filmed the earlier (and wonderful) Hamster Factor: And Other Tales of the Twelve Monkeys. Incidentally, Onion A/V Club posted a cool interview with the man himself last week. Enjoy!

Yet another petition has been submitted to my regal pen. Yet another petition has passed to my rubbish bin unmarked. It often seems the only petitions to meet circulation are ones that seek to perpetrate bad ideas upon the populace.

Well, these are the one's I recieve.

When enough signatures are received, the following is to be sent to the president—complete with typos.

> > >> Dear President Bush:
> > >>
> > >> Many of us were deeply touched to hear you recite a  portion of
> > >>Psalm 23 in your address to this great  nation in the dark hours
> > >>following the terrorists  attacks.We were encouraged and comforted
> > >>to know  that we truly had a believer working with us and for  us
> > >>in our nation's highest office.We, the people of  America, are
> > >>requesting that you lift the  prohibition of prayer in schools.As
> > >>the pledge of  our great country states, we are to be One nation,
> > >>under God." Please allow the prayers and petitions  of our children
> > >>in schools without the threat of  punishment.Currently, adults and
> > >>children in the  school are prohibited from mentioning God unless
> > >>of  course His name is uttered as part of a curse or
> > >>profanity.Madeline Murray O'Hare is dead.Let her  legacy of atheism
> > >>in our schools die with her!
> > >>
> > >> Sincerely,
> > >>
> > >> The People of America

Yep. Prayer in public schools. Christian America was actually saved from potential tragedy years ago by the work of political-minded atheists and some ingrates are trying to subject themselves once more to an abominal practice: a prayer life instituted by a necessarily pluralistic government.

What are they thinking? These are the same people who, if they have their way on this one, will urinate in their trousers if their seven-year-old son's teacher offers a prayer to Allah before the morning Pledge. Really. If prayer to God is given free reign in public schools, that means Buddhists, Mormons, Muslims, and Scientologists will all be teaching the nation's children how to approach properly the Creator of all that is. The kind of Christians who are for public schools beginning the class in prayer are the same kind who are leaving the public system in droves to join cultish, home-schooling enclaves; think how much faster they'll retreat from the culture around them if Wiccan teacher offer a little thanks to Dumbledore for provision and his longsuffering guidance.

I'll leave it at this: if you're fine with teachers leading your children in heterodox or even heretical prayer, feel free to support such petitions; otherwise, take joy and relief that an atheist took a stand and is protection your child from harmful religious inculcation.

Girl. For kicks. So there. [Do not forget that you are all doomed.]

Because the movie-going public so adores romantic films featuring quirky niche-cultures, I'm going to begin writing the newest hit film: My Big Fat Geek Wedding. It will lovingly jest at the expense of a particular stereotype (geeks and fanboys of several stripes), pointing out how stupid they seem to everybody beyond their small sphere of influence before demonstrating how their culture is as valid and unified as any other. It will be very typical. And the American people will give it an Oscar.

Last week I found out:
• I can cry at funereals of people I never knew.
• My pastor can preach a weak sermon.
• Some people actually think I could take a phone call at 1:oo in the morning (even if I wanted to).
• Mothers want to set me up with their daugthers.
• Medesky, Martin & Wood sounds better loud.
• It is still common for people at my church to ask if I'm visiting.
• I miss eating out every night.
• I miss full-time education.
• Unfailingly, I am the person that weird homeless people want to talk to on the bus.
• People, especially Christians, rarely appreciate the Gospel.
• Poetry still sucks.

Vexation #19: The Quotation
Do not ever ever ever rely upon a quotation to prove your point unless your point is merely to prove what someone once said. Judicious exerpts from someone else's pen can add a dash of light or familiarity to a story or opinion, but to quote full paragraphs of text belies a lack of imagination or self-confidence in an author. It often seems like everywhere I look, people are busting out quotes there, here, and yon to give weight to their opinion. If I want someone to agree with my opinion on such-and-so theological opinion, then I'll simply write two introductory lines and let John Calvin or Douglas Wilson or Henry Morris or Hayao Watanabe take over. One hundred and fifty-two words later, if someone still disagrees, they're a fool for I have quoted an authority.

Here's the deal. If you want to prove an opinion, do it in your own words. If you can't give your own reason for believing what you do, maybe you don't understand exactly why you believe what you do (and then I can hardly be expected to understand your point of view as you do not quite get it yourself). If you are so inarticulate that you must rely upon the writings of others to get your point across, why are you bothering to write at all? Why should I listen to what you have to say?

p.s. This doesn't really apply to straight bloggers - as blogging isn't necessarily writing, but simply alerting folks to what's out there on the web.

Vexation #18: Interpreting Scripture in Light of Whatever
"Hey. What do you think of Genesis 1?"

Me? Uhh, I think its neat? Just what is he getting at here? "I like it! What do you think of Genesis 1?"

"I think it's talking about literal 24-hour days."

Ah, I see where this is going. "I'm glad. What makes you think that?"

"Well, see, I'm a young-earther. Science proves that the earth isn't millions of years old, you know."

"Uhm, yeah. I had heard something like that." But the real question is what has this to do with the Bible? We all know that we are only to interpret Scripture in light of Scripture, so what's with these trends I see about me: interpreting Scripture from science (a la this newfound scientific creationism and our old pal, the Gap theory), interpreting Scripture from current events (Chuck Missler and the hokey end of Calvary Chapel eschatalogical dogma, anybody?), interpreting Scripture in light of historical interpretation (believing something because Augustine said it or John Calvin wrote it), and the reformed favourite, interpreting Scripture in light of creeds. While science, events, history, and creeds can be helpful and fun (and both to varying degrees), they should never ever ever replace a good old-fashioned proper hermeneutic.

That is we should only, when defending our view of Scripture, say the following: "I believe that it's saying such-and-so because, well, to my best estimation, that's what it looks like its saying. Here's why it looks like that...." Any other response is a waste of my time, your time, and the time of anyone else can in earshot. (excepting the fact that such conversations lend themselves well to vexed bloggers.)

Doomed. You're all doomed. For kicks.

It it my suspicion that high church liturgy was at some point or another silly, pop worship.

Careful. I may eat you. For kicks.