RSS

You can eat a meal with Richard Dawkins if you contribute $500,000 to his fan club

Will S.:

Amusing.
c.f. the Lord’s Supper, with Christ; and meeting Him in His Word, and in the next life, in the flesh: cost: $0 (simply must believe in Him, repent of your sins, and follow Him).
Not that there won’t be costs, but they’re worth it.
Unlike a dinner with Dawkins…

Originally posted on Wintery Knight:

I wanted to post on this yesterday at 2 PM, but somehow, the post was never published. I blame Jonathan M., because I was Skyping with him while writing it, and must have forgotten to click “Publish”.

Nancy Pearcey and Jay Richards tweeted this story from the UK Spectator.

Excerpt:

[T]he Richard Dawkins website offers followers the chance to join the ‘Reason Circle’, which, like Dante’s Hell, is arranged in concentric circles. For $85 a month, you get discounts on his merchandise, and the chance to meet ‘Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science personalities’. Obviously that’s not enough to meet the man himself. For that you pay $210 a month — or $5,000 a year — for the chance to attend an event where he will speak.

When you compare this to the going rate for other charismatic preachers, it does seem on the high side. The Pentecostal evangelist…

View original 250 more words

 

Is Homosexuality a Sin? Tim Keller, John Piper, and Joel Osteen Give an Answer

Will S.:

I couldn’t be arsed to watch more than a minute and three quarters or so of any of them.

They’re all weasels, all weak, all trying to get around categorically, unequivocally, outright condemning such behaviour as sinful and grossly wrong as we ought to do, before God and in the presence of a watching world; but normally I’d expect better from ostensibly Reformed / quasi-Reformed brethren than from a mushy churchian, evanjellyfish type like Osteen.

Disappointing, to say the least.

Originally posted on Literate Comments:

Who gives the best answer? Presbyterian Tim Keller, Reformed Baptist John Piper, or Televangelist Joel Osteen?

Shockingly I would say Joel Osteen!

Keller:

Piper:

Osteen:

View original

 

omg…it’s a twitter essay!

Will S.:

He told us which people he was thinking of, but not which works of theirs.
Epic fail!
FredR’s comment is spot on.
In light of which, I wonder how long before we’ll see Malcolm Gladwell and other similar pompous twits do these, if not already…
Back when I was a Twit, I sometimes did run-on multitweet rants, but then, I don’t pretend to be anything other than a pompous amateur opinionated blowhard, at best. :)

Originally posted on Uncouth Reflections:

Glynn Marshes writes:

And I didn’t even know twitter essays were a thing.

Topic: social contracts, protests, and whether contemporary police theories about crowd control are a throwback to 19th century mob violence literature.

In seventeen numbered 140-character tweets.

With references!

5. The scholarly literature I’m thinking of comes from E.P. Thompson, Hobsbawm, George Rudes, Natalie Zemon Davis & many others.

View original

 
3 Comments

Posted by on August 19, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

Shouldn’t need ‘her permission’ for anything…

Found the following great cigar ad poster at Clash Daily:

pee-standing

A married man shouldn’t need ‘her permission’ for anything, of course…

Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em, boys – if that’s your thing. :)

 
 

Never trust a politician with a moustache or a hyphenated name

A good rule-of-thumb, I think. (Hat tip: Chris.)

 
1 Comment

Posted by on August 17, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

In the future, traditionalists will live in Victorian houses under glass domes

Will S.:

From an old magazine I own, scanned, and the accompanying text shifted over, under the illustration. I just find it amusing – and an oh-so-typical prog stereotype of us, even back then… Even we will succumb to domes over homes, but in our own fuddy-duddy way, doncha know.

Ya gotta laugh. :)

Originally posted on Will S.' Random Weirdness Blog:

Mechanix Illustrated, June 1957.

Mechanix Illustrated, June 1957.

View original

 

British auto insurance company proposes women-only pink lanes

Hopefully not seriously!

pink1 pink2

Photoillustrations: Sheila’s Wheels

Photoillustrations: Sheila’s Wheels


If women ruled the world, this is what London’s roads would look like. Or something.

One (misguided) insurance company has put forward the idea of ‘pink lanes’ – female-only flyovers so women can soar over busy roads and nip ahead of that early morning rush-hour traffic.

Another shows how a gender-separated lane would apparently allow women to freely zip along the motorway without the fear of male drivers getting in the way (presumably as the battle for equality sits on the hard shoulder calling breakdown recovery).

The company claims the mocked-up images ‘would remove them from a potentially dangerous environment’ – albeit being a ‘futuristic’ concept.

The proposals (hopefully) aren’t entirely serious – but a Sheila’s Wheels spokesperson claims the company ‘is serious about creating a safer road network for female drivers and we believe a discussion about how best to achieve this is long overdue’. Instigate discussion? Check.

Helpfully the company has also done the maths after looking at road safety data – AND claims that implementing pink zones would cost Britain a mere £880million.

I counter-propose men-only lanes, in blue.

And transgendered-only lanes, in blue/pink mixed paint! :)

 
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 287 other followers