Ran across a cool tool today. Literature Map allows you to enter an author’s name, and it shows a cloud of other authors who you may like (assuming you liked who you entered, of course).
I haven’t looked hard enough at it to see how accurate it is, but it’s worth a try, if only to get names of authors to go looking at more closely.
This morning we were all at my in-laws’ house. My niece (age 5) and nephew (age 8 ) were playing with toys in the living room and half-watching some cartoons on the TV. Shortly after noon, my mother-in-law noticed that they really weren’t watching at all anymore, and changed the channel.
A couple minutes later, my niece asked “What are you watching?”
My mother-in-law replied, “The news.”
My niece asked, “What for?”
My sentiments exactly.
Jackson State guard Julius Young temporarily gets his sports confused and tries to head the basketball.
There are those in this world (call them Group A) who are less-than-intelligent enough to think that all people in the Church are alike. People who think that Benny Hinn and Fred Phelps speak for all of the Church. There are certainly those who are active in the Church who have ideas and/or actions that are flat-out wrong. But Group A denies that there is any possibility that there may be some (many?) in the Church that do not subscribe to the same ideas or do the same things.
OK, now I’m going to repeat that paragraph with only a few minor additions/changes. These will be italicized.
There are those in this world (call them Group B) who are less-than-intelligent enough to think that all people in the Emergent Church are alike. People who think that Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo speak for all of the Emergent Church. There are certainly those who are active in the Emergent Church who have ideas and/or actions that are flat-out wrong. But Group B denies that there is any possibility that there may be some (many?) in the Emergent Church that do not subscribe to the same ideas or do the same things.
So what’s the difference between those two groups? (other than the fact that Group A doesn’t have the audacity to label what they do as a ministry)
And on the flip side, here’s stuff that I wrote this year. There is a bit of overlap with the last post, as there were a few things that I linked to, but then also wrote extensively about.
I only did one series : Lies That Will Kill You. A lot of it was born of legalism and Pharisee-ism that I saw growing up (and that I’m just starting to shake free of). But there are lessons in many of them, even if you were never exposed to that garbage. (Note: That link is the start, but each post in the series has links to all the other posts in the series.)
The rest is individual links, some serious, some funny:
Now that I’ve written this post, I guess I can’t write anything else good til 2007. Oh well.
I figured I had blogged enough this year to warrant running a “best of” post. Going back through my blog, I realized that I had done a lot of blog-spotting and quoting of others. Enough so, that I thought my noticing of others’ thoughts warranted its own post.
This is a list of links to my posts (hey, I’m not that selfless) of stuff I liked over the internet this year. Some of it’s deep, some funny.
This is kinda cool. The ESV blog has a post comparing different one-year (and a couple two-year) Bible reading plans. It shows each as graphs of what you are reading when.
My inner anarchist kinda likes the look of the Chronological Reading Plan. 
Anyone out there used M’Cheyne or the Chronological ? They both look pretty intriguing.
HT to Challies.
C’mon, guys, it’s not that hard.
Allen Iverson on his trade to Denver (emphases mine):
I didn’t actually . . . ask for a trade. . . . I said [to team management] that if we are going to continue to play this style, and we were going to continue to lose, then I didn’t want to be a part of it.
After I spoke to the team about it, I told my teammates that I enjoyed playing with them, and that I loved them, but that if the team wasn’t willing to switch things up and make changes, I didn’t want to be a part of it.
So, what did he want? He didn’t want a trade, and he didn’t want to be part of the team. That only leaves shooting him. Apparently, Billy King misinterpreted.
The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid. -- G K Chesterton
