Shaman Wart Fungi, or Fun With Anagrams

I found this site where you can type in any name or phrase and it will automatically be rearranged into as many anagrams as the English language allows. Most of the results don't make any sense, but some are fabulous.



For example, here are some results from my name:
A Karma Nudge
Anagram Duke
Raga Dank Emu
Garden Auk Ma
Dank Argue Am
Damn Rage Auk
A Mad Era Gunk



And Heidi's name:

Adieu Gherkin
Eureka Hiding
Hankie Guider
Haiku Reigned
Egad Hike Ruin
Idea Hiker Gun
Adieu Her King
A Nude Hike Rig



Have Another Think comes out as:

Heaven Torah Think
Tavern Hath Honkie (my favorite)
Aha Never Think Hot
Heaven Hath Irk Not





Don't forget to check out the very funny and interesting Anagram Hall of Fame.

"Aggravated Murder" or "Abortion"? Depends on the Woman's Location

Recently in Cincinnati, a young man was charged with aggravated murder and felonious assault for beating his ex-girlfriend with the intent to kill her unborn baby. You can read the full article here. Apart from the horrific nature of the crime and the trauma being experienced by the young woman, this raises some interesting discussion regarding abortion.

The authorities have rightly charged Price with murder, just as the California courts were right to charge Scott Peterson with two counts of murder for killing his pregnant wife. I know that there are differences between these cases and abortion: Anderson (the mother) did not want to end her pregnancy, and she was in her eighth month of pregnancy, in which cases abortions can be performed only if the mother's life or some significant bodily function of the mother is threatened by continuation of the pregnancy.

According to Ohio law, a physician cannot abort an unborn human (their term) after 23 weeks unless "the physician determines, in good faith and in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, that the unborn human is not viable," which means that after determining gestational age, lung development, etc., the physician can decide whether or not he/she can go ahead with the abortion (I wonder how often physicians, especially at abortion clinics, refuse to abort at this point). So if a physician thought that Anderson's life or some significant bodily function (whatever that means) were threatened by this pregnancy, he could have performed a legal abortion, assuming for argument's sake that she wanted an abortion.

[[It should be pointed out that some of the greatest minds ever born were prematurely delivered or were "high risk" pregnancies: Johannes Kepler (born 1571, 2 months early); Isaac Newton (born 1642, born at three pounds); French philosopher Voltaire (born 1694, was not expected to live one hour, but lived 84 years); Winston Churchill (born 1874, at least 4 weeks early); Pablo Picasso (born 1881, thought to be stillborn); Franklin Delano Roosevelt (born 1882, nearly killed by the chloroform given to his mother). You can read about them here.

What frightens me is that if these people's mothers lived in America in the 20th-21st centuries, many of their children would have been deemed "not viable." How many great minds and heroes have been killed before they even had a chance to live! Nearly 49 million abortions (officially) have occurred since Roe v. Wade in 1973; could there have been another Newton? Churchill? Picasso?]]

My two thoughts are these: what determines viability, anyway? 20 years ago, technology could not help an extremely premature newborn survive the way it can now; the UK charity Bliss reports that about 80% of newborns weighing less than 2.2 lbs survive, compared to a 20% survival rate 20 years ago. So an unborn baby weighing 2.2 lbs could be aborted 20 years ago, but not today? What about 20 years from now? Scientists are already creating artificial wombs that can develop fetuses completely outside of a human body. This proves that viability is a bad guideline for determining who lives and who dies.

Second thought: using similar terminology, the case in point looks like this: the young woman's fetus was aborted. What if she wanted her boyfriend to beat her abdomen until her baby died? Then there would have been consent. The only difference would be (please forgive me for the detached tone here) that an amateur, not a professional, performed the abortion, and the location was a bus stop, not a Planned Parenthood office.

This has been a long post about an emotionally-charged topic. I know some of you disagree with me, possibly intensely. That's okay; I understand that we all don't come from the same worldview. That's why you can leave comments. I only ask that you attack my arguments, not my worth as a human, my faith (which, by the way, is intentionally absent in this argument - you can be pro-life apart from being an evangelical Christian), or the fact that I am a man and "don't understand." Any violent or ad hominem arguments will be deleted.

Today's Miscellaneous Thoughts

Thing #1 Today was a good day at church. It is the first Sunday since returning from a mission trip to Albania (which was a profound trip, by the way), so I was anxious to be there. The sermon (remember, preaching is good, preaching is good) was about the parable of the Good Samaritan. Most of you know that story well, and even if you don't, you know what a "good Samaritan" is. Actually, if someone called your good deed an act of a "Samaritan," and you understood the historical relationship between Jews and Samaritans, then you might not be so humbled by their "compliment." To be a Samaritan in Jesus' day was not a good thing. The Jews perceived them similarly to how we today might perceive, let's say, a homeless, hillbilly half breed from the other side of the tracks (my apologies if you live on the other side of the tracks). The point of Jesus' story was that the person who got it right, the one who cared for the needs of the beaten and robbed man, was the hillbilly half breed, not the priest/minister/pastor, and not the pious, perpetually-volunteering churchgoer.

One strong point Andy, the preacher at my church, made was that our society is becoming more like the priest and the Levite: not that we don't care, but that our lives are so busy that the needs of our neighbors become invisible. We're so busy in our compartmentalized lives that we probably don't know our neighbors' names, let alone their concerns and needs. This is a problem for America, not just for Christians.

Thing #2 I was reading the July 22 issue of Christian Standard today at McDonald's (I took it from the church; Cincy's conservative, but not that conservative) because the title intrigued me: "Preaching: Like Everything Else, It's Changing!" The writer of the cover story, Chuck Sackett, is someone I respect a lot, so the article carried more weight for me (plus I knew I'd agree with his concerns about modern preaching). After expressing concerns about the long-term effects of using video and other media in sermons ("Might it be possible that too much video puts the mind to sleep and then the challenge arises to 'wake it up again' with 'mere' words?"), he asks this brilliant question: "Have preachers given up on words? Or have they merely lost the ability to use the right ones?"

Sure, compared to many other countries, most Americans have more of a "sprint" attention span than a "marathon" attention span. I think part of the reason is that we just don't try hard enough to engage people with wordsmithing. Yes, this blog is guilty of posting rough drafts and often ill-thought-out sentences. Lynne Truss wouldn't always be proud of me. But I try. I must try, because as a teacher (though presently without a classroom), I am a mechanic of the mind, and words are my tools. Our lives revolve around words. A person cannot "change their mind" without words. Without words, there is no persuasion, understanding of experience, conversion, debriefing, mutual understanding, apology, story, organization, or progress. So we might as well use words shrewdly.

New Name, Same Stuff

As is obvious by now, "Preaching to the Choir" is now "Have Another Think." I always get irritated at bands that constantly change their names, especially when they are relatively new and growing in popularity (Tried By Fire, anyone?). But I'm not worried about people hating me for changing the title here, because 1) It's just a blog, people, and 2) No one reads it, anyway (except for a few sympathetic souls out there, God bless you!).

Here's why I changed the title: Where I'm at in life, "preaching" means something different to me than to someone who does not go to (or enjoy) church. To me, it's a good thing: the proclamation of what God has to say to mankind (at least as understood by the preacher!). To many others, though, it conveys an arrogant or belligerent, guilt-trippy diatribe forced upon generally nice people by some sweaty, overweight, red-faced guy who pronounces "Jesus" with three syllables: Jeeeeezusssss-ah! Gawd-ah sayeth unto thee, "Jeeeezussss-ah...is a-comin' back, so git right with the Lawrd-ah!" That's not me.

I like "Have Another Think" because it is more descriptive of the intent of this blog: to get people thinking and talking about various issues regarding religion (mainly Christianity), philosophy, culture, ethics and morality. Too often, we accept or reject things based on whether we "like" them or not, not by whether they are true or good. I want to challenge us to pause and think about the things we do and say as Americans and (for some of us) as American Christians. We say and do a lot of things; do we ever wonder why?

So I'll be serving up thoughts for a while. Think up; no designated driver needed!

(PS - thanks to Kerri for the helpful comment on "Considering a Blog Name Change." Welcome aboard!)

Running and Life

What running has taught me about life (in no particular order):

1. You don't run a personal best every time; sometimes you feel like crap and have to take three walk breaks in five miles.
2. What you eat definitely affects how you run. Indian food the night before a 5-miler is not a good idea.
3. You'd be amazed how much farther you can go on when someone looks at you menacingly and taunts you from across the street.
4. A lot of good music helps me cope with the difficult days.
5. No matter how good you think you are, some little 10-year-old (or 80-year-old) will always beat you at your next race.
6. It's so much easier to run a long race when people are cheering for you along the way.
7. It's easier to stick with training if you've already paid registration fees for a future race.
8. Some races are about speed; some races are about endurance. Knowing which is which is priceless.
9. Sometimes, the best time to run is in the rain.
10. If one part of your body (namely, the foot) is off, the whole body pays for it the next day.

That's all I've got for now; feel free to add your lessons in your comments.

My Favorite King of the Hill Episode (Part Two)

If you haven't read Part One, read that first.

There are several things I like about this episode:

1. That the show would even deal with Christianity, and that in a positive light.


2. They rightly point out that different Christians worship in different ways.


3. There are a ton of great lines from this episode (e.g., Pastor K: "Don't you think Jesus is on this half pipe?" Hank: "I'm sure he's a lot of places he doesn't want to be.")


4. It raises questions for both edgy and traditional Christians to consider.


5. It's hilarious.

What I want to discuss, however, is Hank's whole problem with what I'm calling Edgy Christianity (EC). EC takes on a lot of forms: hard rock, rap, and other intense forms of music; tattoos and piercings with a Christian message to them; Christian clothing (like Bobby's "Satan Sucks" T-shirt, or the once-popular "Hell, No!" shirts), offensive bumper stickers, and other related stuff. Hank's statement reveals his feelings: "Can't you see? You're not making Christianity better; you're just making rock-'n-roll worse."

Is that true? Is Christian rap good for Christianity, or is it bad for rap? When does becoming "all things to all people" turn into "making rock-'n-roll worse"? Is it true that "Body Piercing Saved My Life" as one T-shirt says? Yes, it's true that nails pierced Jesus, but is that the same as today's body piercing? Obviously not; what we have here is a classic case of equivocation, using the same word (or phrase) in two different ways to argue one point. All fallacies aside, why do we feel that we need to make Christianity cool? Is it cool? Is Jesus really our "homeboy"? What happened to Jesus being the "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" before whom "every knee will bow . . . and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord"?

My fear is that relevance has trumped reverance. Don't get me wrong; I want the gospel to be understandable to everyone. But why be relevant? What does "relevant" mean? Relevant to whom? If we don't ask and answer these questions, we are simply using relevance as a justification to toy around with the eternal truths of God. Is faith a product to sell? Is planting the seeds of the gospel a matter of proper marketing? Are we asking youth (THE main target of EC) to deny themselves, take up their crosses and follow Christ, or are we asking them to think that Jesus is cool and would be worth making a friend on their MySpace?

Maybe I'm (too) cynical. But I can't help but be reminded of what Simone Weil said about relevance: "To always be relevant, you have to say things which are eternal."

For the youth out there to whom we're trying to be relevant (btw: do we really think that we can keep up with all the changing trends of kids these days, always adjusting the message to be right on top of things? Ha!), we must communicate Christ in such a way as to prevent, five years from now, Jesus ending up in the box of trends which were cool at the time but are now rather embarrassing.

Becoming a Christian means your whole life is changed, not just your vocabulary. It means that you are transformed by the renewing of your mind, not that you transform your music collection to Christian music you don't mind. It's about putting on Christ and becoming a new creation, not putting Christ on a T-shirt or putting a fish on your car. Yes, you vocabulary should change; your music should be evaluated; your clothing might change. The question is: why?

My Favorite King of the Hill Episode (Part One)

King of the Hill is one of my favorite TV shows. The Hill family, living in Arlen, Texas, go through many interesting life situations in this animated comedy. The usual story line goes like this:

1. The first scene is Hank, Bill, Dale, and Boomhauer standing out in the alley drinking Alamo beer and saying, "Yup."
2. The theme for the episode is usually introduced in their opening conversation (which does go beyond "Yup.").
3. Most of the problems revolve around Bobby, Hank and Peggy's teenage son. He usually gets involved with a new hobby or group of friends who are quite different from him, and he begins taking on the new group's characteristics/language/behavior, causing conflict at home, especially with Hank.
4. Bobby's involvement eventually leads to a situation from which Hank must rescue Bobby, with or without Bobby's desire for rescuing.
5. Hank and Bobby reconcile, and everything returns to how it was before the whole mess got started.

My favorite episode is "Reborn to be Wild." Bobby is found rockin' out to heavy metal music, angering Hank. Taking Bobby to the church, Hank is referred to a youth group who would be glad to take in Bobby. Hank takes Bobby to a community center where they meet.

[Pause here for some of the dialogue from the episode:

Bobby: "Dad, this is totally not cool."

Hank: "You know what's not cool, Bobby? Hell."]

Bobby meets the group, which turns out to be a bunch of Christian skaters led by Pastor K, a skater himself with Christian tattoos and long hair.

[Bobby (after seeing Pastor K do a stunt): "THAT was AWESOME!"

Pastor K: "Thanks, but not as awesome as Jesus!"]

Bobby's hooked. And it shows. At dinner, Bobby, to Hank's delight, offers to pray. But what comes out does not delight Hank at all: "I wanna give a shout out to the man that makes it all happen. Props be to you for this most bountiful meal that sits before us. OK, check it: God, you got skills. You represent in these vegetables and in this napkin and in the dirt that grows the grain that makes the bread sticks that are on this table, yes, yes. [Hank tells him to wrap it up] Thanks, J-man. Peace."

Soon Pastor K invites Bobby to be on stage with him during his performance at MessiahFest, a Christian praise-a-palooza. Bobby gets an earring, which in turn gets him grounded. He sneaks out and goes to MessiahFest. Hank goes to the Fest and finds Bobby making a fool of himself on stage, shrieking out Psalm 23 to heavy metal music. Hank yanks Bobby off the stage and there is a final confrontation between Hank and Pastor K, which includes this classic line from Hank:

"Can't you see? You're not making Christianity better; you're just making rock-'n-roll worse."

The episode ends with Hank taking an angry Bobby home and showing him a box in the garage. In the box is all the things Bobby thought were cool and had since abandoned: a virtual pet, a Furby, a "Bean Bag Buddy" (obvious reference to Beanie Babies), and a photo of Bobby in a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle costume. Bobby can't believe he thought those things were cool.

Then comes the moral of the story, from Hank: "I just don't want to see, you know. . . the Lord end up in this box."

In my next entry, I want to explain why this is my favorite episode, as well as the lessons evangelicals can catch from it.