This is cool. While doing a little googling for that last post I came across this. It’s called 66 Clouds.
You can buy posters for each book of the Bible – or a coffee table book. It’s exactly what it looks/sounds like. Word clouds of each book of the Bible, get it on Amazon
Obviously you can make your own with wordle.net. Where you can even tweak the colours. But ’tis nice.
As I travel the internet defending the veracity of the Bible (most recently in this thread on Steve Kryger’s post on the popular ThePunch.com.au) it’s often struck me that one of the major truths about the Bible that is lost in the noise as the nu-atheists, armed with their well-thumbed copies of tomes by Dawkins and Hitchens (replete with highlighted cliff-notes so that they all sound on message), clamour all over just about any thread that dares to mention God, is that the Bible is actually a collection of volumes. Volumes collated over a great amount of time – and finally signed off by a series of councils in the early years of the church.
One of the Bible’s great strengths against other religious texts is this diversity of authorship and development. The consistency of message and theology demonstrated across the 66 books is impressive (even if some people would rather look for contradictions – contradictions which are usually just poor reading/interpreting of the text – the number of contradictions is hugely overwhelmed by the number of corroborations and overall consistency). So here’s what I’m picturing in my head. It’s a piece of performance art. Of sorts. Perhaps better described as a piece of literary art. And I hereby claim this idea as my own – and if you think it has legs I’d like you to tell me (also, if it doesn’t)…
Here’s what I think we should do.
Design a set of the 66 books of the Bible in separate volumes (one chapter per page to pad out some of the smaller books – and perhaps some “Study Bible” or commentary type notes, just so Jude is publishable…
I’m thinking nice typography and minimalist cover designs (or perhaps designs like these from Jim Le Page), maybe with spines that link together as an image. Good quality printing. It’d probably be expensive. Maybe with an approximate date of composition on each spine (I know this is notoriously hard to pin down).
Image Credit: Jim Le Page, on Flickr.
But what do you reckon? It’d make a nice statement about what the Bible is, and be oddly functional – because you could take a single book to church if you know what the sermon is going to be on in advance… Anybody have any idea what a set of 66 volumes would cost to publish?
I’m sure some people could find some use for this commercial for a non-existent Jesus action figure (there are real ones out there).
Check it. It’s about having children. Surely a sign that the end times aren’t happening just yet…
While I may think that some of the stuff these guys are saying is true – I may even agree with some of their thinking – I don’t think the way to fight the “War on Christmas”TM or put the “Christ back into Christmas” is to take an inflatable Santa to a firing range in order to pump him full of lead.
Dumb.
He would look and sound like this monstrosity.
This kind of performance gives carols a bad name.
This slightly creepy guy named “Greg D” runs a slightly creepy website (which is now “under construction” so you might need to check out the cached version. And also includes video tips. His “meetup” group is still running.
Conversation starter: “Are you in a gang”…
My biggest problem with the New Atheists boils down to this:
That’s not faith. Here’s how Hebrews 11 defines faith:
1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
I would suggest, humble readers, that this definition of faith – belief in the unseen – is not the same as deliberately not seeing. Which is the way most atheists seem to frame it. Seeing something and denying it is not faith – which is a problem for some Christians, I’ll admit. But thought and faith are not in opposition – faith simply deals with that which we hope and do not see. I don’t have faith that a chair will hold me. I trust that it will. Because I have watched it, or experienced it, holding me. That’s where, I think, faith and trust are different.
If I had found any contradictory evidence (ala point 1 of the above definition), ie if I had seen it – then it would no longer be faith keeping me in a position (according to Hebrews 11) but stupidity. Taking something “on faith” does not mean not seeking to confirm the thing by investigation, or observation – and it does not mean holding a position contrary to logic, reason, or observation. This is where I think Atheists 2.0 have it most wrong. At least second most wrong. I think not believing in God is where they have it most wrong…
That is all.
This cute little nativity story pretty comprehensively sums up the modern confusion about Christmas. I walked into EB (a computer games store) yesterday and noticed their current catalogue reads “What Would Santa Do”…
After a few days holidaying in Airlie Beach and catching up with friends in Townsville, which have been really nice, tomorrow sees me “trial for license” – part of the ongoing process of becoming a Presbyterian minister.
I’m preaching at a fairly old school Presbyterian Church in Townsville in front of a few members of the North Queensland presbytery who will “appraise” my performance and pass judgment on my ministry suitability.
I’m preaching on the Beatitudes. Here’s a paragraph from my sermon.
“But I want to suggest, at this point, that we’re not looking at the beatitudes right if we understand them as a set of rules to follow to be part of God’s kingdom. I grew up thinking that the word “beatitude” was a description of what these verses mean – I thought they were a set of instructions for how we should behave, and what our attitudes should be. The beatitudes. But I think the meaning of these verses does hinge on what the word beatitudes actually means. It’s latin. It means “blessings.” And it picks up on that repeated “blessed are” phrase at the start of each verse.
The beatitudes aren’t about what we have to do to be in the kingdom – and in fact, as soon as we read them that way we’re slipping into the same trap as the Pharisees. We’re making rules and regulations for belonging to the kingdom.”
Then I say that the beatitudes are about God’s blessing of us, through Jesus, whose life and ministry are modeled on the beatitudes. Doesn’t seem heretical to me… how about to you?
I didn’t see that movie about the kid who could play with air. Who needs that stuff when you’ve got the Bible.
Check out Moses. From Zero-Lives’ Flickr.
So, it turns out that having some sort of religious affiliation is likely to mean you’re not really excited about brands.
I have two immediate thoughts when reading this story:
1. Christians are too busy being fanboys about Christian brands (like theological movements, and ministry figures).
2. These people obviously didn’t focus enough on Apple in their research.
“The researchers theorized that both brands and religion contribute to a sense of self-worth and that the two sources of support would be in competition. Their findings confirmed that people who find more solace in religion are less entranced by brand names.”
“In an Internet-based study, 356 participants (68% Christian, 19% nonreligious, 4% Jewish, and the balance Buddhist, Muslim or “other”) were asked to make six choices between brand-name and generic goods, with realistic price differences. The researchers classified the products as either “expressive” (Ralph Lauren sunglasses vs. WalMart’s) or “functional” (Motrin vs. CVS ibuprofen). Subjects then answered 10 questions designed to gauge the importance of faith in their lives.”
The survey seems to suggest that quality is more of a factor for Christians (or people from other religions) than identifying with a brand. I suspect it’s because the more Christian you become the less you need a brand to create or reinforce your identity.
“A subject who attended worship services at least weekly was roughly 20% less likely to select an “expressive” brand than one who did not; there was no difference in the functional category.”
If you are, and you have thoughts about how to use Facebook and Twitter in ministry – then you should totally head to Venn Theology (which I assume you all read already) and comment on this post. Do it.
Image: Well timed Dilbert from Church Crunch.
In a week or two I’ll start not cross promoting so much because I’ll assume you’ve all been made aware of it. But in the meantime, I like this post a lot. And I think it’s important and I’d like to make it a bit of a resource post when I have conversations with friends who are in ministry and are thinking about how to use “social media”… I have those conversations often.