One of the perks of having slaved away over a hot computer over the holidays in my holiday job (more on that later) is that I can afford to invest in some Bible study software that will hopefully make my attempts to grapple with Greek, Hebrew, and essay writing, a little bit easier.
There are three options out there (fourth if you include just using the interwebs).
I’ve basically ruled out BibleWorks – because getting it to work on a Mac requires clunky parallel operating systems and I pretty much flat out refuse to do that – why would I go back to an inferior operating system? If I were a Windows user I may well go with it – because it has the benefit of being a cheap and easy language parser. But, because I’m a superficial marketing driven purchaser I can’t get past the ugly website and shoddy looking, WIndows 95esque user interface.
Next option, by price, is Accordance – and specifically the Scholars Premier + Library Premier option, currently on special for $599. Now. Accordance is designed for Mac. But I don’t like its website. It was designed for language work, and kind of tagged on the library stuff later. Twitter loves it. I put a call out yesterday and almost every response I got (possibly because the @accordance account retweeted my tweet) was in favour of Accordance.
The option I’m currently leaning towards is Logos. Logos just looks schmick. And it has multiplatform support in built. And the ability to add module after module of good stuff. Accordance has modules as well – but it doesn’t have the same publishing base (as far as I can tell) that Logos obviously offers. The base level Scholars pack is $629. It just looks schmick too. And as a marketer I like that. It looks like a Bible software package marketed by Apple, rather than made for Apple.
My college principal, a Mac user, uses Accordance, while possibly the widest reading lecturer at college uses Logos. Both have suggested their product of choice is a good choice.
Should I flip a coin?
Some helpful links if you’re facing this decision:
The task of writing history goes to the victors – so we can be sure Lord of the Rings is full of pro-Gandalf bias and pretty much dismiss anything it says about hobbits, wizards or elves. They’re the real bad guys. The invaders and the oppressors of Middle Earth. What you’ve read is just propaganda. So here’s the alternative history – written by a Russian named Kirill Eskov, this guy named ymarkov wrote an English translation (here’s a PDF).
“Should our reader be minimally acquainted with analysis of major military campaigns and examine the map of Middle Earth, he would easily ascertain that all actions of both new coalitions (Mordor-Isengard and Gondor-Rohan) were dictated by merciless strategic logic, undergirded by Mordor’s dread of being cut off from its food sources. Through Gandalf’s efforts the center of Middle Earth turned into a highly unstable geopolitical “sandwich” with Mordor and Isengard the bread and Gondor and Rohan the bacon. Most ironic was the fact that the Mordor coalition, which wanted nothing but the preservation of the status quo, was in an ideal position for an offensive war (whereby it could immediately force its opponents to fight on two fronts), but in a highly unfavorable one for a defensive war (when the united opponents could conduct a blitzkrieg, crushing foes one by one).”
The elves are the bad guys. Gandalf is basically Hitler. Here’s some more from the book.
“To make a long story short: the situation was highly unfavorable, but we have managed, at the cost of all those sacrifices, to shield the Mordorian civilization, and it had made it out of the crib. Another fifty, maybe seventy years, and you would have completed the industrial revolution, and then no one would’ve been able to touch you. From that point on the Elves would’ve dwelled quietly in their Enchanted Forests, not getting in anyone’s way, while the rest of Middle Earth would’ve by and large gotten onto your path. And so, realizing that they were about to lose the contest, the wizards of the White Council decided on a monstrous move: to unleash a war of total destruction against Mordor, to involve the Elves directly, and to pay them with the Mirror.”
“They paid the Elves with the Mirror?!”
“Yes. It was absolute madness; the head of the White Council himself, Saruman, a foresighted and prudent man, fought this plan to the last, and quit the Council when it was adopted after all. The Council is now headed by Gandalf, the architect of the ‘final solution to the Mordorian problem.’”
“Wait, which Saruman is that? The king of Isengard?”
“The same. He formed a temporary alliance with us, since he understood right away what those games with the denizens of the Enchanted Forests mean to Middle Earth. He used to warn the White Council for the longest time: ‘Using the Elves in our struggle against Mordor is akin to burning down the house to get rid of roaches.’ And that’s exactly how it came out. Mordor lies in ruins, and the Mirror is in Lórien, with the Elvish Queen Galadriel; soon the Elves will brush the White Council away like crumbs off the table and rule Middle Earth as they see fit.”
The Zelda franchise is 25 today. Did anybody else play the NES version? It was awesome. It had a gold cartridge. So many hours of my childhood were spent searching for the 8th and 9th labyrinths (I never found them. This was before internet walkthroughs).
This is just too cool for school. The Internet’s favourite hackers (well, if the internet is an anti-social teenage boy who likes playing WoW) Anonymous have turned their ire towards the Phelps family Christianity’s favourite “they’re crazier than me” church.
This could get interesting. They wrote an open letter (posted in full at Jesus Needs New PR).
“We, the collective super-consciousness known as ANONYMOUS – the Voice of Free Speech & the Advocate of the People – have long heard you issue your venomous statements of hatred, and we have witnessed your flagrant and absurd displays of inimitable bigotry and intolerant fanaticism. We have always regarded you and your ilk as an assembly of graceless sociopaths and maniacal chauvinists & religious zealots, however benign, who act out for the sake of attention & in the name of religion…
Being such aggressive proponents for the Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Information as we are, we have hitherto allowed you to continue preaching your benighted gospel of hatred and your theatrical exhibitions of, not only your fascist views, but your utter lack of Christ-like attributes…
ANONYMOUS cannot abide this behavior any longer. The time for us to be idle spectators in your inhumane treatment of fellow Man has reached its apex, and we shall now be moved to action. Thus, we give you a warning: Cease & desist your protest campaign in the year 2011, return to your homes in Kansas, & close your public Web sites.
Should you ignore this warning, you will meet with the vicious retaliatory arm of ANONYMOUS: We will target your public Websites, and the propaganda & detestable doctrine that you promote will be eradicated; the damage incurred will be irreversible, and neither your institution nor your congregation will ever be able to fully recover. ”
Them’s fighting words. So Westboro Baptist responded.
Westboro’s websites are now down. Time to break out the popcorn.
My brother-in-law Mitch takes great pride in not reading this blog. He’s only interested in “real” websites by “qualified” people. Or something. I think he knows it’s awesome and addictive and he deliberately avoids it. This might be more like it.
Sadly, he’ll read this because his name is in the title.
British man Richard Morwood discovered his girlfriend was the same girl whose message in a bottle he answered 30 years ago. Mandy English was just 13 when she hurled the note requesting a pen pal into the sea during a 1979 school visit to Scotland.
Two years later, Morwood – then just six years old – spotted the glass bottle on the beach and sent a reply by postcard. English never wrote back, but while sorting through keepsakes last week, she found the 1981 card and realised its sender had the same name as Morwood, her boyfriend since June.
This has been all over the actual news, and it’s not on snopes (after a cursory glance). So I’m going to believe that it’s true. Because skepticism is depressing.
Sometimes all-caps are ok. King of Limbs is out early. Get it. Got it. Good. Lets talk (in the comments).
Slight language warning on this one… sadly it’s the line that made me choose this song to accompany this post.
“You want me, well come on and break the door down.”
Here’s my liveblog of the first listen to King Of Limbs (a title that sounds a little bit like a Stephen King novel): Track 1: Bloom
Opens with weird rhythm. By the middle of the track the beat is starting to sound a little like raindrops on a tin roof or something. Not as listenable as early Radiohead, but typical of anything post Hail to the Thief (and by that I mean In Rainbows and Thom Yorke’s The Eraser. The raindrop effect is a little emphasised towards the end where the sound is dramatically similar to actual rain. Albeit electronic rain.
Track 2: Morning Mr Magpie
Guitars. Actual guitars. Possibly looped on something computeresque. It sounds like a proper song. Robyn says it sounds like they put an ADHD kid on the drums. Better than Bloom. I reckon. Sounds like a bit of theremin in the background. Guitar riff at one point reminds me of one of my favourite Radiohead songs. I Might Be Wrong. Though, I might be wrong.
So far it sounds like the album is set in a creepy garden.
Track 3: Little by Little
More guitars, slightly Beck-like drums. A little bit acoustic. Moving closer towards “radio single” territory. But still not quite there. Still a bit of weirdness. Sounds like some of the instruments are kitchen implements.
“Little by little, by hook or by crook… I’m such a tease and you’re such a flirt”
Very layered. I like this one best of the three. So far. I think. So does Robyn.
Track 4: Feral
Almost immediately reminds me of Like Spinning Plates. But, Like Spinning Plates performed by a DJ having some sort of fit.
This album, so far, is probably the love child of Amnesiac and In Rainbows. Neither of which are my favourite Radiohead albums – but both of which have their place. I liked it better when Radiohead were angsty loners desperate to be loved. Not self-assured loners determined to be weird.
Track 5: Lotus Flower
Robyn asks “have you played much Radiohead to me” – I have to confess “not much, but I’ve played a lot more of their old stuff than their new stuff” – because it’s true. I’d much rather play the stuff that I don’t have to explain liking than the stuff I do. We sing their old stuff on SingStar. That’s not going to happen with this album yet. But this song is nicer. Possibly single material. It’s not going to get the Sports Tonight airplay that Muse does – I think suggestions that Muse are a wannabe Radiohead are long since dead.
This song is much, much, nicer. Almost pleasant. Robyn says “they all sound the same”… this one is Bjork meets Sigur Ros.
You can watch the official clip for Lotus Flower on YouTube (which to me suggests this is the single). Thom Yorke dances like a crazy man.
When you click through to watch that on YouTube it only has 310 views. So you feel like one of the early, special, few. But it has more than 5,000 likes. Methinks something is amiss.
Track 6: Codex
Some keys. Nice. And wind chime sounds. More keys. Space age keys. A little haunting. And then an Oasisesque lyrical opening. Yorke’s voice almost sounds like Liam Gallagher in that song he did with Death In Vegas (Scorpio Rising) {youtube link}… for about a second. Robyn says “this one belongs closer to the realm of music. I really like it. Best track so far.
Track 7: Give Up The Ghost
We’re back in the garden. Birdsongs. Acoustic guitar. With rhythmic slaps. Closer to the category of “easy listening” than anything else so far. Lilting and haunting. Ghosty. Which I guess fits with the title.
Track 8: Separator
Hard to define. Much less sonically busy than the other tracks. Perhaps more optimistic.
“If you think this is over then you’re wrong”
One can only hope that they are talking about their career.
Summing up: This could well be a horror album (like a horror movie) – not a horrible album (though there are people who think that horror movies are by nature horrible). The title, and the tone of the first few tracks, is, as I mentioned, a little Stephen King. As is the graphic on the album website.
It’s a challenging album – full of the stuff that makes people not like Radiohead, but also showcasing why it is that they’re a polarising force and the verdict isn’t unanimous. Yorke’s voice is enthralling. They have the ability to create a mood and a reaction like no other band I’ve ever heard. Unless “fairy floss pink” is a mood – in which case U2 is blessed with similar abilities.
When the final track clicked over in iTunes and “My Iron Lung” started playing – I’ve got to admit – I miss the old Radiohead. But the new Radiohead is still better than 90% of the music being produced these days anyway. So I’ll stick with what they’re giving rather than sticking with nothing at all.
The King of Limbs reminded me of the only Stephen King book I’ve actually read.
I’ve said before that Christopher Hitchens’ treatment of Christianity is a little shoddy. He is guilty of creating a straw man Christianity out of the very worst of “Christian” behaviour and setting it on fire in beautifully vitriolic prose. He is, I think, the most dangerous of the nu-atheists because he is so articulate and personable. He’s more appealing than Dawkins, I think, because he demonstrates a sense of humour.
Here, in this article, he is interviewed by a Unitarian minister, Marilyn Sewell, who wants to know if he doesn’t like Liberal Christians as much as he doesn’t like fundamentalists…
Sewell: The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make and distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?
Hitchens: I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian…
Read my full take on this, and some more interesting bits from the interview, over at Venntheology.
The Superbowl. Watched by millions. For the ads. American Football is a commercial juggernaut. They pause play for ads (they do this in Aussie Rules too). The Superbowl regularly features big budget advertising blockbusters. They don’t necessarily steal the show. But they go close.
This year a group of Christians decided they wanted a slice of the Superbowl action. So they produced an ad, and booked a slot, and the broadcaster decided to turn the ad down. They didn’t want anybody being offended by a religious ad. And this is in a nation that prides itself on its Christian heritage.
Here’s the ad.
There’s not a lot in there that’s offensive. It’s pretty clever. The website is nice. The ad, at the time of writing, has been viewed by 300,000 people (approximately) on YouTube – a far cry from the millions who would have tuned in on the day, but at least the producers are getting some benefit for their efforts.
This, friends, is why we shouldn’t be kicking up a stink and trying to get atheist bus ads pulled. What goes around comes around. If we’ve got truth on our side – what have we to fear from other voices being heard in the marketplace of ideas so long as we can put our side of the story out as well. Now we may not be able to do either – because if they can’t show an ad like that in America, what are the chances of similar decisions being made by TV networks in the rest of the world?
Here’s a New York Times article on the fiasco which again goes to show that the ad wasn’t wasted – when was the last time a major newspaper ran a verse from the Bible as the second par of a news story?
The ad’s producer Larry Taunton had this to say about his motives:
“Corporate America uses its creativity and millions of dollars to come up with 30-second blasts to get you to buy a beer or Coke or tennis balls… Last year, as I began to reflect on this, I thought, ‘If I had 30 seconds to speak to a billion people, what would I say?’”
I don’t have to worry about the is-ought fallacy anymore when it comes to “What You Ought To Know” because I now know “What I Ought To Know” so things is as they is, and they is as they ought to be.
