Friday, 26 February 2010

Bumble-bee board games

I've often thought that it would be fun to do a cartoon blog. I'm not sure I could keep it up though, you just have to keep having ideas. Came up with this the other day:

Bumble-bee Scrabble is a popular and high-scoring game

Monday, 22 February 2010


So, I thought I had reached my hundredth post. Well, apparently that figure included some draft posts that I never published so I'm actually only on 94. Darn.

Now I've got to think of something else to do for my real 100th post.

Thursday, 18 February 2010

Hasbro clarification on Zebedee and Twister

Following UTTD #4 I enquired of Hasbro thus:


I was wondering if there are optional rules for playing twister with groups of people with different numbers of limbs? For example, where one person has four limbs and another has three, or where one player has a spring instead of legs.


I received a very prompt response (kudos to Laura from Hasbro UK) which helped greatly:

Thank you for your email.

As with all games, you are free to make up your own variations. If you were competing in an 'official' tournament along the lines of the Monopoly World championship then you would be expected to follow the 'official' rules, but outside of that you should feel free to discuss and agree sensible rule variations that suit your individual circumstances.

May we thank you for contacting Hasbro and if we can be of any further assistance, either now or in the future, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Kind Regards,

So, for Ultimate Twister Destiny Duels I propose an addendum to the rules along these lines:

In the instance that a competitor possesses non-standard appendages, a new spinner shall be constructed wherein his/her attributes are wholly accounted for. For example, should a competitor possess a spring instead of legs, a spinner should be devised that equally comprises coloured segments for the three contact points; left hand, right hand, spring.

Wednesday, 17 February 2010

Ultimate Twister Destiny Duels #4

After all that heavy stuff about headship, I think it's about time for the fourth in the series of ULTIMATE TWISTER DESTINY DUELS. This is not the most focussed of blogs.

This time let's welcome to the virtual spotted mat...

Groucho Marx


Zebedee (the springy-guy, not the Biblical figure)

I hope you appreciate the pictures. I think it helps the imagination.

So, lets start with the most famous of the Marx brothers. He might have had audiences falling about in the early 1900's, but will he be the first to fall on the Twister mat? LOL! Anyway, Groucho is a canny guy, sharp enough to come up with witticisms like "I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it." In fact, you should read all of these right now to give you an idea of the kind of guy we're dealing with. In summary; a genius, but also a nutter. So we can expect tactical play again, but physically I'm not sure if he's got the stamina, because he does smoke rather a lot of cigars.

Zebedee, on the other hand, is relentless. Does he ever tire? Infinite energy reserves could clinch a drawn-out bout. However, the impressively moustached fellow faces a harsh disadvantage in the limb department. I'm not sure that conventional Twister rules account for these kind of appendage needs. It's not very inclusive. In fact, I'll send Hasbro an email*. Anyway, Zebedee has definitely got some flexibility, but would find it hard to maintain certain body shapes for extended periods. And he has stumpy arms too.

I think victory is going to the Marx man.

*I actually have just emailed Hasbro, and eagerly await their response

Friday, 12 February 2010

Blogs that inspire

So, this is my 100th post! Took a while to get here, but it feels good.

I've been thinking about the different blogs I read and how they get me excited about different things, and whether I should make my blog a bit more focussed.

The Undercover Theologian gets me excited about God, geography and other things beginning with 'g'.

Crazy Christian Clips warns me about the danger of being irrelevant.

Dan and Dan amuse me.

ASBO Jesus
makes me think, and sometimes makes me annoyed.

The Road to Elderado encourages me as I see our church growing.

The Simple Pastor
challenges me to think about my lifestyle, and to read more books.

But the blogs that excited me most recently are Talibalqaleb and There's a time for French because they both contain stories of real people meeting Jesus and deciding to follow Him.

I don't think anything is more exciting than when people put their faith in the saviour Jesus Christ. He enjoys it a lot too!

Thursday, 11 February 2010

Anyone fancy a rant?

I'm not in the habit of blogging twice in the space of an hour, but just thought I'd mention that the latest topic on the BBC 'Have Your Say' message boards is Should there be more religion on television?
Prompting such comments as:

Religion on TV = Brainwashing

Get rid of it all.

More documentaries!

Yeah because documentaries are all totally objective aren't they?


This is what I said: "Less religion, more people who love Jesus"

Arguments against male headship?

Well, I haven't read that many books so I can't claim to know much about the subject. It's probably fair to say that my opinion so far is based on what I've been told, and how I've read the Bible. I mean, I don't even know whether the term, "male headship" refers to marriages or churches or both.

I think that when you read Ephesians 5 it's pretty hard to come to the conclusion that male headship in marriage is wrong, but I'm still open to hear other ideas.

I posted on Dave W's blog:
Ephesians 5 does seem to support male headship though. Quite explicitly. Is it the case that it only applies to the ancient church in Ephesus, and not to us?

I honestly don't understand. Help me out!

He responded:
Ephesians 5 is only clear if you ignore verse 21, ignore the real impact of "as to the Lord" in verse 22, forget that we no longer accept 6:5-9, ignore all the evidence that Paul supported women as leaders of the Church, ignore the Biblical witness of Deborah, choose only to read the second creation story in Genesis, change the gender of Junia in Romans 16, ignore Galatians 3 and 5, ignore the way Jesus treated women, ...

So I guess this means "male headship" is about who leads churches as well. I think. In my comment, I was really referring to male headship in marriage, because that's what the Ephesians passage is about.

Dave's first point is a very good one. Verse 21 says "submit to one another", and that is the preface to the following passages (depending on where the Bible translators put the paragraph breaks). So there should be mutual submission between me and my wife. I agree, and I believe that there can be mutual submission within any relationship, definitely in a marriage, but the husband would still be the "team leader".

I'm not really sure what "the real impact of "as to the Lord" in verse 22" is, but I don't see how that verse undermines the concept of male headship.

I found the next statement very interesting; "forget that we no longer accept 6:5-9".

I wasn't aware that we don't accept it. Who is "we"? I know Paul talks about slaves submitting to their masters, which seems backward, but can we really say that we're not going to accept this part of the Bible? I assume that the argument for rejecting it is that it seems to contradict most of the rest of the Bible, but I don't think you can play parts of the Bible off against each other.

The rest of the stuff in Dave's reply was about women in church leadership... I might save that one for another day.

Wednesday, 10 February 2010

Should I be the head of my wife?

Ok, so a couple of posts from Dave Warnock (and the ensuing comments) got me thinking about the volatile subject of male headship (YOU MUST CLICK HERE BEFORE READING ON).

The original posts can be read here and there.

Dave basically equates male headship with forms of malicious discrimination, like racism. I don't agree, because my definition of male headship is based on this bit from Ephesians 5:

Wives and Husbands
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[c] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

I find it hard to see how a relationship based on mutual love can be equated with racism, but it might depend how you define "submit". Either way, you can't just ignore this whole passage, or can you?

I can't avoid the issue because in six months I will be a husband. Me and Lis have talked about what headship means and how it'll be worked out. Basically, these are our conclusions:

I will love Lis sacrificially, honouring her and putting her before myself.

Lis will love, honour and support me.

We will take joint, although not entirely equal* roles in:
Providing financially *(I earn less)
Raising children
Serving in our local church
Developing our marriage
Making decisions
...and anything else that we are involved in as a couple.

Over all these things (here goes...) I will have ultimate responsibility. Time for another one. In our team of two, I will be the team leader. Is it unfair that I get to be the leader just because I'm a man? Well, that question assumes that it's clearly better to be the leader, which isn't true.

Male headship is not about domination and control. It's about taking responsibility for the marriage unit with an attitude of sacrificial love and giving.

Male headship isn't, "you are my wife, do this for me!"
It's, "you are my wife, what can I do for you?"
In this context, Lis will be able to submit to my headship, knowing that I'm trying to bless and free her, not control her.

But in everything we are "one flesh", so the emphasis is on working together.

These are my ideas so far. If you think they sound ridiculous or fantastic then you can say so.

Monday, 8 February 2010

Talk for Jesus

We recently heard a series of talks at church based on the book "Just walk across the room" by Bill Hybels. The big idea is that it's not really that hard to evangelise, but small actions can have a big impact. I disagree with the title of the book though, as walking across a room doesn't achieve much. I think it should be called, "Just say hello - and then ask a few more questions, but be genuinely interested in the answers, and think about how this person needs Jesus."

Reading this guy's blog got me quite excited about the power of conversation. If you talk about Jesus, some people actually are intersted! Which shouldn't be surprising, considering He's the most interesting person ever.

So something as simple as conversation can be used by God to do amazing things in a persons life. But we have to make the effort not just to talk, but to talk about God, even when we might get shot down. I like to think that I can show the love of God just by showing interest in another person, but if I never directly say the words, "God loves you" how will they find out?

Thursday, 4 February 2010

Youths go off blogging

A study in the US has revealed that numbers of teenage bloggers has halved since 2006.

It seems that they're leaving the blogosphere behind in favour of briefer, quicker forms of communication, like Twitter. One student suggests that this might be because people "don't find reading that fun."

I have an alternative theory... It seems that nowadays people are more interested in themselves than they ever have been. We live in a very individualistic society, where "me" is the priority and others should exist for my benefit.

So, I don't think it's the amount of reading that turns people off, but more likely:
1) They get bored because they're not reading about themself
2) They aren't really that intersted in another person's life - unless that person is a crazy, unpredictable, vulnerable celebrity.

This might sound a bit harsh, but think about the reasons why a person (let's call him Clarence) joins Twitter: does Clarence want to keep up with what all his friends are doing, and find out what's happening in their lives? Or is it that Clarence really wants people to be interested in his life, so Clarence joins Twitter to tell everyone about himself.

One of the issues with this kind of interaction is that you get more attention by being sensationalist. Instead of constructing a blog post about why you don't really like eating radishes you have post something like, "RADIShes just KILLED me!!! No Joke! i hate radishes SO MUCH!!!" for someone to actually be interested.

I enjoy dialogue, and that is one reason why I blog. But I also just enjoy writing and ranting, so it doesn't matter too much if no one reads it.

Please do, though.