So why do I keep getting insane numbers of searches for "reverend ketcham"? I can't seem to find anything interesting related to those keywords that would have arisen recently. What's stranger is that they begin to show up in the evening and then get sparser during the day time. At one point they were even more frequent during the given interval than the searches for my name were (which have begun to slow down a lot now that his funeral is over). [Update: See the answer in the comments.] Other unusual searches since Thursday:
PICTURE ON EITHER OF THE CATHOLIC PROTESTANTS
I'm not sure why you think shouting will help. Maybe you should reconsider your assumption that there can be someone who is both Catholic and Protestant, never mind the assumption that there are exactly two of them or that their pictures would be online even if they existed and there were exactly two of them.
theology of the muppet show
Next thing you know we'll be looking at the military tactics of
Struck Touched By an Angel or the philosophy of science of Beavis & Butthead. Wasn't Jim Henson a practitioner of the most badly misnamed religion in history, Christian Science?
Ineffective search of the week:
christian song, i think about the cross
Way to distract the search engine with thoroughly irrelevant terms. There are probably thousands of such songs, but this will turn up only ones containing the terms 'think' and 'about' in addition to many other things that aren't songs but have the word 'song', as was the case with my post that turned up, which was a Christian Carnival I hosted with a Kansas theme. Isn't there someone that can teach people common sense regarding web searches?
questions to find who would your friend be
in a movie? in an alternate possible world? I know this is someone who doesn't know how to use a search engine, but it's pretty bad if even a human being can't figure out what they're searching for.
should christians think?
New carnival: Biblical Studies Carnival I. This is top-notch biblical scholarship. I didn't even know there were this many biblical studies blogs. I haven't looked at any of the entries, but I imagine it ranges the spectrum from conservative to liberal biblical scholarship, so I don't expect all of the posts to reflect the kind of thing some of my readers will prefer.
Eugene Volokh makes some interesting observations about false rape claims. What's interesting about this post is that it shows how three seemingly conflicting claims might well both be true. Very few women could even think of making a false claim that they'd been raped, most rapes are never reported, and a large portion of women who do come forward with charges of rape are lying and had not been raped. How can those all be true? Read the post. Volokh doesn't claim that any of those statements is true, of course, but if they are all true, and there is some evidence for all of them, then we have an interesting situation. Rape is a terrible way that men abuse women, and rape claims are a terrible way that women manipulate men.
Jollyblogger talks about evangelical Christians' pet issues of homosexuality and abortion, connecting it people's too common simplification of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah as homosexuality. Judgment may just as easily fall on us for materialism and lack of concern for the poor, as that was one of the primary judgments on Israel by the prophets. They showed that their religion was not true because they did not care for the poor among them. Jesus says as much at the end of Matthew 25. I'm the first to say that liberal policies aren't necessary better for the poor than conservative policies, but this isn't just about effects. Many evangelicals just don't think about the poor, and that kind of neglect of crucial moral issues shows that the religion behind their rejection of homosexuality and abortion is as suspect as the religion of those the prophets criticized. As James says, "religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their afflication, and to keep oneself unstained from the world" (James 1:27, ESV).
Pruitt Communications has a nice post about the kingdom (or rule) of God and human government.
I've been wanting to blog about some issues raised in this post by Jim Ryan at Right Reason, but I haven't brought myself to say anything about it. What I'm wondering is whether it's wrong to create a child that you know or have good reason to believe will be severely disabled in some fashion. I'm not talking about whether you should continue to care for an already existing child, born or not, who is in such a condition. I think the answer to that question is yes. I'm wondering about when you know that your genetic profile makes it extremely likely that your offspring will have a serious danger of creating children who are severely disabled. There seem to be two questions. One is whether you are harming that child by creating it. The other is whether it's wrong to cause such harm if it's indeed harm or whether some other reason might make it wrong if it's not harm. Any thoughts?