He was making the point that, ultimately, worship should be pointless from an earthly point of view.  Although it is good to preach to the unbeliever and to edify Christians, the most important reason for worship should be useless to us: we should worship for God's glory.

Thanks for visiting my site!  Yeah, the Hammock is too extreme for me too.  No, thank you!  God bless you!

I think you would find the recent quotes by Lusk that I put in the comments section helpful.

I linked candidates with their sites here. We have in common a few people.

Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land (R). The "litercy" quote above was taken her opponents website. The Dem going up against her is House Minority Leader, Mary Waters.

Attorney General Mike Cox (R). He has 3 democrats and 1 libertarian running against him. Personally, I have no problem with our Attorney General. I will more than likely vote for his re-election but if someone could show me reasons to dislike our current AG I would endorse Libertarian Bill Hall.

How are you going to vote in the primary? 8-8

In the Stabenow race I think I will be voting for Keith Butler over Mike Bouchard in the republican primary. As much as I may disagree with some of his positions I still think he is better all around. It may be due to the fact that I found it awefully suspicious that Bouchard has no social conservative issue on his website. He seems pretty laissez faire economically (or at least on the right hand side of mixed-economy) but I am wanting to know where he stands on other issues. On his site he talks about tort reform, economy, energy, health care, defense but is silent on the judiciary, limited government (constitutionalism), abortion, gun rights, interventionism, separation of church & State, etc.

In the race for Governor I am voting for DeVos. No questions asked. I was pretty impressed with the Libertarian candidate: Greg Creswell.

Mark, reading part one may help answer your question (the link at RLI is to part two).  Pastor Soderberg who runs that site has asked Pastor Meyers if he would explain his translation - specifically in reference to your question. I will look into this some more as well.

"They have not been provided any additional information, since they already know that A has no dot. If you work it out all around, you can deduce that A, B and C all have dots. So the key piece of information is that the Abbot helps ALL of the people by providing his hint."

How do you work it out all around?

I agree with you on the voting issue. I have quite a bit of diversity in my voting history though. While most of my votes have been cast for Republican candidates I have at times voted for Constitutionalists and Libertarians. There was one or two occasions where I voted Democrat but they were local and pro-life.

I guess there is a Democrat in Michigan who got the Michigan Right to Life endorsement and the Citizens for Traditional Values endorsement! He is very pro-life and I think he may even be running in for a State position rather than a local one. I am not aware of who he is but I am looking into it. I am interested to see what district he is running, who he is challenging, and what position he is seeking.

I subscribed to your site. I am not sure if you have subscribed to my paleocrat_etc site but it is the one that most people read and comment on. Most of the posts on the Society site are simply re-posted entried from my etc site.

How about NEXT year?? WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE YOU! All four of you! I'm so excited about baby #2. Congratulations!

I didn't put up the Wikipedia article until tonight.  What you read was the previous edition.

You just tell them the truth and vote your conscience. Stand on principle. If your conscience does not allow you to endorse a candidate then you have two (realistic) options:

1. Vote for another candidate (3rd party if necessary)

2. Abstain on moral grounds.

As much as I hate saying this there is also the fact that Christians ought to seek the peace of their country and not the ruin. If both R and D are leading to ruin then I would prefer the one who will do less damage. Out of love for my fellow man I should seek to maximize the good. But, at times, this means minimizing the bad. I remember using the old argument about R's and D's both driving over a cliff. The only difference is how fast they are going. People use this to say that we must jump out of the car. I say that we must do our best to be the foot that puts on the breaks and the hands that turn the wheel. In this regard I am more of a political puritan (working for reform from within) than a political separatist.

PS- I am not a partisan. I work "with" the Republican party but I refuse to be chained down to it unconditionally. I think that there are occassions where option 1 and 2 are worthy of consideration and, by the looks of it, we may have this coming our way in the Presidential election of 08. I pray that this is not the case but all reliable indicators say otherwise. But hey, we believe in God of miracles and providence.

I understand what you are saying in your comments on both posts - I just wouldn't equate those with merit legalism. (and by the way I appreciate you taking the time to leave well thought out comments)

I apologize I haven't had time to answer you sufficiently. I will be out of town this weekend (wedding annversary), but I will work on giving you a much fuller explanation next week.

Not sure about the Neptune idea, although I'd not thought of that before.  Wasn't part of the Pluto problem that its orbit varies so much from the rest?  If so, Neptune would be exempt from that problem.

No clue on why the worship services are eithered offered (last year) or required (this year).