Sovereignty, choices and trade

Before you click on comments I have a couple of questions.
What is hurtful about this map?

What if it is an oppportunity?
I’m serious.
It’s a bad joke, ‘they’ are making fun of my country and my faith and who do ‘they’ think they are?
Or are ‘they’ making fun of themselves?

What if this is an opportunity?
Do others really see ‘us’ this way?
Do I care?
If I do, why?

What if this is an opportunity?
A chance to listen, talk, explain?
Do I know what I need to know?

I’d like you to know this map made national news tonight as a seque to promo an interview show.

Indiana Republican congressman Mark Souder will be on CTV’s Question Period Sunday night. Souder is chair of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources. He will talk about being an evangelical Christian, about decriminalizing marijauna possessionand same sex marriage. He is not shy about speaking his mind.

“I believe there’ll be more searches at the border both coming and going from Canada, which hurts our trade,”

“Trade is the anchor of our relationship and our friendship and anything that shows that down, complicates that.”

More information is here.

via Against All Flags

12 Responses to “Sovereignty, choices and trade”

  1. Gravatar Icon1Flynn  

    Hi Bene Diction. Its Cap Flynn at Against All Flags. I see you linked to the Map of Jesusland :-)

    I just wanted to warn you that I’m taking a pretty tough position on the conservative Christian alliance that seems to have put Bush in the White House.

    Just wanted to warn you so your readers aren’t offended. Its all politics, but you know how politics is.


  2. Gravatar Icon2Bene Diction  

    Hey Capt. Flynn.:^)
    That’s fair. If god-bloggers and Christians can’t respect you and your opinion, you can remind them they are free to go elsewhere.

    I’ll remind them of Col:4:6 on their way over – Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone. Blog on!

  3. Gravatar Icon3Mark Byron  

    The map-maker doesn’t get Canadian politics. If they did, they would have annexed Alberta into Jesusland. :-)

    Truckloads of questions, Bene, few quick answers. The general take down here is that Canada’s more secular that the US, making them more compatable with the “Blue State” northeast and west coast that votes Democratic, when compared with the “Red State” ne Jesusland area that votes Republican.

    I liked the old book “The Nine Nations of North America.” Distilling it into two is oversimplifying. I feel a post coming on.

  4. Gravatar Icon4alicia  

    I think the map was prompted by the threats of many of the now defeated candidates’ supporters – that if they lost they were going to move to Canada where their worldview was respected.
    I think that the map reflects the (false?) dichotomy between certain faith based political values and certain social welfare values such as universal (government) health care, taxation as a means of involuntary wealth redistribution, governmental endorsement of sexual license, etc. I think that that map is an insult both to Canada and to the USA. It also misses the point that there was a large portion of the USA electorate who were truly disenfranchised – those of us who did not and do not support Mr. Bush on many of his policies (taxation, war, health care) but were also totally disgusted with Mr. Kerry’s kowtowing to the anti-family values of such groups as NARAL and Planned Parenthood (abortion on demand and sexual license lobbies) or to the homosexual marriage lobby. In the end, I voted for the candidate who least offended my conscience.
    Please note that Canada in at least some of it’s provinces endorsed homosexual marriage long before the Massachussets court decision. There is also a continuing concern that some of the anti-hate speech legislation in your country might end up as a form of anti-Christian religious discrimination.
    I am not endorsing the kind of flaming stereotyping that that map represents. I am simply trying to point out some of the possible sources for the thoughts and feelings behind it.

  5. Gravatar Icon5will  

    If only it were true. I think we have to wait a little “bit” before we see Jesusland – but that of course doesn’t mean we should try to accomplish the opposite down here while we’re waiting!

    Errr, why do I always talk out of both sides of my mouth? “Jesus loves you” – there, I’ll leave it at that Bene.

  6. Gravatar Icon6Ali  

    I’ve seen that map elsewhere and it bugs me. The polarisation is not good for America, nor is the illusion that they can just relocate to a Democrat paradise in Canada. I don’t have any solutions, but I’m horrified at the vitriol spouted by both Republicans and Democrats against each other.

  7. Gravatar Icon7Joel Thomas  

    The map should also been seen in the context that Kerry won in places such as Dallas, Austin and El Paso in Texas, Denver, Atlanta, Birmingham, Memphis, New Orleans, Little Rock, Albuquerue, Tucson, Kansas City, St. Louis, Des Moines, Miami, etc.

  8. Gravatar Icon8Jon  

    Joel is right on this… it is more an urban vs. suburban/rural split, than mid-west/central vs the coasts…

  9. Gravatar Icon9Roy Jacobsen  

    One man’s opinion: I think that map is such a inaccurate oversimplification of the election results as to be useless. It doesn’t take much browsing on the “right” side of the pundit-sphere to find that many of them are explicitly irreligious (For example, Instapundit.) I’m not offended; I just find it hard to believe someone could miss the mark by so much.

  10. Gravatar Icon10Mark  

    “If God is for us, who can be against us?” Proud resident of ‘Jesusland.’

  11. Gravatar Icon11dh  

    Amen Mark and Roy Jacobsen.

  12. Gravatar Icon12matt25v40  

    The map certainly does oversimplify. I think the dynamic at play in the last election was very complicated. Different groups voted for different reasons, yet came together to re-elect the President. Some voted out of fear/loathing of homosexuality. Some voted out of patriotism. Some voted out of economic self-interest. Some were voting in favor of prayer in schools, using the word “God” in the Pledge… some were voting based on gun rights issues. Kerry supporters were an equally motley group.

    The issues are complex, but we managed to oversimplify them when it came time to vote. Neither party owns morality. The issue is WHICH moral issues are more important to you? Those which concern sexuality? Sanctity of life (the unborn? victims of war? death penalty?) Poverty and hunger? Policies that promote inclusion, love and understanding?

    There was too much name-calling and fear mongering on BOTH sides. Too little rational analysis of issues. Gross oversimplification, THAT is what the map reflects. Those who love Jesus and want to do His work had plenty of reasons to vote either way.

The latest flame war

It started here. And it caused such a reaction the post was taken down from the front page. But not before it was brought up at LivingRoom and John Adams.
I think it is great that young people are exploring their place in their world and our world, and using blogging. And I firmly believe they deserve lots of room to do that.
What bothered me wasn’t the topic as much as the labels, bible thumping and flaming. Follow the links and the comment sections. Take some deep breaths, you’ll see a sand box fight with a bunch of angry guys. Can you blame others for their response?
Ask yourself this:
Why did the adults responding behave like teen-agers? It is one thing for a 17 year old American to spit out the cultural garbage he is surrounded by, it is quite another for older ones to jump right in with both feet and a bad attitude.

After you have followed this thread, go to connexions and read the two part response.
Then go to looking back…looking forward and read the response. These two bloggers and LivingRoom are labelled as ‘liberals’ by some of their American counterparts.
(If I missed some links, let me know, I’ll be happy to add your voice.)
And ask yourself this also…..if you responded to a 17 year old boy sorting out his identity, who would you model yourself after in this discussion?
The first thing I want to try to understand is why the men got so angry.
Looking back…looking forward wonders too.
Maybe some of the boys and men involved in this conversation can answer him.

Wired News has an interesting interview with the creators of Strongbad. I stumbled on the site about a year ago, and I find it funny. Some of my friends don’t get it though. It looks like this family project will keep going for awhile.

Hello techies…
Most of us won’t understand this, but it looks like a new format has been developed for weblogs that replaces (or is better than?) RSS feeds. I guess it does a lot of the same things like weblog syndication, archiving, and editing.

Comment spam
Have you noticed any comment spam on your weblog? I get some occasionally. So, what can we do about it? Spammers seem unable to comprehend we aren’t interested, and in deleting the junk, I’ve probably deleted what could be legitimate stuff.

Top Honours
Congratulations Rachel! Get well soon.

26 Responses to “The latest flame war

  1. Gravatar Icon1Chris A.  

    I’ve discussed this and similar threads with friends in real life lately. It’s clear that homosexuality triggers extreme emotions in people, especially in men. I simply don’t see the reason for it. We’re told, as Christians, to hate the sin and love the sinner. We’re told to include and love and embrace all sorts of people. We really seem to have little trouble when that person is abusive, or an alcoholic, or embezzles money. We ignore plenty of other Biblically mandated laws; when was the last time we stoned someone for missing the sabbath?

    Yet, for a complex of social and political and religious reasons, it seems like homosexuality automatically triggers insensibility in people. There’s no insult one can sling that’s more effective that to imply a man is gay. It makes me sick. Personally, I believe it’s time to re-evaluate all of our assumptions about homosexuality in light of increased understanding of the value of gay and lesbian relationships, but how can that happen when firestorms like the one mentioned can start at a moment’s notice.

  2. Gravatar Icon2Jared WIlliams  

    Good questions Bene–The ugliness of suspician and the quest for being right rather than good. [sigh] I could only read about 10 comments through the original post before my exasperation sapped my will to read on.

    It’s good to reflect on our childish immaturity and squabbling in spaces like this–we can learn much from our own regret before family. God forbid we act so foolishly in public.

  3. Gravatar Icon3Pieter Friedrich  

    Chris, when you say “the value of gay and lesbian relationships” do you mean the value of relationships with gays and lesbians or do you mean the value of relationships between gay and lesbian couples?

    If the latter, then how can those ever be “valuable”? How can what is clearly and unequivocally condemned by God as an “abomination” ever be “valuable”?

  4. Gravatar Icon4Richard B.  

    By being relationships in which two people are loving and respecting each other, in the ways that a guy named Jesus called us to love and respect one another, Pieter.

    Love and respect. Not easy things to do. Some of us might argue that the loving thing is condemn people with “different” sexual orientations. Some of us might argue that the loving thing is to see them as real live human beings living their lives the best they know how… just like the rest of us.

    Doing well sometimes… falling down at others… just like the rest of us.

    What does God want? I’m not as sure as you seem to be. Yep, there are Levitical laws around same-sex relationships that call for death. There are also Levitical laws around cursing one’s parents that call for death. Yep, some of the epistles also speak against sexual practices that were part of the life of the wider culture.

    But, as the phrase goes, WWJD?

  5. Gravatar Icon5Pieter Friedrich  

    Just so I’m clear here…

    What you’re saying is that it’s more important to love one another than it is to follow God’s law? If a homosexual couple are together and loving each other, that’s much better and more valuable than single people who obey God’s law, but don’t love other people by overlooking the sin of others?

  6. Gravatar Icon6Chris A.  

    What I’m saying is that to love one another *is* God’s law, and is far more important that any of the other laws laid out. What I’m also saying is that I have known and do know gay and lesbian couples that are more aware of the power of eros, philia, and agape than many straight Christians. I’m not a pharisee.

  7. Gravatar Icon7Pieter Friedrich  

    Where do you get the idea that “love” is more important than God’s “other law”?

  8. Gravatar Icon8Richard B.  

    I’m not sure that either is *more* valuable, Pieter. *Both* are valuable.

    “Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
    ‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?’ Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Mt. 22.34-40, NIV)

    For *me*, this means that the Law and the Prophets (and my life, too) need to be held up to these commandments. Soooo… God’s law (or the understanding of God’s law that the ancient Levitical community had) called the the followers to kill anyone who curses his father or mother (Lev 20.9). How does this “law” hang on the commandments Jesus re-iterated?

    I believe that there are ways of asking people to consider their lives – be it around sexuality (straight or gay/lesbian/bi), or about the use of wealth or power, or anything else for that matter – that are loving in the way that Christ called for.

    The two of us will probably never agree about the place of homosexuality in God’s creation. But that’s ok. I believe that our task, as children of God and followers of the Christ, is to challenge each other, in that love that He talked about.

    Blessings and peace.

    (Ack! I let this comment become a full-fledged post… sorry Bene!)

  9. Gravatar Icon9Pieter Friedrich  

    What is your definition of “love”? I mean, the love that Jesus speaks of in the Greatest Commandment.

  10. Gravatar Icon10Richard B.  

    Interesting question, Pieter.

    Its… hmmm… I just realized that I’ve written two really long posts in Bene’s comments section, so I’ve decided to post my thoughts about love at

  11. Gravatar Icon11Jonathan  

    Pieter, what are you trying to do? This battle has been fought by you in the comments of countless blogs so far. There are people who do not agree with you. There are people you do not agree with. Many of you may never agree with each other.

    There is a time and a place for debating such issues. The time…well, seems to me this fight has lasted long enough, beyond the point where anything constructive is going to occur. The place…is definitely not in the comments section of any blog that touches on the issue. If you want to continue this fight, maybe you should choose a designated forum on your own website where people who are still interested in debating this with you can come to do so. It is not fair to others such as Bene to take over their comments with your crusade.

    Pieter, in all honesty, you will not change anyone’s opinion on this issue. And it looks like no-one will change yours. Sometimes we have to learn to accept that not everybody sees things our way. Unfortunately, many people don’t seem to learn this important lesson until much later in life. You’re seventeen, and have the opportunity to deal with this and become a better person while you’re still young.

    God bless you Pieter, and may you continue to seek Truth with the same passion that you have displayed in engaging this issue. And please do no ask me to fight this issue with you; I disagree with you, but don’t intend to quarrel about it. Certainly not in Bene’s comment section.


  12. Gravatar Icon12Chris A.  

    In other news, I’m skeptical about a new alternative to RSS for blog syndication. Mostly, I’m afraid of the too-many-cooks possibility in a standard like this.

  13. Gravatar Icon13Jonathan  

    Definitely, Chris. I say, pick a standard and stick to it so we don’t have to provide 20 different flavors of each and every web service. The Wired article on Homestar Runner was cool too.

  14. Gravatar Icon14Chris A.  

    Wait, let’s talk about how Strongbad and Homestar love The Cheat even though he’s gay.

  15. Gravatar Icon15Bene Diction  

    Thank you gentlemen, and Pieter, I commend you for speaking to me and my readers with respect. I am pleased to see you were treated well here, while I was out and about with a buddy this afternoon.

    Most people don’t always debate to win. I was genuinely sorry you were flamed Pieter and that you flamed. It was emotionally wearing to wade through, and I hope this comment section was a safe harbour.

    As for the new RSS type thing….yeah, we got enough ingredients to maintain our blogs. Arrggghh. It’s a wait and see thing. Blog on!

  16. Gravatar Icon16Darren  

    Cant post much now as I’m about to hit the road again – I’m sorry if my post or comments come across as angry – I’m not sure anger is the emotion I feel – rather its a frustration.

    The part of Pieter’s post that frustrated me most actually wasn’t his homophobia, it was his Islamaphobia. This partly comes out of the fact that over the last few years I’ve been working with Muslims and would class some of them as growing friends.

    Comments like Pieters get made here in Australia from time to time in the media – and I know the impact that they have upon my friends. They often cut right to the bone and make them very suspicious of Christianity.

    I only posted about the topic because I felt people should talk about this issue as I think its something that can get in the way of us getting on with the mission we’ve been left of loving our world and making disciples.

    would like to post more – but have to run.

  17. Gravatar Icon17Bene Diction  

    Hey Darren: It’s ok….kind of got the message from your posts that you’ve been on the run. Take care of yourself eh?
    I think this is called community, gathering around a high maintenence 17 year old who is learning his remarks echo ’round the globe. I know people were wounded. Blog on!

  18. Gravatar Icon18dan  

    The interesting aspect of this discussion in my mind is the fact that some have focussed on Pieter’s youth as a consideration which should be taken into account when we respond to what he has said.

    I don’t know how true this is. From what little I have read, it doesn’t appear that Pieter would want us to take his youth into account, and perhaps might find these comments condescending (I think I would, in Pieter’s position).

    We all have the capacity to express our beliefs, and to respond and engage in discussion with those with whom we disagree. In the blogosphere and outside of it, this should always be done with respect, both for the other person and for the view that they hold.

    I too have been disappointed by the level of flaming, of inflamatory language and disrespect that sometimes gets shown in the blogosphere. I have also been impressed by those that have responded thoughtfully and spoken into sometimes conflicted situations with grace, insight and with a total lack of defensiveness. We should be aiming to create an environment where we are challenging and inspiring each other. If we cannot do that without resorting to abuse, then we should take no further part in the discussion which is provoking such a reaction in us.

  19. Gravatar Icon19Chris A.  

    One of the things that I value the most about the blogosphere is my opportunity to converse on these issues with so many different people. I know, in real life, incredibly few conservatives, so it’s refreshing to actually get input from people who don’t agree with me. Likewise, I don’t talk to that many Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, or — really — Americans in my day to day existence. I’m here in Seattle, sure, but I don’t talk to people face to face about all this stuff.

    May God bless us and keep us.

  20. Gravatar Icon20Pieter Friedrich  

    Jonathan: I am not trying to debate. Rather, I am hoping to better understand the viewpoint that talks about the “value of gay and lesbian relationships” while also presenting itself as Christian. It is one I strongly disagree with, but do not fully understand. I am attempting to understand it better, and that is why I asked the questions I did.

    Bene Diction: Thanks for your respectful treatment of me. I am at fault for my flaming, and that cannot be justified, but only, I hope, forgiven. I spoke in anger, and I should not have.

    Dan: I agree. The value of what I say should be weighed, and the response should not be tempered by consideration of my youth.

  21. Gravatar Icon21Bene Diction  

    Hi Dan:

    I am going to disagree with you.

    Pieter probably doesn’t like any one pointing out his age. I will agree on that.
    However, at 17, major things are going on in our brains and our lives….there are developmental considerations whether a 17 year old likes it or not.

    I don’t know if Pieter grasped the consequences of his blog being read around the world, I haven’t asked him.
    I don’t think it is being patronizing to point out cause and effect.
    You and I are used to engaging in world wide conversations Dan.
    And I can hope in engaging Pieter, we are showing respect, and treating him as adult as he can handle.
    It’s up to Pieter to tell us if he has been challenged and inspired, up to us to disengage if there is abuse.

  22. Gravatar Icon22Bene Diction  

    Hi Pieter:
    You are most welcome. I know Richard Bott is more than willing to continue that respect in answering your questions at his blog. :^)

  23. Gravatar Icon23chris  

    Hi Bene,

    Pieter is young and maybe engaging with him will expose him to views and ideas he may not be getting in his peer group.

    I think a number of your commentors missed the point that you were making about mature adults behaving in a equally late adolescent manner in their comments. Peiter is old enough and intelligent enough to present a well reasoned argument and if he does not we should be mature enough to point that out to him with being drawn into responding in kind.

    Sadly, we cannot simply write off his views as adolescent inexperience as there are many adults who are well past 17 who share his views. However, the fact that he is prepared to engage is a positive sign in itself.

    To end on a lighter note, it amuses me with all this reference in to liberals in posts such as these. The current government in Australia is the “Liberal” party and they are about as far to the right as we have had.

  24. Gravatar Icon24Bene Diction  

    Hi Chris: Yeah…

    “Pieter is young and maybe engaging with him will expose him to views and ideas he may not be getting in his peer group.”

    I thank you for helping to doing that, and you are correct:

    “there are many adults who are well past 17 who share his views. However, the fact that he is prepared to engage is a positive sign in itself.”

    I’m joyful adults engaged today; mature, kind, respectful. What blogging can be.

    Chris, Jordon Cooper has a post on Seattle home churches you might want to look at. Blog on!

  25. Gravatar Icon25Mark Byron  

    Two definitions of liberal, Chris. With a small l in a 19th century application, it meant taking power away from the aristrocary and giving it to the people; that makes them 21st century conservatives, unlike the people who want to take power from people and give it to the government, which is what we call liberals in North America. PM Howard is a 19th century (or classic) liberal.

    Other than one comment over at John Adams’ blog, I’ve stayed out of this one. The key is speaking the truth in love so that the person you’re rebuking will be more inclined to listen and change. The rhetorical bomb-throwers get more press, but wind up only preaching to their choirs.

    So often, the cliche becomes “hate the sin, hold your nose and be civil the sinner.” Let’s guard against that.

  26. Gravatar Icon26Bene Diction  


    I’m glad you can clarify the term ‘liberal’ and you bring up another issue. Too many bloggers throw labels around without understanding their meaning. I put liberal in quotes precisely for that reason. We internationals have been labelled all kinds of things….without the thought and awareness you put into this comment. It’s frustrating for many of us no matter where we live.

    The bottom line is not complex…those of us that don’t pledge alliance to your flag are first and foremost your brothers in Christ living under different government systems. It does not make us anti, less than, or fitting well into some of the US political labels. Nor do we get the opportunity we’d like to engage when we are dismissed by definition so easily.

    Thanks. There are few pundit bloggers outside the US, and this might make a post for you since you are widely read eh? Blog on!

James Blake Miller

James Blake Miller is 21.

On November 9, 2004 a photo by Luis Sinco of the Los Angeles Times taken in Fallujah made Miller a Marine icon.

He joined up in  November 2002 and was assigned to 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment of the 2nd Marine Division.

He’s back in Kentucky now, battling the war within.


I’m going to think out loud and publically.
Why am I hesitant about this UK web aggregator that is garnering publicity?
What is this strong sense of caution I’ve been experiencing?
Dr. Adrian Warnocks Blogdom of God got a mention at’s Internet for Christians over Christmas. It’s been paired up with NZ Bear’s Ecosystem to push god-blogs into the mainstream and up toward the A list. There are now six alliances over at the Bear’s.
Blogstreet maps your ‘neighbourhood,’ and is harmless fun.
There is a semi definitive portal or two, and now an aggregator. Seems like a relatively natural cyber-evolution.

In my earlier post about the aggregator I mentioned that the rules for it’s marriage with Warnocks ‘Alliance’ had been removed. I currently don’t understand the Alliance, and haven’t done much research, all I know is that it declares itself as openly evangelical as St. Blog’s is Catholic. Big deal.

The aggregator now allows the blogger to be self-defining, so we can assume Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants are welcome.
It appears to be merely another tool to come along.
The rules were/are essentially operational for Warnock, not doctrinal.
It isn’t really much different than the organizing that is going on at e-church run by Tim Bendar, just a bit quicker out of the gate.
I read a fair number of blogs, so what is my problem with this?
Am I stuck in the past, and set in my cyber-ways?
Am I hyper-sensitive to strong self-promotion?
Am I thinking there is some hidden agenda because it got off to a shaky start?
I’m not the only skeptical blogger, and I find that a bit odd too.

Posted by Bene Diction at December 26, 2003 06:37 PM
The idea of pushing God blogs into the mainstream is a poorly thought out idea. Sites like Blogdom of God and blogs4God and JesusJournal may help blogs get some more traffic but don’t move blogs into the mainstream because the starting point for most of those blog tools is rooted in the Christian culture. It’s funny that throughout church history that most movements of God have happened on the fringes of culture and most movements to move Christianity into the mainstream have failed and hurt the faith more than helped it.

The idea of a Christian “Instapundit” or “Jason Kottke” seem to be more rooted insecurity of who we are. It kind of reminds me of those Christian athelete magazines that profile Kurt Warner or some other QB who is Christian.

The desire to be an a-list blogger seems to be odd to me. Just as the desire to create a Christian a-list blogger is. It seems to be based insecurity and wanting to join a club and denying the fact that maybe the entire world doesn’t want to read out blogs like they do Andrew Sullivan’s.

Just rambling.

Posted by: Jordon on December 27, 2003 02:31 PM
Ramble away, I did.
JesusJournal didn’t do well because it followed a commercial concept.
Blogs4God isn’t going anywhere, it’ll hold, but I think a lot of it’s potential has passed.
The Blogdom will probably do ok as an aggregator, but pushing into a mainstream audience probably won’t stick.
Pride? Insecurity? Grand expectations? Idealism? Don’t know. Things that perhaps aren’t easily definable on first thought. There is too much diversity, too many people willing to hurt others to get to where they are supposedly going. Faith doesn’t work that way.
Posted by: Bene Diction on December 27, 2003 06:05 PM
You both raise good points. If we increase communication and fellowship between Christians in different locales and from different faith traditions by increasing traffic, then that would be a good thing. But if all we’re doing is getting our own float in the parade, then you’re dead on. As a member of The Blogdom, I hope that’s the outcome. It costs me $5.00 a month to do my blog, and I cannot envision EVER putting a tip jar on the site. Thus, I can see no reason other than the sharing of ideas that would motivate me to do this.

Posted by: Rev. Mike on December 29, 2003 01:47 PM
After reading this post and the one over at Rev. Mike’s site, I felt the need to add my two cents in. I chose to link to this and and Rev. Mikes posts over at Certus Veritas and add a different twist related to how we as Christians might want to consider our blogging. Keep up the good work Bene Diction!

Posted by: Eric on December 30, 2003 12:41 AM
I found Rev. Mike’s site by reading the posts on The Blogdom of God and now subscribe to it directly. (and indirectly through his, I discovered this site).

The aggregator serves a good purpose. It might be compared to a directory of churches that a new person in the community ( a visitor, a new resident, a new convert) might look through to find a church suitable for his tastes.

Posted by: Bill on December 31, 2003 08:07 AM
Have tried to answer some of the criticisms of a few over at my blog.