Charlton Heston (October 4, 1924-April 5, 2008)

"Take your stinkin' paws off me you d--n, dirty ape!"

"You maniacs! D--n you all to hell!"

"Soylent Green is made of people!"

"Turn from thy fierce wrath, Oh Lord!"

"Those who shall not live by the law..."

"The day Rome falls, there shall be a shout of freedom such as the world has never heard before!"

"Judas Priest!"

"From my cold, dead hand!"

Well, the world has lost a legend today. We've lost a lot of them over the past few years: Jerry Falwell, William F. Buckley, Jr. These are people you think are immortal, until their mortality proves otherwise.

Charlton Heston has always been my favorite actor. I'm sure that there are a lot of his movies that I have not seen, but two of them rank among my favorites: The Ten Commandments and Planet of the Apes. I watch The Ten Commandments every Passover season, and each year I get something new out of it. And Planet of the Apes is intriguing sci fi that touches such issues as the creation/evolution controversy and nuclear war.

I also liked Charlton Heston because of his politics. He was an outspoken Republican, particularly in the last twenty years of his life. He was obviously a convert to conservatism, for he was not always in the GOP. He supported Adlai Stevenson for President in the 1950's, as well as some restrictions on guns in the 1960's and 1970's. And, despite Michael Moore's disingenuous attempt in Bowling for Columbine to depict him as a racist, Heston marched in the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's, before it was deemed fashionable for actors to do so. As a matter of fact, he sparked controversy by performing an interracial kiss in one of his movies.

My dad and his friends are members of the NRA, and they always called him "our President." When I was in seventh grade, my liberal social studies teacher showed a speech by Charlton Heston to the NRA, some years before his Presidency of that organization. "Some of you will hang on his every word," my teacher said, looking at me. And I did, since Heston made good points. He pointed out, for example, that Washington, D.C. has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, yet also a high crime rate. I know that Heston had Alzheimer's in the later years of his life, so I hope he was able to celebrate the recent Supreme Court decision that upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Liberals criticized Heston because he had NRA conventions in cities where school shootings had recently occurred. This wasn't necessarily deliberate on his part. Often, they were planned long before the shootings had taken place. But why should Heston have cancelled the conventions, as if the NRA is somehow to blame? It just astounds me how many liberals expect the whole world to embrace their presuppositions, even though a lot of people clearly do not.

Speaking of Heston and guns, Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine actually makes Heston look good, in areas, although the overall depiction of him is quite negative.  I didn't realize that getting to see Charlton Heston was so easy. Michael Moore just spoke into the intercom, introduced himself, and made an appointment with the big man himself. Although Heston was one of the most famous actors of all time, he was still humble, friendly, and accessible.

And so I'll miss Charlton Heston. But I'll see him this coming Passover when I watch The Ten Commandments.

On Earth As It Is in Heaven

Yesterday, I showed how Matthew attributes disease to unclean spirits. I concluded that, for Matthew, Satan causes disease, whereas God is a healer.

In the Lord's prayer, Jesus said, "Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven" (Matthew 6:10 NRSV). That implies that God's will is not completely in effect on earth. After all, why would we need to pray for something that already exists?

I was thinking about this when I read the story of Jesus raising the daughter of the synagogue ruler (Matthew 9:18-26). This daughter was just a little girl when she died. As far as her parents knew, they'd never be able to enjoy her company again. They wouldn't have the pleasure of watching her grow up, marry, and have kids of her own. They'd have to put up with feelings of loss for the rest of their lives.

But that was not God's will. God wants people to enjoy their families, and for a long period of time. Often, when tragedy strikes, Christians want to find some good in it. "It's all part of God's plan," they say. "God has a good reason for this." Does he? Maybe, for the time being, this world contains things that are outside of God's desires.

When Jesus was on earth, God's will was being done, on earth as it is in heaven. In that sense, the kingdom of God was on earth. Satan wants people to be sick and afflicted, but God wants them healthy and free. And, for many of the people Christ touched, God's good will occurred in their lives. Christ bound the power of Satan (Matthew 12:29), allowing people to experience freedom, wholeness, and health.

Today, I read Matthew 11:1-6, in which John the Baptist wonders if Jesus was the Messiah. John was imprisoned by a wicked ruler, after all, and he had said before that the Messiah would reward the righteous and punish the wicked (see Matthew 3). But John didn't see that happening, for he was still in jail, so he contemplated the possibility that he may have been wrong about Jesus.

But Jesus said that the Messianic era was breaking into the world through his ministry. "Go and tell John what you hear and see," he told John's disciples. "The blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them." According to Dennis Duling's notes in the HarperCollins Study Bible, Jesus was referring to such passages as Isaiah 26:19, 29:18, and 35:5-6, in which God promises to open the eyes of the blind, make the deaf hear, and heal the lame after Israel's restoration.

God's will is not that people be blind. It's hard being blind! I wouldn't want to stumble around in darkness all of the time. Being deaf isn't a picnic either. Can we seriously say that God wants cancer eating away at people's bodies? Bringing the issue closer to home, having Asperger's isn't all that fulfilling! God wants people to enjoy fellowship with others, and a social handicap inhibits that.

Here's another thought that crosses my mind: Theologians look for all sorts of reasons for Jesus' miracles. Many say that Jesus did them just to prove his Messianic identity. Others suggest that miracles confirmed the divine authority of God's message, but we no longer need them now that we have the Bible. And, indeed, there are plenty of biblical passages that treat miracles as signs (e.g., John 5, 9; Hebrews 2:4). But maybe Jesus also did them because he felt sorry for those who were sick (see Matthew 14:14). If I had lost a young daughter, I'd be happy to get her back! Why should we treat Jesus as less than human by seeking a colder reason for his miracles? Jesus wept, after all (John 11:35).

One more thought: Being healed can have its disadvantages. If I were lame and had people who could take care of me, I'd be somewhat happy. On some level, that would be better than getting a job and becoming responsible for my own keep, especially if I'm lazy. But that can also be debilitating. It can sap a person's spirit. A person has to want to be healed, and healing carries with it a certain responsibility. But it also contains a whole lot of joy.

Anyway, this post is one take on disease and healing. It's how I feel today. I may not think the same way tomorrow, for sometimes I say that God has a purpose even for bad things.

Matthew 10:1: Disease and Demons

Matthew 10:1 says, "Then Jesus summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to cure every disease and every sickness" (NRSV).

In the Greek, the passage says that Jesus gave his disciples authority over unclean spirits in order to cast them out and cure disease.

What's that mean? The disciples' authority over unclean spirits enabled them to heal the sick. And what's that mean? That Matthew attributes disease and sickness to demons.

There are places in the New Testament in which this is more explicit. In Matthew 9:32-33, Jesus heals a mute person, whose condition was caused by demons. In Luke 13:11-16, Jesus heals a woman who was bent over and crippled because of Satan. And Paul had a thorn in his flesh that he calls "a messenger of Satan" (II Corinthians 12:7).

I wrote to a fellow Hebrew Union College student who is now a professor. I once took a class from him about demons, so I thought he'd know something about how the ancients viewed disease. "Did they attribute diseases to demons?" I asked him. After the customary pleasantries, he replied as follows:

"Literature from the Ancient Near East indicates that demons were blamed for any number of physical and mental ailments. There are, of course, gospel accounts in which someone is simply described as sick, incapacitated, or dead, without mention of a demon or evil spirit, and there are explicit exorcisms as well. But overall, my take has always been that illness in general was attributed to demonic forces during ancient times–-I don’t know enough about classic Greek thought to suggest whether their views were different, but as far as Semitic cultures go, I’m pretty confident."

And so Semitic cultures attributed diseases to demons. What about Greek thought? I checked my Oxford Classical Dictionary on that, and I found that different people said different things. In the article "healing gods," I learned that the Greeks held that possession (usually by a god) caused certain diseases, particularly epilepsy. Yet, in the article on "medicine," I read that "Hippocratic doctors, by and large, were committed to the idea that the phenomena of health and disease are explicable in the same way as other natural phenomena." In the ancient world, there was the belief that demons caused disease, as well as people who sought natural explanations for it.

As far as Jewish religion is concerned, the Jews had physicians, which may indicate that they saw many diseases as naturally-caused (since they believed in solutions other than exorcism). Jesus Ben Sira was a second century B.C.E. author whose book appears in the Apocrypha, and he praises doctors as agents of God (Sirach 38:1-15) The woman healed from hemorrhages after she touched Jesus' robe consulted physicians in Judea before her encounter with Jesus (Mark 5:26; Luke 8:43). And even the Hebrew Bible can be pretty positive about medicine. Jeremiah 8:22 says, after all, "Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there?"

But, at the same time, the Jews believed in demons. Jesus referred to Pharisaic exorcists, after all (Matthew 12:27; Luke 11:19).

Of course, blaming disease on demons can lead to tragedy. I've read of Christians who have pursued exorcism instead of medicine to cure disease, with fatal results. And, unfortunately, there have been times when exorcism itself has proven deadly. Once, for example, an exorcist jumped on a sick child's chest to get a demon out of her, resulting in the child's death.

But there may not be a conflict between blaming disease on demons and using medicine to cure it, at least not always. Having a disease does not necessarily mean that one is possessed, since a demon can cause illness without taking residence within the person. Satan caused Job's illness, but he did not possess him. And a demon can use natural causes to bring about disease, as God can utilize secondary causes to effect his will. Therefore, one can use medicine to cure diseases that demons may have brought about.

Can we say that demons are responsible for all disease? Not really. We bring some diseases on ourselves. If I eat poorly and neglect exercise, then I'm susceptible to heart disease. I'll probably get lung cancer if I smoke. Demons don't cause these things. I do (or I would, if I did them).

Yet, Matthew 10:1 says that authority over demons allowed the disciples to heal all manners of diseases. The passage seems pretty comprehensive in attributing disease to demons. Maybe it makes that claim because it doesn't know every natural cause of illness (a liberal view). Or, from a conservative perspective, perhaps demons can cause every disease, but not every person with a disease has it because of demons. A demon can give heart disease to someone who eats right and exercises. But not everyone with heart disease can blame demons, especially when that person eats fatty foods and doesn't get out of the house.

And so Satan is someone who brings disease. God, however, is a healer. Tomorrow, I'll write more about the implications of this.

Matthew 9:9-12: Jesus Eats with Sinners

In Matthew 9:9-12, we read the following:

"As Jesus was walking along, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth; and he said to him, 'Follow me.' And he got up and followed him. And as he sat at dinner in the house, many tax collectors and sinners came and were sitting with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, 'Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?' But when he heard this, he said, 'Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners'" (NRSV).

I have two thoughts on this passage:

1. You probably know people who do the right thing all of the time. Or at least that's the image of them that you may have. Kind of makes you sick, doesn't it? But, overall, it's good when people do the right thing. The problem arises when they start looking down on those who are not as good. I like what Jake said in response to my post, "Quote on Witnessing," when he argued that Christians should be inclusive towards homosexuals and others outside of the mainstream:

"It's a shame that fundamentalism has been comfortable ostracising communities; including gays, the mentally ill, or those who struggle to find identity and relationships. My impression is that Jesus' love was almost exclusively directed at the marginalized. But maybe I'm wrong for reading Jesus as such a kind and caring person."

Not everyone has his act together, myself included. Granted, there are many people who lead ordered lives. Either they're the types who have been good from birth, or they have learned to do the right thing over time. Now, their lives are in order, and everything is smooth. But, unfortunately, not all of them are overly charitable to those who aren't at their level of righteousness. And that was the problem that Jesus was addressing. Jesus did not dispute the Pharisees' claim that they were righteous. He just said that the Pharisees should cut less spiritual people some slack. For Jesus, the Pharisees should not have an attitude of "We're more righteous than the rest of the world," for they should want even publicans and sinners to find spiritual healing.

And, unfortunately, there are a lot of Christians who look down on others who are not at their level. I once headed a Christian group, and I was talking with other leaders about organizing a Christian prayer meeting (which wasn't my idea, but I was along for the ride). One of the people mentioned a certain young lady who might be interested in attending, and someone else responded, "Her? Are you sure she's even a Christian? She always dresses so provocatively, like she's going out!" Of course, the young lady who said that dressed modestly, was a good student, probably grew up in church, and most likely did the right (churchy) thing on a regular basis. But her righteousness led her to look down on someone else.

Personally, I like going to Alcoholics Anonymous, where people don't always have their lives together, but they're trying to reach a better point. That reminds me of an InterVarsity conference I once attended, in which we had to split up into small groups (which I hated). One of the young ladies said that she likes hanging around people who are spiritually searching more than she does with other Christians. And I can see her point. There is an authenticity, a genuineness, and a purity in those who are spiritually searching, things that are sometimes lacking in people who take certain doctrines for granted, or assume that they have all the answers.

That dovetails into my next point.

2. Jesus said that he came to call sinners to repentance. But the Pharisees already believed that sinners should repent, so Jesus wasn't teaching anything earth-shakingly original there. The problem was that the Pharisees' exclusiveness was hindering sinners from finding God. Scholars disagree about why the Pharisees ate together as a clique. Jacob Neusner says that they wanted to create a table fellowship of ritual purity, one in which they could experience God. E.P. Sanders contends that the Pharisees did not look down on non-Pharisees but ate together because like generally eats with like. Just visit a college cafeteria! Asians usually eat with Asians, whites with whites, and African-Americans with African-Americans. So, in the first century C.E., Pharisees ate with Pharisees.

Whoever is correct about the Pharisees' motivation, the Pharisees' cliquish behavior was leaving out whole groups of people. It wasn't that the Pharisees lacked missionary aspirations, for Jesus acknowledged that they "cross sea and land to make a single convert" (Matthew 23:15). But they didn't interact with certain people, at least not at the intimate level of eating a meal together (I'm sure that the Pharisees and publicans interacted on tax day!). They viewed publicans and sinners as the "other," not as human beings with spiritual needs. And so the Pharisees' cliquish behavior stood in the way of their belief that sinners should repent. Because they did not eat with those who were different from them, they didn't give others an opportunity to repent. Sinners didn't have a chance to see something better than the lives they were leading.

And Christians can be cliquish. Part of the reason is that like associates with like. And part of it may be certain statements of Paul:

I Corinthians 5:9-13: "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons--not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge?
God will judge those outside. 'Drive out the wicked person from among you.'"

I Corinthians 15:33: "Do not be deceived: 'Bad company ruins good morals.'"

II Corinthians 6:14: "Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship is there between light and darkness?"

These are hard passages, yet they are understandable. We can easily become like the people we're with. For example, a person who is trying to quit drugs would be wise to stop associating with his old party friends. I shouldn't hang too much around people who view women solely as sex objects, since that attitude can rub off on me.

A Christian acquaintance at college said that Christians should judge Christians according to Paul's standards (i.e., don't eat with them if they're too sinful), yet they should hang out with non-believers to attract them to the Gospel. The question I have is, "How do we know who's a believer?" When I was in college, most of the homosexuals I knew claimed to believe in Jesus Christ. A lot of Americans do! We are, after all, a nominally Christian nation. Should evangelicals of my college not have eaten with homosexuals, a marginalized group that desperately needs love?

Perhaps Paul was saying that the church has certain standards that it should enforce. The standards may not apply to searchers or visitors at the church, but they should relate to those seeking baptism or membership. And, even then, the best approach to those who transgress is not to kick them out immediately:

"My friends, if anyone is detected in a transgression, you who have received the Spirit should restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness. Take care that you yourselves are not tempted" (Galatians 6:1).

No one is perfect, but we as Christians should be committed to a spiritual journey. Paul may be saying that, for the sake of its integrity, the Christian community should maintain specific lines that cannot be crossed.

These are hard issues. When do we hang around with sinners? When do we avoid them? And, in answering these questions, shouldn't we remember that we ourselves are sinners, meaning that we have no right to look down on anyone?

How Cheney Became a Conservative

I remember when George W. Bush chose Dick Cheney as his running mate. An African-American Republican friend of mine was rather disappointed. "This guy has a record that is so conservative. More than that, it is unthinkingly conservative," he said.

And my friend's right about Cheney's record being conservative, for, as a congressman from Wyoming, he consistently voted against federal programs, including Head Start and the Department of Education.

How did Cheney become so conservative? Interestingly, he was not really a part of the conservative movement. He did not campaign for Barry Goldwater in 1964, for example. When he first went to Washington, D.C., he didn't really have any strong ideological commitments. But he became a conservative through his experience in government.

Stephen F. Hayes states the following in his book, Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President (New York: HarperCollins, 2007):

"Cheney had come to Washington without a definite political philosophy. Though he had worked for Republicans in state politics, he had not been a partisan. Most young people came to Washington to end the Vietnam War, or to help Lyndon B. Johnson win the War on Poverty, or because they had walked precincts for Senator Barry Goldwater or passed out leaflets for Richard Nixon. They came with plans to change the world or at least to help their side.

"By contrast, Cheney's initial interest in national politics was procedural and methodological, almost technical. He was fascinated by how things were done in Washington, why some programs worked and others didn't, why some policies made sense and others seemed doomed to fail. It was the political science professor in him, detached and almost aloof.

"His experience in the Nixon administration began to change that. He saw well-intentioned government programs that solved one problem and created a dozen others. A plan by the Office of Economic Opportunity to train migrant workers to grow azaleas in South Carolina would have provided jobs for the workers but destroyed the market for azaleas in the process. Need-based assistance to the poorest parts of the country was diverted to 'community-action programs' that did little more than line the pockets of local politicians. Through the Cost of Living Council, the IRS targeted small businesses because their owners wanted to give employees a raise. Grocery stores had to fight with the federal government to raise the price of a dozen eggs. To protect the American public, the Price Commission directed McDonald's to reduce the price of Quarter-Pounders. To Cheney, these experiences not only demonstrated the inherent inefficiencies of big government but seemed to confirm the wisdom of individualism and self-reliance, the cardinal virtues of his home state" (71-72).

Yeah, seeing the effects of government policies can shake one's faith in big government!

Maybe He's Doing Something Right

In her usual smug and arrogant manner, Hillary Clinton recently lambasted the Republicans on the state of the economy. According to an Associated Press news article today, "Clinton and Obama Slam McCain on Economy", Hillary said the following to a Pennsylvania AFL-CIO union group:

"John McCain admits he doesn't understand the economy -- and unfortunately he's proving it in this campaign...After seven disastrous years of George Bush and Dick Cheney, the stakes in this election couldn't be higher and the need to change course couldn't be more urgent. But John McCain is only offering more of the same."

According to the article, Hillary's economic proposal is basically more government spending: "Clinton proposed a plan on Tuesday to create 3 million new jobs through increased investments over 10 years in the U.S. infrastructure, and proposed a $10 billion emergency repair fund for critical repairs to bridges and highways."

First of all, economic policy should prioritize the creation of private sector jobs over government ones. Why? Because the private sector is what feeds the public sector, since it is the source of the government's money. Like her husband (and FDR years before him), Hillary's economic "cure" seems to be "Let's have the government create more jobs." She looks to government for everything. But the government has more money when the private sector is thriving. And the way that the private sector thrives is through the tax cuts that Hillary scorns.

Second, who says that the policies of Bush and Cheney aren't working? The AP has another news story today: "Dow skyrockets nearly 400 points amid economic optimism." Here are some quotes from that article:

"The Dow rose 391.47, or 3.19 percent, to 12,654.47. It marked the eighth-biggest point gain ever for the Dow, and the third time in two weeks it came close to or surpassed 400 points."

"And there was also optimism that commodities prices, which have hit historic highs in recent months, have begun to retreat. Crude fell 60 cents to settle at $100.98 on the New York Mercantile Exchange after earlier falling below $100. Meanwhile, gold dropped back below $900 an ounce."

"Meanwhile, Wall Street got another boost when the Institute for Supply Management said its March index of national manufacturing activity rose to a reading of 48.6 -- indicating a contraction, but a slower one than in February and tamer than many analysts had predicted. Government data on construction spending for February also came in better than expected."

Okay, I don't understand the last paragraph--manufacturing rose, yet contracted--but at least investors are investing and prices are falling.

This reminds me of the 1987 stock market crash, when liberal media outlets were calling Reagan a dummy because he wasn't initiating big government solutions. Well, we got out of that mess pretty fast, and Reagan appeared to be smarter than people thought. Similarly, we seem to be getting out of economic difficulty right now. Maybe there's more to Bush than meets the eye. Or, alternatively, perhaps one doesn't need a Ph.D. in economics to know what works.

Hillary has no cause to be smug. The economy started to decline near the end of Bill Clinton's Presidency, leading to the recession of the early 2000's. That recession was Clinton's recession.

And I just read Reagan's Disciple, by Lou and Carl Cannon, which argued that Clinton's balanced budget was actually caused by the end of the Cold War, since the U.S. no longer had to spend all that money on defense. Since Reagan ended the Cold War, I guess that Clinton's economic accomplishments were actually Reagan's. Imagine that!

Quote on Witnessing

Bryan of Things on Bryan's Mind fame tagged me. The question is this: if my place of residence were on fire, and I could save one book other than the Bible, what would it be? Then, I'm supposed to provide a meaningful quote from that book.

I'd probably save my Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, but I can't think of any quotes from it that grab me. And so I'll share a quote from a book that I wouldn't save from the fire. Or perhaps I would because it's a library book and I don't want fines, but I don't particularly enjoy it. It is Mel White's Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America.

The quote I will present spoke to me at this time in my life. There are a few other things I like about the book, such as Mel's descriptions of how God was with him when he was about to commit suicide. But the book is mostly expressions of his desires for male intimacy when he was struggling with his homosexuality, and his statement of belief that he has a right to express his sexual orientation. Does having an inclination mean that one should act on it, if he so desires?  I remember hearing one pro-homosexual Adventist professor respond to the "homosexuals should be chaste" spiel with the question, "But should we deprive anyone of a sexual relationship? How dare we do that!"  The implication seems to be that people are entitled to a sexual relationship.  But I remember listening to Susie Shellenberger, on "Life on the Edge," a Focus on the Family program for teens, and she had an interesting response to the "How dare you deprive homosexuals of the right to have sex" line. She said that she's single and in her 40's, so she doesn't even know if she'll ever have sex. That's in God's hands!  

Of course, I can anticipate how homosexuals would respond. "Well, you're heterosexual, and there's a chance you'll one day meet someone. Why should I have to be celibate the rest of my natural life?" Good question.  And I'm not sure I have an answer, other than the usual passages from Leviticus, Romans, and Corinthians.

But, my rant aside, here's Mel White on witnessing:

"So, rather than telling my parents about Lyla (Mel's girlfriend, who became his wife), I set out to 'lead her to the Lord.' This all sounds so Machiavellian as I read it back. In fact, I really did (and do) love Jesus. Telling people about Him then was as easy as telling people about Him now. Only then, I had an agenda for every person I told. Now, I don't. Now I know that other people's spiritual choices are their business and the business of God's loving Spirit. My job is to tell my story honestly. Happily, the rest is in God's hands. But in those awful teenage years, I was convinced that the 'salvation' of practically everyone I met was more or less my responsibility. What a terrible load to put on the back of anyone, let alone a gay kid who was already buried under guilt" (pp. 54-55).

Amen, Mel! You advocate an authentic form of witnessing rather than making a sales pitch to get people to sign on the dotted line (with the sinner's prayer). Also, it's good to know that I'm not responsible for everyone on the face of the earth. I should be a good example, of course, but people's salvation is in their own hands--or at least the choice for salvation is.

Let me see, whom should I tag? I want to tag someone who actually reads my blog. Okay, I'll tag Felix. El Shaddai Edwards hasn't commented here for a while, but he usually likes my Asperger's posts, and this kind of falls under that category. So, if you're reading this, El Shaddai, I tag you. Weird Thinkers once tagged me for another post, so I tag him.

Have a nice day!