About eight years ago, I was in charge of putting together a website for a group of gamers with whom I was friends. In those days, when we wanted to say something with emphasis on the site, we’d bust out with B. And it made perfect sense, after all… B = bold! Simple, elegant.

Little did I know at the time that I really wasn’t emphasizing the text to which I was applying B. Here’s what I mean by that:

When you speak, listen to your voice as you emphasize important details or stress a point to your listeners. The style of your voice certainly does change. However, the meaning of what you said was slightly altered. The stylistic change to how you said certain words added inflection which wouldn’t have been present otherwise.

You see, there’s two aspects of what we say: style and semantics. How our words sound is the style and what they mean or how they are used is the semantics.

The same is true with what we write on the Web. As I said before, B was good for one thing: making text bold. It did that well, and for sighted visitors, the text certainly did appear emphasized.

But what about those visitors who browsed using a text-to-speech reader? B doesn’t provide any semantic meaning which could be translated into an accurate verbal reading. Further, because of B’s lack of meaning, the text which appears emphasized to sighted users appears as plain ol’ ordinary text to search engine robots.

The bottom line is, by using B as your emphasizer, you are wasting your time; you merely give the illusion of emphasis while the text itself is semantically no more or less important than the surrounding words.

The solution rests in a much more semantic tag called STRONG. This tag — one of several “phrase tags” which (X)HTML provides — goes beyond B by actually altering and enhancing the meaning of the text.

No longer would text-to-speech readers speak through B-wrapped words with unwavering tone. No longer would important B‘ed keywords receive the same importance in search engine calculations.

With STRONG and other semantic tags, the enhanced meaning of the text will be evident to text-to-speech readers, which is an important aspect of usability.

Of course, the differences go far beyond B versus STRONG:

• Instead of I (i.e., <em>italic text</em>), use EM (i.e., <em>emphasized text</em>).
• Instead of using BLOCKQUOTE to indent text, use it only for actual quotations. For indentation which doesn’t require a change in meaning, try applying style to your paragraph or division tags.
• Instead of rendering code like <span style="font-family: monospace;">some code</span>, use the CODE tag (i.e., <code>some code</code>).
• When no semantic element seems available for what you want to do, there are two rather generic elements available: DIV and SPAN. A DIV represents a division of a page’s content; for instance, DIVs may be used to separate the various parts of a basic blog page: header, content, comments, sidebar, footer. A SPAN denotes, well, a span of text but is instead an inline element. An example of how I use SPAN is to make up for the lack of any semantic element to refer to the title of something (whether a movie, book, ship, or anything else which is typically underlined when hand-written); I created a class called TITLE in my style sheet and applied an italic style to it. It’s unfortunate that the semantic meaning of “this is a title” cannot be applied, but at the very least, the text is set apart and visually differentiated. An example of this would look like, “When it comes to captains of the <span class="title">Enterprise</span>, Picard takes the cake.”

I hope I haven’t made this introduction overly complex, but I hope I have included enough to get the beginner blogger started in more creative and semantic uses of all the code the Web allows us to use.

I will close with a warning: Just as it was a mistake to misuse the old school style elements to add meaning to a Web page, so it is also a mistake to use the new school semantic elements to add style to a page. If there is something on a page which needs to be bold (perhaps a symbol which doesn’t show up well enough by default), don’t wrap it with STRONG just for its default visual effect — does the symbol really need to be emphasized for blind readers? No, instead you should use the fallback element of SPAN in a manner similar to this: <span class="bold">text to be bold but *not* emphasized</span>.

Ultimately, your markup should contain only semantic and structural elements; if someone were to view your site without any styles applied to it, the semantic and structural tags should be enough to still convey your thoughts. All the fancy style definitions should be stored externally in a style sheet.

It takes some getting used to in order to speedily write for the Web with semantics in mind, but it is worth it. The payoff is not only a more meaningfully coded site, but your code will almost always be cleaner and more readily understood.

Further Reading

• “Semantic HTML”
• “Semantic vs. Presentational HTML”
• “Writing Semantic HTML”
• “Semantically Correct HTML”

Leaders get the limelight, the book deals, and the wide-eyed acolytes, but the kingdom of God is innervated by unsung heroes. Anyone serious about seeing new churches grow would give his right arm for people like Dorcas. AJ Vanderhorst

And I like the name “Kingdom Front,” but after having lived with it for some time, I’ve decided that I was only 50% right in choosing that name. An increasing number of posts here aren’t about the intersection of Scriptures & life at all but are instead about programming or some other geeky thing.

So with that in mind, I came up with what i think is the ideal solution: Kingdom Geek.

You don’t have to like it, though I hope you do, but I feel it best represents what I do here. I’m a Christian, I’m a geek, and so far as I can tell, the name hasn’t yet been taken. I was able to register KingdomGeek as my new Yahoo screenname even, which is exciting — good names are hard to register on Yahoo anymore. Feel free to add me to your contact list, if you’d like.

The name change may not be done in a thorough fashion; “Kingdom Front” may still be referenced in all sorts of places that will take a while to update. If you link here, would you be kind enough to update your links to reflect the new name? (Also, don’t link to me as “The Kingdom Front”; I’m just one geek among many within the Church, and I’m not claiming to be the geek in Jesus’ camp. “Kingdom Front” without any articles is just fine with me. :-)

What do you think? Like the new name? Or hate it?

The best religious inspiration is humor, not the hell-and-damnation stuff. Barb (or is it Mary?)

Religion might thrive on ear-pleasing humor; the same can never be said of true Christianity, for the source of our faith spoke a great deal about Hell & damnation. If we are being honest in fulfilling the Great Commission, teaching believers all that Jesus has taught us, then our message should be quite full of “the hell-and-damnation stuff.”

Fair enough, but did Christ not say that the preaching and believing of the Gospel was just the beginning, that discipleship ought to take place, that all which He has taught should be communicated to others? Did Paul not state that the whole of Scriptures was profitable for edification?

I agree that using propagandist tactics to stir up controversy and attract the unsaved into churches is a stupid move; I disagree that elders should not be teaching the flock about sex — the dangers and the joys thereof. In teaching the whole counsel of God, are they just to skip the Song of Solomon, or is there an unwritten rule that they cannot teach that book without hyper-spiritualizing everything into referring to either Yahweh & Israel or Christ & the Church?

If elders aren’t teaching the flock about sex (and if the flock are in turn not passing the same values to their children), who do you think is going to be teaching them about it?

Something to think about.

Okay, now that you’ve got your blog hooked up with avatars, making use of WordPress’ built in gravatars feature… Now what?

So your avatars are 96 pixels square… but what if that’s way too big (or small)?

And what about users who don’t have a Gravatar account yet… Do they have to be content receiving a bland default image? Isn’t the point of avatars to make users visually uniquely identifiable?

Size Doesn’t Matter

Unless you have already tweaked it on your own, the avatars code in your comments.php file should still look like this: <?php echo get_avatar($comment); ?>

And that code outputs avatars which are 96 pixels square. But let’s be honest, you want more choice than that. Luckily for you, that choice exists, and it’s as easy as dropping a number into our get_avatar() call.

• Want 16 pixel avatars (the same size as favicon / bookmark icons)?
  <?php echo get_avatar($comment, 16); ?>
• Want 32 pixel avatars?
  <?php echo get_avatar($comment, 32); ?>
• Want 64 pixel avatars?
  <?php echo get_avatar($comment, 64); ?>
• Want 80 pixel avatars?
  <?php echo get_avatar($comment, 80); ?>
• Want 512 pixel avatars (this is the max size)?
  <?php echo get_avatar($comment, 512); ?>

Easy, no? I’m not sure why you would ever want to use avatars that are 512 pixels square, but the option is there. I prefer anything from 80 to 100 myself, but the layout and feel of your site may require something much smaller or even a bit bigger. Don’t be afraid to experiment or get feedback from your readers regarding what they like best. Remember, you have the luxury of reading all of your content and comments via the admin panel; your readers are the ones who will be on the site reading, and they will be face to face with the avatars much more than you are.

Daring Defaults…

…because in all honesty, this image gets just a tiny bit old:

The good folks at Gravatar & WordPress, however, have provided us a super easy way to switch that image out for something else entirely.

Again, we’ll be tweaking the same bit of avatar code, and we’ll be assuming a default size of 96 pixels; however, this time, we’ll be adding something: <?php echo get_avatar($comment, 96, $default); ?>. It is that third added parameter, $default, that we’ll be playing with.

First, I’ll show you how to add any image you want as the default avatar (best results will be achieved with a square image). Like the gray silhouette image above, your chosen default image will be shown for anyone who does not have a gravatar linked to the email address they are using while commenting.

<?php echo get_avatar($comment, 96, 'http://address_to_image/'); ?>

Yes, it really is that simple. Say, for instance, you want all of your default-avatar commentators to be reminded that, even though they do not have a gravatar, they can still live long and prosper, use this code:

<?php echo get_avatar($comment, 96, 'http://fellowship-hall.com/images/avatars/gallery/Star%20Trek%20-%20TOS/Spock5.gif'); ?>

The result? It’s beautiful:

Suppose, though, that you don’t want the majority of your commentators to have the same avatar; you want avatars — even though they are default — to be uniquely theirs. Well, have it your way with one of the following three options (again, assuming a 96 pixel size, which you are free to adjust as needed):

• Wavatars:
  <?php echo get_avatar($comment, 96, 'wavatar'); ?>
• MonsterIDs:
  <?php echo get_avatar($comment, 96, 'monsterid'); ?>
• Identicons:
  <?php echo get_avatar($comment, 96, 'identicon'); ?>

You may be wondering what these options look like, and understandably so! For your pleasure, then, I coded up this quick little demonstration page which shows off 100 of each type of gravatar (fair warning that it may take a while to load for dial-up users as there are 300 images total which will be loading).

The beauty of this method is that the wavatar, monsterID, or identicon which is generated for a user is generated from the unique hash of their email address. In other words, no matter how many sites they comment on which are using, for example, identicon avatars, their avatar will look the same!

And because collisions (or duplicates) of hashes are so rare, no two users should ever have the same default avatar show up if you choose to use one of those three methods.

Wrap Up

I have heard talk that in the next major version of WordPress (2.6), the option to select wavatars, monsterIDs, or identicons may be built in to the Settings -> Discussion panel of the admin area; if that is the case, perhaps we may also some day see an option for selecting the size as well. If those things come to pass, you’re welcome to ignore this post as it will no longer be relevant.

Still, until then, I hope this has given you some ideas of how easily you can spice up the avatars of your site, setting them apart from other sites which may be using strictly vanilla avatars.

I didn’t even touch style sheets, either, which can be used to add borders and all sorts of other effects to your avatars. Once you get into styling, though, the possibilities are quite limitless, and I simply invite you to dive into the wealth of information about styling images available via Google!

Avatars are a very neat feature of message boards; without even the slightest bit of looking for (much less, reading) a user’s name next to a post, the avatar announces who made the post. It’s no secret that an image is more easily recognizable than is text — even if the image is made up of text! If you’re not sure what I mean, think of the McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Burger King, or Disney brands, and you’ll know that logos and symbols (which, in a way, are companies’ avatars) are powerful recognition tools. The Golden Arches wouldn’t be hurt too much by not having “McDonald’s” written beneath them, nor does the tri-circle silhouette of Mickey Mouse leave any doubt as to what company is responsible.

But message boards aren’t the only places that users are leaving their marks online these days. We live in the era of the blog, and with millions of places online to post comments, how can a person do so in a manner that makes them as easily identifiable to as many people as possible, just as avatars allowed on message boards?

Gravatars are an answer (among several) to that; using the Gravatar service, you can associate an avatar to an email address, just as you would associate an avatar with a username on a message board. From that point on, any time you comment on a gravatar-enabled blog using that email address, your gravatar will show up.

And whatever your gravatar may be — whether it is a picture of you, a picture of your cat, or your favorite quote done up in glitter — it will start showing up all across the Web, as often you comment.

There are two inherent beauties to gravatars as well: If you have posted a lot of comments on a site that wasn’t gravatar-enabled but they turn it on sometime in the future, your gravatar will show up on all your past comments automatically. Likewise, if you ever change which gravatar is associated with your email address, that change will automatically take place across the Web.

You already run a WordPress blog, though, and you’re even savvy enough to be running version 2.5 or newer. Kudos. And you say you want your comments to be gravatar-enabled? Well, let’s get you started!

Enabling Gravatars

1. Enter your blog admin area, and browse to the Settings page.
2. Browse to the Discussion sub-page, and scroll to the bottom to find the “Avatars” settings.
3. You’ll want to select “Enable Avatars” if it isn’t already selected.
4. Choose whichever rating is most appropriate for your blog. Be aware that if your blog is ever manually reviewed for a Web filtering service, your blog may be flagged mature on account of R or X rated avatars if they are spotted in your comments.
5. Click “Save Changes” at the bottom, and breathe a sigh of relief… You’re done!

… Wait… Gravatars still don’t show up in your comments? Didn’t you enable them? You did save the changes, right? … Hmmm… Oh, that’s right: there’s a tiny bit of code that you need to add to your theme’s comments file! Well, no time like the present…

1. Browse to the Design page of your admin area.
2. Browse to the Theme Editor sub-page, and select “Comments (comments.php)” from the list of files on the right.
3. Locate the comment loop; it begins with a bit of code that most likely looks like this: <?php foreach ($comments as $comment) { ?>
4. Within the comment loop, notice two bits of code:
   • <?php comment_author_link(); ?> — echoes the comment author’s name, linking it to his or her website, if one was provided.
   • <?php comment_text(); ?> — echoes the content of the comment itself.

I point out those two bits of code because knowing where they fall in the code gives you a general idea of how the comment is laid out. It helps to know the layout if we’re going to be inserting an image into each comment, right?

1. I prefer to place the avatars code on a new line just prior to <?php comment_text(); ?>, but you are free to experiment with different placements.
2. The most basic code to add to enable avatars looks like this: <?php echo get_avatar($comment); ?>
3. Save the file, and check your blog to see the results!

Be careful not to paste that code between any <?php ?> tags which may already be present in the code. If you notice errors or layout problems (keeping in mind, though, we haven’t applied style to the avatars yet), take note of what the error indicates and see if relocating the avatar code resolves the issue.

Okay, now, after all that, you should finally have a gravatars-enabled blog! Go ahead, browse around the various comments you have received and see who does or doesn’t have a gravatar; anyone who doesn’t will be given a spiffy default image so that they won’t feel left out.

Basic Styling

If you’re lucky, your theme may already have styling in place for avatars. Basically, if you’re looking at your avatars and they look just fine to you, excellent!

However, if the avatars could use a little jazzing up, here is a bit of style you can add to your theme’s style sheet.

1. Return to the Theme Editor and select either style.css or custom.css (if your theme supports it) from the file list.
2. At the bottom of that file (or elsewhere if you are maintaining some level of organization within the file), insert the following code:
   • If you want avatars to float to the right of the comment: img.avatar { float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em; }
   • If you want avatars to float to the left of the comment: img.avatar { float: left; margin: 0 1em 1em 0; }
3. Save the file, clear your browser’s cache, and visit (again) a post which has comments.
4. Check how the avatars look, and feel free to adjust the styling as desired. The limit is your own imagination!

Wrap Up

And that’s it! You should now have gravatars enabled on your blog, and they should be styled just enough to fit into your theme.

But what if you don’t want gravatars as small as 80 pixels square? Or what if 80 pixels is far too huge? Maybe you feel the default image is, well, ugly. Stay tuned!

Update

I dropped the ball on the “most basic code” bit above; I left out a very necessary piece of code which caused the code I did post, if used, to only show the default avatar. My bad, and my apologies.

Rather than <?php echo get_avatar(); ?> you will want to use this instead: <?php echo get_avatar($comment); ?>

Again, sorry!

Moving right along…

The following is meant to test WordPress’ handling of code posted via the Visual Editor.

Instructions

• Copy the contents of example.txt
• In the Write Post screen of WordPress, switch to the HTML view (required as we are pasting in direct HTML).
• Paste the previously copied contents into the post.
• Switch back to the Visual Editor — everything should look as it is meant to regarding spacing, characters, and so on.
• Save the post (publishing it is unnecessary) or let it auto-save, and then preview it.
• Go down through the examples, checking WordPress’ work.

Examples

Basic HTML: <a href="http://example.tld/?foo=1&bar=2">Link's Text</a>
Explanation: Angle brackets & ampersands should be output to the browser as encoded entities; single & double quotes should not be made curly.

Basic entities: ... -- --- " ' & < >
Explanation: The characters should be directly output to the browser (or encoded for such output, as in the case of the ampersand). Three dots should not be made into an ellipsis; double and triple dashes should not be converted into en or em dashes; quotes should not be made curly; ampersands and angle brackets should be encoded to maintain (X)HTML validity.

Block example (PRE tag wrapping our CODE tag):

<a href="http://example.tld/?foo=1&bar=2">Link's Text</a>

	...    --    ---    "    '    &    <    >

As above in the HTML & entities examples, all quotes and symbols should appear properly, as they do when seen via the Visual Editor. In the three blank lines, tabs should be preserved (2 in the first blank line, then 3, then 2 again). Prior to the final line of characters, a tab should be preserved. Lastly, between each character example in the final line, four ordinary spaces should be preserved.

Finally, here are the examples again marked up using shortcodes in order to test such plugins (if you do not have a [ code ] shortcode enabled, ignore the following:

Basic HTML: <a href="http://example.tld/?foo=1&bar=2">Link's Text</a>

Basic entities: ... -- --- " ' & < >

Block example (PRE tag wrapping our CODE tag). Disclosure: For this final example, I am not using a [ pre ] shortcode; the Visual Editor does not recognize text wrapped in [ pre ] tags as preformatted, and so it strips out linebreaks and tabs. However, the Visual Editor provides an easy enough means of making text preformatted, so I’m using the PRE HTML tag in this final example:

<a href="http://example.tld/?foo=1&bar=2">Link's Text</a> 		 		

	...    --    ---    "    '    &    <    >

Most of you likely recognize the above painting; it is Head of Christ by Warner Sallman, and it’s about as ubiquitous as could be — I see it pop up everywhere.

Jesus is shown to be a Caucasian man of fair features. Blue eyes. Dirty blonde hair.¹ Full, well-groomed beard. And, dare I say it, handsome.

And that’s certainly the common perception of Jesus, at least in America (and perhaps most of Western culture). With only slight modifications, Jesus was brought to the big screen as interpreted by Jim Caviezel in The Passion of the Christ:

And again we see Christ portrayed as a fair featured Caucasian with a full-beard and flowing hair (albeit brunette this time). Caviezel’s Jesus was brown-eyed rather than blue but was still well within the “accepted image” of Jesus.

This portrayal of Jesus is by no means new either; here’s an example from almost 1,000 years ago:²

Back then, Jesus was still portrayed as a light-skinned individual with flowing brown hair, full beard, and brown eyes — not much different from Caviezel’s Jesus, except back then the portrayal wasn’t as apparently handsome.

Perhaps as culture has become increasingly focused upon outward beauty, our perception of Christ has been modified accordingly. As many skeptics to Christianity are apt to point out, people create God in their own image; I’m inclined to agree. Far too many professed Christians worship a God & Christ modeled more after themselves than the Scriptures describe. This is unsurprising; the more alike to us God is, the fewer things for which He’ll judge us!

Yet Christianity does not leave us the option of creating God or His Christ in our own image. Idolatry and the making of images is strongly forbidden by the Scriptures:

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. ⁵You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, ⁶but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.” Exodus 20:4-6, ESV

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, ²³and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Romans 1:22, 23, ESV

There are probably a thousand ways to justify the use of images of Christ in worship, but it’s something with which I am absolutely uncomfortable. By doing so, am I exchanging “the glory of the immortal God” with an image of a mortal man which may or may not be what Jesus actually looked like? Knowing how much God absolutely hates idolatry, it is frankly something I’d rather not even risk.

Still, images of Jesus are pervasive throughout culture — both “sacred” and “secular,” if such a distinction exists.

People have done so throughout the history of Christianity, and we’ll continue to do so till He returns. Some have even applied science to the question, arriving at this conclusion:³

The beard is still present, but now Jesus is presented with much more Middle Eastern features — most notably darker skin. His features are noticeably less fair than in the more popular representations. Also of note is the length of this Jesus’ hair; it is considerably shorter and much more likely to be a realistic interpretation; most males in Roman society at that time (of which Judea was a part) would have sported a Caesar cut due to the influence of the emperor. Jesus wasn’t a long-haired counter-cultural rebel as often assumed — He was far more counter to the Jewish religious leaders than He ever was to the Roman authorities who admitted to finding no fault in Him.

Still, the above image is just speculation, still an attempt to depict the Almighty as a mortal man. And as accurate as it may be in depicting what Jesus looked like while walking the earth, it is inevitably flawed in probably substantial ways.

So what do we know about what Jesus looked like?

• Jesus had a beard, for hair was ripped from it during His torture prior to His death according to the Prophet.⁴
• Jesus was not an attractive man. The Prophet foresaw Jesus as a man of “no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.”⁵ This is hardly surprising, for beauty is fleeting & empty;⁶ this is hard for us to imagine in a day when a person’s popularity is so dependent on how well they appeal to the desires of the eyes.⁷

That’s about all of which I’m aware regarding His appearance during the Incarnation, prior to His death. The Prophet also tells us that during the beatings and torture prior to His death, Jesus’ face was marred and disfigured than anyone’s face ever was,⁸ but that describes what Jesus looked like only for so brief a time.

(Isn’t it interesting that Isaiah described what Christ looked like more so than any of the Gospel or Epistle writers did? I find that interesting anyway. Any ideas why that may have been?)

If you’ve read this far, you’re probably disappointed that I haven’t really shared much of what Jesus looked like, and you’re right — I haven’t. I don’t have an answer to the question of what Jesus looked like, but would you be happy with an answer of what Jesus looks like today?

Apostle John gives a glorious glimpse of the Christ in power & glory, as He is in Heaven today and as He will be when He returns to Earth triumphant over His enemies.

• Revelation 1:13 — Jesus is described as the “son of man,” a messianic title, and we are told He wears a long robe with a golden sash around His chest. That is what He wears.
• Revelation 1:14 — We are told that His hair is white, “like white wool, like snow.” The glisten and intensity of His eyes is described as being “like a flame of fire.”
• Revelation 1:15 — His feet were like “burnished bronze, refined in a furnace.” The choice of metal may imply that His skin is bronze in color; that metal is used at all may reflect the strength of His feet and legs. This verse also tells us His voice is “like the roar of many waters.” When he speaks, Creation listens.
• Revelation 1:16 — What He speaks is as a sharp two-edged sword, which is symbolic of the Word of God, which cuts asunder the soul and the spirit. Whatsoever Christ speaks, it is God’s Word. We are also told His face shines like the sun in full strength.

It’s possible that the description of Jesus here is only meant in an allegorical nature, but it’s unlikely. Compare some of the descriptions to how He appeared during the Transfiguration;⁹ there His face literally shown and His apparel was literally white. I see no reason that the descriptions of Revelation 1 shouldn’t describe the resurrected Christ in all His glory.

But wait, there’s more! Revelation 19:11-16 gives us a few more details of He who is called Faithful and True. Here He is riding a white horse followed by His armies; He is crowned with many crowns, and His eyes are still as a fire. His clothing is still white robes, only now they are dipped in blood — either of His saints whom He will avenge or His own by which He has saved His followers. Across His robes and down His thigh is written His title, “King of kings and Lord of lords.”

Out of His mouth still comes the Word of God, only then it will effect the throwing down of the nations, which He shall rule with a rod of iron, slaying all those who will not rule over Him.¹⁰

Certainly Jesus is the Good Shepherd. He overflows with compassion and love, for He is the embodiment thereof. Yet what does He look like? The most descriptive account we have is of a blood-stained Warrior King which ought to strike fear into the hearts of all those unprepared for His imminent return.

Get the effeminate and handsome Jesus portraits out of your mind, and make sure you are worshiping He who is the Image and the Glory of God Almighty.

1. It looked brunette to me until Alicia informed me otherwise; who am I to argue with the art school graduate?
2. Christ Pantocrator (or, “Christ the All-Mighty”), a mosaic from the Church of Daphne in Athens, Greece.
3. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/25/face.jesus/index.html
4. Isaiah 50:6.
5. Isaiah 53:2.
6. Proverbs 31:30.
7. 1 John 2:16.
8. Isaiah 52:14.
9. Matthew 17:2.
10. Luke 19:27.

If you said that they are all hoaxes, you’re absolutely right. If you’ve bought into the idea that gays are born that way, you may want to reconsider. (Thanks, Chester Street.)

That said, Mr. Hugh McBride (a fellow Hallian) brings to light a number of what I think to be good points, the biggest of which is while we worry about Mormon polygamists (allegedly) fawn and pawn over underage girls in their society, fifteen year old Miley Cyrus gets away with posing half bare naked in the same magazine which in the past has featured, for instance, nude photos of pregnant Britney Spears. Excellent footsteps to be following in, Ms. G-rated.

I just want to shake my head. “Role model,” they call her…

1. Concrete evidence that Christ remains in the grave. Simply stating that “the dead do not rise” is not a valid argument; Christ’s resurrection in defeat of death was by definition an exception of the norm. As Paul said, if Christ is not risen, then we believe in vain and ought to be pitied.
2. Something which contradicts the Orthodox Christian worldview. This one’s tricky because it seems like everyone would have something which seems to contradict the Christian faith. The problem of evil is perhaps the most famous example, yet evil (specifically Satan & sin) fit the Christian worldview perfectly and are necessary within it. Evolution and the big bang are other answers which may be offered. Fair enough, but that unbelievers would come to contradictory understandings of the universe is foreseen and accepted in biblical theology; such things are by no means contradictory.

So yes, there is evidence which I would accept that would make me rethink my faith; however, I can stand very steadfastly in my faith knowing that the object of my faith is He who was dead and is alive forevermore.

As you’re reading this, notice that (unless I sometime in the future change the style ;-) the paragraphs have no intention on their first lines; open most any book, though, and you’ll see that paragraphs are generally indented. I’m not entirely sure what the typographical reasons behind line indenting in aside from simple aesthetics (in other words, it just looks better), but that isn’t the question I’m here to answer. So, onward: How can we indent the first lines in WordPress?

Good question. And it’s one easily answered, I think. Actually, there are two answers. The first is a stopgap solution that certainly works but it’s less than ideal for a variety of reasons; the biggest of these reasons is that the solution involves inline styling, which is just bad semantics. The second solution is a more permanent, much more flexible solution which involves adding the indention code to your blog’s design’s style sheet. The big advantage of the second solution over the first is that if you ever want to change the style of the indented paragraphs, you only have to change the code in one place (the style sheet) rather than in every post wherein you used indented paragraphs.

Did you notice the previous paragraph was indented? Thanks to the stopgap solution, I was able to quickly add the indent in to show off what we’re talking about here. Now, what is that solution?

Well, I usually write using the “Visual” tab of the editor in WordPress 2.5; to do my text indention, I had to switch over to the “HTML” tab briefly. I had already typed my paragraph, so it was simply a matter of wrapping sufficiently styled P tags around it, such that the final result looks like this:

<p style="text-indent: 2em;">Good question. And it's one easily answered, I think. Actually, there are two answers. The first is a stopgap solution that certainly works but it's less than ideal for a variety of reasons; the biggest of these reasons is that the solution involves inline styling, which is just bad semantics. The second solution is a more permanent, much more flexible solution which involves adding the indention code to your blog's design's style sheet. The big advantage of the second solution over the first is that if you ever want to change the style of the indented paragraphs, you only have to change the code in one place (the style sheet) rather than in every post wherein you used indented paragraphs.</p>

That’s all there is to it! Simply encase your paragraphs in styled P tags as I have done above, and your paragraphs will indent on the first lines. Nice and simple!

If, however, you want a more permanent solution, you’ll want to open up your design’s style sheet, usually named style.css. Your theme may support a custom.css or some other upgrade-proof style sheet that you can tweak without worrying about future theme upgrades; if it does, edit it rather than style.css.

Then, on a new line at the bottom, insert code similar to this — you can format it similarly to the rest of the code in the file if you so choose:

p {
	text-indent: 2em;
}

After saving that file and refreshing your browser cache, you should notice that all P tags are now indented on your site. If this causes indention in places you don’t want, you’ll want to be more specific in your styling; isolate the name of the container which holds your post content and add it to the style so that only paragraphs within post content are styled. For WordPress’ default Kubrick theme, you could use this code:

.entry p {
	text-indent: 2em;
}

You’re encouraged to try your own variations; if you break the style, all you have to do is remove that bit of styling to revert your changes!

And if anyone needs any more help (especially you, christine), just drop a comment.

Recent conversation around the workplace has called to mind a few notes I scratched down probably six years ago in hopes that I’d some day give some attention to the subject.

Today, that piece of paper is covered with all sorts of things — doodling, Morse Code dashes & dots, an assortment of numbers, some math, the letters “p” and “pm,” and and tick marks counting something lost to the passage of time (”III II I I II I”).

I titled the page, “Were Ruth and David Homosexuals?” For years, the only content attached to that question were the verse references in question: Ruth 1:16, 17; 2:10, 11 and 1 Samuel 18:3, 4; 20:41; 2 Samuel 1:26.

I’m sure that back then I had stumbled across some website making the claim that homosexuality was okay because David & Ruth apparently were. What that website was, I have no idea, and apparently keeping accurate citations (or citations of any kind, for that matter) wasn’t a practice I had taken to heart back then.

Before I go anywhere with this, let me just get out of the way that I do not believe homosexuality is an acceptable practice; it is forbidden not only in the Law of Moses but also in Romans 1, and it renders one as guilty before God as idolatry, lying, adultery, or murder would. I consider those things to be nonnegotiable, but you are welcome to discuss it if you’d like.

Naomi & Ruth

Here are the relevant verses as noted above (English Standard Version):

But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. ¹⁷Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the Lord do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you.” Ruth 1:16, 17

Then she fell on her face, bowing to the ground, and said to him, “Why have I found favor in your eyes, that you should take notice of me, since I am a foreigner?” ¹¹But Boaz answered her, “All that you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband has been fully told to me, and how you left your father and mother and your native land and came to a people that you did not know before. Ruth 2:10, 11

In light of the first two verses quoted, there are people who claim Ruth & Naomi’s relationship was akin go a married couple’s.

However, nowhere in the Book of Ruth is it even hinted at that Naomi & Ruth shared a sexual or otherwise physical relationship, thereby removing homosexuality from the equation.

Actually, what we do see are two women — who, according to the second set of verses, were in-laws — who were devoted family. In the opening verses of Ruth, we read that Naomi was married to Elimelech, and they had two sons, Mahlon and Chilion.

While sojourning in the foreign country of Moab, Mahlon and Chilion took wives, one of whom was Ruth. By the time we reach verse 5, we find that Elimelech, Mahlon, and Chilion had all died, leaving Naomi with her two daughters-in-law, Ruth and Orpah.

In verse 7, Naomi begins to return to her homeland of Judah, and in verse 8 she urges both her daughters-in-law to return to their natural mothers. From verses 9 through 13, the daughters resist leaving Naomi, while Naomi bears her hearts to them, desiring that they return where they should be able to marry, for Naomi would be incapable of bearing them husbands again, and even if she could, would they really wait for them to grow up (v. 13)?

Ultimately, Orpah caves to Naomi’s pleas and returns to Moab. Ruth, however, clings to her mother-in-law (vv. 14, 15).

There is a familial devotion expressed here which is all but so often lost or neglected in our world, and to our shame Ruth & Naomi are not even related by blood! Actually, if you really want something to think about, the relationship between Naomi and her two daughters-in-law show us the validity of the “in-law” family; if marriage is but a mere social contract, then the “in-law” family is but a formality, a legal stipulation to the marriage contract. However, if what the Bible says is true and that marriage takes two people and unites them as one in the eyes of our Heavenly Father, then the “in-law” family is just as much a family as the natural family is.

In other words, Ruth shows fervent devotion to Naomi because she is viewing her as her de facto mother.

Later in the Book of Ruth (most of chapters 3 and 4), we see that the relationship between Ruth & Boaz blossom into a marriage (4:13). All of this was initiated by Naomi, who told her daughter-in-law to follow Boaz to where he sleeps, to uncover his feet, and to lay down with him (3:4).¹ And all of this culminates with the birth of Obed to Ruth and Boaz (4:13, 17), a child which it seems was adopted by Noami, a terrific blessing which brought untold fulfillment to her life after having lost her husband and two sons already.

This child Obed would eventually become the grandfather of the mighty King David; what a legacy! And what a segue, for we now turn to David and Jonathan.

David & Jonathan

Here are the relevant verses as noted above (English Standard Version):

Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. ⁴And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt. 1 Samuel 18:3, 4

And as soon as the boy had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap and fell on his face to the ground and bowed three times. And they kissed one another and wept with one another, David weeping the most. 1 Samuel 20:41

I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing the love of women. 2 Samuel 1:26

It is a mark of shame against our the hearts of men that the accounts of Jonathan and David could be read and that “They must have been gay” is the thought that comes to mind. Sinners, for whatever reasons, want badly to be justified by the Bible in what they do — murderers claim they received a vision from God, dictators claim they’re inaugurating God’s kingdom, racists and bigots claim they are righteously judging, and homosexuals find the closest thing they can to unpunished homosexuality in the Scriptures.

Bear in mind — always bear in mind — that if someone comes to you rejecting the teaching of Romans 1 about unnatural sexuality, ² chances are that it’s because they have willingly exchanged the truth of God for a lie, God having given them over to lustful impurity.³

What then is going on between David and Jonathan?

Well, if you ask me,⁴ it seems as though we are getting a glimpse of what real friendship is all about.

We see that a covenant or bond was formed between the two men and that they loved each other as themselves. Does not Proverbs 17:17 tell us that a friend loves at all times? Does not the Law which David and Jonathan live under⁵ call everyone to love others even as they loved themselves?

Jonathan’s act of stripping himself of his robes and vestments and placing them upon David was symbolic, not by any means erotic; Jonathan was the son of Saul, the then king of Israel. His robes were royal. By placing them upon David, he was declaring his loyalty to David as the next rightful king of Israel, a fact which he states very plainly in 1 Samuel 23:17.

We also see David and Jonathan sharing an apparently very emotional moment. Sadly, and again to our culture’s shame, the expression of sadness via crying is seen as a sign of weakness. Not only do we often hear “big girls don’t cry,” but how many men do you know who honestly see no shame in expressing sadness or grief — either in themselves or others? That’s another topic altogether which could easily take over this post if I let it, but here are two close friends who are as brothers to one another… They are on the verge of going separate ways, and they have no assurance that they’ll ever see each other again.

Wouldn’t that make you sad? I know it certainly would me, and we can see that it did David as well; the King James Version states that they weeped and that David “exceeded.” He didn’t just cry more, he exceedingly cried more. We would expect that, for David had more that he was leaving — a wife and family, friends, the sanctuary and service of God, and so on.

After some time has passed, Jonathan was slain, which brings us to the third relevant passage quoted above. David in mourning Jonathan’s passing praises their friendship.

David calls Jonathan brother, for that they certainly were as David had wed Jonathan’s sister. Yet Proverbs 18:24 tells us that there is “a friend who sticks closer than a brother.” Likewise the Law mentions a “friend who is as your own soul”⁶ It’s almost as if the biblical idea of a “soul mate” has less to do with marriage and more to do with a best friend, which is interesting to say the least: marriage partners are described as being “one flesh” while a certain friend may be “as your own soul.”

We haven’t quoted it yet, but 1 Samuel 18:1 says in no uncertain terms that “the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.” Any thoughts on that?

While mourning for Jonathan and praising his friend, David confesses that the love Jonathan had for him was wonderful, surpassing the love of women. David was married to both Ahinoam and Abigail, and the Targum⁷ renders the passage as “more than the love of two women.”⁸

This isn’t “physical love” as would be required be anyone wishing homosexuality to be read into the lives of these men; the sexual act is never referred to as “love making” and is never equated with love in the Scriptures. Rather, to love someone is to be selfless toward him or her. Give 1 Corinthians 13 a good read over for what it means to love.

That Jonathan loved David even more than his wives is a great testament to the friendship the two shared.

In Conclusion

I’ve written more than I had originally planned and more than I probably should have — there is great value in brevity, I’ve learned. Still, I hope I have shown that neither Ruth and Naomi nor David and Jonathan were homosexuals, despite whatever other faults they may have possessed (David at one point being a lustful, adulterating murderer, for example).

To warp or twist the lives of these “heroes of the Bible” is to do them a great injustice and does little more than to show the biblical illiteracy of the one doing the warping.

What we do see from the two pairs, though, are things from which we may learn. In both instances, we see family devotion across marriages — Naomi was Ruth’s mother-in-law; David was Jonathan’s brother-in-law — and we also see what friendship ought to be like.

Friendship is by no means shallow. It is a selfless bond with another person with whom you ought to express love as laid out in 1 Corinthians 13. This kind of friendship is becoming altogether too hard to find nowadays; if you have found a friend with whom your soul is “knit,” count your blessings, and thank the Lord for knitting you both together.

1. It’s a good thing Ruth had never read I Kissed Dating Goodbye, or she wouldn’t have been caught dead spending the night at the feet of someone who wasn’t her husband! Kind of an interesting situation Naomi has Ruth getting into here… …With a closer look, though, Naomi has already pointed out that Boaz is kin and by right of Deuteronomy 25:5 should become Ruth’s husband.
2. Romans 1:26, 27.
3. Romans 1:24, 25.
4. You are asking me, right?
5. Leviticus 19:18.
6. Deuteronomy 13:6.
7. An ancient Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.
8. See John Gill’s commentary.

May our attentions, our praise, our love, gratefulness, and adoration ever fall upon the blessed Redeemer Jesus Christ, the only hope for this cursed Earth.