Of my friend, I can only say this: Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most . . . human.

I came across a list of "10 Movies It's Okay for Guys to Cry at." The list is all wrong, but I thought the concept was interesting.

Here are the movies it's okay for a man to cry while watching and still be considered a man (i.e., his Man Card is not put in jeopardy).

In no particular order ... The Top 20 Movies during which Men May Cry:

1. Old Yeller - This is beyond dispute. If fact, there's something wrong with you if you didn't cry when Old Yeller got shot.

2. Rocky II - When he says, "Yo, Adrian! I did it!" ... Niagra Falls, baby.

3. The Green Mile - Knowing the end of an innocent man.

4. Schindler's List - Many moments, of course.

5. Forrest Gump - When Forrest reads the letter at Jenny's grave ... oh yeah, touching.

6. The Champ - Little Ricky Schroeder crying, saying, "Wake him up, Jackie." Maybe it was because I was a kid, but that left quite an impression.

7. Where the Red Fern Grows - If you've seen it you know, especially if you're a dog lover.

8. One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest - Great movie and even greater book, but seeing what Chief does prior to his exit is quite moving.

9. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan - The touching scene between Kirk & Spock centered around sacrifice.

10. Men of honor - When DeNiro orders Cuba Gooding, Jr. to walk in his suit.

11. The Passion of the Christ - Never have I been so moved by a movie, especially one I could never watch again.

12. City of Angels - The end ... I won't spoil it for you, but it's good.

13. Excalibur - Being caught by the Lady of the Lake at the end.

14. The Mission - The ending, naturally.

15. Pay It Forward - The ending, of course.

16. Remember the Titans - When they win for their fallen teammate. One of the best movies of all time in its own right.

17. Family Man - Late at night when he ponders his last moments with his kids.

18. Butterfly Effect (Director's cut, not sloogey version) - How Devon brings about the end of the/his narrative.

19. Somewhere in Time - Richard Collier's departure and denouement.

20. ? ? ?

No offense to Oilcan, but An Officer and a Gentleman didn't make the list, nor did Terms of Endearment. Beyond that, I'm open to suggestions for number 20.

Luke's got more guts than brains.

Friday saw the passing of Paul Newman, dead at age 83.

My favorite Paul Newman movies:
3. The Hustler
2. Slap Shot
1. Cool Hand Luke

In his honor I plan to watch Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, for the first time.

For your amusement/edification, I share some great Cool Hand Luke quotes ...

• Takin' it off here, boss.
• Babalugats, we got a bet here.
• He's called, "Captain." You call the rest of us, "Boss," you hear?
• Cuttin' the heads off of parkin' meters, Captain. We never had one of them.
• In case you get rabbit in your blood and you decide to take off for home, you get some bonus time and leg chains to slow you down.
• Any man forgets his number spends a night in the box.
• Any man loud talkin' spends a night in the box. (etc.)
• You don't have a name until Dragline gives you one.
• He back-sassed a free man. They got their rules.
• Anything so innocent ... and built like that just got to be named, "Lucille."
• Oh, boy, she knows EXACTLY what she's doin'.
• Yeah, well ... sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
• I can eat 50 eggs.
• Luke, what did you say 50 for? Why couldn't you say 35 or 39? It seemed a nice round number.
• What we've got here is failure to communicate.
• Some men you just can't reach.
• I'm shakin' it, boss.
• A quick look, but no memorizin' job.
• You run one time, you got yourself a set of chains. You run twice, you got yourself two sets. You ain't goin' to need no third set, 'cause you're goin' to get your mind right.
• Wish you'd stop bein' so good to me, Captain.
• Callin' it your job, don't make it right.
• Stop feedin' off me!
• Luke's got more guts than brains.
• What's your dirt doin' in his ditch?
• I never planned anything in my life.
• He's a natural born world-shaker.

Tough guys don't do math. Tough guys fry chicken for a living.

Contrary to what you might think, we send our children to (heathen) public elementary school.

We've actually dabbled with a Christian private school, but found it a less appealing option for a variety of reasons. So far, we've had very few complaints and have been blessed with great teachers and principals.

Yet, I do have a complaint. What's up with my kids having homework and repeatedly having to cover stuff like how to get out of our house during a fire or how to identify hazards in our home, etc.?

Apparently, per my wife, they also teach bicycle safety and how to brush your teeth.

Teach them academic stuff, for crying out loud. I can teach my kids stop, drop, and roll.

Am I wrong or overreacting here?

No shirt. No shoes. No dice.

Sometimes it takes a few items to get me thinking, this time about modesty.

I saw this piece about a man fined $25 for walking topless on a public street. This seems odd, though it would be understandable if it was a woman walking topless.

Also, one of my kids asked me why I was not wearing a shirt around the house, to which I responded with, "That how I roll."

I was then asked, "How come girls can't go without a shirt?" To that I responded with, "Well, I guess that's just how our country rolls."

But thinking about modesty I wondered if Christians were more culturally dependent than we care to admit. I had addressed modesty before as being about more than just clothing, but I wonder particularly about clothing at this time.

Prior to the fall ...

And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
-Genesis 2:25

After the fall ...

Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.
-Genesis 3:7

We've been having trouble with these issues ever since. But are we culturally dependent on defining modesty? Should we be?

Did the Bible decree shirts optional for men? Did the Bible define different levels of modesty depending on venue?

Can we be guilty of hypocrisy if we decry "cultural relativism," but then say you can wear something on the beach, but not at the mall?

(HT Hough for the t-shirt pic)

There's been a slight change in the narrative, an unexpected twist, you might say.

The Cowboys beat the Packers for the first time at Lambeau Field Sunday night.

But I was most impressed with Terrell Owens. He impressed me in ways I never would have expected.

His numbers were pedestrian: 2 catches for 17 yards, no touchdowns, and 1 dropped ball.

BUT ...

1. Despite his lack of involvement and assumed frustration, you never saw Owens yelling or asking, "Why am I here?" or complaining in the least. The camera kept on him on the sidelines with the expectation we'd get some of that, but Owens restrained any personal frustration he might have been feeling.

2. Tony Romo threw an interception in the end zone and the safety had visions of running it back. He did for 61 yards, but it could have been much more. After getting knocked to the ground after the interception, Owens was the one who raced up the field and tackled the thief from behind. The bad guys only got a field goal out of that drive, but it certainly could have been more.

3. Felix Jones had a 60 yard touchdown run and on it Terrell Owens hustled down the field to block for him to make sure he made it into the end zone untouched. Another hustle play whereby he was working hard for the glory of another.

I was surprised we didn't hear Madden or Michaels mention these hustle plays, but they may not like Owens. Nonetheless, those plays contributed to a night where I was the most impressed with Terrell Owens that I've been.

I don't want to overly harsh in criticizing his previous corpus of work or overstate his performance in last night's game, but has Terrell Owens perhaps turned the corner in becoming a team player? If last night is any indication, I'd say he certainly has.

It's easy. It tastes alright, but it doesn't really provide you any nourishment.

Sometimes it's easier to have bad theology.

Recently, I was in a theological discussion with my oldest daughter, addressing her inquiry into why God doesn't save everybody.

I explained that in God's perfect plan He can do everything He wants to do, so He does (Ps 115:3; Job 42:2). But He has decided to do somethings for some people that He doesn't do for everyone. We didn't have time to get into common vs. special grace or whatnot, and I knew she felt the tension between our perceptions of what it means that God is good and our perceptions of what it means that God is all powerful.

There's a tension there that I think is biblical, but isn't easy for a 9 year old to comprehend.

It's akin to what Tommy Nelson said,

"If God is sovereign, He is powerful enough to eliminate evil. If He is good, He would. Since evil clearly exists, God must not be sovereign or He must not be good."

It must be nice to be among those who think God has done all He can or is doing all He can, but is limited.

Sometimes it's easier to have bad theology.

Like today in the backyard with my youngest playing with our dog, Rocky. She saw a cross and said, "Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins."

I said, "That's right. And then what happened?"

She said, "Then Jesus rose again. Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins and Jesus died for Rocky too."

At this point I'm thinking, "How nice it would be to be able to say, 'Of course, honey, Jesus died so Rocky could go to heaven' or say, "If Rocky believes in Jesus then he will be saved.'"

It probably wouldn't have hurt anything for our dog to undergo perpetual evangelism attempts, but I decided instead to explain to her the difference between humans being created in the image of God dogs just being ... well ... uh ... dogs.

I'm not sure she got all that, but I definitely found myself thinking, sometimes it's easier to have bad theology.

Obviously, you're not a golfer.

I had previously addressed the topic of the number of children required to meet biblical expectations (Three Shall Be the Number Counted and the Number Counted Shall Be Three, April 3, 2006).

If you missed it, you may want to read it for context, but I thought I would respond to a comment made on that post last week, particularly since my view has changed somewhat.

The (9/10/2008) comment:

"I really hope that this entire blog was meant humorously and not to offer spiritual advice of any kind. The idea of "net increase" is especially bizarre. You gave no consideration to the fact that successive generations will also likely bear children, so increasing in number would be cumulative in nature. Even if parents had a only one child, there is an increase. Simple math proves that. 2+1=3

The whole golf analogy is just silly. A birdie is one less than par, not one more! You make it seem as though there are penalties and rewards based on the number of children a couple has."

My response ...

Well, my original post starts with:

"Previously, I posted my suspicion of the modernistic notion of quantification (These Go to Eleven), partially so that when I posted this diatribe it would be taken in a light-hearted manner. So, before the "sub-par" golfers try to throw me under the bus, you may want to read the aforementioned post.

Okay, with that caveat made ... let me have some fun with it."

That being said, I will interact with the above criticisms.

"You gave no consideration to the fact that successive generations will also likely bear children, so increasing in number would be cumulative in nature. Even if parents had a only one child, there is an increase. Simple math proves that. 2+1=3"

Actually, that's not so, per very simple math. Take 8 couples, each producing one child. 16 people just produced 8. Those 8 pair up and produce 4 kids. Those 4 pair up and produce 2 kids. Those 2 pair up and produce 1 child.

So, in "successive generations" of having only 1 child the population decreases dramatically, as is seen in the above example where the population went from 16 to 1 in just 4 generations.

"The whole golf analogy is just silly. A birdie is one less than par, not one more!"

Well, the golf analogy works because a birdie is ONE BETTER than par.

"You make it seem as though there are penalties and rewards based on the number of children a couple has."

It had been quite a while since I read this piece, but reading it again, I think that's either an unfair accusation or misunderstanding of the post.

The children are themselves the reward, according to the post and according to Scripture (e.g., Ps 127:3-5).

Continuing with the trend of seriousness, I would be interested in hearing a biblical argument in favor of being able to have many children, but choosing instead to have 0, 1 or 2. Or really, one might say to limit the number at all.

Since this post, I have actually become more convinced that even the church has bought into the cultural perception of children as things to be avoided or minimized lest they cramp our style.

This is often voiced as, "We can't afford X number of children."

But is that really true?

I'll close with this, if the biblical command is to “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.”, then the burden of proof lies on those taking measures to prevent that from happening.

I'm not saying the only legitimate reason to have woo-hoo is for procreation, but when people mock a mother who has a 5th child, considering her irresponsibile, the church should at least be ready to enter the conversation with the biblical value on children.

Remember, it's "Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them!" (Ps 127:5) and not cursed or punished.