This is a rework of WP’s own list_authors() function, but with some extra SQL:

<?php

function my_list_authors_by_category($args = '', $cat_id=0) {
global $wpdb;

$defaults = array(
'optioncount' => false, 'exclude_admin' => true,
'show_fullname' => false, 'hide_empty' => true,
'feed' => '', 'feed_image' => '', 'feed_type' => '', 'echo' => true
);

$r = wp_parse_args( $args, $defaults );
extract($r, EXTR_SKIP);

$return = '';

/** @todo Move select to get_authors(). */
//    $authors = $wpdb->get_results("SELECT ID, user_nicename from $wpdb->users " . ($exclude_admin ? "WHERE user_login <> 'admin' " : '') . "ORDER BY display_name");
//replace with the 'author by category' SQL
$authors = $wpdb->get_results("SELECT distinct post_author as `ID`, user_nicename FROM `default_posts` as `dp`, `default_terms` as `dt`, `default_term_relationships` as `dtr`,`default_users` as `du` where `dp`.`post_author`=`du`.`ID` and `dp`.`ID`=`dtr`.`object_id` and `dtr`.`term_taxonomy_id`=".$cat_id.";");

$author_count = array();
foreach ((array) $wpdb->get_results("SELECT DISTINCT post_author, COUNT(ID) AS count FROM $wpdb->posts WHERE post_type = 'post' AND " . get_private_posts_cap_sql( 'post' ) . " GROUP BY post_author") as $row) {
$author_count[$row->post_author] = $row->count;
}

foreach ( (array) $authors as $author ) {
$author = get_userdata( $author->ID );
$posts = (isset($author_count[$author->ID])) ? $author_count[$author->ID] : 0;
$name = $author->display_name;

if ( $show_fullname && ($author->first_name != ” && $author->last_name != ”) )
$name = "$author->first_name $author->last_name";

if ( !($posts == 0 && $hide_empty) )
$return .= ‘<li>’;
if ( $posts == 0 ) {
if ( !$hide_empty )
$link = $name;
} else {
$link = ‘<a href="’ . get_author_posts_url($author->ID, $author->user_nicename) . ‘" title="’ . sprintf(__("Posts by %s"), attribute_escape($author->display_name)) . ‘">’ . $name . ‘</a>’;

if ( (! empty($feed_image)) || (! empty($feed)) ) {
$link .= ‘ ‘;
if (empty($feed_image))
$link .= ‘(’;
$link .= ‘<a href="’ . get_author_rss_link(0, $author->ID, $author->user_nicename) . ‘"’;

if ( !empty($feed) ) {
$title = ‘ title="’ . $feed . ‘"’;
$alt = ‘ alt="’ . $feed . ‘"’;
$name = $feed;
$link .= $title;
}

$link .= ‘>’;

if ( !empty($feed_image) )
$link .= "<img src=\"$feed_image\" style=\"border: none;\"$alt$title" . ‘ />’;
else
$link .= $name;

$link .= ‘</a>’;

if ( empty($feed_image) )
$link .= ‘)’;
}

if ( $optioncount )
$link .= ‘ (’. $posts . ‘)’;

}

if ( !($posts == 0 && $hide_empty) )
$return .= $link . ‘</li>’;
}
if ( !$echo )
return $return;
echo $return;
}
?>

And then to call, just define the category you want:

<?php

$cat=0;
if (have_posts()){    //get the present category, if there is one
if (is_category()) {
$cat = get_query_var('cat');
}
}
if($cat!=0){
?>
<h2>Authors:</h2>
<ul>
<? my_list_authors_by_category('exclude_admin=1',$cat); ?>
</ul>
<? } ?>

1. Now, obviously, Johnny may still not throw it to you, but it was an attempt.
2. Now, obviously Johnny may still not throw it to you, but it was an attempt.
3. Obviously Johnny may still not throw it to you, but it was an attempt.

Likely #3. but why do we all tend towards #1? Likely because we early-21st-century-ers are more about communicating how *I* speak (subjective, personal idiosyncrasies) than aligning with the Objective Grammar. Post-Modernism is all about the Death of the Object and Rise of the Subject.

“*I* would have said the sentence with pauses, so THAT is why *I* put commas in.”

Again, which is more important? Communicating clearly (per the norm of Modernistic Rules) or communicating SELF? Do we all display our psychological dependencies of personal acceptance through simple grammar?

<?
function my_get_pages(){
$out="";
$ar=get_pages();
for($i=0;$i<count($ar);$i++){
$page=$ar[$i];
if(strcmp($page->post_status,’publish’)==0){
$title=$page->post_title;
$link=$page->guid;
$tag=get_post_meta($page->ID, "tag", true);
$out.="<li><span>".$tag."</span><a href=’".$link."’>".$title."</a><br/></li>";     //dump in whatever HTML ya want/need.
}

}
return $out;
}
?>

Seems the church, while enamored by idealism in one lens, has as it’s other lens “accessibility.” We all want our children “saved” NOW before they are 5 so that they’ll never have to get mixed up in the world’s pain. That sounds more like an (ab)use of religion for personal parenting pleasure instead of seeking God’s desire/plan for your child!

Jesus didn’t seem too concerned about “accessibility.” or dumbing down our faith-system. Rather, he spoke of it in confusing stories and hard-to-accept statements. He, like Kierkegaard seemed more concerned with making difficulties than bringing clarity to a situation. But all that is perhaps “spin.”
What of this idea that the Gospel be communicated not a “hidden” or “you’ll understand it when you’re older” message? This sounds cultish, and draws harsh lines around who’s “in” or not. The former reason is irrelevant, the latter wholly relevant: God’s message is clearly able to be trusted by those who may not understand all of the details. Yes, children will understand the gospel better when they are older, but they are not incapable of trusting it even without knowledge of the details.

But the Gospel is also not simply “magic.” DNA-evidence (and computers) are “magic” to most people. Cookies baking can be “magic” to children. Going to the bank can be “magic” (since they ALWAYS and ONLY give you money!) These kinds of “magical” understandings aren’t wrong, just lacking the depth of understanding. But if you come to an adult who goes to the bank always expecting money, you know something isn’t right. And anyone not a child who, upon pulling out those cookies jumps for joy and amazement that it’s not just an icky lump of gooey batter..

Children can get by without understanding the details. Certainly this is part of what Jesus refers to with “childlike faith” in Mt 18. But Paul wasn’t very content to have to deal with a bunch of children in 1 Cor 13.11! Our faith can be “childlike” in its pure and simple trust, but our understanding (reason/intellect/rationality) of our faith ought always be “on par” with our understanding of any other aspect of this planet (development). So then, our communication of the Gospel to children ought not to the point of “I wish I were older/smarter,” for that is Eph 6 exasperation, but “I can’t wait to know more about God!” Satisfied with (even ignorant of) their own development, interested in their relationship with God.

I grew up more with a “this is what Jacob did”/”be like Paul” focused Christianity instead of a “this is what Joseph learned about God, how hard it was and how cool things can turn out!” Imagine that mixed with “This is what Korah learned about God.” There’s a lot to God. He takes our lives to display himself to us and all others.

Not that children follow that abstract summary idea of “our lives”.. but also, not that we want them to go around saying “Today I’m going to display God’s wrath!” since it is God who defines our lives and what they can display and unto whom will they be seen.

The whole of humanity, whether believers in God or not display him. His qualities are in all in various levels. All men reflect his image(Gen 2), but not all participate in his nature (2 Peter 1:4). What is this distinction? Romans 1 & 2 display the option for unbelievers to uphold the law AND to twist their lives and epistemology into their own self-gratifying realm. Which would we prefer for our children? Surely the former!

So when developing children, there’s a few levels:

Identity + Activity (be + do)

1. Identity as absolutely beloved
2. Self as displaying God (involuntarily and voluntarily)
   1. but my selfish desires aren’t God’s desires..
   2. some desires are built in, and are part of God’s creation & personal knowing of me, and plan for my life.
3. Activity as displaying God (involuntarily & voluntarily)
4. Activity as God’s desire over self-desire(?)
   1. not as “pleasing God”, for what can a mand do to please God that Jesus has not already done?
   2. self-importance diminished (?)
5. Life as difficult (Jesus’ statements on reality & how to live it)
   1. God as overcoming, transcendent over creation & pain
   2. Also immanent through the Spirit and Incarnation.

Solution: Just add this code in to each template & make sure the blog posts are in the category MYCATNAME with a custom tag of “order”, from 0 to ad infinitum.

<?php $posts=query_posts("category_name=OptionsPage&orderby=menu_order&order=asc");

$out_array=array();

//loop #1: get the post & attach post_meta 'order' to the menu_order
foreach($posts as $post){
$this_order=0;
if( strcmp(get_post_meta($post->ID, "order", true),"")!=0){
$this_order=get_post_meta($post->ID, "order", true);
}
$post->menu_order=$this_order;
if($out_array[$this_order]==null){//start the ordering  (solved: if 2 have the same order!)
$out_array[$this_order]=$post;
} else {
array_push($out_array,$post);
}
}

//sort acc.to menu_order
$wp_query->posts=null;
$wp_query->posts=array();
for($i=0;$i<count($out_array)+1;$i++){
if($out_array[$i]!=null){
array_push($wp_query->posts,$out_array[$i]);
}
}

//start looping through!
$idx=0;
if (have_posts()) : ?>
<?php while (have_posts()) : the_post(); $idx++;?>
<li class="flipmenuitem"><a id="link<? echo $idx; ?>" href="#" style="background:#FFF url(’<? echo bloginfo(’template_directory’);?>/images/<?if($idx==1){?>minus<?} else {?>plus<?}?>.gif’) no-repeat;padding-left:15px;" onclick="javascript:Effect.comboEffect0(’flip<? echo $idx; ?>’,this);"><?php the_title(); ?></a>
<div class="flippage" style="display:<?if($idx==1){?>block<?} else {?>none<?}?>;" id="flip<?echo $idx; ?>"><?php the_content(); ?></div></li>
<?php endwhile;
else :
endif; ?>
// … you get the picture here..

When you don’t know, you trust.
Differing experiences & personalities will trust different things:
D: themselves
I:  people: what they can get others to do/say.
S: what others say/face-value?
C: the information: their mind/face-value of what others say. They will not try to influence or change.

Details always trip you up:
Practical: some times things just don’t work.
–Execution problem
Idealism: some times you just didn’t think or plan enough (and you could have).
–Information problem

Consequences:
Think + Do everyone’s job in the process, from vendor information, estimations, ordering, manufacturing, shipping; environmental surroundings; temporal surroundings (future-proofing)

Information Errors can be minimized by having a diverse enough team that can think through each step, and communicate (listen!) enough to take each info-tid-bit to heart. Most personalities aren’t capable of valuing this, and those that are, aren’t usually forceful or influential enough to make their case known. Solution? Humility.

Which one (a) do you like? (b) do you feel best represents a man’s ability to comprehend perfect Deity? (c) is most communicative within the general populus?

Now, I know these are 3 separate questions, and likely to have 3 separate list-rankings.. but I’m prone to think of them in the same way, with #2 most-popular in dogmatic minds and #1 more happily in my mind. Do they say/mean the same thing? Sure they do. So why the dogmatic need (fear.. what? no love in fear?) to “defend” terminology? This is, obviously, a matter of “official” terms vs. common-man’s thinking, but seriously, there is such a thing as a dead language.. and dead orthodoxy.. and I’m usually pro-life, and anti-death.

And since we’re on about fear, here’s mine: “I’ve heard you (Mr. Dogmatist) use the same terms as so many other people who I’ve heard use blatant fallacy and ill-logic.. so, I’m scared that you keep using the same terms.. Cuz anyone can use the terms/language, but that doesn’t mean they ‘get it’.. and I most of all want to know that you understand what life, love, truth & Jesus are all about.. and I just can’t do that unless you get creative with your vocab.”

Of course, the reply then comes: “But I don’t know you’re withing orthodoxy unless you use the proper terms.”

Is this all we have? Such an impasse of communication?

http://brucefwebster.com/2008/06/16/anatomy-of-a-runaway-it-project/

Though each Nvidia is presently over $600, I personally love how their Samsung Spinpoint F1 750GB HDD is only $100 on newegg!

But life isn’t that clean; that sin we try to avoid is undermining, active against us, confusing us, giving us a new foundation which we try to live upon.. and most sadly, it works. Life doesn’t crash-and-burn 100% when you sin. It’s a slow-way down. And the energy of youth is often enough to recover the tail-spins which can come quick. We simply learn to “not do that again.” And that’s what I’ll call “bottom-up” living: when experience teaches, and we build an idealism/expectation from it.

There’s another method, obviously “top-down”.. where we demand our idealism (from whatever source, be it parents, church/religion, youthful hopes, etc). No matter the experience, we will fight against reality to hold to our hopes. Ethics are strong, requirements high. Thanks to American Pragmatism, the latter is laughed at, and the former a stronghold of American secular living.

But my Theology says a few things.. That how I live says stuff about God. Now, for finer points, my life says stuff about God because I claim his way as my own. The “gap” question here is does everyone’s life communicate their theology? The simple answer is yes. But the other ‘gap’ question is, “Does everyone’s life communicate their perspective on God?” And the corollary, “Does everyone’s life display their commentary on God?”

Now, take the simple Christian, who is able to follow the idealism of the conservative american variety. He lives in an undisturbed box that he claims God wants him in, and he has no trouble attaining his perfection. Likely pity is his take on the rest of the sin-filled world. What is he communicating? Transcendence of and isolated God, yes. Immanence of Jesus that eats with the sinners? No. Immanance that loves and helps? No. Certainly, we can call this ‘Christianity’ a half-breed– mixed with selfish isolationism/protectionism of keeping oneself clean first AND last.

Take the avant-guard Christian.. often found on uni campuses, stuck(whether by his own choice or the housing dep’t) with a roomie who sleeps around and invites him to do the same.. Challenged on all fronts to NOT get up on sunday for fellowship, and challenged even on Sunday by people who are in the previous category, and have no concept to help him towards a holiness which is God’s. Immanence is not his trouble.. he’s IN the world, clearly. The transcendence of God’s character which he is originally designed for no longer seems reasonable, possible. The people he meets “outside the box” and still appear happy challenge.

Now, about those people he meets, out there in the world. Some who are taken by their sin and revel in it. Claim it as an identity. What are they saying about God? (1) Perhaps that they have no knowledge of his claim to holiness? Or that they have knowledge (Romans 1!) but there’s just no one ’round confirming it, encouraging them, helping them realize the goodness and long-term best. (2) Alternatively, they are unaware the connection of their daily lives to consequence.. communicating to God that they value something other than him. That’s a scary thing, and I think most people don’t realize their actions are communicating this.

Precisely.

I don’t think I’m aware of this either. I’m not convinced the church is communicating this enough; I’m not convinced that’s my message I take to those in the world.

This means that that college-roommate who’s liberal with his sexuality is directly saying God’s meaning and purpose in sexuality isn’t compelling, valuable, or of any pragmatic use. And the church is quick to jump to try and recover this message (often without the theological base, too!)But to the one who has never heard or perhaps has forgotten, his life isn’t about God, and it isn’t about communicating anything. It’s just as self-centred as the protectionist Christian, only exactly in the opposite direction. (and in this case, the protectionist christian is “better” only because he’s got 1 problem of selfishness not 2!)So selfishness of all is evident. All are indicted, no reason or cause for anything but humility. But pride fills up instead, denying consequence– precisely of God’s concern of such matters.

———-

Restart.

At this point, I’m confused. I started off this post regarding my friend who’s sin is her identity. She’s happy.. honestly happy. She’s got a life that’s working enough for her. There’s enough people confirming her actions, and there’s enough people able to keep her going. All people live by what they see and feel. Bottom-up experiential living is the norm. And that is authentic, which is often more than in the top-down lives.

But I feel I’m squished in the middle. I’ve lived both top-down (lead to such inauthenticity that lead to depression) and I’ve lived bottom-up, which can lead to frustration.

I know God’s message to me is love. That’s enough to solve the frustration of bottom-up living, get oneself out of it’s addictions and demands for peace and ease.

Perhaps that’s one of the homosexual issues. They get frustrated with the opposite sex, while being so comfortable with those who are like-minded and so retract from those who think, act, value differently instead of entering in to the messy other. Just like a married man who doesn’t know what to do with his wife or children, and so retracts into work or his hobbies or an affair where he DOES know what to do with, where he finds solace and ease. Fact is, both are sin. Both are not living fully, both are self-protectionist, and both are “happy” ..just one takes more work: fighting self and ease.

———–

Round 3:

So what of it all? Our lives are filled with our own anti-consequential desires, decisions & actions, all communicating that I’d rather live my bottom-up way than any top-down idealism keeping me from pragmatic reality. All the while, breaking God’s heart, shoving him aside, missing out on an authenticity deeper than the termites have eaten away.

Now, that’s not to say that God’s way is as the conservatives make it out to be. And that’s the confusing part for everyone involved. They present a highly in-authentic, illogical, top-down idealism which only works inside their own box of pretty-pretty-land. That’s not palatable, let alone tasty to most. And it’s not God’s design, hope nor future for any of us.

What am I to say? God’s broken heart over our denial of him is ‘ok’? Our lives communicating constant rejection of him inconsequential? Is there a difference between me trying to not reject him, and me giving up, giving in to my natural choices which speak rejection? And maybe my own effort will only build my pride.

I’ve got to say, the homosexual, the addicted-to-sports-male and the protectionist Christian are of the same tree. All act out of the same motives, though some more hidden than others. Telling God, “f*** you!” nicely doesn’t keep you in the kingdom.

All I can find that is true is continual recognition of all this and of the final payment for these crimes by God himself, and the continual attempts to value him, his ways, his kingdom.. everything else will confuse, everything else is noise.There is no “best” life. There is no one who achieves. We all rationalize and twist and turn.