I was listening to R. C. Sproul today and he spoke on something I thought was relevant for me considering some of my opponents. Much of what he spoke about had to do with the idea of getting insight from the Holy Ghost (I'm feeling nostalgic for the term "Holy Ghost"). There are among these opponents those that have formed their positions on Christianity on Scripture, but also on their prayer meditations wherein the Holy Ghost revealed truth to them. Thus, for some, they have come to much different understandings regarding the faith, the Bible, and the concepts of right/wrong. Some have come to their pro-homosexual positions this way.
Well, the point Sproul was making was that God's Revelations to us can only be found in Scripture. He was saying that there have been no revelations since. And he clarified the difference between "revelation", which we received from Biblical study, and "illumination" which the Holy Ghost can provide. I found it humorous to hear him say how if he had a dollar for every time someone said they came to an unChristian or unBiblical notion after having prayed for answers or help. They don't seek the answers from the Bible, but convince themselves they've received revelation, which often is in contradiction with Scripture. It's the same thing I, and other conservative Christian bloggers and posters, have encountered in our debates and discussions. The bottom line is that the revelation needs to conform with Scripture, whether it comes from "prayerful meditation" or other sources.
Also in the same lecture, Sproul spoke of the early church restricting lay reading of the Bible. I've heard of this even in more modern day churches, mostly Roman Catholic. Some of the early churches would actually chain the Bibles to prevent their being taken. This practice is often held up as an example of the desire by the church to control people. Sproul explained that the practice was to protect the people from themselves. Martin Luther wanted to provide for the people the opportunity to read God's Word, but his opponents feared that the people were not educated in the proper way to read the Bible, and this could lead to numerous, perhaps countless, factions forming as everyone would come to different conclusions. This wasn't a looney fear considering how many different denominations exist today. And it's certainly what I have seen in these blog debates, that some feel that everyone needs to find what it means to them. I've always opposed this notion, not to tell people what to do, as I am often accused, but that the point is to determine what God means by Scripture. A true study requires removing one's self from the equation and simply determining what God wants. He has indeed revealed much in Scripure. Not everything, but plenty. Certainly all we need in living our lives here on earth.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Ach, du lieber!
Two notable points:
First, an uncontrollable urge to change fonts.
Second, through one of the many newsletters I receive that clutters my email for far too long, I learned of a place called "Conservapedia.com" that was started to compete with Wikipedia for it's alleged left-leaning slant. I've never really used Wikipedia before, nor have I ever used this font, but I decided to add Conservapedia to my favorites and I'll probably add it here as well.
From the Conservapedia article I was reading, I came across an article (or perhaps it was a book---it was rather long and I didn't read the whole thing) that was about homosexuality in the Nazi party. I had never heard of this before. I had heard of the homosexuals executed by the Nazis, but this is the first time I heard that such executions were less about the victims' sexual preference than for their opposition to the Nazi party. It seems that for all intents and purposes, the party was actually formed from a homosexual society, as they were rife in Germany from the late 1800's on and that Hitler was chosen as the mouthpiece due to his oratory prowess. The article spoke of Hitler's desire to hang with homosexuals and it referred to the many circumstantial points suggesting he might also have had those tendencies, along with other deviancies. One angle was that he wasn't necessarily even bi-sexual, but dug hangin' with homosexuals.
Also, the article spoke of two main factions of homosexuals in Germany at the time. One came from a 19th century dude who's writings lead to the coining of the term "homosexual", and this fellow (who was molested in his youth) believed he was a woman in a man's body. His was a feminine version that was snubbed by the other faction, which was comprised of much more manly homosexuals who were often pederasts. These guys sought to pattern themselves after the ancient Greeks and Spartans and from these came the Nazi party. It's a fascinating article (or book) and it seemed to draw from homosexual sources for some of the info it relates. I didn't think to jot down the author's name since I wasn't really planning to talk about Nazi homosexuals, but I would think that using the phrase "Homosexuals and (or in) the Nazi party" at google will get you there if you're interested. The irony for me is how conservative and/or fundamentalist Christians are called "Nazi-like" for their opposition to homosexuality and the homosexual agenda, when so many homosexuals comprised the upper echelon of the Nazi party during the 1930's and 40's. It was suggested that they were chosen for their willingness to get nasty. Ain't that wild?
First, an uncontrollable urge to change fonts.
Second, through one of the many newsletters I receive that clutters my email for far too long, I learned of a place called "Conservapedia.com" that was started to compete with Wikipedia for it's alleged left-leaning slant. I've never really used Wikipedia before, nor have I ever used this font, but I decided to add Conservapedia to my favorites and I'll probably add it here as well.
From the Conservapedia article I was reading, I came across an article (or perhaps it was a book---it was rather long and I didn't read the whole thing) that was about homosexuality in the Nazi party. I had never heard of this before. I had heard of the homosexuals executed by the Nazis, but this is the first time I heard that such executions were less about the victims' sexual preference than for their opposition to the Nazi party. It seems that for all intents and purposes, the party was actually formed from a homosexual society, as they were rife in Germany from the late 1800's on and that Hitler was chosen as the mouthpiece due to his oratory prowess. The article spoke of Hitler's desire to hang with homosexuals and it referred to the many circumstantial points suggesting he might also have had those tendencies, along with other deviancies. One angle was that he wasn't necessarily even bi-sexual, but dug hangin' with homosexuals.
Also, the article spoke of two main factions of homosexuals in Germany at the time. One came from a 19th century dude who's writings lead to the coining of the term "homosexual", and this fellow (who was molested in his youth) believed he was a woman in a man's body. His was a feminine version that was snubbed by the other faction, which was comprised of much more manly homosexuals who were often pederasts. These guys sought to pattern themselves after the ancient Greeks and Spartans and from these came the Nazi party. It's a fascinating article (or book) and it seemed to draw from homosexual sources for some of the info it relates. I didn't think to jot down the author's name since I wasn't really planning to talk about Nazi homosexuals, but I would think that using the phrase "Homosexuals and (or in) the Nazi party" at google will get you there if you're interested. The irony for me is how conservative and/or fundamentalist Christians are called "Nazi-like" for their opposition to homosexuality and the homosexual agenda, when so many homosexuals comprised the upper echelon of the Nazi party during the 1930's and 40's. It was suggested that they were chosen for their willingness to get nasty. Ain't that wild?
Friday, October 12, 2007
OH. MY. GOSH.
As if to prove the worthlessness of the award once and for all, the Nobel Prize was just awarded to AlGore for his fight against climate change. Seems to me it would make more sense if he actually changed the climate. Seems to me it should be given to those who base their beliefs on facts and not specious conclusions which are heavily disputed. Well, they've given the prize to other idiots. This just follows the pattern.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Lay Off Chris!!
Just a quick note to say what a bunch of incredible wackjobs are those idiots who are working toward the removal of Columbus Day from the list of federal holidays. Talk about crackpots. That anyone gives these morons the time of day baffles me. Some of the ridiculous comments I've heard today on Medved's show, as well as the general tone of their "message" that bores me to no end every year on this date, shows a complete lack of serious historical study. Actually it just shows how freakin' stupid they are. Jeez.
Still No Support For Abortion
It's incredible how one discussion can digress into an entirely different discussion. The Michael Vick case has morphed into an abortion debate. At least it has in my local newspaper, as readers have sent in their opinions on the subject and began making comparisons between the two topics. That is to say, that some have misgivings that their fellow man can be so outraged at what Vick has done with animals, while so many millions of unborn have been put to death without the massive outcry. Of course proponents of the practice will argue that the pro-lifers have expressed quite enough outrage.
The arguments surround the difference between "legal" and "moral". Neil's blog has recently touched on this. In the letter-to-the-editor to which I refer, the writer submits an article from the May 2004 issue of Discover magazine as the most readable summary of scientific data that she's found. So I Googled it and read it. The article speaks of the woman's egg cell and the complexity therein and how it can be a few months before fertilization when it's destiny, whether it will result in a full term pregnancy or not, is determined. Everything must be just so within the cell in order for everything to work out and a large percentage, as high as 80% apparently, will not even attach to the uterine wall after fertilization. So it's being prepared for the possibility of life, or rather, a successful period of gestation. In addition, the article speaks of the first three days from fertilization as a continuation of this process as the DNA from the sperm is added to the process. It's in these areas that the article seeks to submit that a rethinking of the beginning of life begins.
Poppycock. None of this very interesting and fascinating article supports that rethinking at all. All cells have purpose. Some have a more complex purpose. The purpose of the egg is to be prepared to join with the sperm in order to begin the process of procreating a new human being. That the egg may fail in it's purpose, that it may not attach to the uterine wall, that it may be flushed or morphed or in any way prevented through the natural means by which all such unfortunate cells are judged from continuing the process in no way creates an argument that the unnatural taking of this cell and destroying it is justified. Not in the least.
The fetus, which here means any stage of development in the womb, that fails anywhere along the way is no different than a college star athelete dropping dead of an up to that point unknown heart ailment right after the Celtics select him as their first round pick. It just happens. Was Len Bias(?) unworthy for having such a defect? I think not. I also don't think that the knowledge of which egg is viable and which isn't (were it possible to know for sure) gives anyone the right to make the ultimate decision. At this stage of the game, we're way to far from knowing with any degree of certainty, thus, all pregnancies must be treated as the development of a separate, unique and worthy human being who's life must be protected.
By the way, the main scientist interviewed for the article was on his way to inspect some eggs that he was involved with in an assisted fertility. At the start of the article, this leading expert in the field held out almost no hope that the eggs were good enough to survive the first few days of pregancy. He'd seen enough to know. The article ends with him saying, "Good news. She's pregnant!" Yeah, that's good news, alright. But the real news is that even the best still aren't good enough to judge who will live and who will not. Why should anyone else think they are?
One more thing: check out the Discovery article. It's way cool.
The arguments surround the difference between "legal" and "moral". Neil's blog has recently touched on this. In the letter-to-the-editor to which I refer, the writer submits an article from the May 2004 issue of Discover magazine as the most readable summary of scientific data that she's found. So I Googled it and read it. The article speaks of the woman's egg cell and the complexity therein and how it can be a few months before fertilization when it's destiny, whether it will result in a full term pregnancy or not, is determined. Everything must be just so within the cell in order for everything to work out and a large percentage, as high as 80% apparently, will not even attach to the uterine wall after fertilization. So it's being prepared for the possibility of life, or rather, a successful period of gestation. In addition, the article speaks of the first three days from fertilization as a continuation of this process as the DNA from the sperm is added to the process. It's in these areas that the article seeks to submit that a rethinking of the beginning of life begins.
Poppycock. None of this very interesting and fascinating article supports that rethinking at all. All cells have purpose. Some have a more complex purpose. The purpose of the egg is to be prepared to join with the sperm in order to begin the process of procreating a new human being. That the egg may fail in it's purpose, that it may not attach to the uterine wall, that it may be flushed or morphed or in any way prevented through the natural means by which all such unfortunate cells are judged from continuing the process in no way creates an argument that the unnatural taking of this cell and destroying it is justified. Not in the least.
The fetus, which here means any stage of development in the womb, that fails anywhere along the way is no different than a college star athelete dropping dead of an up to that point unknown heart ailment right after the Celtics select him as their first round pick. It just happens. Was Len Bias(?) unworthy for having such a defect? I think not. I also don't think that the knowledge of which egg is viable and which isn't (were it possible to know for sure) gives anyone the right to make the ultimate decision. At this stage of the game, we're way to far from knowing with any degree of certainty, thus, all pregnancies must be treated as the development of a separate, unique and worthy human being who's life must be protected.
By the way, the main scientist interviewed for the article was on his way to inspect some eggs that he was involved with in an assisted fertility. At the start of the article, this leading expert in the field held out almost no hope that the eggs were good enough to survive the first few days of pregancy. He'd seen enough to know. The article ends with him saying, "Good news. She's pregnant!" Yeah, that's good news, alright. But the real news is that even the best still aren't good enough to judge who will live and who will not. Why should anyone else think they are?
One more thing: check out the Discovery article. It's way cool.
Was Just Chillin'
Been real busy doing very little lately. But deferring to Les's concerns, I've decided to begin with the announcement of the new NBA season pre-season opener between the beloved Chicago Bulls and the lowly Miwaukee Bucks. Though anything can happen in a pre-season game, as coaches try to check out their new players and the players themselves try to mesh with each other and run new plays, I anticipate a Bulls victory. This will cap a fine October in the never-ending battle for supremacy between Chicago and the land of Cheese. It began with the Cubs outlasting the Brewskies for division champs (only to be followed by the Cubs quick exit from post-season play, but what the heck), followed by the come from behind in Lambeau by the Bears. As everyone knows, the Super Bowl is great, but beating the Pack is a must.
Medical update: At about 2 1/2 months after surgery, I ask the doc about the average turn around time on the ACL deal. He said that they assume 6 months for the new ligament to totally graft properly. This means that ju jutsu is still out of the question for a few months more.
Bowling, however, is another story. After a shaky start in the first week, where I had my knee wrapped too much to really get into my shot, I've logged continual 600 series to steadily raise the average to it's current 208 level. I'm quite pleased, but I've still got some bugs to work out, particularly my continuing struggles with the 10 pin. All last year I dealt with a mental block regarding this easy spare and the summer hasn't diminished it whatsoever. But if I can get a game or two of nothing but shots at the 10 pin, I'm sure I can break the bad habit. Those opens'll kill ya. In any case, the concern for my knee has forced me to take it easy and this has helped my game considerably. You'd a thought the John Daniels and beer would have been enough...
Medical update: At about 2 1/2 months after surgery, I ask the doc about the average turn around time on the ACL deal. He said that they assume 6 months for the new ligament to totally graft properly. This means that ju jutsu is still out of the question for a few months more.
Bowling, however, is another story. After a shaky start in the first week, where I had my knee wrapped too much to really get into my shot, I've logged continual 600 series to steadily raise the average to it's current 208 level. I'm quite pleased, but I've still got some bugs to work out, particularly my continuing struggles with the 10 pin. All last year I dealt with a mental block regarding this easy spare and the summer hasn't diminished it whatsoever. But if I can get a game or two of nothing but shots at the 10 pin, I'm sure I can break the bad habit. Those opens'll kill ya. In any case, the concern for my knee has forced me to take it easy and this has helped my game considerably. You'd a thought the John Daniels and beer would have been enough...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)