Archive by terms
You might have clicked on a link on PreteristBlog and it brought you to this site. Perhaps it was supposed to be a link to a wav file from 2006 or something. The problem is, Dee Dee Warren from PreteristBlog is attempting to SMEAR me. She knows FULL WELL I haven't been a hyper/full preterist since 2007 but she wants to try to SMEAR me so she digs up some old article she wrote that no longer has verifiable links -- since I have no desire to promote hyper/full preterismi. It is like a person who attempts to SMEAR an ex-communist by digging up old news about when they were a communist. But reader, keep in mind; I am in NO WAY trying to hide I was a hyper/full preterist. You can read all about that here: http://unpreterist.blogspot.com
So, why is Dee Dee Warren (not her real name by the way) doing this??? Well, because I recently caught her LYING about me and I very detailed documented her lies here: http://unpreterist.blogspot.com/2012/04/dee-dee-warrens-fantasy-world.html
Many young people get their idea about how to do relationships, either from their friends, who equally don't have long term experience, or from a magazine (typically written by people who have little successful experience), or from examples of not very successful family members (such as parents that don't really get along).
Well, I'm not trying to claim I'm the expert, but I have been happily married for over 22 years and with the same person since I was age 16. So, here's some advice. First to young women.
As I get older I'm beginning to think the things older adults need to think about. Adults, 50 and older typically join AARP -- American Association of Retired Persons never realizing its background. AARP tries to pretend it is a non-partisan organization yet just peruse the AARP website and it becomes obvious of its liberal slant. For example, its section on politics had an article about trying to scare older Americans that they aren't going to be able to vote. Why? Because of the laws requiring some form of identification. (see here) This is a typical liberal scare issue. Liberals don't like the laws requiring identification because without an identification; liberal politicians can help people commit voter fraud; as they have been for years. I mean, who doesn't have some form of identification now-a-days? Even so, the laws typically have provisions that will provide an identification for free to any eligible voter.
When I speak of religionists I usually get support from folks who think our faith should be less "institutional" but I'm not really talking about that. Christianity is of course a religion. James 1:26-27 speaks of Christianity as a religion.
However a "religionist" makes his religion his religion. Or plainly, the practice of a person's religion becomes his religion. How he performs. How he worships. How he speaks. It really doesn't matter what religion it is. It could be Christianity, Islam, or some other religion. Everything becomes about the religion. There is nothing else but it. Now, perhaps some should take me to task that devotion to one's faith demands it unless the person be a mediocre or nominal believer. But again, I'm not talking about whether a person is very devoted or not. I'm talking about whether a person can even see anything else but the practice of his religion. Whether we like it or not, historically the world has not been about a specific religion. Sure, we have had large periods of history where a religion dominated ever aspect of life, however even then people's concern was living day-to-day despite that dominance.
Altruism is often defined as Regard for others, both natural and moral; devotion to the interests of others; brotherly kindness; – opposed to egoism or selfishness.
With this as the definition, who wouldn't want to implement an altruistic lifestyle, and especially if the person is a Christian? I mean, isn't that the point of Jesus' message? Be nice to people.
The movie is called Attack on Darfur, released in 2009. It depicts a brutal attack on a village in Darfur, Sudan (Chad).
It starts with a group of western journalists behaving badly and not taking the situation seriously (typical liberal journalists). The African Union (AU), an organization seeking the peaceful unification of the African continent agrees to escort the journalists to document the genocide being perpetrated by the Janjaweed, a mainly Arab Muslim group against the local negro African population; who ironically enough also Muslim.
As I become less and less enthusiastic about discussing theology, due to the blantant hypocrisy among men I PREVIOUSLY respected, I am branching off. TKC will remain my theological website, however it may or may not be as active depending on what's going on.
The Bible is Thematic, meaning despite any verses that may SEEM to contradict each other, the over all theme of the Bible must be considered. The question is; what is the theme of Bible? Does it just have one theme?
This issue is most important when it comes to interpretation. For centuries, one sect of Bible readers has accused another sect of "not following the Bible". Notice I say, sect of Bible readers, rather than Christians. I mean to include the entire spectrum of people who read and rely upon the Bible as a main source for their beliefs; be it Roman Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, Mormons, and so on. Who gets to say what the Bible is saying? This is the reason many people approach the Bible as a hodge-podge of anything goes, since there are so many interpretations and we are often told we must allow for or tolerate that any of the interpretation might be the correct one. In that case, why even try. Most people want to know exactly what something means. If the Bible is merely a hodge-podge of gray; then why mess with it.
This riveting portrayal of a true story of the stoning of an innocent woman in Iran will move even the most heartless person. The sense you will come away with is not simply that stoning people is barbaric; since of course our own Bible has commanded it at times; rather the blatant injustice and the plotting by evil men will make you want to expose every liar and hypocrite for who they are...no matter how "noble" and "holy" they attempt to depict themselves.
The plot of the film is set in the year 2016 where a black group called the Zulu 9 decides to take on the abortionists whom target the black community (this is historically accurate -- see Margret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood).
Perhaps the best free software I've found for helping to manage or organize your ebooks is an open source program called Calibre. Calibre was created by Kovid Goyal in 2006 and has ever-since been developed by a team of open source enthusiasts.
Although Calibre is a combination of the word libre, meaning freedom, thus indicating its free open-source nature, Goyal suggests it be pronounced Cali-ber.
The usual claim is that doctrines like the Trinityi or forensic Justificationi by faith alone are "new" doctrines. That is, that these doctrines didn't exist at the time of the apostles or within the early Church. Depending on the honesty of the individual, the claim will be that these and other doctrines are completely new doctrines or that they are "developed" doctrines. By developed, they usually mean that the doctrines were there all along in the Bible but had to be better developed or understood by subsequent generations of Bible readers.
As I have engaged in "discussions" about the Bible, I want to be careful how I present this article. I am not advocating avoiding vigorous stances on key doctrinal issues. But lately, as I watch some supposed "experts" argue with what they label as "folk theologians" I've noticed how pointless their arguments are. They are arguing over whether Paul actually saw the same physical Jesus as the other apostles did. See Acts 9:1-9, Acts 9:27, Acts 22:6-11, Acts 26:12-18, and 1 Cor 15:7-8.
With the debate in the United States over whether religious organizations; especially the Roman Catholic Church should be forced by the government to pay for its employees birth control there is need to address this issue.
First, the entire issue is often poorly framed. Those on the side of forcing religious institutions to pay for birth control often claim it is a matter of woman's health. In response, I've heard non-religious pundits talk about the possible unhealthy effects of birth control pills. But that debate misses some very important points:
However, all ideas strongly held or promoted are of a type of devotion that could be called "religious".
How did Christianity handle the idea that there was more to the world than Europe, Asia, and Africa? How did Christianity handle it when flight was finally possible? How did Christianity handle it when we finally left earth's orbit?
Although I'm using the past-tense, "was" here, it is possible that a case could be made that heretics should still be killed but I'm not the one making that case. I guess we first must ask; What makes a person a heretic? Typically you will hear that heresy is simply going against the predominant view, in this case against whatever expression of Christianity is dominant. This is where a person may claim that everyone is a heretic to someone else over some issue or another; thus making relativistic the entire idea. This is especially true of how the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestants have interacted. To this day, there are many Roman Catholics and many Protestants that do not consider the other group to even be Christians. But, I'm not trying to be ecumenical here.
So, let us try to define heresy a little tighter. Romans 16:17-18 is perhaps the clearest biblical expression of what it means to be a heretic.
If we believe God is in control of all things; good and bad then even those people who seem to escape justice will get their due in time -- sooner or later.
I have been meditating on this theme more and more lately as I have become disillusioned by fake "leaders" of the faith who compromise with and coddle error. But as Psalms 7:3-5 says, let us be humble to acknowledge we may need to have God's justice turned in our direction as well.
There is a Johnny Cash song that really captures this entire theme. Take a listen using the player below.
Sure, there is that little old lady in the congregation that looks down on everyone else while she gossips about people, but that's not who I'm talking about. When I think of "stuck-up Christians" I think more about the elitist snobs that run around acting like they alone are the protectors of all things "orthodox". Now, don't get me wrong, I'm the first to promote correct doctrine; so much so that some people have labeled me a "heretic hunter". But I'm not even talking about people who attempt to follow correct doctrine and urge others to follow right doctrine.
A "Stuck-up Christian" is someone who might start a website called something like "What Color is the Sky in Their World?" and do podcasts against what they might call "Hillbilly Theology". They ooze condescension and giggle over their own pithy words.
Now, maybe they don't mean to be stuck-up. Maybe they don't realize just how arrogant they come off with the name of their websites and the topics of their podcasts and the tone of their voices. I want to give that possibility. But could they recognize and even acknowledge this arrogance if they were shown it?
Modern Christianity is often portrayed as a refuge for people barely able to function in life. It is considered the refuge for the weak and dysfunctional.
So, where can a person go to find strength, boldness, and confidence? Christianity used to provide this. It used to be a religion that made people "more than conquerors" in Christ. It used to be a religion that built strong insides and outsides; that is, it transformed the hearts of men and men of hearts into capable, functional, and even superior individuals who built cities and universities, and entire cultures.
With the recent website blackout protest of the proposed SOPA/PIPA bills (see here) I wanted to visit the idea of freedom of thought. Sometimes we hear people claiming their supposed United States Constitutional "right to free expression". But in reality the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights speak of "free expression". The actual phrase is: FREEDOM OF SPEECH. - Bill of Rights 1
Perhaps we would argue that expression is speech, yet expression is more vaguely defined. Speech has been defined as verbal or written expression but expression itself could be as broadly defined as ensuring and protecting a person's "right" to express themselves by burning the American flag or submerging a crucifix in a glass of urine (see ref1, ref2).
With the broadened term, "freedom of expression" there is more room for subjectivity. What is considered expression? Can it go too far? And if so, who decides what is too far?
It is often common today to say things like "I'm sorry" or "I apologize" when you have somehow wronged a person in some way. But these phrases don't carry the sense of remorse the phrase; "Forgive me" carries. To say "I'm sorry" could mean many things, such as; "I'm sorry I got caught" or "I'm sorry you don't like it but...". Similarly, the word apology actually means "to make a defense", such as in the concept of Christian Apologetics. Someone who is truly remorseful for what they have done doesn't defend themselves.
Look, just ask your spouse which they'd rather hear when you have wrong them and you'll see what I mean.
Well here is my obligatory New Year's message. Typically, such a message is supposed to be full of platitudes and overly optimistic ideas. We're supposed to talk about the blessings of the previous year and the hope for the dawning.
But are we naive to think the new year will be any different than the previous if we do nothing different? This is where we are usually urged to make a resolution; a resolution to do or not do something in the new year.
In my ongoing study of epistemology -- how we know what we know -- I was reading some comments by a "Clarkian" (a person who follows Gordon Clark's epistemological model), who was arguing that a phrase such as "the sky is blue" is an axiom that can neither be proven or disproved. He argues against the classic Christian epistemology which starts with "God is", or "God exists" hence the entire point of the "I AM THAT I AM" statement from God when Moses asked Him his name in Ex 3:14.
Couple this with Romans 1:20 which says:
We see that God is making the case that He is the AXIOM.
Time for another update of random thoughts. First, my daughter will be graduating High school within a few days -- mid-term. Her mother and I are so proud of her. She has always been an A-B student. She will be going on to college after about a month off.
There is a local submarine sandwich shop my workmates and I like to frequent. It is ran by Egyptians -- Coptic Christian Egyptians. I usually like to have short discussions with them about the situations in Egypt. When the so-called "Arab Spring" began in the Middle East we talked about the changes in Egypt. They were hopeful. But now it seems Egypt, like many of these Muslim countries will become more radically Islamic. However, we spoke how we believe that there is a large segment of the "revolutionaries" that wanted true liberty and will become upset when it obviously doesn't come under Islamic rule.
Cumulus Tag Cloud
Don't Worry, Be Happy
TKC Optimal Search