Just for fun I put a "Donate" button to my Pay Pal acount in the upper right corner. I did this because there are among the "geeks" those who believe you must be sophisticated in "code" in order to have a functional web page.
Not! Even a cave man can do it.
ps: I haven't tested it. You need to do that. Try it.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
Interesting Things from Fox News
Fox News often does some interesting things. Today it is taking an Internet Poll on whether or not Obama should conform to some, all or none of some "principles" formulated by a Tea Party group. I can hardly wait to read the responses to this one.
The reason I'm so interested is that I have a suspicion my "fellow Americans" don't know that principled thought requires a pre-determined base of knowledge about how things are. Obama doesn't believe in that nonsense. He is a pragmatist.
By definition pragmatists rely only on the facts of the present moment and act based on the "cash value" (William James) believed to be inherent in the situation.
Therefore, we have for President a man who thinks based on situtional ethics, or relativism if you prefer, and then pragmatically makes his decisions. When that worldview makes decisions you get what our President has said: (1) I will close Gitmo, and (2) We can't close Gitmo. Or (1) Charging the underwear bomber as a criminal was the right thing to do, and (2) who was the idiot who made that decision he is a terrorist. This list could go for the length of time Obama has been in office, so I'll just leave it at that. Pragmatism and principle are diametrical worldviews - they can't mix.
The reason I'm so interested is that I have a suspicion my "fellow Americans" don't know that principled thought requires a pre-determined base of knowledge about how things are. Obama doesn't believe in that nonsense. He is a pragmatist.
By definition pragmatists rely only on the facts of the present moment and act based on the "cash value" (William James) believed to be inherent in the situation.
Therefore, we have for President a man who thinks based on situtional ethics, or relativism if you prefer, and then pragmatically makes his decisions. When that worldview makes decisions you get what our President has said: (1) I will close Gitmo, and (2) We can't close Gitmo. Or (1) Charging the underwear bomber as a criminal was the right thing to do, and (2) who was the idiot who made that decision he is a terrorist. This list could go for the length of time Obama has been in office, so I'll just leave it at that. Pragmatism and principle are diametrical worldviews - they can't mix.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
How About This
This is a great clip. A two year old can learn the catechism if taught with patience. I'm going to ask my daughter if we can't start teaching our grand children. (Hat Tip for the clip to Gairney Bridge).
Friday, January 29, 2010
Spurgeon and Lewis
Spurgeon said of himself:
Most of those I talk to today blindly side with Pelagius and are not interested in discussing the subject. Others are of the mindset that, "all I know is what I learned as a child, I'm not going to argue about it because nothing is really settled that way." "I know I was lost, and I know I chose to get saved, and that's it."
When confronting these kinds of people I'm always stunned at the lackidaisical attitude with which they dismiss something on which eternity hinges. Do we choose God, or does He choose us?
I don't have the mental prowess to figure out the underlying processes that would make a human so unconcerned about eternity but there are those who do, that is why I read books.
C.S. Lewis figured out what is going on in this instance. He wrote a book it. The name of the book is The Screwtape Letters. It is about a head Demon, Screwtape, teaching a protege, Wormwood, how to neutralize people who might be tempted to consider the Church as a way of life. Here is what he told him:
One thing is certain Jargon will contiue to be used as the backbone of too many ministries just as it is the mainstay of our National life. Wormwood appears to have learned his lessons well.
I cannot understand the reason why I am saved, except upon the ground that God would have it so. I cannot, if I look ever so earnestly, discover any kind of reason in myself why I should be a partaker of Divine grace. If I am not at this moment without Christ, it is only because Christ Jesus would have His will with me, and that will was that I should be with Him where He is, and should share His glory. I can put the crown nowhere but upon the head of Him whose mighty grace has saved me from going down into the pit. Looking back on my past life, I can see that the dawning of it all was of God; of God effectively. I took no torch with which to light the sun, but the sun enlightened me. I did not commence my spiritual life—no, I rather kicked, and struggled against the things of the Spirit: when He drew me, for a time I did not run after Him: there was a natural hatred in my soul of everything holy and good.Spurgeon said this in giving a defense of Calvinism. I've been pushing, a little, against the philosophy that man has free will in my Church. Spurgeon did not believe it, Calvin did not believe, and Augustine did not believe it. In fact Augustine had quite a debate with a British Monk named Pelagius over this very issue. Oh, and I don't believe it either.
Most of those I talk to today blindly side with Pelagius and are not interested in discussing the subject. Others are of the mindset that, "all I know is what I learned as a child, I'm not going to argue about it because nothing is really settled that way." "I know I was lost, and I know I chose to get saved, and that's it."
When confronting these kinds of people I'm always stunned at the lackidaisical attitude with which they dismiss something on which eternity hinges. Do we choose God, or does He choose us?
I don't have the mental prowess to figure out the underlying processes that would make a human so unconcerned about eternity but there are those who do, that is why I read books.
C.S. Lewis figured out what is going on in this instance. He wrote a book it. The name of the book is The Screwtape Letters. It is about a head Demon, Screwtape, teaching a protege, Wormwood, how to neutralize people who might be tempted to consider the Church as a way of life. Here is what he told him:
Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn’t think of doctrines as primarily “true” or “false,” but as “academic” or “practical,” “outworn” or “contemporary,” “conventional”or “ruthless.” Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church. Don’t waste time trying to make him think materialism is true! Make him think it is strong, stark, or courageous—that it is the philosophy of the future. That is the sort of thing he cares about.Lewis was almost prophetic with that one. Look where are today. We have Churches that don't talk of hell because it is unpleasant, and a President who can't decide if he is Muslim, Buddhist, or Christian.
One thing is certain Jargon will contiue to be used as the backbone of too many ministries just as it is the mainstay of our National life. Wormwood appears to have learned his lessons well.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Law and Order
Tonight I was watching an episode of Law and Order when a thought stuck me. Before I get into the thought, however, let me set the scene a little.
First of all, I believe Law and Order to be the last TV series written for those of us older than 10. It is about the only series which actually requires more than 3 seconds of thought to even attempt a solution to the crime. And it is one of the last "gory" kinds of shows that does not believe it necessary to show guts oozing, blood spurting, and heads being blown-apart with slow motion bullets. Law and Order leaves some things to that old-fashioned thing ... what was it called ... I remember ... the imagination.
What I saw tonight was an episode in which a deranged young man had taken a hostage and was holding her at knife point in a store. A police negotiator was unable to gain any headway with him so he exited the scene informing the Detectives in charge the criminal wanted a lawyer immediately or he would kill the hostage.
There were no defense lawyers on scene so the police asked if the Assistant District Attorney on scene would try to talk him into surrendering. She agreed. In gaining his surrender she failed to notify him she was in fact an Assistant District Attorney. He eventually surrendered after confessing, but his real defense attorney tried to get dismissal of the charges claiming the D.A. had mislead the poor boy by not informing him she was not his lawyer and that she was in fact a prosecutor.
She did commit an ethical violation and a violation of the commandment which says, "thou shalt not bear false witness." In the process of investigation charges were brought against the A.D.A., for violation of the ethical code of the State Bar of New York. She was found guilty on these charges. It appears that civil courts still maintain that withholding the whole truth, telling half-truths, intentionally misleading our "neighbor" - in this case a criminal - is in fact an ethical violation and a crime punishable under the law.
O.K., back to my thought. American Law is enmeshed with the Biblical law given to Moses known as the Ten Commandments. In those commandments are such things as don't murder, don't commit adultery, (still valid in some states) but more pertinent to my story, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor." People sometimes still have to say "so help me God," when they testify in court. And right here is where my thought blossomed. Lying in an American Court is an accountable ethical violation designed to insure the integrity of our system of Justice.
Isn't it so that the system of worship espoused in the Bible is also based on an accountable system of ethical standards designed to insure the integrity of our contact with God? Jesus said "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Mat 5:17)
My question, then, is this: How it is that so many preachers believe the "ends justify the means" when it comes to supposedly "winning lost souls" for Christ? Osteen tells his audience they can be saved by repeating a prayer at the end of his "motivational speech" in his "Church." Schuller has convinced thousands they are saved all the while hiding from them the fact that hell does exist, thereby hiding the possibility of spending eternity there is real. These kinds of people believe nothing is achieved by telling people the whole story of the Gospel. Couldn't it be said that even what we consider inconsequential little things, which may mislead the lost into something about which they do not know the whole truth, are ethical violations of God's law? I think so.
But, hey what do I know. I'm not a lawyer nor a preacher. I just think it wrong to tell someone they can be assured of their salvation and know they are on their way to heaven because they repeated a prayer sometime, somewhere, without informing them that scripture says insurance of salvation is evident through a changed life, not just saying they "accept Christ as savior." (Is 43:11) Moreover, whatever happened to telling the lost about the concept of "repentance." (Mk 2:17)
Maybe those who withhold vital information don't understand God's ethical law. They should watch Law and Order. They might actually learn something.
First of all, I believe Law and Order to be the last TV series written for those of us older than 10. It is about the only series which actually requires more than 3 seconds of thought to even attempt a solution to the crime. And it is one of the last "gory" kinds of shows that does not believe it necessary to show guts oozing, blood spurting, and heads being blown-apart with slow motion bullets. Law and Order leaves some things to that old-fashioned thing ... what was it called ... I remember ... the imagination.
What I saw tonight was an episode in which a deranged young man had taken a hostage and was holding her at knife point in a store. A police negotiator was unable to gain any headway with him so he exited the scene informing the Detectives in charge the criminal wanted a lawyer immediately or he would kill the hostage.
There were no defense lawyers on scene so the police asked if the Assistant District Attorney on scene would try to talk him into surrendering. She agreed. In gaining his surrender she failed to notify him she was in fact an Assistant District Attorney. He eventually surrendered after confessing, but his real defense attorney tried to get dismissal of the charges claiming the D.A. had mislead the poor boy by not informing him she was not his lawyer and that she was in fact a prosecutor.
She did commit an ethical violation and a violation of the commandment which says, "thou shalt not bear false witness." In the process of investigation charges were brought against the A.D.A., for violation of the ethical code of the State Bar of New York. She was found guilty on these charges. It appears that civil courts still maintain that withholding the whole truth, telling half-truths, intentionally misleading our "neighbor" - in this case a criminal - is in fact an ethical violation and a crime punishable under the law.
O.K., back to my thought. American Law is enmeshed with the Biblical law given to Moses known as the Ten Commandments. In those commandments are such things as don't murder, don't commit adultery, (still valid in some states) but more pertinent to my story, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor." People sometimes still have to say "so help me God," when they testify in court. And right here is where my thought blossomed. Lying in an American Court is an accountable ethical violation designed to insure the integrity of our system of Justice.
Isn't it so that the system of worship espoused in the Bible is also based on an accountable system of ethical standards designed to insure the integrity of our contact with God? Jesus said "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Mat 5:17)
My question, then, is this: How it is that so many preachers believe the "ends justify the means" when it comes to supposedly "winning lost souls" for Christ? Osteen tells his audience they can be saved by repeating a prayer at the end of his "motivational speech" in his "Church." Schuller has convinced thousands they are saved all the while hiding from them the fact that hell does exist, thereby hiding the possibility of spending eternity there is real. These kinds of people believe nothing is achieved by telling people the whole story of the Gospel. Couldn't it be said that even what we consider inconsequential little things, which may mislead the lost into something about which they do not know the whole truth, are ethical violations of God's law? I think so.
But, hey what do I know. I'm not a lawyer nor a preacher. I just think it wrong to tell someone they can be assured of their salvation and know they are on their way to heaven because they repeated a prayer sometime, somewhere, without informing them that scripture says insurance of salvation is evident through a changed life, not just saying they "accept Christ as savior." (Is 43:11) Moreover, whatever happened to telling the lost about the concept of "repentance." (Mk 2:17)
Maybe those who withhold vital information don't understand God's ethical law. They should watch Law and Order. They might actually learn something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)