1. A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth [PDF] -- A draft of an article written by Lydia and Tim McGrew for the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland. (HT: Fides Quaerens Intellectum)
2. Info visualizations of the social networks and cross references in the Bible (HT: Kottke.org)
3. The Acton Institute finds "a definition of freedom worth noting":
The Word of God teaches that the Christian is a free man and should "stand in the freedom which Christ has made him free." What is meant by Christian freedom? What is freedom in general? We answer: it is not the right and the ability to do as one pleases, but the ability to move without constraint in the sphere for which God made us. Freedom therefore is not inconsistent with limitation and law. The bird is free only when it can move in the air unhindered. A worm is free when it is not prevented from moving in the ground--in a sphere which would mean bondage and death for many other creatures. A locomotive is not free unless its motion is confined to the two rails on which it was made to run. Man was made in the image of God to be like Him and to reflect his holiness. Consequently he is free only when he moves without constraint in the sphere of holiness and obedience to God's law.
From “Christian Liberty,” in “Report of the Committee on Worldly Amusements,” Agenda: Synod of the Christian Reformed Church, To convene June 13, 1928 at Holland, Mich., p. 22.
4. Roe v. Wade, 35 Years Later: An Interview with Robert P. George
The legal problem with Roe v. Wade is simple: The Supreme Court's decision to invalidate state laws prohibiting or restricting abortion lacks any basis in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution of the United States. The late John Hart Ely, a famous legal scholar who himself supported legal abortion as a matter of public policy, said that Roe v. Wade "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." The justices who manufactured a right to abortion in Roe violated and dishonored the very Constitution they purported to interpret by substituting their own moral and political judgments for those of the elected representatives of the people. Their ruling was a gross usurpation by the judiciary of the authority vested by the Constitution in the people themselves, acting through the constitutionally prescribed institutions of republican democracy. As dissenting Justice Byron White put it, Roe was nothing more than an exercise of "raw judicial power." It was not merely an incorrect decision, but an anti-constitutional one.
5. Fred Sanders on The New Testament: Final Answers to Rhetorical Questions
One of the most arresting things the New Testament does is give real answers to what the Old Testament had put forth as rhetorical questions. Have you ever noticed this?
6. Quote of the Week: "Most professing Christians don't know what they believe, and so can neither understand nor defend the Christian faith -- much less live it." -- Charles Colson
7. In the U.S. south, is Canadian a new racial slur?
Last August, a blogger in Cincinnati going by the name CincyBlurg reported that a black friend from the southeastern U.S. had recently discovered that she was being called a Canadian. "She told me a story of when she was working in a shop in the South and she overheard some of her customers complaining that they were always waited on by a Canadian at that place. She didn't understand what they were talking about and assumed they must be talking about someone else," the blogger wrote.
"After this happened several times with different patrons, she mentioned it to one of her co-workers. He told her that ‘Canadian' was the new derogatory term that racist Southerners were using to describe persons they would have previously referred to [with the N-word.]"
A similar case in Kansas City was reported last year on a Listserv, or electronic mailing list, used by linguistics experts. A University of Kansas linguist said that a waitress friend reported that "fellow workers used to use a name for inner-city families that were known to not leave a tip: Canadians. ‘Hey, we have a table of Canadians…. They're all yours.' "
(HT: BoingBoing)
8. Poll: Everyone lies at least four times a day
Each of us, according to a new survey by a British beverage firm, will tell an average total of 88,000 lies over the course of our lives.
According to the firm's poll of 2,500 men and women, "Nothing is wrong, I'm fine" tops what it says is a lengthy list of common lies.
That's 1,460 untruths a year or more than four in every day of an average, 60-year adult lifetime.
9. 100 books every child should read
10. What kind of law is the "law of unintended consequences?" Alex Tabarrok explains:
The law of unintended consequences is what happens when a simple system tries to regulate a complex system. The political system is simple, it operates with limited information (rational ignorance), short time horizons, low feedback, and poor and misaligned incentives. Society in contrast is a complex, evolving, high-feedback, incentive-driven system. When a simple system tries to regulate a complex system you often get unintended consequences.
11. Seth Godin asks, "Who are these people?"
If you look at the numbers, you soon realize that a huge portion of the population apparently:
* Has read two books in the last year, Harry Potter and The DaVinci Code
* Uses only two websites, Google and Facebook
* Visits only a few blog posts a day, and every single one of them is on the home page of Digg
* Watches only two or three TV shows, including the Super Bowl
* Eats only at McDonalds
* Watches only incredibly snarky or juvenile videos on YouTube
Unfortunately, I think those people are called "Americans."
12. John Mark Reynolds asks, "Are there more atheists or Evangelicals at NRO?"
13. The 50 Greatest Fictional Weapons of All Time
The mantra of the company I worked for was top to bottom, left to right. This way you could easily walk into any room and know exactly where to get started. The work was divided into"wet rooms" (bathrooms and kitchens) and "dry rooms" (living room, dining room, bedrooms). If we were lucky and weren't understaffed, we'd go out with a partner and one person would do the "wet rooms" and the other person would do the "dry rooms". One "wet room" and one "dry room" would be "deep cleaned" each cleaning.
(HT: LIfehacker)
15. Min Katrina Lieskovsky on "How to Date a Male Model"
My secret to dating male models is simple: Tell them they’re smart. They’re caricatured as feebleminded and vain—an occupational hazard of a profession based on looks—and have become something of a cultural joke, like male nurses or secretaries.
In reality, the male model is well traveled, urbane, charming, conversant, open-minded, scheming, and self-promoting. Unlike the female model, he hasn’t been mentally preparing for his modeling career his entire life: He probably just stumbled into it. He sees his good fortune, therefore, as accidental and ephemeral, which leaves him emotionally detached from his work. Nevertheless, he is plagued by a sort of intellectual insecurity, which a girl can exploit. While I was fascinated by his exotic world of glamour and jet-setting, he was just as intrigued by my world of reference books and research projects. I would ask what Karl Lagerfeld was like, and he’d ask with equal wonder about Stephen Jay Gould (well, after I explained who he was). I would brag about his model ranking to my friends, and he’d announce my SAT scores at parties, which went over surprisingly well. Each male model I dated told me he had never met a girl like me: smart, but easy to talk to; nerdy, but still pretty hot. I was never sure if I was unique or had simply come from a world different from his, but I took the praise eagerly.
By reassuring the beautiful man that he was smart, I was merely telling him to realize his intelligence. And in return, he would help me to realize my own beauty.
(HT: The American Scene)
16. 10 Ways We Get the Odds Wrong (HT: The Presurfer)
17. The Suprime Mortgage Meltdown Satirically Explained by the British
(HT: Open Culture)
18. A Taxonomy of Regional Pizza Styles (HT: BoingBoing)
19. RedState's Moe Lane has a useful suggestion for the federal government: "I'll even make a proposal: for every ten bucks we cut from other non-military government budgets, we put in one to the NEA's budget. No strings, although we all like jazz concerts and Shakespeare festivals, right? And statues. Statues are nice."
20. Timewaster of the Week: Mass Attack
21. Image of the Week: According to The New England Journal of Medicine, this 10-pound hairball was lodged in the stomach of an 18-year-old woman. On questioning, the patient stated that she had had a habit of eating her hair for many years -- a condition called trichophagia. She went to the doctor after five months of stomach pain, vomiting after eating and a 40-pound weight loss.
(HT: Neatorama)
22. Everybody's PIN Number Revealed (Check it out: yours is on here, too)
23. John Piper on The Barna Group and "Born Agains":
Now I want to say loud and clear that when the Barna Group uses term “born again” to describe American church-goers whose lives are indistinguishable from the world, and who sin as much as the world, and sacrifice for others as little as the world, and embrace injustice as readily as the world, and covet things as greedily as the world, and enjoy God-ignoring entertainment as enthusiastically as the world—when the term “born again” is used to describe these professing Christians, the Barna Group is making a profound mistake. It is using the biblical term “born again” in a way that would make it unrecognizable by Jesus and the biblical writers.
Here is the way the researchers defined “born again” in their research:
"Born again Christians" were defined in these surveys as people who said they have made "a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today" and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as "born again." Being classified as "born again" is not dependent upon church or denominational affiliation or involvement.In other words, in this research the term “born again” refers to people who say things. They say, “I have a personal commitment to Jesus Christ. It’s important to me.” They say, “I believe that I will go to heaven when I die. I have confessed my sins and accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior.” Then the Barna Group takes them at their word, ascribes to them the infinitely important reality of the new birth, and then blasphemes that precious biblical reality by saying that regenerate hearts have no more victory over sin than unregenerate hearts.
24. On her trip to Vietnam, Megan McArdle was asked a tough question:
One of the Vietnamese people I met here asked a question I had a hard time answering, even though she spoke excellent English: why, she asked, did DC have so much crime?
Even with no language barrier, I found myself staring across a cultural gulf I couldn't bridge in the 45 minutes we had to eat lunch. I wanted to say, "they are poor". But that seems a ridiculous statement in a country of 85 million people who are nearly all living at a lower standard of material consumption than the poor of DC.
25. LOLCat of the Week
moar funny pictures
26. 'Tree Of Life' Has Lost A Branch, According To Largest Genetic Comparison Of Higher Life Forms Ever -- Norwegian and Swiss biologists have made a startling discovery about the relationship between organisms that most people have never heard of. The Tree of Life must be re-drawn, textbooks need to be changed, and the discovery may also have significant impact on the development of medicines.
27. Study: How much you're willing to pay depends on what you were just doing -- Your shopping buddy turns to you and asks, “Which one of these would you get"” Or, you’re talking with your spouse about which candidate you’d like to vote for before switching on the nightly news. Turns out simply being asked to make a choice– especially if you’re in a hurry or have something on your mind – will make you like the next thing you see more, says a new study from the Journal of Consumer Research. The researchers found that asking people to choose among things primed them to think about positive attributes – and caused them to be in a positive frame of mind when evaluating the next item they saw.
28. How to choose among presidential candidates you don't particularly like -- This election season, we’re finding out that some choices are indeed tougher than others. Say you’re a die-hard Kucinich supporter or a Republican but now find yourself for practical reasons having to choose between Hillary and Obama. A new study from the February issue of the Journal of Consumer Research reveals that sometimes asking people to “reject” an option – rather than “choose” an option – makes it easier for consumers to decide among options that they don’t particularly like.
29. Kids learn more when mom is listening --Kids may roll their eyes when their mother asks them about their school day, but answering her may actually help them learn. New research from Vanderbilt University reveals that children learn the solution to a problem best when they explain it to their mom.
30. Clean Or Boiled Tap Water Is As Good As Saline At Cleaning Acute Wounds, Study Finds -- Using drinkable tap water to clean wounds does not increase infection rates, according to the findings of a Cochrane Review. There is, however, no evidence that it reduces infection rates or increases healing rate over leaving the wound alone.
31. How to Make a Mobile Friendly Version of your Blog with Google Reader (HT: Lifehacker)
32. No Time Before Valentine's Day? You'll Pay More For A Gift Just To Avoid A Negative Outcome -- With time to spare before Valentine's Day, you consider a number of grand ways to demonstrate your affection. But what if it's the night before and you still don't have a gift? A timely study proves that, when the gift-giving deadline approaches, our perspective shifts from gifts with positive outcomes -- something that will knock your sweetheart off his or her feet -- to gifts that will simply help us avoid a fight.
33. Storming Omaha Beach (on a shoestring, with three actors)
How 3 graphic designers created D-Day on a shoe string budget for the TIMEWATCH program "Bloody Omaha." (HT: BoingBoing)
1
concerning #7:
I've been using "Canadian" as a slur for years (at least since 2002)... but not as a reference to non-whites. On the contrary, among my friends we used to refer Americans who preferred our present managed economy and "socialism" to a genuinely free market and Constitutionally limited government. A more extreme slur was "French". More recently, after living in Amsterdam for over a year, if someone was left-leaning and rude, I have also been known to refer to them as "Dutch."
"Canadian" was originally a political slur.
Maybe this has gradually bled over into a racial use by racists who incoherently assume that all (or only) non-whites prefer the Welfare State?
It deserves further study.
2
"In the U.S. south, is Canadian a new racial slur?"
Wow, this is a new one on me. I have lived in the deep South my entire life and I have NEVER heard "Canadian" used as a derogatory term. I can't say that it doesn't happen, but it certainly isn't widespread.
posted on 01.28.2008 8:23 AM3
One of the best lists of 33 things you've ever done! FIne job. Interesting links. Thanks.
posted on 01.28.2008 9:19 AM5
Re #23:
What is the responsibility of the church to ensure that people aren't ignorant about what it is to be a Christain? I think that non-denominational churches in particular are susceptible to getting people to the point where they "accept Jesus into their heart" and then leave them to continue on as before. I am convinced that we have churches where the majority of the members don't live lives with any evidence of change compared to their non-church going neighbors. How can we do a better job of discipling new believers, or for that matter people who claim to have benn believers for years, but show no evidence of transformation?
For all of the sterotypes of evangelicals as rigid and doctrinaire, I don't think the reality of many churches comports with that. There seems to be a real reluctance to challenge people and to get them to see that praying "the prayer" and then living like you did before is perilous to one's eternal well-being.
6
Re #12
Can someone tell John Mark Reynolds that Jonah Goldberg is not an atheist? Also tell him that there is no connection between being an atheist and what position one would take on gay marriage (I am opposed).
And also ask him why he thinks Evangelicals need affirmative action hiring plans at conservative magazines to make their views heard.
posted on 01.28.2008 12:03 PM7
Re #12
Can someone tell John Mark Reynolds that Jonah Goldberg is not an atheist? Also tell him that there is no connection between being an atheist and what position one would take on gay marriage (I am opposed).
And also ask him why he thinks Evangelicals need affirmative action hiring plans at conservative magazines to make their views heard.
posted on 01.28.2008 12:04 PM9
Re: #23
"In other words, in this research the term “born again” refers to people who say things. They say, “I have a personal commitment to Jesus Christ. It’s important to me.” They say, “I believe that I will go to heaven when I die. I have confessed my sins and accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior.” Then the Barna Group takes them at their word, ascribes to them the infinitely important reality of the new birth, and then blasphemes that precious biblical reality by saying that regenerate hearts have no more victory over sin than unregenerate hearts."
This strikes me as among the more foolish things Piper has said. For one thing, almost any Christian would say that there is no way for a human to tell if another person is saved - that matter is supposedly between the individual and God. Assuming Barna Group is of the same understanding, they would probably defend themselves by saying they aren't trying to measure the number of Christians, but rather the number of people professing to be Christians, since there is probably no way to quantify the number who are "truly saved." Piper's language is way too harsh for the distinction he's trying to make, but that seems to be characteristic of his writing.
More importantly the miraculous lifestyle changes Christians profess are often superficial ones. The harder, deeper battle with individual vices is, in my experience of 10 years as an evangelical, never fully won by anyone. The idea that Christians as a group behave somehow better than the average non-Christian is one of the most infuriating ones to non-Christians, and is neither biblically nor practically supported. Piper would do well to abandon it, and his judgmental attitude as well.
posted on 01.28.2008 4:27 PM10
And yet, Loki, one of the principal evidences to which early Christian apologists pointed was the superior moral life of professing believers. We cannot deny that our Lord stated "by their fruits you will know them." No one denies the ongoing struggle with sin. That is the battle of the rest of one's life. But we are lazy Christians these days; we are far too easily satisfied by simply being as "good" as everyone else. Piper's not being harsh--he's being prophetic, in the OT sense of the word.
posted on 01.28.2008 5:01 PM11
I am loathe to make pronouncements on the fate of others souls. However, there is something disturbing about the way many, evangelicals behave in comparison to the greater culture. That is there is really little difference between the two.
I will point out that modern Americans are incurious and uninterested in current events, history, and intellectual rigor of any sorts. Should it come as a surprise that this extends to their understanding and pursuit of theology as well?
posted on 01.28.2008 5:24 PM
12
Ken:
Ironically, it seems Piper would disagree with you. The Barna surveys *are* measuring professing believers, many of the very same people Piper describes as "indistinguishable from the world". The difference between Evangelical Christianity and most other religions is Evangelicals will typically say of a misbehaving Christian "he's probably not really a Christian, he just says he is," denying the legitimacy of his faith at all.
Evangelicals are fond of claiming their successes without claiming their failures; a Christian who is viewed as an upstanding person is pointed out as an example of the kind of changes Christian faith brings, while someone whose flaws are more visible or who doesn't fit the typical pattern of the "good Christian" is outcast as not a real Christian.
It's true Jesus said you would know his followers by their fruits. The question I have for that view is this: What do you do with a very moral member of another religion? If moral goodness is the fruit of the Holy Spirit, what do you do when a muslim or a buddhist or a jew seems to exhibit it more than most Christians? Attack his character? Downplay how good he really is? Attack his motivation for being good as not altruistic enough? Arguably any of these attacks can be made against exceptionally good Christians just as easily.
It is my view that personal moral goodness, while often influenced by religion, is by no means decided by it. Each of us has a human nature and makes good and bad choices. There are good and bad Christians as there are good and bad men of any other faith, but on the whole Christians are no more good or bad than any other world religion.
posted on 01.28.2008 6:29 PM13
Actually, Loki, I believe you are misreading Piper. In the quoted statement, he's distinguishing between a verbal profession and what is called a credible profession of faith. The latter is talk matched by walk. The problem with the Barna surveys is that they accept verbal profession at face value. They don't exercise any discernment.
What are we to do with the testimony of outwardly moral non-Christians? The Westminster Confession spells it out this way: "Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to themselves and others: yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner,according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God, they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God: and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God." Spurgeon referred to these great deeds of unregenerate morality as "splendid sins." Whatever is not of faith is sin.
posted on 01.28.2008 8:51 PM14
In the quoted statement, he's distinguishing between a verbal profession and what is called a credible profession of faith. The latter is talk matched by walk. The problem with the Barna surveys is that they accept verbal profession at face value. They don't exercise any discernment.
And exactly how would the Barna survey exercise that discernment?
If Piper is claiming that words don't equal deeds, he's hardly stating something shocking or original. I'd counsel Mr Piper to tend to the beam in his own eye.
This whole conversation confuses me, though. Why are any of you evangelicals worrying about deeds to begin with? Nothing short of perfection is worthy of salvation, according to you, so what matter if a professing Christian is regenerate or not? You can't earn your way to salvation. Christ paid for your passage, all you need do is accept it on faith.
This emphasis on deeds just makes me wonder if you r faith in Christ is as strong as you claim. It almost sounds like you are hedging your bets, like you have some doubts whether Christ's offer to pay for your sins is too good to be true. It seems that this attempt at being more regenerate-than-thou, this one-upsmanship of Piper is akin to Moses' striking the stone a second time. What are you trying to prove? All sin is worthy of damnation, and all men are sinners, so what is the point of trying to put yourself on the least sinful end of the grading curve? Do you have faith in Christ's saving sacrifice or not?
posted on 01.28.2008 9:13 PM15
...Consequently he is free only when he moves without constraint in the sphere of holiness and obedience to God's law.
"God's law" as interpreted and understood by which specific humans?
posted on 01.29.2008 9:47 AM16
Why are any of you evangelicals worrying about deeds to begin with?
Because deeds matter more than words in judging a person's true character.
This emphasis on deeds just makes me wonder if your faith in Christ is as strong as you claim.
I dunno, those Christians who actually sacrifice of themselves, and sometimes risk their own lives, to help people less fortunate than themselves, seem pretty strong in their faith to me. Your insistent belittling of the work of others shows pretty weak faith on your part.
You can't earn your way to salvation. Christ paid for your passage, all you need do is accept it on faith.
What a handy excuse to pretend you can go to Heaven without getting off your ass to do anything decent for anyone else. Did it ever occur to you that a person who has been truly saved, and is in communion with Christ, would probably have more priorities on his mind than merely keeping his own terrified selfish ass out of Hell?
posted on 01.29.2008 10:02 AM17
"God's law" as interpreted and understood by which specific humans?
Perhaps... God's Law as interpreted and understood by God?
posted on 01.29.2008 12:58 PM18
Mr. Duquette: It would appear from your comments that your experience of the beliefs of Christians comes largely from extremes of American revivalism. Stretching all the way back to Luther confessional Protestants have affirmed that Christians are saved by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone--that is, we are to have a faith that proves itself by the way it works itself out in our lives.
Forgive me for continuing to refer to the Westminster Confession, but you might like to examine the sixteenth chapter of that document, which is titled "Of Good Works." There you will find a good discussion of the matter you have called into question.
posted on 01.29.2008 1:09 PM19
Because deeds matter more than words in judging a person's true character.
Agreed, but Judgment isn't about judging character, but faith in Christ. Sola Fides. The judgment of men's character has already been done, and all men failed. That's why Christ had to die.
I dunno, those Christians who actually sacrifice of themselves, and sometimes risk their own lives, to help people less fortunate than themselves, seem pretty strong in their faith to me. Your insistent belittling of the work of others shows pretty weak faith on your part.
I'm not belittling anyone's works, I'm just asking why an Evangelical who accepts Sola Fides, and who has Fides, should be so worried about works. I'm glad that so many Christians continue to perform works of kindness and charity, but they're not doing so because their faith requires it.
And btw, my faith isn't weak, it is nonexistent. My faith in Christ, that is.
What a handy excuse to pretend you can go to Heaven without getting off your ass to do anything decent for anyone else. Did it ever occur to you that a person who has been truly saved, and is in communion with Christ, would probably have more priorities on his mind than merely keeping his own terrified selfish ass out of Hell?
I'm not pretending I can go to Heaven. I'm absolutely certain that I'm not. I don't believe in Heaven, and I don't worry about Hell.
But isn't keeping one's selfish ass out of Hell the whole point of Christianity? It's the main reason that Christ died, to give you an opportunity to keep your ass out of Hell.
posted on 01.29.2008 1:09 PM20
Perhaps... God's Law as interpreted and understood by God?
And this understanding has been fully explained to which humans?
posted on 01.29.2008 3:59 PM21
And this understanding has been fully explained to which humans?
Which ever ones have been guided by the Holy Spirit. You don't think the Holy Spirit would lead them astray do you?
posted on 01.29.2008 4:32 PM22
Which ever ones have been guided by the Holy Spirit. You don't think the Holy Spirit would lead them astray do you?
And we can recognize these people as opposed to the people who only think that they are guided by the Holy Spirit because the former have a halo around their heads, right?
posted on 01.29.2008 4:39 PM23
Ken,
"Actually, Loki, I believe you are misreading Piper. In the quoted statement, he's distinguishing between a verbal profession and what is called a credible profession of faith."
Yet Piper condemns Barna (saying they 'blaspheme') for not examining in detail the life of every person they survey who identifies as a born-again Christian and deciding whether they are truly a Christian or not. Of course he is distinguishing between a verbal and a credible profession of faith, but there is no way for an impersonal poll-taker to test for credible faith. You might as well not have polls to try to determine the number of Christians in America at all. And yet even if not everyone's faith would pass muster on close inspection, the information Barna gathers about the number of people professing to be born again is probably useful, both to actual born again Christians and to others. I am suggesting that Piper should not condemn Barna so harshly (at least I personally believe saying someone blasphemes to be pretty harsh language) for performing a useful service.
As for the Westminster Catechism quote, I was merely pointing out that in the eyes of the world at large, Christianity looks no different from any other religion. There are good Christians who live admirable lives and there are bad Christians whose lives display less merit, the same way there are good members of any other religion. The average non-Christian, if he is being objective, will have difficulty telling Christ's followers by their fruit because even those Christians who bear fruit have flaws, and for every C.S. Lewis in the Christian faith there is a Gandhi in another world religion.
As for Spurgeon, even when I was an Evangelical I disliked him. It seems to me his God is a harsh master who likes nothing more than taking his wrath out on his creations. After all, Spurgeon was a strict believer in predestination who believed some were foreordained by God to go to Hell. I can't imagine how a man could believe the Bible when it says "God is love" (1 John 4:16) and in the same breath say he not only condemns some people to hell, but that he preordained them to go there and they never had a chance from the start. When *I* can be more loving than God, there is something wrong with your idea of God.
I was merely pointing out that what
posted on 01.29.2008 10:21 PM24
And we can recognize these people as opposed to the people who only think that they are guided by the Holy Spirit because the former have a halo around their heads, right?
Just remember that you said it, not I. Anyway, I thought everybody was suppose to have a halo, or do atheists consider auras bunk?
posted on 01.30.2008 12:56 AM25
Just remember that you said it, not I. Anyway, I thought everybody was suppose to have a halo, or do atheists consider auras bunk?
Yes, auras are bunk. When did Christians take up New Age spirituality?
posted on 01.30.2008 8:12 AM26
Who said I had? I can spout off ideas outside of Christianity just as well as you can spout off ideas from within Christianity.
posted on 01.30.2008 8:45 AM27
Loki: And thus we arrive at what I believe (having heard him speak on the subject before) is John Piper's point in all this--the poll is worthless and misleading, so why even ask the question in the first place?
Your comments on Piper make sense to me now that you've also offered an opinion on Spurgeon. The two are very alike in viewpoint. Suffice to say we (you and I) look at life very differently.
posted on 01.30.2008 10:58 AM28
'Unfortunately, I think those people are called "Americans."'
Some Americans. Don't be so snarky.
posted on 02.04.2008 3:32 PM