my totally weird brother-in-law and sis came to my house; oh well; least he didn't shriek out my name like he does in the background during cell phone conversations with Cat. ;)
I came across this great article on "Bible Reading." You won't regret reading it.
Or, you can even listen to it online! I actually came across the article on a neat website (http://www.librivox.org) that offers free Audiobooks that are in the Public Domain.
It will only take about 10 minutes to read/listen to.
"If sons are generally ruined in this world by large inheritances from their parents, they are, perhaps, as often ruined in the next world by large inheritances of orthodox sentiments and opinions, of which they are possessed by the wills of their ancestors, without the trouble of reading and thinking for themselves. There are not more helpless cases on earth than the heirs of orthodoxy; for they are infallibly right without evidence, without examination, without any concern of their own."
I really, really don't like politics. Last week one of our elders pulled me aside as though he wanted to have a very serious conversation with me. He said, "I've heard that you've been entertaining thoughts about voting for Obama. Perhaps you aren't aware that..." You know what came next. :)
If you know me you know how I dislike everything McCain stands for. Some have apparently taken that to mean that I think Obama is the better choice. Well, no he is not.
So, who shall I vote for?
- I like neither candidate enough to even bear the thought of casting a vote in support of them.
- My vote does not count. (You should be amazed at how many arguments this statement has incited in the last few days. Do away with the electoral college, and then we'll talk.)
- Obama will win Illinois. (Again, is there really any argument here? Everybody knows it's true.)
- Therefore, any vote I cast will be a vote based on principle not on the outcome of the election.
Only one argument has really tempted me to vote for McCain...
McCain will appoint Supreme Court justices that will oppose Roe v. Wade.
This sounds like a great reason to vote for him. But is it really?
Before you vote, please consider what this guy has to say...
His name is Chuck Baldwin and he's running too (yes, really). You may wonder why he would even run. He is running because he wants this country to be great, not just the "lesser of two evils."
So many Republicans are so worried about keeping Democrats out of office that they refuse to consider another party. They settle for something that is awful (the Republican party) to avoid something that is extremely awful (the Democratic party). Why not vote for what we all really want, something that is truly good, and something that we can put our full support behind?
Because we won't win? As far as I'm concerned electing "awful" isn't winning, any way you look at it.
If you live in a swing state (the grey ones), I encourage you to vote for McCain.
If you don't (like me), I encourage you to vote for what you really believe.
How? Find out about the Constitution Party. I suspect you will be surprised at how much you agree with them.
This is not just another long shot independent party. This is a new party that really stands for what we believe. I'm confident that when the word gets out, and we all vote for what we truly believe this country will finally become the great nation we long to live in.
Yes, and those are a totally different issue. If my vote really counts I'll go ahead and do the "lesser of two evils" thing. But if not, I'm totally voting for what I really believe.
I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries. Then again, collectively that's possibly why we ended up with McCain as the nominee instead of Romney or Thompson. The conservative vote was split too many different ways and the moderate bloc focused on McCain. Blech. I live in an Obama pocket within a generally conservative city, and my state should go for McCain no matter what, so I don't know. I'm pretty sure I am voting McCain because of the Supreme Court issue, but since my vote doesn't *really* count, I do see your point.
some very good points, thanks for this. Being in a swing state, I have to worry about the lesser of two evils. I am not sure that McCain IS the lesser of two evils, but that gets into another really long discussion. I do wonder why more people don't vote for the constitution party if you truly believe that you should vote for what is the most moral candidate. It shouldn't matter if he/she is likely to win or not if it is between you and God, and doing what is right.
You are right, this candidate is the most likely to do anything about abortion at all. So, the answer does exist. I'll have to look at more of his policies as well!
holding my breath till wednesday the 5th... I voted today......(I will not ltierally hold my breath for that long as i will pass out..but maybe thats a good thing as i can be knocked out for the rest of the day...ROTFLOL)
I voted for McCain even though I live in California and my vote may not count but it counts with me. I can then voice my opinion because I have voted. I believe McCain can win. God is in control and He will put whomever He wants in power.
I started studying Greek with Dan Peters last week. We began reading through Matthew. Apparently Dan likes to give Greek names to anyone who studies with him. His name is simple... Δανιηλ (Daniel). Well, here's my new name... Ιος. It means "rust" or "poison." hmm... "the tongue is a restless evil, full of deadly ιος" (James 3:8). Do you think I can petition for one that is less... deleterious?
_________________
For Halloween, our puppy is going "Trick-for-Treating." Of course, she's had a lot of practice. When all else fails she invariably resorts to "Roll Over." She is absolutely nuts, but we love her!
_________________
Have a nice day!
P.S. For those of you who didn't already know, the cold weather makes me very happy!
Fun! Your cold weather is heading our way. We're going to have a couple nights in the 40's. I know, that's not very cold, but it is close to recording breaking for Oct. in FL. I'm excited!
We will keep that in mind but I'm not sure it would be fair to get a puppy at our age. What I can see us doing is getting a rescue dog from the shelter who would appreciate being with a couple of "old dogs."
I sure miss the cold! BTW, i am planning on being in Valparaiso, IN in summer 2009. That's not too far from you guys, so hopefully we can get a chance to see each other. Keep up the greek, I barely passed one year w/ a C!
Only one requirement if you want to make a guess: read it before you google it!
"Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet. A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light. Often it cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of a good many other modern books. If you join at eleven o'clock a conversation which began at eight you will often not see the real bearing of what is said. Remarks which seem to you very ordinary will produce laughter or irritation and you will not see why - the reason, of course, being that the earlier stages of the conversation have given them a special point. In the same way sentences in a modern book which look quite ordinary may be directed at some other book; in this way you may be led to accept what you would have indignantly rejected if you knew its real significance. The only safety is to have a standard of plain, central Christianity ("mere Christianity" as Baxter called it) which puts the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective. Such a standard can be acquired only from the old books. It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones."
hey rusty, im doin alright, working on my 7 year undergrad, ahaha. thats true about 2, some ideas are simply incompatible. im trying to figure out prevenient grace. have you heard of the principle of sufficient light? if we respond to what we know of God's will, then we are in God's graces. the idea does seem disastrously counterproductive to evangelical mission. without an objective standard there can be no truth claims.
Yep, you guys are right! It's C.S. Lewis. I believe he's talking about books in general, although he is specifically refering to books about the Bible.
Rusty, you dont' know me but I read your posts on Josh's site. I agree with your position, but wanted to point out a flaw in your reasoning...not to change your conclusion, only to strengthen your argument on better facts. Your comment about singing and plucking is one I've heard before, but after I took some Greek courses I realized something about that word psallo constanty used to mean to pluck. If you don't mind, read my most recent post and look under the section talking about psallo. You might find it interesting. BTW...I appreciate your comments, you have contributed to standing for the truth well. Keep it up.
It is more than instrumental music though. It goes beyond that. Going beyond God's word like that is a lack of reverence to His authority. It's a scary thing and very serious.
I agree, and appreciate your thoughts on discussion of issues. My thoughts on "psallo" are nothing more than what I put in the post. I found out that many denominations use that to say that the original word means to be plucked like the chords of an instrument. And they use that to establish authority for instruments. Traditionally, those opposed to instruments would say that the plucking is of the heart strings. I think the heart plays a part, we just misuse that word. As you will see in the short section of the post, by the NT times, that word only meant to sing. It was the translation of the OT where the Greek word "psallo" meant "to be plucked", and even then only half the time.
Lonnie is very concerned but he knows that Moussie is 13 years old and that is a long time for a little doxie.mHe will be lost and will probably want to get another dog at some point. Moussie could fool us all and live a lot longer.
