I don't take the fact that others follow this blog for granted, and am instead sincerely thankful for those that do visit, follow, and comment. I have been making an effort recently to be a bit more consistent in my production after "sababatical gigante!"
Those who visit the blog homepage will notice a new gadget in the right column containing items from my Google Reader that I mark as share. I will try to share stories that i think are interesting but that I don't have the time, intelligence, or further comment required to turn the item into a blog post. For those of you that subscribe to the "other WSJ" via reader, you may be interested to know that you can also subscribe to these new shared items. Also, my understanding is that comments can be left within the shared items, so this will give us another forum for discussion.
Give it a try and let me know what you think, and let me know if you have any further suggestions.
Thank you!
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The spiritual and the temporal are different spheres which ought not to be confused. -FA Hayek
10 comments:
I think the new gadget is socialist, and so you're a socialist!!!
I'm also offended personally, privately, publicly, religiously, and intellectually. I challenge you to prove me wrong!
If you try I will respond! Using ALL CAPS! and many more exclamation points to show I know more than you!!!
Take THAT technology!!
"It's not gay if its Tebow" -EDSBS
Well, I couldn't figure out how to post on the stories outside of their individual pages, so I'm posting here.
To the Krugman article, I think it was Mark Twain who said "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics". One of my favorite quotes.
The Vox Populi seems to be in line, stating that anyone who thinks we have seen the end of our financial troubles is hiding in the sand. I tend to agree. Better decisions need to be made by Americans on an individual level for the economy to show real, sustainable growth. I think in part we saw the growth we did during the WWII generation because of individual fiscal responsibility. The following generations have progressively taken too much for granted. If that does not exist, then anything the government does is merely window dressing.
"Bad decisions limit future options"....you know who says this don't you TeeeeJaaaay
New link on Pacifism and Revelation. Ahh, Pacifism again. The subject and idea intrigues me. I still have serious questions about it, but don't know if the way I'm defining it is consistent with most pacifists (perhaps I should read more on the Peace Theology page). My initial question for pacifism is how it addresses self-defense or the defense of one's family.
I would imagine that the author was often faced with antaogistic debaters who waved Revelation in his face in opposition to his pacifism. Revelation is not the first place I would go if arguing against pacifism. Grimsrud hits the main point right on the head. The Revelation is the revelation of Jesus Christ first and foremost. It is revealing him in the complete and fulfilled glory of God asserting His rightful position as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. And as is pointed out, his substitutionary death on the cross is no small point to this.
He starts off with a point about reading Revelation with a pre-conceived notion. Is it about future predictions, or ethical guidance? I think both, and to limit its interpretation to either one or the other is to filter through a personal prejudice. Certainly every book of the Bible is to be used for our spiritual guidance (I prefer that word over ethical), but to interpret Revelation as written with no future prophecy is a bit prosaic in my opinion, as quick support, I offer 1:1 and 4:1.
A lot of the discussion here would come down to how much of Revelation is imagery. Grimsrud appears to feel that it is all imagery - at least after the first three chapters which are easier to explain without imagery. Personally, I don't agree with that stance, but that is really a discussion for another time.
Grimsrud's main argument here is that Christ on the white horse (symbolizing his authority and victory over sin and death through resurrection - absolutely agree here) does not actually take part in a battle here because it has already taken place. He believes the war is already over. I agree with Gimsrud that the victory is already certain and the battle is already won, but I think the interpretation he puts forth here doesn't account for the whole text.
He says "What we actually see in what follows is not a battle but simply the carrying out of God’s judgment. The beast and false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire... without resistance on their part" True, but he leaves out the part of the verse that follows "The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse". When Christ won the victory at the cross all of this did not occur. There is still a battle waging caused by sin even though the victory is won. This battle does have an ending, and that ending is in the future.
Of course to take this all back to pacifism, whether you view the war as imagery or not, whether those slain by the sword are symbolic or not, the fact remains that Christ is the one who executes the judgment, not us. So either way, Gimsrud and I can agree that regardless of other passages or arguments, Revelation 19:11-21 is not given as an argument against pacifism.
The Upside of Irrationality was published by my company, and the CEO would like to issue a thank you to the honorable Justus Hommes for a mention in what he considers the only quality blog left in cyberspace.
One of the things about God's grace and His gift is that it gives us something to share, an ability to have a community among people of differing opinions. I don't agree with Andrew Sullivan on everything, and can tell from his blog we differ on our beliefs about Christianity. He appears to put less importance on the exclusivity or maybe jealousness of God, and I imagine other differences would areise as well, but we could fellowship and share communion together were the opportunity to arise. The reason? Because whatever our differences, we are both Christian. We both believe that Christ died for our sins, and that He rose from the dead, conquering both sin and death. This is the central truth of Christianity. That is what makes us brothers in Christ, and regardless of our differences gives us unity.
Maybe off topic, but that is what I thought about when I read the article. I started off thinking I would have a bit to debate with him, but ended up thinking about what we share instead.
T.J.....you having fun blogging with yourself?
Why yes, Lumbee. I find my own intelligence to be quite a match for itself.
This section is now the blog within a blog - like those Russian nesting dolls you still sleep with.
A?, Thanks for keeping the blog going. The 9 to 5 has turned into an 8 to 8, but I will be back soon.
On Andrew Sullivan, I think it is important to note that he was posting an e-mail he received. I agree with your sentiments about assuming there would be much to disagree about, but finished reading it with the feeling that there was much to agree with.
Just for fun, somehow I ended up here again. I think it was because I was updating my Google Reader. I don't expect Justus to post anything soon as the 8 to 8 may now be a 7 to 9, but thought he should know there are people out there who are still watching and will be ready for the triumphant return.
On a separate note, I don't know how to set up my google reader so that I get email notifications for new posts. If anyone happens to read this - do you?
Post a Comment