tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-384348332024-03-14T03:39:48.052-07:00Christian Skepticism - a reasonable faith...Net Effect - We are incredulous and skeptical of any truth claim that does not originate from or is not glorifying to the Trinitarian God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) or detracts from Holy Scripture.oddXianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15427095709766850092noreply@blogger.comBlogger861125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-44823134686442551892012-04-04T21:52:00.002-07:002012-04-04T21:53:32.244-07:00Great debate/discussion between two great men:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/E99Da4jRnyE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>oddXianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15427095709766850092noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-8018179068401695402011-12-27T04:09:00.000-08:002011-12-27T04:28:13.507-08:00Mark Driscoll and "Pornifying" MarriageI don't post regularly to this blog anymore - mostly because Facebook has become my medium of choice and time - but I decided to post this in a "more public" forum in the hope that this may be edifying to a broader group than just my circle of friends.<br />
<br />
I, like many of the Internet generation, have had a fairly extensive exposure to pornography. Its ubiquity and influence cannot be over emphasized, from the development and introduction of innovative technology to the shaping of popular worldviews and general acceptance and, in fact, promotion in the current "hook-up" culture.<br />
<br />
First off, let me be explicitly clear - pornography is the graphic depiction and perversion of the physical component of the God given method of reproduction and marital relationship. It strips away the intimacy, beauty and even mystery of this component of marriage and reduces it to the basest hedonistic and God-dishonoring elements. Nothing about the depiction of pornography or associated types is redeemable or useful to a child of God in Jesus Christ.<br />
<br />
This fact is why I wanted to join in with other much more prominent and influential voices (<a href="http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/can-we-the-1-corinthians-612-grid">Tim Challies</a>, in particular) on the Interwebs around the consistent "porning" of the marriage relationship by Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill church in Seattle, in hopes that he will acknowledge his error and turn from it (repent).<br />
<br />
One cannot be a person aware of the <a href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1884779_1884782_1884760,00.html">"New Calvinism"</a> movement and not know of or be influenced by Mark Driscoll. His adoption of the basics of the doctrine and promotion of it has been monumental to the resurgence of the theology and worldview that can be broadly characterized as "reformed".<br />
<br />
Mark's doctrinal alignment, straightforward style and unapologetic, "no holds barred" approach has proven enormously effective and has led to tremendous membership growth at Mars Hill and the associated Acts 29 church network.<br />
<br />
With all the success surrounding his brand and the positives of much of his teaching, there is another, darker aspect that threatens to overshadow and corrupt the beneficial components of his work-that is, the hyper-sexualized and graphic approach he has taken and promoted in his teaching ministry.<br />
<br />
In the interest of brevity, I am not going to try and reference all of the content Driscoll has produced in this vein, as there are plenty of sources and resources that have identified and commented on them. I will however, attempt to shed some light on why his approach misses the more important foundational issue and ministers to the symptoms and not the disease.<br />
<br />
As I have already identified, the intimate and physical component of the marriage relationship is God-given and beautiful. There is no sweeter co-joining of man and wife within this context and I rejoice with my fellow married-folk for the gift and responsibility.<br />
<br />
I also am not against variety, within the proper context - there are options that facilitate mutual pleasure in the act of intimacy and I encourage the Biblical, responsible and mutually respectful exploration of them. I am, however, much more skeptical about the origin of the activities Driscoll examines and even promotes in his teaching.<br />
<br />
If Driscoll could somehow come to the realization that the interest and popularity of sex in the culture is as a result of worldly as opposed to Godly influence, then he could focus more precisely on topics and explication that combats the root of the problem as opposed to grooming the branches.<br />
<br />
Instead of lending respectability to things that come from sources of dishonor, he should instead focus the inquirer on why they are seeking to play out these acts and peel back the influences that they are betraying by focusing on the more carnal aspects of a relationship that should be primarily spiritual. As it is, he is lending an aura of credence and credibility to the wrong area, as opposed to areas his influence could be better leveraged.<br />
<br />
I pray that Mark Driscoll will examine himself and his motivations for focusing on the more sensationalistic aspects of relationships and instead encourage husbands and wives to explore how they can make Jesus more and more central to their lives in every aspect.<br />
<br />
JDLUnknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-48480718965620495952011-08-25T12:45:00.001-07:002011-08-25T12:45:27.850-07:00Modern "Tolerance": From Steps To LeapsI guess we had to see this coming sooner or later...<br />
<br />
<a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/24/group-of-psychiatrists-wants-to-redefine-pedophilia-to-promote-tolerance/">Group of psychiatrists wants to redefine pedophilia to promote tolerance</a>Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-23800230170485471252011-08-19T08:40:00.000-07:002011-08-19T08:40:14.460-07:00More Atheistic EschatologyThis is the kind of stuff one can expect when the Biblical view of humanity is rejected...<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-protect-civilisations">Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilizations, say scientists</a>Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-81373801495383486902011-05-05T15:40:00.000-07:002011-05-05T15:40:40.819-07:00Scientist seeks to banish evil, boost empathyIt seems that naturalism is beginning to form the eschatology portion of its religion.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://af.reuters.com/article/southAfricaNews/idAFLDE7430U720110505">Click here to read article.</a>Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-11733901976897384592011-04-26T09:02:00.000-07:002011-04-26T09:02:12.691-07:00Canyon carved rapidly by local flood...how edifying!<blockquote>Our traditional view of deep river canyons, such as the Grand Canyon, is that they are carved slowly, as the regular flow and occasionally moderate rushing of rivers erodes rock over periods of millions of years.<br />
<br />
Such is not always the case, however. "We know that some big canyons have been cut by large catastrophic flood events during Earth's history," Lamb says.</blockquote><br />
<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100620155748.htm">More here</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-37147602940046756122011-02-05T16:23:00.000-08:002011-02-05T16:24:02.182-08:00Al Mohler frames the nature of the Creation vs Evolution debate<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #363636; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px;">...the vise of evolutionary theory is now revealing the fault lines of the current debate. There can be no question but that the authority of the Bible and the truthfulness of the Gospel are now clearly at stake. The New Testament clearly establishes the Gospel of Jesus Christ upon the foundation of the Bible’s account of creation. If there was no historical Adam and no historical Fall, the Gospel is no longer understood in biblical terms.</span></span><br />
<br />
This is the new shape of the debate over evolution. We now face the undeniable truth that the most basic and fundamental questions of biblical authority and gospel integrity are at stake. Are you ready for this debate?</blockquote><a href="http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/02/01/creation-vs-evolution-the-new-shape-of-the-debate/">more here</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-65749161237961661092010-12-29T05:41:00.001-08:002010-12-29T05:41:14.318-08:00Top Ten Darwin and Design Science News Stories for 2010Download PDF Here:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://arn.org/top10/2010newsstories.pdf">Top Ten Darwin and Design Science News Stories for 2010</a>Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-3775846070026154752010-12-28T16:37:00.001-08:002010-12-28T16:38:51.890-08:00Darwin vs ID<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vl1MClbdCj0?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vl1MClbdCj0?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br />Pretty good stuff - Smart feller. I'd only comment that we don't know via the scientific method how life came about.panta dokimazetehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724337187019929599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-12737784426981920622010-12-28T07:53:00.000-08:002010-12-28T07:54:02.405-08:00Darwin's God - great blog<div class="gmail_quote"><div style="color:rgb(51, 51, 51);font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19px">from the latest post: <span style="color:rgb(153, 51, 51);font-family:'Lucida Grande', 'Trebuchet MS';line-height:normal;font-size:17px;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing:-1px"><a href="http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/12/professor-god-would-not-create-giraffes.html" style="color:rgb(153, 51, 51);text-decoration:none" target="_blank">Professor: God Would Not Create the Giraffe's Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve</a></span></div> <div style="color:rgb(51, 51, 51);font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:19px"><span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(51, 51, 51);line-height:19px"><br> </span></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204, 204, 204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> <font color="#333333" face="Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="line-height:19px">Evolution may or may not be true, but it is not a scientific fact. No one knows for certain whether evolution is true or not, but we certainly do know what is the state of our knowledge. The claim that evolution is a scientific fact is a claim about the state of our knowledge. And while there is uncertainty about evolution, there is no uncertainty about our knowledge.</span></font></blockquote> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204, 204, 204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> <br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204, 204, 204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> <font color="#333333" face="Verdana, sans-serif">We all know what the state of our knowledge is and, from a scientific perspective, that knowledge does not indicate evolution to be a scientific fact. Not even close.</font></blockquote> <div><br></div><br> <div><a href="http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/12/professor-god-would-not-create-giraffes.html" target="_blank">link here</a></div></div> panta dokimazetehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724337187019929599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-67647523808523222892010-12-24T08:18:00.000-08:002010-12-24T08:51:36.085-08:00Divine Love versus Deadly Poison on DisplayChristmas is beautiful time of year celebrated by many, but not by all. This was evident in Richard Dawkin's response to Pope Benedict XVI's message in a piece entitled <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/dec/24/pope-benedict-thought-for-the-day">"A Shameful Thought for the Day"</a><br />
<br />
In this post, Dawkins with utter audacity and unbridled shamelessness, stemming only from the bowels of the very sinful nature he himself seeks to deny, displays none other than the antithesis of godliness as he with full understanding regarding the strategic intent and timing of his release spews forth nothing other than the poisonous spiritual & rhetorical venom of a present day viper who with a dead and hardened heart has inclined and bound himself with unrelenting commitment to opposing, throwing off and trampling without cease the name and glory of his creator and eternal ruler, and in the process is found doing no other than seeking his own glory and trying to build a name for himself among men, which eventually in time and eternity will be seen as not only temporal and sadly displaced, but to have evidenced rebelliousness and treason of the greatest kind, should he not turn and repent before this same God, who even now in the face of all his misdirected acts and ambitions, holds out and displays most openly and vividly especially at this time of year, the most loving and selfless and gracious and sufficient display of divine love and salvation the world has ever known, and yet at present while it's revealed for all the world to see, it lies not only beyond Dawkin's aspirations and affections, but as the object of his profaning and damning imagination and condemnation.<br />
<br />
To be simple and brief:<br />
1. Dawkins errs in both failing to understand the method of the propagation and nature of sin and hence fails to see the necessity of redemption. To our chagrin though lamentable, it's laughable that Dawkins would assert it Christian theory that sin (which is of a 'spiritual' origin and nature) is bequeathed and passed on simply by Adam's physical or "bodily semen". While it's true that mankind was changed as a result of Adam's sin (posititionally before God as well as "condition"-ally as we became sinners) and while it's true that in nature both nature as well as genes are passed through conception and birth, Dawkin's fails to recognize both man's federal relationship to God in Adam and in Christ as well as the fact that sin ultimately has meaning only in relation to God. Shouldn't one who is so forthright and venomous in his attack be the least bit careful to understand the opposing position before publicly attempting to criticize and condemn it, especially knowing the worldwide nature of the exposure?<br />
<br />
Additionally, if original sin is not true, then why do all men possess the nature of Adam, participate in the acts of the sinful nature, prove powerless to change (apart from Christ) and incur the consequences, even death itself? It's not enough to heap insult at the premise if you cannot as well explain the corollaries.<br />
<br />
2. Dawkins also errs and shows blind ignorance when suggesting the manner of God's redemption to be "one of the most repugnant ideas ever to occur to a human mind". Dawkins states "For heaven's sake, if he [God] wanted to forgive us, why didn't he just forgive us?" But to state this is to fail to account for the holiness of God of whom it would be impossible to unjustly turn the eye and fail to reckon with the sin itself. As Paul explains in Romans 3, God accomplished salvation not only in such a way as to be just (i.e., and deal with the sin) but one who also justifies the sinner (which He is able to having provided both forgiveness and righteousness by His own atoning sacrifice and offer of righteousness).<br />
<br />
What's clear this time of year, a time when the star of Bethlehem shines so brightly, is that NO ONE should be led astray by Dawkin's present rantings and ravings, the writing of no less than a madman, but rather every reason this season in keeping with the veracity of God's truth and Word points us to the only one in whom both original sin can be dealt with and redemption accomplished by the shedding of blood, that being Jesus Christ himself, who has become for us wisdom from God, that is our righteousness, our holiness and our redemption! May not only the contrast but the attack itself which has been set before upon Christ and Christmas in this example lead to none other than the glory of God's wondrous name, though the redemption and faith of those who believe!All Things Reformedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921579806367678328noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-7594401278293007192010-12-23T05:41:00.000-08:002010-12-23T05:41:41.484-08:00Perhaps another Fizzling Wishoops... could it be another wishful hope fizzling out?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19902-did-martian-methane-signal-come-from-earth.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news">Did 'Martian' methane signal come from Earth?</a><br />
<br />
... perhaps, the better hope is the one found in the good news of Christmas!All Things Reformedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921579806367678328noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-19119092124845022712010-12-14T06:24:00.000-08:002010-12-14T06:24:28.603-08:00Atheist Bus Ads<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/us/14atheist.html?pagewanted=2&partner=rss&emc=rss">“It can be pretty lonely for a nonbeliever at Christmastime around here." </a>(Terry McDonald, chairman of atheist group in Fort Worth running bus ads)<br />
<br />
... Immanuel (God with us!)All Things Reformedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921579806367678328noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-71971330546053772652010-12-13T08:03:00.000-08:002010-12-13T08:03:43.250-08:00Skeptical of ET AbiogenesisShould the discovery of a "potentially habitable planet" really be considered as "Evidence for ET"? <br />
<br />
<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101208/ap_on_sc/us_sci_alien_life">Evidence for ET is mounting daily, but not proven</a><br />
<br />
I have no idea of life exists on other planets or not. However, the above article seems to cheapen the miracle that is life, assuming that life can (and necessarily will) emerge from abiotic material just as long as a planet can be found to support it.Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-10359738552209049712010-11-12T07:35:00.000-08:002010-11-12T07:35:31.875-08:00CS ApologiesOur apologies to our readers for the various LinkedIn and Spam email posts which have been showing up on our blog. We believe the technical issues have now been resolved and apologize for the inconvenience.All Things Reformedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07921579806367678328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-13465233247395576612010-10-15T11:27:00.000-07:002010-10-15T11:28:07.493-07:00Update on Earth-like planet found - oopsie!<blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">Remember <strong><a href="http://www.geekosystem.com/gliese-581-earthlike-planet-could-sustain-life/">Gliese 581g</a>, </strong>the Earth-like planet whose discovery scientists announced two weeks back, saying it could potentially sustain life? Bad news: Not only were the initial reports that "the chances for life on this planet are 100 percent" overblown; now, new data suggests that the planet may not actually exist.<p><strong>Steven Vogt</strong>, the researcher who led the team that announced the Gliese 581g discovery (and the utterer of the now-infamous "chances for life on this planet are 100 percent" line, which he clarified was a statement of personal belief rather than of scientific evidence), based his discovery on a mix of his work at Hawaii's Keck Observatory and previously published data.</p>But the publishers of that old data used by Vogt, who collected it using Chile's High Accuracy Radial Velocity Planet Searcher (HARPS), have come out with new data which lacks evidence for Gliese 581g.<br clear="all"></blockquote> <br>uh-huh...<br><br><a href="http://www.geekosystem.com/earth-like-planet-gliese-581g-may-not-actually-exist/">link to article</a><br><br>-- <br>Respectfully, <br><br>JD<br><br>Qui cantat, bis orat (to sing once is to pray twice!) - St Augustine<br> panta dokimazetehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724337187019929599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-60122236881591612892010-10-15T08:59:00.001-07:002010-10-15T08:59:23.016-07:00No Heaven on Earth - Skepticism that resonates with this Christian SkepticWhile I don't agree with the worldview - I do resonate with the logic against "technological triumphalism".<br><br><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"> Singularity-level technology changes the world to the point where the things our ancestors wanted are not the same things we want. Today, we are trying to roll back the effects of industrialization. We are trying to undo the damage that penicillin did. If history, real history, teaches us any lesson it's that new technologies do not cause us to transcend. They fix some things, and then cause new problems we hadn't anticipated.<br></blockquote><br><a href="http://io9.com/5661534/why-the-singularity-isnt-going-to-happen">Link to full article</a><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Respectfully, <br><br>JD<br><br>Qui cantat, bis orat (to sing once is to pray twice!) - St Augustine<br> panta dokimazetehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724337187019929599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-72698655453427546502010-09-30T11:44:00.001-07:002010-09-30T11:44:33.046-07:00‘Potentially Habitable’ Planet Discovered Orbiting Nearby StarFile under: Funding ploy...<br><br><a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-09-30/-potentially-habitable-planet-discovered-orbiting-nearby-star.html">http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-09-30/-potentially-habitable-planet-discovered-orbiting-nearby-star.html</a><br clear="all"> <br>-- <br>Respectfully, <br><br>JD<br><br>Qui cantat, bis orat (to sing once is to pray twice!) - St Augustine<br> panta dokimazetehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724337187019929599noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-57470313584823696092010-09-25T10:51:00.000-07:002010-09-25T10:52:04.888-07:00Excellent Article on the "New Atheism"<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; "> The principal source of my melancholy, however, is my firm conviction that today's most obstreperous infidels lack the courage, moral intelligence, and thoughtfulness of their forefathers in faithlessness. What I find chiefly offensive about them is not that they are skeptics or atheists; rather, it is that they are not skeptics at all and have purchased their atheism cheaply, with the sort of boorish arrogance that might make a man believe himself a great strategist because his tanks overwhelmed a town of unarmed peasants, or a great lover because he can afford the price of admission to a brothel. So long as one can choose one's conquests in advance, taking always the paths of least resistance, one can always imagine oneself a Napoleon or a Casanova (and even better: the one without a Waterloo, the other without the clap).</blockquote> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div><br></div>full article <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/print/article/2010/04/believe-it-or-not">here</a><br>-- <br>Respectfully, <br><br>JD<br><br> Qui cantat, bis orat (to sing once is to pray twice!) - St Augustine<br> panta dokimazetehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724337187019929599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-69383590138440097132010-09-11T05:37:00.000-07:002010-09-11T05:38:11.746-07:00Al Mohler on Stephen Hawkings<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; "> The God of the Bible is not merely a First Cause — He is the sovereign Creator and Sustainer of all that is, who rules the universe by His Word. Christians must recognize the "God of the gaps" as a false idol of theological surrender. Furthermore, Christians must also understand that any scientific admission of God as a possible First Cause without continuing rule over creation is no cause for celebration. The triune God cannot be reduced to a First Cause among other causes.</blockquote> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div><br></div><div>Full article <a href="http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/09/07/no-need-for-god-stephen-hawking-defies-divine-creation/">here</a></div> panta dokimazetehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724337187019929599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-41804677126811800132010-09-04T09:56:00.000-07:002010-09-04T09:57:08.813-07:00Amazing insight into Stephen Hawkins - by his former wife<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); line-height: 19px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 17px; "><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; "> As Stephen became more famous, his associations changed to more and more eminent scientists, which Jane had to admit she did not find appealing. The contrast between her old friends and the world's leading scientists who became their friends (as Stephen became increasingly renowned in his field) was enormous<span style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">. </span>Their old friends were able to talk intelligently about many things and show a 'human interest in people and situations'. In contrast, as a whole, their new friends were 'a dry, obsessive bunch of boffins', little concerned with people, but rather very concerned with their personal scientific reputations. She adds, 'They were much more aggressively competitive than the relaxed, friendly relativists with whom we had associated in the past' (p. 296). Their old friends' dedication to science verged on the dilettante in comparison with the 'driving fanaticism' of their new friends (p. 296). Jane stresses that she concluded that</blockquote> <blockquote style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; " class="gmail_quote"> <blockquote>'Nature was powerless to influence intellectual beings who were governed by rational thought, [but] who could not recognize reality when it stood, bared before them, pleading for help. They appeared to jump to conclusions, which distorted the truth to make it fit their preconceptions' (p. 312).</blockquote> </blockquote></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); line-height: 19px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; "><br> </span></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; "> Although many other women might have left Stephen because of his intolerable attitude toward her, and especially what she represented, she stuck by her husband through everything. It was he who left her for another woman. She tried in vain to reconcile with Stephen—his terms were, he would live at home with his family for part of the week, and the rest of the week he would live 'with his ladylove' (p. 574). This was unacceptable to Jane. His selfishness and hedonism had shown through again.</blockquote> <div><br></div><div><br></div>Article <a href="http://creation.com/jane-hawking-music-to-move-the-stars">here</a><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Respectfully, <br><br>JD<br><br>Qui cantat, bis orat (to sing once is to pray twice!) - St Augustine<br> panta dokimazetehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724337187019929599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-85803938169362436632010-09-04T09:10:00.000-07:002010-09-04T09:10:52.528-07:00Symbaloo.com is a great link management site!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.knitwareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/symbaloo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="http://www.knitwareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/symbaloo.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">I like Symbaloo.com - iPod like interface to organize your bookmarks online - I even added a <a href="http://www.symbaloo.com/mix/Reformed%20Theology%20Blogs?searched=true">Reformed, etc webmix</a> - give it a try!</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-54730417768091605142010-09-04T06:11:00.000-07:002010-09-04T06:11:04.334-07:00Good article on Stephen Hawkins latest pronouncement<blockquote>I will gladly listen to Stephen Hawking when he holds forth on matters of theoretical physics, but he’s as qualified to talk about philosophical and religious issues as any college freshman. There is a qualitative difference between the sciences, which speak of objects, forces, and phenomena within the observable universe, and philosophy or religion which speak of ultimate origins and final purposes. Science, as such, simply cannot adjudicate questions that lie outside of its proper purview—and this is precisely why scientists tend to make lots of silly statements when they attempt to philosophize. </blockquote><br />
<br />
<a href="http://wordonfire.org/WoF-Blog/WoF-Blog/September-2010/Culture--Stephen-Hawking---More-Tiresome-Atheism.aspx">article here</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-65370873752384845722010-08-27T05:24:00.001-07:002010-08-27T05:26:57.804-07:00Shai Linne on Faulty Doctrine<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I59SaX84Z4k?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I59SaX84Z4k?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br /><div>This guy is blowing me away!<br />--<br />Respectfully,<br /><br />JD<br /><br />Qui cantat, bis orat (to sing once is to pray twice!) - St Augustine<br /></div>panta dokimazetehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724337187019929599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-55169786473385470112010-08-25T08:33:00.001-07:002010-08-25T08:33:23.647-07:00Al Mohler on Michael Dowd's propaganda atheism<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; color: rgb(54, 54, 54); line-height: 21px; "><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; "> We are engaged in a great battle for ideas that Christians understand to be a battle for hearts, minds, and souls. Dowd and his fellow evangelists for evolution are certain that they own the future, and that biblical Christianity will simply fade and disappear. "Ours is a time of space telescopes, electron microscopes, supercomputers, and the worldwide web," he asserts. His conclusion: "This is not a time for parsing the lessons given to a few goatherds, tentmakers, and camel drivers."</blockquote> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; "> Well, give Michael Dowd credit for reminding us where the rejection of biblical Christianity inevitably leads.</blockquote></span><br><a href="http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/08/10/thank-god-for-the-new-atheists/">full article here</a><br> <div><br></div><div>-- <br>Respectfully, <br><br>JD<br><br>Qui cantat, bis orat (to sing once is to pray twice!) - St Augustine<br> </div> panta dokimazetehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724337187019929599noreply@blogger.com0