Right now, my beautiful internet radio station is playing "You Were Mine" by the Dixie Chicks. You're saying, "Why are you listening to those commies?" Don't lie. Because I adore the Dixie Chicks. Yes, I'm an arch-conservative who doesn't give a rat's appendix about Natalie Maines' opinion of Bush. If I got rid of all the music I owned made by liberals, all I'd listen to is audio transcripts of Neal Boortz. Geez. Anyway, I was flipping through the channels last night, and this Joe Scarborough guy was on. Ed Asner was blathering about McCarthyism and unpopular opinion. That guy wouldn't know censorship if it smacked him in the head. I think folks have been extraordinarily patient with all those anti-Bush predictions that turned out wrong. It's not antiwar, the war had nothing to do with it. Yeah, the media classified what Natalie Maines said as antiwar. She said she was ashamed our President was from Texas. Does that have anything in it about a war? I didn't see it. But they're not biased or shallow, are they?
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con
Comments