Skip to main content
I was away for a couple days at my grad school classes. Glad to see you're stopping by. If you're feeling frisky, leave a comment. Your insights often provide fodder for my ridiculously interesting posts. [Which means the fodder goes nowhere.--ed.] Bah! Anyway, I'm thrilled to be taking Christian Anthropology, Prophets, and Catholic Spirituality. For the class on the prophets, sue me, I'll be comparing it to Captain Jack. Well, my teacher is possibly funnier than Captain Jack, (and he used "cranium" in a weird way) but they'd get along great. Well, except that rant about how we're not "people of the Book." On the other hand still, we're going to know the Scriptures as well as anybody. End of story. After all, it's our Bible.

It was great to see Confirmation Sponsor Guy and family at that party. "Incorrigible Papist" is also a correct designation. We were officially there to say goodbye and good luck to Jeff Ryan, who is taking a position as a religion teacher in Minnesota. What I was there to do--officially or otherwise--had very little to do with Jeff, I'm unafraid to say. My timing stinks, but it could still work out. Ahem. Anyway.

I should be writing a paper, and I'll get to it, as soon as I do my best to keep up the ol' page views. I want to write. It makes me happy to write words, to color outside the lines on the coloring book of your lives, for my amusement and yours. If the "Stuff White People Like" guy and the "Stuff Christians Like" guy can get book deals, I should be able to get one, right? Especially since they should be called, "Stuff Liberal White People Like" and "Dumb Stuff White Evangelicals Like," respectively. I digress in a grumpy fashion.

Have I mentioned how much I love Rick Santorum? I mean, honestly. I know that Romney's charge during the primaries that he's an "economic lightweight" is pretty true, and I'd STILL vote for him in under a tenth of a second. I'm not even kidding. Senator, seriously, I would be honored to write speeches for you, sir. Or whatever you needed. He's A) ACTUALLY pro-life, B) ACTUALLY Catholic and Christian, and C) not a Communist. If I'm missing something here, let me know. But we gotta go with this Romney dude. Not only would a standing HHS mandate be an affront to our cherished rights (and God-given ones, at that) but I do believe that it will cost Obama the election. Care to note how many Catholics and evangelicals are in Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin? Do you think that they--and voters worried about the economy--are going to admit to a pollster in August that they're voting against the first black president? I'm telling you, Obama is gonna get destroyed on Election Day. Destroyed. But nobody wants to say it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
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

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un