Skip to main content


Showing posts from October 19, 2003
I read the first eight chapters of Ezekiel. Wow. You see a lot of idolatry today that goes unpunished, but not unnoticed. God's mercy in wrath is pretty evident as well, as he commands Ezekiel warn those he preaches to that they should repent. He really does want to show mercy, and it seems there God will stay his hand at the smallest obedience. That should not be lost as you read of the Lord's wrath. Also see Habakkuk 3:2.
Speaking of Glenn Reynolds, go to Instapundit. You'll find engaging commentary on all the issues of the day, replete with links to the actual articles. You'll find Instapundit among my links on the right of this page. If you find generally libertarian thought repulsive, (like you're a socialist liberal hippie) you won't like him. But everybody else likes him. And you should too!
Phil, your believer's bias is showing, but I love you for it. What great fun that was. We'll see if Miser Callahan likes this one better than the last. As Glenn Reynolds would say, read the whole thing.
Here's what I've been working on in its unabridged form: Philip Jenkins’ work is a compelling starting point for studying the crisis in the Catholic Church. The book does an excellent job showing the social construction of the problem, giving a sloppy and uncritical media a central role in that construction. However, Jenkins has failed to demonstrate the relevance of the “anti-Catholic” or anticlerical tradition. There two reasons why this is so: One’s classification of anti-Catholic is entirely dependent on perspective. One would have to hold the position of the conservative bishops consistently and unwaveringly to make the charge stick. Secondly, the generally positive portrayal of Catholic religious practices and clergy in the mid-20th century until the emergence of the scandal in the 70s and 80s makes the claim that anti-Catholicism is on the rise tenuous, as this gives powerful evidence of assimilation. Thus, revising Jenkins on this point leaves us with an even better
Just so everyone understands, we did not study God's Word this past Wednesday, in light of Cubs-Marlins Game 7. Wholehearted sympathies go out to our own Cubs fan Brian Miller, and millions of his compatriots worldwide. I do think the Marlins represent the National League's best chance to win. Also, I do not have questions for the first five verses of Colossians 2. I was on a vacation of sorts, and my compatriot Christopher Yee composed the questions for that week. I'll simply post his questions. Fear not, loyal Safe Haven reader, you are in capable hands. I know there's only one of you, and you're teetering on the edge of leaving anyway. I wouldn't read this blog. Jason Kettinger's not all that interesting. He's probably choking on a mix of Coke, (the Best Soda Ever) and belligerent comments. Yes, he owns a bit of a temper, but some people deserve it, he says. For example, why would you build any political philosophy trusting a two-bit OPEC kingpin over
Welcome to another week of Colossians. Here’s 2:6-23. How do we receive Christ? What does it mean for us to walk in him? (Christ) What kind of life will we lead? What is the meaning of verse 7? What is significant about the phrase, “just as you were taught”? Why might philosophy, or certain kinds of philosophy, be a threat to the gospel? What sort of human tradition is Paul criticizing here? What does verse 9 say about Jesus? (See 1:19) What does verse 10 say about Jesus’ position? Who takes care of all our needs? Why does Paul say we were circumcised by Christ? What was circumcision? (Gen. 17:1-8, 11) What is the sign of the New Covenant? Note: Testament and covenant mean the same thing. (Romans 6:3-6) What was our condition before we were believers? (Ephesians 2:5) What does it mean that we are buried with him, and raised with him? Why do we have a “record of debt”? What happens if you don’t pay the bills? Who “paid the bill” for us?
OK, OK: Bulger is pretty stinkin' good. We're not a Super Bowl team yet, but there is hope. Bulger rebounded from two early interceptions to throw 3 touchdown passes with over 200 yards. He's really mobile; even as the pass protection breaks down, he can get away to make plays. That's what makes the Rams dangerous. Their most glaring weakness isn't really hurting them (or most importantly, Bulger). If they block well in the running game, they could have Faulk, or Lamar Gordon, or my Uncle Steve taking handoffs, and it won't matter.