5 Random, Disconnected Thoughts for Today
5. I wonder if she likes fruit smoothies; she's not Econ Girl, but she's nice* enough.
4. Good job, Wainwright, and good job Brad Penny last night.
3. Nathan Hall should know that he owns the prize still, for the funniest thing ever written on my blog. It's been 7 years; congratulations.
2. Go Royals?!?
1. I cannot stand in judgment of revealed truth; if being a creedal Christian (read: explicitly, intentionally creedal) is better than non-creedal, the creeds cannot be assented to because they agree with my interpretation of Scripture, for two obvious reasons: 1. I, you, and most other normal people* [Sidebar: We shall call the abnormally qualified exegetes the Collins/Wenham/Feingold Exception] are not good enough to interpret Scripture by themselves, thus making most claims subjecting creeds to Scripture preposterous. And 2. they would have no real authority, hence my realization, "Derivative authority is a sham." I congratulate the heretical solo scripturists for seeing the fig-leaf for what it is, but their position is far worse. Let's see: Do I want to be either 1) hyper-preterist, 2) obscenely separatist, and 3) naively positivist? I detect the faint smell of incense! [How faint?--ed.] Well, it doesn't say 'Catholic' blog, does it? [Resistance is futile.--ed.] I would remind that the Borg lost; bad analogy. [Sidebar: The Orthodox have no chance of sucking me in, no matter how much I would want to be married and a presbyter. It's the filioque clause; it's just true. Isn't this in Scripture plainly, in John 15:26? Am I missing something? Even if Ratzinger orders the sacking of St. Louis, I still agree with "who proceeds from the Father and the Son." Ahem.] [Sidebar #2: If conscience and evidence provoke the need to choose between being a presbyter and being a husband, presbyter is going to lose.] Can I live with the fig leaf? Does anyone have an answer to the charge of schism against us? Will I ever willingly assent to an infalliable Church with an infalliable (visible) shepherd?* Stay tuned.
*Note: Yes, I am aware of the eleventy billion qualifications to the Pope's alleged infalliability. Yes, it's exactly eleventy billion. St. Christopher told me.
Side-Rant of Questionable Relevance: You often hear young men ask, "Is she hot?" It's something of a crude, lusty question, but when I get this question (since I'm usually 'in like' with what, 8 women?) I answer, "Enough." And what I mean is, "Yes, I know models, actresses, etc. that might be objectively more appealing to more people, but she's beautiful to me." Once you find that one and she finds you, objective physical beauty, the rankings of all the beautiful people don't matter much. I think it's a sliding scale; if she avoids being evil/stupid/annoying for all the time of knowing each other, and she crosses the "enough" threshold, you're good to go. That's what "nice" means above. Not that I would know; I've never dated, per se. And I really suck at it. But there you go.
5. I wonder if she likes fruit smoothies; she's not Econ Girl, but she's nice* enough.
4. Good job, Wainwright, and good job Brad Penny last night.
3. Nathan Hall should know that he owns the prize still, for the funniest thing ever written on my blog. It's been 7 years; congratulations.
2. Go Royals?!?
1. I cannot stand in judgment of revealed truth; if being a creedal Christian (read: explicitly, intentionally creedal) is better than non-creedal, the creeds cannot be assented to because they agree with my interpretation of Scripture, for two obvious reasons: 1. I, you, and most other normal people* [Sidebar: We shall call the abnormally qualified exegetes the Collins/Wenham/Feingold Exception] are not good enough to interpret Scripture by themselves, thus making most claims subjecting creeds to Scripture preposterous. And 2. they would have no real authority, hence my realization, "Derivative authority is a sham." I congratulate the heretical solo scripturists for seeing the fig-leaf for what it is, but their position is far worse. Let's see: Do I want to be either 1) hyper-preterist, 2) obscenely separatist, and 3) naively positivist? I detect the faint smell of incense! [How faint?--ed.] Well, it doesn't say 'Catholic' blog, does it? [Resistance is futile.--ed.] I would remind that the Borg lost; bad analogy. [Sidebar: The Orthodox have no chance of sucking me in, no matter how much I would want to be married and a presbyter. It's the filioque clause; it's just true. Isn't this in Scripture plainly, in John 15:26? Am I missing something? Even if Ratzinger orders the sacking of St. Louis, I still agree with "who proceeds from the Father and the Son." Ahem.] [Sidebar #2: If conscience and evidence provoke the need to choose between being a presbyter and being a husband, presbyter is going to lose.] Can I live with the fig leaf? Does anyone have an answer to the charge of schism against us? Will I ever willingly assent to an infalliable Church with an infalliable (visible) shepherd?* Stay tuned.
*Note: Yes, I am aware of the eleventy billion qualifications to the Pope's alleged infalliability. Yes, it's exactly eleventy billion. St. Christopher told me.
Side-Rant of Questionable Relevance: You often hear young men ask, "Is she hot?" It's something of a crude, lusty question, but when I get this question (since I'm usually 'in like' with what, 8 women?) I answer, "Enough." And what I mean is, "Yes, I know models, actresses, etc. that might be objectively more appealing to more people, but she's beautiful to me." Once you find that one and she finds you, objective physical beauty, the rankings of all the beautiful people don't matter much. I think it's a sliding scale; if she avoids being evil/stupid/annoying for all the time of knowing each other, and she crosses the "enough" threshold, you're good to go. That's what "nice" means above. Not that I would know; I've never dated, per se. And I really suck at it. But there you go.
Comments
Second, do we really want to say that Scripture is so unclear that normal people cannot interpret it and see if it coheres with the confession?
Third, your side-rant is interesting.