Skip to main content
5 Reactions to the World Cup

5. I will believe until my last breath that FIFA was actively trying to prevent US advancement past the group stage.

4. The rules governing the issuance of cards should be revised. No one should miss a match while never having been dismissed from a match (especially as bad as the officiating has been).

3. Soccer--or football, if you like--is truly a beautiful game, and I don't understand why it isn't more popular here. Give me a rooting interest, and I'm in.

2. I respectfully disagree with Mr. Darke that every side would delay a match up 2-1 in extra time. Ghana's behavior was appalling, and should have merited a team yellow card.

1. #3 aside, I don't care about the tournament now. I may watch the final, but no more. And I hope Ghana loses 12-0.

Entirely Unrelated Side-Rant: I may have to charitably punch Barry Manilow right in the face. YouTube is great, because you can explore tons of songs you hadn't heard. I knew Mr. Manilow sang "Mandy" and "Copacabana," and I recall him performing "I'd Really Love To See You Tonight" on VH1; I think he had said he wrote it. So I listened to "Ships" and "Weekend In New England" and especially "Looks Like We Made It" and thought, "Geez, this guy's good." But even I know it's uncool to like Barry Manilow (or something). [What are you, a 65-year-old Jewish woman?--ed.] So thanks, Barry, for making me feel even less cool. With apologies for their misuse of God's Name, this illustrates my last couple of days. [You like The Carpenters, for pete's sake! Your chance at manliness died a long time ago.--ed.] Hey, man, I think the only truly unmanly thing is to lie about what you think or feel for the sake of expediency, fear, etc. It does chagrin me (proper use?) that love songs are only relatable half the time because we are a bunch of fornicating perverts. Anyway, my two cents.

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