Skip to main content
Today, we're throwing a party for my birthday, which is in 2 days. As you may recall, I share a birthday with former Vice-President of the United States, Richard B. "Dick" Cheney. It could be worse. In fact, it is. I also share a birthday with former President of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Ouch.
I invited certain enthusiastic Lutherans to the party, but alas, they suspected a trap, and declined. No, not really. Certain other comrades of the Revolution were also invited, but enamored of their schismatic plotting, they declined as well.
I was feeling bad last night, because I hadn't drunk enough water. Deciding that doing so would be a wise course, I imbibed and got into bed. Whenever my mother is talking about (or doing) something morally questionable, she raises her voice and refers to her Jesus-loving son, or something like that. Last night, she went with, "committed Catholic son," which pleased me greatly, though I am a dirt-bag.
For some reason, after I typed that paragraph, I thought of Christina Yang. Christina Yang is a fictional fifth-year surgical resident at a Seattle hospital (of course I know the name; just didn't feel like typing it) on the popular drama, 'Grey's Anatomy.' Yang has had two abortions. She is the best friend of the titular character, Meredith Grey. She is married to Dr. Owen Hunt, now the Chief of Surgery since the much cooler Chief, Dr. Richard Webber, took the blame for Meredith's unethical manipulation of an Alzheimer's drug trial. Owen was a punk at first and supported his murdering wife, but as of the last time we've seen them, Owen threatens divorce and shouts, "You murdered our baby! You don't just bounce back from that!" Good for you, Dr. Hunt. We kind of knew Hunt was a lifer because he raised holy Abel the whole episode when she decided on that course some months ago. Then, he caved. I love this show. I don't care what you say. Anyway, Happy Birthday to me. And don't quote me on this, but I think it's Oprah's birthday tomorrow. (Technically before mine)

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