Skip to main content
The Chili's was better than I remembered. Actually, I said that last time. Perhaps a revision of my opinion is in order. It was the highlight of the night. My nephew "graduated" preschool tonight, complete with gowns and diplomas, the whole bit. I was caught between wanting to support him and thinking, "This is really stupid, and is the reason why we're so soft today."
I thought some Gwen Stefani was in order before bed. Big mistake. "Early Winter." The words stick like sharp knives. I didn't think I'd make it to the end. But I enjoyed the pain so much, I listened to it again. Before I heard that, it was "Don't Speak". It seemed apropos at first, and then I realized it was the exact opposite. I would very much like someone to speak, to explain to me why any of this suffering is good or appropriate. I have a pretty high tolerance for things that truly suck, and I have great faith. I know I do. But I'm out. You couldn't spiritualize anything good out of this one. Put it this way: I don't want any more friends; I'll just lose them.
We're all pretty much worthless as friends. It seems to me that most of us just luck out every day we don't hit the trip-wire that says, "It's All Over." I mean, I can't picture saying that. Pretty much everyone I've ever loved in my life has made me really angry. Even screaming "get out of my face before you die" angry. But passions are passions, and time reminds us that those feelings out of control are as far from reality as truth is from falsehood. The closest thing I have to an enemy in this world is closer to me than the friend I lost. Just a phone call away. It might not be a call I'd make, but it wouldn't be a call I'd refuse. And knowing that--he almost killed me and my family--makes me really angry.
I'm not a killer; not in the truest sense. What's the gravity here? If I'm as bad or worse than that man, fine. But I think we all know better.

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