Apr 30, 2009
Posted | 0 comments
A truly great sport!
Ultimate Frisbee Takes Off – NYTimes.com
This is not from the NYTimes, but this guy whacked me in the face within one instant of this shot being taken so it’s worth including in this post:

Apr 29, 2009
Posted | 0 comments
I recently posted a few of the kinds of statements my dissertation is opposing. For example, a Bible textbook avers, “Love is not an emotion, but an act of the will. Feelings may ebb and flow, but love remains constant.”
Let me now offer a few rejoinders:
- “Love” as the Bible employs and describes it (whether it’s using love terminology like ἀγαπάω and φιλέω or not) simply is not an emotionless act of the will. That just won’t work exegetically or in in daily practice. 1 Cor. 13:1ff. says the act without love profits you nothing. So the act must not itself be love. You must not say, “Love is an action.” Paul specifically says it is not. It’s deeper.
- We should know better than to isolate one faculty of the human person, whether the will or the intellect or the emotions (or even imagination or experience, suggests John Frame), and make it the supreme Christian faculty. Homo sapiens is a unit. His mind, will, and emotions do not work independently from one another, if they can be separated meaningfully at all. And all of man is fallen; it’s not as if his thinking is sound but his emotions are not. The fall has bent them both; neither can be trusted.
- I think it’s significant that Phil. 2:3 does not demand that you look to the things of others to the exclusion of your own, but in addition. That’s still a radical change for fallen man, but Jesus’ second great commandment asks us to love others only as much as we love ourselves (as if it’s not possible to go any higher, perhaps?). Jesus assumes we love ourselves, that we desire pleasure. Much talk about so-called ἀγάπη love seems to deny that we should have a desire for pleasure at all. But if I truly love my wife, I take delight in sacrificing for her. Early this morning I enjoyed comforting her when she couldn’t sleep. Was I really loving her, since I got something out of it, namely enjoyment? Am I more holy the less I delight in and enjoy the pleasure of others? If so, then God would be the ultimate disinterested party.
Just do a search in the NT for ἀγάπη. Love is love. Individual Greek words don’t communicate whole ethics every time they’re used. The average English dictionary is more likely to define it correctly than the average theological dictionary, because the latter still hasn’t gotten hold of James Barr’s 50-year-old arguments.
Let’s try the New Oxford American Dictionary:
Now the Oxford English Dictionary:
Good work, dictionaries! Now please let the theologians know!
Apr 28, 2009
Posted | 0 comments
May the absolute necessity of regeneration never stop me from doing good to my neighbor when it is in my power to do it.
A … combination of theological principle and careerist caution meant that [Billy] Graham’s critique of segregation never went nearly as far as civil rights activists wanted him to go. He stressed individual conversion over political change, supporting legal reform in lukewarm terms while insisting that only the Gospel could really improve race relations. He maintained strong friendships with segregationist clergymen and politicians, and his attacks on racism were always tempered by deliberate hedges and straddles—denunciations of extremists on “both sides” of the debate, suggestions that race relations were worse in the North than in the South, and so forth. Where Martin Luther King used eschatological language as a spur to political change, Graham used eschatology to emphasize the limits of politics. “Only when Christ comes again,” he reportedly said after King’s speech at the March on Washington, “will the lion lie down with the lamb and the little white children of Alabama walk hand in hand with the little black children.”
[From Book Review - 'Billy Graham and the Rise of the Republican South,' by Steven P. Miller - NYTimes.com]
Apr 28, 2009
Posted | 0 comments
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 7:49 AM, wilson brain wrote:
Hi there,
Thanks for the prompt response and i will love to make an instant purchase, so please and please do withdraw the advert from Craigslist, i dont mind adding an extra $50.00 for you to take the advert down from craigslist so that i can be rest assured that am in hand of the item. I will also like you to know that i will be paying via check,and it will be over night payment due to the distance. You dont need to bother yourself with the shipment ok,i will do take care of that. So i will need you to provide me with the following information to facilitate the mailing of the check.
1. Your full name
2. Your mailing address be it residential or postal address
3. Your Phone Number.
Once again, I will like you to know that you will not be responsible for shipping…i will have my mover come over as soon as you have cashed the check. Thanks
Wilson.
—————————————-
Wilson,
1. You write horrific English that is redolent of Nigeria.
2. You ask for something silly and offer more money if we’ll do it.
3. You have used two different e-mail addresses.
4. Your first name is quite uncommon in the US and your last name more so.
Convince me that you are who you say you are and I’ll be happy to sell you the table.
If you’re not who you say you are, may God have mercy on you. Jesus died for poorly written lies just as much as He died for the sophisticated lies of Bernie Madoff. Repent and believe the gospel.
(If you are who you say you are, please forgive my harshness. Internet scammers are an especially hard-headed lot and I speak directly to them.)
mlwj
Apr 27, 2009
Posted | 0 comments
It’s a relief to be known by the NY Times as a Christian institution rather than as a racist one. This may be one good effect of BJU’s apology:
More than ever, America’s atheists are linking up and speaking out — even here in South Carolina, home to Bob Jones University, blue laws and a legislature that last year unanimously approved a Christian license plate embossed with a cross, a stained glass window and the words “I Believe” (a move blocked by a judge and now headed for trial).
[From More Atheists Shout It From the Rooftops - NYTimes.com]