Extremely Interesting

I was just talking about birth replacement rates a couple of weeks ago while teaching on 1 Timothy 2. Somebody sent this to me this morning... very fitting!

Primitive or Progressive Pt. 2

Again a word on 'progressives.'

In the last several years the moniker Liberal has been substituted with Progressive. Let's be honest, Progressive just sounds better. Progressive implies advanced, enlightened and broad-minded. Our current administration and congress is dominated by progressives (liberals). Their worldview is certainly different than mine. I'm not a Republican, but I certainly am conservative (in light of the most recent DHS report I'd probably be labeled a right-wing extremest).

Progressives desire change. That's the mantra of our day. The change they seek would be to them 'progress', but I'm not at all convinced that it is the kind of change that I can (1) believe in or (2) get behind.

I was watching the CBS News Show "60 Minutes" this evening, they had a segment on Bull Fighters in Spain. At one point the Anchor, speaking about Madrid, said,

Many parts of Madrid take you back many centuries. But don't be fooled - Spain is one of the most modern and progressive counties in Europe. Half the cabinet are women, including the defence minister. There is gay marriage, quickie divorces, legalised abortion, and there is the ancient blood sport of bullfighting. How do you put that all together? It’s not easy.

60 Minutes is absolutely a Progressive (liberal) news show... and their definition of Spain's Progressiveness hit me like a 2x4 in the head. What is it that sets Spain apart as Progressive among the EU nations? Gay marriage, quickie divorces and legalised abortion. If that is the criteria for progressive then would I be wrong to say that progressive = immoral.

Oh wait, that's not very progressive of me.

Sand or Five Pillars?

Earlier this week our president spoke on the economy at George Town University. In his speech he made an interesting reference to the Sermon on the Mount.

There is a parable at the end of the Sermon on the Mount that tells the story of two men. The first built his house on a pile of sand, and it was destroyed as soon as the storm hit. But the second is known as the wise man, for when “…the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house…it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.” We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand. We must build our house upon a rock.

Interestingly he went on to explain what we do need to build our economy on...

It’s a foundation built upon five pillars that will grow our economy and make this new century another American century: new rules for Wall Street that will reward drive and innovation; new investments in education that will make our workforce more skilled and competitive; new investments in renewable energy and technology that will create new jobs and industries; new investments in health care that will cut costs for families and businesses; and new savings in our federal budget that will bring down the debt for future generations. That is the new foundation we must build. That is our future.

Interesting choice of words. The White House also had the cross and the letters IHS* covered.

* IHS is common Christogram based on the first three letters of "Jesus" in Greek. It's a common seal used by the Jesuits and was later interpreted as "Iesus Hominum Salvator", Jesus, Saviour of Mankind, "Iesum Habemus Socium"


I guess I'll just use my usual response... Interesting.

Yummy...

Swell!

This is something that you see in Germany a lot... I think it is great to see it here! Pretty cool.

Check out them arms!

My happy boy

Primitive or Progressive

Over a year or so ago the ABC News show Nightline began airing on-air debate segments, which they call Face-offs. Just last week they held one on the topic of evil, more specifically on the question "Does Satan Exist?" The key players of the debate were Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle and Deepak Chopra. The full event is over an hour long and can be watched on youtube (the first segment is below).


I think that Driscoll did a great job of clearly presenting a biblical view, as well as sharing the gospel. Chopra, as usual, did a great job of presenting his position that Christians (and other followers of religion) are primitive and basically unhealthy. He of course would be the healthy progressive.

I hadn't heard of the other two individuals on the panel (Annie Lobert and Bishop Carlton Pearson), but they added an intriguing aspect to the debate. Bishop Pearson has clearly turned aside from an orthodox understanding of the scriptures. I think if Paul were alive today he'd deliver him unto satan (even if Pearson doesn't believe in satan) thaat he may learn not to blaspheme.