ever wonder if there’s actually a causal connection between their bringing an umbrella and predictions of rain not coming true?
Jesus promised his disciples three things—that they would be completely fearless, absurdly happy, and in constant trouble.
G. K. Chesterton (via the-last-crusade)
Christ died once for all to clear the name of God in what looks like a gross miscarriage of justice — the acquittal of sinners simply for Jesus’ sake.
He who does not highly esteem the sacrament suggests thereby that he has no sin, no flesh, no devil, no world, no death, no hell. That is to say, he believes in none of these, although he is deeply immersed in them and is held captive by the devil. On the other hand, he suggests that he needs no grace, no life, no paradise, no heaven, no Christ, no God, nothing good at all.
Martin Luther, The Smaller Catechism, 1529
I am the thirsty-eyed wanderer.
the underfoot crunch of gravel my companion
on this narrow winding trail.
Listlessly I sip from the water in my pack,
And I am still thirsty.
I am the hungry-eyed wanderer.
and the sound of wind is my companion
in these empty places.
Mechanically I munch on food from my pack,
and I am still hungry.
I am the archetype of wanderers
and the sighs of millions are my companions
in the time of existence
and unfilling food
do me no more good than glorious views
of hidden mountain valleys.
For I, in my wandering, am still
and blessedly hungry
and blessedly unsatisfied
with passing beauty.
So I walk on with my thirsty eyes
my hungry eyes
and my panting soul,
longing for the Dawn.
Chatting with the attractive girl from my Latin class:
Me: Yeah, I’m taking Latin for fun. I’m a philosophy and history major.
Girl: *quickly ends conversation and walks away*
Deconversion Movement responded rather rapidly to my post earlier this week about atheism, in a thoughtful post for which I am very grateful. As I have rather more things than blogging occupying my time, I haven’t been able to show DM the courtesy of as rapid a response as he gave to me, and yet now I shall endeavor to respond to his well-articulated post. Such a response is necessary for a variety of reasons, not all of which will be covered in the following, for to cover all of them would require more time and space than seems requisite for an internet argument. DM displays what appears to be a keen grasp of a variety of topics in his blog, and so I was somewhat surprised to find that he had almost entirely missed the main thrust of my argument, and so spent many words accomplishing little at all. This must certainly have been my own fault, and so I shall devote a portion of my response to clarification as to what, precisely, I meant in my original post. However, first I must spend a small amount of time ironing out a few definitions for two reasons. First, in any philosophical dialogue there must be some definition of what one means when one says a given word, for the same word can have very different meanings in different instances. Secondly, it is clear from DM’s initial response that he is woefully misinformed about the meaning of certain words, and so I shall attempt to clarify what some words mean, explain what I mean by some words, and hopefully improve DM’s understanding of the way things are.
In an atheistic universe, reality is impersonality with pretensions of personality. In the theistic universe, impersonality is given meaning by the absolute Personality of God.
The security of the saint and the ministry of the evangelist do not rest on their ability to frame a skillful argument, but on the power of Almighty God, who holds the saints secure and by the power of his Word makes the good news (namely, the message of Christ and him crucified) take root in stony hearts.