Drive-through church, this is pretty funny and sadly true

You might be crazy

An interesting article regarding sleeping and dreams, which are possibly related to mental disorders according to the study.

Perhaps, even, by simply addressing sleeping habits, doctors could potentially interrupt the emotional cycle that can lead to suicide. "There is an opportunity for prevention," Bernert says.

The new findings highlight what researchers are increasingly recognizing as a two-way relationship between psychiatric disorders and disrupted sleep. "Modern medicine and psychiatry have consistently thought that psychological disorders seem to have co-occuring sleep problems and that it's the disorder perpetuating the sleep problems," says Walker. "Is it possible that, in fact, it's the sleep disruption contributing to the psychiatric disorder?"

The TV tells us how to live

This is a very interesting quote I just read:

"Television is our culture’s principal mode of knowing about itself. Therefore—and this is the critical point—how television stages the world becomes the model for how the world is properly to be staged"—Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985).

I don't know the full context within which this statement was made, but it appears to be saying that the way we think and the way we know things (in other words, our epistemology) is being shaped largely by the television.  And I think this is deadly accurate.  No longer do we read books and go to the library or to a university to hear professors and philosophers tell us their theories (I assume that's how they used to do it), we now just flip on the TV and have our worldviews handed to us via entertainment.  Watching TV is more of a philosophical journey than we may give it credit for, I don't think it's solely just entertainment.  It's a very interesting notion...what do you think?

HT

Silence is golden

This post by Al Mohler makes an interesting point (as I listen to music on my earbuds while I type this), that the idea of having silence in daily life is something our culture is moving away from.  Perhaps I should take off my earbuds...

How does President Obama’s admission there are moral and ethical aspects of the abortion debate help the pro-life cause?

Speaking of Scott Klusendorf, here is an interview with him regarding the same issues in my previous blog post.  His answer to the title's question:

Scott Klusendorf: It exposes the vacuous logic in the President’s position. He says abortion is a “heart-wrenching decision” and we should seek to reduce it.

But why is it heart-wrenching? And why seek to reduce it? If elective abortion does not take the life of a defenseless human being, why worry about the number of abortions each year?

This is liberal doublespeak: You implicitly condemn abortion with your words, but make sure there’s not one shred of legal protection granted to unborn human beings.

True, the President did speak of moral aspects to the abortion debate, but he did so with a faulty appeal to moral equivalency. He said we should “honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health-care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women.”

Let’s be clear: For Obama, women can only achieve equality by trampling on the rights of their unborn offspring. That’s what he means by equality. But never once did he say why treating the unborn human this way is morally and legally permissible.

And if the President truly cares about “sound science,” how about starting with the undeniable scientific truth that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings? In short, Obama is adept at saying one thing and doing another.

YOU can't stop abortion

This is an expected response to the murder of George Tiller, they will merely fill his position with someone else, although I am not as optimistic that changing the law will prevent abortions.  People will still have abortions, it's just a matter of whether the mother will be put in danger or not because of the lack of medical license to perform them.  While it's a truly sad situation on all aspects, I believe mothers are responsible for their actions and should they choose to abort their children their lives are in their own hands.  But the laws on abortion must change.

Approaching this subject as social commentators, the question is whether we will be reductionistic or not.  What I mean is, we sacrifice all considerations/ aspects on the issue reducing the level of complexity of questions, save one: the one we focus on.  For example, we could approach it by proposing any number of things to fix the problem, such as:

• The murder of abortion doctors outside of the law (see how logical this argument is)
  
• Changing the laws
  
• Protesting abortion
• Start organizations
• Blog about it (I love contradicting myself)
  
• etc.
  

The "pro-life movement" has dabbled in all of these (if we can even include doctor murderers in this), but it is naive and foolish (and I would argue a tad idolistic) to think that we can fix this problem if we just do these things.  Granted, Christians (and those who believe in the humanity of the unborn) should stand up for the truth, but at some point there must be recognition that our efforts are very limited.  We cannot control the actions (much less the thoughts, if we are to believe Jesus' teaching on murder, Mt. 5:21) of others and make them be obedient to God, especially if they are unbelievers.  It is cruel and foolish to think that we can force those who do not know God know him and obey his commandments, including the issue of abortion.  Regardless of what the law is, people are going to continue breaking it and/or doing what they want.  This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to change the laws to honor God's laws (to avoid being reductionistic on the other side), but we should behave with prudence regarding all aspects of the issue and accept where we are powerless, and obey the statues of the land we live in.

The solution as I see it is this:  we must trust in God.  In his justice, in his laws, in his power, in his involvement in the world, and in his empowerment of his followers to do the right things we must trust.  This means we do all we can to stop the murdering of the unborn by changing the laws, while living in the land we do with the laws we have, which we must respect because of God's appointing of all world leaders.  We should speak and publish and protest to defend the pro-life position (see Scott Klusendorf whose work on abortion is impressive and much better than this blog, this argument is unbeatable, also this one, which is shorter).  Perhaps above all, we should pray for the country, that God would enact justice where it is due and have mercy on all.

Funeral Parlor Theology

I find it interesting to drive down the street and see advertisements for funeral homes called "Eternal Rest" or that say "Take a few moments to plan your eternity."  


It is a funny thought.  I guess these pagan funeral directors have not been reached with the news of the Gospel of resurrection.  I don't plan to spend the rest of eternity turning into plant food.  Haha.


Moral of the story, fellow Christian: Don't get buried by a funeral parlor that thinks you will be there for the rest of eternity.  These are for atheists.

Why do you believe Christianity is true?

What's to distinguish from belief in a general God from belief in Jesus as God?  Surely it has to be more than personal experience, saying basically that it "works for me" or because I have "experienced it in my own life."  Surely that has to be more than that, but if you ask the average person (as this excerpt from a radio program attempts to show) this is likely what you will hear.  Now perhaps the people haven't fully thought out their answers, but their imemdiate response says something about the state of Christianity today and how the faith is being defended, or perhaps not defended.  This radio program makes the point that Christianity is true because it is grounded in the historical life, death and resurrection of Jesus and attested to by the reliable books of the New Testament that was written by eyewitnesses of these events.  If Jesus was not raised, then we are fools.  Why do you believe Christianity?

Death announcements

I have a random thought.  Why is it that the only thing ever said in death announcements in the news to be positive about the deceased is that they "loved life"?  What does that mean?  And why are they the only positive words that seem to come to mind for the average person?  I guess we never hear about the people that hated life.

Octomom will have a new reality show...gag me

Almost all of this article about TV created using Americans as the subject and viewed by Europeans, specifically the infamous Octomom, makes me sad and a little ashamed to be counted among them.

A good quote, one I could learn from

"No unwelcome tasks become any the less unwelcome by putting them off till tomorrow. It is only when they are behind us and done, that we begin to find that there is a sweetness to be tasted afterwards, and that the remembrance of unwelcome duties unhesitatingly done is welcome and pleasant. Accomplished, they are full of blessing, and there is a smile on their faces as they leave us. Undone, they stand threatening and disturbing our tranquility, and hindering our communion with God. If there be lying before you any bit of work from which you shrink, go straight up to it, and do it at once. The only way to get rid of it is to do it."

-Alexander MacLaren (1826–1910), Scottish preacher

4 things to define a Christian

Matt Chandler gives our culture's definition of a Christian (around 26:20):

1. I attend church regularly

2. I don't cuss in front of you.

3. I have some scripture memorized that I can quote in certain situations.

4. I can give you moral advice.

If I can do those 4 things then I am a godly man or woman in our culture.

I would add any number of things to this list including: I don't drink alcohol, I only listen to Christian music, I only wear cool clothes, or I only wear really nerdy/ unattractive clothes for that matter.  The possibilities are endless. 

But doing those things do not at all exemplify what I believe scripture teaches is the characteristic of the truly converted, that which he describes as one dealing with the dark places in the heart and being obedient not to the arbitrary rules of religion but actually having communion with God, a relationship with the divine for which we were created.  

I know I suck here.  I haven't always, but always more than is acceptable.  I suppose anything lacking is unacceptable since I don't see where you could draw the line and say "I'm alright now," since that would be making arbitrary religious rules too.  Funny how that works.

Real Hope

I found out that someone I knew from college died this past Sunday, suicide.  It's extremely sad.  However, my friend Marcus points out where the real hope lies for her, and everyone one day.

A Celibate Priest's Sex Book?

It's a confusing thing when a Catholic monk writes a book about sex.  How would he know anything?  This is somewhat disturbing to me.  Maybe it's a good thing for the Catholics?

What is Religious Tolerance?

D.A. Carson points out (at around 16:00) that the notion of "tolerance" was once defined in popular culture by what Voltaire said, if not directly, to the effect of:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

This illustrates a great American value, the freedom of speech.  But Carson makes the observation that this definition has changed and today it is in fact considered wrong to even suggest that someone is wrong in their beliefs, religious or otherwise.  Despite the self-contradicatory nature of saying this, most people we know would agree.  I find it interesting the evolution, or rather devolution, of the freedom of speech or what we could call "tolerance" as Voltaire once defined it.

In fact, this so-called tolerance (as currently held) is not tolerance at all, since you have to disagree with someone's beliefs before you can actually be tolerant of their right to believe them (if this is in fact what the big idea of freedom of speech is about, isn't it?), and what you don't have to agree with to be tolerant is the notion that it is wrong to say those beliefs are wrong, indeed this is something very different than what it means, as Voltaire defined it, to be tolerant of someone's beliefs!  Is it not?

Now, to be tolerant as a good Westerner means that you have to agree with the set of beliefs that asserts that it is wrong to say someone else is wrong in their set of beliefs.  But what if I say my particular set of beliefs asserts that this notion of tolerance, being that which states that it is wrong to say someone's beliefs are wrong, is wrong?  What then?  Am I accepted with open arms in the society of tolerance?  Probably not.  I think I would be socially shunned by the broad culture and maybe labelled as one lacking an enlightened mind, as has the population of these "narrow-minded" folk, which includes these freaks called Christians.  

I really wish someone would try to answer this accusation.