An interesting comparison of The Incredibles and Spy Kids and their respective portrayals of human nature and human interactions, by an alumna friend of mine. Definitely worth reading.
Read it here.
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
31 January 2009
26 July 2008
12 May 2008
Counting Down
2 exams and 1 paper down, 1 exam (Geometry) and 1 paper (Freedom's) to go...Hua!!!
***
I'll be done with the semester by Wednesday, and am planning to go up to Carlos O'Kelly's today to see about working again for them over the summer, starting next week.
***
So...plans for the summer: work, go to LTC, spend as much time as possible with Nebraska friends (guys, I want to go hiking!!!!), leave around August 12th or so to drive out to Virginia.
***
I recently remembered a debate on the Civil Rights Act from US History...the Civil Rights movement was indubitably good, but the Act itself was debatably so, definitely on constitutional and arguably on political grounds. That is probably going to turn into a post, and one on which I'd like discussion.
***
On that note, please read this speech by John McCain on his philosophy of the judiciary. It is very encouraging to hear this, and I completely agree with it.
***
Summer reading list:
--Les Miserables (I finished Martin Chuzzlewit last week)
--Getting the Gospel Right (and discussing that with the friend who is graciously allowing me to borrow it)
--Pick Death of Death in the Death of Christ back up, and finish it.
--Finish The Perfectibility of Man
--Finish Calvin's Institutes...hopefully.
--Finish the Hornblower Series? Possibly?
--Finish Lone Survivor, on a Navy SEAL fighting in Afghanistan.
***
Mother's Day was great--the men made a church breakfast for the ladies, which was quite fun.
For the service, we had an "open letter to my Mom" day. I had not written out a letter beyond the card I got her (and gave her the day before), but I wrote down some points and practiced my extemporaneous speaking (Dr. Tallmon would be proud).
***
Mother's Day morning: My mom was playing Command and Conquer: Renegade, and picked up a flamethrower, when I insisted she wanted a more long-range weapon. So then I took the open elevator to the next floor (past the sniper who was stuck facing a wall), but it didn't go all the way up. I had to jump up and pull myself out of the shaft--but while I was trying to do so, my brother climbed on my back and clambered over me. All the while the bad guys on the next floor were looking at me with rather bemused expressions.
But I climbed up and started flaming the baddies with my own flamethrower, except they didn't fall. I realized that my hands were empty and I was making the "whoosh" sound with my mouth. The people didn't even look like bad guys anymore, but were still looking at me funny.
Then I woke up.
The weird thing is that I don't even play Renegade (let alone my Mom): I prefer the strategy style C&C games.
Anywho....
***
Something else kind of weird:
I think I went from being a covenant credobaptist with paedobaptist sympathies to a covenant paedobaptist with credobaptist sympathies Sunday afternoon...I have yet to awaken from that one. I'm still searching the Scriptures on that, but I think it finally sort of clicked.
By "covenant" baptist, generally, I mean the idea that baptism is a sign and symbol (signifying the spiritual reality) of God's covenant with His elect, the covenant of grace, which we receive by imparted faith. I still reject regenerative baptism of all sorts (Lutheran and Romanist) and think that the idea that baptism is a statement of the "commitment we've made to Christ" is just really shallow theology...
The difference between covenant credobaptists (Reformed Baptists) and paedobaptists (Presbyterian/Reformed) is fundamentally on if the children of believers are in some sense comprehended under the covenant of grace and are part of the visible church. The credobaptists say they are not in any sense under the covenant if they are not elect. The paedobaptists would not say that the children are necessarily elect, but are still a part of the covenant, much like all the Israelites were under the covenant without all being elect. In fact, they often draw a comparison between circumcision in the OT and baptism in the New (that's the part I'm still checking on).
***
I was asked last Monday if I believed in Limited Atonement or Unlimited Atonement. And I didn't realize until then how frustrating a question that is...phrased in those terms, there is no short answer. I would agree with Spurgeon that it is the atonement unlimited in extent that actually limits the effect of the atonement, so calling "Particular/Definite Redemption" "Limited Atonement" rather weights the question.
Short answer (free of the terms governed by polemical history) is this: I believe Christ died to redeem His spiritual Israel (the church), and He accomplished His purpose at the cross. I take this view from Scripture as a whole: from the Old Testament prophecies and the New Testament teaching on the intent and accomplishment of the atonement. Granted, there are several NT passages speaking of "all" and the "world," but the Greek words are not consistently used in a universal sense. On the contrary, in most of the passages that are not under debate, they are NOT used in a universal sense...in the context of the clear OT and NT teaching on election, and the teaching on God's purpose in the atonement, and in the context of the verses themselves, it is perfectly acceptable (I believe) to take the more specific application of the Greek words.
That said, I do believe that Christ is truly offered to "whomever will believe." The extent of the atonement one way or the other is never made the basis for NT evangelism, so the argument that we ("Calvinists" so-called) can't evangelize because we believe Christ did not die for all doesn't hold. Everyone (in this particular debate) agrees that everyone who believes is redeemed and everyone who does not believe does not receive the benefits of Christ's death. Though we disagree on the order (redemption or belief, and regeneration or belief), we agree on that much, at least.
Okay, I'm going to stop before I write another paper on this....
***
I'll be done with the semester by Wednesday, and am planning to go up to Carlos O'Kelly's today to see about working again for them over the summer, starting next week.
***
So...plans for the summer: work, go to LTC, spend as much time as possible with Nebraska friends (guys, I want to go hiking!!!!), leave around August 12th or so to drive out to Virginia.
***
I recently remembered a debate on the Civil Rights Act from US History...the Civil Rights movement was indubitably good, but the Act itself was debatably so, definitely on constitutional and arguably on political grounds. That is probably going to turn into a post, and one on which I'd like discussion.
***
On that note, please read this speech by John McCain on his philosophy of the judiciary. It is very encouraging to hear this, and I completely agree with it.
***
Summer reading list:
--Les Miserables (I finished Martin Chuzzlewit last week)
--Getting the Gospel Right (and discussing that with the friend who is graciously allowing me to borrow it)
--Pick Death of Death in the Death of Christ back up, and finish it.
--Finish The Perfectibility of Man
--Finish Calvin's Institutes...hopefully.
--Finish the Hornblower Series? Possibly?
--Finish Lone Survivor, on a Navy SEAL fighting in Afghanistan.
***
Mother's Day was great--the men made a church breakfast for the ladies, which was quite fun.
For the service, we had an "open letter to my Mom" day. I had not written out a letter beyond the card I got her (and gave her the day before), but I wrote down some points and practiced my extemporaneous speaking (Dr. Tallmon would be proud).
***
Mother's Day morning: My mom was playing Command and Conquer: Renegade, and picked up a flamethrower, when I insisted she wanted a more long-range weapon. So then I took the open elevator to the next floor (past the sniper who was stuck facing a wall), but it didn't go all the way up. I had to jump up and pull myself out of the shaft--but while I was trying to do so, my brother climbed on my back and clambered over me. All the while the bad guys on the next floor were looking at me with rather bemused expressions.
But I climbed up and started flaming the baddies with my own flamethrower, except they didn't fall. I realized that my hands were empty and I was making the "whoosh" sound with my mouth. The people didn't even look like bad guys anymore, but were still looking at me funny.
Then I woke up.
The weird thing is that I don't even play Renegade (let alone my Mom): I prefer the strategy style C&C games.
Anywho....
***
Something else kind of weird:
I think I went from being a covenant credobaptist with paedobaptist sympathies to a covenant paedobaptist with credobaptist sympathies Sunday afternoon...I have yet to awaken from that one. I'm still searching the Scriptures on that, but I think it finally sort of clicked.
By "covenant" baptist, generally, I mean the idea that baptism is a sign and symbol (signifying the spiritual reality) of God's covenant with His elect, the covenant of grace, which we receive by imparted faith. I still reject regenerative baptism of all sorts (Lutheran and Romanist) and think that the idea that baptism is a statement of the "commitment we've made to Christ" is just really shallow theology...
The difference between covenant credobaptists (Reformed Baptists) and paedobaptists (Presbyterian/Reformed) is fundamentally on if the children of believers are in some sense comprehended under the covenant of grace and are part of the visible church. The credobaptists say they are not in any sense under the covenant if they are not elect. The paedobaptists would not say that the children are necessarily elect, but are still a part of the covenant, much like all the Israelites were under the covenant without all being elect. In fact, they often draw a comparison between circumcision in the OT and baptism in the New (that's the part I'm still checking on).
***
I was asked last Monday if I believed in Limited Atonement or Unlimited Atonement. And I didn't realize until then how frustrating a question that is...phrased in those terms, there is no short answer. I would agree with Spurgeon that it is the atonement unlimited in extent that actually limits the effect of the atonement, so calling "Particular/Definite Redemption" "Limited Atonement" rather weights the question.
Short answer (free of the terms governed by polemical history) is this: I believe Christ died to redeem His spiritual Israel (the church), and He accomplished His purpose at the cross. I take this view from Scripture as a whole: from the Old Testament prophecies and the New Testament teaching on the intent and accomplishment of the atonement. Granted, there are several NT passages speaking of "all" and the "world," but the Greek words are not consistently used in a universal sense. On the contrary, in most of the passages that are not under debate, they are NOT used in a universal sense...in the context of the clear OT and NT teaching on election, and the teaching on God's purpose in the atonement, and in the context of the verses themselves, it is perfectly acceptable (I believe) to take the more specific application of the Greek words.
That said, I do believe that Christ is truly offered to "whomever will believe." The extent of the atonement one way or the other is never made the basis for NT evangelism, so the argument that we ("Calvinists" so-called) can't evangelize because we believe Christ did not die for all doesn't hold. Everyone (in this particular debate) agrees that everyone who believes is redeemed and everyone who does not believe does not receive the benefits of Christ's death. Though we disagree on the order (redemption or belief, and regeneration or belief), we agree on that much, at least.
Okay, I'm going to stop before I write another paper on this....
17 April 2008
Questions
This is something I've debated before, and I have my own opinion on the matter, but I'd be curious to see what my readers think before I present mine. There are actually three closely related questions:
1) Is it permissible for men to wear earrings?
2) Is it permissible for women to wear earrings?
3) If the answer was no to (1) and yes to (2), on what do you base the distinction?
And, no, I'm not remotely considering get my ears pierced. My brothers already know what I'll do to their ear lobes if they ever come home with earrings.
In other news, I've posted again to my Theology/Philosophy blog. As I look at the previous post, I realize that I should have titled it "Presuppositionalism and "Calvinism": the Biblical Answers to the Problem of Epistemology." Not that anyone reads that blog (is it really that boring?), but it is duly fixed anyway. ;-)
And on my way home tonight I caught a portion of Rachmaninov's Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini on the radio, so I'm going to listen to Bach's Toccata and Fugue in A minor (the one on my Songspot), and retire in a mood of pure bliss...
Colin
1) Is it permissible for men to wear earrings?
2) Is it permissible for women to wear earrings?
3) If the answer was no to (1) and yes to (2), on what do you base the distinction?
And, no, I'm not remotely considering get my ears pierced. My brothers already know what I'll do to their ear lobes if they ever come home with earrings.
In other news, I've posted again to my Theology/Philosophy blog. As I look at the previous post, I realize that I should have titled it "Presuppositionalism and "Calvinism": the Biblical Answers to the Problem of Epistemology." Not that anyone reads that blog (is it really that boring?), but it is duly fixed anyway. ;-)
And on my way home tonight I caught a portion of Rachmaninov's Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini on the radio, so I'm going to listen to Bach's Toccata and Fugue in A minor (the one on my Songspot), and retire in a mood of pure bliss...
Colin
27 March 2008
Yet another US History post
It is odd that most of my philosophical discussions this semester are coming from a history class--I guess that is what I get for having already taken such foundational courses as Constitutional Law, Theology, Principles of Biblical Reasoning, and Philosophy and being left with Geometry, Rhetoric, Freedom's Foundations, and US History. I'll just say that I can't wait to start my major courses...
In the meantime, here is a conversation from US History, stemming originally from a discussion on the difference in American sentiment between World War II and our own day. The first section was written by one of my classmates (reprinted by his permission), and my response is two-fold.
"I think we're realizing that zeitgeist has a lot to do with the public response to government action (it may well be the biggest factor). The general feeling of the 40s was "we just conquered depression and we're damned proud of that," while today's seems to be a more whiny version of "this is hard and I don't like it."
We are what our parents were to our grandparents - rebellious wimps in need of a spanking and some chores. I don't want to rant (since that's so callow), but it seems that our generation of men needs a dose of warrior instinct (in the Fight Club and 300 vein) to combat lethargy and weak wills, while our generation of women needs a dose of motherly responsibility (in the Clara Barton and WWII Women vein) to combat neglect and this idea of an absolute right to total independence."
"Perhaps this is reopening a can of worms that was sufficiently aired last semester (though it doesn't have to be such a reopening), but I wish to point out that the "empowerment" of women and the effeminization of men go hand in hand. Unfortunately, as women are willing to take charge (or demand the reins [in the case of the suffragette movement), men are often all too willing to cede it, especially if they don't see any good reason to hold it themselves (this would be the case when they don't see the Scriptural command for them to be the head of their households and in church leadership, etc.). It could be debated which comes first, though that's not my object: they are definitely complementary. The more important issue is which needs to be changed first, as men simply asserting their authority/responsibility over unwilling women isn't going to get far (I believe I remember the slogan "forced submission isn't truly submission," and I agree to a point).
The other option is women dropping their power where it is the man's responsibility and leaving it to the men to step up. I'd question the practical wisdom of this initially, but it actually makes sense if one considers the point that if women aren't to have responsibility in a given area (and I'm not talking specifics right now), then it is not incumbent on them to hold up that area of responsibility. If something falls through because the men didn't stand up in their area of responsibility, it is their fault and responsibility--not the women's. Perhaps the women could show a bit more trust in God's providence in our respective spheres of responsibility--and perhaps a bit more trust that some, at least, of the men WILL step up. Just a thought.
In any case, I suppose I have quite enough to worry about as a man needing to take on my own responsibility.
Anyway, I was pondering what has caused the shift, and one cause at least is ironic. The public schools are rife with the idea of self-reliance and self-esteem and "believe in yourself." For that matter, some of the churches are (Joel Osteen, anyone?). But my suspicion is that these people are looking at themselves and suddenly find that they ARE weak. For all the individualistic propaganda, they find that the individual IS weak.
To an extent, the Great Generation and the generations before were also independent and self-reliant (like the pioneer stock they were), but they were not individualistic, and their independence was in a large way centered around others, if that makes sense. In other words, they had an "I can do this" attitude, because they were fighting for a principle higher than themselves and received strength to achieve their goals.
All that the contemporary individualist has to fight for is himself--and is it worth it?"
In the meantime, here is a conversation from US History, stemming originally from a discussion on the difference in American sentiment between World War II and our own day. The first section was written by one of my classmates (reprinted by his permission), and my response is two-fold.
"I think we're realizing that zeitgeist has a lot to do with the public response to government action (it may well be the biggest factor). The general feeling of the 40s was "we just conquered depression and we're damned proud of that," while today's seems to be a more whiny version of "this is hard and I don't like it."
We are what our parents were to our grandparents - rebellious wimps in need of a spanking and some chores. I don't want to rant (since that's so callow), but it seems that our generation of men needs a dose of warrior instinct (in the Fight Club and 300 vein) to combat lethargy and weak wills, while our generation of women needs a dose of motherly responsibility (in the Clara Barton and WWII Women vein) to combat neglect and this idea of an absolute right to total independence."
"Perhaps this is reopening a can of worms that was sufficiently aired last semester (though it doesn't have to be such a reopening), but I wish to point out that the "empowerment" of women and the effeminization of men go hand in hand. Unfortunately, as women are willing to take charge (or demand the reins [in the case of the suffragette movement), men are often all too willing to cede it, especially if they don't see any good reason to hold it themselves (this would be the case when they don't see the Scriptural command for them to be the head of their households and in church leadership, etc.). It could be debated which comes first, though that's not my object: they are definitely complementary. The more important issue is which needs to be changed first, as men simply asserting their authority/responsibility over unwilling women isn't going to get far (I believe I remember the slogan "forced submission isn't truly submission," and I agree to a point).
The other option is women dropping their power where it is the man's responsibility and leaving it to the men to step up. I'd question the practical wisdom of this initially, but it actually makes sense if one considers the point that if women aren't to have responsibility in a given area (and I'm not talking specifics right now), then it is not incumbent on them to hold up that area of responsibility. If something falls through because the men didn't stand up in their area of responsibility, it is their fault and responsibility--not the women's. Perhaps the women could show a bit more trust in God's providence in our respective spheres of responsibility--and perhaps a bit more trust that some, at least, of the men WILL step up. Just a thought.
In any case, I suppose I have quite enough to worry about as a man needing to take on my own responsibility.
Anyway, I was pondering what has caused the shift, and one cause at least is ironic. The public schools are rife with the idea of self-reliance and self-esteem and "believe in yourself." For that matter, some of the churches are (Joel Osteen, anyone?). But my suspicion is that these people are looking at themselves and suddenly find that they ARE weak. For all the individualistic propaganda, they find that the individual IS weak.
To an extent, the Great Generation and the generations before were also independent and self-reliant (like the pioneer stock they were), but they were not individualistic, and their independence was in a large way centered around others, if that makes sense. In other words, they had an "I can do this" attitude, because they were fighting for a principle higher than themselves and received strength to achieve their goals.
All that the contemporary individualist has to fight for is himself--and is it worth it?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
