It disappoints me when I see those opposed to the Christian faith butcher scripture in barbaric fashion. Quoting a single verse without any understanding of context or meaning doesn’t make one knowledgeable of the nature of God or Christian morality as a whole. It is very easy to quote a verse as opposed to reading the chapter, understanding the context of the epistle, prayer, seeking guidance and inspiration, etc.
Baldwin IV
One of the great things about this up and coming generation is its acceptance of different types of people and ideas. And yet, one of the troubling things about this up and coming generation is its acceptance of different types of people and ideas irregardless of the absurdity. This and the pervading slightly selfish idea that one is required to do whatever makes his or herself “happy.” That everyone is a winner and everyone can be satisfied with his or herself rather than make improvements and grow as individuals.
I applaud Ms. Isinbayeva for standing up for what she feels is right even if most who don’t come from her part of the world say otherwise. She doesn’t seem to have any gripe against homosexuals personally, but rather opposes the purveying culture that accompanies those who engage in homosexual acts. Whether or not the culture accompanying homosexuality contributes positively to society is a valid discussion to have, and I have no problem with a nation that desires to rein in alternative lifestyles in favor of a more traditional societal orientation. Let the rainbow crowd argue on the merits of their lifestyle, rather than simply foisting it on society under the guise of civil rights. It is wrong to think poorly of someone for standing up for their beliefs even if your own perspective differs. I may not agree with Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, or Atheists but I do have respect for their convictions. Ms. Isinbayeva comes from a country on a knifes edge with a history of civil unrest and lower class hardships. Her views are thinking more for the common people than outsiders. After all, if things get heated and tense outsiders won’t be there to suffer the effects.
Just some points I put together that I thought were well worded. These are good because they are the explanations from a former Calvinist.
1. Total inability is the concept clinged to by Calvinists that states due to Adam and Eve’s sin, man is forever a slave to sin. That due to “the fall”(not biblical by the way), man is unable to receive spiritual truths and is essentially doomed to doing evil or sin. This is falsehood. Surely if this were the case there would be some example of such a thing in Genesis where all the other consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin are located. If you read Genesis, you will see the consequences established by God are physical death, manual labor, and painful childbirth. No where is there any mention of man’s inability to do good. No where is there a mention of a 4th suffering- removing mans moral nature. Two primary texts adduced to prove the doctrine of Original Sin (Rom. 5; 1 Cor. 15) say nothing about Total Inability. Nowhere are we told that an invincible tendency to resist God was imparted to the race through the offense of one. If there were a place we would expect to find the doctrine, it would be in one of those passages dealing with the relationship between Adam and his descendants. But there is not a trace of such teaching there.
2. The idea of moral perfection is not found in scripture. It is reasonable to affirm that Adam and Eve were created with an original innocence. Our first parents did lose innocence when they sinned. Their eyes were then opened to good and evil, prompting them to hide from their Creator (Gen. 3:7-8). But it is another thing altogether to say that they fell from a state of moral perfection to total depravity. There’s a big difference between being good and being perfect. The fact that God called His creation “good” does not mean it was all morally perfect. Man is a sinner. Every person has folly bound up in the heart from their earliest days (Prov. 22:15). But was Adam any different? The Calvinist’s entire system of soteriology is founded on the grand assumption that Adam was created morally impeccable. He lost perfection through sin and assumed a nature totally corrupted and alienated from God, a nature imparted to all mankind as a curse. But the Scriptural evidence for these contentions is, at best, scant. For the most part, the doctrine is assumed unquestionably. Adam’s fall from moral perfection was established by Augustine’s polemics against Pelagianism and passed on, without alteration, through the barren centuries of the Middle Ages. Calvin received it in toto from his medieval legacy, as has each successive generation of theologians since. A doctrine that forms such a colossal foundation-stone for the system should have unequivocal proof in the Bible. If a theology is based on an unproven philosophic assumption how can the rest of the system be trustworthy? The Calvinist cannot expect us to believe him unless the consistent tenor of Scripture tells us: (1) God made man morally perfect; (2) Adam’s sin immediately corrupted him and rendered him unable to respond to God; (3) God transmitted this inability to all his descendants.
3. Election is true, but is shrouded in deep mystery. It is one of the secret things that belong to the Lord our God (Deut. 29:29). Calvinists and Arminians both err when they make precise statements about the nature of election. God has not told us whether or not there are conditions attached to it and we should not venture into it with such bold assertions. The Calvinist, however, does need to temper his view of election with the clearly revealed truth in Ezekiel 18:23: “Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?” Too often, we hear Calvinists say that the damnation of the non-elect is “the good pleasure of His will.” But here, God states explicitly that He takes no pleasure in damning anyone but prefers that they turn from sin and live. How this idea fits into the Calvinist scheme is not at all clear. Nor is it clear, from a Calvinistic standpoint, why Jesus should weep over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.” This poses a thorny difficulty for the Calvinist. First of all, he must assume that the reprobation of Jerusalem was “the good pleasure” of the Father. If that is so, why was it so displeasing and heart-rending to Jesus, who was always in agreement with the divine will? Shouldn’t Jesus have also been “pleased” with the Father’s reprobation of these people? Secondly, Jesus is here attributing the lost condition of Jerusalem to her own unwillingness, not the want of election. Jesus was willing to receive them but they were unwilling. This seems to contradict the confident assertions of Calvinists about Unconditional Election. So what doctrine do we put in the place of the Calvinist’s Unconditional Election? Do we opt for one of the many Arminian forms of election? Tempting as that may be, I must now settle on the mysterious Biblical Election, the details of which have not been fully disclosed as we look into our “glass, darkly.” Perhaps further theological works by thoughtful Christians will reveal a more satisfactory resting place for our convictions.
Calvinism is one more illustration of the futility of systematic theology. God’s truths, particularly relating to soteriology, are too lofty to be put into concise formulae. The Five Points of Calvinism oversimplify the profound truths of God. They derive their force from proof-texts rather than the general tenor of Scripture. More than that, the doctrines frequently create a spirit of division, elitism and theological snobbery. The system erects walls between believers. It creates a class of Christians within the church general who are supposedly part of a worthy “inner circle.” May our brethren see fit to adopt a Berean spirit (Acts 17:11) and honestly rethink their Calvinism. We would urge them to, for a time, lay aside the commentaries of Calvin and Gill, the theology of Warfield and Hodge. With an open Bible and mind, may they take a second look at the so-called “doctrines of grace” to see if they truly are the doctrines of Christ.
It appears as though “journalism” has taken a turn for the worst. Long gone are the days of objective and cutting edge news reports. It used to be that journalists broke stories and brought to light things people ought to know. Instead those stories have been replaced by politicized news agendas and ratings hunters. Instead of holding people accountable and standing up for the people, the media has decided to only report what they feel we ought to know or fits their views. It is a shame that if one wants to hear news they have to do so on the internet but that is what things have come to. The media has always thought their role was more important than it was in reality but thanks to the internet here’s a news flash – we don’t need the news media anymore. We don’t need their archaic newspapers. We don’t need their 24/7 coverage of absolutely nothing. We especially don’t need someone to tell us how to feel or think about an event happening in the world. We are all capable of critical thinking and absorbing information for ourselves.
The Epic of Gilgamesh (Mesopotamia) – author unknown
Iliad (Greece) – ascribed to Homer
Odyssey (Greece) – ascribed to Homer
Aeneid (Rome) – Virgil
Metamorphoses (Rome) – Ovid
Beowulf (Britain) – author unknown
Both Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained (Britain) – John Milton
Of course there are loads of more amazing epic poems and stories to read, but these are for me some that are must reads. Enjoy.
Let me first start off by saying that I am in fact a huge fan of the Assassins Creed game series created by Ubisoft. For those who don’t know (you’re missing out!), Assassins Creed is a free running open world type game in the mold of the Prince of Persian game series. In the game, worlds collide as players have a dual story line of a modern troubled time and the past time period where most the gameplay takes place. The game series has been extremely successful from a sales and fan following standpoint.
My issue isn’t necessarily the gameplay as I feel that’s what made the game great. Although not exactly my thing, the ability the game gives the player to do what they want outside the main story is enjoyable. My grievance of the game comes up in the main story and time periods chosen. I will try to be vague concerning the story as to not spoil if for others.
In Assassins Creed I (my favorite one) you are thrust into the middle ages during the Holy Land conflict as an assassin fighting the Knights Templar. As an avid reader of crusade literature, I took a particular liking to the world that was created. Being able to visualize Holy Land cities and interact with the different landmarks I had only read about in books was wonderful. The combat in the game was very much accurate of the period consisting of various daggers and swords. Even since beating the game, I have since played it again numerous times.
In Assassins Creed II-Assassins Creed Revelations, the game takes place during the Renaissance in various parts of Italy and Turkey. In these 3 games I quite liked the time period as well. Having studied the time period it was great being able to see the large Cathedrals and various parts of Rome I had seen on my travels. The combat in these games were for the most part similar to the first game with most the combat being swords and daggers. However, the game developers did introduce an early primitive one shot gun for the assassin to use. So to sum things up this far: good time period choices and combat methods.
With Assassins Creed III I had some serious issues. For one thing, I thought the time period choice was not good at all. Ubisoft chose to base the historical part of the game during the United States pre-revolution in the northeast. Combat at the time consisted of men pointing largely inaccurate muskets at each other in large groups. A lot of the “assassin” part I felt was lost in this game compared to the others. The assassin in this game moved away from the sword and dagger to a tomahawk and pistol. Also instead of running along beautiful elaborate cities, the assassin in this one mostly runs by himself in trees and woods. I did think the game did a decent job at being largely objective about the US vs British aspect of the game. Neither side looked totally in the wrong or the right.
Next to come is Assassins Creed IV and I am pondering if I should get it. The gameplay looks quite enjoyable from what I have seen. But the time period again is another put off. This game will take place during the 19th century during the struggles with piracy in the Caribbean region. While some of the naval combat elements of the game look quite good, I can’t yet come to grips with the piracy part. It just isn’t in my nature to want to be a pirate and there’s nothing about a pirates character that I find appealing in the slightest. While the assassin does appear to have his signature hidden blade and sword, most the combat appears to be pistol/gun driven. Maybe after seeing more of the game I will come around but I doubt it. If the game had less of a pirate feel and instead was during the Napoleonic Wars, I would be more excited.
In conclusion: Assassins Creed I-Revelations= Good; Assassins Creed III-IV= not so good.
Just watched the CNN race round table which was interesting but sadly nothing of real substance. Just the typical issues and solutions people can think of as to the reason why blacks lag behind other races. Some of the things I understood to be factual. Its true that the black rate of arrest is higher than whites. But its also true that black murders are 10 times more than any other ethnicity. While it would be nice to think of a world where people don’t judge you on your appearance, speech, behavior, temperament, etc. its not likely to happen anytime soon. People will judge always on their past life experiences. Part of it is that persons responsibility to educate his/herself and increase his/her perception. At the same time though it is also your own duty to carry yourself in a respectable manner. I don’t understand why people say they are “Trayvon” as if being black makes you “Trayvon.” There is more to Trayvon than his race and people are forgetting that. Nobody is discussing his character, upbringing, parents divorces, school trouble, etc.
This whole discussion is pointless in the grand scheme of things though. The George Zimmerman trial had no racial elements of merit. No evidence from the police and FBI investigation has led to race being a factor in the case. Somehow the whole facts of the case got lost as it moved from a self defense case to a dialogue on race. While racial dialogues are necessary and healthy, they aren’t pertinent to the case.
It baffles me the amount of coverage this “royal baby” is getting. You would think this baby is special or something which we all know is simply not true. It poops and cries like any other baby. The current state of the “royal family” is a joke in the modern age of government. All civic and political responsibilities are legislated out to more qualified individuals. So what is it that the royal family does besides have lots of money and wave at crowds? They are essentially permanent celebrities by birthright and nothing more. Mere relics of the now defunct British Empire.
These days it’s becoming more and more disheartening to see the dilution of the “History Channel.“ Back in my youth I had fond memories of the History Channel. Shows like Tales of the Gun and documentaries on ancient Rome were especially delightful to watch. But now times have changed for the worst I am afraid. Old shows about past history have been removed and in its place are new reality pseudo-history shows such as Pawn Stars, American Pickers, and Swamp People. Occasionally an interesting documentary might be made but the majority of the time the shows have become lackluster. Obviously the goal of any television channel is to get viewers and high ratings equaling an increase in potential advertisers. But from a content standpoint its quite appalling now to think such a great educational channel has given in to the garbage found on the other stations. For me I just don’t understand the appeal of these shows. Watching 4 fat guys look at old stuff on Pawn Stars is not even the worst part of the show. A good majority of the items on the show have great historical significance and unless someone desperately needs the money should be auctioning the items rather than taking them to these guys. Swamp People is a terrible show with no historical context at all besides people just living there a long time. Who likes to watch these low income/educated people kill alligators? Ridiculous. The “History Channel” needs to get back to doing what it’s supposed to do: history.
Acerbity [əˈsɜːbɪtɪ] 