ESPRESSO ROAST - A TEAM BLOG

THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN THIS BLOG DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF ALL CONTRIBUTORS AND EACH TEAM MEMBER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FACTS AND OPINIONS CONTAINED IN HIS POST.

CLICK FLAGS FOR PAGE TRANSLATION OPTIONS

Friday, December 31, 2004

happy 2005

have a happy, blessed, and safe new year!

Labels: David C. Price

new year's resolutions

while i long ago abandoned the practice of making new year's resolutions (why systematically produce long lists of reasons to beat yourself up throughout the year only to start over every january?), joe carter over at evangelical outpos t hasn't...these are worth a read.

Labels: David C. Price

Thursday, December 30, 2004

vacation is over...nearly.

vacation is nearing an end and it's time to return to the grind. we have had a great visit with family in mississippi and are preparing for the ten hour drive back to louisville today. i'm glad to hear that temperatures have climbed out of the freezing range at home but am a little concerned with the report that roofs of many businesses and houses have been collapsing under the weight of melting snow during the day and freezing temps at night, leading to heavy ice around the eaves of the roof. here's to hoping we have no new year's surprises when we get home.

because of our time away, i have deliberately been largely out of the loop on much of the news events. of course, that does not include the horrible tsunami in southeast asia. the devastation from that has been absolutely unbelievable. the videos bring the horror even more vividly into focus. latest i've heard is the death toll will easily top 100,000 people. trying to put that into perspective, even using the 3,000 lost on september 11, is difficult to comprehend.

another news story that i find disturbing is related to the fear that terrorists are using laser beams to try and bring down commercial airlines by blinding the pilots. aparantly, there have been instances of lasers being directed at planes in the past, but concerns are growing that this method of terror will continue to become more sophisticated and will eventually be successful in bringing down a commercial airliner.

according to the ap, the most recent attempt came on monday as a mysterious laser beam was directed into the cockpit of a commercial jet traveling at more than 8,500 feet. fortunately, the pilot was able to bring the plane safely to the ground in cleveland.

Labels: David C. Price

Wednesday, December 22, 2004

have a blessed christmas

we leave tomorrow for mississippi to visit family. as a result, i'm not sure how much blogging i will get to do, so i want to make sure i take this opportunity to wish you a very blessed and safe christmas.

in a year when christmas is under assault like never before, let's remember this is the time we celebrate the birth of Christ, the Lord. perhaps these attacks will keep us from taking our freedoms for granted as we realize that many would strip them from us if given the opportunity. may you celebrate like never before and experience all the blessings He has for you this season.

be safe.

Labels: David C. Price

Tuesday, December 21, 2004

miami?! please!

ESPN.com - NFL Recap

tom...what the heck were you thinking???

Labels: David C. Price

social (in)security

one fact that few (if any) can deny is that social security, as we know it, is on its way out. with the demand of the baby-boomers increasingly out-pacing the payments of the current workforce, social security will not be able to live up to its obligations over the coures of the the next ten to twenty years. much debate is going on right now about how to "salvage" the social security program. it appears that the argument over providing for future retiring workers amounts to either the privatizing of a small portion of each workers money, thereby giving him/her something that is actually THEIRS, or pouring a ton of federal money into a hole-filled bucket that is bigger than the amount of water to go in. it's probably not hard from the emotive language used to determine my feelings on the subject.

in a current post on powerline, hindrocket gives his take on the current state of affairs with the social security system:

I've always thought that the Social Security debate is weirdly attenuated. To me, the most basic point is that a person should OWN his or her retirement account, as I do mine, and as all upper-middle income Americans do. Social Security is a diabolically inadequate program: if you die, the "contributions" you've made to the system are forfeited, and your heirs are out of luck. Why? Anyone who saves money should be able to pass those savings on to his or her heirs. But for most people, the Social Security program sucks up the funds that he or she might have otherwise been able to save, and steals them on behalf of the federal treasury. For that reason, the Social Security program creates an environment that is much worse than we would have in the absence of any retirement program of any kind...

...The truth is that Social Security is an untenable, unsustainable program which, even at its best, fails to meet the most basic test of any retirement program: the recipients of Social Security are entirely dependent on the whim of the State. Congress can, at any moment, cut off all Social Security funding, and no one recognizes any property right in any "equity" built up by decades of contribution to the fraudulent Social Security "trust fund," which does not contain any assets.

The Social Security program is, in essence, a fraud. It would be best if it went out of existence as quickly as possible. Given the political realities, anyone under the age of 50 should be agitating to bail out of the sinking ship and obtain the right to save money, rather than relying on the whims of the political process.

the problems with the current social security system are anything but new. for years, economists and others who have recognized a problem have been sounding the warning. for example, based on research for his 1986 book, poverty and wealth, philosopher ronald nash described the current welfare system as "an elaborate pyramid scheme in which late-joiners are forcibly taxed to meet the cost of benefits assigned to earlier joiners. the generation of younger workers are required to accept on faith the principle that sill future generations of workers will absorb all future costs and will pay the taxes that will cover their benefits. Unfortunately, there is one enormous problem with this assumption: the number of future is recipients keeps growing at the same time that the number of future workers whose taxes are needed to pay for future benefits is declining"(147). as a result of this study, nash, along with others aware of the problem, were calling for the kind of privitization that is under consideration now. the concern is whether we have waited too late to make adequate changes. it seems that any solution, at this point, will require huge government subsidies. however, any government funds used to set up personal retirement accounts at least appears to be a choice that leads to building a new boat rather than simply stuffing dollar bills into the hull of the titanic while hoping the leak stops. real change can mean nothing less than new ideas for a bad system.

nay-sayers have been arguing that privatization of part of the social security program cannot work because too many people are unable to wisely manage their funds...the risk outweighs the possible advantage. another aspect of the argument (as outlined in powerline's rebuttle) is that this level of money management would lead to greater stress for individuals who now have to worry about losing their retirement funds in the stock market. however, former congressman, presidential candidate, and economics expert, jack kemp, has been trying to explain that the risks are minimal. he says that what most people fail to realize is that the amount that will used for the personal accounts has a safety net built into the plan that protects workers from losing more than their base payout would be within the current structure. one cannot lose more than he would have received from normal payouts. kemp argues that a responsible approach to handling the current crisis is to limit spending while reforming social security.

in an article on townhall.com, kemp explains the situation and outlines benefits of such an approach:

the good news is that the Progressive Personal Account Plan put forth by Social Security guru Peter Ferrara and officially scored by the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration, provides a perfect way to combine spending-growth control with Social Security reform. PPAP helps pay the transition from the current tax-and-transfer redistribution retirement program to a fully funded personal saving-and-investment plan by slowing the growth of federal spending by 1 percentage point a year. This modest spending limitation gives workers a huge incentive to support spending-growth restraint because every dollar in spending savings realized under the speed limit on spending growth flows automatically and directly into workers' personal retirement accounts, building their personal wealth and providing for their retirement security and prosperity."

If Bush follows through as he is proposing to freeze discretionary spending growth to 1 percent or less next year - a version of the "flexible freeze" - overall spending growth would fall from the 6.2 percent currently projected by the Congressional Budget Office to 3.2 percent. Such savings would surpass the PPAP spending restraint by a factor of three. It would set the stage for creating and partially funding large personal retirement accounts with savings from controlling the growth in other federal spending.

By employing even a modest spending limitation, such as the one included in the PPAP, it would be possible not only to prevent Social Security from plunging off a cliff when the baby boom retires, but also it would represent a huge step toward empowering and enriching American workers. Under the PPAP plan, every worker would be permitted to use the savings from reducing other government spending to place into his or her personal retirement account 10 percent of the first $10,000 they earn and 5 percent thereafter up to the cap on Social Security taxes. That amounts to $2,000 a year for someone earning $30,000."

it is always a scary thing to consider change, especially when it comes to retirement savings. it is clear that to do nothing is to deny the inevitable and that has been done for far too long. the only way clear to a hopeful economic future, is to introduce and support new ideas in order to take the money already being funnelled into this sinking ship and give to workers the ability to build equity in a system in which benefits are not forfeited to the government, but are passed on to the next generation, where they belong.

Labels: David C. Price

Monday, December 20, 2004

sharon osbourne: "it was the worst thing i ever did"

i suppose i didn't expect to hear this from sharon osbourne, but in an interview with london's daily mail, osbourne confesses that "her greatest regret is the abortion after her 'awful' first sexual encounter. her mom was so angry she sent her to the abortion clinic on her own.

"later, she had three miscarriages before giving birth to her three kids." her conclusion: "In life...you pay somewhere down the line."

hat tip: the corner

Labels: David C. Price

TIME Person of the Year 2004: George W. Bush

Labels: David C. Price

a blue christmas

saturday night live's recent commentary on liberal's attitude toward conservatives, "red states," and Christians (theists).

Labels: David C. Price

Friday, December 17, 2004

naturalism on the big screen

if you are interested in worldview studies, you may be interested in this article. the center for bioethics and human dignity has a very good review of the recent tom cruise movie collateral in which they examine the philosophical naturalism that drives cruise's character to justify his murderous career path.

the most explicit naturalistic dialogue occurs when cruise's character, vincent, tells max (jamie foxx), "in the expanse of the universe, humans are only insignificant specks on a tiny planet. our lives thus have no meaning or purpose, and the taking of another life is of no great consequence. In fact, ultimately, one kills or is killed." this may sound extreme, but in reality, these words convey the ideas of a major worldview that pervades our culture. this is actually only extreme because vincent has simply carried out this popular worldview to its logical, nihilistic conclusion and is acting upon it. check out the article here.

Labels: David C. Price

one christian’s views on war

i have been asked my view on whether there is ever a biblical justification for war. after all, it seems that Jesus, at least in some people's view, was a pacifist. how could one possibly be a follower of Christ, yet maintain that there are times when war is an appropriate, if not necessary, option.

first, a disclaimer: i am in no way a fan of war. i hate death in all forms and at all times. i wish there was a way that war and suffering of all kinds could be completely done away with (someday it will), but the fact is we live in a fallen world in which sin dictates the actions of many people and nations and death is a part of life. to believe there can be absolute peace on a utopian earth in which war is unnecessary is naive at best. war is inevitable until the return of Christ.

perhaps a second disclaimer should be issued as well: i make no claim of this being the authoritative, final word on the subject. i am simply advancing an idea of a christian's view of war from my perspective drawn from Scripture. i make no claim that this view could not be honestly debated. however, i do think that biblical data is so full of references to war, the burden of proof for pacifism is really on the part of the pacifist.

the "guidelines" for christians engaging in war have often been based on what has been called the "just war theory." this theory goes all the way back to st. augustine. i won't take the time to go through the just war theory here. there are plenty of documents available on the web so that a quick "google" search will lead to more detail than i can go into here.

most importantly, for me, is how Scripture handles the subject. can we know the mind of God related to His attitude of war? the best i can do in my feeble attempt to understand the mind of God (if that's not a tall enough order!) is the general teachings of Scripture. i'm going to try and briefly explain my understanding while my son's television show plays in the background (!)

i hear so often of the pacifism of Jesus. was Jesus really a pacifist? did he really declare peace at all times and at all cost? to me, the answer is yes and no. certainly he did speak of turning the other cheek and loving your enemies. he also lived a peaceful, non-violent life. but does that mean he ever addressed or taught on the subject of whether or not it was right for nations to declare or take part in war? i think it important to make sure we differentiate nations going to war and teachings on individuals taking matters into their own hands. to my knowledge (and please, someone point out the verse if i missed something, because it is certainly possible, but nothing comes to mind), Jesus never instructed on the moral values related to warring nations. however, in discussing some of this with my friend, alex forrest, he reminded me of romans 13, where paul instructs the roman Christians: “for he [the ruler] is God's servant to do you good. but if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. he is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” pretty strong language. obviously, possessing the sword implies the use of that sword when necessary. Jesus certainly addressed the attitude of individuals in dealing with other individuals. however, are there exceptions even in that? alex raised some important points regarding exceptions to turning the other cheek: “this can be interpreted as not seeking personal revenge. but should a Christian turn the other cheek as his wife is raped or his children slaughtered? to say that Christians should be total pacifists is to make an all encompassing statement that would have to include the extreme cases.” i agree with that and dare say most fathers and husbands, under normal circumstances, would agree…even the pacifists.

i make the distinction between the individual and the state for a very important reason: if Jesus is God, then it is important for us to look at both the New Testament (Christ's life in particular) and the actions and instruction of God in the Old Testament in order to get a fuller view of what God's attitude is. yes, Jesus lived something of a non-violent life, though when He cleansed the temple we can hardly say He was a pacifist. a pacifist would never demonstrate that kind of assertiveness for fear of inciting a riot or a fight. Jesus never backed down from a confrontation because He didn't want to "start something."

i believe it is hard for us to look at Jesus' life as an example on this. "Whoa, there, Cowboy! Jesus' life is not an example? what are you, nuts?" before I'm tarred and feathered, hear me out. i think we need to keep in mind that God, the Son, had a VERY specific mission when He came to earth. Because He came to die as a sacrifice, it can be argued that to declare the unjust rule of the romans or to cause a violent uprising among the jews, or to claim any political leadership whatsoever would have threatened His mission. clearly, the jews wanted a military leader to overthrow the roman oppression, but that was not the reason Jesus had come to earth. at least once we know that Jesus had to leave the crowd in order to prevent them from forcing Him into the role of a military-style leader. Jesus came to die and He would allow nothing to thwart that mission. another specific time related to this was in the garden of gethsemane when peter attacked the soldiers and cut off the ear of a servant. Jesus restored the ear. pacifism? teaching against war? i don't think so. again, Jesus was preventing His mission from being mis-interpreted. He was a sacrificial Lamb, not an over-thrown leader of an uprising. Jesus approach in this particular mission was crucial. however, i don't think that can be applied to whether or not warfare is just or not.

if we look to the Old Testament, we see numerous accounts of warfare. most instances actually seemed to blow the "just war theory" out of the water. there were times when God (the same God that was Jesus, incarnate) directly commanded his people, the jews, to attack and destroy a people for what appears to be the acquisition of land! of course, i think we often miss the point that God sometimes used warfare for a duel purpose: to provide for His people but also to bring about His judgment upon other nations, as i believe was the case with instances like the fight with the philistines. we usually look at it from the perspective of how the destruction of other nations was beneficial to the jews, but fail to see how God brought about judgment on the other nation because of their own sin towards God. i don't believe it was ever as much a case of God playing favorites as much as God being the just God who punishes the sins of any nation...often, it seems, through war. that was certainly the case when God used other nations to bring judgment on the jews.

frankly, the Bible is full of instances of war and in most of those instances, God is either described as commanding the war or bringing it about for His good purposes. in a perfect world void of sin, is warfare necessary? no, but again, that is not the one in which we live. there is injustice and suffering that comes upon the innocent along with the evil, but that appears to be the way it has always been. war is ugly and should not be embraced, but it must not be outright rejected as ungodly or wrong. it seems that unless God is unjust and evil (again, He often used war for His purposes), it is a dangerous thing to call all warfare unjust or ungodly. clearly, the Bible shows us examples of times when nations MUST fight.

as i said at the beginning, i wish the current war could end today and no more loss of life had to occur. but the reality is that it most likely won't. i believe that what we're doing right now is just on two accounts: first and most importantly, the suffering in iraq went on far too long. though it would not have been a good political move, i personally thought the right thing was for us to have removed Saddam back in '90 because of the injustice he was bringing upon the people in his country. i thought that was just warfare and as the older brother of the world (for better or worse), we had a moral obligation to protect the people of iraq the way we protected the people of kuwait. i believe defending the defenseless is a just cause of war. that is what we are doing now.

this is not a politically motivated post, but i think the talk of war for oil is irresponsible and short-sighted. i would not be so crass as to accuse any american president of sending u.s. soldiers to their deaths for something so trite, regardless of whether i liked the president or not. it is speculation based on partisan attacks using weak evidence. even if that was one reason that some of those within the government (which is debatable and i really don't care to debate it), that doesn't negate the fact that, as a christian, i believe the fight was justified based on the other reasons.

i think that based on saddam's thirteen years of violence and defiance and having been attacked on 9/11, we were justified in pointing the finger at iraq and demanding he relinquish his weapons, even if it was based on nothing more than our belief that he had wmd or had the capability and/or intention to build and use them (which we know was the case). he didn't comply and rightfully, in my opinion, faced the consequences. again, based on the examples we see in Scripture, i think we were justified in carrying out the actions we carried out, AS A NATION, and are biblically justifiable.

Labels: David C. Price

Thursday, December 16, 2004

Plano school district bans Christmas colors

Plano school district bans Christmas colors: "ADF Media Relations
480-444-0020"

The gross secularism has become absolutely absurd in a very short time.

Labels: David C. Price

confession of a president

wow, i have to say i'm sorry to all you bush-haters out there. you were right...it IS a conspiracy! michael moore isn't as dumb as i've been thinking. bush is out to conquer and destroy the world! he must be stopped and we haven't a moment to lose!

i just went back and listened to his state of the union speech again. i didn't realize how much i missed! couldn't pull the wool over you guys, though. you all caught it the first time.

for all of you, like me, who have supported president bush up to this point, maybe you should check this out...you may need to reconsider.

why, oh, why didn't i vote for john kerry when i had the chance?!

Labels: David C. Price

a structure's decay

the move of the networks towards cable-quality programming has continued to evolve over the years. as more and more words have become acceptable on television, more and more words have become acceptable in everyday conversation...even among christians. with the language has come the level of violence and sexual content. there are many who argue that people shouldn't waste their time fighting such things; it's not that big of a deal, just turn off the tv. fair enough, we do have that level of control. but are we really supposed to just throw our hands up and say to hell with our culture...literally? especially when the decay has started showing up in the church as more and more people become desensitized to it, with many actually becoming a part of it? "oh, well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." i don't think the "i can reach more people if i identify more closely with them" really works. all too often i'm afraid they're just reaching us.

admittedly, our mandate to be in the world but not of it is a tough one to live out. i do not believe nor support a separatist mindset or agenda. i do support the church changing strategies and often appearances to better meet the needs of those around us. but where do we draw the line? at what point do we stop and say, "no further...we've moved too close and identified too much"? frankly, i'm not sure where that line is, but it seems to me the line is becoming fuzzier everyday.

i'm not a big boycott person. sometimes it works to change things and sometimes it doesn't. sometimes those who boycott win the battle but lose the war. sometimes i quietly boycott something simply because i don't want to be a supporter of what is going on without trying to make some "political" statement. but at what point do we stand up, not as a political special-interest group, but as a people who care deeply for the world around us and, at the very least, make it known that we don't agree with what is happening? it's a tough call. there were times when Jesus stood up and very clearly made His displeasure known. there were times when He, Himself, appeared to have blurred the lines. yet He always did it in an appropriate way. there are some who think they've got it all figured out; that they always know the appropriate way and time in which to engage the culture. i am not one of those people. i struggle with it, but i am struggling. i do want to engage the culture in a meaningful and honest way who very lovingly but sometimes strongly takes a real stand. enough of the chameleon christians.

i came across an article related to the move of the networks towards more promiscuous programming choices. recently abc aired saving private ryan in which they chose not to heavily edit it. the result was a movie during prime time that was riddled with profanity and, you know if you've seen it, very graphic violence. here is the writer's take on it:

FCC Chairman Michael Powell has asked that no action be taken against the ABC stations that aired over 20 uses of the "f" word and at least 12 "s" words during "Saving Private Ryan," which shown during prime time last month.

Powell's reason for taking no action opens the door for broadcasters to show any type programming. He believes there should be no action because the use of the profanity was part of an accurate representation of the events depicted, and this made them acceptable.

Using Powell's reasoning, a show about the sex life of two homosexuals would be free to show graphic sex because it would be an accurate representation of their sexual activity. There would be no limits regarding what could be shown and the law regarding indecent material would be meaningless. Any program, no matter how indecent, could claim that the material was needed in order to be an accurate representation.

If Powell can get only two other Commissioners to agree with him, then the networks and local broadcasters will be free to show anything. Everything they show, no matter how indecent, could be classified as being an accurate representation. That is what they have been wanting for years. Powell is only two votes away from giving the broadcasters their desire.

We realize it is important for families, especially our children, to recognize the sacrifices made by our loved ones during wartime. However, airing excessively profane language during prime-time television hours is not necessary to convey that sacrifice. We believe ABC should have aired their salute to heroes without violating broadcast decency laws.

The movie could have easily have been edited for TV, but ABC refused. Powell is now defending ABC's move, making it possible to open Pandora's box on program content.

as i said before, there is always the opportunity to simply turn the station. frankly, i agree that in order for an adult to fully understand really what happened over there, as i think we should, much of the language and violence needed to be accurately portrayed (just as the violence was necessary in the passion of the christ), but i also think that can be seen by renting the dvd. i don't think it necessary to put it on a network channel during prime time, despite the warnings of the content. we must remember that we as tax-payers own the airways. networks basically lease the usage of them, so it is not outside of our rights and, frankly, our responsibility as owners to say something. however, if the manager is taking sides with tenants, it seems the only option is for the owners to either make a change or lose the whole building. for many christians, at least, the debate seems to be over whether the "building" is even worth keeping up.

Labels: David C. Price

Wednesday, December 15, 2004

damage control?

on the flight home the other day i was reading usatoday and came across an article entitled "hollywood's 'elite': we're not villains." in it, steven levitan (creator of the nbc show, just shoot me) attempted to paint hollywood liberals as people with middle america values who just can't see any difference in values or attitudes. below is an exerpt describing his mayberry lifestyle:

Even though I've been a member of the "Liberal Hollywood Elite" for 15 years, I have never been invited to an orgy.
Instead, I get invited to roughly three dozen charity events a year. Last Monday night, for example, I attended a dinner in which the Hollywood community raised $1.2 million for the Los Angeles Free Clinic. Week after week, people in this community put so much time and effort toward sharing their good fortune. I can think of no other industry that gives more.

Why, then, do so many conservatives hold us in the same esteem as the proprietor of the local porn shop? Are our morals and values so different from the rest of America? I believe "Hollywood" is more like middle America than many people imagine.
I'm from Illinois (blue state), and my wife of 12 years is from Texas (red state). We have three children, two dogs and a picket fence. This was a typical weekend for us: Saturday, we went to our kids' soccer games (one loss, one tie). Saturday night we took the kids to see a movie (The Incredibles). Sunday, we went to a child's birthday party. Sunday night, we had dinner at home. Highlight of the weekend: My 6-year-old son scored a goal, his second ever. Lowlight: A bad magician. (Note: We didn't see Sean Penn or Michael Moore even once.)

what were we thinking? i'm sorry, mr. levitan, you are right. how we could have ever been so mistaken? i guess we watch too many movies.

Labels: David C. Price

Tuesday, December 14, 2004

is being homo sapien enough?

i realize i haven't written that much of substance here lately (besides the patriots winning the afc east title), but it's at least partly because i've been engaged in some really good discussions on some other blogs. i want to share part of one with you here and get your response. i have copied a post by one leader within the emergent church movement about the importance of focussing on being homo sapien. following that post is my response to him. what do you think? is his reasoning is valid? do you think i was i off-base in my response?

Sin swallows us all—even those who look (from outward appearances) like spiritual superheroes. I know, I spoke today with one whose life is falling apart, whose apparently full life is shown for what it is, “smoke and mirrors,” empty. And no one else in the world knows the depth of the descent.
Sobered by this news, I hid myself for awhile in sound and prose. Last night I listened to Handel’s “Messiah” and read T.S. Eliot’s “Hollow Men” . . . at the same time. Poetry in song and on paper renewed my imagination for a vocation that can so quickly turn such frightful and astonishing corners. Beside my friend’s drained life Eliot’s verse (that gets right the human condition) and Handel’s phrasing (that bespeaks our brokenness toward the great Isaianic vision), I heard the glad tidings of my friend’s woundedness being swallowed up by that grand and lyrical vocational charge: “Comfort ye, Comfort ye my people.”

All this makes me wonder if this is why I don’t find homosexuality terribly troubling for the church. These lyrical texts remind me that . . .

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpieces filled with straw. Alas! . . . .

We grope together
And avoid speech
Gathered on this beach of the tumid river

Sightless, unless . . .
(Eliot)

The glory of the Lord shall be revealed . . .
And he shall purify . . .
O thou who tellest good tidings to Zion . . .
For unto us a child is born . . .
(Handel/Isaiah)

The hope only
Of empty men.
(Eliot)

Hallelujah!
(Handel)

Though the issues are not small and unimportant it seems to me, that in the grand sweep of God’s creation and redemption in Jesus Christ, it matters less that we are heterosexuals or homosexuals than it does that we are all Homo sapiens. And by virtual of that, we are all “hollow,” and “grope together,” “sightless unless,” until the “good tidings” come to us and “the glory of the Lord” shines upon us and we are saved. Then all Homo sapiens, no longer “empty,” are filled with God’s glad song: “Hallelujah!”

I could be wrong about this. But I pray I'm not. To be wrong might well empty us of the hope of these “good tidings” and we may be forever be hollow and without sight.
Comments
David said:
I agree with you that Homo Sapiens does describe us all, regardless of what flavor we are. However, if that is your basis for affirming homosexuality (since this blog has been on that subject lately), does it not seem that every other condition, aspect, etc. that makes up homo sapiens must also be affirmed? Those who believe in and practice bestiality and polygamy and incest must also be affirmed according to your standard. Do not these also embody homo sapiens? I understand your concession that there are limits related to sexual behavior and that you believe somewhere along the way that sexual sin is wrong (based on your response to Ted), but I don't at all see where you could possibly draw the line without being arbitrary. It appears that you must, and perhaps do, make that judgement based upon what is socially acceptable. Unless that is the criterion, If you hold to your original logic, it seems you must accept all other lifestyles of all other homo sapiens as legitimate and among those things which prevent us from being hollow. With, therefore, your declaration that "in the grand sweep of God’s creation and redemption in Jesus Christ, it matters less that we are heterosexuals or homosexuals than it does that we are all Homo sapiens," you must include everything else. Perhaps then we see that in that quest within our hearts, we may determine that it matters at least a little more than we originally believed. I agree with Paul that there is much missing and unfinished and we are still becoming, but what a tragedy if we as Believers in the redemptive work of God settle for anything short of holiness before Him. I think that in reaching for that goal of wholeness before God will we truly find real fulfillment and sight.

Labels: David C. Price

Monday, December 13, 2004

a bit of advice...parent to parent

made it back from new england today and we're pooped...great trip, though. in light of that,
all i have to offer is a little mind candy---
i have no idea where this came from originally, but as a parent,
i can relate to it. every so often i'm sent little tidbits of parenting
advice (i think somebody's trying to tell me something). this was
actually useful and i thought perhaps some of you other parents might
appreciate this as well, so i'd like to pass it along. you never know, it just might work.

"Much has been said about 'tough love' for misbehaving
children. Most of America thinks it improper to spank
children, so my spouse and I have tried other methods
to control our kids when they have one of 'those moments.'
One that we found very effective is for me just to take the
child for a car ride and talk. They seem to calm down and stop
misbehaving after our little ride together. I've attached a photo
of one of my sessions with our child, in case you would like to
try the technique."

Labels: David C. Price

great big ol' smile

patriots continue their march as they clinch
the afc east title by defeating the bengals.

Labels: David C. Price

Sunday, December 12, 2004

hi from boston

the prices at quincy market, boston (dec. 11)
my son is definitely a new englander (born in worcester)...
in boston eating ice cream in december

Labels: David C. Price

Friday, December 10, 2004

just love this place

good to be back in new england. funny, i didn't realize how much i missed it until i came back almost a year and a half after leaving. only bad thing today is the weather...cold and wet. hopefully the rain will stop soon.

kind of a whirlwind trip, but getting in some good visits with old friends. worcester today, brimfield tonight, and boston tomorrow and sunday...louisville on monday.

Labels: David C. Price

Wednesday, December 08, 2004

inalienable rights

FOXNews.com: "School v. God"

if you haven't heard about this case, it's pretty insane. a school system has actually banned the use of the declaration of independence, u.s. constitution and other historical documents in the teaching of u.s. history because of their references to God. the video report can be found under the "politics" tab of the access video section on fox news (that "conspiratorial, right-wing news agency").

Labels: David C. Price

a good read

i recommend to you an interesting post by reaganwarrior. check it out.

Labels: David C. Price

believing the "christmas miracle"

MSNBC - The Christmas Miracle

this is a fascinating article on the statistics of those who believe in Jesus and the events surrounding His birth, death and resurrection.

according to the survey out of princeton university and reported in newsweek, 79 percent of americans believe that, as the Bible says, Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, without a human father. 76 percent say they believe that the entire story of Christmas, the virgin birth, the angelic proclamation to the shepherds, the star of bethlehem and the wise men from the east is historically accurate. 93 percent of americans say they believe Jesus Christ actually lived and 82 percent believe Jesus Christ was God or the Son of God.

perhaps it is something of an indictment to how believers live out their faith in the world that just 11 percent of those surveyed say american society as a whole very closely reflects true Christian values and the spirit of Jesus; 53 percent say it somewhat reflects those values.

personally, i don't think the survey goes far enough. i wonder if the real picture of american society would be painted if some other questions were asked as well. the fact is, we live in a very pluralistic society in which people build their religion cafeteria style, picking and choosing things they believe in order to form their own "custom faith." i would like to know how many of these same people also believe in the tenets of buddhism or hinduism. how many believe there are absolute standards for the world given by God? how many of those who believe in Jesus believe that He is the only way to salvation? how many believe that all religions are equal and that they all lead to God? i think we may be surprised at the results of these kinds of answers.

we live in an age where contradiction and irony is embraced. call me cynical, but i know that it is possible for americans to believe all of these traditional facts about the Christian faith while at the same time holding to beliefs in faith traditions whose teachings are diametrically opposed to what the Bible teaches. sounds crazy, but it's true.

too pessimistic? maybe, but i doubt it.

Labels: David C. Price

Tuesday, December 07, 2004

survival...it's a good thing

man, as of tonight this semester is finally over. i'm more mentally exhausted than i expected. i'll be going to boston on thursday for a long weekend, but i hope to post a few times on the road (in the air, whatever).

in a response to my post from december 2, i've been asked to give my view on how a disciple of Christ reconciles supporting war. i'm going to work on that and hope to have it up soon. in the mean time, i will try and post some interesting tidbits, articles or observations i come across over the next few days.

Labels: David C. Price

Monday, December 06, 2004

iraqi frustration...and it's probably not what you think.

newsflash: you can't believe everything you read from the msm!

OpinionJournal - Extra: "It takes a lot to get a man of God annoyed, and Louis Sako, the Chaldean Archbishop of Kirkuk, is a very frustrated man these days. 'It is not all death and destruction,' says the archbishop. 'Much is positive in Iraq today. . . . Universities are operating, schools are open, people go out onto the streets normally. . . . Where there's a kidnapping or a homicide the news gets out immediately, and this causes fear among the people. . . . Those who commit such violence are resisting against Iraqis who want to build their country.'

It's not just the terrorists who, according to His Eminence, are creating problems for Iraq: Elections in January 'will be a starting point for a new Iraq,' he says. Yet 'Western newspapers and broadcasters are simply peddling propaganda and misinformation. . . . Iraqis are happy to be having elections and are looking forward to them because they will be useful for national unity. . . . Perhaps not everything will go exactly to plan, but, with time, things will improve. Finally Iraqis will be given the chance to choose. Why is there so much noise and debate coming out from the West when before, under Saddam, there were no free elections, but no one said a thing?'

The archbishop has this wish for the international bystanders: 'Europe is absent, it's not out there; the United States is on its own. . . . [Europe] must help the Iraqi government to control its borders to prevent the entry of foreign terrorists, [but] also provide economic help to encourage a new form of culture which is open to coexistence, the acceptance of others, respect for the human person and for other cultures. . . . Europe must understand that there is no time to waste on marginal or selfish interests: The entire world needs peace.'

Archbishop Sako's frustration is increasingly shared by other Iraqis, who can hardly recognize their country from the foreign media coverage. Westerners, too, both military and civilians, upon their return are often finding to their surprise and concern they had lived and worked in a different country to that their loved ones, friends and neighbors back home saw every night on the news. "Our" Iraq is a place of violence, uncertainty, and frustration; "their" Iraq all that, but also so much more: work and renewal, hope and enthusiasm, new opportunities and new possibilities."

hat tip: little green footballs.

Labels: David C. Price

good call

Top News Article | Reuters.com

the supreme court has rightfully declared that members of the kkk and, presumably, any hate group must show their faces in exercising their right to free speech.

Labels: David C. Price

Sunday, December 05, 2004