Thanks, Amy! I missed myself!
Grrr…you know you’re spending too much time on Facebook when you read a blog post like this on a regular ol’ blog and look for the “Like” button.
Exclusive psalmnody in the Regulative Principle of Worship is interesting to me because the New Testament contains 1st Century hymns presumably used by the early church and quoted approvingly by the inspired writers (e.g., the Carmen Christi of Philippians 2, 1 Timothy 3:16, 6:15-16, 2 Timothy 2:11-13). Why would the apostle quote hymns used by the early Christian congregations if the RPW’s exclusive psalmnody were a biblical doctrine? Not only does there seem to be no evidence for this doctrine in the New Testament, but these quotations seem to be evidence to the contrary.
To be honest, I miss the live blogging
>>I’m convinced that the atheists’ inability to comprehend God’s holiness is the particular turning point from which they have gone completely wrong. If the Holy Spirit were to reveal a glimpse of the majestic righteousness and holiness of God (and, by comparison, our sinfulness) to these atheists, the answers to 90% of their questions would fall swiftly into place.
Yes, yes, and yes. To wit, Benjamin’s comment here:
>>being on the outside and hearing somebody talk about how awesome and how in love they are with a being who will condemn a person to burn alive for all eternity if they don’t love him sounds more like Stockholm’s Syndrome than anything I’d identify with love.
Atheism as we know and encounter it is (historically) a reaction to Christianity specifically, and as such can be seen as a system arising out of bad theology, similar to the problem I told you about before with evolution.
The nail has been squarely hit on the head. Good job, Amy.
Keith and TJ,
Sorry it has taken me so long to respond – I’ve been camping and away from the internet for a few days. I’ll be posting responses in the next day or two – thanks for your comments!
I can just imagine what John Mark Reynolds would say in response to that article
And good call on the pic.
Thanks, Gabe! Blog on.
I knew I was treading on thin ice with fanboys everywhere when I posted this…and I know this because I am one.
If I can attempt to salvage the consistency of Lucas’s world for a moment, perhaps he could say that you have to learn a special skill in order to keep yourself from merging completely with the Force at death, and even then it’s only temporary.
That’s exactly what he says (except, I think, the temporary part – see below for me geeking out on that) but I still think it is internally inconsistent. Attachment (as we learned in the Prequels) is to be avoided, and this “good” seems in his system to be due to the ultimate end of life (a loss of everything that makes you, you as you become one with the Force). If flying in the face of the law of the universe and maintaining your identity after death isn’t attachment, I don’t know what is.
OK, now here’s my speculation: I don’t think (though I could be wrong) that Lucas intended the dead Jedi’s persistence to be temporary. I suspect he intended for that to be the way that Luke would continue to train and learn in order to rebuild the Jedi Order (Luke really knew very little after his short time with Ben & Yoda).
I guess Lucas can’t be faulted too much for not working this all out…he’s just trying to tell a good story. I just found the parallel to how nearly everyone these days puts together a worldview to be interesting.
“Make me hear joy and gladness,
Let the bones which You have broken rejoice.”
“Whom have I in heaven but You,
And besides You, I desire nothing on earth.
My flesh and my heart may fail,
But God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.”
Thanks, Paul! Now maybe I’ll actually blog again once in a while…
Aaron’s fairly smart, and he enjoyed watching Batman Begins, so I think he’ll fit in well here
Not to mention I’m solidly on the side of pirates rather than ninjas
Thanks for the welcome, Roger!
©2005-2009 Roger N. Overton and Amy Hall (The A-Team Blog). content rss | comments rss