Tuesday, March 30, 2010
A recent Zogby/Forbes ASAP poll asked respondents, What would you like most to be know for? For being intelligent? Good looking? Having a great sense of humor? A full half of respondents checked off an unexpected answer: They said they would like a reputation for "being authentic." In a world of spin and hype, the postmodern generation is searching desperately for something real and authentic. They will not take Christians seriously unless our churches and parachurch organizations demonstrate an authentic way of life--unless they are communities that exhibit the character of God in their relationships and mode of living.
Advertising techniques that merely convey an image may bring in the money, but they are not the means to accomplishing a genuine spiritual work. The church's "manner of speaking the truth must not be aligned to the techniques of modern propaganda," writes Newbigin, "but must have the modesty, the sobriety, and the realism which are proper to a disciple of Jesus." The church is called to be a witness to the gospel through an authentic demonstration of love and unity.
In the days of the early church, the thing that most impressed their neighbors in the Roman Empire was the community of love they witnessed among believers. "Behold how they love one another," it was said. In every age. the most persuasive evidence for the gospel is not words or arguments but a living demonstration of God's character through Christians' love for one another, expressed in both their words and their actions. The gospel is not meant to be "a disembodied message," Newbigin writes. It is meant to be fleshed out in "a congregation of men and women who believe it and live by it" --who exhibit in their relationships the beauty of God's character.
-Nancy Pearcey: Total Truth
Monday, March 29, 2010
I know it's been forever since I've posted. Been busy going here and there and falling behind in school and catching back up :-/
We went to Mississippi for a week 2 weeks back. That was soooooooo fun! :)
I'm pretty much addicted to coffee... never TOUCHED the stuff before.
It was Mimi! SHE did this to me! ;)
Some people are on Spring Break...
I've got beach on the brain. Hopefully we'll be going sometime this week :)
On a different note.
I don't remember if I've posted this before, but it's always good for a laugh :)
On another different note ;P
you've heard of CatDog I'm sure.
Poor B.B. got another hair cut.
Sorry for the briefness of this... I must away to finish my LAST WEEK OF SCHOOL!!!!!! :D :D :D :D
Yes. I'm excited ;)
I thank my God upon every remembrance of you...
Thursday, March 4, 2010
This was me up until tonight. Study, study, study.... and more study. After falling behind 4 weeks in my school, I worked way hard to get it all done and caught up in 3 days! I admit it... my brain is FRIED! I've worked, relationships almost neglected like poor Hobbes... But I'm done!
God is good!
Tomorrow's gonna be fun... :)
On a different note...
GOING TO SEE JOSH TURNER ON TUESDAY!!
Oh my goodness... I'm sooo excited :)
Wonderful voice! I highly recommend him. I also hope to get pics and post them soon :)
Ok, ok... enough totally randomness.
Goodnight and blessings!
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
The comment rankled Ruse, and he couldn’t get it out of his mind. Eventually, he decided that Gish was right—that evolution really is “more than mere science,” as he put it in a recent article. “Evolution came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.” Even today, it “is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality.”
Ruse hastens to reassure his readers that he himself remains “an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian.” And yet, “I must admit that in this one complaint... the [biblical] literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”
Ruse announced his new insight at the 1993 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), where his presentation was met by stunned silence. A conference report published by an evolution advocacy group wondered, “Did Michael Ruse Give Away the Store?”
But Ruse wasn’t making wild allegations. He backed them up with solid examples, citing people like Stephen Jay Gould, who once claimed that evolution “liberates the human spirit.” For sheer excitement, Gould added, evolution “beats any myth of human origins by light years.” Since evolutionary history is entirely contingent, “in an entirely literal sense, we owe our existence, as large and reasoning mammals, to our lucky stars.”
“If this is not a rival to traditional Judaeo-Christian teaching,” Ruse comments wryly, “I don’t know what is.”
Ruse’s analysis certainly throws new light on the controversy over teaching evolution in the classroom. Critics typically accuse Intelligent Design supporters of trying to inject religion into the classroom. For example, during the Ohio controversy an editorial in a Columbus newspaper said, “The problem is that intelligent-design proponents wants to bring religion into science classes, where it doesn’t belong.”
The correct response is that religion is already in the classroom—because of naturalistic evolution is itself a religion or worldview. “The so-called warfare between science and religion,” wrote historian Jacques Barzun, should really “be seen as the warfare between two philosophies and perhaps two faiths.” The battle over evolution is merely one incident “in the dispute between the believers in consiousness and the believers in mechanical action; the believers in purpose and the believers in pure chance.” To promote one faith in the publich school system at public expense, while banning the other, is an example of viewpoint discrimination, which the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional in a wide variety of cases.
Nancy Pearcey: Total Truth, pg. 172-173
Nancy Pearcey: Total Truth, pg. 172-173