Christians & Birth Control – Challies has a nice overview of what the bible does and does NOT say regarding children and birth control.
One-Issue Voters – Joe at EO has a really good discussion of why he is a one-issue voter, that is, he uses abortion as a litmus test. And I agree, the murder of children and the dignity of human life really does trump most other considerations.
No Church Superbowl Parties – The NFL has shut down one church’s plans for a superbowl outreach, citing copyright violation.
How standard are English bibles? Better Bibles Blog has started an interesting series evaluating how close translations are to standard English. For instance, NIV 71.4%, ESV 31.6%. Why is the ESV so much less standard? Check out parts one and two.
Dude, you need a blog of of your own. Not that I mind, but you gotta stay on topic or create your own somewhere. Why do you NOT have one? It is sooo easy.
Seeker, if you feel Cin posts some interesting things that aren’t tied to the topic you or Aaron publish, why don’t you just invite him to be a guest author? I mean honestly, anyone can make a blog, but then all of us need to go there to read his stuff. This is your place, but allowing another guest author here with an opposing view would provide a balance. Then again, maybe it wouldn’t. However, I think you get the gist of my sentiment here.
Joe at EO has a really good discussion of why he is a one-issue voter, that is, he uses abortion as a litmus test. And I agree, the murder of children and the dignity of human life really does trump most other considerations. Oh my. Everyone has to have an issue I guess. I think that narrowing how you vote to just one issue is pretty short sighted. The world has a lot of problems, one of them may be abortion (I don’t share that view), but there are others that are equally huge. With pollution, hunger, the environment, and peace and security (which is a big one with Seeker when it comes to Islamic Terrorism) what good is stopping abortion in this country if there isn’t a country to live in (or a planet for that matter)? Not much ’cause the “lives” you may save would be mute for the loss of life by the destruction of a city like New York or the entire country. That possibility really is not that far fetched.
Well, Joe’s point is also that we all have a hierarchy of values, and if none of the candidates meet your top issues, how do you choose? If they don’t have your top priority but match your others, is that ok? Or if they match your top one but NONE of the others, is that OK? Joe makes an argument that if they don’t match your top priority, maybe you should not vote for them. I guess of your second and third priority seem equally important to you or outweigh the top one, then you could do it. But I still think Joe’s argument is a good one. Esp. when you consider that global warming, despite liberal opining, is still somewhat hypothetical, while the killing of children, not to mention the starvation of children in our country and around the world, are real. I’m not saying NO measures to address global warming, I’m just saying that I don’t think getting a strong environmentalist (e.g. Gore) in office is really the most important thing. But someone who has a firm but reasonable handle on Islamic terrorism is pretty high on the list, so point taken. Still, Joe’s arguments are interesting.
One other point. You have to look at the effectiveness of the office with regard to the issue. The Presidency is not the only place that legislation gets done. You might choose to elect a pro-life president because you know that he will nominate supreme court judges that are pro-life, while you might elect congressmen that support your other priorities.
Seeker, if you feel Cin posts some interesting things that aren’t tied to the topic you or Aaron publish, why don’t you just invite him to be a guest author? Seeker, If you let me post here I will take it as a true miracle and I will accept Jesus as my savior ;) If you are not comfortable with me, a liberal, posting about certain topics let me just do movie posts? I LOVE cinema and I have a lot of knowledge I can share. Can you find it in within yourself to trust me? Thanks Silver Hallide, for your suggestion. It is actually something I have wanted to do here; contribute a different, if not necessarily opposing, view.
Tomorrow is my Birthday :) I celebrate every year by watching “Groundhog Day.”
Dude, you need a blog of of your own. Not that I mind, but you gotta stay on topic or create your own somewhere. Why do you NOT have one? It is sooo easy.
Ah sorry, can you delete that comment?
Regardless of being off topic, Happy Birthday.
HAPPY HAPPY DAY!!
nah, don’t need to delete it, it’s just that you often post in interesting stuff that is off topic – you need a way to start your own topics!
Seeker, if you feel Cin posts some interesting things that aren’t tied to the topic you or Aaron publish, why don’t you just invite him to be a guest author?
I mean honestly, anyone can make a blog, but then all of us need to go there to read his stuff.
This is your place, but allowing another guest author here with an opposing view would provide a balance. Then again, maybe it wouldn’t. However, I think you get the gist of my sentiment here.
Joe at EO has a really good discussion of why he is a one-issue voter, that is, he uses abortion as a litmus test. And I agree, the murder of children and the dignity of human life really does trump most other considerations.
Oh my. Everyone has to have an issue I guess. I think that narrowing how you vote to just one issue is pretty short sighted. The world has a lot of problems, one of them may be abortion (I don’t share that view), but there are others that are equally huge.
With pollution, hunger, the environment, and peace and security (which is a big one with Seeker when it comes to Islamic Terrorism) what good is stopping abortion in this country if there isn’t a country to live in (or a planet for that matter)?
Not much ’cause the “lives” you may save would be mute for the loss of life by the destruction of a city like New York or the entire country. That possibility really is not that far fetched.
Well, Joe’s point is also that we all have a hierarchy of values, and if none of the candidates meet your top issues, how do you choose? If they don’t have your top priority but match your others, is that ok? Or if they match your top one but NONE of the others, is that OK?
Joe makes an argument that if they don’t match your top priority, maybe you should not vote for them. I guess of your second and third priority seem equally important to you or outweigh the top one, then you could do it. But I still think Joe’s argument is a good one.
Esp. when you consider that global warming, despite liberal opining, is still somewhat hypothetical, while the killing of children, not to mention the starvation of children in our country and around the world, are real. I’m not saying NO measures to address global warming, I’m just saying that I don’t think getting a strong environmentalist (e.g. Gore) in office is really the most important thing.
But someone who has a firm but reasonable handle on Islamic terrorism is pretty high on the list, so point taken. Still, Joe’s arguments are interesting.
One other point. You have to look at the effectiveness of the office with regard to the issue. The Presidency is not the only place that legislation gets done.
You might choose to elect a pro-life president because you know that he will nominate supreme court judges that are pro-life, while you might elect congressmen that support your other priorities.
Seeker, if you feel Cin posts some interesting things that aren’t tied to the topic you or Aaron publish, why don’t you just invite him to be a guest author?
Seeker, If you let me post here I will take it as a true miracle and I will accept Jesus as my savior ;) If you are not comfortable with me, a liberal, posting about certain topics let me just do movie posts? I LOVE cinema and I have a lot of knowledge I can share. Can you find it in within yourself to trust me? Thanks Silver Hallide, for your suggestion. It is actually something I have wanted to do here; contribute a different, if not necessarily opposing, view.