I'm presently home at the moment. i was originally going to head back to P-ville last Thursday, but then my car broke down. I had to take out the battery and replace a new one, only to find that the alternator went bad. It all paid off in the end because, due to the bad alternator I needed to have a new battery. And get this, on the way to the mechanics to have the new part installed...I got a flat tire. So we ended up replacing the front two tires of my car. But what was totally rad was that Linda insisted that she pay for it. I'm totally indebted to her...she is just so amazing.
I was discussing with Linda what I should plan to do with my money over the summer. Considering a car just won't cut it anymore (especially considering it has 250,000 miles on it), I am planning on buying a truck. No doubt I will have to buy it used, for I can't afford anything else. So basically within the next few months I will be looking at prices of trucks that I can buy; my only request is that it is not a Ford. Stupid Fords!
I will be heading up to San Diego. Yay!!! I can't wait to see Rebecca! Cyrus is totally great and all, but no offense to him....he just isn't as pretty as she is. LOL. I love ya brother!!
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Cloud Nine
As of this weekend I started dating the most amazing woman. That's right! I am not ashamed to appear like a stupid person whose acting like a giddy little kid. LOL. I would normally go into details, but instead I will just sit back and smile like a fool...and hold you in suspense. :)
On a side note, check out this website (hilarious!):
http://te-be.ru/pics/flash/ilike.swf
On a side note, check out this website (hilarious!):
http://te-be.ru/pics/flash/ilike.swf
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Quote of the Week 03/06/05
"I'm so happy for you guys...No one said the wrong name; no one got drunk...No one was gay. All on your first try!"
~ Ross Geller
~ Ross Geller
Saturday, March 05, 2005
Theology talk part II
Note that to understand why I am bringing up this topic, you will need to read the previous post.
God being described as a "God of Wrath" is a necessary attribute to understand about the Lord. God is so divine and holy beyond our comprehension that by merely looking upon His face, one will be disinegrated because of His radiant holiness. Sin is in sharp contrast from this. As such, God has zero tolerance for sin. The greatest example of this is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Sin was so overwhelming that God spared only the righteous family of Lot and demolished the rest of the city with fire. One can either see God in this picture as evil for doing this (regardless for what the people did), or to see it as it trully is: sin is THAT bad. The other attribute of God that keeps "Wrath" in check (if I may use that phrase) is the title "God who is Just". This plays in role with what I was mentioning in the previous post about babies being able to go to Heaven. What I wanted to extend on this matter is the idea of those who may not have "heard the Gospel".
Take, for example, the Native Americans who had no interactions with missionaries. Obviously, this would mean they never heard of "Christ the Messiah" or any other Christian ideas. I believe God understands this. Considering he "so loved the WORLD" it is necessary for Him to make known about Him to those who never heard the Good News.
God does this by nature. Romans 1:19, 20 says, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Nature speaks VOLUMES of the idea of "creation" and is evident of a wonderous working behind the scene. One may ask, "so how should they know 'Jesus'?" This questions brings up many theological concepts, but (considering I am unaware of official names on this subject minus one) I will put in my own words how this works. Throughout the Old Testment, as well as a few places in the New Testmant, the Lord has been called by many names. Protector, Counselor, Friend, Judge, Deliverer, Refuge, etc. Each name captures only a glimpse of the true God. As is mentioned in the New Testament, "all who call on the name of Christ will be saved". The Native American could call out a name (any name) to describe that one true God, and in His heart accept Him as such. If a Native American was to look at nature and decided to give his heart and devotion to "that God", then the "God who is Just" would take his devotion as unto Him. This doesn't negate Christ, for even that native american would have to answer to Him, but I'm sure that a "Just" God would be one who would realize that persons unawareness of the Gospel; and if the individual was to look at the evidence around him and worship the God that penetrates his heart through that evidence...then I believe Christ would accept him as such.
So this is how I see the nature of those who aren't aware of the Gospel and how that comes into play with certain attributes of God.
God being described as a "God of Wrath" is a necessary attribute to understand about the Lord. God is so divine and holy beyond our comprehension that by merely looking upon His face, one will be disinegrated because of His radiant holiness. Sin is in sharp contrast from this. As such, God has zero tolerance for sin. The greatest example of this is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Sin was so overwhelming that God spared only the righteous family of Lot and demolished the rest of the city with fire. One can either see God in this picture as evil for doing this (regardless for what the people did), or to see it as it trully is: sin is THAT bad. The other attribute of God that keeps "Wrath" in check (if I may use that phrase) is the title "God who is Just". This plays in role with what I was mentioning in the previous post about babies being able to go to Heaven. What I wanted to extend on this matter is the idea of those who may not have "heard the Gospel".
Take, for example, the Native Americans who had no interactions with missionaries. Obviously, this would mean they never heard of "Christ the Messiah" or any other Christian ideas. I believe God understands this. Considering he "so loved the WORLD" it is necessary for Him to make known about Him to those who never heard the Good News.
God does this by nature. Romans 1:19, 20 says, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Nature speaks VOLUMES of the idea of "creation" and is evident of a wonderous working behind the scene. One may ask, "so how should they know 'Jesus'?" This questions brings up many theological concepts, but (considering I am unaware of official names on this subject minus one) I will put in my own words how this works. Throughout the Old Testment, as well as a few places in the New Testmant, the Lord has been called by many names. Protector, Counselor, Friend, Judge, Deliverer, Refuge, etc. Each name captures only a glimpse of the true God. As is mentioned in the New Testament, "all who call on the name of Christ will be saved". The Native American could call out a name (any name) to describe that one true God, and in His heart accept Him as such. If a Native American was to look at nature and decided to give his heart and devotion to "that God", then the "God who is Just" would take his devotion as unto Him. This doesn't negate Christ, for even that native american would have to answer to Him, but I'm sure that a "Just" God would be one who would realize that persons unawareness of the Gospel; and if the individual was to look at the evidence around him and worship the God that penetrates his heart through that evidence...then I believe Christ would accept him as such.
So this is how I see the nature of those who aren't aware of the Gospel and how that comes into play with certain attributes of God.
Theology talk
In the book I'm reading for my Christian Theology II class, an interesting point was brought up in answering the question of the destiny of babies. In my opinion, it makes sense to assume the heaven-bound nature of a baby that dies, but for the sake of debate, I will write a couple of paragraphs from the book, "Created in God's Image" by Anthony A. Hoekema, and then comment on it:
"'Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned...' The first half of the verse obviously refers to Adam (though his name is not mentioned until v. 14), and tells us why death came upon him. The second half deals with 'all men,' and answers the question, Why did death come upon all human beings? The answer is: 'because all sinned.' Some scholars have interpreted these words as point to ACTUAL SIN, that is, the sin we commit, in distinction from the sin in which and with which we were born...In my judgment, however, this interpretation is incorrect. Paul is not referring here to ACTUAL SIN; he is saying that death came upon all human beings because they all SINNED IN ADAM. Note what he says in verses 15 and 17: 'the many died by the trespass of the one man'; 'by the trespass of the one man, death reigned.' These clauses clearly tie in the death of the many, not with the actual sins of those who died but with the one sin of the one man, Adam.
Further, verses 13 and 14 read as follows:
For before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam.
'Who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam,' is a paraphrase of a clause that, translated literally, reads: 'even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of Adam's transgression.' The thrust of these verses is this: the people who lived between Adam and Moses were not given a clear command with a clear threat of death in case of disobedience, as was A. Nevertheless, they all died. Since this fact is adduced as an argument to support verse 12, it is apparent that Paul's point is that these people did not die because of their own personal, actual sins, but because of their connection with Adam."
Paul did not say that "accounted to be sinners" but rather that we were all "sinners in Adam". The thing to note is that we are doomed to die because of our sin. Spiritually we are disconnected from God and we need Christ to bridge the gap that resulted from sin. The sin we are 'born into' is not ACTUAL SIN (what we actually commit) but that which occurred in Adam. When a baby passes on, they are innocent from sin in the sense that they are incapable to commit it. Notice in the above scripture where it says, "But sin is not taken into account when there is no law". A child knows no "laws" of God nor is a child aware of the consequences of their actions. This places the child under a state of "innocence" (if you will) and this is how he/she can be delivered into Heaven without actually accepting the Lord (for that concept they are unaware of as well). This immediately leads into a slight discussion about two attributes of God: God of Wrath and God of Justice. I will discuss this in my next post.
"'Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned...' The first half of the verse obviously refers to Adam (though his name is not mentioned until v. 14), and tells us why death came upon him. The second half deals with 'all men,' and answers the question, Why did death come upon all human beings? The answer is: 'because all sinned.' Some scholars have interpreted these words as point to ACTUAL SIN, that is, the sin we commit, in distinction from the sin in which and with which we were born...In my judgment, however, this interpretation is incorrect. Paul is not referring here to ACTUAL SIN; he is saying that death came upon all human beings because they all SINNED IN ADAM. Note what he says in verses 15 and 17: 'the many died by the trespass of the one man'; 'by the trespass of the one man, death reigned.' These clauses clearly tie in the death of the many, not with the actual sins of those who died but with the one sin of the one man, Adam.
Further, verses 13 and 14 read as follows:
For before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam.
'Who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam,' is a paraphrase of a clause that, translated literally, reads: 'even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of Adam's transgression.' The thrust of these verses is this: the people who lived between Adam and Moses were not given a clear command with a clear threat of death in case of disobedience, as was A. Nevertheless, they all died. Since this fact is adduced as an argument to support verse 12, it is apparent that Paul's point is that these people did not die because of their own personal, actual sins, but because of their connection with Adam."
Paul did not say that "accounted to be sinners" but rather that we were all "sinners in Adam". The thing to note is that we are doomed to die because of our sin. Spiritually we are disconnected from God and we need Christ to bridge the gap that resulted from sin. The sin we are 'born into' is not ACTUAL SIN (what we actually commit) but that which occurred in Adam. When a baby passes on, they are innocent from sin in the sense that they are incapable to commit it. Notice in the above scripture where it says, "But sin is not taken into account when there is no law". A child knows no "laws" of God nor is a child aware of the consequences of their actions. This places the child under a state of "innocence" (if you will) and this is how he/she can be delivered into Heaven without actually accepting the Lord (for that concept they are unaware of as well). This immediately leads into a slight discussion about two attributes of God: God of Wrath and God of Justice. I will discuss this in my next post.
Friday, March 04, 2005
Home again
I'm back in Porterville for the weekend. I simply wanted to be home and its such an easy drive...so why not!
Well I finally made peace and smoothed things out with my x-girlfriend. There was a lot of complications that happened when we broke up, but finally things are made right. Forgive me if this is brief and doesn't mention much specifics, the story is simply to complicated to write on here.
This week has seemed rather long to me. I've been a little down lately (hey, it happens sometimes) and so things have kind of dragged on. But now I am home and with friends and family, so all is well!
Oh yes, my brother got another dog awhile back and its called Meisha. Considering it is pretty much blind in one eye and has cataracts in the other, I call it One Eyed Jack. That sounds like a much better name and seems to fit that pathetic dog that runs into walls. LOL I love dogs, I swear!
My professor said an interesting quote the other day. It is an "obvious" fact, but has some profound truth in it:
"Light shines best in the darkness"
Well I finally made peace and smoothed things out with my x-girlfriend. There was a lot of complications that happened when we broke up, but finally things are made right. Forgive me if this is brief and doesn't mention much specifics, the story is simply to complicated to write on here.
This week has seemed rather long to me. I've been a little down lately (hey, it happens sometimes) and so things have kind of dragged on. But now I am home and with friends and family, so all is well!
Oh yes, my brother got another dog awhile back and its called Meisha. Considering it is pretty much blind in one eye and has cataracts in the other, I call it One Eyed Jack. That sounds like a much better name and seems to fit that pathetic dog that runs into walls. LOL I love dogs, I swear!
My professor said an interesting quote the other day. It is an "obvious" fact, but has some profound truth in it:
"Light shines best in the darkness"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
