He was a hallmark of campus. He ranted at College Dems meetings, he'd stalk the ASUO and write letters to the Daily Emerald. A strange guy, but not a bad guy.
Peace,
Chris
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Carter Dollar! Carter Dollar! Carter Dollar!
This one might actually work. They will be of each president! The CNN person assumes Dems will by FDR, Reps Bush... My thought it might be the reverse, Dems melting down Nixsons by the 10's of dollars.
Either way I'm excited! Carter Dollars!
Either way I'm excited! Carter Dollars!
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
The Questions
The Questions
1. In what way is the Bible a roadmap?
2. How much of Luther should Lutherans follow? Lots, or is tradition dynamic?
3. What ideology is most consistent with Christianity? Libertarianism or Socialism?
4. What is the most important issue facing the Church today?
5. Are creeds important, or is it possible to simply say one’s theology is biblical? What basic assumptions are found behind all Christian denominations that are not Biblical, or at least not explicitly biblical?
6. What is sanctification? Does the concept ring true? Should the word be redeemed or should it be replaced? Does it need either of those previous options?
7. If the near eastern context of the Bible was removed would it still make sense?
1. In what way is the Bible a roadmap?
2. How much of Luther should Lutherans follow? Lots, or is tradition dynamic?
3. What ideology is most consistent with Christianity? Libertarianism or Socialism?
4. What is the most important issue facing the Church today?
5. Are creeds important, or is it possible to simply say one’s theology is biblical? What basic assumptions are found behind all Christian denominations that are not Biblical, or at least not explicitly biblical?
6. What is sanctification? Does the concept ring true? Should the word be redeemed or should it be replaced? Does it need either of those previous options?
7. If the near eastern context of the Bible was removed would it still make sense?
Monday, April 25, 2005
One comentators view on the Pope's Nazi past
"Clearly, when Ratzinger and his brother (who is also a priest) say that anti-Nazi resistance was “impossible,” they’re lying. And it’s not an insignificant or harmless lie. Denying the option of resistance insults, indeed, denies the existence of, a lot of people who made far braver and more difficult decisions than the Ratzingers. Failing to exhibit extraordinary courage is human and understandable. Denying the extraordinarily courageous their due is shameful. Denying moral agency is surely unworthy of a man who would be pope.
The Ratzingers lie about this because if they admit that moral choices were involved, they’d have to explain their choice. In fact, I would suggest that anyone who cared about moral agency would recognize the need for self-reflection, for either admitting moral failure, or asserting moral principles. I can think of many possible explanations, but none of them fit well into black and white morality."
The Ratzingers lie about this because if they admit that moral choices were involved, they’d have to explain their choice. In fact, I would suggest that anyone who cared about moral agency would recognize the need for self-reflection, for either admitting moral failure, or asserting moral principles. I can think of many possible explanations, but none of them fit well into black and white morality."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)