Your #1 Match: ENTP |
The Visionary You are charming, outgoing, friendly. You make a good first impression. You possess good negotiating skills and can convince anyone of anything. Happy to be the center of attention, you love to tell stories and show off. You're very clever, but not disciplined enough to do well in structured environments. You would make a great entrpreneur, marketing executive, or actor. |
Your #2 Match: INTP |
The Thinker You are analytical and logical - and on a quest to learn everything you can. Smart and complex, you always love a new intellectual challenge. Your biggest pet peeve is people who slow you down with trivial chit chat. A quiet maverick, you tend to ignore rules and authority whenever you feel like it. You would make an excellent mathematician, programmer, or professor. |
Your #3 Match: ENTJ |
The Executive You are a natural leader - with confidence and strength that inspires others. Driven to succeed, you are always looking for ways to gain, power, knowledge, and expertise. Sometimes you aren't the most considerate person, especially to those who are a bit slow. You are not easily intimidated - and you have a commanding, awe-inspiring presence. You would make a great CEO, entrepreneur, or consultant. |
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Saturday, May 28, 2005
For you philosophers
| You scored as Divine Command. Your life is directed by Divine Command: Your god and religion give you meaning and direction. “Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations.” --King James Version of the Bible “Even as a tree has a single trunk but many branches and leaves, there is one religion--human religion--but any number of faiths.” --Mahatma Gandhi More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page...
What philosophy do you follow? (v1.03) created with QuizFarm.com |
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
What about Eastern Orthodoxy?
What about it, indeed?
I know very little about Orthodoxy, really. I know that it can make a legitimate claim to being the real flagship of historic Christianity, as the RCC does. I know that it differs from Western Christianity in a number of ways, not least of which is the celebration of Easter.
One difference that is significant is the issue fo the filioque. That is the term gien to the western doctrine of "double procession," meaning that, as a matter of relationship, the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from both the Father and the Son. The Orthodox deny that the Spirit proceeds frm the Son.
Is that important? On the surface you would think it should be, what with it dealing with the nature of God. But I honestly don't see it being about the nature of God so much as a description of the internal relationships of the Trinity. I can't say I regard such a description as being a central element of the faith. Besides, I can't find much in the Bible that even speaks to the question of the filioque, let alone anything that supports it.
Yet there is also much about Orthdoxy that appeals to me. I like the way the colegial manner in which tye govern themselves. I appreciate that their theology generally deals with mystery; if you go to a service you will be struck with awe and wonder if you're not immediately confused by what you see. There is a greater sense of the sacred in an EO service than in your typical evangelical worship time. It is also somewhat darker, in many sense of that word.
In the end though, Eatern Orthdoxy is a bit to comfortable with the doctrinal developments that we see in the RCC for me to be comfortable with it. The Mariology is not as developed, neither is the doctrine of the saints. The fact that it deals with mystery makes it hesitant to affirm things that it is unsure of, but also makes it hesitant to deny things. When speaking of questionable matters, I am fine with the hesitancy to affirm, but the hestiancy to deny strikes me dangerous. In terms of guarding truth, the hesitation to deny error can be costly.
I know very little about Orthodoxy, really. I know that it can make a legitimate claim to being the real flagship of historic Christianity, as the RCC does. I know that it differs from Western Christianity in a number of ways, not least of which is the celebration of Easter.
One difference that is significant is the issue fo the filioque. That is the term gien to the western doctrine of "double procession," meaning that, as a matter of relationship, the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from both the Father and the Son. The Orthodox deny that the Spirit proceeds frm the Son.
Is that important? On the surface you would think it should be, what with it dealing with the nature of God. But I honestly don't see it being about the nature of God so much as a description of the internal relationships of the Trinity. I can't say I regard such a description as being a central element of the faith. Besides, I can't find much in the Bible that even speaks to the question of the filioque, let alone anything that supports it.
Yet there is also much about Orthdoxy that appeals to me. I like the way the colegial manner in which tye govern themselves. I appreciate that their theology generally deals with mystery; if you go to a service you will be struck with awe and wonder if you're not immediately confused by what you see. There is a greater sense of the sacred in an EO service than in your typical evangelical worship time. It is also somewhat darker, in many sense of that word.
In the end though, Eatern Orthdoxy is a bit to comfortable with the doctrinal developments that we see in the RCC for me to be comfortable with it. The Mariology is not as developed, neither is the doctrine of the saints. The fact that it deals with mystery makes it hesitant to affirm things that it is unsure of, but also makes it hesitant to deny things. When speaking of questionable matters, I am fine with the hesitancy to affirm, but the hestiancy to deny strikes me dangerous. In terms of guarding truth, the hesitation to deny error can be costly.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Just because so many people have asked...
You Are From Neptune |
 You are dreamy and mystical, with a natural psychic ability. You love music, poetry, dance, and (most of all) the open sea. Your soul is filled with possibilities, and your heart overflows with compassion. You can be in a room full of friendly people and feel all alone. If you don't get carried away with one idea, your spiritual nature will see you through anything. |
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Could I be Episcopalian/Anglican?
No, I don't think so.
It isn't that I have a visceral reaction against it; in fact I know relatively little about it.
I know that its beginnings are less than pious, with the motivations being more political than religious. I don't claim to be an authority of the history surrounding the founding of the Church of England, but what I do know suggests that covnenience and political expediency, rather than conviction were the prime movers. That does not autimatically rule out Anglicanism, mind, as it has surely outgrown those roots, but it does play in to my thinking.
I also of course have an issue with the practice that Anglicans have surrounding baptism. I cannot agree that infants are to be baptised. In the New Testament the pattern is, as far as I am concerned, baptism follows faith, without exception. I also have an issue with the mode of baptism, that is, by sprinkling as opposed to immersion. Even if we accept the argument that sprinkling has historically been accepted, going as far bacxk as the Didache, we have to ask the question: why was it accepted in the Didache? The answer is very practical: absence of water. If there was no water to immerse yo u spinkled, and, if water was that scarce, oil was permissible.
No one can claim that those practical reasons for allowing other modes besides immersion stand up today. One of the more vivid pictures I have in my mind is that of an Anglican church by the shore of the Bay of Fundy. A very natural baptistry right behind it, and still they sprinkled.
For me, baptism is an act that has great symbolic significance, much of which is lost if we use sprinkling rather than immersion. Sprinkling just does not convey as well what Paul speaks of in Romans 6.
So, with all that said, I really could not be an Anglican.
It isn't that I have a visceral reaction against it; in fact I know relatively little about it.
I know that its beginnings are less than pious, with the motivations being more political than religious. I don't claim to be an authority of the history surrounding the founding of the Church of England, but what I do know suggests that covnenience and political expediency, rather than conviction were the prime movers. That does not autimatically rule out Anglicanism, mind, as it has surely outgrown those roots, but it does play in to my thinking.
I also of course have an issue with the practice that Anglicans have surrounding baptism. I cannot agree that infants are to be baptised. In the New Testament the pattern is, as far as I am concerned, baptism follows faith, without exception. I also have an issue with the mode of baptism, that is, by sprinkling as opposed to immersion. Even if we accept the argument that sprinkling has historically been accepted, going as far bacxk as the Didache, we have to ask the question: why was it accepted in the Didache? The answer is very practical: absence of water. If there was no water to immerse yo u spinkled, and, if water was that scarce, oil was permissible.
No one can claim that those practical reasons for allowing other modes besides immersion stand up today. One of the more vivid pictures I have in my mind is that of an Anglican church by the shore of the Bay of Fundy. A very natural baptistry right behind it, and still they sprinkled.
For me, baptism is an act that has great symbolic significance, much of which is lost if we use sprinkling rather than immersion. Sprinkling just does not convey as well what Paul speaks of in Romans 6.
So, with all that said, I really could not be an Anglican.
A Couple of Odds and.. Well, More Odds.
Your Linguistic Profile: |
40% General American English |
30% Yankee |
20% Dixie |
5% Midwestern |
5% Upper Midwestern |
You Will Die at Age 73 |
73 You're pretty average when it comes to how you live... And how you'll die as well. |
You Are 29 Years Old |
29 Under 12: You are a kid at heart. You still have an optimistic life view - and you look at the world with awe. 13-19: You are a teenager at heart. You question authority and are still trying to find your place in this world. 20-29: You are a twentysomething at heart. You feel excited about what's to come... love, work, and new experiences. 30-39: You are a thirtysomething at heart. You've had a taste of success and true love, but you want more! 40+: You are a mature adult. You've been through most of the ups and downs of life already. Now you get to sit back and relax. |
Your Taste in Music: |
| Progressive Rock: Highest Influence |
| 80's Alternative: High Influence |
| Classic Rock: High Influence |
| 80's Pop: Medium Influence |
| 80's R&B: Low Influence |
| 80's Rock: Low Influence |
| Punk: Low Influence |
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Could I be Presbyterian?
No. That's a bit surprising.
You see, I am very sympathetic to much of Reformed or Calvanistic theology. I believe, for example, that every aspect of human nature has been corrupted by the Fall. I believe in inherited guilt and inherited corruption. (That would be the T in TULIP)
I also believe that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable, so yes I affirm that God's election is unconditional (Ro. 11:29).
I do not affirm the "L" though. I believe that the atonement of Jesus was for the whole world, without exception. It is not applied to all however.
I affirm that the call of God is, logically, effectual, since it is also unconditional. When God calls someone, he does so at the perfect time, when their response will inevitably and only be "Yes God, Yes!" Tat would be the "I" (irresistible grace) in TULIP.
I also affirm that those who are called will persevere to the very end. They may have times when their obedience and sanctification are hard to see, but they will, over the long haul, show that their faith has the works that vindicate the Father's declaration, offered when an individual believes, that they are righteous in His sight.
So I affirm 4 out of 5 points in Calvanism. You would think that I would embrace Presbyterianism easily. But I don't.
That's because I feel that their view of the New Covenant is askew. That shows up most clearly in their approach to baptism. Presbyterian affirm baptism of infants, the logic being that New Testament baptism is parallel to Old Testament circumcision. I find this parallelism to be simply incorrect. There are several reasons, but I will restrict myself to three main ones.
1) Paul goes to great lengths to show that the outward sign of circumcision is of no account. One is not a Jew outwardly, but inwardly, and not on account of circumcision, but on account of a heart change wrought by the Holy Spirit.
2) In he Old Testament, circumcision was administered to anyone and everyone who wanted to be a citizen of Israel. Circumcision was administered regardless of religion. Non-believers were circumcised in the Old Testament. I defy anyone to show me in the New Testament a clear example of an unbeliever being granted baptism.
3) The only clear examples of people being baptized are of people who have previously professed faith. One can quibble about "households" if they like, but no one can say that those passages are "clear" examples of infant baptism in the same way that we have clear examples of believer's baptism.
What this means is that I am happy to affirm agreement with my Reformed brethren where I can, but I cannot join them in the Presbyterian church for the simple reason that the difference in understanding the New Covenant is too big an issue for me to overlook. That does not mean that the areas of agreement are unimportant, but that the area of disagreement is just as important to me.
You see, I am very sympathetic to much of Reformed or Calvanistic theology. I believe, for example, that every aspect of human nature has been corrupted by the Fall. I believe in inherited guilt and inherited corruption. (That would be the T in TULIP)
I also believe that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable, so yes I affirm that God's election is unconditional (Ro. 11:29).
I do not affirm the "L" though. I believe that the atonement of Jesus was for the whole world, without exception. It is not applied to all however.
I affirm that the call of God is, logically, effectual, since it is also unconditional. When God calls someone, he does so at the perfect time, when their response will inevitably and only be "Yes God, Yes!" Tat would be the "I" (irresistible grace) in TULIP.
I also affirm that those who are called will persevere to the very end. They may have times when their obedience and sanctification are hard to see, but they will, over the long haul, show that their faith has the works that vindicate the Father's declaration, offered when an individual believes, that they are righteous in His sight.
So I affirm 4 out of 5 points in Calvanism. You would think that I would embrace Presbyterianism easily. But I don't.
That's because I feel that their view of the New Covenant is askew. That shows up most clearly in their approach to baptism. Presbyterian affirm baptism of infants, the logic being that New Testament baptism is parallel to Old Testament circumcision. I find this parallelism to be simply incorrect. There are several reasons, but I will restrict myself to three main ones.
1) Paul goes to great lengths to show that the outward sign of circumcision is of no account. One is not a Jew outwardly, but inwardly, and not on account of circumcision, but on account of a heart change wrought by the Holy Spirit.
2) In he Old Testament, circumcision was administered to anyone and everyone who wanted to be a citizen of Israel. Circumcision was administered regardless of religion. Non-believers were circumcised in the Old Testament. I defy anyone to show me in the New Testament a clear example of an unbeliever being granted baptism.
3) The only clear examples of people being baptized are of people who have previously professed faith. One can quibble about "households" if they like, but no one can say that those passages are "clear" examples of infant baptism in the same way that we have clear examples of believer's baptism.
What this means is that I am happy to affirm agreement with my Reformed brethren where I can, but I cannot join them in the Presbyterian church for the simple reason that the difference in understanding the New Covenant is too big an issue for me to overlook. That does not mean that the areas of agreement are unimportant, but that the area of disagreement is just as important to me.
Saturday, May 14, 2005
Where would I go? Part 1
If I were starting my Christian walk now, knowing what I know, where would I go? What christian tradition would I choose to make my home in?
I know that can't happen, but let me specualte for a moment. I will do this in a series of posts and, at least for a while, explore the question negatively; where would I not go?
I could never go back to Roman Catholicism, the faith of my mother's mother, who was the single greatest influence on my spiritual development from within my family when I was a boy. That is by no means a disrespect to her; I continue to honour her memory and revere her as an example of what a person who is convicted of the truth of their beliefs shoudl be like. She was pious and faithful. Her faith was very much her life, not merely an appendage to it.
Nevertheless, I could never go Roman Catholic. That she was a great example of what it means to be true to ones faith does not change the fact that the faith she was true to was, and is, ultimately false. in too many respects. The non-biblical, and anti-biblical (yes, all "in my opinion") make such a move impossible. My convictions are such that I could not submit to Church Tradition (or tradition) as a control upon the meaning of Scripture. I accept it as an informer of the meaning, but that is not enough for Roman Catholicism. I am, at bottom, convinced of sola scriptura.
I fear I am also far too convinced that the idea of a state-church is wrong, and there is no doubt in my mind that the Roman Catholic Church, having once been that, and not having fundamentally changed in that respect over the years, needs only opportunity for it to become that again. The state-church ideal remains part of its ethos, dormant, but present.
Does that make me paranoid? Not really. I am not saying that I fear that such a turn of events is iminent. Nor am I suggesting there is a conspiracy of any kind to make it happen in apocalyptic fashion. I am simply saying that the idea inheres to Roman Catholicism, and it is anathema to sound biblical spirituality, faith, and practice.
Where else would I not go? See next time.
I know that can't happen, but let me specualte for a moment. I will do this in a series of posts and, at least for a while, explore the question negatively; where would I not go?
I could never go back to Roman Catholicism, the faith of my mother's mother, who was the single greatest influence on my spiritual development from within my family when I was a boy. That is by no means a disrespect to her; I continue to honour her memory and revere her as an example of what a person who is convicted of the truth of their beliefs shoudl be like. She was pious and faithful. Her faith was very much her life, not merely an appendage to it.
Nevertheless, I could never go Roman Catholic. That she was a great example of what it means to be true to ones faith does not change the fact that the faith she was true to was, and is, ultimately false. in too many respects. The non-biblical, and anti-biblical (yes, all "in my opinion") make such a move impossible. My convictions are such that I could not submit to Church Tradition (or tradition) as a control upon the meaning of Scripture. I accept it as an informer of the meaning, but that is not enough for Roman Catholicism. I am, at bottom, convinced of sola scriptura.
I fear I am also far too convinced that the idea of a state-church is wrong, and there is no doubt in my mind that the Roman Catholic Church, having once been that, and not having fundamentally changed in that respect over the years, needs only opportunity for it to become that again. The state-church ideal remains part of its ethos, dormant, but present.
Does that make me paranoid? Not really. I am not saying that I fear that such a turn of events is iminent. Nor am I suggesting there is a conspiracy of any kind to make it happen in apocalyptic fashion. I am simply saying that the idea inheres to Roman Catholicism, and it is anathema to sound biblical spirituality, faith, and practice.
Where else would I not go? See next time.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Internet Subculture???
| ||||||||
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)