Along those lines, one of these days I'll get around to reading Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business." From Wiki... Postman distinguishes the Orwellian vision of the future, in which totalitarian governments seize individual rights, from that offered by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, where people medicate themselves into bliss, thereby voluntarily sacrificing their rights. Drawing an analogy with the latter scenario, Postman sees television's entertainment value as a present-day "soma", by means of which the consumers' rights are exchanged for entertainment.
Interesting comments by Neil and RP in regards to the etymology of "muse."
My understanding of it is that "to muse" generally means to think deeply...unless an (a) prefix is added which negates the meaning of the root word thereby meaning the opposite much like the case of "pathos" and apathy.
Barry Watson wrote: "There has to be $$$$ John MacArthur to do this, or he would not be involved.. Any time John MacArthur opens his mouth or writes, is for the $$$$ he makes.."
Quite an uncharitable comment you allege Barry...do you base that on personal knowledge of brother MacArther?
Per Wikipedia: On February 2, 2010, Mullen and Gates said that they fully support President Obama’s decision to end the "Don't ask, don't tell" law, which prevents openly gay people from serving in the military. “It is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do,” Mullen said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. “No matter how I look at the issue…I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens…For me, it comes down to integrity — theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.”
Steet Preacher:.What Sin Is There In "hold(ing) the (Historic Authorized English Holy) Bibles overhead in the air like in Hammond" ?
If doing so is a natural extention of your high view of Scripture and reverence for God's Holy Word, then I trust God will honor your obedience in that regard. If it's just a tradition to show piety in the fellowship of men, then I'm afraid it is the same as Jews davening at the Wailing Wall or charismatics getting slain in the spirit.
BTW Street Preacher, "(By The Way, This Is What Happens When Threads Are Schock-Full Of Hyper-Religious "Egg-Heads" Instead Of Holy-Spiritual "Soul-Winners"):
I can attest that the Lord sometimes uses believers to answer the questions of the day and challenge false & illogical philosophies with the truth compelling the individual can then become open to the Gospel. By God's providence, this was my case mid-1990's. And it took place no less in a BJU preacher soul winning fundamental Bible church that even meet your standards...but they didn't hold the Bibles overhead in the air like in Hammond.
Neil, I take it you're referring to pressupositional apologetics. If so, do you think there is "common ground" the with the unregerate if you're familar with Francis Schaeffer's emphasis in answering unbelievers questions/verifying the inconsistencies in their beliefs?
Felony charges...I find it hard to believe that Texas has outlawed this type of discipline. Or was the defining factor due to marks on the child's skin?
John, Martin Lloyd Jones argued just the other way in that he took issue with the familarity of the newer versions in addressing God as you.
"One curious effect long-term exposure to KJV and its language has on many Christians I've known (including myself) is that when they pray they use the KJV language (i.e. addressing God as "Thee" and "Thou", etc.) but use everyday English at all other times."
I was an undergrad student of Curtis Holtzen who is quoted in this article. I recall that in our Ethics class he was a proponent of the open view of God. He often questioned God's sovereignty and omniscience to the frustration of the most of the students.
9/14/11 1:16 PM
