Hello everyone. I have made the final decision to move my blog. My new blog address is www.davidmcdowell.wordpress.com .
Thanks and see you there!
David M.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Some words about alcohol from my friend, Bob Vincent, an EPC pastor in Louisiana.
"It may surprise you, but according to some historians, the first person to distill whiskey from corn mash and age it in charred oak casks (what we call Bourbon) was eighteenth century Baptist pastor, Elijah Craig, of Kentucky. The Reverend Craig was an ardent, Bible-believing Baptist and committed to education; he founded what later became Georgetown College . Early Baptists understood that drunkenness is a serious sin but had no trouble with a wee dram of whiskey. While some Christians were critical of the Reverend Craig's invention, virtually no Christians believed in total abstinence from alcohol as a beverage until relatively modern times.
However, Christianity underwent significant modifications in the nineteenth century with the introduction of a measure of theological liberalism that denied the radical impact of Original Sin and preached that if we could outlaw certain things, we could bring in the Millennium. The fruit of these movements helped to outlaw of slavery and introduce prison reform, female suffrage and prohibition. By the early twentieth century, this earlier form of theological liberalism had taken major control of most Protestant denominations, except for Lutherans and Episcopalians, and on January 16, 1919, the Eighteen Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed, which along with the Volstead Act, brought in Prohibition and took a small band of Sicilian war lords and gave them significant wealth and political control in America. It was these Sicilian patriots who put John F. Kennedy in the White House and also, probably, they who removed him from office -- but I'm going to far down a rabbit trail.
The bottom line is that until the mid-nineteenth century, virtually no Bible-believing Christians would have said that having a small amount of alcohol is a sin. Furthermore, classical Greek had a word for unfermented alcohol, TRUX, pronounced like "trucks." That is not the Greek word that the Holy Sprit had the human writers use in such passages as John 2, where the Lord Jesus turned the water into wine. That word is OINOS, "a beverage made from fermented juice of the grape" [Frederick William Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition, based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F.Arndt, F.W.Gingrich, and F.W.Danker, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), p. 701].
From my perspective that settles the question, our Lord Jesus Christ made and drank alcoholic wine. That doesn't mean that we should consume alcohol, but it does mean that we sin if we sit in judgment of those who do, if they are drinking in moderation. As for the people who believe it is a sin to drink alcohol, we sin if we press them to go against their conscience because "everything that does not come from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23, See that whole 14th chapter and 1 Corinthians 8-9)..."
"It may surprise you, but according to some historians, the first person to distill whiskey from corn mash and age it in charred oak casks (what we call Bourbon) was eighteenth century Baptist pastor, Elijah Craig, of Kentucky
However, Christianity underwent significant modifications in the nineteenth century with the introduction of a measure of theological liberalism that denied the radical impact of Original Sin and preached that if we could outlaw certain things, we could bring in the Millennium. The fruit of these movements helped to outlaw of slavery and introduce prison reform, female suffrage and prohibition. By the early twentieth century, this earlier form of theological liberalism had taken major control of most Protestant denominations, except for Lutherans and Episcopalians, and on January 16, 1919, the Eighteen Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed, which along with the Volstead Act, brought in Prohibition and took a small band of Sicilian war lords and gave them significant wealth and political control in America. It was these Sicilian patriots who put John F. Kennedy in the White House and also, probably, they who removed him from office -- but I'm going to far down a rabbit trail.
The bottom line is that until the mid-nineteenth century, virtually no Bible-believing Christians would have said that having a small amount of alcohol is a sin. Furthermore, classical Greek had a word for unfermented alcohol, TRUX, pronounced like "trucks." That is not the Greek word that the Holy Sprit had the human writers use in such passages as John 2, where the Lord Jesus turned the water into wine. That word is OINOS, "a beverage made from fermented juice of the grape" [Frederick William Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition, based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F.Arndt, F.W.Gingrich, and F.W.Danker, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), p. 701].
From my perspective that settles the question, our Lord Jesus Christ made and drank alcoholic wine. That doesn't mean that we should consume alcohol, but it does mean that we sin if we sit in judgment of those who do, if they are drinking in moderation. As for the people who believe it is a sin to drink alcohol, we sin if we press them to go against their conscience because "everything that does not come from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23, See that whole 14th chapter and 1 Corinthians 8-9)..."
Friday, February 01, 2008
Message from Ron Paul
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America became the greatest, most prosperous nation in history through low taxes, constitutionally limited government, personal freedom, and a belief in sound money. We need to return to those principles so our economy can thrive once again.
Other candidates talk a lot about stimulus packages, but my record stands alone. I have fought for these measures in Congress as the Ranking Member on the House Financial Services Committee's Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology, and as a member of the Joint Economic Committee, and will fight for their passage as president.
My plan entails four points: Tax Reform, Spending Reform, Monetary Policy Reform, and Regulatory Reform.
Tax reform means reducing the tax burden and eliminating taxes that punish investment and savings, including job-killing corporate taxes. If we cut spending to the level it was at under the Clinton administration, we can permanently do away with the income tax and the IRS. No true conservative would say that government was too small during the Clinton years!
There are several steps we can take to immediately ease the tax burden. I have proposed H.J. Res 23, which would repeal the Sixteenth Amendment and thus eliminate income, estate, and capital gains taxes. H.R. 191 would repeal President Clinton's 1993 increase in taxes on Social Security benefits, while H.R. 192 would repeal all taxes on Social Security benefits. I also support legislation to accelerate depreciation on investment and end the practice of taxing forgiven mortgage debt.
In the area of spending reform, I want to eliminate wasteful spending, reduce overseas commitments, and freeze all non-defense, non-entitlement spending at current levels. I never vote for pork-laden bills, and I will veto them and any unbalanced budget as president. We need to refocus our national defense so that we guard our own borders, instead those of other nations. We can save billions if we stop subsidizing our trading partners in Europe, Japan, South Korea and other nations. Congress does not have the constitutional authority to send out foreign aid, and our current foreign policy of nation building is bankrupting us.
Monetary policy reform means expanding openness at the Federal Reserve and requiring the Fed to televise its meetings, as well as returning to sound money. Washington's disastrous fiscal policies, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation, are some of the greatest threats facing our nation today. It is this one-two punch — Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Treasury printing money to make up the difference -- that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars. It's time to end the fiat money system, legalize competing currencies, and restore soundness to our dollar.
Finally, we need to institute true regulatory reform by repealing Sarbanes/Oxley's regulations that push companies to seek capital outside of U.S. markets. Congress' rush to action after the Enron scandal gave us a bill that has heavily burdened small businesses and driven companies offshore. I also support repealing federal regulations that prevent financial institutions such as independent and community banks and credit unions from fostering economic growth.
A true package to stimulate the economy not only puts money back in Americans' pockets, it deals with the underlying causes of our current situation - an out-of-control foreign policy, runaway deficit spending, and currency devaluation brought on by the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. When enacted, my plan will provide both short-term stimulus and lay the groundwork for long-term prosperity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America became the greatest, most prosperous nation in history through low taxes, constitutionally limited government, personal freedom, and a belief in sound money. We need to return to those principles so our economy can thrive once again.
Other candidates talk a lot about stimulus packages, but my record stands alone. I have fought for these measures in Congress as the Ranking Member on the House Financial Services Committee's Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology, and as a member of the Joint Economic Committee, and will fight for their passage as president.
My plan entails four points: Tax Reform, Spending Reform, Monetary Policy Reform, and Regulatory Reform.
Tax reform means reducing the tax burden and eliminating taxes that punish investment and savings, including job-killing corporate taxes. If we cut spending to the level it was at under the Clinton administration, we can permanently do away with the income tax and the IRS. No true conservative would say that government was too small during the Clinton years!
There are several steps we can take to immediately ease the tax burden. I have proposed H.J. Res 23, which would repeal the Sixteenth Amendment and thus eliminate income, estate, and capital gains taxes. H.R. 191 would repeal President Clinton's 1993 increase in taxes on Social Security benefits, while H.R. 192 would repeal all taxes on Social Security benefits. I also support legislation to accelerate depreciation on investment and end the practice of taxing forgiven mortgage debt.
In the area of spending reform, I want to eliminate wasteful spending, reduce overseas commitments, and freeze all non-defense, non-entitlement spending at current levels. I never vote for pork-laden bills, and I will veto them and any unbalanced budget as president. We need to refocus our national defense so that we guard our own borders, instead those of other nations. We can save billions if we stop subsidizing our trading partners in Europe, Japan, South Korea and other nations. Congress does not have the constitutional authority to send out foreign aid, and our current foreign policy of nation building is bankrupting us.
Monetary policy reform means expanding openness at the Federal Reserve and requiring the Fed to televise its meetings, as well as returning to sound money. Washington's disastrous fiscal policies, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation, are some of the greatest threats facing our nation today. It is this one-two punch — Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Treasury printing money to make up the difference -- that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars. It's time to end the fiat money system, legalize competing currencies, and restore soundness to our dollar.
Finally, we need to institute true regulatory reform by repealing Sarbanes/Oxley's regulations that push companies to seek capital outside of U.S. markets. Congress' rush to action after the Enron scandal gave us a bill that has heavily burdened small businesses and driven companies offshore. I also support repealing federal regulations that prevent financial institutions such as independent and community banks and credit unions from fostering economic growth.
A true package to stimulate the economy not only puts money back in Americans' pockets, it deals with the underlying causes of our current situation - an out-of-control foreign policy, runaway deficit spending, and currency devaluation brought on by the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. When enacted, my plan will provide both short-term stimulus and lay the groundwork for long-term prosperity.
I'm thinking a lot today, my last day at my job before I begin a new one on Monday, about the legacy that you leave behind in a lot of places. I really hope and pray that the legacy that I leave at this job is one of integrity and honesty and I truly hope the impact that I made will be lasting, but sadly, I do not think that is the case. Maybe I will talk some about that tonight when I podcast, if I get the chance. Peace, ya'll.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Well, once again, I am a bad, bad, man. I did not blog yesterday...but it was another crazy day.
I'm not really sure what to write today except that I am dying to do a podcast because there is so much that I want to talk about. Crank up your podcatcher cause I got a lot to say soon!
The Sound of Theos
I'm not really sure what to write today except that I am dying to do a podcast because there is so much that I want to talk about. Crank up your podcatcher cause I got a lot to say soon!
The Sound of Theos
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Baptist gathering in Atlanta is one sign of theological shift
By RAY WADDLE • January 26, 2008
Post a CommentRecommend Print this page E-mail this article
Share this article: Del.icio.us Facebook Digg Reddit Newsvine What’s this?
Despite all the talk of public religion now, there's little public discussion of theology. People have passionate opinions about Fox News or Hillary Clinton, not St. Augustine or John Wesley, and judge others accordingly.
But it's the curse of religion writers to detect a theological dimension to everything, including politics. A person's concept of God (harsh, merciful or indifferent) shapes political outlook.
IRS Problems? How to Find a Real Solution
Computer Slowing Down? What to Do About It
Get Kids Interested in Science
Even denials of theology carry a whiff of the theological: Rejecting God, many an atheist is merely rejecting a deficient concept of God from childhood.
Theology never disappears. It just goes underground, where the theological tectonic plates quietly grind on, altering the landscape, adjusting to new social conditions.
For centuries, American theology was monopolized by a particular brew of Protestant piety. It honored Scripture and insisted on vivid personal conversion. It said human sin shipwrecks all dreams of social progress. Salvation was intensely personal ? no vision of political reform.
In the South, it inspired personal kindness and neighborliness but, paradoxically, blessed slavery and segregation. Doctrinal conformity enforced the social contradictions.
This old pattern is crumbling. That's been a storyline for 40 years: the old theological arguments that once gave denominations their identities carry no weight with new generations.
In the South, the old but uneasy mixture of revivalist evangelicalism (born-again experience, available to all) and intellectual Calvinism (respect for God's majesty, notions of preordained salvation) has trouble holding up against the messages of pop music, therapy, digital proliferation and global pluralism. The rise of megachurches and the rise of yoga are different responses to the same thing: rejection of doctrinal enforcement of the old rules.
New theologies struggle to be born.
Diverse Baptists to meet
Next week's unusual Baptist assembly in Atlanta is another sign of spiritual tectonic shifts.
The New Baptist Covenant will attract 30 organizations (racially, geographically, theologically diverse) to promote the example of Jesus and liberalize the Baptist public image, now dominated by the conservative, high-profile Southern Baptist Convention.
The new movement may turn out to be the biggest surge yet of "golden-rule Christianity," a theological style emerging as a defiant alternative to doctrinal conflict. Golden-rule Christians (as sociologists describe them) favor compassionate action over creedal uniformity.
As an informal alliance, the New Baptist Covenant isn't indifferent to doctrine.
Officially it reaffirms traditional Baptist values. It also aims to fulfill "the biblical mandate to promote peace with justice, feed the hungry ? and promote religious liberty and respect for religious diversity."
Many will be watching. Can it have an impact? Can it build momentum and be theologically coherent too, despite its diversity?
In a world driven to violence by rival claims of religious truth, many are searching for a new theology, a new way to balance compassion with moral certainty.
Columnist Ray Waddle, a former Tennessean religion editor, can be reached at ray@raywaddle.com.
By RAY WADDLE • January 26, 2008
Post a CommentRecommend Print this page E-mail this article
Share this article: Del.icio.us Facebook Digg Reddit Newsvine What’s this?
Despite all the talk of public religion now, there's little public discussion of theology. People have passionate opinions about Fox News or Hillary Clinton, not St. Augustine or John Wesley, and judge others accordingly.
But it's the curse of religion writers to detect a theological dimension to everything, including politics. A person's concept of God (harsh, merciful or indifferent) shapes political outlook.
IRS Problems? How to Find a Real Solution
Computer Slowing Down? What to Do About It
Get Kids Interested in Science
Even denials of theology carry a whiff of the theological: Rejecting God, many an atheist is merely rejecting a deficient concept of God from childhood.
Theology never disappears. It just goes underground, where the theological tectonic plates quietly grind on, altering the landscape, adjusting to new social conditions.
For centuries, American theology was monopolized by a particular brew of Protestant piety. It honored Scripture and insisted on vivid personal conversion. It said human sin shipwrecks all dreams of social progress. Salvation was intensely personal ? no vision of political reform.
In the South, it inspired personal kindness and neighborliness but, paradoxically, blessed slavery and segregation. Doctrinal conformity enforced the social contradictions.
This old pattern is crumbling. That's been a storyline for 40 years: the old theological arguments that once gave denominations their identities carry no weight with new generations.
In the South, the old but uneasy mixture of revivalist evangelicalism (born-again experience, available to all) and intellectual Calvinism (respect for God's majesty, notions of preordained salvation) has trouble holding up against the messages of pop music, therapy, digital proliferation and global pluralism. The rise of megachurches and the rise of yoga are different responses to the same thing: rejection of doctrinal enforcement of the old rules.
New theologies struggle to be born.
Diverse Baptists to meet
Next week's unusual Baptist assembly in Atlanta is another sign of spiritual tectonic shifts.
The New Baptist Covenant will attract 30 organizations (racially, geographically, theologically diverse) to promote the example of Jesus and liberalize the Baptist public image, now dominated by the conservative, high-profile Southern Baptist Convention.
The new movement may turn out to be the biggest surge yet of "golden-rule Christianity," a theological style emerging as a defiant alternative to doctrinal conflict. Golden-rule Christians (as sociologists describe them) favor compassionate action over creedal uniformity.
As an informal alliance, the New Baptist Covenant isn't indifferent to doctrine.
Officially it reaffirms traditional Baptist values. It also aims to fulfill "the biblical mandate to promote peace with justice, feed the hungry ? and promote religious liberty and respect for religious diversity."
Many will be watching. Can it have an impact? Can it build momentum and be theologically coherent too, despite its diversity?
In a world driven to violence by rival claims of religious truth, many are searching for a new theology, a new way to balance compassion with moral certainty.
Columnist Ray Waddle, a former Tennessean religion editor, can be reached at ray@raywaddle.com.
Well, yesterday was an incredibly long and hard day. I did not blog...obviously. Time just did not allow it.
The subject for today is quite simple. As a matter of fact, I am going to let the words and the images speak for themselves. Go to www.abort73.com and remember these images and facts when you go to the polls to vote this year. The platform for the Democratic Party is pro-choice, i.e. pro-murder. This website is for those who think the abortion issue is no longer as important or relevant. It is just as relevant and important today as murder because abortion is murder. It is murder in the most hideous form. It is genocide, particularly among the black community and the poor.
Remember that when Monica Lewisky's ex-lover's wife smiles and cries for the camera and talks about needing change in Washington.
The subject for today is quite simple. As a matter of fact, I am going to let the words and the images speak for themselves. Go to www.abort73.com and remember these images and facts when you go to the polls to vote this year. The platform for the Democratic Party is pro-choice, i.e. pro-murder. This website is for those who think the abortion issue is no longer as important or relevant. It is just as relevant and important today as murder because abortion is murder. It is murder in the most hideous form. It is genocide, particularly among the black community and the poor.
Remember that when Monica Lewisky's ex-lover's wife smiles and cries for the camera and talks about needing change in Washington.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Before I start, just to let you know, I might put up a podcast today or tomorrow or both so be looking for that.
Sorry for not blogging yesterday. It was my wife's b-day and a crazy day at work and with all the excitement, it just did not happen. I do hope you enjoyed the funny video though...btw, no reflection on my day; I do not think I would ever destroy a computer just for the heck of it. I have been tempted though. :)
So today, I've been thinking a lot about family and the biggest thought that I have right now is that the relationship you have with your family, in particular to the one that you marry into, is just plain weird. For instance, last night at my wife's b-day party, some jokes were made at my expense. To be honest, they were jokes that I did not really appreciate. In particular, they were jokes regarding our financial state. That's a pretty sensitive subject with me right now and frankly, I was hoping that most of my family understood that and would not bring it up, but I guess I was wrong. Honestly, it bothered me, but I recognize that I am a sensitive guy and I did my best to let it roll off my back. To be honest, it wasn't easy though. I did that typical hypocritical thing that I hate that I do and put on a smile and laughed through it while inside it felt like my heart was ripping out...not to be overly dramatic, but it did suck. Part of me wanted to just simply tell them that I did not appreciate the jokes, but really, what would it have mattered? It probably would have simply made things worse. Perhaps next time I should just make a point and walk away, but I did not and here I sit writing.
Anyway, I digress. For those of you who are single, remember: When you marry your wife, you also marry their family, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Now, God knows my family is not perfect and He also knows that I am not, but regardless, there will always be things about your family, be they blood or not, that will bother you. However, somehow, these people end up endearing themselves to you in a way that can only be explained by love. Slowly, but surely, you end up loving people despite the flaws that you can see and despite the fact that there is so much about them that you want to change. I can honestly say that I love my in-laws dearly, but living with them is definitely not supposed to be a permanet thing and as my wife pointed out to me once, it is not supposed to feel good; it is supposed to feel uncomfortable.
So with all that being said, your family becomes part of your life and as you step back and look at them, you see that in so many ways, they are so much like you. In fact, maybe that is why those flaws bother you sometimes because those flaws are the exact ones you see in yourself. It is true that life is beautiful in weird ways and my life, just like my family's lives, often looks like a beatiful disaster. I am learning that accepting my family, the good, the bad, and the ugly, is a part of life, just like accepting yourself. In yourself, you accept the good and you try and change the bad and the ugly, if you can, and learn to live with it if you cannot. The same is with your family. You easily accept the good parts, you want to reject the bad and the ugly, but you cannot. You find that just like yourself, you can only change what you can change, and for the rest, you learn to live with it.
It seems to me that it is all just becomes part of this kaleidoscope we call life...
Sorry for not blogging yesterday. It was my wife's b-day and a crazy day at work and with all the excitement, it just did not happen. I do hope you enjoyed the funny video though...btw, no reflection on my day; I do not think I would ever destroy a computer just for the heck of it. I have been tempted though. :)
So today, I've been thinking a lot about family and the biggest thought that I have right now is that the relationship you have with your family, in particular to the one that you marry into, is just plain weird. For instance, last night at my wife's b-day party, some jokes were made at my expense. To be honest, they were jokes that I did not really appreciate. In particular, they were jokes regarding our financial state. That's a pretty sensitive subject with me right now and frankly, I was hoping that most of my family understood that and would not bring it up, but I guess I was wrong. Honestly, it bothered me, but I recognize that I am a sensitive guy and I did my best to let it roll off my back. To be honest, it wasn't easy though. I did that typical hypocritical thing that I hate that I do and put on a smile and laughed through it while inside it felt like my heart was ripping out...not to be overly dramatic, but it did suck. Part of me wanted to just simply tell them that I did not appreciate the jokes, but really, what would it have mattered? It probably would have simply made things worse. Perhaps next time I should just make a point and walk away, but I did not and here I sit writing.
Anyway, I digress. For those of you who are single, remember: When you marry your wife, you also marry their family, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Now, God knows my family is not perfect and He also knows that I am not, but regardless, there will always be things about your family, be they blood or not, that will bother you. However, somehow, these people end up endearing themselves to you in a way that can only be explained by love. Slowly, but surely, you end up loving people despite the flaws that you can see and despite the fact that there is so much about them that you want to change. I can honestly say that I love my in-laws dearly, but living with them is definitely not supposed to be a permanet thing and as my wife pointed out to me once, it is not supposed to feel good; it is supposed to feel uncomfortable.
So with all that being said, your family becomes part of your life and as you step back and look at them, you see that in so many ways, they are so much like you. In fact, maybe that is why those flaws bother you sometimes because those flaws are the exact ones you see in yourself. It is true that life is beautiful in weird ways and my life, just like my family's lives, often looks like a beatiful disaster. I am learning that accepting my family, the good, the bad, and the ugly, is a part of life, just like accepting yourself. In yourself, you accept the good and you try and change the bad and the ugly, if you can, and learn to live with it if you cannot. The same is with your family. You easily accept the good parts, you want to reject the bad and the ugly, but you cannot. You find that just like yourself, you can only change what you can change, and for the rest, you learn to live with it.
It seems to me that it is all just becomes part of this kaleidoscope we call life...
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
