I couldn't wait to get to my blog this morning. On my way to work I was listening to 1030am (it stimulates my brain so I don't swerve due to sleepiness). They were giving random news stories and this one struck me - as pretty much the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. I went on google news to check it out and here's a little snippet of an article:
Paterson also reportedly plans to increase taxes on insurance policies, on non-diet sodas under an "obesity tax," reviving the state sales tax on clothing, and changes in funding of hospitals and health care provides that could shift more health costs on individuals and employers.
So yes obviously from the title of my blog I'm reference the non-diet soda obesity tax. You've got to be KIDDING me New York! 1st of all, clearly they are not aware of the millions of non-obese consumers who happen to enjoy regular soda over the IMHO discusting alternative. 2nd of all, have they not heard of the studies that show people who drink diet soda end up eating more because it is less fulfilling? 3rd of all, why don't you just add tax on regular sugar while you're at it... diet soda aspartame has not only been shown to mess with your overall health, but has been shown to cause cancer as well. The cost difference is said to be about 15 cents and to add about $400MIL (not sure if that was all the new taxes combined or just the soda). Really New York?
Anyway, just thought I'd throw that one up here for a few giggles. People never cease to amaze.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
a day in the office
I just got into work, and a minute ago the office landlord came through the door. His name is Mr. Miller, and he's about 75 years old (I think older actually). I had my hood was up when he came in and he said "are you cold in here?". He walked straight to the thermostat to see what it was set on. "72" he says. I was immediatly reminded of last year, when I used to set it at 80, and thought "phew"! I said I was fine, and that I had just come in from outside and still a little chilled from the cold air.
"Will you do me a favor" he asks. "Sure!" I said. (Usually he asks me to make sure the hall lights are off when I leave, or that the door is locked). "Will you show me how to use that machine that you and Thom (my boss) got rid of a little while ago"? OH DEAR. He was referring to the printer/fax/copy/scanner that I had wars with a few months ago. I swear he watches people walk to the dumpster and scavanges whatever we put in! I hesitated and said "I'm not sure if I can do that, did you fix it?". "Oh, it's broken?" he asked. LOL. I said "yeah, it jams up real bad, I don't know if it would be worth your time to try to get it working". I could sense his dissapointment. I hated to let him down, but last time we had a less-than-fabulous printer (before the one he's talking about) it sat here in our office for about a month. Mr. Miller came in when my boss was here and asked if he could have it. I had told Thom before that it was a power surge that took out this particular printer. It was dead, and there was no way to revive it. He obviously either didn't remember, or didn't believe me, because he told Mr. Miller to have it, and to come back when I was around and I would give him the paperwork to get it all set up. Ugh! When he came back, I handed him the CD that came with the printer with the software/drivers etc on it, and he said "what do I do with this?". Giving up, I told him politely that maybe his son could help him set it up, to which he said "yeah ok" and walked out the door. Haha. That may sound like a mean thing to do but you have no idea how hard it is to get through to these people sometimes!
Well then he started telling me a story about how he was in a store yesterday about to ring out, and because he's in there a lot he knew the employees fairly well. He said to the woman behind the counter "where's the black lady that normally works here?". He then says to me "I don't know how you would have handled this situation..". Apparently, the lady behind him was IRRATE that he had used the work "black" and began to give him a speech about how he couldn't do that, and was going to be in trouble, and he was only to refer to people as African American. WOW! I didn't know people were still out there like that (am I being ignorant here?). I told Mr. Miller that there are some people that will do anything to feel like they have power, and that as long as he didn't give her his name and address, he had nothing to worry about! Lol. Anyway, as Mr. Miller finally walked toward the door, on his way out he said "turn up the heat if you need it!".
Aaaaw, what a nice old man. Such a pleasant surprise to hear someone tell me to turn the heat UP! It's freezing outside (29 deg right now). It's too early to be that cold!
"Will you do me a favor" he asks. "Sure!" I said. (Usually he asks me to make sure the hall lights are off when I leave, or that the door is locked). "Will you show me how to use that machine that you and Thom (my boss) got rid of a little while ago"? OH DEAR. He was referring to the printer/fax/copy/scanner that I had wars with a few months ago. I swear he watches people walk to the dumpster and scavanges whatever we put in! I hesitated and said "I'm not sure if I can do that, did you fix it?". "Oh, it's broken?" he asked. LOL. I said "yeah, it jams up real bad, I don't know if it would be worth your time to try to get it working". I could sense his dissapointment. I hated to let him down, but last time we had a less-than-fabulous printer (before the one he's talking about) it sat here in our office for about a month. Mr. Miller came in when my boss was here and asked if he could have it. I had told Thom before that it was a power surge that took out this particular printer. It was dead, and there was no way to revive it. He obviously either didn't remember, or didn't believe me, because he told Mr. Miller to have it, and to come back when I was around and I would give him the paperwork to get it all set up. Ugh! When he came back, I handed him the CD that came with the printer with the software/drivers etc on it, and he said "what do I do with this?". Giving up, I told him politely that maybe his son could help him set it up, to which he said "yeah ok" and walked out the door. Haha. That may sound like a mean thing to do but you have no idea how hard it is to get through to these people sometimes!
Well then he started telling me a story about how he was in a store yesterday about to ring out, and because he's in there a lot he knew the employees fairly well. He said to the woman behind the counter "where's the black lady that normally works here?". He then says to me "I don't know how you would have handled this situation..". Apparently, the lady behind him was IRRATE that he had used the work "black" and began to give him a speech about how he couldn't do that, and was going to be in trouble, and he was only to refer to people as African American. WOW! I didn't know people were still out there like that (am I being ignorant here?). I told Mr. Miller that there are some people that will do anything to feel like they have power, and that as long as he didn't give her his name and address, he had nothing to worry about! Lol. Anyway, as Mr. Miller finally walked toward the door, on his way out he said "turn up the heat if you need it!".
Aaaaw, what a nice old man. Such a pleasant surprise to hear someone tell me to turn the heat UP! It's freezing outside (29 deg right now). It's too early to be that cold!
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Happy Anniversary to ME :-)
Today marks 3 years!! Crazy how time flies. I have nothing but awesome memories of my wedding day. It coudn't have been any better. My family and friends (minus a few that I wish could have made it!) all on that beach together as we said our vows, it was just picture perfect! Tonight we are going to RuthsChris for dinner. It's the same restaurant we had our "reception" at in Maui. I'm looking forward to a yummy steak!! We are taking tomorrow off of work so we can sleep in. And the best part is that it's supposed to be 65 tomorrow so it will be fun to get out of the house. We are probably going to do a little shopping for each other since we didn't get gifts ahead of time. FUN :)
1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Well I hope everyone has a great day! Enjoy the warmer weather if you are around here.
1 Corinthians 13
1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
Monday, October 27, 2008
no more biting my tongue
There's been a lot of blog talk regarding the topic of homosexuality, and so far, I've just read and not written. I wanted to avoid responding with any gut reactions, before taking the time to do my own studying of the subject etc. Let me give you a little background before I start so you can understand where I'm coming from.
1) I do believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.
2) I struggle and will say for sake of condensing my opinion that I do not believe that the many (many, many, many, many) interpretations that have come down through the centuries are inerrant. This opinion is based on my understanding of the history of language translation, the undeniable fact of the possibility of human error.
3) Someone in another post made the point that we tend to take other people's arguments, and make them our own so long as they line up with what we previously believed. I think this person has a good point, and I am making every attempt to avoid that, therefore I will tend to walk through my thought process rather that just bluntly state how I feel.
The first thing I did was to find all the scripture references to homosexuality. Feel free to let me know if I've left any out, but after searching several places - these are what I've found to be most commonly referenced:
Gen. 19:4 -13, 1 Tim 1:8-10, Lev. 18:22, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor. 6:9-10. Rom. 1:26-28
Re: Gen. 19:4 -13
The Genesis scripture refers to the story of Lot. The men of the city go to his house and ask Lot to let them in so that they may "know" them. Lot begs them to leave ("I beseech you my brethren, do not commit this evil"). Lot then offers his two daughters to them ("I have two daughters who as yet have not known man : I will bring them out to you, and abuse you them as it shall please you, so that you do no evil to these men, because they are come in under the shadow of my roof"). SAY WHAT? Someone's going to have to help me here to understand why it's not ok to for the city men to "know" the men in the house, but it's ok for them to "know" Lot's virgin daughters. I'm guessing the first explanation will be of a cultural nature. So my question is, if it's culturaly acceptable for a father to give up his daughters to be sexually abused in that time frame, where does the argument of homosexuality being culturaly acceptable for this time-frame fall? Does it? Curious on different interpretations of that. Am I willing to base my whole opinion on homosexuality based on these verses? I don't think so.
Re: 1 Tim 1:8-10 and 1 Cor. 6:9-10
"We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and the unruly, the godless and the sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murders, the unchaste, homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching,"
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
What I've read on these verses is interesting and deals with the specific interpretation of the word homosexual. The reason behind the debate is that 1) the word "homosexual" wasn't even around until the 19th Century. The original Greek word "arsenokoitai" has been translated more than a few different ways over the years including someone who masturbates, someone who molests children, etc. So 1500-1900yrs after these passages were written, we've come up with the word homosexual and plugged it in? My issue here is the human factor. While sure, it makes sense in context to use any one of those translations, am I willing to steak my claim as a Christian on this? I'll say it again - am I willing to base my whole opinion on homosexuality based on these verses? I don't think so.
Re: Lev. 18:22 & Lev 20:13
Both these passages seem pretty clear. They both refer to a man or woman lying with another man or woman to be an "abomination" or "detestable". Again, because these are Old Testament, anyone can argue cultural differences (if you can argue it for the treatment of women and slaves, you can argue this too). One more time- am I willing to base my whole opinion on homosexuality based on these verses?
Re: Rom. 1:26-28
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper." For me, this passage has the strongest evidence for homosexuality being against God's will. I do think it is unnatural, and not the way God intended for us to enjoy the gift of sex. I think there is definitely plenty of evidence to support it being physically "degrading" to the body *just as other sexual acts outside of monogamous man & woman marriage are* (std's, aids, etc). Another translation says "shameful lusts" instead of "degrading passions". I don't think we need to have a debate on whether lust is a sin or not.
In conclusion, I have stated before that I will not make judgement on homosexuals, as it is not my place. It may sound like a cop out, however I will quote this passage:
"I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
--Matthew 12:36-37
We all know what we have done as a church to ostracize homosexuals. I was thinking the other day about what would happen, if we all had to wear a big sign on us that listed our most obvious flaw. For instance if you had a problem with telling little white lies, your sign would say "liar" in big black latters. Or how about "anger", or how about ... you fill in the blank. Gays and lesbians alike have been targeted by Christians who have forgotten what our greatest calling is, to love, love, love. When I stand in front of Jesus one day, I want to be able to say that that's what I did. I don't want to have to tell him why I said (or even just thought) that a friend of mine was "clearly" going to hell because my interpretation of the Word was "clearly" the correct one.
Anyway, I know my conclusion is a bit weak here but I'm trying to put hours and hours of reading in to a blog :). Let me know what you think! As others have said, I'm not here trying to prove my point right or wrong, I'm just trying to be open and sincere with my thought process and trust that the Lord will guide me in my thoughts/actions every day.
The end.
PS: I love comments.
PPS: If anyone doesn't feel like sharing their opinion on this or their response on this with the world, then shoot me an e-mail at ambershomo@yahoo.com.
1) I do believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.
2) I struggle and will say for sake of condensing my opinion that I do not believe that the many (many, many, many, many) interpretations that have come down through the centuries are inerrant. This opinion is based on my understanding of the history of language translation, the undeniable fact of the possibility of human error.
3) Someone in another post made the point that we tend to take other people's arguments, and make them our own so long as they line up with what we previously believed. I think this person has a good point, and I am making every attempt to avoid that, therefore I will tend to walk through my thought process rather that just bluntly state how I feel.
The first thing I did was to find all the scripture references to homosexuality. Feel free to let me know if I've left any out, but after searching several places - these are what I've found to be most commonly referenced:
Gen. 19:4 -13, 1 Tim 1:8-10, Lev. 18:22, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor. 6:9-10. Rom. 1:26-28
Re: Gen. 19:4 -13
The Genesis scripture refers to the story of Lot. The men of the city go to his house and ask Lot to let them in so that they may "know" them. Lot begs them to leave ("I beseech you my brethren, do not commit this evil"). Lot then offers his two daughters to them ("I have two daughters who as yet have not known man : I will bring them out to you, and abuse you them as it shall please you, so that you do no evil to these men, because they are come in under the shadow of my roof"). SAY WHAT? Someone's going to have to help me here to understand why it's not ok to for the city men to "know" the men in the house, but it's ok for them to "know" Lot's virgin daughters. I'm guessing the first explanation will be of a cultural nature. So my question is, if it's culturaly acceptable for a father to give up his daughters to be sexually abused in that time frame, where does the argument of homosexuality being culturaly acceptable for this time-frame fall? Does it? Curious on different interpretations of that. Am I willing to base my whole opinion on homosexuality based on these verses? I don't think so.
Re: 1 Tim 1:8-10 and 1 Cor. 6:9-10
"We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and the unruly, the godless and the sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murders, the unchaste, homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching,"
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
What I've read on these verses is interesting and deals with the specific interpretation of the word homosexual. The reason behind the debate is that 1) the word "homosexual" wasn't even around until the 19th Century. The original Greek word "arsenokoitai" has been translated more than a few different ways over the years including someone who masturbates, someone who molests children, etc. So 1500-1900yrs after these passages were written, we've come up with the word homosexual and plugged it in? My issue here is the human factor. While sure, it makes sense in context to use any one of those translations, am I willing to steak my claim as a Christian on this? I'll say it again - am I willing to base my whole opinion on homosexuality based on these verses? I don't think so.
Re: Lev. 18:22 & Lev 20:13
Both these passages seem pretty clear. They both refer to a man or woman lying with another man or woman to be an "abomination" or "detestable". Again, because these are Old Testament, anyone can argue cultural differences (if you can argue it for the treatment of women and slaves, you can argue this too). One more time- am I willing to base my whole opinion on homosexuality based on these verses?
Re: Rom. 1:26-28
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper." For me, this passage has the strongest evidence for homosexuality being against God's will. I do think it is unnatural, and not the way God intended for us to enjoy the gift of sex. I think there is definitely plenty of evidence to support it being physically "degrading" to the body *just as other sexual acts outside of monogamous man & woman marriage are* (std's, aids, etc). Another translation says "shameful lusts" instead of "degrading passions". I don't think we need to have a debate on whether lust is a sin or not.
In conclusion, I have stated before that I will not make judgement on homosexuals, as it is not my place. It may sound like a cop out, however I will quote this passage:
"I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
--Matthew 12:36-37
We all know what we have done as a church to ostracize homosexuals. I was thinking the other day about what would happen, if we all had to wear a big sign on us that listed our most obvious flaw. For instance if you had a problem with telling little white lies, your sign would say "liar" in big black latters. Or how about "anger", or how about ... you fill in the blank. Gays and lesbians alike have been targeted by Christians who have forgotten what our greatest calling is, to love, love, love. When I stand in front of Jesus one day, I want to be able to say that that's what I did. I don't want to have to tell him why I said (or even just thought) that a friend of mine was "clearly" going to hell because my interpretation of the Word was "clearly" the correct one.
Anyway, I know my conclusion is a bit weak here but I'm trying to put hours and hours of reading in to a blog :). Let me know what you think! As others have said, I'm not here trying to prove my point right or wrong, I'm just trying to be open and sincere with my thought process and trust that the Lord will guide me in my thoughts/actions every day.
The end.
PS: I love comments.
PPS: If anyone doesn't feel like sharing their opinion on this or their response on this with the world, then shoot me an e-mail at ambershomo@yahoo.com.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Hope and Politics
Alright, the name of this post is totally misleading. Two seperate thought processes, one night.
Tonight I went to a "night of worship" at our Elliot St location church. It was not sponsored by our church, but by the church who rents the building on Sundays. It was AWESOME. There were well over 200 people there and we sang great songs of praise for two hours strait. Probably one of the best worship experiences I've had since Nazarene Youth Congress way back in 1999!! Wasn't due to the quality of the band (though they were great, and a combination of 9 churches!!), it was the spirit of the worship. So many people from so many different places coming together for one purpose. There was a little old lady who brought her tambourine with her and was just so cute. Thankfully she had rhythm! There were some people dancing around outside of the pews. Everyone seemed in their own little world, which was part of the reason it was so great. It was obvious that the people were excited about worship, and at least for me and probably others, it was encouraging to see so many people come together. I personally only knew two people. I wish more from my home church could have experienced the night, but all the women are away at retreat and the men are home watching the kids :). Hopefully I can convince some people to come next time since I'm sure this event will happen more often. Well, that's my HOPE section for the night. Gave me HOPE for this community, HOPE for unity among Christians, and I'm thankful that Jesus gives me these little reminders, just when I need them.
And now politics... AH forget it. Who wants to follow that with politics. I'll just say that I just watched 20/20 (don't ask me why I was watching that) and found even more reasons to NOT vote for either candidate!
Tonight I went to a "night of worship" at our Elliot St location church. It was not sponsored by our church, but by the church who rents the building on Sundays. It was AWESOME. There were well over 200 people there and we sang great songs of praise for two hours strait. Probably one of the best worship experiences I've had since Nazarene Youth Congress way back in 1999!! Wasn't due to the quality of the band (though they were great, and a combination of 9 churches!!), it was the spirit of the worship. So many people from so many different places coming together for one purpose. There was a little old lady who brought her tambourine with her and was just so cute. Thankfully she had rhythm! There were some people dancing around outside of the pews. Everyone seemed in their own little world, which was part of the reason it was so great. It was obvious that the people were excited about worship, and at least for me and probably others, it was encouraging to see so many people come together. I personally only knew two people. I wish more from my home church could have experienced the night, but all the women are away at retreat and the men are home watching the kids :). Hopefully I can convince some people to come next time since I'm sure this event will happen more often. Well, that's my HOPE section for the night. Gave me HOPE for this community, HOPE for unity among Christians, and I'm thankful that Jesus gives me these little reminders, just when I need them.
And now politics... AH forget it. Who wants to follow that with politics. I'll just say that I just watched 20/20 (don't ask me why I was watching that) and found even more reasons to NOT vote for either candidate!
The biggest book I've ever read...
Recently a friend of mine has been challenging me through his own searching to really have a defence for what I believe. It is not enough nowadays to just believe in something, especially if that's the way you were brought up. Our generation is about individualism and rebellion and tolerance of every belief, idea, etc. A few years ago I attended a "Sunday school" class on apologetics. It wasn't long before I dropped out. I'm not sure why, it was genuinelly interesting, but my tolerance for the information obviously wasn't high enough. I've always had trouble with my attention span in any type of class - just ask all my highschool and college teachers that I fell asleep on! :) Anyway this friend of mine is searching for whether he believes in God, and if God, Jesus and the Christianity he was brought up with. He's not my only friend who's had these questions, but probably the only one that I've ever had the "privilege" of watching the journey first hand. Anyway I found myself seaking out books that touch on this subject. I went to CBD and not to my surprise there are SO MANY books out there. I really didn't want to waste my time reading 5 books that only lightly delve into the topics I'm looking for, so I found the biggest book out there. Josh McDowel's "A New Evidence that Demands a Verdict". This is the 2nd (or 3rd not sure) version of this book he's published. It is SEVEN HUNDRED pages long. The biggest book I've read to date was about 350. Not only is it 700 pages, but that doesn't include the introduction, and these are big pages, with small font. Maybe that doesn't phase a lot of you, but for me, the one with the attention span of a fish, it's slightly daunting. Well, so far I've gotten through about 60 pages. No, I've not read the chapters in order, or started from the beginning, that would be a rediculous thing to ask of me. I've read the whole 2nd chapter, half of the 1st, the 38th, and half of the introduction. Something about skipping around helps me not be overwhelmed with the shear amount of information I'm asking myself to absorb. I will say that so far it's REALLY interesting. The book is probably one of the best apologetics resources out there, and reads more like a text book than anything else. Another reason I like it is because McDowel started his investigation setting to prove out that God didn't exist. Therefore the information is not presented from someone who is only giving you the information they want you to have.
The majority of the information I've read thus far is about historical evidence for the Bible. Fascinating stuff!! I didn't realize there is such a MOUNTAIN of information proving the validity of the New Testament as a historical document (haven't read the part about the OT yet). Already, after just a few days of reading, I can now have a defense of Bible and be able to share partly of why I believe it is the ultimate truth, etc. Yes I know, it's a world of difference between defending a belief of the Bible as a solid historical document, and defending it is the inspired word of God - however I will get there in time. Please note - I already know my point of view and what I believe, I don't expect this book to change that. What I do expect and hope it will do is give me more solid, intellectual ground to discuss and or/defend my faith and why it will not be shaken.
Peace!! :)
The majority of the information I've read thus far is about historical evidence for the Bible. Fascinating stuff!! I didn't realize there is such a MOUNTAIN of information proving the validity of the New Testament as a historical document (haven't read the part about the OT yet). Already, after just a few days of reading, I can now have a defense of Bible and be able to share partly of why I believe it is the ultimate truth, etc. Yes I know, it's a world of difference between defending a belief of the Bible as a solid historical document, and defending it is the inspired word of God - however I will get there in time. Please note - I already know my point of view and what I believe, I don't expect this book to change that. What I do expect and hope it will do is give me more solid, intellectual ground to discuss and or/defend my faith and why it will not be shaken.
Peace!! :)
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
bloggy blog blog
I abandoned my xanga a while back, and gave up on the myspace/facebook blogging. I need more space and options! :) So here we go. There is no specific purpose of my blog. I'll just be writing randomly about things that interest me or just what I've been up to lately. Thanks for reading!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)