RSS .92
Atom .03
Last year, I wrote about Christmas. This year too.
The SDA2RC blog has an article on Christmas from the Catholic News Service.
Wikipedia and Truth or Fables also have articles showing that Christmas is truly Christian, not a pagan celebration.
Something worth reading for those who object to "O Come, O Come Emmanuel" and "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" [MIDI source]
Dating Christmas
December 16, 2006, 11:41 pmDaniel's prophecies
December 16, 2006, 11:35 pm
The prophecies in Daniel are one part of the Bible that Adventists love to interpret to their heart's content ... and to misinterpret. Daniel provides Adventism with a lot to fuel their anti-Catholic desires. And when you don't accept their interpretation of the prophecies, they often want an alternative interpretation.
That is poor logic ... in order to refute an error, one only needs to show why it is an error, and one doesn't necessarily need to provide a new theory to replace it. Most Christians who study Daniel can see that Adventism's theory is in error, but that doesn't mean they are sure what it means themselves.
To say, "Teaching X is in error, that much is clear, but feel free to develop your own understanding of the passage, because we don't specify what it means, although we do see the clear error in some interpretations." is quite acceptable. And this is what Adventists need to understand.
Hugo, an ex-Adventist, now Catholic, on the SDA2RC blog, goes into his own understanding of Daniel's prophecies, which he has placed on his Dies Domini website (see his blog post for the direct link to the PDF, but it can be found with a set of related articles here.) He also gives another link to a similar perspective. His views are what I find most logical, and in agreement with historical and biblical evidence. But the Catholic Church does not impose one interpretation of this - and most other - passages on us. For us, spiritual growth is more important than working out the details about the end of the world ... although that can be an exciting topic.
That is poor logic ... in order to refute an error, one only needs to show why it is an error, and one doesn't necessarily need to provide a new theory to replace it. Most Christians who study Daniel can see that Adventism's theory is in error, but that doesn't mean they are sure what it means themselves.
To say, "Teaching X is in error, that much is clear, but feel free to develop your own understanding of the passage, because we don't specify what it means, although we do see the clear error in some interpretations." is quite acceptable. And this is what Adventists need to understand.
Hugo, an ex-Adventist, now Catholic, on the SDA2RC blog, goes into his own understanding of Daniel's prophecies, which he has placed on his Dies Domini website (see his blog post for the direct link to the PDF, but it can be found with a set of related articles here.) He also gives another link to a similar perspective. His views are what I find most logical, and in agreement with historical and biblical evidence. But the Catholic Church does not impose one interpretation of this - and most other - passages on us. For us, spiritual growth is more important than working out the details about the end of the world ... although that can be an exciting topic.
Adventists and evolution
December 16, 2006, 7:29 pm
The Spectrum Magazine blog has the following to say:
Collins led the Human Genome Project to its completion, and is a Christian who believes in evolution.
Adventists typically struggle with this concept - science vs their interpretation of the Bible. This blog, and the book, would be a good read for them.
Adventists, who struggle to reconcile a literal reading of the Bible with the record of science, might appreciate reading his [Dr Francis S. Collins] new book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.
Collins led the Human Genome Project to its completion, and is a Christian who believes in evolution.
Adventists typically struggle with this concept - science vs their interpretation of the Bible. This blog, and the book, would be a good read for them.
Liberal fundamentalism in America
December 16, 2006, 7:27 pm"Our constitution plainly forbids hostility toward any religion, including the Catholic faith. In total disregard for the Constitution, homosexual activists in positions of authority in San Francisco have abused their authority as government officials and misused the instruments of government to attack the Catholic Church."
- Robert Muise, Law Center attorney
"This judge totally ignored or attempted to rationalize the evocative rhetoric and venom of the resolution which are sad reminders of Catholic baiting by the Ku Klux Klan. ... Unfortunately, this case amply demonstrates the anti-religious bias that pervades our judicial system."
- Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center
The guilty parties? The City of San Francisco, and Judge Marily Hall Patel.
The terms "liberal fundamentalism" and "progressive bigotry" may appear to be self-contradictory, like the term "military intelligence" - but they describe well those on the political left extreme who can't stomach the toleration of views other than their own. Freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Yes, if it's theirs.
Original article - Federal Judge Says San Francisco's Labeling of Catholics as "Hateful" is Constitutional.
Page :
1