Pete's Blog

I was shocked when I read that Apple (yes, the very iPod and computer company) has given $100 000 to defeat Proposition 8 on the California ballot in November.

Basically, Proposition 8 restricts the definition of marriage to one man and one woman. The proposition does not take a stance on granting privileges to homosexual partners in recognized civil unions. The philosophy behind it is that the unique institution of a man and woman joining covenantally, to provide for one another, and produce, nurture and rear children, is essential to society. So that institution must not be corrupted by confusion. If a homosexual couple wants equal privileges to married couples (such as hospital visitation or tax breaks), Proposition 8 won't inhibit that from happening through the democratic process.

Anyway, it was surprising that the company chose to put its weight behind such a controversial issue. I guess that I shouldn't be too surprised. Al Mohler wrote this morning, "Younger Americans, by and large, see homosexuality as part of the recognizable landscape and within the normal range of human behaviors." Maybe Apple is trying to appeal to the next generation by joining them in their struggle to win rights for homosexuals. That has to be what Apple's doing. The $100 000 they're giving is not much compared to the 24 billion dollars of revenue they generated in their 2007 fiscal year, so they're doing this purely for the sake of making a statement.

To weigh in, I was always satisfied with PCs. I've never been disappointed with them. And on top of that, Macs are so expensive. So, I was never planning on buying a Mac. But this is more reason. Buying a Mac is partly (i.e., 0.0004%) going to fund the homosexual movement.

As an addition to this, the first article I referred to said that Levi's jeans gave $25 000 to the campaign to defeat Prop. 8.

Labels: Politics

There were two posts on Justin Taylor's blog today talking about the importance of not voting for a pro-choice candidate. One, the second, had a YouTube video on it, that I'd seen before. Recently my brother had a son. He was the first newborn I'd ever been around. He was remarkably small and fragile. I'd been around babies who were a few months old before, but never one three days old. As I watched the video, there was an aborted baby (starting at 3:11) who I could completely see my nephew in (although, watching the video a second time to find the time index, I noticed that they weren't overly comparable, but I could still imagine my nephew being that size). I dislike the hyperbole (at 0:59), "and no one seems to care," because it's so unhelpful at sympathizing with truth. But that notwithstanding, I think the video is helpful, otherwise.


Tristen Lance Eddy (5 days old, b. Sept. 24, 2008)

Labels: Blogs, Friends, Miscellaneous, Politics, Resources

Take the test.

Labels: Miscellaneous

This will not be a common practice on this blog, so as to not steal Meredith's blogging style.

--

While scripting in my head a possible blog post, I used the word "intimate" (using the less commonly known definition of it: To make known subtly and indirectly). I wondered whether people would think that I was showing off since it's a word that's not in common use, which could easily be replaced by "imply" or another synonym that's more widely familiar. A friend once used a big word and he was criticized for it.

--

I want to admit that I don't know anything about the pill. I said in an earlier post that I might share my thoughts about the birth-control pill. I don't have any. There, I've shared my thoughts. I think that I was trying to so more knowledgeable than I am. I apologize.

--

Probably the biggest contention between Catholics and Protestants is the use of Scripture. Catholics would say that there are two infallible rules of faith, tradition and the written Scriptures. One of the tenets that Martin Luther fought for in the reformation was Sola Scriptura. It "teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church" (taken from James White). Anyway, since the Catholics (claim) to rely on tradition, they introduce doctrines like the eternal virginity of Mary, purgatory or the infallibility of the Bishop in Rome (eventually dubbed the Pope), to name a few.

The one in particular I want to talk about is the dogmatic statement of Ark of the Covenant (Ex. 25:10-16; Hw. 9:4) as a type of Mary. (Read here about types.) Usually what a protestant would do upon hearing the rationale for thinking there's a biblical defense of the type (i. that both the Ark and Mary bore the Word of God; ii. in Ex. 40:34-38 and Lk. 1:15 God overshadows Mary and the Tabernacle, in which is the Ark), he criticizes how poor the biblical defense is. I think that this is dangerous. If (and I recognize that this is a very big "if") the Ark of the Covenant were a type of Mary, inspired by the Spirit, then the use of these biblical passages in this way is legitimate. What needs to be done first is show that the Roman Catholic Church has no innate authority, that it only has authority in the Word. Then show that the Scriptures don't suggest that the Ark is a type of Mary, so we don't need to look for verses to support it.

The reason I point this out is that if we fail to state that the Roman Church doesn't have the authority to dogmatize unbiblical types, jumping into pointing to the poor exegesis of Rome, then we suggest that's how Matthew's writings should be dealt with.

Matthew 2:15 says, "This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, 'Out of Egypt I called my son,'" quoting Hosea 11:1. When you read the Hosea passage in context, the "son" being spoken of was clearly Israel. So, Matthew, under the inspiration of the Spirit, pointed out that Israel was a type of Christ. If it had been that God didn't inspire Matthew, then we should say that he's either a fool or a liar for misusing the OT like that. But God is essentially saying through Matthew, "I called Israel out of Egypt to make to make it look like history parallels my Son's life."

Rome could do that too if they actually had the authority to interpret the Church's history, but they don't.

--

One of the reasons I hadn't posted in a while is because I'm still debating what the purpose my blog is. As I said, I have no intention in indulging in the feast of having your attention over my personal life, so this won't be a blog where I post diary entries. But, I still want my blog to be unique, offering you something that you can't get elsewhere, otherwise it would be wasting your time. So, while I've had a few ideas for posts, I didn't think I could offer something that hadn't been done before. I'm still thinking through this.

--

Yes!

--

Over Reading Week '05, I was studying 1 Corinthians. I came to the eighth chapter, verse 6. Part of it reads, "for us there is one God, the Father." That whole year I struggled with whether I agreed that the Bible supported the doctrine of Christ's divinity. When I came to this verse, it almost tipped me over the edge to heresy. Until last week I'd been uncomfortable with what I thought the implications of that verse were. If only the Father is God, how can Christ be God?

The other day, though, I heard James White explain that if you use the same logic on another part of the same verse, "for us there is ...
one Lord, Jesus Christ," then it implies that the Father is somehow God without being Lord, which is absurd. The verse actually implies the divinity of Christ!

--

I also heard James White talk about how a Muslim recently argued that Jesus couldn't be God since He ran from His creatures when He was born. I think it's hilarious.

Labels: Bible, Blogs, Characters, Friends, Humour, Long, Resources