DHMO fact page
Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!
DHMO:Your All-Natural Friend!
If you need to really know what's going on,
Dihydrogen Monoxide
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
Monday, August 02, 2004
I am being overrun with sermons. That may sound strange, but I subscribed to CAT41's sermon mailing list with the expectation that I might receive a sermon or two a week. The past couple of weeks, the number of sermons received now totals approximately half of my e-mails. Many of the pastors I know don't even finish writing their sermons until Saturday night! What is making all these pastors suddenly decide to write all these sermons? I don't have time to read all these sermons. Honestly, all I am responsible for is listening to my own pastor. I only subscribed to it because it is interesting to see what other pastors are preaching and what other perspectives on a given passage they might have. I have plenty of perspectives now. If anyone wants some perspective, you are more than welcome to e-mail me. I'm sure I can send a couple (or 20) on the way.
Sunday, August 01, 2004
Saturday, July 31, 2004
I watched the first few minutes of Kerry's speach last night and about fell asleep. I had to change the channel to something more exciting. Everything I have read just confirmed what I thought the speach would be like, but I was too bored to watch. Oh where, oh where did 30 years of his life go? I don't know why. It's like there's 30 years thet JFK doesn't want us to know about.
The New Republic (not exactly a Conservative bastion) takes on Kerry's speach.
This guy is tame in comparison.
His home paper slamed him.
The Kerry Speech.
It may well be true that, as a number of pundits have claimed, Kerry gave the best ***damned speech of his career last night. But that's a little like saying Yoko Ono's latest CD is her best-ever: It may well be technically true, but so what?
The man who would not be president.
The stumble.
Thank Instapundit again.
The New Republic (not exactly a Conservative bastion) takes on Kerry's speach.
This guy is tame in comparison.
His home paper slamed him.
The Kerry Speech.
It may well be true that, as a number of pundits have claimed, Kerry gave the best ***damned speech of his career last night. But that's a little like saying Yoko Ono's latest CD is her best-ever: It may well be technically true, but so what?
The man who would not be president.
The stumble.
Thank Instapundit again.
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Monday, July 26, 2004
Sunday, July 25, 2004
A website of a group that I wish was dead but, surprise, isn't. Shouldn't this group have died after Prohibition?
Friday, July 23, 2004
So, after the flap about calling Lutherans the real catholics, I now have to come up with something that will cause even more of an uproar. Actually, I didn't expect the uproar to come from whenence it came. I thought I might catch some flack from many of the "low-church" types within the LCMS. In the back of my mind, I knew the Catholics that read this blog might find that statement a little strange and maybe sacreligious. Oh well.
For Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous, you may e-mail me at either daniel dot sellers at gmail dot com or beerisforamateurs at yahoo dot com if you wish to post comments again.
It feels so good to see the French this mad at an American.
For Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous, you may e-mail me at either daniel dot sellers at gmail dot com or beerisforamateurs at yahoo dot com if you wish to post comments again.
It feels so good to see the French this mad at an American.
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
I can't win. Hus is wondering what my e-mail address is while smelling smoke (I feel bad for laughing again because I really shouldn't), Jim is confusing his instruments, and Paul is getting a crash course in Lutheranism. Just to let you know, you might want to start here.
I can sit around all day thinking of various topics and saying to myself, "I should post on that" and manage to completely forget about when I finally sit myself down in front of the computer.
Alright, I have one topic I have thought about a lot and this post is aimed at one very specific target: the Terrible Swede.
He has already proclaimed to the world that he is confessional. How wonderful it must be to be so clear, and then to, by your actions, declare yourself to be God. Now I know I have your attention. Everytime you call someone a name, everytime you tell someone to **** off, everytime you let a good argument get derailed because you can't control yourself, you are saying that that person has no right to live. How is that? You are cursing God's creation, saying what God declared, "good" is bad. YOU ARE ACTING LIKE GOD! Get off your narcissistic boat and start arguing without cussing. Your arguments might actually be more powerful without the swearing.
Edit: BTW -- I believe I am at least as guilty as the Terrible Swede with respect to my post. Repentance is a wonderful thing.
Since I have just shot down my best friend, I am now going to bed.
I can sit around all day thinking of various topics and saying to myself, "I should post on that" and manage to completely forget about when I finally sit myself down in front of the computer.
Alright, I have one topic I have thought about a lot and this post is aimed at one very specific target: the Terrible Swede.
He has already proclaimed to the world that he is confessional. How wonderful it must be to be so clear, and then to, by your actions, declare yourself to be God. Now I know I have your attention. Everytime you call someone a name, everytime you tell someone to **** off, everytime you let a good argument get derailed because you can't control yourself, you are saying that that person has no right to live. How is that? You are cursing God's creation, saying what God declared, "good" is bad. YOU ARE ACTING LIKE GOD! Get off your narcissistic boat and start arguing without cussing. Your arguments might actually be more powerful without the swearing.
Edit: BTW -- I believe I am at least as guilty as the Terrible Swede with respect to my post. Repentance is a wonderful thing.
Since I have just shot down my best friend, I am now going to bed.
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Being true to my word, I am returning to my post on Lutheranism and Catholicism. First, a quick note: the post was not aimed at Roman Catholics, it just happened to hit you all in the crossfire. The post was actually aimed at Lutherans who are either having a bad case of amnesia or didn't know enough about the history of the Church to even have amnesia. Oh well.
As to the Lutheran Reformation actually being a conservative, one only has to look at where the Western Church was before the 8th Century and stare all the doctrinal innovations in the face to realize Luther was a conservative. Purgatory, Papalism, and Transubstantiation all emerged from the 9th Century onward. If we all are honest, all Luther did was try to pull the Church back to her early state. If you all want to see how he did it with the Eucharist, I suggest Martin Chemnit's book The Lord's Supper. Actually, it would be really nice if a few pastors here locally would read this classic and reevaluate how they are distributing God's body and blood (getting back to the original target of the argument).
Since I am on a roll with respect to Church history, I am going to fire another shot and, this time, I hope it hits.
One of the things that is indisputable in the history of the Church is how instruments were banned very early on. As a matter of fact, it has only been within the past 400 years when instruments became a regular part of the life of the Church. Organs were rare during the Reformation even though the instrument had been introduced almost 1000 years before in the West. The Council of Trent came very close to banning all instruments from Roman Catholicism. Only after Trent did organs and other instruments finally become common in the Church, and rightly so. The reasoning behind the ban had long since disappeared and the instrumentation introduced came from the high culture of the time and didn't carry any baggage.
So, why did the Church ban instruments in the first place? The instruments of the time had a lot of baggage with the, namely pagan baggage. Instruments were instrumental (pun intended) in the worship practices of the paganism that was common throughout the Roman Empire. The last thing an Early Christian needed was a reminder of that sex cult they left because a common instrument used in their orgies was brought into the Church. They took Paul seriously when he said (paraphrased) not everything that is permitted is good. They left their instruments to the side and, with it, the pagan influences.
So, now we have this question of CCM. One of the problems I see within this debate is how little thought is actually put into it by the proponents. They try to beat us into submission by using the Bible, but they do not look at the history of the Church as a guide. Apparently, they do not think that the Church triumphant has nothing to say to the Church Militant, yet the Church Triumphant is still the Church and we all ignore them at out own peril.
The Church took 1000 years to decide organs are OK, and they were developed within the Church itself. Within 30 years, we bring in a whole slew of instruments whose origins are not the Church or high culture but are from the pop culture. What baggage do these instruments carry? Pop culture is shallow. Pop music is shallow because the culture that produced it is shallow. Our pastors complain about how little decent modern material there is and then wonder why. If you're importing a medium into the Church that is shallow from the start, to wonder why you end up with shallow songs is like John Kerry wondering whether he served in Vietnam. Working with a shallow starting block is (as Larry the Cable Guy would say) like wiping before you poop: it doesn't make any sense, especially since the Gospel is so simple yet so deep. You end up with Law and Gospel lite. Some people never bothered to learn from the Early Church, whose cautious approach we should learn from.
I guess my sense of irony hasn't left either.
As to the Lutheran Reformation actually being a conservative, one only has to look at where the Western Church was before the 8th Century and stare all the doctrinal innovations in the face to realize Luther was a conservative. Purgatory, Papalism, and Transubstantiation all emerged from the 9th Century onward. If we all are honest, all Luther did was try to pull the Church back to her early state. If you all want to see how he did it with the Eucharist, I suggest Martin Chemnit's book The Lord's Supper. Actually, it would be really nice if a few pastors here locally would read this classic and reevaluate how they are distributing God's body and blood (getting back to the original target of the argument).
Since I am on a roll with respect to Church history, I am going to fire another shot and, this time, I hope it hits.
One of the things that is indisputable in the history of the Church is how instruments were banned very early on. As a matter of fact, it has only been within the past 400 years when instruments became a regular part of the life of the Church. Organs were rare during the Reformation even though the instrument had been introduced almost 1000 years before in the West. The Council of Trent came very close to banning all instruments from Roman Catholicism. Only after Trent did organs and other instruments finally become common in the Church, and rightly so. The reasoning behind the ban had long since disappeared and the instrumentation introduced came from the high culture of the time and didn't carry any baggage.
So, why did the Church ban instruments in the first place? The instruments of the time had a lot of baggage with the, namely pagan baggage. Instruments were instrumental (pun intended) in the worship practices of the paganism that was common throughout the Roman Empire. The last thing an Early Christian needed was a reminder of that sex cult they left because a common instrument used in their orgies was brought into the Church. They took Paul seriously when he said (paraphrased) not everything that is permitted is good. They left their instruments to the side and, with it, the pagan influences.
So, now we have this question of CCM. One of the problems I see within this debate is how little thought is actually put into it by the proponents. They try to beat us into submission by using the Bible, but they do not look at the history of the Church as a guide. Apparently, they do not think that the Church triumphant has nothing to say to the Church Militant, yet the Church Triumphant is still the Church and we all ignore them at out own peril.
The Church took 1000 years to decide organs are OK, and they were developed within the Church itself. Within 30 years, we bring in a whole slew of instruments whose origins are not the Church or high culture but are from the pop culture. What baggage do these instruments carry? Pop culture is shallow. Pop music is shallow because the culture that produced it is shallow. Our pastors complain about how little decent modern material there is and then wonder why. If you're importing a medium into the Church that is shallow from the start, to wonder why you end up with shallow songs is like John Kerry wondering whether he served in Vietnam. Working with a shallow starting block is (as Larry the Cable Guy would say) like wiping before you poop: it doesn't make any sense, especially since the Gospel is so simple yet so deep. You end up with Law and Gospel lite. Some people never bothered to learn from the Early Church, whose cautious approach we should learn from.
I guess my sense of irony hasn't left either.
Allah is being bad once again.
Kerry-Edwards' Newest Campaign Poster!
Another Kerry-Edwards Campaign Poster!
Kerry-Edwards' Newest Campaign Poster!
Another Kerry-Edwards Campaign Poster!
Repristination Press publishes a prayer book called The Daily Exercise of Piety by Johann Gerhard which just might be the thing people wondering about the piety of prayer and how to pray are looking for. We have resources that fill the void, but there are not as readilly available as they should be.
One of the rules I enforce, no matter what, is that there shall be no anonymous posters. I allow pseudonyms as long as you also post an e-mail, but I despise anonymous posting in my comments. Thus, whoever it was posting anonymously, even though you were on my side, is banned from posting again unless you e-mail me telling me who you are. I saw this earlier but I didn't have the time to deal with it because I was at work.
As to my previous post, I didn't realize it would cause such an uproar. I am trying to catch up with all the arguments. Like I said, I really didn't have much of a chance to read them. I'll respond to you all when things calm down (maybe).
As to my previous post, I didn't realize it would cause such an uproar. I am trying to catch up with all the arguments. Like I said, I really didn't have much of a chance to read them. I'll respond to you all when things calm down (maybe).
Monday, July 19, 2004
People are complaining about the funky-looking fonts I am using. Hopefully, this is the original font and size you are accustomed to.
Got a match?
John Huss
I shouldn't find this funny, but I do. If you don't get it, you need to reread your church history.
Speaking of Church History, I can tell you what most LCMS laymen know about church history.
Book of Acts
Paul beheaded by Nero (50/50 toss-up)
Luther nailing the 95 theses
Luther dies
Founding of the LCMS sometime in the 1800s (also 50/50 toss-up)
Me
So, we are producing a whole slew of laymen who have absolutely no grounding in the who, what, when, where, how, and why of the Church, the community of believers that we all belong to. And we wonder why people keep trying to reinvent the wheel. How do programs like Ablaze end up being adopted by the Church? Because we do not know where we came from! It seems like, since the Reformation, we have been fighting to become more Protestant, all the while forgetting that Luther claimed the we are the real catholics. Everybody gets these wild ideas that Luther was a radical reformer who changed the face of theology forever while, in fact, all he was trying to do was recover the Church. It was Rome that was the radical reformer. Luther was a conservative, in the classical sense of the word. To claim he was a radical, like many of the people within the LCMS want to do, is ridiculous once you remember that truth. The true radicalism is found in Rome, Geneva, and Zurich, not Wittenburg. Anyone who thinks Luther was a radical should really stop trying to just consider him in light of his time, but in light of the whole of Church History. It is there that you see what Luther was doing.
Got a match?
John Huss
I shouldn't find this funny, but I do. If you don't get it, you need to reread your church history.
Speaking of Church History, I can tell you what most LCMS laymen know about church history.
Book of Acts
Paul beheaded by Nero (50/50 toss-up)
Luther nailing the 95 theses
Luther dies
Founding of the LCMS sometime in the 1800s (also 50/50 toss-up)
Me
So, we are producing a whole slew of laymen who have absolutely no grounding in the who, what, when, where, how, and why of the Church, the community of believers that we all belong to. And we wonder why people keep trying to reinvent the wheel. How do programs like Ablaze end up being adopted by the Church? Because we do not know where we came from! It seems like, since the Reformation, we have been fighting to become more Protestant, all the while forgetting that Luther claimed the we are the real catholics. Everybody gets these wild ideas that Luther was a radical reformer who changed the face of theology forever while, in fact, all he was trying to do was recover the Church. It was Rome that was the radical reformer. Luther was a conservative, in the classical sense of the word. To claim he was a radical, like many of the people within the LCMS want to do, is ridiculous once you remember that truth. The true radicalism is found in Rome, Geneva, and Zurich, not Wittenburg. Anyone who thinks Luther was a radical should really stop trying to just consider him in light of his time, but in light of the whole of Church History. It is there that you see what Luther was doing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)