Philip Hilton writes,
Around 18, every rational adult begins to question the meaning of success and coolness – or both. Rational adults take full responsibility for their actions. Rational adults have full responsibility for building their career. Rational adults usually have to mix with a wide variety of people, and so they have full responsibility for being ‘cool’. And as all of us probably know, coolness is not to be lightly thrown away. This combination of coolness and success which everyone seeks is sophistication – the holy grail of education in the West.
Having been forced to think after a long hiatus, Victoria Blake writes,
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to carry and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Most of us, I daresay, are thankful for the Bill of Rights. Apart from the Tenth Amendment (‘a truism’, according to the Supreme Court), and perhaps the Ninth Amendment (‘the right to choose an abortion’), we would support emphatically every right listed — except, perhaps, the Second Amendment. In these days of professional military, even the first phrase rings hollow. Is a well regulated militia really necessary to the security of a free State? Manifestly not. Clearly, by its own provisions, the Second Amendment ought to be struck down.
View Full Post
Philip Hilton comments,
In Australia, Britain, Canada, and New Zealand, the age of drinking, voting, and generally coming into one’s own is 18. In America, the drinking age is 21, even though the voting age is 18. Why the difference? If you are responsible at 18 — responsible enough, apparently, to choose the government, and join the Army (e.g, die) — aren’t you responsible enough to drink?
John Ahern writes,
(Emphasis on the not.)
There are a lot of common avenues of arguing about Church music that I think are seriously flawed and particularly destructive because they may be arguing for the right music for the wrong reasons. Here I’m simply outlining the ways I think are particularly unwise—perhaps in another place I can begin to outline the ways I think one ought to do it. (The bold affirms what I do not.)
John Ahern writes,
As with all debates, there are some things left over you wish you had had time to say or points that weren’t brought up that you’d like to be brought up. That’s the great thing about Pontification Ad Nauseam, of course – the discussion is on-going. I do fully hope that Nick, James, and Philip respond to this as they see fit. I’m addressing here a point that James and Nick made toward the end of the round regarding the dear old syllogism.
I. God cannot say something untrue. (Heb. 6:18)
II. The Bible is spoken by God. (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Samuel 23:2, 2 Peter 3:15-16)
III. Therefore, the Bible contains nothing untrue.
Sarah Roorda borrows heavily from James B. Jordan in order to come up with thoughts to ramble about
Wikipedia defines women’s studies as “an interdisciplinary academic field which explores politics, society and history from an intersectional, multicultural women’s perspective. It critiques and explores societal norms of gender, race, class, sexuality, and other social inequalities.” This is probably all a lot of nonsense and should be scoffed into oblivion.
On the other hand, I think it possible that the conservative side of the church has got its own problems and should probably have it’s own set of women’s studies. I’d suggest beginning with Jael. View Full Post
Elizabeth Ten-Hove wonders…
In all but the driest and coldest regions of the world, mosquitoes are a menace. Armies of them appear at the first sign of spring and tirelessly campaign until hard frosts or drought kill them off. Itchy red bits are a customary cross of the summer, and a relentless drone greets the twilight as predictably as birdsong at sunrise. Quite apart from the annoyance, mosquitoes are dangerous carriers of diseases like malaria and West Nile Virus, diseases that afflict thousands, if not millions, of men, women, and children, especially in the poorest areas of the world. It’s hard to see any redeeming quality in the blood-sucking insect; it isn’t even beautiful. What was God thinking when He made such a creature? View Full Post
Elizabeth Ten-Hove muses…
Eye dialect—the use of nonstandard spelling to represent particular accents and dialects—is a long-standing and rich literary tradition in English. Before spelling became relatively standardized in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the written word was simply an approximation of the spoken word: Chaucer spells good “good” and the author of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight renders it “god,” not because the former was educated and the latter ignorant, but because they pronounced the word differently. After standardization, a new possibility opened up to writers: by deliberately avoiding standard spellings, they could represent distinctly different accents. View Full Post
John Ahern writes,
In reading some of the fairy tales of both the Grimms, Anderson, and various others, one salient feature of a great many of them is this concept of the Forbidden Fruit. A Forbidden Fruit is something irresistibly desirable for little better reason than that it is forbidden. It isn’t an impulse based in the usual human desires, psychological, physical, or otherwise, but simply an impulse to do something because it’s off limits.
