Disqus - Latest Comments for Micah

Re: Another Reason for Home Schooling

Micah — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:51:45 -0000

My hunch is that your very small, formerly private lab school in suburban east tennessee was just a tad bit different than the inner city schools of portland.
My other hunch is that your educated, professional parents offered you different types of support and resources than most inner city parents are typically able to offer their children.

So I don't know what you mean when you say "these same public schools."

Home schooling, while a vital and important option, is a luxury of the middle class, and rarely an option for low income folks. Private school is only an option for the truly affluent.

"Governement-run" is a talk radio farse--gov't funded, sure, and gov't monitored, sure, but most inner city schools are community ventures involving a variety of non-governmental and private players, including universities and non-profits.

Re: Another Reason for Home Schooling

Micah — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:47:46 -0000

then here's your bumper sticker:

my boss was a jewish home-schooled pacifist.

Re: This Seems Like a Very Interesting Read

Micah — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:57:23 -0000

I'm all for reading, but I would balk at the suggestion that Protestantism has become more Roman Catholic than Lutheran. I suspect an honest evaluation of Luther would reveal that, in fact, he was far more Roman Catholic than we like to remember. This is why the more conservative Lutheran churches still don't look much different than RC churches. Consubstantiation, while a departure from Transubstantiation, still depends on a belief that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. Most Prostestants, especially in the Reformed camps, don't even take Eucharist seriously enough to care whether Christ is present in the elements.

Presumably, without having read the book, what this guy wants to assert, is that we've abandoned justification by faith to adopt a justification by works. Calling that "Roman Catholic" isn't in any way accurate; in the first place, the RCC has issued plenty of statements outlining the justification by faith doctrine. The Roman Catholicism of Luther's day and the Roman Catholicism of our day are quite different.

Furthermore, I don't know how to assert that if Christ is unchanging, then only Luther gets it right. Sheesh. So much for the 2000 year old witness of the Eastern Orthodox churches.

Who knows, maybe you'll land a good book on Church history in your stocking to help sort all of this out.....

Re: What Do They Mean By “Change”?

Micah — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:45:12 -0000

Lord Jesus, please save us from another Reagan. We'll know for sure the apocalypse is now.

I'm curious: I hear people who feel the need to tout the "conservative" perspective often refer to more "freedoms?" More freedom for what?

Re: What Do They Mean By “Change”?

Micah — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:27:38 -0000

I was unaware that freedom was required for worship; I was also unaware that our freedom to worship was threatened, unless you think "happy holidays" instead of "merry christmas" on the sign at the mall is a threat to our worship, in which case, well, .....

I changed the subject because I know better than to think too long on what politicians say in speeches (except Obama, who is an amazing speaker and would be a great preacher).

I think lots of people are for the freedom to go to the doctor when and where they want; I was unaware that our current administration had made that possible for anyone. In fact, I'm aware that for most people, little choice exists at all, and for lots of people, the only choice is the ER. Maybe that needs to "change".

Beyond paying bills, I don't really care about money, so I have no comment. I for one remember what Jesus was holding in his hand when he said "render unto ceasar what is ceasar's" and whose inscription it bore.

I'm all for restricting smoker's "rights." So, nice try, but no dice.

Re: What Do They Mean By “Change”?

Micah — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:51:16 -0000

That was Micah; I just didn't change the name.

Re: Archeology and the Bible

Micah — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 00:28:12 -0000

you mean, the Bible is sometimes correct in its history.....not all archeology is as helpful as you might think in proving that the OT was written like an history textbook. Of course, it wasn't meant to be a history textbook, or a science textbook for that matter, so that's no problem, but still.

Re: Archeology and the Bible

Micah — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:54:00 -0000

Well, a comparison of Kings and Chronicles will indicate some discrepancies between the OT's own telling of history. There are actually 2 creation accounts in Genesis, and they don't necessarily line up. I think it's expecting too much, though, to think that it all lines up and makes sense--it's the collected testimony and witness of a people who had a special relationship with God; its sense of "history" is different than our own modern senses of history. On the other hand, there is, as you are pointing out here, plenty of reason to think that many of the things that are told in the OT did in fact happen.

I think, however, it's incorrect to assert that there is any "science" in the OT. "Science" as we understand it is a thoroughly modern (read: Modern) concept, and I think even basing the definition on a classicist sense still doesn't work. The creation account is not science, isn't meant to be read as science, should not be forced into the category of science. I'm postmodern enough to realize that we cannot understand what the "authors meant" when Genesis was written and edited; I think, though, we can free the text from having to perform as a science book. It's not; and if it was, given that there are two different accounts of creation, it wouldn't be a very good one.

Which is a good thing, and why I mention it. As a testimony to God's creative imagination, Genesis is powerful and moving. Given that "science" has a tendancy to be a false God, I say we free Genesis from its grasp, and read it in a way that speaks far more authoritatively about God's own nature.

Re: Archeology and the Bible

Micah — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:09:39 -0000

I think one of the problems I have with your argument is the suggestion that we are supposed to say anything at all to "unbelievers." We are supposed to love them. Furthermore, the distinction between "spiritual" stuff and "history and science" is a false one; that was my point. The Bible competently describes the nature of God's own life without an iota of any of the sciences you mentioned; there is no biology in the bible, there is no paleontology in the Bible, there is no geology in the bible. In fact, these things are just constructs used to more effectively help us understand the physical world, and they have only existed for a few hundred years! The authors of Genesis would have never made a distinction between any of those things, and could not have made such a distinction. My larger point is that we don't have to be afraid of that.

Re: inerrancy. I have always maintained that those who want to talk about inerrancy bear the burden of proof. It is an extra-biblical category; it does not exist anywhere in the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament, and it tends to disregard the long process by which the Orthodox church decided to include which books into the canon. So, again: those who wish to apply an extra biblical concept to the writings of the bible in order to prove that the bible alone (and no extra-biblical concepts) is sufficient bear the burden of proof and logic.

Re: Archeology and the Bible

Micah — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:46:17 -0000

to love someone is to take seriously what they say.....:)

Re: Archeology and the Bible

Micah — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:02:35 -0000

ha ha. good point....

Re: The Death Penalty and God

Micah — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:09:36 -0000

Mohler, who frankly is a frightening man, thinks Bern is right in his editorial. But consider this sentence from Berns' article:

"Punishment has its origins in the demand for justice, and justice is demanded by angry, morally indignant men, men who are angry when someone else is robbed, raped, or murdered, men utterly unlike Camus's Meursault. This anger is an expression of their caring, and the just society needs citizens who care for each other, and for the community of which they are parts. One of the purposes of punishment, particularly capital punishment, is to recognize the legitimacy of that righteous anger and to satisfy and thereby to reward it."

This is, sorry to say, blatantly anti-Christian. If this is a justification for Christians to support the death penalty, it's a sad one for sure. Like most of Mohler and his ilk, it assumes that it [is] possible to know what is "moral" apart from the incarnation, which of course is a useless assertion for Christians. Consider, for example, God's own words on anger in Matthew 5.

Re: The Death Penalty and God

Micah — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:14:16 -0000

TVD,

If is see any country music stars, I probably won't speak to them at all. Sorry. But thanks for the greetings and hope you guys are well too!

All I know is what I learned at church: God makes possible a world and a "politics" in which we need not fear anyone enough to kill them (not even, as the Father shows us, when our own children are the ones who are threatened), by defeating death in every way through the incarnation . Anger is merely motivated and mobilized fear. Undoubtedly the nation-state is incapable of inhabiting this kind of fearlessness (otherwise, there would be no war). As Christians, though, our first task is to witness our faith that God makes possible a world and a politics in which we need not fear anyone enough to kill them.

It's hard to do that when, like Mohler, Christians are groping for reasons to support killing people. At the very least, we should call those people to task when they employ anti-Christian rhetoric.

Re: Why do you blog?

Micah — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 23:02:20 -0000

I enjoy pretending that someone finds what I write meaningful, moving, and smart.

:)

Re: I “Feel” Great about Obama

Micah — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:28:33 -0000

The greater issue is, I think, if you are a Christian. First, the author says that in the real world, people keep score. The church's witness is, though, that the kingdom of God is the real world. I'm curious what kind of score it is that God keeps in the real world. What it is we are communicating when we obsess over the need for our kids to compete? And against whom do home-schooled kids compete?
By the way, I'm not a voter, but I am a late-gen-Xer, which is truly the first self-esteem generation out there. In my 4th grade class, we sat in rows according to our performance in the class, and I generally had the first seat. Extremely competitive, and if you failed a quiz you had to copy a dictionary page by hand. By the author's (highly) flawed logic, I should be able to be the most self-respecting person out there. Of course, this character development based on competition, score and accomplishment didn't stop me from "scoring" a 1.7 my first semester of college, and "losing" my "competitively won" full tuition scholarship. I suspect that self-esteem vs. self-respect is hardly so simplistic as this person would have us believe.

Re: Love Your Public Nuisance as Yourself…

Micah — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:36:31 -0000

Happy Birthday, SVD!!!!!!!!! Here's to hot b-day lovin' all night long (though be careful--you know what that stuff leads to).

mbw and crew

Re: Time to Man Up

Micah — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:22:33 -0000

I find Al Mohler frightening. Maybe, to prove my dutiful manliness, I should fight him.

Seriously, though. Notice that he doesn't mention any passages to support his crazy position on masculinity. That's because masculinity is a social construct.

Mohler also seems to forget that Jesus himself exhibited none of the supposed qualities of a real man, but instead was financially supported by women, hung out with children and other needy people, and never bothered to get married. Someone should have made Jesus read Wild at Heart.

As someone who has done a variety of work, including my fair share of manual labor, I wouldn't say that staying at home being a homemaker was the "manliest" thing I've ever done (though no less manly than driving to work and back in rush hour traffic, pathetically confined to my car. I need to get one of those man-sacks to hang from the back of my car to let everyone know that despite being stuck in traffic, i'm pretty manly), but it was the most Christian I ever felt.

Re: Time to Man Up

Micah — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:20:57 -0000

I would take a Diego over Bob the Builder anyday--Diego has the ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh Rescue Pack...comin' to the rescue, I'm the Rescue Pack, i got your back. I can turn into a kite or a kayak...

Mohler is the only person among many today who profoundly disagree with me that I can safely lash out at, from the safety of a computer. :) How's that for manly?!

Really, though, I think Mohler's problem, and it is a serious one, is that he doesn't take Jesus into account when he talks about men (and, by extension, doesn't take Jesus' mother or great-grandmother into account when he talks about women, not to mention his g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-grandmother and beyond. There's a reason Matthew includes those women in the geneology). Jesus calls all men into the embodied care of people, not away from it. Best I can tell, contemporary calls to the renewal of "biblical" manhood contradict the very things Jesus was about, in part because it uncritically accepts a model of "masculinity" that ignores Jesus own "man-hood."

I joked about fighting him because his argument is just a Southern Baptist version of the central argument of Brad Pitt in Fight Club. :)

Re: Coffee Drinker/Mature Adult

Micah — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:51:56 -0000

Seattle's Best is owned by..............Starbucks.

http://www.seattlesbest.com/About/release.aspx?...

Skip the misto and go for the Americano.

Re: The LOWDOWN on Sundown

Micah — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:39:32 -0000

We Johnson City natives need to claim the Everybodyfields as a Johnson City band, not a Knoxville band. Knoxville is so bandwagon.

Re: Can I buy an R?

Micah — Fri, 23 May 2008 11:44:30 -0000

As a big fan of the f word, I say let him rip!

Re: Anniversary Ideas

Micah — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:58:34 -0000

ummm, hello? how about revise the plan to this:

...and share a bottle (or 3 ) of Bully Hill Love My Goat..."

see--that didn't take any effort!

Re: NEWT and Drilling for Oil in the USA

Micah — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:19:07 -0000

"...embrace American values and culture.."? ummm, like cheating on your wife, lying about it, and then divorcing her while she's in the hospital, while trying to impeach the president? Newt's got that value down pat. Glad he's so anxious that all of those conservative Roman Catholic latinos will embrace his ideas of american marital fidelity.

sheesh. why doesn't someone just deport him?

Re: Real Estate Developers Are People Too

Micah — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:13:26 -0000

I'm all for letting the market decide taste. Why, just look at what the market gave the world in Pigeon Forge--absolutely, the most stunning tribute to the Great Smokies one could imagine having created. The same could be said for Myrtle Beach, and increasingly, the entire South Carolina coast.
Thank you, almighty Market, for blessing us with this creation, and the sense enough to enhance it with strip malls and outlets.

Re: Real Estate Developers Are People Too

Micah — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:39:05 -0000

The Almighty Market is no god for me, so I think there are lots more risks and stakes than financial. That's basic Christian theology. 2000 years since the birth of Christ and the advent of God's presence, and we're still building Pigeon Forge?
That the market may serve those with the means to have a financial stake, I too can take as granted. That this thinking is what gives us Dixie Stampede is what makes me embarrassed .

Re: Real Estate Developers Are People Too

Micah — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:19:55 -0000

Re: The Postmodern Candidate

Micah — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:53:29 -0000

Jonah Goldberg is here, as always, a raving idiot. Every candidate for the past fifty years has been a postmodernist, and postmodernism (and please, please don't ever call it "pomo") actually was not a fad of the 80s, but rather descends from Nietzsche and really takes hold in the 50s. Bill Clinton and W are master postmodernists, as was Nixon.

Furthermore, if you actually read the transcripts that Goldberg links, Obama clearly understands sin as a transgression of of his values because he sees his values as being in line with those of Christianity. Ask yourself: if transgressing your values isn't sin, what's the point of having your values?
Assuming that *this* makes him a postmodernist, as well as assuming that being a postmodernist makes him a leftist radical idiot, is to misunderstand postmodernism.

Re: What Happened to the Wall that Separates?

Micah — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 06:58:07 -0000

I think everyone's fear with W was that he is really, really dumb.

Re: What Happened to the Wall that Separates?

Micah — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:03:52 -0000

Sadcox,

I was talking about Pres. Bush, not McCain's version of Obama.

Re: Palin for President

Micah — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:47:28 -0000

Actually, I think this guy started the campaign first......

http://blog.indecision2008.com/2008/09/03/steph...

I'm hoping to hear Palin preach sometime.

Re: Palin for President

Micah — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:24:53 -0000

Hey--she's part of FFL, which has a history of advocacy for nonviolence and opposition to the death penalty. maybe I should reconsider.....

Re: Why Socialism Produces Angry Waiters

Micah — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:11:31 -0000

What she describes isn't socialism, its totalitarianism. She was not democratically elected by either the waiter or the homeless guy; she merely took control herself and did what she wanted with the waiter's money (at least she's progressive enough to consider the tip as belonging to the waiter).

Re: My Daily Conversation Arsenal

Micah — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:56:40 -0000

By definition (which seem to be pretty fluid here), futility can't be fun.

Re: My Daily Conversation Arsenal

Micah — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 14:15:00 -0000

I can't vote, because I am not registered.

But at several points, I've been almost persuaded to vote for Obama, not because I think Obama is the answer to all ills, but because of what most Obama supporters talk about. It is nice to see people actually talking about mutual responsibility (which is so much better than the non-existent personal kind), about caring for the least of these, and striving for peace, and other things Jesus talks about. Plus, I think it means something to vote for a black man. And no, that's not racist, and no, I won't discuss it further. So, I've come close.

Seriously: if voting is nothing else but an act of self-interest, then it is actually immoral. I've never argued that voting is immoral before, and for good reason; I know of people in my own family who vote morally.

But we should speak truthfully: if voting is nothing but self-preservation and self-interest, than it's immoral. I'll give you an example: here's a phrase no Christian is allowed to say: "my money." And yet, here's a phrase lots of Christians say when they talk about voting (and voting for John McCain specifically): "my money." It pollutes the way we thing about discipleship, because it causes us to ascribe worth to the wrong things.

And nobody's gonna convince me to do that.

Re: My Daily Conversation Arsenal

Micah — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 14:16:32 -0000

And I'm done. I'm fasting from talking this s***. The revolution starts at home.