who's soliciting who?

talk about the pot calling the kettle black?

even old people can be a threat....

get this, the us secret service actually came to some 81 year old dude's place and questioned him over an editorial letter he wrote. they were concerned that it might be construed as threatening to the president.

the queen city

well, it's official... not only is regina a great place to live, it's the most affordable city to buy a house in canada.

it's quiet in here.... i think i like it...

yes, here in my own out of the way part of the net. posting ideas that probably only my wife and brother read. for the most part, i think i like it like that. i'm sure that some blog reading vagabond may find his random click bring him through some day... and that's ok. maybe someday i'll go back through this blog and see how my ideas have evolved. laugh at myself. grin at my sad attempts at poetry or photography. and that's going to be fun.

so am i talking to myself? most likely. but that's ok with me.

goodnight myself.... g'night.

christianity today

my eyes are getting sore after staring at a bunch of different sites about the emerging church movement. a lot of it seems to be verbiage defending itself from 'evangelicals' who are 'attacking' and then dishing out as good at it gets to the 'evangelicals' and 'modernism' in the church in general.

why all the labels? it seems that each time a group of Christians want to challenge their thinking and grow closer to God, the come up with a new label. a new rallying cry. a new set of tenets, even if the tenet is the lack thereof.

how about this for a radical idea?
- Christians are followers of Christ.
- Christians try to find out the truth of what God wants for us.
- Christians try to share that truth with the world.

... and the truth shall set you free

any questions?

are answers bad?

following on from thinking about velvet elvis, i've been reading up a little on the emerging church thing which it's author is a part of. the book struck me as asking a lot of questions, encouraging the asking of questions, but not giving what the author thought were answers, or may be answers, or hints of answers. it seems that questions, and dialog, and investigating, etc. are the end... rather than the means.... to the answers.

what good is questioning if not to find the answers?

velvet elvis

i received this book for Christmas last year and read it before the hols were finished. i thought that i'd post my thoughts on it, since i have seen it pop up in discussion at a few places.

i will sum up my assessment with a comment (as best i can remember), that my father-in-law made when i was telling the generous gift giver what i thought of it:

searching and questions are important, sure. but when you get to a certain point, you become more interested in answers, you already know the questions.

lord of it all

in some recent discussions, a supposed dichotomy has been raised. God or science as the answer to "why". i say that this is a not a dichotomy. the two are different. science has no power to answer why. it is descriptive. it isn't metaphysical.

now i hear the inevitable 'god of the gaps' rant coming. i'll repeat, there is no dichotomy. regardless of whether science has an equation for something, God is still the why. he is the why of the things we understand as much as those we do not. science was invented by people who believed in God, thought that he was an orderly God, and that his creation would therefore be orderly. they didn't have a problem with filling in knowledge gaps. this wasn't threatening to their belief in God.

it confirmed it.