"The poorer mental function seen among alcoholics, many of whom also regularly smoke cigarettes, may be partially due to the long-term effects of nicotine, new research suggests…’cigarette smoking was negatively related to IQ and thinking’"
Well, since starting to smoke in the first place is pretty stupid, I can’t say I’m surprised.
The following question was sent to me in an email. Rather than answer it myself, I thought I’d present it to my readers. I’ll send your responses by email. 🙂
"you seem like a very intelligent man. far more so than i. do you know why we – christians, i mean – succeeded [sic] from the catholic church? please look into this because the catholic doctorine [sic] is about as far from the truth as you can get. i implore you to pray and meditate on the truth and it will be revealed to you. Luke 8:21 John 1:1 John 4:23" – K K
Here are the verses he recommends (taken from the ESV, a Protestant translation).
"But he answered them, ‘My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.’" – Luke 8:21
I assume this is a reference to Mary.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." – John 1:1
When have I ever disputed this?
"But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him."
I guess this implication is that Catholic’s don’t worship in spirit and truth.
So, what say you, gentle readers? How shall I respond to my critic?
"There seems to be in both extremes [of creationism and unguided evolution] an ‘either/or’ mentality: either everything as we know it was created as it is now by God in the beginning, or there was no creation or God of creation at all."
….
"One can very comfortably believe that God is the Creator, and also hold the theory that creation had within it the seeds of an evolutionary development that would take place over eons."
Creationism is a belief founded in faith and has no place in a secular scientific classroom. The logical consequences of creationism’s claims (such as earth being only thousands of years old), however, can be tested like any other scientific hypotheses and be proven or disproven (I suspect the latter). On the other hand, evolutionary theory goes too far when stating that the underlying processes are entirely random. At best one can state that they appear to be random. A great number of phenomena appear to be random, but are actually quite deterministic in nature. Actually, to honest, there is a great deal of ambiguity in the term "random". A process can be random and still be highly predictable. Scientists take advantage of this whenever they state that a process has such-and-such distribution. IOW, one can predict, with varying degrees of precision, future values of variables. Also, some processes may appear random but only really be pseudorandom, such as "random" numbers generated by computers.
What am I getting at? I’m saying that both sides, at least as presented by the media, are wrong. Creationism doesn’t belong in schools and evolutionary theory cannot prove that perceived randomness is truly random rather than only pseudorandom. Thus, introducing "intelligent design" into science classrooms is unnecessary. Teachers need only make room for guided evolution by not assuming more or less causality than the data indicate. If fundamentalists want to go farther than guided evolution, they should either not send their kids to public school. Either that or be willing to have their kids taught a broad variety of mythological creation stories from religions representative of America’s cultural and religious diversity.
“And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right? As you go with your accuser before the magistrate, make an effort to settle with him on the way, lest he drag you to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the officer, and the officer put you in prison. I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the very last penny.” – Luke 12:57-59
Can this verse, like Matthew 18:21-35, possibly be used as a scriptural defense of purgatry, or is the debt to be understood as an unpayable one (thus making the prison hell rather than purgatory)?
I've a lot of abusive posts and comments in St. Blog's Parish of late and it really bothers me. Normally when Christians are at each other's throats I point out Galatians 5:13-15. However, a reading from a recent daily mass caught my eye.
"Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you." – Ephesians 4:29-32
I don't want point out splinters in my brothers eyes when I carry a log in my own, so I'll not mention by name or link who the offenders are. I can only hope they read this post and get the message.
BTW, Richard Hall seems to be thinking similar things about Christian bloggers in general.
"[F]or every person that shouts 'Amen!' there's another shouting 'No way!' The Body of Christ is divided and weakened. ('Can the eye say to the hand, I don't need you?') If we fall out of fellowship with one another, we all lose."