Sunday, September 30, 2007
Thank you, Tom Glavine for giving up 7 runs in the first inning. Thank you, Jamie Moyer for having a clutch pitching performance for 5 1/3 innings. Thank you, Jimmy Rollins for stealing 2nd/3rd base in the 1st inning and scoring on a sacrifice fly. Thank you, Ryan Howard for another brilliant home run.
What does all this mean? The Phillies are going to the playoffs!!! :-)
What does all this mean? The Phillies are going to the playoffs!!! :-)
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Wearing the retro "Swedish" light blue and yellow football uniforms, the Eagles found their offensive stride today against the Lions. Personally I think the color combination is difficult to look at, but if you can put up 56 points, I'd say keep wearing them!
Monday, September 17, 2007
The Eagles' offense was so anemic tonight, you would think they drafted a bunch of players out of Notre Dame! It was so pathetic, the Phillies outscored them tonight!
Sunday, September 09, 2007
The Eagles' offense and special teams units were absolutely pathetic today. I give them both a D- for the game. (The reason special teams is not an F is because Akers hit two field goals and Rocca did ok). That game against Green Bay was absolutely pathetic. Greg Lewis muffs a punt and is recovered by Green Bay for a touchdown in the end zone, two receivers run into each other on another attempted catch at a punt, and when Green Bay punted with a minute left in the game, once again the ball was dropped, with Green Bay recovering, almost not having to move for Green Bay to score the game winning field goal.
Green Bay scored zero offensive touchdowns. Green Bay's special teams essentially scored 10 points, and the Eagles offense gave them another 3 points on the McNabb interception at the beginning of the game, putting Green Bay in field goal range (which the Eagles defense actually made them lose a yard and Green Bay still scored a field goal!) And the Eagles offense was anemic as well. How do you get the ball at the Green Bay 40 yard line, and lose 12 yards??
Get rid of the Eagles' special teams, especially Greg Lewis. Bring back Jeremy Bloom! There is no excuse for losing a game where the defense essentially gives up 3 points!
Green Bay scored zero offensive touchdowns. Green Bay's special teams essentially scored 10 points, and the Eagles offense gave them another 3 points on the McNabb interception at the beginning of the game, putting Green Bay in field goal range (which the Eagles defense actually made them lose a yard and Green Bay still scored a field goal!) And the Eagles offense was anemic as well. How do you get the ball at the Green Bay 40 yard line, and lose 12 yards??
Get rid of the Eagles' special teams, especially Greg Lewis. Bring back Jeremy Bloom! There is no excuse for losing a game where the defense essentially gives up 3 points!
Saturday, September 08, 2007
The University of Michigan got slaughtered in Ann Arbor today by the University of Oregon. Adding to a historic losing streak. With such high expectations pre-season. I have to say that so far this team is a disgrace to the school colors of blue and yellow. (Referring to UD)
Monday, September 03, 2007
When reading through the book of Romans, I came across several chapters (chapters 8-10) that talk about the doctrine of predestination (essentially the idea that God chose the "elect" to be saved in advance). I wasn't even aware that this was a biblical doctrine, but my first thoughts when reading this, is that this is probably the most depressing doctrine I've ever heard of. Now the core of Christianity is that we are all sinners by nature, have fallen short of God's perfect standards and therefore need Christ as our savior. And I was taught that if you believe in Christ as your savior, He will save you.
But this idea of predestination seems like it undermines all of that, that it's God's pre-decided choice whether you will be "elect" or not. I began researching what people thought about this, figuring (and hoping) I misunderstood what Paul was saying. This ultimately led me to study the doctrine of Calvinism.
I suppose a major point of Calvinism is Christ provided and completed salvation for the "elect" that God chose and only those people (the idea of a "limited atonement"), whereas in Arminianism, they believe that Christ died for all humanity's sins, but we choose to accept Christ's sacrifice.
A puzzle suggested by John Owen regarding the "limited atonement" of Christ:
from http://www.reformed.org/documents/Owen_limited.html
'The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:
1. All the sins of all men.
2. All the sins of some men, or
3. Some of the sins of all men.
In which case it may be said:
1. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
2. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
3. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?
You answer, "Because of unbelief."
I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"'
Certainly seems like a logical puzzle to suggest that Christ's death is only for the "elect" that God chose. But is the puzzle itself logical? I think there is a fallacy in his conclusion.
Christ came teaching a message of repentance. He said if we don't repent then we will perish (Luke 13:5). If unbelief is a sin, then it is unrepentant sin, and therefore unbelievers in Christ's eyes are doomed to perish. So I don't find that Owen's puzzle proves the idea of "Limited Atonement" in terms of some immutable pre-destined "elect" list.
The flip side of the coin to the argument is that Jesus died for all men, but the atonement can only apply to those who will believe. After all, Jesus said in John 3:16 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (I suppose this sounds more Arminian... we choose to be saved by Christ)
A refutation to this "Arminian" conclusion is that it makes it sound like Jesus "failed" at his mission to save, if He died for everyone but only some are saved This makes no sense to the Calvinist because it denies the absolute power and sovereignty of God.
So what did Jesus do? Did He die just for the "elect" and complete their salvation? Did He die for everyone to have a "chance" at salvation and leave the choice to us?
Right now I see it as the latter. For those that would object in saying that Jesus somehow "failed", I would refer these people to Mark 6:1-6, where Jesus went to his hometown and was unable to do mighty works there due to man's lack of faith. Maybe I'm just making this argument because I can't wrap my head around this "predestination" idea that Paul talks about, but I feel like the whole "limited atonement" idea just doesn't make sense to me. If Jesus just came to save a pre-chosen elect, then everything He taught on the commandments of God, repentance, faith, love, obedience, morality... seems like His teachings would be all in vain anyway!
But this idea of predestination seems like it undermines all of that, that it's God's pre-decided choice whether you will be "elect" or not. I began researching what people thought about this, figuring (and hoping) I misunderstood what Paul was saying. This ultimately led me to study the doctrine of Calvinism.
I suppose a major point of Calvinism is Christ provided and completed salvation for the "elect" that God chose and only those people (the idea of a "limited atonement"), whereas in Arminianism, they believe that Christ died for all humanity's sins, but we choose to accept Christ's sacrifice.
A puzzle suggested by John Owen regarding the "limited atonement" of Christ:
from http://www.reformed.org/documents/Owen_limited.html
'The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:
1. All the sins of all men.
2. All the sins of some men, or
3. Some of the sins of all men.
In which case it may be said:
1. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
2. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
3. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?
You answer, "Because of unbelief."
I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"'
Certainly seems like a logical puzzle to suggest that Christ's death is only for the "elect" that God chose. But is the puzzle itself logical? I think there is a fallacy in his conclusion.
Christ came teaching a message of repentance. He said if we don't repent then we will perish (Luke 13:5). If unbelief is a sin, then it is unrepentant sin, and therefore unbelievers in Christ's eyes are doomed to perish. So I don't find that Owen's puzzle proves the idea of "Limited Atonement" in terms of some immutable pre-destined "elect" list.
The flip side of the coin to the argument is that Jesus died for all men, but the atonement can only apply to those who will believe. After all, Jesus said in John 3:16 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (I suppose this sounds more Arminian... we choose to be saved by Christ)
A refutation to this "Arminian" conclusion is that it makes it sound like Jesus "failed" at his mission to save, if He died for everyone but only some are saved This makes no sense to the Calvinist because it denies the absolute power and sovereignty of God.
So what did Jesus do? Did He die just for the "elect" and complete their salvation? Did He die for everyone to have a "chance" at salvation and leave the choice to us?
Right now I see it as the latter. For those that would object in saying that Jesus somehow "failed", I would refer these people to Mark 6:1-6, where Jesus went to his hometown and was unable to do mighty works there due to man's lack of faith. Maybe I'm just making this argument because I can't wrap my head around this "predestination" idea that Paul talks about, but I feel like the whole "limited atonement" idea just doesn't make sense to me. If Jesus just came to save a pre-chosen elect, then everything He taught on the commandments of God, repentance, faith, love, obedience, morality... seems like His teachings would be all in vain anyway!
