Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Marine Air Ground Task Force

Retention of operational control of its air is important to the Corp' air ground team, as air constitutes a significant part of its offensive power
when a man is getting better he understands more and more clearly the evil that is still left in him. When a man is getting worse he understands his own badness less and less. A moderately bad man knows he is not very good: a thoroughly bad man thinks he is all right #CSLewis

Saturday, February 14, 2015

Not a Matter of Opinion

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great modal teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

#CSLewis - from Mere

Thursday, January 22, 2015

Today in Marine Corps History

22 January 1969: Operation Dewey Canyon, perhaps the most successful high-mobility regimental-size action of the Vietnam War, began in the A Shau/Da Krong Valleys when the 9th Marines, commanded by Colonel Robert H. Barrow, and supporting artillery were lifted from Quang Tri. By 18 March the enemy's base area had been cleared out, 1617 enemy dead had been counted, and more than 500 tons of weapons and ammunition unearthed.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Priority of The Inner Life With God

Most contemporary people base their inner life on their outward circumstances. Their inner life on their outward circumstances. Their inner peace is based on other people's valuation of them, and in their social status, prosperity, and performance. Christians do this as much as anyone. Paul teaches that, for believers, it should he the other way around. Otherwise we will be whiplashed by how things are going in the world. If Christians do not base their lives on God's steadfast love, then they will have "to accept as success what others warrant to be so, and to take their happiness, even their own selves, at the quotation of the day. They tremble, with reasons, before their fate." #TimothyKeller #Prayer

Friday, October 17, 2014

Textus Receptus vs modern critical text

I was recently asked why I don't read the KJV. I personally feel that that not many people even know how we got the KJV, or any of the other modern translations.

Believing sincerely that they were improving the New Testament text, Westcott and Hort rejected a number of familiar readings in preference for what they thought were more accurate readings. Since 1881 the majority of English translations of the New Testament - including the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the Revised English Bible, and the New Revised Standard Version - have used a text that is much closer to the one published by Westcott and Hort than the one issued by Erasmus. The main exception to this is the New King James Version, which is based on the Textus Receptus. Major differences between the Textus Receptus and a modern critical text include the following: (1) the omission or addition of substantial passages (Matt. 16:2b, 3; Mark 16:9-20; Luke 22:19b, 20, 43, 44; John 7:53-8:11; 1 John 5:7, 8); (2) the omission or addition of shorter passages (Matt. 6:13; 17:21; 18:11; 21:44; Mark 9:44, 46; Luke 9:56; Acts 8:37; Rom. 16:24); (3) the substitution of a word (or words) for another (1 Timothy 3:16; Rev. 22:14); and (4) the omission or addition of a single word or group of words (Matt. 6:4, 6; Cor. 6:20; 11:24; 1 John 3:1).

In the twentieth century the New Testament in Greek has been edited by both Protestant and Roman Catholics scholars. The most widely used forms of the text are the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (26th ed.) and the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th ed.). Other scholars, arguing that the text underlying the King James Version is closest to the originals, have edited The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text (1982). The differences between these various Greek texts are often significant, and cab be seen in the marginal notes provided in the standard English translations.

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

The Problem of Evil and Suffering

If God existed, he would be all-powerful and morally perfect. An all-powerful and morally perfect being would not allow evil to exist. But we observe evil. Hence, God does not exist.

I often times here such statements by skeptics claiming that if God truly existed would not allow so much evil in this world. Isn't God powerful enough to end the evil of ISIS? Isn't God powerful enough and all-loving to just end the epidemic disease of Ebola?

I believe we can add many problems we face on a daily basis, we often question the existence of God, "Why Lord, if you are real, do you allow this... or that...?"

There are many ways to understand the phrase "the problem of evil." I understand this phrase as a label for a certain purely intellectual problem - as opposed to an emotional, spiritual, pastoral, or theological problem (and as opposed to a good many other possible categories of problem as well). The fact that there is much evil in the world (that is to say, the fact that many bad things happen) can be the basis for an argument for the nonexistence of God (that is, of an omnipotent and morally perfect God. But I take these qualifications to be redundant: I take the phrases "a less than omnipotent God" and "a God who sometimes does wrong" to be self-contradictory, like "round square" or "a perfectly transparent object that casts a shadow."

That God is omnipotent means that he can do anything - provided his doing it doesn't involve an intrinsic impossibility. (Thus, even an omnipotent being can't draw a round square. And God, although he is omnipotent, is unable to lie, for his lying is as much a intrinsic impossibility as a round square.) To say that God is morally perfect is to say that he never does anything morally wrong - that he could not possibly do anything morally wrong. If omnipotence and moral perfection are nonnegotiable components if the idea of God, this fact has the following two logical consequences.

(1) If the universe was made by an intelligent being, and if that being is less than omnipotent (and if there's no other being who is omnipotent), the atheists are right: God does not exist.

(2) If the universe was made by an omnipotent being, and if that being has done even one morally wrong thing (and if there isn't another omnipotent being, one who never does any anything morally wrong), the atheists are right: God does not exist. If, therefore, the Creator of the universe lacked either omnipotence or moral perfection and if he claimed to be God, he would be either an imposter (if he claimed to be omnipotent and morally perfect) or confused (if he admitted that he was less than omnipotent or less than morally perfect and still claimed to be God).

One premise of the simple version of the argument set above - that an all-powerful and morally perfect being would not allow evil to exist - might well be false if the all-powerful and wholly good being were ignorant, and not culpably ignorant, of the the existence of evil. But this is not a difficulty for the proponent of the simple argument, for God, if he exists, is omniscient. The proponent if the simple argument could, in fact, defend his premise by an appeal to far weaker these about the extent of God's knowledge than "God is omniscient." If the simple argument presents an effective prima facie case for the conclusion that there is no omnipotent and morally perfect being who is omniscient, it presents an equally effective prima facie case for the conclusion that there is no omnipotent and morally perfect being who has even as much knowledge of what goes on in the world as we human beings have. The full panoply of omniscience, so to speak, does not really enter into the initial stages of a presentation and discussion of an argument from evil. Omniscience, omniscience in the full sense of the word, will become important only when we come to examine responses to the argument from evil that involve free will.