RSS

What I Read Online – 02/03/2011 (a.m.)

03 Feb
    • Serious scientists understand that life comes only from other life. That’s what all the data clearly demonstrate. However, a naturalistic evolutionist simply cannot believe that. As a result, he or she must cook up wild scenarios by which nonliving chemicals can react with one another to magically create life.
    • However, naturalistic evolutionists are forced to believe that these simple chemicals reacted and eventually produced the constituent molecules of life. The problem is that all but one of the amino acids in life are chiral. Since amino acids are the constituents of proteins, and since life’s chemistry is based on proteins, naturalistic evolutionists are forced to believe that these chiral amino acids came from chemicals that are achiral.
    • So origin-of-life researchers have to believe that there was, at one time, a great exception to the well-known fact that achiral molecules react to form racemic mixtures of chiral molecules. In order for nonliving chemicals to produce life, there had to be some magic moment in time when the laws of chemistry didn’t work like they do today. Otherwise, there would be equal amounts of left-handed and right-handed amino acids in life’s proteins.
    • Of course, the experimental results don’t lend support to that idea at all! Remember, the proteins of life are almost exclusively composed of left-handed amino acids. A 1.34% excess is rather far from almost exclusively. It gets worse, however. The researchers used conditions that aren’t typically encountered in space. For example, they irradiated their sample for 10 hours at room temperature. Why would they do that when they are trying to simulate what is going on in interstellar space (which is generally at temperatures 20-30 times colder than room temperature)? Because models predicted that such a high temperature would favor forming a non-racemic mixture.
    • The Story of the Egyptian Revolution
    • My mission as a preacher and communicator of the gospel is to help myself and others consider the outrageous gospel in all of its fullness.
    • Gospel and legal mortification differ in their principles from which they proceed.
    • They differ in their weapons with which they fight against sin.
    • They differ in the object of their mortification.
    • They differ in the reasons of the contest.
    • They differ in their motives and ends.
    • They differ in the nature of their mortification.
    • They differ in the extent of the warfare, not only objectively, the believer hating every false way; but also subjectively, all the faculties of the believer’s soul, the whole regenerate part being against sin.
    • They differ in the success.
    • The Powerful Life of the Praying Pastor: In His Room, With His Family, Among the People of God
    • Hell cares not how crude holiness be preach’d,
      If sinners match with Christ be never reach’d;
      Knowing their holiness is but a sham,
      Who ne’er are marry’d to the holy Lamb.
      They mar true holiness with tickling chat,
      To breed a bastard Pharisaic brat.
      They woefully the gospel-message broke,
      Make fearful havoc of the Master’s flock;
      Yet please themselves and the blind multitude,
      By whom the gospel’s little understood.

      Rude souls perhaps imagine little odds
      Between the legal and the gospel roads:
      But vainly men attempt to blend the two. …
      The fiery law, as ’tis a covenant,
      Schools men to see the gospel-aid they want;
      Then gospel-aid does sweetly them incline
      Back to the law as ’tis a rule divine.
      Heav’n’s healing work is oft commenc’d with wounds,
      Terror begins what loving-kindness crowns.

      Preachers may therefore press the fiery law,
      To strike the Christless man with dreadful awe.
      Law-threats which for his sins to hell depress,
      Yes, damn him for his rotten righteousness;
      That, while he view the law exceeding broad,
      He fain may wed the righteousness of God.

      But ah! to press law-works as terms of life,
      Was ne’er the way to court the Lamb a wife.
      To urge conditions in the legal frame,
      Is to renew the vain old cov’nant game.
      The law is good when lawfully ’tis us’d,
      But most destructive then it is abus’d.
      They set not duties in the proper sphere,
      Who duly law and gospel don’t sever;
      But under lassy chains let sinners lie,
      As tributaries, or to DO or DIE.
      Nor make the law a squaring rule of life,
      But in the gospel-throat a bloody knife.

    • But “expository preaching” has often come to mean something more. The phrase is popularly used to describe preaching which consecutively takes a congregation through a passage, or book of Scripture, week by week. This procedure is compared with the method of preaching on individual texts that may have no direct connection with each other from one Sunday to the next. The latter is discouraged in favour of the “expository” method.

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on 03/02/2011 in Current Issues

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: