Friday, March 05, 2010

This blog has moved

This blog is now located at blog.truthdialogue.com. You will be automatically redirected in 20 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to:

Atom: http://blog.truthdialogue.com/feeds/posts/default
RSS: http://blog.truthdialogue.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Sorry for any inconveniences this may have caused you.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

In Their Own Words

In light of the Democrats' latest scheme to pass health care legislation via the nuclear option, enjoy the video below:

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Upcoming Blog Changes

This is an FYI regarding changes coming to my blog. Blogger, the service I use to publish content to my site, is shutting off their FTP service (the service that does the publishing for me), which means I am being forced to reconsider how I publish content for you to read. I only mention this so that - in the event that you come to this site one day and things are acting funny - you won't freak out. I have a plan in place to make sure everything gets transitioned properly, but there may be a hiccup or two along the way. But be assured, my good and faithful readers, that I will get it all fixed asap.

The changes should take sometime later this month. I'll update you along the way as I am able. Stay tuned.

Thursday, February 04, 2010

Black Holes and the Infinite

Over the last year or so I have grown incredibly interested in the world of astronomy and theoretical physics. I'll watch or read anything that has to do with space, time, theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. Nerdy? Perhaps. But I came across something fascinating the other night that even the most unnerdy of my visitors might enjoy.

There are two scientific realms of study that seek to understand the universe. Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR) helps us to understand the universe on a macro level, like when it comes to gravity and motion. Quantum mechanics (QM), on the other hand, explains the universe at atomic and sub-atomic levels. Independent of the other, each realm of physics is completely adequate, predictable, and precise in its own right, but once physicists attempt to combine the two they run into some serious problems. Nowhere else in the cosmos is this illustrated more perfectly than at the center of a black hole.

The theoretical existence of black holes literally fell out of Einstein's GR decades ago. But it has only been in the last 20 years or so that their existence has been proven. In fact, it is now believed that at the center of every galaxy in the universe exists a supermassive black hole. Furthermore, the presence of these supermassive black holes is not accidental to the formation of their galaxies, but rather essential to it. In fact, the size of any given galaxy's supermassive black hole at its galactic center is directly proportionate to the overall mass contained in the galaxy. Fascinating? Indeed. The cosmos just oozes of order and design.

But check this out.

It is believed that at the core of any given black hole is what is called a gravitational singularity, covered by an event horizon (the point beyond which nothing can escape the black hole's immense gravitational pull, not even light itself). It is in this singularity where all our theories of physics completely break down. A singularity is a point in space and time of infinite gravity. Infinite. That is very interesting. Put in mathematical terms, when you plug GR and QM into one single equation, the result you get is ∞ (infinity), or, more accurately, ∞ + ∞ + ∞ +∞...for infinity! While these results boggle the mind of the physicist, to the theologian is couldn't make more sense. I'm not suggesting that God lives in the center of a black hole. What I am suggesting is that, despite our best efforts to understand the universe from a strictly naturalistic perspective, the fact that the universe was created by something (or Someone) beyond itself is an unavoidable reality.

I bring all this up simply because I find it interesting. I'm sure there are flaws somewhere in my understanding of these complicated disciplines. But my point is justified. The universe points to its Creator. This is by design. The Bible reveals that the heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). He built into its very structure, from the most massive galactic cluster to the tiniest sub-atomic particle, signals of His existence. Everything we see in the universe has intrinsic beauty and order and screams for us to acknowledge that we are not here without a purpose. No, instead the universe had a specific moment in which it began, and everything in it is being pulled foward by a future defined by purpose and fulfillment. Our job, then, is to acknowledge this reality with how we live every moment of our lives.

Friday, January 29, 2010

The Beauty of Personhood

As I sit here watching my 2 year old daughter marvel over the play-doh "snake" that I just made for her, I am struck at the amazing, complex, and beautiful nature of human personhood.

I am Sean Scribner. I am the same person I was yesterday, two weeks ago, and 10 years ago. And yet I'm not. What has changed? The change in my life is not just a matter of history. I am not different today simply because I am further along a linear path of time that now has a greater amount of history than any time before it. I was Sean Scribner in the past, and I will be Sean Scribner even after I die. Even if I change my name I will still be the same unique individual I have always been. Nothing can change that fact.

Yet as I look at my daughter in light of who I am I realize that, while I am the same person as I was before I met her (i.e. a concrete and unique individual who is completely non duplicable), I am not the same person I was before. She has forever changed who I am, i.e. my personhood. This change is not simply abstract, but real, something, dare I say, mystical. The same can be said in regards to my wife. She has forever altered my personhood. She has not made me into a different person (as in the sense of someone else altogether), yet she has forever altered my personhood in a real, unique, and permanent way. That is amazing to me.

I don't purport to exhaustively know everything there is to know about the human person. You can only know so much about such a mysterious thing from reading a book. Truth is, you have to be a person to begin to really know what a person is. And since in every moment of every day, in every situation, and especially in every relationship you have, your personhood is constantly being redefined, live life with a continued sense of wonder, awe, and appreciation of the fact that you are a human being, created in the image of God, who is forever three Persons in perfect loving union. Won't that make life that much more meaningful and exciting?

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

A Note from Sean

I recently scrolled down through the list of recent blog posts and suddenly realized just how many of them have been political in nature. I guess I have become a little more obsessed with politics recently than I should, so for that I apologize. I promise that I will return to writing more on topics that are theological/devotional in nature.

In the meantime, you can always check out the blog quicklinks to the left to see posts on other topics. And, as always, I invite you to leave comments.

Monday, January 25, 2010

Ladies and Gentlemen, The Teleprompter of the United States of America

You gotta love this one: Obama using a teleprompter in front of a bunch of 6th graders in an elementary school room. Ha!

Friday, January 22, 2010

McCain-Feingold and the Supreme Court

Yesterday the Supreme Court abolished the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act as well as other federal laws dating to 1947 that limited corporate political expenditures. This basically means that now corporations and private labor unions can spend as much money as they want on political campaigns all the way up until election day. Is that a good thing? In short, I think the answer is 'yes'.

The President decried the ruling by saying it gave "a green light to a new stampede of special-interest money in our politics," particularly "big oil, Wall Street banks, health-insurance companies and the other powerful interests" that "drown out the voices of everyday Americans." First off, I have a hard time listening to Obama lecture ANYONE about the evils of special interests. But assessing his statement objectively I would say that in some ways he is correct. This will open the door to a whole new world of big spending by people with particular political interests. And while that carries with it some potential for abuse, I think that it is the lesser of two evils.

The primary issue at stake, as the 5-4 majority of the Court saw it, is the issue of free speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution. The campaign finance laws struck down yesterday allowed the Government to suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity. In my estimation, upholding the Constitution and the rights it protects is ALWAYS the greater good. The influence of special interests will always exist, and allowing them to open up their checkbooks may become obnoxious. But that is the lesser evil compared to ignoring the First Amendment.

This ruling also levels the playing field among corporations. The ban on corporate spending made a distinction among corporations. In the end, the media ended up with an unfair advantage. It was allowed unrestricted freedom to say anything it wanted about an election, while all other corporations were not. Perhaps this is the real reason Obama and other leftists are upset with the Court's ruling. Despite how they claim to fight for "the little guy" and against "evil corporations" (which is nothing more than their usual class warfare), the left has the media in their pocket. In reality, this ruling actually helps the little guy. As Carissa Mulder puts it:
Surely the little guy has an interest in hearing election messages from corporations. The government gets its message out, and the media gets its message out. Why shouldn’t ordinary, private-sector corporations be able to speak as well? Unless he is a member of the Civil Service or a public-employees’ union, the little guy’s livelihood is usually dependent on a corporation — not the government or the media.
In the end, no matter how much money is spent by whom, voters are ultimately responsible to check the facts and know the candidates, something practiced by all too few back in 2008.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

All-White Basketball League?

Now I'm not taking any sides on this issue. I am merely a casual observer. But apparently there is a guy pitching an all-white basketball league. The All-American Basketball Alliance will only allow "players that are national born United States citizens with both parents of Caucasian race" to play in the league. Interesting.

Now once you get past your initial shock and outrage at such an idea, just think for a second. There are a whole host of institutions, scholarships, organizations, etc. that allow or deny participation based on race. Can critics of the AABA argue that an all-white basketball league is morally wrong while, say, an all-black college is not?

Once again, I am not taking a side here. It's not that I am afraid of being labeled a racist or because I want to be politically correct. (I have a staunch personal and professional record of non-racism, so I am confident in saying what I believe to be true.) Instead, I am not taking a side because, to be quite honest, I haven't thought this issue all the way through yet. Plus, I want to hear what you have to say.

So please comment below. Just try to be objective, fair, and respectful. I am interested in dialogue on this topic from any angle, whether religious, cultural, or legal. What say you?

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Some Thoughts on Massachusetts

I, like you, am shocked by last night's election results.

A year ago, I, like you, was sure that the coming year held nothing but frustration and disappointment for conservatives like myself. Given the overwhelming support for the new president and the fact that his party enjoyed significant majorities in Congress, it appeared as if the Democrats could move any legislation they wanted with ease.

But not so fast.

After a year in office, Obama has not gotten health care, financial regulation or energy legislation signed into law. Furthermore, every Democrat he has supported has lost to their Republican opponent, and not just in states where any given election could go either way, but in states like New Jersey, and now Massachusetts. Where has the magic gone?

The answer to me is obvious. Obama has attempted to bring a form of change that America doesn't want. Whether center-right or center-left, America is still America. The vision of our founding fathers of freedom, liberty, and rugged individualism is hardwired into our very DNA. We don't take kindly to tyrants, and Obama's agenda is nothing short of a soft tyranny. Americans may differ on our vision of the extent of the government's role in our lives, but most of us essentially want to be free from any form of despotism. Obama's ultra liberal, progressive, European-esque vision of government is something altogether foreign to the American way of life, and the people have spoken.

It is no small irony that a Republican, who ran on a platform of opposing the health care bill, won the Massachusetts seat held by the late Ted Kennedy, the champion of socialized health care. In the heart of the bluest of blue states emerged a flash of red, a signal that not only did Scott Brown defeat Martha Coakley in a special election, but that America still wants freedom.

Perhaps the tea party has truly found its way back to Boston.

Monday, January 11, 2010

The Obama List Grows

In case you haven't seen it lately, check out my ongoing list of reasons why I do not support Barack Obama. It has nearly doubled in the last couple of weeks.

As always, I invite you to comment on the list here or suggest new additions by contacting me here.

Brit Hume on Tiger Woods and Christianity



Was Brit being unfair to Tiger? Your thoughts.

Thursday, January 07, 2010

More Broken Obama Campaign Promises

Hope and change.

Check out this video showing Obama pledging over and over again that the health care legislation debate would be open, transparent, and broadcast on CSPAN.



Yet anyone who is even vaguely aware of what is going on right now can see that Obama is breaking this promise right before our very eyes.

I'll admit, he sounds good saying these things in this video. He's actually a very convincing liar. I would love nothing more than for the American people to actually see and hear what is going on in Washington right now. Sadly, however, the only folks privy to the health care deliberations are Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. These politicians are shady and their tactics are shameful. Americans deserve more and should demand more.

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Vomit-Loving 'Christians'

I don't know about you, but I don't want to go to Hell.

Yes, I am a Christian. I have been convicted, have repented, have been saved, etc. And I believe in the certainty and security of God's loving, redeeming, and saving work in my life. But, while there is security in Christ, there is no security in sin.

Consider the words of Saint Peter in his second epistle (2:20-22):
For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.

For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them.

It has happened to them according to the true proverb, "A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT," and, "A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire." (NASB)
Peter, of course, is talking in the immediate context about the so-called 'false prophets' of his day, who, knowing the gospel, pervert it with their destructive heresies (2:1), denial of authority (2:1), pursuit of sensuality and lust (2:2), and greediness (2:3). But the essence of this lesson is that, regardless of what you believe about Christian 'security,' the fact remains that no one is safe in sin. In fact, it appears as though the level of punishment for the sinner is directly proportionate to his/her knowledge and experience of grace. Yikes! That's a terrifying prospect.

Too often I think Christians live any way they want to just because they have experienced 'salvation.' Sure, we have to at least try to live godly lives, but, after all, who's perfect? All that matters is that God is our heavenly Father and we can always find forgiveness in Him. Right?

Well, God is our Father. And, like a loving Father does, He forgives. But there is a huge difference between those who live their whole lives in Christ and err verses those who live in deliberate willful sin and presume upon God's grace. I, for one, do not want to presume anything. Assurance? Yes. Security? Yes. But not in sin.

So let this be a lesson for all of us. Seek holiness with all of your being. Do not be content in sin, for "the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up" (3:10). With this in mind, what kind of lives ought we to live? Godly lives of holy conduct and godliness (3:11); spotless and blameless (3:14); growing in the grace and knowledge of Jesus day by day (3:18).

I don't want to be a vomit-loving Christian who's going to Hell because I desired the flesh instead of God's holiness. I take these warnings literally and seriously. What about you?

Friday, November 20, 2009

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Need 7 reasons to pray that the Senate does not pass its health reform bill tomorrow night? Try these below, courtesy of the Heritage Foundation:

Kills Jobs:
All told, the Reid Bill raises taxes by $370.2 billion over the next ten years with many of those taxes starting to be collected this year while unemployment is at 10.2% and rising. Worse, the bill includes a job killing employer mandate which taxes companies for hiring people. Specifically, companies with more than 50 employees that do not offer a health plan approved by federal bureaucrats will be forced to pay a $750 per employee job tax.

Hurts Small Businesses:
The Reid Bill acknowledges it is terrible public policy for small businesses and tries to address this problem by including a “small business tax credit” to minimize the impact of the job killing employer mandates and regulation-caused rises in private health insurance premiums. But the tax credit only lasts two years and largely excludes small business owners, small businesses with high-average payrolls, and firms with 25 or more workers. After all exclusions, essentially the only eligible firms are those firms with 10 or fewer workers as well as those with low-income workers—the least likely to offer coverage even with a significant price reduction.

Hurts Families:
The Reid Bill includes an individual mandate that forces any American who does not have a federal bureaucrat approved health plan to pay an annual tax penalty of $750 per adult family member and $375 per child, with a maximum penalty of $2,250 per family. These penalties are indexed for inflation, which means they are likely to increase nearly every year. These taxes are fixed amounts based on family size, not income. A family of at least two adults and two children is actually worse off under the Senate bill if they make less than $99,350 a year. The only nod to affordability is a “hardship exemption” if the lowest available premium for a bare-bones plan is more than 8 percent of your income. But that saves you money only if your income is less than $28,125 a year.

Hurts Poor:
The Reid Bill’s employer mandate is especially punitive on poor families. Firms that hire an employee from a low-income family who qualify for an insurance subsidy are charged a tax penalty of $3,000. So a company could save $3,000 by hiring, say, someone with a working spouse or a teenager with working parents, rather than a single mother with three children. Worse, companies only have to pay $750 an employee instead of $3,000 if one quarter of employees are low-income. This creates a situation where, if a company has a lot of low-income workers, they can actually save money by dropping their health plan and just dumping all their employees into the federal exchange at their own expense.

Hurts States:
The Reid bill expands Medicaid eligibility for people below 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). Even with a provision aimed at Senator Landrieu’s Louisiana that picks up some state costs, the CBO estimates that state spending under the Medicaid provisions will still increase by $25 billion. The Democratic Governor of Tennessee Phil Bredesen told a state budget meeting this Wednesday: “I wish every member of Congress would have to come sit in this room and listen to the real world of what’s going on in Medicaid today. I mean how can you listen to this stuff and the stuff you are talking about eliminating just to get through this and then talk about adding a whole bunch of new expenses onto the states.”

Funds Abortion:
Unlike the House-passed Stupak-Pitts amendment which treats abortion funding the same way the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan does (the same health insurance all members of Congress have), the Reid Bill fosters taxpayer funding of elective abortion by authorizing the HHS Secretary to create a funding scheme that will permit inclusion of abortion coverage in the bill’s public option and mandates the inclusion of at least one plan with elective abortion coverage in each state’s health insurance exchange.

Hides True Costs:
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Reid Bill as written would spend less than $900 billion over the next ten years. But the CBO is only allowed to score what Congress says it will do, not what everybody knows it actually will do. So the CBO warns: “These longer-term calculations assume that the provisions are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades which is often not the case for major legislation … The long-term budgetary impact could be quite different if key provisions of the bill were ultimately changed or not fully implemented.” The Senate bill depends on using cuts to Medicare to pay for its $1.2 Trillion coverage expansion. These dramatic savings, of course, assume that these spending cuts stay intact. Nobody believes they will. And the Massachusetts experience proves just that. Harvard Medical School Dean Dr. Jeffrey Flier explains:

There are important lessons to be learned from recent experience with reform in Massachusetts. Here, insurance mandates similar to those proposed in the federal legislation succeeded in expanding coverage but—despite initial predictions—increased total spending.



Selling an uncertain and potentially unwelcome outcome such as this to the public would be a challenging task. It is easier to assert, confidently but disingenuously, that decreased costs and enhanced quality would result from the current legislation.

That is exactly what the Reid health care bill is: a completely disingenuous plan to increase coverage while reducing cost. Nobody believes Congress can or will follow through with spending cuts required to keep this scheme from bankrupting our country. That is why the AMA can support Obamacare despite the fact that both the House and Senate bills call for at least a 21% cut in doctor pay starting in 2011. Nobody believes those cuts are going to happen. Nobody believes in this bill.

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Take Action Against Obamacare

The House will be voting on the 2,000 page Obamacare bill THIS WEEK. Among the list of items included are:
  • A job-killing employer mandate
  • An individual mandate that requires Washington bureaucrats to define what kind of coverage is acceptable
  • Burdensome tax increases
  • Medicare cuts
  • A huge expansion of Medicaid that will break already strained state budgets
  • The Capps Amendments that will mandate abortion services for the first time in the nation's history
  • And much more.
Take action by contacting your representatives and senators now.

Monday, November 02, 2009

Planned Parenthood Director Quits After Watching Abortion on Ultrasound

Fox News reports:
The former director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in southeast Texas says she had a "change of heart" after watching an abortion last month — and she quit her job and joined a pro-life group in praying outside the facility.

Abby Johnson, 29, used to escort women from their cars to the clinic in the eight years she volunteered and worked for Planned Parenthood in Bryan, Texas. But she says she knew it was time to leave after she watched a fetus "crumple" as it was vacuumed out of a patient's uterus in September.
This raises an interesting point. Given the current legality of abortion in the U.S., would it be unreasonable to mandate that women considering having an abortion watch a.) a video of an abortion procedure, and/or b.) a live ultrasound of the little life inside of her?

There is nothing more fascinating and miraculous than the first time you see your own little unborn baby on an ultrasound screen. Even as early as 10 weeks you can see little arms and legs moving around and a little heart beating at 170+ times a minute. It makes you wonder how many women, confronted with the beauty of a living fetus and/or the horrow of its termination, would still go through the procedure.

What do you think?

November 2 Update

Well, I have managed to miss the entire month of October. Oops. Sorry about that one.

Here we are in November, though, and starting tomorrow we're about to see what kind of political effect Barack Obama's presidency has had on subsequent elections since he was elected into office. The governor's races in New Jersey and Virginia are particularly interesting, and it looks very much as though the Republican candidates in both races will win, especially in Virginia.

I don't know about you, but I can't help but think that tomorrow will prove to be just the first major step of a significant political backlash to this president's and his Congress' radical policies. The American people wanted something different from Bush, but I don't think they wanted this kind of change. I know I sure don't.

Keep an eye out on the news tomorrow night as election results come in. And check back here for whatever commentary I might come up with.

As always, take a look at my Why I Do Not Support Barack Obama list. No cheap shots. Nothing personal. Just real substantive reasons why I don't support this president's radical agenda and why I believe he is bad for our country. That's all.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Hilarious Video

Friday, September 25, 2009

Sermon on John 17:1-5

Below you can listen to a sermon I preached in chapel at Wesley Biblical Seminary on September 17th. The sermon text is John 17:1-5. I invite you to listen, but, more importantly, I invite you to share your thoughts on my interpretation of the text, especially verse 5. So stream it with the embedded player or download it directly here and post your comments below.