Noel Bagwell

Noel Bagwell

15p

9 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

457 weeks ago @ Ron Edmondson - The Waters Have Come U... · 1 reply · +1 points

There is a song by 100 Portraits & Waterdeep that is really, really amazing, called "Save Me." It's on their Enter the Worship Circle: First Circle album from 1999. (http://bit.ly/7GKT7h) The whole album is definitely worth buying. You can get it from their website or 'on the iTunes,' as the kids say.

Oh, this is relevant, because the lyrics are adapted from Psalm 69:1.

457 weeks ago @ Ron Edmondson - The Speed of Light · 1 reply · +1 points

Oh, I respect that. Nobody wants an internet argument. (http://tinyurl.com/d92y3y)

I just wanted to make the point that, when it comes to discussions of science and faith, we don't do anyone any favors by saying things that are verifiably inaccurate. I love your blog. Usually good stuff here. I was just so surprised to read something so blatantly wrong, I felt compelled to present an alternative perspective.

And I should say this, too: I agree with your conclusion, "real truth, is found, not in the elements of this world, but in its Maker." I just had a problem with the way you got there in this post. Thanks for being a gracious host.

458 weeks ago @ Ron Edmondson - The Speed of Light · 3 replies · +1 points

The law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time). A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed: it can only be transformed from one state to another. The only thing that can happen to energy in a closed system is that it can change form: for instance chemical energy can become kinetic energy.

Light is merely electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not. Because it is radiation, it is a form of energy and, consistent with the law of conservation of energy, can neither be created nor destroyed. Light exists in tiny "packets" called photons, and exhibits properties of both waves and particles. This property is referred to as the wave–particle duality. There are many sources of light (http://bit.ly/cgpoDf), but these "sources" are merely events which describe shifts in a physical state between matter and energy or between different kinds of energy. The "creation" of light is no more mysterious than the "creation" of water from ice or steam from water.

If what you want to do is make a statement about the creation of the universe, that's all well and good. I support your right to do that. It's just epistemologically and empirically wrong, however, to say things like, "What I know is that scientist will never understand the real basis of light; at least not in a laboratory." Number one: you don't "know" that, though you may believe it strongly and, perhaps, even with some justification. Number two: scientists do understand the real basis of light, and their understanding is not necessarily dependent upon their physical location (it applies both inside and outside of laboratories). There appears to be a substantial discrepancy between what we understand through empirically verifiable science and the statement you made which I quoted.

I do not believe that science and faith must always be at odds. I believe there is room in the universe and the human experience for both. We do them both - and ourselves - a grave injustice, however, when we recklessly use our words to describe things beyond our comprehension. It is best to remain silent about things we do not understand, and praise God for his grace, love, mercy and compassion towards creatures as relatively tiny and individually insignificant as we are without Him. Give credit where credit is due. Give God credit for the creation of the universe (to the extent that science lacks conclusive evidence of a more reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe). Give science credit for explaining what it can of the universe. In this way, we maintain our intellectual honesty, our integrity, our reason, our faith and the best tool ever developed by man for understanding the observable world around him.

460 weeks ago @ Ron Edmondson - Friday Discussion: The... · 1 reply · +1 points

"Can or should a Christian run for office…be involved in the political process….vote?"

A Christian, of course, can run for office, be involved in the political process and vote. He should do so, however, in accordance with Constitutional rules and principles and his conscience. Whether an individual should run for office, be involved in the political process or vote is a matter of individual preference and responsibility. If you are rationally ignorant about politics, stay home; you should not vote. If you are informed on the candidates and issues, however, and you have no other impediment to voting (conscientious objection, etc.), I see no reason why you should not vote.

"What about a pastor? Could a pastor serve in an elected office in your opinion?"

I see no reason why a pastor could not serve as an elected official, if he can perform his duties in both capacities (pastor and elected official). If he cannot perform his duties as both a pastor and as an elected official, he should choose one, and resign from the other.

As a pastor, he might appear to have a conflict of interest between what is and should be publicly permissible and what he believes is morally or spiritually right. In such cases, pastors should choose liberty in the public sphere, rather than trying to institutionalize their religious values. As Christians, we should not use government as a tool to try to legislate our values and thereby force them on people who do not share them. The freedom to reject Christ is inextricably bound up with the freedom to choose Him, and if we have not one, we have not the other.

"Would you be more inclined, less inclined, or neutral on voting for a person if you heard he or she was also a Christian?"

I would be neutral, unless they appeared to be incapable of choosing liberty in the public sphere, rather than trying to institutionalize their religious values. If a person could not conform to the guidelines I've laid out in the last paragraph of the question above, I would be less inclined to vote for him.

"Where are we today in this culture and where is a Christian’s involvement going?"

I think the answer to this question is unique to the individual. Generally speaking, Christians should be fiscally conservative and socially liberal in public affairs, in accordance with the teachings of Christ. Whether we are, as Christ followers, actually headed in that direction is anyone's guess. We can't even figure out what "Christian" means in America today, much less answer a question the answer which depends on as many variables as does the question thus posed above.

460 weeks ago @ Ron Edmondson - Friday Discussion: The... · 3 replies · +1 points


"Do Christians have a party of choice today?"

What does it mean to be a "Christian" in America, today? I think that term is nonsense, because it doesn't mean any one specific thing. "Christian" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. If a word has too many meanings, it becomes too diffuse or diluted to have any meaning at all, and requires further definition. That being said, if one were to assume arguendo that the meaning of the word "Christian" in this context means "Christ follower," it would be difficult to reconcile such a person's commitment to following Christ with the agenda of either of the two major political parties in the United States, today.

Christ's teachings favor financial conservatism (or "fiscal responsibility") and two different tiers of "social policy." The first tier is personal or individual social conservatism, according to which one adopts socially conservative behavior in one's own life. The second tier is "public" liberalism, according to which one does not judge others' behavior in a legalistic fashion. The second tier is the subject of some debate, because there are certainly contexts in which Christians (see prior arguendo definition) are supposed to judge the conduct of others, but such judgment is usually reserved for the purposes of determining whether someone is who or what they claim to be. Judging for the purposes of punishment is rare, and in the cases where it exists in the New Testament, the harshest punishment is often a form of shunning. The second tier of "social policy," is, therefore, more or less a liberal social policy in the political context. One might easily argue that it is, in fact, libertarian. Libertarianism basically favors the protection of life, liberty and property, and leaves to personal preference and individual freedom of choice everything else.

"Does it matter as much to you whether someone is a Democrat or a Republican?"

It only matters to the extent that it establishes a basis on which to make assumptions (based on the party's platform or stated goals and values). A responsible voter will, however, examine individually any candidate for office for whom they are considering casting a vote. Party should not, for responsible voters, be the sole criterion on which a vote is based. There are conservative, traditionalist, liberal, or progressive people in both parties. A socially liberal, fiscally progressive candidate in the Republican party, for example, is more rare than in the Democrat party, but that doesn't mean the Republicans exclude socially liberal, fiscally progressive candidates. It is, therefore, wise to see where a candidate stands on the issues before casting a vote for him.

487 weeks ago @ Breitbart.com - Volcano emitting 150-3... · 0 replies · +1 points

"According to the European Environment Agency (EAA), daily emissions ..."

How is the "European Environment Agency" the "EAA"? Shouldn't it be the "EEA"?

489 weeks ago @ Life and Theology - A Community Decision · 1 reply · +2 points

EDIT: "Whether you intended it or not, what you have communicated, above, a message regarding the intent and purpose of salvation," should read, "Whether you intended it or not, you have communicated, above, a message regarding the intent and purpose of salvation."

530 weeks ago @ Glenn Beck - The 912 P... - Mission Statement · 0 replies · +1 points

My first thought, when hearing how much Cap-and-Tax will drive up energy rates, was that more people will be forced to install solar panels - or tap into other renewable energy sources, like geothermal heat, where available - to power their homes and businesses without breaking the bank.

530 weeks ago @ IntenseDebate Blog - What features do you w... · 0 replies · +1 points

It would be great if you could work with the folks over at Wordpress.com to get them to add a widget for Wordpress.com users.

Thanks!