Quote of the Week: Michael Ruse on Darwinism

"One thing that does worry me is the belief by many Darwinians, especially, that their position implies atheism. If it does, then I think the creationists have a good point—Darwinism is getting close to religion, or at least to implications about religion. In which case, does it not violate the constitutional separation of church and state? My personal response has been to write a book (Can a Darwinian Be a Christian?) arguing that Darwinism does not imply atheism—it does not imply God, either, but that is another matter."

- Michael Ruse, An Interview with Michael Ruse

Quote of the Week: Chad Meister on the Conclusion of an Atheistic Worldview

While it is good that Ruse and Wilson acknowledge this conclusion and don’t try to smuggle in an objective morality in their atheistic worldview, I wonder if they have contemplated the moral ramifications of their position. On their worldview, we are merely evolved brutes whose very existence is derived from the naturalistic laws of evolution, including random mutation and survival of the fittest in which the strong survive and the weak die off (and sometimes the strong kill off the weak in their struggle for survival). We are simply the byproducts of a “nature red in tooth and claw,” to quote the poet Tennyson. Is it any wonder that the atheistic regimes of Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, and Pol Pot—devoid as they were of any significant Christian influence—were responsible for the mass murder of over 100 million people in their quest for dominance, more lives destroyed than in all of the religious wars in the history of the human race? These regimes were not discordant with an atheistic basis of morality; they were consistent with it.

Christopher Hitchens and his ilk are wrong: Christian morality, rooted as it is in a transcendent, personal, omni-benevolent God, has truly been good for the world. Heaven help us if an atheistic morality, rooted in evolutionary theory or otherwise, should ever become the guiding moral force on a global scale.

- Chad Meister, Atheists and the Quest for Objective Morality

Quote of the Week: Alvin Plantinga on Moral Freedom

Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.
Alvin Plantinga, The Nature of Necessity. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1974

Quote of the Week: Aristotle on God

If, then, God is always in that good state in which we sometimes are, this compels our wonder; and if in a better this compels it yet more. And God is in a better state. And life also belongs to God; for the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and God's self-dependent actuality is life most good and eternal.

Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book XII, 1072.b24

Quote of the Week: Thomas Nagel on Mind

Eventually, I believe, current attempts to understand the mind by analogy with man-made computers that can perform superbly some of the same external tasks as conscious beings will be recognized as a gigantic waste of time. 

- The View from Nowhere. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986, p. 16. ISBN: 0195056442

Thoughts on the Government Shutdown

DISCLAIMER: The following viewpoints are not those of the blogger, but a friend of his. If this point of view upsets you, you may vent, but don’t yell at the person who posted them. Start a discussion, express and opinion, but don’t yell at the person who didn’t write it, that is just senseless…These writings are the intellectual property of me, the Author, with permission granted to the blogger who is positing them. They may not be reposted or used in any form without express written consent by either myself or the blogger of Reformed Seth.

Congress. WOW! Here we are, the supposed greatest country the world has ever known, and we have a political morass that is beyond belief.  We elect people to congress to represent us, and our best interest, but have they really been doing that? And I am not talking about just this congress, but let’s go over the last 70 years of congress, just as an example…

Currently, the government is on a shutdown. Why? People can’t seem to play well with one another. We have the left blaming the right, the right blaming the left, and intelligent people blaming Obama, which they should, and less intelligent people asking, “Why do I have to pay for insurance, or pay a penalty for not having insurance? What happened to my free ride? Why are you forcing me to accept responsibility for my own life? THIS ISN’T FAIR!!!” And in a way, they are also right.

The masses have forgotten the lessons that were passed along by our elders. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH. And now the masses are waking up from the stupor to realize, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FREE INSURANCE. I blame this on the 74th congress and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  That’s right, FDR, the “greatest” president we were to ever have had, until Barrack Hussein Obama was elected, and he decided that HE was the greatest president, hell, citizen of the world. As I had to explain to a person at the doctor’s the other day, at a free clinic, because I have no job, and of course no insurance, Social Security started handing out checks a year or so after it was passed. Up until then, there was a surplus in the federal budgets, and all was good. Yet, as I had to explain, people were being paid with money they hadn’t put in; someone else had put the money in that they were handing out to those collecting. So the money that this gentleman had put into Social Security was already gone, having paid for people before him.  In any other world, this would be a Ponzi Scheme, but with this being the United States, it is Social Security, and very legal.

So, why blame the continuing congresses after the 74th? Because they all allowed it, and then started adding programs that would suck up money we didn’t have, to pay people who haven’t put into the system. I imagine had they stopped the free lunch with Social Security, that would have been great, and we could have handled the rest, maybe even find a way to make sure the program was solid. But nope, had to go into areas we didn’t need to go into. Like paying farmers NOT to grow crops. EXCUSE ME? Why are we doing this? ESPECIALLY when we have people in our own country starving, children going hungry, foreclosed houses with people being homeless! Why isn’t the congress, ANY congress, doing something about it?

The simple answer: entrenchment.  Yep, the people who we have elected to congress are entrenched in their ideologies, saying this is what the people who elected them, want them to do. And boy, isn’t that a lie! McCain, so far off the reservation, needs to retire. Reid, so far off his meds, seems to think he is 20 years old, and has 80 years to fix the mess he has continued to create, like the current government shutdown.  Harry has decided that he and his party, Democrats, have the right vision for the country, which is to take all the money from everyone and they get to decide who gets what, how much, and when. And make no mistake, Harry and Obama shutdown the government.  Harry and Barry, kind of like Heckle and Jeckle, have decided that they and their staffs do not need to be involved in Obamacare, which their friends, the unions, need to not be involved, and any FOB, Friend of Barack, need not be saddled, with massive cost, and little coverage; EVEN THOUGH, they make enough money, they can afford the top tier insurance, that allows the rich to continue to get great insurance and coverage, and those without money, again, get screwed. If YOU were a FOB you would most likely get one of the over 1000 waivers, and not be bound by the law itself. How is that for a crock of crap?

So, with the magic pen he carries in his pocket, Barry gave all of congress a waiver, (which is against the law, as only CONGRESS can change a law once it is passed, but since Barry is a supposed constitutional professor he would already know that) they wouldn’t have to abide by the law that was passed, to affect everyone else, not the privileged few.  And THAT is what this shutdown is really about. Republicans in the House of Representatives says, YOU PASSED IT, YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITH IT, NOT EXEMPT YOURSELVES FROM THE PAIN YOU ARE PLACING ON OTHERS. So, were the Republican Party is saying they are standing for the people, the Democrats are showing, they are standing for themselves. Now they might be screaming that it is about the debt ceiling, but Republicans offered a continuing resolution to fund the government, but Harry and Barry say it’s the Republican desire to make America go into default on its money obligations to everyone else.

And this is where entrenchment is involved. Instead of listening to the people they are supposed to represent, they listen to the lobbyist,  their friends in the Senate, the WAY LEFT LEANING Main Stream Media, who is only repeating the crap they say, thinking they are giving gold to the masses instead of the horse crap it really is. They say they know more of what is good for the people, than what they want. There is no bipartisanship, unless it is to bash the Tea Party, which is making McCain, Graham, Reid, Pelosi, Waters, among so many others, look like asses and idiots. Where it would be best that they actually listened to people, like Cruz, Paul, and the new crop of statesmen and women, the older crowd stay entrenched in a ideology that is ripping the country apart. And the uninformed, which is way more than the informed, keeps voting the same old guard in, to continue giving them free stuff, and damn the expense.

So what can “We the People: do? Get involved, go to town hall meetings, make your voice heard, get small groups of your neighbors together, and discuss what is best for you and yours.  Which of course is also dangerous, because we need compromise to legislate, and when everyone is grabbing their own piece of the pie, then we get more gridlock. But if you are smart, bring people up from ignorance, like I did with the gentleman at the clinic, who suddenly realized, the past 40 years of his working, actually has netted him NOTHING.

Or at least, this is how Mark C’s it.

Quote of the Week: J.P. Moreland on the couch potato

"The couch potato is the role model for the empty self, and there can be no doubt that Americans are becoming increasingly passive in their approach to life. We let other people do our living and thinking for us: The pastor studies the Bible for us, the news media does our political thinking for us, and we let our favorite sports team exercise, struggle, and win for us. From watching television to listening to sermons, our primary agenda is to be amused and entertained. Holidays have become vacations. Historically, a holiday was a "holy day," an intrinsically valuable, special, active change of pace in which, through proactive play and recreation, you refreshed your soul. A vacation is a "vacating"-even the language is passive-in order to let someone else amuse you. The passive individual is a self in search of pleasure and consumer goods provided by others. Such an individual increasingly becomes a shriveled self with less and less ability to be proactive and take control of life."

- J.P. Moreland, The Lost Virtue of Happiness, 2006 

Quote of the Week: Socrates on Death and Unrighteousness

I would rather die having spoken in my manner, than speak in your manner and live. For neither in war nor yet in law ought any man use every way of escaping death. For often in battle there is no doubt that if a man will throw away his arms, and fall on his knees before his pursuers, he may escape death, if a man is willing to say or do anything. The difficulty, my friends, is not in avoiding death, but in avoiding unrighteousness; for that runs deeper than death.

- Socrates, The Apology, 38e - 39a

Quote of the Week: James Madison on definition of tyranny

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
― James Madison, Federalist Papers

Quote of the Week: Mortimer Adler on Schools

"...our political democracy depends upon the reconstitution of our schools. Our schools are not turning out young people prepared for the high office and the duties of citizenship in a democratic republic. Our political institutions cannot thrive, they may not even survive, if we do not produce a greater number of thinking citizens, from whom some statesmen of the type we had in the eighteenth century might eventually emerge. We are, indeed, a nation at risk, and nothing but radical reform of our schools can save us from impending disaster... Whatever the price... the price we will pay for not doing it will be much greater."

- Mortimer Adler, Reforming Education: No Quick Fix

What if there were no Trinity?

h/t The Gospel Coalition

“If there were no Trinity, there could be no incarnation, no objective redemption, and therefore no salvation; for there would then be no one capable of acting as Mediator between God and man. In his fallen condition man has neither the inclination nor the ability to redeem himself. All merely human works are defective and incapable of redeeming a single soul. Between the Holy God and sinful man there is an infinite gulf; and only through One who is Deity, who takes man’s nature upon Himself and suffers and dies in his stead, thus giving infinite value and dignity to that suffering and death, can man’s debt be paid. Nor could a Holy Spirit who comes short of Deity apply that redemption to human souls. Hence if salvation is to be had at all it must be of divine origin. If God were only unity, but not plurality, He might be our judge, but, so far as we can see, could not be our Saviour and sanctifier. The fact of the matter is that God is the way back to Himself, and that all of the hopes of our fallen race are centered in the truth of the Trinity.”

– Loraine Boettner, “The Trinity”

Quote of the Week: Milton Friedman on Unfairness of Life

 What kind of a world would it be if everybody was an absolute identical duplicate of anybody else. You might as well destroy the whole world and just keep one specimen left for a museum. In the same way, it's unfair that Muhammad Ali should be a great fighter and should be able to earn millions. But would it not be even more unfair to the people who like to watch him if you said that in the pursuit of some abstract idea of equality we're not going to let Muhammad Ali get more for one nights fight than the lowest man on the totem pole can get for a days unskilled work on the docks. You can do that but the result of that would be to deny people the opportunity to watch Muhammad Ali. I doubt very much he would be willing to subject himself to the kind of fights he's gone through if he were to get the pay of an unskilled docker.

-Milton Friedman, from Created Equal, an episode of the PBS Free to Choose television series (1980, vol. 5 transcript).

Quote of the Week: Nietzsche on Christian Morality

When one gives up Christian belief one thereby deprives oneself of the right to Christian morality. For the latter is absolutely not self-evident: one must make this point clear again and again, in spite of English shallowpates. 

Friedrich Nietzsche, Expeditions of an Untimely Man §5.

Quote of the Week: Kelley Ross on the absurdity of life

While traditional Christian theologians, like St. Thomas Aquinas, saw the world as providing evidence of God's existence, and also thought that rational arguments a priori could establish the existence of God, Kierkegaard does not think that this is the case. But Kierkegaard's conclusion about this could just as easily be derived from Sartre's premises. After all, if the world is absurd, and everything we do is absurd anyway, why not do the most absurd thing imaginable? And what could be more absurd than to believe in God? So why not? The atheists don't have any reason to believe in anything else, or really even to disbelieve in that, so we may as well go for it!

- Kelley L. Ross, in the "Existentialism" article at The Proceedings of the Friesian School

What should men look for in women?

* This post is the first opinion piece I've wrote on dating. If you have critical comments, I urge you to be constructive because I'm sure this post isn't very strong *

What are things to look for in a woman? You're sure to find countless writings on the best things to look for in a woman so I hope this post doesn't find you uninterested or expecting the same old information. I hope to bring something refreshing, interesting, and to borrow a phrase from Greg Koukl, to "put a stone in your shoe." This is going to be the typical Reformed Seth post in that it will be *quick* thoughts on the subject and not exhaustive thoughts on the subject.

Reason and Virtue
I'm persuaded that one of the traits to look for in a woman is reason. Is she a student of reason? Is she a lover of truth? Often, I'm guilty of this, man will look past 'reason' in a woman because physical traits are what attract him first which is understandable but if a man pursues the woman packaged with traits prized by the superficial man who is void of reason instead of the woman who is a lover of truth then he is destined to meet regret in the future. A woman devoted to wisdom, reason, truth etc. is a woman worth pursuing. You can find this out during your courtship. Ask her questions to see if she is open to following evidence wherever the evidence may take her. See if she can follow the evidence past tradition, society, and dogma.

Good reason will also lead to virtue. I'm not going to explore that idea here in this post but understand that a person of reason will also be a person of virtue. A pursuit of truth is a life of virtue because a reasonable person understands the need to let virtue and reason govern her passions, which leads to the next trait to be valued in a woman.

Passion
Some may disagree with me on this, but a woman without passion just doesn't seem right you know? Often, in literature and in film, a woman's passion is her downfall; it's frowned upon by others which is understandable because this passion that is her downfall is ungoverned passion. For example, think of the character Lorelai Gilmore in the tv show Gilmore Girls. If ever there was a modern example of a woman who is ruled by her passions it is Loerelai Gilmore. She makes one immature decision after the next without any consideration of the risks involved or the conclusions of her decisions. I think the only wise decisions she makes is in her career at the Inn she runs with two business partners. This woman is run by her passions. If you've never watched the show check it out because you can learn from this woman about the good life in that if you want such a life don't pattern your life after Ms. Gilmore. An example from literature of a woman enslaved to her passions is Emma Bovary from Flaubert's Madame Bovary which is a book worth reading.

Passion governed by virtue is the best passion. A life without passion would be just terrible wouldn't it? No laughing, longing, music, etc. Human beings, women more so than men, experience passions and not just passions but colossal passions that are destructive if not governed by virtue, e.g. moderation, to guide the ever moving from high to low ship of passion named human life. A woman who is a slave to her passions isn't to be desired but a woman who has reasonable passion is definitely a woman to be desired because she understands and seeks the balance between high and low, virtue and passion, evidence and intuition. She lets the best of her passions stand out while putting into submission her extreme passions. A woman like this understands emotions and isn't scared of them.

Physical Beauty
In Emile the author, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, goes into detail about the woman who is right for his student Emile. The young woman's name is Sophie and Rousseau writes, "Sophie is not beautiful, but in her company men forget beautiful women, and beautiful women are dissatisfied with themselves." I'm fascinated at how well Rousseau described Sophie in that short sentence. Notice he doesn't say Sophie is ugly just that she isn't beautiful which is probably compared to the superficial standard of the day but there is much more said about Sophie in that sentence than what is said about her beauty. Rousseau wrote that men in the company of Sophie forget "beautiful" women and that "beautiful" women become dissatisfied with themselves in the presence of her. Physical beauty is important to finding a future spouse, but it's not the core of a person, it's not the soul of a person. Sophie obviously is a woman of virtue. She is an Elizabeth Bennet. A woman of virtue draws men, good men, in with her mind and her heart; she cuts away the presuppositions of what is considered "sexy" and she reveals the artificiality of the women around her just by being herself. A virtuous woman can and may be physically beautiful. I'm not saying don't go by physical attraction or that it's not important. I am saying that physical beauty should be the backup singer to the lead singer, i.e. reasonable passion. 

I think the above three traits are what men should look for in a woman: reason/virtue, passion, and physical beauty. You may not find a woman possessing all three in the beginning which is fine because we are all (hopefully) maturing every day and are on different paths at different times in life. Why are these traits desirable? Because a woman with these traits means she is on the path to understand the rich, romantic essence and philosophical depth of love; the truth of the world; how to raise a family; basically learning what the good life is here on earth.

What you must find out during dating is if she is willing to try a new way of thinking about reality. Does she see the importance of reason in her life? She may be full of reason and no passion so I would ask: does she see the importance of healthy passion? What is her view on life? Does she care and see the importance of having a view of reality? You may find a woman you're physically attracted to who is going to be your partner in the grandest adventure of all from friendship to love to marriage.

This little list also isn't exhaustive. I think it's very important that two people agree on the essentials before they marry, i.e. that their worldviews match. If a couple disagrees on the essentials then their marriage will likely fail. Shared interests in movies, shows, music and recreational activities won't save two people who can't agree on how to raise a child or how to live the good life (or if there is even a good life to live).


Related posts
The Foundation of Love  
WK Blog: How Christian women can make Christian men marry without using sex appeal 

Is rolling out Affordable Care Act comparable to Apple rolling out an iPad?

Disclaimer: Ask the programmer is a guest post by a friend of the blog.

Question
Mr President is quoted as saying, "There is no doubt that in implementing the Affordable Care Act, a program of this significance, there are going to be some glitches. ... That's true, by the way, of a car company rolling out a new car. It's true of Apple rolling out the new iPad." Is this true? Can we compare rolling out the ACA to Apple rolling out a new iPad? Also, in the same article Rand Paul says it's illegal to delay the employer mandate of the ACA. How does the President get punished for doing something illegal? Let's ask The Programmer.  

Answer
No one can foresee all the consequences of a law, I'll grant him that, and adjustments are sometimes required. However, the fact here is that the consequences were unforeseen because of the way he and his lieutenants handled the legislation in the first place. They treated it like Roosevelt's request for a declaration of war on Japan (what an antiquated concept, this notion of asking Congress for a declaration of war!) - something that had to be acted on right now for the good of the country. The truth is, the only reason it was "urgent" to pass Obamacare was because the Dems feared losing their Senate supermajority before they could get it through, and even then, they had to resort to every parliamentary tactic and "incentive" (i.e. taxpayer funded bribes to Nebraska and Louisiana) to get it done. Forget the smaller changes like tort reform and eliminating barriers to competition between insurance companies across state lines. Those had more support and would have brought eventual price drops, but why do something that will work eventually when you can blow up everything in the course of a few months on a scheme that nobody knows will work because nobody has read it?

Further, when adjustments to legislation are required to combat unintended consequences, they are implemented in Congress, not the executive branch. If the law said that the executive branch could enforce these mandates at its discretion, he'd be within his rights to do what he's doing, but it doesn't. It gives a date certain, and he is openly acknowledging that he's going to flout that because he deems it necessary (without any input from Congress) in violation of the oath he swore when he was inaugurated. Not to mention, these "unforeseen" consequences were not "unforeseen". They were legitimate objections raised by conservatives during the push to pass the law and summarily dismissed and steamrolled by the Obama PR machine, including the mainstream media. Now they want to delay the consequences they were aptly warned about until a "convienent season", like Felix in Acts 24. (How'd that work out for him?) So really, it's a false analogy, which invalidates any conclusions he might use it to support.

As for what will come of it, the answer is nothing. Is it impeachable? Possibly, but you know Congress as constituted won't take that step. I suppose it could go to the courts, but by the time the appeals wound up, Obama would be out of office anyway and any decision would be mostly moot. Not to mention that I lost faith in the court system years ago. The namby-pamby establishment politicians don't want to call Obama on the unconstituionality of these actions because when "their guy" gets in, they want him to be able to do it, too, but it's a really dangerous precedent. Seems only constitutionalists like Paul understand that. The American public sure as heck doesn't, and the lame-stream media isn't about to give them a civics lesson.

- The Programmer

Source article: ObamaCare cap on out-of-pocket costs delayed, Sen. Paul calls illegal

Quote of the Week: C.S. Lewis on 'death doesn't matter'

It is hard to have patience with people who say 'There is no death' or 'Death doesn't matter.' There is death. And whatever is matters. And whatever happens has consequences, and it and they are irrevocable and irreversible. You might as well say that birth doesn't matter.

- C.S. Lewis, A Grief Observed, 1961

Krauss is a goon

Yes he is. Krauss may be amazing in his field, his daily work, etc. but he can be and is a goon. I'm saying this because of what I've read of his actions during his recent debate with William Lane Craig. On Craig's facebook page he wrote:

Last night's "dialogue" with Krauss was like gladitorial combat! He even had a buzzer which he was pushing at various times during my speech to register his disapproval and try to disrupt my speaking!

Let me imitate the Miz for a bit and say the following to Krauss: really? Really? Really? If what Craig said is true that's what I'm left thinking about Krauss. Really Krauss? Really? Krauss has reduced seeking truth in debate to an episode of "America's got talent." Is this how man decides truth now? He decides something is true with a touch of a buzzer? That was easy. Finding truth is easy when truth is whatever lines up with your personal opinion. This reminds me of the thinking of a toddler; no offense to you toddlers out there. 

If Krauss did in fact do what Craig has said then I'm very disappointed. I cannot take Krauss seriously when he speaks of his reasonableness, his love of facts, and such. How can I? Krauss hasn't shown, to me, that he is serious about truth, that he is serious about finding the answers to life's "permanent questions." It is hard for me to believe that Krauss lives a serious life. What is a serious life? Allan Bloom wrote that, "A serious life means being fully aware of the alternatives, thinking about them with all the intensity one brings to bear on life-and-death questions, in full recognition that every choice is a great risk with necessary consequences that are hard to bear."1 A serious inquiry of the truth will not lead to acting like a goon in a debate. Krauss is an embarrassment to atheism and should not be taken seriously in matters of ultimate truths. There are plenty of respectable atheists out there who are serious about finding answers to life's biggest questions and those men should be the ones representing atheism in public debates instead of goofballs like Krauss. Of course, charisma, jokes, and bad philosophy are the qualifications for a good representative for atheism today right? Those things are the values that people want in their "hero" to go against theists in public debate. What a shame. I'm not saying theism is absent of such public defenders (because they're out there...) but this arrogant, intolerant, close-minded, childish behavior is more visible on the "new atheism" or "new-new atheism" side of the debate in my opinion.

Never fear though. There are quite a few debates worth your time if you are serious about finding answers to such questions on life. There are too many to list here in this post. I will list some of them though.

William Lane Craig vs Dacey - Also notice in this post, WK lists two other great debates I recommend: Craig vs Millican and Craig vs Walter Sinnot-Armstrong. Since you can find those debates in this one link I won't list them here.

Dinesh D'Souza vs Michael Shermer Some might disagree with me on this, but Shermer is definitely a respectable guy in debate and so is D'Souza. I think this is a great debate. It's one that definitely opened my mind to checking out Christianity.

Source:
1. Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind

Quote of the week: Allan Bloom on truth

Socrates’ way of life is the consequence of his recognition that we can know what it is that we do not know about the most important things and that we are by nature obliged to seek that knowledge...I am now even more persuaded of the urgent need to study why Socrates was accused. The dislike of philosophy is perennial, and the seeds of the condemnation of Socrates are present at all times, not in the bosoms of pleasure-seekers, who don’t give a damn, but in those of high-minded and idealistic persons who do not want to submit their aspirations to examination

-Allan Bloom, Giants and Dwarfs, “Western Civ,” (1990) pg 18 - 19 

Quote of the week: Wayne Grudem on the being of God

“It is not just that we exist and God has always existed, it is also that God necessarily exists in an infinitely better, stronger, more excellent way. The difference between God's being and ours is more than the difference between the sun and a candle, more than the difference between the ocean and a raindrop... God's being is qualitatively different.”

- Wayne Grudem,