First Word

Its Origin

The question is whether at its origin it is a random natural mutation of some virus that started to spread out by natural association, or an intentional creation of evil men. The girls at Yahoo have already declared the answer to this. A word or two needs to be said to author Kate Holland. First, you should not feign a scolding, personal tone in your headline. You are a bimbette. It is your part to listen and learn, not scold. Second, wondering if the virus was created in a lab is an historical hypothesis, not a conspiracy theory. It is a perfectly natural question to raise, even if the answer turns out to be negative. Third, the virus being a “lab construct” is not the same concept as being a conspiracy. It could escape from a lab in a variety of ways not involving a conspiracy — by accident, or by the machinations of a single perp. Conversely, it could involve a conspiracy while not being a “lab construct.” Labs hold all kinds of naturally-occurring pestilences, not excluding even the Bubonic Plague. In short, there is no entailment in either direction between conspiracy and lab construct. Finally, Bimbette, does it not make you wonder why a “study” was conducted on this question just now by medical scientists, rather than them working frantically on a vaccine, cure, better analysis, or just general aid to the distressed? It’s almost as if they had an answer in search of a proof.

The PCA is ready to repent of its sins again. It was almost ten years ago Continue reading…

The PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) is all agitated for racial Continue reading…

The PCA has been beating its breast for several years now on the subject of racial reconciliation.

The 30th GA, which I believe was in 2002, adopted Overture #20 from Nashville, which declared in part:

“We therefore confess our involvement in these sins.  As a people, both we and our fathers, have failed to keep the commandments, the statutes, and the laws God has commanded.”

I hope to some day deconstruct the entire overture and its backwash. Right now, I’m just stuck on the phrase “both we and our fathers.”

By their “fathers” they obviously mean their great-great-grandfathers who may have owned slaves and/or defended the practice.

They are repenting, in other words, for something their “fathers” did not see the need to repent of; or at any rate, did not repent of.

When someone repents of his fathers’ sins, which his fathers did not even believe were sins, is this a sign of being humbled under conviction of sin, or is it more likely a noisy bit of self-righteous posturing?

Moreover, since the statement defines the fathers’ sins very broadly (“failed to keep the commandments, the statutes, and the laws God has commanded”) I presume that everyone could justly follow in the footsteps of the PCA and repent of the sins of his fathers (if the PCA can justly do so).

I’m just wondering why they didn’t, while they were at it, go all the way back to their “father” Adam and repent of original sin.