1967 Camaro coupe build - retrospective

I bought this Camaro in 2005, which for me represented a purposeful change in direction from early Ford hotrods to muscle cars. I previously owned a 1947 Ford 2 door sedan, a 1940 Ford sedan delivery, a 1946 Ford coupe, and a 1962 Chevy stepside shortbox. The stepside was the transitional vehicle, neither a hotrod nor a muscle car.

The Camaro was out of state, so that means I bought it sight unseen. This is not a smart thing to do, but I figured that I was buying a builder car, not a finished ride, so part of the building process would be to fix things like hidden damage. 

It's still not a smart thing to do.

Here are some pics the seller provided:

Letter to the editor: Several questions for a 'pro-Trump' conservative - by Robert Loftis

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------------

This is simply bad writing. Usually there is at least a superficial level of coherence in a typical leftist diatribe, but not today. The letter writer is simply copy and pasting slogans from leftist websites. And these slogans don't even make sense.

-------------------------

Republican senatorial candidate Tim Sheehy’s online ads (but not his on-air ads) describe him as a “pro-Trump conservative.” As such, I have a few questions for Mr. Sheehy. (The letter writer is apparently unacquainted with the idea of calling Sheehy's office and asking his questions.

But in actual fact, the letter writer is not interested in obtaining information. His questions are designed to further The Narrative, which is the daily talking points and slogans promulgated throughout the media landscape.

He uses the obvious and based rhetorical techniques of the Left, with the intent to reframe and obscure the issues he raised. But he's a clumsy propagandist. Most leftists are.)

What about Trump’s dementia? - by ROBERT REICH

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------

The Left has gotten more and more brazen. It's as if they're trying push the limits by how obvious their projections and transferences have been recently. By this we mean Mountainman's Law:

Whenever a Leftist accuses someone of wrongdoing, they are actually doing this very same thing themselves.

So if a Democrat brings charges of a Republican cheating on his wife, then the Democrat is cheating on his wife. If a leftist accuses a conservative of cheating on their taxes, the leftist is cheating on their taxes.

So today Dr. Reich levels the accusation of Trump's supposed dementia. Yet for months people have been discussing the growing concern over Biden's obvious cognitive impairment. Dr. Reich will never acknowledge Biden's dementia, yet he's suddenly he's really, really concerned about dementia. Only it's not Biden!

We suspect that this is simply the next talking point of The Narrative. The Narrative is the daily talking points and bumper sticker slogans promulgated by Central Command. The media, academia, and the entertainment industry quickly and repeatedly disseminate these talking points until they receive new orders.

So Dr. Reich got the memo and immediately wrote an article about dementia, Trump's supposed dementia. 

---------------------

How Bernie Sanders Should Talk About Democratic Socialism - by ERIC FONER

Found here. Our comments in bold.
---------------------

We find it very nearly hilarious when the Left wants to explain Socialism. "How should we talk about it," they ask themselves. "What's the best approach to changing the way people think about Socialism?" "How can we make our message resonate with people?"

Socialism must be contextualized. Framing is important. Messaging, sayings, and slogans are evaluated. A constant topic with the Left is how find ways of diverting, changing the subject, or flipping the script.

The question never is, "Should we tell the truth about Socialism?" "Should we tell people about what we actually want to do?" "Should we just be honest?" 

The answer is no, because Socialism cannot be presented honestly. It would be summarily rejected by everyone. In fact, it would be rejected by Socialists if they ever allowed themselves to think honestly about it. No, Socialism at its core depends on painting a caricature of present capitalistic despair contrasted with a rosy picture of a bright future in the worker's paradise.

That is why Professor Foner is writing. He has some advice for the vivacious, energetic face of Socialism in the United States known as Barry Sanders.

-------------------------

Repairing the rusted wheel arches - 2011 GMC Sierra

I was shopping for a used truck a couple of years ago. I wanted a Tundra but those are hard to come by. So I decided to look at this 2011 GMC Sierra 1500 It seemed to be a pretty nice, well-cared-for unit. 

I look for certain things when I'm evaluating a vehicle, like if the previous owner actually cared about the vehicle beyond just doing the maintenance. There are hints, like

• the parts used for maintenance are not cheap brands
• the owner touched up rock chips 
• there are no holes for aftermarket equipment
• aftermarket equipment is not cheap brands
• the engine compartment looks completely original
• the bed is not beat up
• the interior looks like it's been cared for
• the wiring has no taps or cuts

This truck had all those features. It did not seem to be abused. The mileage was right, the tire wear was right, and the oil pressure was right. So I sprung for it:

Nothing to complain about.

It came with trailer brakes and a hitch, running boards, wheel arches, and a tonneau cover. I didn't really like the wheel arches, because with stock rims and tires it made the truck look out of proportion. After a few months I decided that I would rather not have them, so I took them off.

That was a mistake. Here's what I found:

What did Jesus mean when He said, “It is Finished!”? - by Mike Ratliff

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

The author seems to have a bone to pick with certain unidentified heretics, but he doesn't go down that road. Instead he spouts some unexplained Calvinistic jargon (the elect, perseverance, imputation) and eventually veers into his stated topic, the finished work of Christ. 

The purpose of the other stuff is a mystery.

-----------------------

Why Is Prayer a Means of Grace? - by Barry York

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------

This is a little over 600 words, and about 500 of them are wasted. It seems the author loves writing in the stilted language of professors and theologians, language invented to explain the concepts and categories they also invented to describe matters of faith and doctrine.

Thus the author confuses and obscures simple ideas like prayer.  He doesn't seem to really want to teach about prayer, how to pray, or why. No, for him it's a theological obstacle to overcome.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

-----------------------

Pastoral Oversight and the Musical Ministry of the Church - by Jacob Crouch

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------

The author is to be commended for his desire to honor his leadership, but we think he gets a lot wrong.

Church leadership delegates authority to various people based on their discernment of qualifications and spiritual maturity. They then provide oversight, but they do not run the ministries. The leaders they chose do.

It is our view that the music leader in the church service is the highest operating authority during the worship time, and the rest of leadership defers to him for that time. That is, all authority transfers to him for this portion of the service.

The music leader also has final say as to the content of the ministry activities, like the songs. Yes, the church leadership is ultimately responsible, but their general attitude should be, let the leaders lead. Directional changes should be implemented with respect for the authority they delegated. Again, the music leader is in charge of the ministry. This means the leadership itself renders honor to the music leader by letting him do his job.

Lastly, the author manages only two Scriptures. None of what he tells us is based on Scripture, it's based on tradition and existing practice. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

--------------------------

Has Montana really solved its housing crisis? - Susan Shain High Country News

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

The Chronicle reprinted this agendized "news" article and also posted it on Faceborg. A exchange of comments, found at the bottom, ensued. Our commentary appears after.

-----------------------------

Is the suffering of Christ related to forgiveness?

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered that our doctrines are actually unbiblical. This causes us concern. 

We have deemed this reconsideration our “Rethink.” Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were too lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that there is more than one way to interpret doctrine, more than one way to think about the faith, and more than one way to read the Scriptures. We would not suggest that our way is the only way, or the right way; we are not Bible scholars. But we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to rightly divide the Word of God.

----------------------

Bad Worship songs - Gone, by Elevation Worship

From time to to we examine the lyrics of worship songs. Our desire is not to mock or humiliate, but rather to honestly examine content with a view to calling forth a better worship expression.

With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.

What makes a song a good worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned? We think an excellent worship song should contain as many as possible of the following elements:

• A direct expression of adoration (God, you are...)
• A progression of ideas that culminates in a coherent story
• A focus on God, not us
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Scripture quotes or coherent allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness

Further, a worship song should not:

• contain lyrics that create uncertainty or cause confusion
• be excessively metaphorical
• be excessively repetitive
• imply that Jesus is your boyfriend

It's worth noting the most worship songs contain at least something good. That is, there might be a musical idea or a lyric that has merit. Such is the case with today's song, Gone.

They’re not even hiding it anymore: Beth Moore, preaching, and how to get women into the pulpit. Bonus: Moore’s teaching on 1 Tim 2:12 - By Elizabeth Prata

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

----------------------

Unfortunately, Ms. Prata is back in our pages. Her confidence in her doctrine is matched only by her arrogance towards those who disagree. 

She has withering criticism for those who would question her understanding of the Bible. Mostly, this criticism consists of summary contradiction. This, coupled with a careless reading of her theological enemies' positions, brings us to the unfortunate conclusion that this is Bad Bible Teaching.

This presentation has a confusing format. Oddly, the outline is actually at the end. There are four points in the actual presentation (number 2 is not numbered, and number 5 doesn't seem to be discussed, since it is not identified with a heading). We omitted all of the article that occurs before the actual points.

We should also state for the record that we are no fan of Beth Moore. We are here to examine Ms. Prata's presentation.

------------------------

The Atonement: Final Installment - Wayne Grudem: Bible Doctrine, Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith

Installment one.

Installment two.

This is our last post regarding the author's chapter on the atonement. All our comments are found at the bottom.

-----------------------

Is Election Unfair? - by R.C. Sproul

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------------

Dr. Sproul will not tell us who the "elect" are, or even discuss the Calvinistic doctrine of election. He presumes that God chooses everyone who is to be saved, but does not demonstrate this belief from Scripture.

We have developed an alternate theory to this doctrine, which we think better explains the elect.

The elect are not simply a generic group of humans who God chose to be saved. The elect are a special group, the remnant of Israel God predestined by grace (Ro. 11:5) to be saved. In Romans Chapter 9 Paul uses the idea of the true Israel identified by lineage to illustrate that there is a select group of Jews who will inherit salvation. These Jews are the "children of promise" (Ro. 9:8). 

These Jews who are saved are the firstfruits (Ro. 11:16). The firstfuits are the very first part of the harvest of souls, which by definition is not the entire harvest. Believing Jews are the firstfruits, after which comes the rest of those (gentiles) who are saved (1Co. 15:23).

The firstfruits are the 144,000 Jews (Re. 14:4). They are special and unique, so much so that they have their own song to sing (Re. 14:3). They are set apart by tribe (Re. 7:4-8). Then immediately after we see the great multitude, the saved gentiles from every nation (Re. 7:9).

The "children of promise," the "firstfruits," the 144,000 Jews... they are the elect.

Further, Paul referred to "us" and "we" in Ephesians chapter one (Ep. 1:4). This "us" and "we" is not you and I. "Us" and "we" is Paul and his fellow Jews who were saved. Notice now the shift in the narrative at Ep. 1:13. After Paul describes "us" and "we" as predestined and chosen, he turns to his audience ("you") and tells them they were included in Christ when they heard the Gospel, and it was then they were marked with the seal of the Holy Spirit.

"Us" and "we" were predestined. "You" were saved and included when "you" believed. Two categories of God's people, the elect and the saved. Therefore, the only people who are the elect lived and died 2000 years ago, and they were all Jews, chosen by God out of Israel to be the firstfruits of salvation.

Thus there is no "unfairness" in God's election. Israel has always been the apple of God's eye. This is why Paul wrote that all Israel will be saved (Ro. 11:26). Not all Jews will be saved, but only the elect Jews, the "children of promise."

------------------------

The Atonement: Installment two - Wayne Grudem: Bible Doctrine, Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith

Installment one.

Installment three.
------------------

This is a continuation of our analysis of a chapter from this book. 

The author continues his explanation based on reformist doctrines, particularly Penal Substitutionary Atonement. This doctrine postulates that Jesus took our place to be punished by the Father for our sins.

This, in our view, is a false and pernicious doctrine.

The author seems to be aware of the objectionable nature of this doctrine, but appears to think there are only a couple of viewpoints representative of the opposition. These are the only alternatives he thinks are worth mentioning.  

Ultimately, the author is simply wrong. And because he is acclaimed as a magnificent Bible teacher, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

-----------------------