Atheists & secularists, like anyone else, will sometimes speak of what gives their life meaning and purpose. It might be fighting against religious dogma, or helping people think rationally, or spending time with their family, or "making the world a little better place", or... whatever. Note that these are self-imposed "purposes" or "meaning", often involving leaving some sort of intellectual or philosophical legacy. But, is this really consistent with their worldview? Have you ever heard of Lawrence M. Krauss or Glenn D. Starkman? Even if you don't run in scientific circles, you may be familiar with Krauss, who is a well-known ...
"Those who are unwilling or incapable of discerning or judging between good and evil are in this manner revealing either their disobedience or their immaturity." -- Pastor E.L. Bynum In our last "episode", we began to address the issue of what it means to "judge" others. Specifically, we took a practical, nonsectarian look at why people cry, "Don't judge me!" and why we should, in fact, make fair judgments about others' behaviors & beliefs, always with the welfare of them and others around them in mind. Now, what about Christians, in particular? Aren't we supposed to be extra loving and kind and ...
If you are at all familiar with Christian apologetics, whether engaging challenges from non-theists or from Christians with different views, you know that the topic of pain, suffering, and death is a major issue. (In fact, Darwin's struggle with this was the impetus for developing his theory.) These things are considered "evil", so the question is "Why would a 'good' God make a world full of pain, suffering, & death for His creatures to endure?", or "How could God include pain, suffering, & death (for millions of years) in His 'very good' creation?" The Young-Earth Creationist (YEC) solution is that none ...
Welcome to the 3rd and penultimate installment of this series, in which I explain how self-deluded I have been about my own hatred and bigotry regarding, well, just about everyone but straight, white, white-collar males between 18 & 65 years of age (or thereabouts). Where was I? Oh... [caption id="attachment_1341" align="alignleft" width="225"] Pro-choice Activists[/caption] 7) I hate women. And it's not just because I'm single. (Or, should that be the other way around?) ;-> In particular, I think most of today's "feminist" positions and causes reveal a certain level of narcissism and another excuse to play the blame game for ones woes, real ...
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." -- Abraham Lincoln "AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!" That was my response (posted on Facebook), give or take an "R" or two, to the 2012 Election results. Actually, that was my second FB post. My first was, "Crap on a stick! I'm so depressed." But, that's not quite right. I'm very disappointed, obviously. And a bit morose. But, really, I'm angry. So, here goes the rant... Are you freakin' kidding me?!! Do we really have to listen for 4 more years to this pompous, Marxist ...
Sometimes, I can't help myself. I mean, people make spurious claims and ridiculous accusations against God, Christians, "the Church", etc., all the time. Usually, I let it go. Can't be constantly getting into long, drawn-out internet debates ALL the time, after all. But, sometimes, I just have to say something. And, so it went the other day, when a FB friend of a FB friend, amidst generally mocking comments, claimed that Christians were responsible for "lots of mass murders." Of course, I had my suspicions about what she was referring to. There are some nasty stains on Christianity's record. But, I also ...
"I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother." -- Mitt Romney, in an op-ed piece in The Boston Globe (7/26/2005) In "The Pro-Life Position: Just One Question", I argued that if the unborn is indeed a member of the human family, no matter how small or odd it looks, then "no justification for killing it is adequate." But, then I left a footnote saying that there are rare exceptions to that rule. So, I figured I may as well address those now.... When the ...
Part 1: Firm Foundation "I yam what I yam, and that's all what I yam." -- Popeye, the sailorman Given the subjects that I usually read and write about on this blog, critical thinking really comes in handy. Not that I'm some great logician or anything. Far from it! But, over the last few years, I've been exposed to the discipline of informal logic by some pretty darn good thinkers. (At least, I think they are.) I've noticed that I am now more apt to notice logical errors & fallacies when reading or listening to someone's arguments for his/her position on a ...
[caption id="attachment_1464" align="alignleft" width="300"] Original Star Trek bridge crew[/caption] I remember when, many years ago, I first found out that the cast of the original Star Trek series did not always get along and a huge part of the problem was William Shatner's ego. Star Trek was one of my all-time favorite TV shows (and the movies and the books), and Shatner was a favorite actor when I was growing up -- right up there with Lee Majors, the Six Million Dollar Man, and later Tom Selleck of Magnum, P.I., fame. So, I was understandably disappointed to find out my "heroes" ...
"[S]cience and religion are two essential components in the search for truth. Denying either is a barren approach." -- Dr. Martin Andreas Nowak, mathematical biologist Once upon a time (actually, it was about a year ago) in a land far, far away (OK, it was here in NE Florida), I had a brief but interesting discussion. I had been taking a few skills & personality assessment tests, which involved identifying what I thought my strengths & weaknesses were, figuring out my personality traits, etc. While discussing the results with a couple family members, the religiously-agnostic one noted, "Huh! You consider yourself ...
I was reflecting on all of the negativity in the press about the President-elect-now-President Trump from the Left and other detractors and about the now-former President Obama by the Right. I have posted several things over the years about how bad a president Obama has been, and I stand by them. But, now I’d like to try to point out three objectively positive things about the man. I’ll be brief, but here goes…
1) He was “cool”. He exhibited an air of calm, cool confidence, both in his manner of speaking and in his body language. He just projected an ease about himself that was attractive and made people think, “This is one cool cat!” Then again, in another sense of the word “cool”, he also often came across as coolly indifferent. And, of course, whether or not his self-confidence was justified is another matter entirely.
2) He was articulate. Give the man a rousing speech to deliver — either memorized or by teleprompter — and he would knock it out of the park almost every time. For many, Obama’s rhythms and cadences served to make even the most self-serving talks sound inspiring. In fact, his most ardent fans seemed to be awestruck by his well-crafted, well-delivered addresses, such that the guy could do no wrong.
3) He appreciated decorum. For the most part, Obama appeared to respect the “dignified propriety of behavior, speech, dress, etc.” that is expected in the Office of the Presidency. I say this, of course, as one observing from a distance and only occasionally. Unlike our new President, Obama seemed to (mostly) exercise proper civility and restraint in his communications. At least, when he said stupid, inappropriate, and/or untrue things, he used the “proper” methods of communication.
Unfortunately, the above characteristics, while nice, are not enough to make anyone an upright or effective leader. Just sayin’…
If you watch a lot of cop shows like I do, you may have noticed how often facial recognition software provides the good guys with crucial images for identifying criminals, victims, and even witnesses. Though the real thing probably doesn’t have quite the success rate as its fictional counterpart, it really is amazing technology.
However,… with CCTV cameras here, there, and everywhere, — and not always obvious — isn’t it a bit disconcerting, knowing that people are (or could be) watching your every move? (At least, when those cameras are present.) Most of us probably recognize the need for such security measures in and around banks, for instance, and other institutions where financial transactions are handled and proprietary information is located. But, when the cameras are on street corners, traffic lights, subway platforms, etc., monitored by law enforcement and other government officials, it can get kinda creepy. “Police-state” creepy.
So, it shouldn’t be surprising that someone has finally invented technology to counter such surveillance. Call it “anti-facial recognition”, if you will. Or, as creator Scott Urban calls his new eyewear product, “Reflectacles”. They are made from “solid blocks of clear cellulose acetate” and “micro-prismatic retro-reflective materials” normally only used in specialized fields. Microscopic examination reveals “many very small cube-like prisms that bounce light along each edge of the prism surface and then bounce it right back in the direction the light originated from,” as Urban explained to The Sun. No glare to the wearer, though.
Reflectacles Originals, available in seven different colors, reflect only visible light. Reflectacles Ghost, available only in Gray, intensifies the effect by incorporating micro-corner-cubes, “the most reflective material that currently exists… used in laboratory situations or for signal/controller applications.” This model reflects light from the visible and infrared portions of the spectrum.
“This means, security cameras that work using infrared technology, which basically means a majority of such devices, will never capture your facial features when you are wearing Reflectacles Ghost…. [They] can also reflect visible light, due to which drivers on the road will be able to notice you at once as soon as you enter the road no matter if you are walking or riding a bike.” (H/T Hackread)
I think this is pretty cool, and I totally understand some people’s being a bit freaked out by the increased surveillance by the state. (Even more so in places like the UK than in the US… for now.) No surprise, then, that these are Urban’s primary target market. But I was concerned about criminals of various sorts using the tech to protect their own identities while committing crimes. To this, Urban points out that full-face ski masks are still cheaper and (in most cases) more effective for such nefarious purposes.
Sturdily built and reasonably priced (£77 Originals; £101 Ghost), Reflectacles will begin being sold in June 2017.
“[A]fter many decades of trying to comprehend the gender confusion that persisted even after my sex transition, I came to understand that my grandmother’s cross-dressing of me was emotional child abuse. The psychological harm grew as years went by.” — Walt Heyer
You probably saw it — the recent National Geographic cover featuring a “transgendered” young boy by the name of Avery Jackson. Why NG decided to help push the LGBT agenda, I don’t know. But, the cover and issue are stirring a lot of controversy.
Former transgendered man, Walt Heyer, has previously written about the LGBT community and about his own experiences as part of that community and after having left it. This past week, Heyer wrote a commentary on NG’s transgender issue (no pun intended) and about the damage being done to young Avery and to society at large. He has no patience for NG’s conflation of mere cross-dressing with the more popular term, “transgenderism”.
“Avery is simply a cross-dressing boy. Cross-dressing affects outward appearance only; what you do not see are the deeper long-term psychological consequences. No sex is changed; no biological transformation takes place.”
Heyer’s combination of relating personal experience and sharing several sad realities about transgenders and transsexuals — the latter having undergone “sex reassignment” surgery — is particularly effective.
“I can see from my experience that transgenderism is fantasy motivated by strong feelings. When it comes to gender, people can change clothing and other aspects of the public persona, but biological sex will always remain fixed…. No amount of hormones or cosmetic surgery can effect a biological change of sex. Feelings, no matter how strong, cannot change sex. To pretend anything else is only a masquerade. At best, transgenderism is Mardi Gras, not reality….
Notably, the magazine does not include any interviews with individuals who have had their lives destroyed by the long-term consequences of cross-dressing and gender confusion. Cross-dressing eroded my true gender which in turn ruined my teen years, ripped apart my marriage, and ended my career.”
Why not check out Heyer’s article? It’s not terribly long and definitely worth a read.
“Facts don’t care about your feelings.” — Ben Shapiro
Are you familiar with Ben Shapiro? He’s one of those conservative “young guns” making a name for himself these days — an attorney-turned-political commentator, columnist/author, and radio show host. He’s very sharp, articulate, possesses a familiarity with an amazing number of issues and pertinent facts, thinks clearly & critically about those issues, doesn’t get tripped up by PC nonsense, and has no problem calling out corruption, ineptitude, hypocrisy, foolishness, etc., regardless of race, creed, position, or political ideology. I like that. He’s also fearless, as he speaks at ideologically hostile venues (except when “tolerant” protestors manage to get his talks cancelled) and on panels where his non-PC, conservative views are clearly in the minority. (Here are a couple examples.) I greatly admire that, too.
I’m not saying I am totally in line with everything I’ve read or heard Shapiro say, but I am very impressed with him. So, when I discovered his daily “The Ben Shapiro Report” back around Thanksgiving last year, I subscribed. (Still training Hotmail not to automatically send it to the ‘Junk’ folder, unfortunately. Dang Russians!) Each email issue contains a “Subscriber Exclusive” from Ben, along with links to 4 more articles on The Daily Wire, which Shapiro founded and where he serves as editor-in-chief.
Last Monday, Shapiro started off the week/month/year with a reaction to President Obama’s quasi-revisionist, and possibly self-delusional, tweets about his administration’s legacy. Shapiro was civil but held nothing back….
“With the beginning of 2017 comes newfound optimism: in just two weeks, President Barack Obama’s term of office will come to an ignominious end. As the clock ticks down, Americans get more and more excited to see Obama’s back – we’ll no longer have to hear his sonorous baritone lecturing us about his higher morality, which invariably requires the overthrow of individualism in favor of the collective.
But Obama won’t leave without some historical rewriting.
He tweeted on January 1, “As we look ahead to the future, I wanted to take a moment to look back on the remarkable progress that you made possible these past 8 years.” What progress, pray tell? Obama tweeted that “Facing the worst financial crisis in 80 years, you delivered the longest streak of job growth in our history.” That neglects to mention that this was the weakest economic recovery in American history – that recessions are usually followed by booms, except when big government interventionism quashes those booms.
He tweeted, “After decades of rising health care costs, today nearly every American now has access to the financial security of affordable health care.” That’s patently insane. Obamacare has been a massive bust. When you mandate that people buy health insurance, people typically will do so, but that doesn’t mean it’s quality, that doctors will take it, or that health care gets better. Actually, premiums have skyrocketed nationwide under Obama, and only Medicaid has seen true growth – and many doctors are now rejecting Medicaid thanks to its low reimbursement rates. Amazingly, despite Obama’s health insurance mandate nearly 9 percent of Americans still have no health insurance.
Obama said that America “traded foreign oil for clean energy, we doubled fuel efficiency standards, & we acted on a global scale to save the one planet we’ve got.” This has nothing to do with Obama’s policy. It has to do with dropping prices of oil worldwide, as well as the fracking industry’s production increase, which helped fill the gap domestically.
Obama added, “We brought home more of our troops & strengthened US leadership – leading with diplomacy & partnering with nations to meet global problems.” This is nuts, too. Syria is in flames. Libya is in flames.
Obama just set Israel on fire to watch it burn. Iran is now a burgeoning regional hegemon. Vladimir Putin’s Russia is on the move everywhere from Eastern Europe to the Middle East. China is moving rapidly to consolidate control over the South China Sea and expand its sphere of influence over surrounding states ranging from Taiwan and the Philippines to South Korea and Japan. Iraq is a war zone. Afghanistan is a disaster area.
Obama stated, “From realizing marriage equality to removing barriers to opportunity, we’ve made history in our work to reaffirm that all are created equal.” Actually, the Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage a Constitutional right, Obama has utilized his power to crack down on religious Americans, and race relations are at a serious low in the modern era.
Obama concluded, “It’s been the privilege of my life to serve as your President. I look forward to standing with you as a citizen. Happy New Year everybody.”
Get out, President Obama.
And don’t let the door hit you.”
Nailed it! Thanks, Ben. (Can I call you ‘Ben’?)
P.S. Just f.y.i., he’s no fan of Trump, either.
P.P.S. This brings to mind one of my favorite Frasier Crane quotes from “Cheers”: “[Mr. President], what color is the sky in your world?” Also, I just realized that this isn’t the first time I’ve used “Obama” and “Delusion(s)” together in a title.
“You are gonna tell me what I want to know. It’s just a question of how much you want it to hurt.” — Jack Bauer, Season 5
Something kinda fun to ring in the New Year…
Did you know that a new “24” TV series is about to debut? Yup! “24: Legacy” will premiere on Feb. 5, 2017, on the Fox Network. No Jack Bauer, though. Corey Hawkins stars as Eric Carter, “A military hero who returns to the U.S. with a whole lot of trouble following him back. With nowhere else to turn, the man asks CTU to help him save his life while also stopping one of the largest-scale terror attacks on American soil.” (IMDB plot summary) It’s too bad Kiefer Sutherland opted not to return, but I am still optimistic and looking forward to the new show.
For Christmas 2015, I received a copy of the book Secrets of 24: The Unauthorized Guide to the Political & Moral Issues Behind TV’s Most Riveting Drama as a gift. (Note: It was published prior to the debut of Season 7.) It’s a great choice for me, since it mixes the subjects of my two blogs. It has been a year now, and I haven’t yet worked it into my reading schedule. But, I was recently skimming through it and got an idea for a blogpost. This one, in fact.
Interspersed throughout the book’s text — which includes articles by and interviews with various journalists, writers, actors, experts of different kinds, etc. — are little sidebars, “quick takes on the facts, humor, and breadth of voices and ideas generated by ’24′”. So, I have chosen 24 of my favorites to share with you. A few are funny or merely informative, but most give insight into the show, the central character of Jack Bauer, and their influence by and on American culture. Hope you like…
Among the boldface names who are fans of the show: Dave Barry, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, Jim Cramer, Billy Crystal, Tony Danza, Trent Dilfer, Geena Davis, Bill Gates, Laura Ingraham, Stephen King, Rush Limbaugh, John McCain, Jim McMahon, Donald Rumsfeld, Seal, Barbra Streisand, Clarence Thomas, and Tina Turner.
“We do want democratic process, but we also want justice. And the show allows us to have both, and that’s why we love it.” — David Heyman, terrorism scholar, Center for Strategic and International Studies
“We always had the idea of this King Lear story, of Jack being the prodigal son, the guy who was his father’s favorite but turned against his dad, and the less favorite son took over the empire. In some ways, you get to see that his family is his destiny.” — ’24’ executive producer Howard Gordon on the plan to give Jack Bauer “genetic responsibility for a lot of the misery by association” in Season six, when he duels with both his brother and his father
“An America that looks to Bauer rather than Batman is an altered nation indeed.” — Ezra Klein, blogger and writing fellow, The American Prospect
o Jack Bauer has been to Mars. That’s why there’s no life on Mars.
o Superman wears Jack Bauer pajamas.
o How many CTU special agents does it take to change a lightbulb? Twenty. Nineteen to set up a perimeter, while Jack Bauer tortures the lightbulb into revealing the whereabouts of the socket. [Ed. Note: I think the better answer is, of course, twenty-four.]
— sampling of Internet humor about ’24’
“The show reflects where we are in the culture at this moment in time. Every generation has it. There’s social transformation going now in the way we see the world, domestic policy, foreign policy, domestic intelligence, and foreign intelligence. All these things are becoming blurred, as are the questions that we have to face on morality. And the show does a really great job of trying to put those questions on a personal level for all of us. We’re all Jack Bauer in our hearts.” — David Heyman, terrorism scholar, Center for Strategic and International Studies
“I have fallen in love with another man. For the past five months we have been meeting in a dark room every Sunday night, while the children are tucked up in bed and my husband snores upstairs. It is crazy because I know he would love him too, but he lacks the stamina that this relationship requires. So it’s just me… and Jack Bauer…. His sense of duty is unbreakable. His idea of a hot date is to bundle you into the boot of a mercenary’s car and he is more interested in speed-dialing the office than sex. Yet there is a vulnerability about Jack where women are concerned. Tenderness even. He would lay down his life to get you home safely and maybe, just maybe, this time you could make him stay.” — Sheila McClennan, The Guardian (UK)
“Characters that push things over the limit are interesting characters. It’s very natural to create a character like that in the world of terrorism because there are so many difficult moral, ethical and legal dilemmas, political dilemmas, that constantly arise. You want a character that’s over the edge a little.” — Robert Cochran, co-creator, ’24’
“When men watch Tony Soprano and Jack Bauer they enter into a contract with the characters. They watch and savor the brutality but recognize how pathetic these heroes are. Guys watch TV shows such as ‘The Sopranos’ and ’24’ and see all the horror, humiliations and complications of being male. Tony Soprano and Jack Bauer are not role models to emulate. They are case studies to brood upon. They are a warning. Every man knows that.” — John Doyle, Globe and Mail (Toronto)
According to co-creator Joel Surnow, the first few episodes of ’24’ were heavily influenced by the movies Three Days of the Condor, La Femme Nikita, and The Day of the Jackal. But these episodes were “in the can” before 9/11. Afterward, and in fact for every season after the first, Surnow says the plots were influenced by “real events.”
“While we don’t try to represent any kind of real truth — obviously 24 hours in the format makes it impossible — we try to, I think, present an essential truth, or an essential problem. So when Jack Bauer tortures, it’s in a compressed reality… We try to compress these arguments and these issues and dramatize them in obviously very unreal ways, but hopefully in dramatic and compelling ways. And that’s really ultimately our master… making a compelling, ‘adrenalized’ TV show.” — Howard Gordon, executive producer of ’24’
“’24’ dispenses with the politically correct evasions that pervade prime time episodic television…. It identifies the terrorist enemy without flinching and lets the good guys fight to win — without apologies.” — Christian Toto, The Washington Times
“In this age of terror and worldwide insecurity, ’24’ created the illusion of an all-American superagent on whose watch the bad guys, whether Muslims or Russians or shady white men, would inevitably blow off their sorry behinds. It was political comfort food.” — Andrea Peyser, the New York Post
“’24’ was well into production when the terrorist attacks on September 11 happened. The effect on the show was that Fox’s legal department reviewed the first few episodes and made us recut the sequence where the 747 blows up at 36,000 feet (11,000m). Fox did not want to show the actual plane exploding in the air. It also meant that an extensive aerial sequence which was to have been shot by a second unit downtown was shut down and we had to substitute Glendale for downtown.” — Jon Cassar, director and producer of ’24’
Over six seasons, the enemies depicted on ’24’ have included mercenaries, Serbian nationalists, Arab terrorists, American oil executives, Mexican drug lords, corrupt British businessmen, the Chinese, pseudo-Chechen terrorists, a vast right-wing conspiracy based in the White House, more Arab terrorists, rogue Russian officials, and, of course, Jack Bauer’s own father and brother.
“Then the angel told her: Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Now listen: You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will call His name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.” — Luke 1:30-33 (HCSB)
There are a few journalists/broadcasters — most of them “old school” — who are known not just for presenting the news but for sharing thoughtful commentary and personal insights about current events and holidays. While perhaps not as prolific in this area as, say, Paul Harvey or Andy Rooney, the respected news correspondent Harry Reasoner was indeed known for his articulate commentary.
This particular piece is attributed to different years and places, depending on who you read, and there are slightly different versions of it. According to biographer Douglass K. Daniel (Harry Reasoner: A Life in the News), Reasoner originally penned it back in 1962, when working for “Calendar”. He shared it with the larger “60 Minutes” audience in 1969 and again on the “ABC Evening News” two years later. Reasoner said that he received more viewer mail about this piece than about anything else he ever did.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Harry Reasoner…
“What Christ Looked Like”
The basis for this tremendous annual burst of gift buying and parties and near hysteria is a quiet event that Christians believe actually happened a long time ago. You can say that in all societies there has always been a midwinter festival and that many of the trappings of our Christmas are almost violently pagan. But you come back to the central fact of the day and quietness of Christmas morning — the birth of God on earth. It leaves you only three ways of accepting Christmas.
One is cynically, as a time to make money or endorse the making of it.
One is graciously, the appropriate attitude for non-Christians, who wish their fellow citizens all the joys to which their beliefs entitle them.
And the third, of course, is reverently. If this is the anniversary of the appearance of the Lord of the universe in the form of a helpless babe, then it is a very important day.
It’s a startling idea, of course. My guess is that the whole story — that a virgin was selected by God to bear His Son as a way of showing His love and concern for man — is not an idea that has been popular with theologians. It’s a somewhat illogical idea, and theologians like logic almost as much as they like God. It’s so revolutionary a thought that it probably could only come from a God that is beyond logic, and beyond theology.
It has a magnificent appeal. Almost nobody has seen God, and almost nobody has any real idea of what He is like. And the truth is that among men the idea of seeing God suddenly and standing in a very bright light is not necessarily a completely comforting and appealing idea.
But everyone has seen babies, and most people like them. If God wanted to be loved as well as feared, He moved correctly here. If He wanted to know His people as well as rule them, He moved correctly here, for a baby growing up learns all about people. If God wanted to be intimately a part of man, He moved correctly, for the experiences of birth and familyhood are our most intimate and precious experiences.
So it goes beyond logic. It is what Bishop Karl Morgan Block used to call a kind of divine insanity. It is either all falsehood or it is the truest thing in the world. It either rises above the tawdriness of what we make of Christmas or it is part of it and completely irrelevant. It’s the story of the great innocence of God the baby — God in the form of man.
And it is such a dramatic shot for the heart, that if it is not true for Christians, nothing else is, because this story reaches Christians universally and with profound emotion. So, if a Christian is touched only once a year, the touching is still worth it, and maybe on some given Christmas, some final quiet morning, the touch will take.
Because the message of Christmas IS the Christmas Story. If it is false, we are doomed. If it is true, as it must be, it makes everything else in the world all right.”
Now, I don’t know what Reasoner’s religious beliefs were, and I would have some disagreement with the ideas of “beyond logic” and “divine insanity” and perhaps quibble on a couple other bits. The piece certainly touches on different aspects of the Incarnation that bear further examination. (Another time, perhaps.) But, overall, I found it to be honest, thoughtful, perhaps even challenging. Hope you enjoyed it, too.
Merry Christmas to you and your family!
It’s that time, again. Time for another year-end list of “top posts” on various topics from preceding years (including the one just ending). I try to pick those that are “evergreen”, though, or at least still interesting/entertaining. In case you’re curious, here are the previous lists: “Celebrating 5 Years of AVftR (plus a Top 10)!”, “Top 10: The Sequel”, “Top 10: The Threequel”. Between those and this one, hopefully you’ll find a few posts of interest that you might otherwise have missed.
“Church, Family, and Immigration Law” (3 parts)
“Almost everything you read these days about immigration law, especially the recently-passed Arizona legislation, has to do with what exactly does the law say, is it racist, what does “reasonable suspicion” mean, will good citizens be unfairly targeted and inconvenienced, will immigrants’ rights be abused, should law enforcement officers “waste” their time trying to identify and arrest illegals, etc. But, there are other concerns to consider, as well.
As author Jenny Hwang puts it in her article “Arizona’s Border Crisis” in Christianity Today‘s guest opinion column (5/12/2010), “I have read the entire Arizona law and fear that there will be many unintended consequences that will impact not only hundreds of families in Arizona, but also Christian ministries and churches that serve immigrants in Arizona.” [Beyond the usual issues, I would like to examine] what Ms. Hwang has to say on the issues concerning families and ministries and make a few comments of my own.”
“Everybody’s got “rights”. Just ask ’em!
Rights to freedom of _________. Natural rights. Human rights. Civil rights. Property rights. Privacy rights. Abortion rights. Women’s rights. Gay rights. Marriage rights. Workers’ rights. The right to a minimum wage. The right to free healthcare. The right to clean air. You name it, and somebody’s gonna claim it. Everybody’s so sure they’ve got all these rights,… but why? What are rights? Where do they come from?”
If you talk to (or read) many devotees of Darwinian evolutionary theory, either professional or layman, you will often find them perplexed as to how any “rational” person can deny the “fact” of evolution. For them, it is so clearly the only valid explanation for life’s history that, for one to not accept this obvious truth, you have to be either a) ignorant of the evidence or just misunderstand it; or, b) blinded by religious dogma. (Maybe both.) Or, possibly, c) you believe the evidence points to evolution but are deceitfully using ID/creationism for personal gain. (Fame? Limited. Fortune? Very limited. Thrill of being an iconoclast? I suppose, maybe. Actually, being a science professional who is a “Darwin denier” is more likely to earn you scorn in your profession and cost you friends and tenure, maybe even your job.)”
“I’m not really into Halloween. Haven’t been for years. Sure, in my early years, I did the whole trick-or-treating thing…. Now, as a single adult, Halloween has just become that one night of the year that little kids (and big ones) come knocking on my door, while I “hide” in the dark and hope they go away. That’s right. I don’t even give out candy. I’m such a grinch! (No, wait. Wrong holiday.)
Yet, I have to admit that I sometimes envy people having fun in their costumes, goofing around, etc. So, would I join in, if the opportunity presented itself? Can a conservative Christian like myself, who believes in demonic entities and the “spiritual warfare” going on about me, in good conscience participate in Halloween parties, trick-or-treating, or celebrations of any sort? Well, it depends….”
“The Scientific Method” (2 parts)
“So, what *is* the “scientific method”, anyway? As with the definition for “science” (and a number of other things), if you ask a dozen scientists or philosophers of science to define or explain the scientific method, you’ll probably get a dozen (or more) variations on an answer. But, before I try, I think a brief bit of history is in order….
Roger Bacon, who was himself heavily influenced by Robert Grosseteste, is called by many the “father of modern scientific method”. The investigative approach we now call the “scientific method” — though it has since been refined — was so closely identified with his descendant, Sir Francis Bacon, that it was known as the “Baconian method”.”
“Primer on Origins Views for Christians” (4 parts, despite them all being numbered “X of 3”)
“As an admin at the “Old Earth Creationists” Facebook Group, I’ve been reminded on multiple occasions that not everyone, even within the Christian community, is aware of the various positions held by orthodox Christians — historically and currently — on the matter of origins…. Many people, both Christian and non-Christian, think that there is only one position on these matters that is “biblical” and consistent with orthodox Christianity….
My goal for this series of articles is to present the basics of these three general positions, as well as alternative categories. I’ll also define “Intelligent Design” and discuss how it fits in. Finally, I’ll briefly explain several ways that Christian scholars have developed to understand and interpret the Creation Days of Genesis.”
“Continuing a time-honored tradition among skeptics and atheists, especially around this time of year (and Easter), Newsweek published a major article informing Christians — conservative ones, at least — where they go wrong in regards to the Bible…. In his screed, Eichenwald rails against the ignorance, inconsistency, and bias of Christians, while seemingly oblivious to his own. He marshals many “evidences” — somewhat scattershot, though within sections — to cast doubt on the authenticity and reliability of the Bible and seeks to denigrate those who credulously believe in it, while not really knowing the truth about it…. There is a lot of truth in several of Eichenwald’s initial pronouncements…. As for the broader message of the piece, however, Eichenwald greatly overstates his case.”
“Most people — at least, in “the West” — know that there are several different versions or “translations” of the Bible, and most who read it with any (semi-)regularity have their favorite. We all have our reasons…. Outside of the “woodenly literal” translation one might find within a Hebrew/English or Greek/English interlinear, English translations range along a spectrum of “formal equivalence” (aka “word-for-word” or “essentially literal”) to “dynamic equivalence” (aka “thought-for-thought” or “functional equivalence”), with those on the latter end becoming increasingly paraphrasitic and less accurate. Over the years, I have owned some on both ends (e.g., KJV –> Living Bible) and in the middle (e.g., NIV 1984), and they all have their pluses and minuses.”
“On the Resurrection Hypothesis” (5 parts)
“Most people these days use the “minimal facts” approach popularized by Gary Habermas, laying out the 4-6 lines of evidence that are accepted “by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather skeptical ones.” It is a great method, eliminating as it does some of the more controversial aspects. Some of those minimal facts were already addressed in my posts about the death and burial of Jesus. The rest are included in this series, but I have also included additional helpful information, such as the bit about testing historical explanations given below. As with the earlier posts, I have summarized the source material as best I can, with a few additions of my own….”
“The subject of immigration, and particularly of illegal immigration, into the U.S. has been a hot potato for several years now, and it’s only heating up during the run-up to the 2016 elections. Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump recently gave a speech in Phoenix, AZ, in which he laid out his official position on the matter…. What I want to focus on is Trump’s longstanding and consistent call for an “impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful, southern border wall” along the border with Mexico and, especially, his insistence that he will make Mexico pay for it. That one has had me stumped for awhile and shaking my head every time I heard him say it…. According to the narrative by many news outlets, Trump doesn’t really have a plan for paying for his proposed wall, let alone for making Mexico pay for it. In fact, Trump *has* mentioned some ideas on this, and he even provided a two-page memo to The Washington Post back in March that outlined several funding options he was considering….”
Well, that ought to keep you occupied during the slow moments between gift-wrapping, gift-opening, caroling, feasting, Church service(s), snowball fights and tobogganing (for those who can), playing games, and spending time with family and friends. (Some of us — i.e., introverts — need to relax and spend some time alone, after all.) Happy reading!
Who (or what) do non-theists thank — for whatever they are “thankful” for — on Thanksgiving?
That’s the question I was pondering, however briefly, this Thanksgiving. I mean, I think most non-theists here in America participate in the holiday, and you’ll often hear them mention things that they are thankful for. But, if one is giving thanks, there needs to be an object to whom or to which that feeling of gratitude is directed and expressed. Right? And it only makes sense if that object is a person; giving thanks to impersonal things is absurd.
But, someone who believes there is no such thing as a supernatural being known as God (or a god) — i.e., in particular, a “supreme being” with some control over their lives and the world around them — has no one, no Person, to thank. Seems to me, the most they can say with any accuracy is that they are expressing to anyone who will listen that they enjoy or appreciate some people and/or things in their lives that got there by happenstance. Or, as one Facebook acquaintance put it, “Today is a day to be THANKFUL for the things that dumb luck has dropped in our laps.”
So, it was with great interest that I saw the following audio-podcast posted on Thursday night. In his first “Cold-Case Christianity” podcast in over a year, J. Warner Wallace addresses this exact topic. (Well, that’s part of it, anyway.) He mentions that some atheists who have written about this or developed ‘secular’ benedictions for use on Thanksgiving will direct thanks to people such as the Pilgrims or farmers or the military, etc., for what they have done that benefits that person and/or family, society, the nation, the world. Note that some of these people are dead and others alive, some they know/knew personally and others not. However, Wallace points out that even that is inconsistent within a materialist/physicalist worldview. (I’ll leave the explanation to him, ‘cuz I want you to listen to the podcast.)
Wallace takes a brief look at Scripture, too, observing the consistent offering of thanksgiving to God and explaining the link between sin and ingratitude. He also references an article from the previous day, in which he explores the history of “Thanksgiving” in America and the clearly Christian origins and reasons for this day of celebration. Here’s the link to “Enjoy The Distinctly Christian Holiday We Call Thanksgiving”. And with that I wish you all a…