Mark wrote:

"I guess it all boils down to this: Whether we like it or hate it (or somewhere in the middle), the reality of our age (since FDR's uncorking of the Government Genie Bottle), the American people have come to see the government and its role as something entirely different than our founders. That is a FACT. A tragic fact, but still a fact.

Government not only delivers services and programs it has no Constitutional authority to, but it also serves as a sort of "billboard" for what its people believe is important. Like a billboard, it's hard to ignore the message it's sending, and can actually influence behavior as a result, even though the actual influence of the government in any particular area is relatively minimal.

For example, the US government giving funds to cancer research symbolically shows a national priority toward eradicating cancer, even though the actual amount of the grants are a drop in the bucket to what is actually needed to eradicate cancer. The federal government maintains forests and other wilderness areas, sending another message to its people that we are to value our natural resources.

Similarly, the formulation of marriage and what the government recognizes as a "marriage" has a similar acknowledgement of our national values. Once again, I don't necessarily support or applaud this vast "bully pulpit" the Federal government now enjoys....but I *recognize* it and understand how its policies can change the very values and moral makeup of its people. I don't like this reality...but it *is* our reality".

I've quoted this in full (and waited a couple of days to answer it), because Mark has laid out perfectly what I see as the problem not only with the current federal government, but with George Bush as well. The problem is the troubling trend that Mark notes, "the American people have come to see the government and its role as something entirely different than our founders. That is a FACT". It is unarguably a fact. And it is the primary fact that must be dealt with as we go forward as a nation. Government is no longer a protector of rights or an arbiter of disputes, it is, in fact, messianic in its nature and a leader and role model of a people who can no longer rule themselves because they have no internal compass.

George Bush puts it this way: "The role of government is to stand there and say, 'We're going to help you.' The job of the federal government is to fund the providers who are actually making a difference."

The quote was in reference specifically to the new Bush plan to spend $1.5 billion (1.5 thousand million dollars) on government marriage counseling, but it is a philosophy that permeates his "compassionate conservatism". It is a philosophy that makes government a molder and shaper of the people, and one which seeks to help them by borrowing money from foreigners and future generations to spend today on "problems".

Mark says it's a "tragic fact", and I agree. What we disagree on, I think, is what to do about it. His opinion is (if I may put words in his mouth) that we have a tiger by the tail and that we ought to point it in the way that does the most good (or at least the least damage). I think the fact is so tragic that the only solution is to shoot the tiger.

It's not because I pine for the old days for their own sake. The past had plenty of "problems", though complete cultural and potential fiscal collapse were not among them. But this modern tiger is tragic because it makes a promise that cannot be fulfilled and will lead to societal collapse, national bankruptcy, and a complete loss of confidence in government itself, followed by civil disorder. The fact is that there is no fiscal way we can fund the boomers' retirements while spending $500 billion a year we don't have. The fact is that the government, by its very presence in areas like marriage counseling, crowds out and destroys the solutions implemented by families, churches, non-profits. The fact is that as a "billboard" that big, nothing else can be seen and nothing good can grow in its shadow. But no tree grows to the sky and no billboard stands forever. It eventually rots and falls over because of its very weight.

It's not the fault of government, but its very nature. Elected officials are simply giving us what we want, what we asked for. We, as voters, look to Washington to give us this day our daily bread because it's easier than working or praying. But Washington can't do it forever. That's a fact, and a fact that leads ultimately to tragedy, because everything the government does fosters dependence. When it eventually can't meet its promise, those who depended on government, having lost the ability to depend on themselves and having had their family and social structure destroyed by generations of dependence, can no longer feed themselves. Imagine what our cities would become if the government simply stopped passing out free money. There are entire sections of society that would either starve or riot. The shadow cast by the government billboard has killed their ability to survive.

That being said, there is one item in Mark's list that strikes close to home. Cancer. The government funds cancer research to show how important it is, what a national priority it is. But what is cancer? Cancer is "a malignant tumor of potentially unlimited growth that expands locally by invasion and systemically by metastasis". What cancer does is that it grows out of control, spreading throughout the body, displacing healthy cells. It destroys the DNA that directs cells and makes it impossible for the body to heal itself. Government growth is a cancer that destroys civil society by unlimited growth and invasion and displacement of those functions of society that make it healthy.

A healthy society is a vibrant thing. Made up of families and voluntary associations (like churches, schools, clubs, and businesses), the decentralization and expertise of each one is directed by the members who make it up. Like individual cells, they divide, they repair, they grow. But government is a different kind of cell. It is compulsory. It consumes eternally. It drives the other cells out of place or subsumes them into itself. Where it steps in to "solve problems", it destroys the healthy cells that make up civil society. Where it fails, it leaves behind a wake of death... dead cells, dead organizations, dead families. It promises health and stability, it leaves behind a legacy of broken promises and a dependent population. The solution to cancer is not to ride it or direct it. The solution is to kill it, to cut it out, to excise it. On this there can be no compromise, or the body will die.

Therefore in order for healthy civil society to survive going forward, government must simply be cut. It must be cut back to its bare minimum, not trimming fat, but cutting muscle. It must be eviscerated, gutted to the point that healthy cells can survive and thrive where the shadow of its billboard once blocked all light. There is no "separation of church and state" where the state is ubiquitous. There is no educational improvisation where one size fits all. And there's no use arguing that one party will cut it more or less than the other, as neither wants to cut it. Both parties are now led by men who think the Era of Big Government is just getting started. They both want to direct a bigger tiger. They will each feed a cancer that eats out our substance.

Therefore it doesn't matter if GWB and I agree on 70% of the "issues", because the election is not about which candidate will steer the tiger the way I want him to run. It is about cancer, and what to do about the malignant tumor that is killing the body of American society. If neither major party runs a man who wants to excise it (or even understands it), I'll seek another.

In the fifth century, there lived an old Christian saint who stood nearly by himself for the doctrine of the trinity when it seemed the whole world would pass into Arianism. He was so alone in his fervent belief that his tombstone read "Athenasius contra mundum" (Athenasius against the world). He was a man who looked square into the face of his times and said , "Not that way, but this". And the times changed, back to the truth, back to the right way. Today Arianism is found only in the Jehovah's Witnesses, and no one remembers Athenasius. I didn't even know if I spelled his name correctly and had to go look it up. But he saw into the future further than most. And he was right. Today there's nary an argument about it.

I don't know when the times will change back, if they ever do. I don't know when the cancer of ubiquitous messianic government will be revealed for the fraud it is. But I hope to be standing consistently against it, like Athenasius, not because I want to be elected or even remembered, but simply because it's a cheat.

Big Love

Stanley Kurtz dispproves:

We can't licence polygamy without also promoting polyamory. Traditional polygamy, by its nature, will have limited appeal in America (as Tierney correctly notes). But polyamory has much greater potential appeal, and poses a much deeper danger to the American family (which Tierney ignores).

Take away the stigma against multiple-partner marriage, and our larger family system will be profoundly weakened. It's the stigma and the resulting secrecy that limit the social effects of multi-partner unions now. Change that, and you will see deep systemic consequences.

The weakness of the libertarian position is the illusion that the effects of legalization and destigmatization would be limited to what Tierney calls "a few consenting adults."

This is the problem that arises out of the government licencing marriage in the first place. Rick Santorum was raked over the coals for saying that allowance of gay marriage would eventually mean allowance of polygamy and polyamory; his only mistake was that he probably didn't mean "eventually" to mean "within a few short years." The gays, of course, recoiled at the accusation, yet there's no logical reason to stop at any given point once the dike is breached. But is that a weakness in the libertarian position? What's wrong with the government simply letting anyone marry whom they choose?

The question for the Christian when it comes to polygamy is twofold: "is the practice immoral" (in other words, should Christians take part in it?) and "should the government enforce a certain kind of marriage through licencing?"

The first question is easy to answer. While single marriage is probably preferred, plural marriage was practiced by men of God and implemented by God on occasion. Therefore it is not, in and of itself, immoral.

In fact, when God was chewing out David for adultery and murder, he spoke through the prophet Nathan:

And Nathan said to David, "You are that man. The LORD God of Israel says this: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul; And I gave you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given you even more.'"
-- 2Sam 12:7-8

In short, God gave David multiple wives. Abraham had several wives, as did Jacob (the father of the Israelites). The scriptures show that this caused severe family problems - or at least contributed to them; the patriarchs weren't always the best parents anyway - but that does not make the practice universally immoral, merely unwise on occasion.

For the Christian in church leadership, however, the question is closed:

Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
-- 1Tim 3:12

I wonder, at times, at how the church imposes the "one wife" rule so consistently, but not the "have your kids under control" rule. PKs are legendary for their troublemaking, yet I have never seen a Christian booted from leadership for failing the second part of God's leadership rule.

But on the second question, the libertarian and the Christian have some common ground: marriage is not a creation of government; it is a creation of God. It stands before the state and is above the state, and if the state were, for example, to only recognize gay marriages, it would still be the duty of the Christian to act as God intended, that is to marry someone of the opposite sex, for life, no matter the consequences.

National Review and the conservatives state that widespread polygamous or polyamoric marriage would tend to weaken society, and I agree - or rather I would if the state was as fond of enforcing marriage contracts as it is of licencing the act in the first place. Yet what is the difference, as far as the strength of the family is concerned - between polyamory and what happens at most bars every Friday night? What is the difference - as far as the strength of the family is concerned - between a man who has 3 wives and a woman who has kids by 3 different men, none of whom she has married?

Polygamy would weaken the family if the family today was made up solely of couples who had kids solely in marriage. But it is not, and so polygamy would probably strengthen certain families while at the same time undermining others.

Marriage arrangements arise through culture, which is driven over the long-term by survival needs. In a land where many men die young and women have no ability to care for themselves, polygamy acts as something of a Social Security system. In some agrarian societies it's necessary, which is why it survives. In modern societies where everyone can learn and earn and take care of themselves, it is not necessary. But then neither is single marriage.

Which is precisely why I think the government ought to simply butt out. If anyone can have sex with whom they wish (and they can and do) what is the problem with people who wish to make a commitment of that?

I don't think it will survive or at least be widespread. Call me selfish, but I have no desire to share my wife, nor she any desire to share me. Our marriage, no matter what government says, will remain single and heterosexual. I suspect that feeling is nearly universal.

What it would do is give the church a chance to show how its marriage (whether defined as single universally or only in church leadership) is more stable and creates better families than polyamory, polygamy, or no marriage at all. If we're correct that this is what God wants, then that should have real effects in our lives when compared to the lives of those doing what God doesn't want.

We currently have the ability to demonstrate that though we as an organization have failed, for the most part, to create better families than those outside the church. That, to me, is the real issue.

As Paul said:

For it is no business of mine to be judging those who are outside; but it is yours to be judging those who are among you.
-- 1Cor 5:12

What the world does is its own business, and it not a concern of the church nor the Christians in it. If our way is better, that will be shown through our actions, our marriages, our families. If it's not shown there, then that is a far greater problem for us than polygamy.

Link to this post ::

---

Biblical Tectonics

From the files of historical speculation...just for fun, let's see if we can count my assumptions.

I mentioned below that the modern theory of Continental Drift (plate tectonics) was proposed in about 1912 and became a dominant geological theory in the late 1950s, once the generation of scientists who held to the fixity of the continents died off.

We look at a map and Continental Drift is obvious to us (and actually, I think the evidence for it is pretty good as well, which is a whole different kettle of fish). So what does Genesis have to say about it? Quite a bit, actually. Well, possibly.

In the original creation account, God creates the globe covered with water. Then in Genesis 1:9, it says, "And God said, 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.'"

All the water in one place implies one ocean and one land mass. For sake of argument, let's call that land mass "Pangaea."

Some years later, the flood comes, again covering that single continent with water. Only Noah and his family survive, finally landing upon "the mountains of Ararat." Of course, at the time they could not have been mountains, having just been covered with water. That they are mountains today makes me think that the odds of finding a boat on them are pretty long, but that's just me. The land arises in an incredibly violent earth movement to push the water away, but we still have one continent.

Some years after that, we have an episode called the Tower of Babel. God has told mankind to inhabit the whole Earth and they refuse, gathering on the Plains of Shinar (probably in modern Iraq) and building a city called Babel that will eventually become Babylon. God throws down the city and confusticates the language in Gen 11, causing the scattering that he originally commanded.

But there's a strange verse at the end of the prior chapter, Gen 10:25. It seeks to explain how a certain man received his name, and the name of the man is "Peleg" (PLG in the original Hebrew, which was written without vowels), the son of Eber from whom the Hebrews will get their name. It says:

And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.

For in his days was the earth divided - now a lot of folks have said that the "earth" here means the people of the earth, as the 1599 Geneva Bible footnotes say, "This division came by the diversity of language." But that may not be the case at all.

The "earth" here is the Hebrew "erets," precisely the same word used in Gen 1:10 when God called the dry land "earth." (It it literally says, "and God called the dry earth," with land being added in English to make the sentence comprehensible).

A second clue that we're talking about the earth/ground as opposed to the earth/inhabitants comes from Peleg's name itself. The root PLG in Hebrew can mean 'division' (PaLaG) and 'a small channel of water; a rill' (PeLeG). It carries a similar meaning in Greek: to divide with water.

Now, why should we care that the root is the same across languages? Remember, at this time everyone spoke the same language, and it's not unlikely that the 'confused' languages carried at least traces of their original meanings.

Bernard Northrup says, "in classical Greek, from the period of Homer, there are 18 nouns that I know of that use the root PLG in the same way that it is used in the Hebrew of the Old Testament. Indeed, all uses relate to the ocean in some way. Two of these Greek words survive in Modern English having the same implication. They refer to the "pelagic" depths of the ocean and to "archipelagos" or chains of islands in the sea."

There is our root again, PeLaGic and archiPeLaGos, both referring this time to water. The Greek root PLK carries a similar meaning, to divide with an axe, thus our modern English word "Pelican," which comes originally from the Greek "pelekan," showing how words pass language to language.

So it's possible that Peleg got his name from the event where God divided the land (earth/erets) by means of water. In other words, one continent was separated into many continents with water in between.

Same story (one continent to many), same evidence (continents fit, rock formations fit), but obviously a different time scale.

OK, if you counted my assumptions (6451?), you're probably wise in writing the whole thing off. But I think it's at least food for thought, and an interesting speculation. Hey, it's Friday night. What do you expect?

Link to this post ::

---

Arguing with the Radio

My latest silver post is up at Silver Strategies:

I was pretty surprised this morning when the preacherman on my radio started talking about inflation.

“Inflation,” he said in his impressive Australian accent, “is an increase in supply. And America has lately seen an inflation in the supply of many things, including knowledge, entertainment, and money.”

“So far, so good,” I thought. But I was soon thankful that the country roads on which I drive are sparsely traveled in the early mornings, for his next sentence nearly sent my car careening into the ditch....

Link to this post ::

---

Another re-write

University of Leicester geologists, Professor Andy Saunders and Dr Marc Reichow, are taking a fresh look at what may actually have wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago and caused other similarly cataclysmic events, aware they may end up exploding a few popular myths.

The idea that meteorite impacts caused mass extinctions has been in vogue over the last 25 years, since Louis Alverez’s research team in Berkeley, California published their work about an extraterrestrial iridium anomaly found in 65-million-year-old layers at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary. This anomaly only could be explained by an extraterrestrial source, a large meteorite, hitting the Earth and ultimately wiping the dinosaurs – and many other organisms - off the Earth’s surface.

Professor Saunders commented:

“Impacts are suitably apocalyptic. They are the stuff of Hollywood. It seems that every kid’s dinosaur book ends with a bang. But are they the real killers and are they solely responsible for every mass extinction on earth? There is scant evidence of impacts at the time of other major extinctions e.g., at the end of the Permian, 250 million years ago, and at the end of the Triassic, 200 million years ago. The evidence that has been found does not seem large enough to have triggered an extinction at these times.”

The key phrase, of course, being "in vogue." That the dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor is one of things that's known by everyone today, though I'll admit I'm old enough that when I was a kid, everyone knew the dinosaurs were wiped out by mammals eating their eggs. Or maybe I just went to a bad school...our textbooks actually had pictures of the moon being birthed out of the Pacific Ocean basin, an impossibility we realize now that we've been there.

In both cases, in fact, in a lot of cases, there is "scant evidence" for what happened in the past. There's a theory that fits a few very important facts (while often ignoring others) better than prior theories, so it replaces the theory. That's how science is supposed to work. Then it catches the public imagination and becomes one of those things everyone knows and is afraid to question but that later generations laugh at. Everyone knows, but much of it ain't so.

In reality, Science is done by men so it works just like everything else - like business, like government, like religion: people are wedded to their ideas more fervently than their spouses, and it takes a new generation to arise and throw off those things that everyone knows. Francis Bacon noticed that the continents fit together in the 17th century, Wegener proposed a theory of Continental drift near the turn of the 20th. It wasn't until the 1950s, when the old generation of scientists died off, that Continental Drift became widely accepted. Of course, today it's one of those things everyone knows. Do you know the real evidence upon which it's based?

So science rolls on, with each generation both learning and unlearning, yet never coming to any final answers for the vast majority of things everyone knows. While we're waiting for our myths to be exploded, however, we can have some pretty cool fights over what 'science' is going to be taught in schools.

Link to this post ::

---

My Silly Girl passes on a little advice:

THE GOOD WIFE'S GUIDE (HOUSEKEEPING MONTHLY 13 MAY 1955)

• Have dinner ready. Plan ahead, even the night before, to have a delicious meal ready, on time for his return. This is a way of letting him know that you have been thinking about him and are concerned about his needs. Most men are hungry when they come home and the prospect of a good meal (especially his favorite dish) is part of the warm welcome needed.
• Prepare yourself. Take 15 minutes to rest so you'll be refreshed when he arrives. Touch up your make-up, put a ribbon in your hair and be fresh-looking. He has just been with al lot of work-weary people.
• Be a little gay and a little more interesting for him. His boring day may need a lift and it's one of your duties is to provide it.
• Clear away the clutter. Make one last trip through the main part of the house just before your husband arrives.
• Gather up schoolbooks, toys, papers, etc., and then run a dust cloth over the tables.
• Over the cooler months of the year you should prepare and light a fire for him to unwind by. Your husband will feel he has reached a haven of rest and order, and it will give you a lift too. After all, catering for his comfort will provide you with immense personal satisfaction.
• Prepare the children. Take a few minutes to wash the children's hands and faces (if they are small), comb their hair and, if necessary, change their clothes. They are little treasures and he would like to see them playing the part. Minimize all noise. At the time of his arrival, eliminate all noise of the washer, dryer or vacuum. Try to encourage the children to be quiet.
• Be happy to see him.
• Greet him with a warm smile and show sincerity in your desire to please him.
• Listen to him. You may have a dozen important things to tell him, but the moment of his arrival is not the time. Let him talk first- remember, his topics of conversation are more important than yours.
• Make the evening his, Never complain if he comes home late or goes out to dinner, or other places of entertainment without you. Instead, try to understand his world of strain and pressure and his very real need to be at home and relax.
• Your goal: Try to make sure your home is a place of peace, order and tranquillity where your husband can renew himself in body and spirit.
• Don't greet him with complaints and problems.
• Don't complain if he's late home for dinner or even if he stays out all night. Count this as minor compared to what he might have gone through that day.
• Make him comfortable. Have him lean back in a comfortable chair or have him lie down in the bedroom. Have a cool or warm drink ready for him.
• Arrange his pillow and offer to take off his shoes. Speak in a low, soothing and pleasant voice.
• Don't ask him questions about his actions or question his judgment or integrity. Remember, he is the master of the house and as such will always exercise his will with fairness and truthfulness. You have no right to question him.
• A good wife always knows her place.

Sometimes I wonder if these lists weren't meant to create the Feminista Revolution in the first place...either that, or considering the numbers of typos I fixed, perhaps they are created recently for the purpose of justifying it retroactively.

Link to this post ::

---

Still Looking

Live Science reports on a habit that dies hard:

High on Mt. Ararat in eastern Turkey, there is a baffling mountainside "anomaly," a feature that one researcher claims may be something of biblical proportions.

Images taken by aircraft, intelligence-gathering satellites and commercial remote-sensing spacecraft are fueling an intensive study of the intriguing oddity.

But whether the anomaly is some geological quirk of nature, playful shadows, a human-made structure of some sort, or simply nothing at all—that remains to be seen.

Whatever it is, the anomaly of interest rests at 15,300 feet (4,663 meters) on the northwest corner of Mt. Ararat, and is nearly submerged in glacial ice.

It would be easy to call it merely a strange rock formation. But at least one man wonders if it could be the remains of Noah's Ark—a vessel said to have been built to save people and selected animals from the Great Flood, the 40 days and 40 nights of deluge as detailed in the Book of Genesis...

Whatever the anomaly is (and obviously I don't know - that's what scientists are for) the current search is simply the latest in a very long line of people looking for the most famous boat in history. Many claims (like sightings by locals, Russian Pilots, and seemingly a squillion others) but very little evidence have been brought down from Ararat, which may or may not even be the correct mountain to be looking on. Every couple years Noah's Ark makes the news cycle; it even makes National Geographic on occasion.

The search, of course, is nothing new. 2000 years ago, Flavius Josephus (Antiquities, Book I, Ch. 3) had the following to say:

After this, the ark rested on the top of a certain mountain in Armenia... the Armenians call this place, The Place of Descent; for the ark being saved in that place, its remains are shown there by the inhabitants to this day.

Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood, and of this ark; among whom is Berosus the Chaldean. For when he is describing the circumstances of the flood, he goes on thus: "It is said there is still some part of this ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyaeans; and that some people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they take away, and use chiefly as amulets for the averting of mischiefs."

Hieronymus the Egyptian also, who wrote the Phoenician Antiquities, and Mnaseas, and a great many more, make mention of the same.

Nay, Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them; where he speaks thus: "There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote."

Of course, it's just like mankind to cut the boat up into pieces for good luck charms, and even several thousand years ago it had the feel of myth (not 'untrue' myth, but 'long ago and far away' myth). Given that even the ancients found the existence of the ark the stuff of myth and legends, I would be very surprised if the baffling mountaintop anomaly under study turns out to be something other than a strange rock formation.

Link to this post ::

---

Maybe they should dig in Washington

An archaeologist at the University of Liverpool is examining more than 1,000 Roman silver coins from museums around the world in order to establish their true economic value.

Dr Matthew Ponting... believes that analysis of the coins will also shed more light on the political and economic issues of the Roman Empire...

Silver coins formed the backbone of currency in the Roman Empire. Roman emperors manipulated the silver content of the coins to solve short-term financial problems frequently caused by government overspending. For the most part, this manipulation involved the reduction of the silver content of the coinage in conjunction with a drop in weight.

It wasn't only the Romans, of course, who debased their own coins. Throughout history (or at least since government coinage began ca. 500bc) government has generally given in to the temptation to remove the value from the coins in order to increase the money supply so they could spend more than they brought in.

The results were always the same: a society that began in freedom and growth fell prey to rising prices, rising crime, and societal dissolution. Of course, just because our own prices have gone up ten-fold in the few short years since we took the gold and silver out of our own coinage doesn't mean anything, right?

The scary thing is that today, unlike any prior time in history, there's not a single government anywhere in the world that has any silver or gold in any of their circulating coinage. So either we've discovered that gold and silver were never necessary at all, or we're about to discover why they were always necessary.

Place your bets?

Link to this post ::

---

Irony

(CNN) -- Three people have been arrested in connection with 10 church fires in Alabama last month, officials said Wednesday.

Two of the suspects are Ben Moseley and Russell Debusk, both 19 and students at Birmingham Southern College, said Richard Montgomery, Alabama's state fire marshal.

The third suspect is Matthew Lee Cloyd, a 20-year-old student at the University of Alabama at Birmingham...

Assuming (I know, I know) they got the right guys, it will be interesting to see whether this is pushed as a hate crime of race (5 of the 10 churches were predominently black) or one of religion (they were all Baptist of various stripes). I suspect that the mainstream media will go for the first, the Christian media the second.

But the picture above is interesting; it's one of the accused, Ben Moseley, starring as "Raul" in the college play "Extremities", which is described on the Birmingham Southern's web site as:

“Extremities” takes a profound look at sexual violence, revenge, and just how far we can be pushed before we respond in a way we may regret.

Perhaps he has responded to something in a way he may regret. Oh well, I'm sure he'll be able to star in the stage production of "Firestarter" once he gets out on parole.

Link to this post ::

---

We're just a couple of frozen embryos

LONDON, England -- The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that a British woman has no right to use frozen embryos to have a baby without the consent of the man who provided the sperm.

The court upheld a UK law that says permission from both parents is needed at every stage of the in vitro fertilization (IVF) process, as well as for the storage and implantation of the fertilized eggs.

While I have nothing to note about this case - other than the irony of a law that requires a man's permission to make him a father via in-vitro fertilization, but not to make him a former father via abortion - I thought this would be a good time to present to you "The Frozen Embryo Song":

We do not have fingers and/or toes
We're just a couple of frozen embryos

We're a little short on eyes, ears, lips, and nose
We're just a couple of frozen embryos

One day we might grow up to be President
All we're looking for is just a womb to rent

If we played ball we might be semi-pros
We're just a couple of frozen embryos

Link to this post ::

---

If you suffer from allergies, the terrorists win

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Suffer from springtime allergies? You could be among the first affected by the USA Patriot Act poised for final congressional passage this week.

Besides terrorism, the bill takes aim at the production of methamphetamine, a highly addictive drug that cannot be manufactured without a key ingredient of everyday cold and allergy medicines. The bill would impose new limits next month for how much relief a person can buy over the counter.

And beginning Sept. 30, it'll take a flash of ID to buy that medication.

Following the Democrats' futile filibuster last year and contrary to Harry Reid's boast that the Democrats "killed the Patriot Act," this great terror-fighting piece of legislation, named so that no red-blooded American could possibly oppose it, holding out to us the promise of peace and safety and wealth and sunshine, will pass the House this week. As I've said before, the GOP must thank God every night for opposition so futile.

That being said, by now it ought to be obvious that the real purpose of the Patriot Act has less to do with terrorism than it does with giving the federal government increased law enforcement and surveillance power over everyone, centralizing what the founders decentralized, and in many ways, undoing the work of that great generation.

The GOP has weighed the founders in the balance and found them wanting. After all, there's no possible way Jefferson could have been thinking of the modern GOP when he said this:

"What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the state powers into the hands of the general government."

Link to this post ::

---

HonorBound_Men brings the theology:

Because of what Romans 1:19-21 says, I always thought that every person was given the capacity by God to know He exists without having to have been told by somebody.

Helen Keller seems to have been a perfert example of this. After she gained the ability to communicate with the world she lived in, when asked if she knew about God, she replied that yes she did know Him but did not know His name.

By scripture it would seem that no one will stand before God and claim ignorance of Him as justification for their sin, they will be without excuse.

I think that's exactly correct. But it also illustrates a point that David Craft mentioned while quoting Simon and Garfunkle: "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

Belief, as much as we would like to think it's solely an act of the intellect ("show me evidence and I'll believe") is shown by both scripture and experience to be primarily an act of the will. That's one reason Jesus refused to trick-monkey his miracles. When people told him, "show us and we'll believe," he consistently said that belief was not merely a matter of being shown, but required willfil effort on their part.

Whether in matters divine or mundane, humanity has an incredible propensity to find evidence that supports what we choose to believe. Why is the wife the last to know? Why can some people honestly believe in unseen, worldwide, centuries-long conspiracies or aliens or thetans or virgin births? Because belief is a choice.

But these choices are especially troublesome for intelligent people (who tend to lean on the intellect) who also have a moral reason to deny the consequent, because they forget, in their sometimes honest attempt to justify unbelief, that they are just as prone to self-deceit as other men. Perhaps they are even more prone. And yet according to God, such unbelief, chosen as a matter of will rather than evidence, still has moral consequences.

That's why Jesus said, "You must (moral imperative) believe." There were plenty who saw his miracles and refused, even plotting to murder Lazarus after Jesus raised him from the dead. There are plenty who believe without evidence many things, including but not limited to belief in God, simply because they choose to do so entirely for reasons of their own.

Does that make evidence, facts, or science worthless? Of course not. For most facts there is no moral consequence. If I believe the earth revolves around the sun or the sun around the earth, neither affects whether I ought to bed my neighbor's daughter. That leaves such facts free to help us, to be applied widely, to improve our lives.

But there are certain beliefs that have such consequences. If God exists, then it's quite possible that he cares very much whether I bed my neighbor's daughter. And if he has some moral authority to say that I oughtn't, then I have two choices: I either obey him or I get rid of him. And I have built into me the ability to choose either and bear myself the moral consequence of such a choice. It is no surprise that the 'science' over which the most rabid fighting occurs (and those areas most wrought with fraud) are those that directly impact the above question.

I think the reason the existence of God cannot be "proven" is simply because He calls us to choose to believe. If we look at the beauty of the stars, we see power and majesty. If we look at a lion eating a gazelle or a young child dying of plague, we see futility, cruelty, and meaningless. "Vanity of vanities," saith the preacher. "All is vanity and a striving after wind."

And therefore each must choose. And what we choose we are confirmed in, by God and our own will, as Paul says in the passage Honorbound_Men quoted in the comments.

But whatever we choose, that we are responsible for. TANSTAAFL. Opportunity cost. Every rose has its thorn. Unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

Either God rules or we rule. Either He is the final measure or we are. The choice is ours, either through delegation or because we are the highest intelligence on the planet. And that choice often decides the rest of the choices we will make in life, wise or unwise, for good or evil.

Link to this post ::

---

Dating the Acts of the Apostles

Those of you who have been here a bit have no doubt noticed that while I'm not a big fan of theology, I'm quite tempted toward historical speculation concerning the scriptures. I make no pretentions that I have stumbled upon "long lost truths" or am able to reveal the final word on what has been argued for centries; I simply do it because that's my preferred way to study the scriptures, especially the historical ones.

If there is an historical book in the Bible, certainly the Acts of the Apostles is it. For those of you who are not familiar with Luke's second book, I'll give a quick intro, though I have to warn you that what follows will probably be of little interest to you.

The Acts recounts the first 30 or so years of Church history. Beginning with Jesus' assumption into Heaven, it follows the spread of Christianity from its origins as a 150-member strong sect of Judaism in Jerusalem to the Apostle Paul awaiting trial in Rome ca. 62 ad. It recounts how Christianity expanded to include Samaritans (half-Jews) and eventually welcomed into its arms the gentiles who would eventually take it over in a very real sense. Looking back from today, Acts is something of a baton handoff in history, a bridge between where Christianity had its Jewish roots to where it laid down the European roots that would eventually bring Europe back from the dark ages that followed the collapse of the Roman Empire.

Acts is a sequel to Luke's Gospel - both being dedicated to the same man, Theophilus, and both obviously the work of the same hand - and is famous for its careful treatment of places, titles, and especially pronouns. And while having been occasionally accused of inaccuracy, Acts has actually been the foundantion of many archaeological discoveries and has always been shown to be precise when the chips are down. It's no wonder archaeologist Sir William Ramsay called the author of Luke/Acts "an historican of the first rank," for whenever digging in the ground has been able to answer questions about Luke's nomenclature, it has consistently resolved them in Luke's favor. If there's one book upon which I base my belief in the historical accuracy of the Bible, Acts is it. Or at least Acts is the starting point.

But when was it written? Asking anyone that date will reveal more about the answerer than the book: dates are given from the mid 70s ad to the mid second century, because it is not mentioned by name in any of the extant chuch fathers until about 177. But the plethora of answers and reasons simply illustrate that no one knows for certain. And while the answer may not have any theological import, I think it has historical import.

But I am inspired by the character of Sidney Wang, the Charlie Chan ripoff character from Neil Simon's 1996 masterpiece movie "Murder by Death." When a moose head on the wall gives three detectives a significant clue, Milo Perrier (based on Christie's Hercule Poirot) responds that he does not like it one bit.

"I like it," replies Wang. "But do not understand it."

And it's the "not understanding" that drives me to a date of Acts far earlier than most biblical scholars.

Studying Luke is a lesson in precision. For example, Luke says explicitly that the cities of Lystra and Derbe were in Lycaonia, contradicting both Pliny and Cicero. Yet Luke was proven correct once the cities were excavated. He has also been proven correct in unusual Roman titles, and several sites have excavated exact places he spoke of (e.g. the theatre at Ephesus.) It is that kind of precision that I expect from Luke, and yet when I do not find it, I conclude there must be a reason why. And I like it, though I do not understand it.

Up to Acts 12, Peter has been the main mover in Acts, if not in the Church itself. He is the first to baptize non-Jews and must answer for it to a church full of Jews who never expected things to get that far. Eventually he is imprisoned by King Herod and miraculously escapes. Luke says of that (in Acts 12:17) that Peter "left and went to another place." Certainly there is not a more purposefully vague sentence in all of historical literature. It may be exactly this that dates Acts for us, and I'll return to the reason later.

Once Peter disappears from Acts, the book is dedicated to the three missionary journeys of Paul, with whom Luke travels. The fact that Luke was an eyewitness to many of these events has served as sufficient reason for many scholars to ignore what happened to Peter.

Yet Peter is around. He appears once in Jerusalem, when the first Christian council decided that gentile Christians need not embrace the Mosaic law (Acts 15). He appears in Antioch, in a faceoff with Paul over the same issue (Gal 2). And he is eventually crucified in Rome (ca. 64 ad) under the same Neronian persecution that takes Paul's life, after serving as - by Christian "tradition" (not quite the same as history) - the first bishop of Rome, later promoted to and as the first Pope. Why is he not mentioned? And why does Acts end with Paul preaching the gospel rather than suffering the same martyrdom that he visited on Stephen in Acts 7?

I think the reason that he is not mentioned is the same reason Luke says (otherwise inexplicably) that Peter "went to another place." Peter is, due to his escape from prison, a fugitive. He is on the lam. In Peter's first epistle, he says to his fellow believers that "she who is in Babylon greets you," though there has long been a question of whether Peter was in the literal Babylon (unlikely, since it had been mostly destroyed) or in someplace named a spiritual Babylon, with Rome being most likely location. In other words, Peter remained vitally important to the growth of the church, yet his actual location was a closely guarded secret.

Take that back to Acts. Peter and Paul had met on several occasions, the last of which was not mentioned by Luke. Peter was in Rome, the very place that Paul was headed, yet he is not mentioned by Luke. Peter is not mentioned in the last 10 years' worth of territory covered by Acts. Paul does not greet Peter in his epistle to the Romans, though he mentiones a whole chapter of others. The probable reason? Peter's location was a carefully guarded secret.

Now if we accept that as a fact, then certain things fall into place. Peter may have been a fugitive, but after his death in 64 in Rome, his prior movements would not have demanded secrecy. In fact, if it were written after 64 ad, there would be every reason to show how Peter, who in Luke's Gospel denies Christ, paid the ultimate price for his rediscovered faith. If it were written after 64 ad, there would be every reason to show how Paul, who persecuted the Church in Acts 7-8, eventually gave his life for what he had previously denied. Both would have been a valuable witness to Theophilus, the recipient of the Acts. In other words, Acts was written the way it was, hiding the location and activities of its original main character, Peter, because it was still important that his location remain a secret, therefore it was written before 64 ad.

If it was written before 64ad, there's no reason not to conclude that it was written in 61ad, right when the book ends, and that Luke completed it and sent it off at the very time he placed Paul for "two full years in his own rented quarters" in Rome. What happened in 64 ad, that the pillars of the church to whom were assigned both the Jews and Gentiles (Gal 2:7) were both martyred in the same city, was not mentioned because by that time the Acts of the Apostles had already assumed its final form and was circulating among the churches.

I like it, but do not understand it fully, though I'm happy to make a preliminary theory, taking into account that Sidney Wang was also apt to speak before thinking things through completely.

Labels: bible

Link to this post ::

---

A Marriage made in Arkansas

Hillary Clinton, a leading opponent of DP World's takeover of some US port operations, was this week forced to admit that she did not know her husband had advised Dubai leaders on how to handle the growing dispute.

But former President Bill Clinton's ties to Dubai and the United Arab Emirates should not have come as a surprise to his New York senator wife.

All I can say is, "Yeah, right."

If there was ever an example of how both parties play both sides of every fence, this is it.

Link to this post ::

---

An Official State Religion?

Mitzibel asks if she can cry "Separation of Church and State" yet:

State bill proposes Christianity be Missouri’s official religion

09:24 PM CST on Saturday, March 4, 2006
By John Mills, News 4

Missouri legislators in Jefferson City considered a bill that would name Christianity the state's official "majority" religion.

House Concurrent Resolution 13 has is pending in the state legislature. Many Missouri residents had not heard about the bill until Thursday.

Karen Aroesty of the Anti-defamation league, along with other watch-groups, began a letter writing and email campaign to stop the resolution.

The resolution would recognize "a Christian god," and it would not protect minority religions, but "protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs.

The resolution also recognizes that, "a greater power exists," and only Christianity receives what the resolution calls, "justified recognition."

State representative David Sater of Cassville in southwestern Missouri, sponsored the resolution, but he has refused to talk about it on camera or over the phone.

Were the headline accurate, the answer would certainly be in the affirmative, which was the answer I sent her originally. Upon further review, however, the headline is far less accurate than the resolution itself, which I found here and analyze below:

House Concurrent Resolution No. 13 93RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY

The first thing to recognize is that we are not dealing with a bill or proposed law, but a resolution, which is generally defined as: "A formal statement of a decision or opinion by the House or Senate or both... A concurrent resolution is presented in both chambers and usually expresses a congressional view on a matter not within congressional jurisdiction."

So we are dealing with an opinion, not a law. And it is also an opinion on a matter that is "not within congressional (or in this case state legislative) jurisdiction". What is then its power or force? None. In fact, here's an example of a Congressional resolution condemning religious intolerance toward Muslims. Is it a law? No. Does it have any legal force? No. All it is is an opinion about a matter that the legislature cannot or will not legislate on.

Back to Missouri:

Whereas, our forefathers of this great nation of the United States recognized a Christian God and used the principles afforded to us by Him as the founding principles of our nation; and

The various "whereas"clauses set up a set of 'facts' upon which the actual resolution will be based. In the first one, an historical assertion is made that our forefathers recognized a Christian God. Of course, it's open to interpretation and argument. No doubt most of them did personally and that many states did so legally. But there's plenty of doubt if we're trying to say the Constitution is based on Christianity. It presumes a very Christian understanding of human nature and therefore the need for limited government and separation of powers. But God is not acknowledged openly in the Federal Constitution.

Whereas, as citizens of this great nation, we the majority also wish to exercise our constitutional right to acknowledge our Creator and give thanks for the many gifts provided by Him; and

"We...wish to exercise." Tough to argue with desires. If they say that's what they wish, we'll have to take their word for it.

Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object; and

I don't think anyone would doubt that elected officials should protect the majority's rights. It falls a bit short, imo, in this separation, however. Elected officials should not separate majority from minority here. The rights of ALL must be protected, not simply respected. I don't respect any number of religions. But they deserve protection nonetheless.

Whereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted in the Constitution of the United States of America by the founding fathers; and

Another "we wish." Again, who can argue?

Whereas, we as elected officials recognize that a Greater Power exists above and beyond the institutions of mankind:

This one is tricky. "The Supreme Ruler of the Universe" is already recognized in the Missouri Constitution: "We the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, do establish this constitution for the better government of the state." But do we want legal resolutions pertaining to theological subjects? What if the Missouri Legislature were to "recognize" the perpetual virginity of Mary or the office of Prophet held by Mohammed? Then it might get tricky.

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-third General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, that we stand with the majority of our constituents and exercise the common sense that voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state, but rather the justified recognition of the positive role that Christianity has played in this great nation of ours, the United States of America.

At least, we come to the meat of the thing. The resolution is a statement of opinion, that they stand with the majority of constituents (see note below) that voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on private property are not a joining of church and state. Well, according to the original (and I think correct) reading of the First Amendment, they are not.

However, I don't think that's really the issue. Call me cynical, but I think what we have is one group trying to use the moral power of the government to encourage certain political constituencies and another group using it to raise money. I'm sure they'll both be happy if the fight lasts a good long time. Bottom line it's the legislature trying to simply make a statement, knowing that there will be a fight and knowing that the result of the fight is legally meaningless.

That's not really the type of fight that I'm wont to get involved in.

Note: The use of 'majority' is troublesome, because the way I read it is that it presumes the majority are a) Christian and b) want prayer in schools. Those statement may be true, but I don't think they are the same majority. I certainly fall under a) but not b) and I suspect there are some who fall under b) but not a).

Link to this post ::

---

Silver rocks on

Every once in a while, I break my own arm patting myself on the back:

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Silver futures closed at a fresh 22-year high Friday, up more than 4% for the week with the gains tied to expectations that an exchange-traded fund based on the metal will soon be launched...

The May contract for silver closed at $10.235 an ounce on the New York Mercantile Exchange, up 2.7 cents, following an earlier rise to $10.31, a level not seen since at least 1984.

At one time this blog (or at least its predecessor on Blog City) was pretty much dedicated to silver. That was back when silver was half its present price. Luckily for silver bugs, nothing has really changed, except my desire not to bore my readers by endless repetition of the same theme.

Oh, the price has doubled, but that was inevitable - and if you learn only one thing about the investing strategy I follow, learn that I only bet on the inevitable...it's safer that way. What has not changed is any of the reasons that silver will rise further: there is still a silver deficit, silver is still a byproduct metal, and silver is still far below its historic ratio with gold. In fact, if gold were to keep its present price and silver to regain its historical ratio in the 12-1 or 16-1 range, silver would be priced north of $30 an ounce instead of today's $10. This kind of opportunity is literally once in a lifetime.

But this is not an effort to get you to buy silver. I'll gladly admit that I haven't bought any physical silver since it was half its current price. If I were a financial advisor, I would advise my clients to wait for the next pullback where everyone gets negative on silver and buy then. But that's not my job. I manage databases, so what do I know?

But what this is is an affort to illustrate how certain outcomes are inevitable based on certain actions. Silver was bound to double (as it's bound to double from here and maybe double twice again after that) because as I said three years ago, certain actions have inevitable consequences. Some people pooh-poohed and some said I was bearish on America, as if the fact that I said the dollar would be destroyed by over-creation was a wish for the same. I want to stop the over-creation, but GWB has other ideas and he's the president. Thus we are left to prepare for the consequences.

Now that both gold and silver are at quarter-century highs (and everything else that's not a dollar - like food and houses - are at all time highs) it may seem like a bad idea to trade dollars for other things - "buy low sell high" being a perfectly rational investment strategy. And it would be, if the powers that define the dollar were committed to maintaining its value.

But they are not. In fact, they are doing the opposite:

The Bush administration has been pushing China for the past two years to let its yuan currency appreciate and is widely thought to be moving toward designating China a currency manipulator this spring unless Beijing speeds up its move.

To let the yuan appreciate means to let the dollar further fall, and such is the official policy of the US government. If the dollar falls, then everything that is not a dollar goes up by default. Ergo, it is the official policy of the US government that will raise the price of silver.

Invest in the inevitable. No one ever went broke betting on the monetary incompetence of those who think printed pieces of paper hold value in the long run.

Link to this post ::

---

Dock that chick a day's pay for napping on the job...

WASHINGTON - A key Supreme Court justice said Wednesday that Texas Republicans appeared to hurt minority voters when they redrew congressional boundaries that helped the GOP entrench its power in Congress...

The subject matter was extremely technical, and near the end of the argument Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dozed in her chair. Justices David Souter and Samuel Alito, who flank the 72-year-old, looked at her but did not give her a nudge.

I wonder if she drooled...and it's a good thing she doesn't sit by Scalia, who probably would have put an Alka Seltzer on her tongue and then nudged her just as she started to foam all over herself.

While it's at least as funny to think of Ginsberg sleeping through a case that may decide the makeup of government for the next 2 decades as it is to think of Reagan sleeping through a few less important meetings, I can only note in passing that I haven't heard too many jokes about the former yet.

Link to this post ::

---

Some are more equal than others

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Multiculturalism and religious freedom trumped safety concerns in a Canadian Supreme Court decision on Thursday that will allow orthodox Sikh students to carry traditional daggers to school.

In its decision, the court noted that Sikh orthodoxy requires the wearing of the daggers, known as kirpans, even though they are banned from airplanes and some courtrooms.

"Religious tolerance is a very important value of Canadian society," Justice Louise Charron wrote in reasons for the decision after a court case that involved 12-year-old Gurbaj Singh Multani, who was prevented from carrying his kirpan at a Montreal school.

"If some students consider it unfair that Gurbaj Singh may wear his kirpan to school while they are not allowed to have knives in their possession, it is incumbent on the schools to discharge their obligation to instill in their students this value that is ... at the very foundation of our democracy."

Of course, I'm all for people carrying weapons. If those with concealed carry permits and active-duty military personnel were allowed to carry on planes, we could forego all the rubbish about patting down grandma in the airport. And I've said often that if I were king there would be but one law: all women must be armed at all times.

But it is interesting that the Canadian authorities (who still ban the kirpans in some courtrooms) write off the just complaints of those who are not allowed to carry knives because they are of the wrong religion with the statement that "this value is at the very foundation of our democracy."

I thought the reason we believed in democracy was because all people are equal before the law.

UPDATE: Homeschoolers get to wear swords in school:

For their science lesson, Teddy and Elizabeth are joined by three other homeschooled children and their mother, who live down the street in their suburb midway between Baltimore and Washington, D.C.

Before the lesson starts, all five kids change into Renaissance costumes -- long dresses and bonnets for the girls, tunics and swords for the boys...

Link to this post ::

---

Why I Hate Theology

The Jerusalem Post decides that it's Jerry's call:

An evangelical pastor and an Orthodox rabbi, both from Texas, have apparently persuaded leading Baptist preacher Jerry Falwell that Jews can get to heaven without being converted to Christianity.

Televangelist John Hagee and Rabbi Aryeh Scheinberg, whose Cornerstone Church and Rodfei Sholom congregations are based in San Antonio, told The Jerusalem Post that Falwell had adopted Hagee's innovative belief in what Christians refer to as "dual covenant" theology.

This creed, which runs counter to mainstream evangelism, maintains that the Jewish people has a special relationship to God through the revelation at Sinai and therefore does not need "to go through Christ or the Cross" to get to heaven.

Color me just a little bit skeptical, but I don't think that Jerry's opinion about the question is even news, because I don't think God will be asking Jerry for that opinion. But the fact that Falwell's (changed) opinion on the matter is politically important is one of the reasons I really hate theology, which often has as much to do with power politics as it does to do with God's Word.

In the Middle Ages, theology was known as the "Queen of Sciences" because it was supposed to unlock for us the mysteries of God. In most cases, however, it is naught more than extrapolation from a few well-placed (and occasionally misread) verses, a couple ideas brought over from Plato, and a lot of pulpit pounding. But the theology of the Middle Ages was scrapped by the Lutherans and other Protestants, whose theology was eventually scrapped by many of those who today claim their mantle. That ought to clue us in on the limits of human wisdom.

Don't get me wrong: I am a Christian who believes in the Virgin Birth, vicarious atonement, sacrificial death, physical resurrection, and one-day return of Jesus Christ. In those things, I am a 'fundamentalist' (that's what the word means historically; it's not someone who dislikes dancing). I believe in the authority of scripture, the diety of Christ, and that He is my king, with ownership authority over everything I do, I think, I am.

But the question of HOW those things work is a question of theology, and while in truth the answer is 'we don't know,' there are no limits to the reasons that men give for why God must have acted the way He did or the way He will decide what are to us very bothersome questions. The fact that we can never agree across Christendon just shows the world that while we pretend to know, we don't, and much of the world's problem with Christianity is not with Christ so much as it is with our theology.

For example, fundamentalists and Roman Catholics alike believe that Christ was born when Mary was a virgin. The fact that historical Christianity has believed that is undoubted. But we run into problems as soon as we ask the question, "WHY was Christ born of a virgin?"

Some (namely the Roman Catholics) will argue that it had to do with original sin. They further take Augustine's ideas about original sin and apply them to Mary in the form of the Immaculate Conception, another "theological necessity," IMO, which illustrates the trap that many Christians fall into: we must have an answer, even if we have to make one up. Evangelicals will say that it had to do with prophecy - God promised to bring Messiah from a Virgin, and by golly I'll be danged if He didn't do just that - or with Kingdom rights (Joseph wasn't eligible for the Kingship, so Mary must have had Jesus without his input). Theological liberals disbelieve the whole thing, but that's due to a philosophical presupposition that miracles do not occur; it's not attributable to theology one way or another.

The question of the inerrancy of Scripture is another such conundrum. Many Evangelicals believe in plenary inspiration, which means roughly that God moved the authors of scripture such that it is inerrant in the original writings, and therefore it's important to rediscover the 'originals' via lower textual criticism. Some Evangelicals, however, go further (verbal plenary inspiration) and say that God spoke every word verbally and each author acted as sort of a divine scribe, disregarding the fact that scripture was 'updated' occasionally and was written originally without vowels (are the vowels then not inspired?) Some, notably the KJVO faction, argue that God's word is contained only in one specific translation, word-for-word, and that other versions are 'perversions' of God's perfect word. This again is the theology of necessity: if we don't have the originals, we don't have the word of God; since we have the Word of God, therefore it must be in a version we have today, thus it's the KJV. Each view starts with an axiom: God's word is authoritative, which I believe with them, but most will not simply leave it at that. They must explain how it all happens, and perhaps not surprisingly, God has not really told us. Apparently, the specifics are not all that important. I wish we could leave it at that.

But the problem is that Christians spend millions of hours arguing in public over minutia that we simply don't have an answer for. And I doubt it really does anyone any good.

Getting back to Falwell, the questions of whether Jews or anyone else can 'go to Heaven' (that anyone 'goes to Heaven' I find theologically questionable anyway) is as theologically irrelevant as it is, I gather, politically important. The only real question is what God says to men, and that is spelled out in Paul's sermon to the philosophers at Athens: God calls on all men to turn away from sin and self toward Him, and has proved this by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. How and why are questions God has really not explained: either you believe that God will judge the world or you do not. Either you want to obey God or you do not. Is the how and why really worth arguing about?

Falwell's opinion about that is irrelevant, as is mine; all that matters is that God calls on all men to submit to the Lordship of Christ. He is the coming King, the creator of the Universe, who calls on all men to get right with Him. He will rule, as was promised to the Jews, and he will judge the actions and attitudes of all men.

This is not to say that we can't know more than the Bible plainly says; perhaps we can reason our way to more knowledge. But it is to say that every time we take a step away from what the Bible actually says and into what we say it says, we ought to be humble enough to realize and say that we simply do not know for certain; we may think things to be a certain way, but our speculations are not the last word on God's opinions. There's a reason I'm both a fundamentalist and a theological minimalist, and it's because I find most men's answers to the hard questions a combination of political necessity and wishful thinking.

I believe God has a special place in His heart and Kingdom for the Jews; He made promises to them that He will keep. How does that apply to individual Jews in Israel today? I have no idea. Since there is no other name under Heaven by which we must be saved than Christ, what about those who have never heard? Is there some way Christ may save those without knowledge? I have no idea.

But I think the fact is that no one else knows, either. God has left a lot of questions unanswered. And while it is the glory of the Lord to hide things and the glory of man to search them out (Pr 25:2), we need to realize, with all humility, that His ways are not our ways (Isa 55:8). Now we see through a glass darkly (1Cor 13:12), and our bound-to-be-incomplete opinions are not what God works by. He is not a tame lion: He is the creator and owner of the Universe, and we ought to be very careful about putting word into His mouth that He chose not to speak.

Link to this post ::

---