Write Idea

Do Not Smoke Fireworks

2009-07-05T08:08:00.000-07:00

Truthfully I had never considered smoking fireworks. But now that you bring it up . . . .

The Names of Jacob's Sons: Foretelling the Future

2009-01-02T06:18:00.000-08:00

This post is following up on our previous post: Why Torah Is Important to Christianity

Every name in Hebrew has a specific meaning. For more information on this, check out: Names Mean Things.

Consider the meaning of these Hebrew names:

Reuben—Son
Simeon—Hated
Levi—Loved
Judah—Praise
Issichar-wages
Zebulon—Dwell
Dinah-Bride

Now consider them combined:

The messiah came as a Son. He was Hated by some and Loved by others. We should Praise his name because he paid the Wages of sin and soon He will come to Dwell with us plus we will be his Bride.

I heard this from a couple people down a chain, but I think this originates with Monte Judah.

Why Torah Is Important to Christianity

2008-12-30T12:25:00.000-08:00

Torah, is the Hebrew word most often translated "Law" in the Old Testament. It indicates a body of law, instruction, or teaching. It most commonly used in reference to the first five books of the Old Testament, often called by their Greek name: the Pentateuch.

Though the Torah has many functions, the one we are interested in today is its prophetic function. Consider Isiah 46:10:

Declaring the end from the beginning, and from of old that which has not yet been done, saying, ‘My counsel does stand, and all My delight I do,’

Many other passages in Isaiah echo these words, here are two more to consider:

Isa 45:21 “Declare and bring near, let them even take counsel together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has declared it from that time? Is it not I, יהוה (LORD)? And there is no mighty one besides Me, a righteous Ěl (God) and a Saviour, there is none besides Me.

Isa 41:22 “Let them draw near and declare to us what is going to take place; let them declare the former events, what they were, and we consider them, and know the latter end of them; or announce to us what is coming.

Some 30% of the book of Genesis is devoted to the story of Joseph. Why is this important? Holy God as revealed to us the importance of the Torah, for among other things, it reveals the "end from the beginning."

Yahweh has revealed the future to use through His prophets and His Torah. He declares in the book of Amos:

Amo 3:7 For the Master יהוה does no matter unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets.

With these two propositions in mind, it clearly follows that understanding the Torah, understanding the story of Joseph is critical to the understanding of the end times.

Mat 23:34 “Because of this, see, I send you prophets, and wise men, and scholars of Scripture. Some of them you shall kill and impale, and some of them you shall flog in your congregations and persecute from city to city.

Mat 13:52 And He said to them, “Therefore every scholar of Scripture taught in the reign of the heavens is like a householder who brings out of his treasure matters, renewed, and old.”

God has blessed us with many learned men, scholars of Scripture. Ah, the teaching of such a scholar is like music to the ears.

In conclusion, consider the concluding words of the prophet Joel:

Joe 3:19 “Mitsrayim shall become a ruin, and Eḏom a ruin, a wilderness, because of violence done to the people of Yehuḏah, whose innocent blood they shed in their land.
Joe 3:20 “But Yehuḏah shall dwell forever, and Yerushalayim to all generations.
Joe 3:21 “And I shall avenge their blood, which I have not avenged. And יהוה shall be dwelling in Tsiyon!”

In the following days we will follow up on this post by examining truths and prophecies contained within Torah....

The Myth of the Coat of Many Colors

2008-12-29T10:49:00.000-08:00

Yes, I know, this sounds like a strange thought. However, let us check it out…after all, one should form one’s opinion after hearing all of the facts.

If you read one of the common Scripture versions, you will read something like what follows:

Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of many colors. (Gen 37:3, ASV)

Note that “many” is italicized. There is a reason for this; namely, because that is not what Scripture says. The Hebrew word translated פּס (pas) literally means “a long and sleeved tunic” (source: Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Strong’s, et. al.). The three following more scholarly translations render pas correctly:

(Holy Bible from the Ancient Eastern Text) Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his other sons, because he was the son of his old age; and he had made him a rich robe with long sleeves.

(Literal Translation of the Holy Bible) And Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons, because he was a son of old age to him. And he made a robe reaching to the soles of his feet.

(The Scriptures) And Yisra’ĕl loved Yosĕph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age. And he made him a long robe.

There is no compelling reason to translate pas as “many colors” in this instance. A rich long robe is just as probable, or perhaps even more so. Jerom testifies that it was a garment, which reached down to the ankles, and had long sleeves reaching to the hands. [1] Jewish writers echo this sentiment for they call it "passim," because it reached to the palms of the hands. [2] Yes, a "coat of many colors" is a possible translation. However, there is not enough evidence to authoritatively translate it so.

In conclusion, sure, a coat of many colors makes a nice Bible story. But why would we lie (so to speak) to our children for the sake of a nice Bible story? We have no reason other than our own ignorance. The traditions of men have become implanted in our minds. In the words of the author of Titus, we should not listen to "myths and commandments of men, having turned away from the truth" (1:14)

[1] Trad. Heb. in Gen. fol. 72. A.
[2] Bereshit Rabba, ut supra. (sect. 84. fol 73.1.)

Greet Every Home You Enter

2008-12-28T09:34:00.000-08:00

We, as Christians are commanded to bless the homes we enter. Consider the following passages:

Mat 10: 12 “And as you enter into a house, greet it.
Mat 10:13 “And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you.

Luk 10:5 “And whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace to this house.’ “And if indeed a son of peace is there, your peace shall rest on it; and if not, it shall return to you.

The Greek word εἰρήνη (i-rah’nay) signifies prosperity, that is, peace, quietness, and rest. This idea of greeting ties into Matthew 5:47:

“And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others? Are the tax collectors not doing so too?

This command to “salute” or “greet” others is in opposition to the teaching of Maimonides, for he declares,

A man, might not salute his master, nor return a salutation to him in the manner they gave a salutation לרעים, to ‘friends’: and they return it to one another. [1]

We as Christians have a divine duty to 1) bless every home we enter, and 2) to greet others. Both of these are clearly illustrated in the greetings and blessings of Paul and of Peter.

The next time you enter your neighbor’s house, or pass a stranger in the street, what words will you say? Will you remember the words of Messiah?

[1] Hilch. Talmud Tora, c. 5. sect. 5.

Keep up the Good Work Guys

2008-12-24T15:49:00.000-08:00

Richard Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences: the Dissolution of the West

2008-12-23T10:13:00.000-08:00

Ideas Have Consequences: A Summery

This is the first in a series of posts that will summarize and expound on Richard Weaver's seminal work Ideas Have Consequences. This first article covers the first part of his introduction and provides a summary of his entire work.

Ideas Have Consequences was written by one of the greatest intellectuals of the 20th century. In his work, Richard Weaver (1910-1963) emphasizes the moral, philosophical, and metaphysical decline of the West. It is the goal of the current author to provide a lucid and cogent summery of his thoughts.

Weaver’s two paramount theses are that 1) reductionism and all other such proposals for the metaphysic of man are simply excuses to dismiss the current decadence of man as predetermined or unintelligible; 2) that man should not follow scientific analysis with a plea of “moral impotence.”[1]

The defeat of logical realism, Weaver argues, was the drastic turning point from morality to decadence. The opposition to logical realism was led by William of Occam and his doctrine of nominalism, the belief that universals (abstract ideas) do not have real existence. In the words of John Stuart Mill, “there is nothing general except names” (hence the prefix “nom”). This thinking ultimately leads to the question, “is there such thing as transcendent truth (and thus a transcendent Being)?” Nominalism answers no, and thus, modern day empiricism. With these as the foundation of one’s knowledge, one is bound to sequentially conclude, “Man is the measure of all things.” What follows is a concept of nature that does not imitate a transcendent being, but rather, contains its own “constitution and reality.”[2] From this belief, a careful study of nature (science) is encouraged and instituted, for the thought is that nature’s acts reveal her essence. By these same thoughts, the Aristotelian model of forms (that is, an element of unintelligibility) was done away with, and thus, finally the principle of original sin abrogated (a mistake that is in itself appalling, the idea that man progressively gets “better” is intrinsically philosophically flawed and the antithesis to the entire canon of history).

If nature then, is a self-functioning machine, and “man is a rational animal adequate to his needs,”[3] it follows that rationalism is exulted to the rank of philosophy, for man is the highest intellect capable of interpreting data. This leads man to the 18th century doctrine of Hobbs and Locke and the corollary that man only need reason “correctly upon evidence from nature.”[4] Finally, man arrives at the proposition of modern science, as Bacon stated in the New Atlantis, science is a means to domination.

Materialism was the next progression of man. Soon man desired to be described by nature, Darwin, Wallace, and others of the 19th century filled this call. Mankind was thus firmly enclosed in nature (and consequently the advent of reductionism). The last step for mankind is physiological behaviorism: a doctrine that denies even the most elementary freedom of will, and makes no distinction between man and brute. The condition of man is now “abysmality.”

Expressed logically this progression of man is as follows:

Logical realism defeated → nominalism → no transcendent truth or Being → modern day empiricism → “man is the measure of all things” → nature’s acts reveal her essence → the careful practice of science → Aristotelian unintelligibility eradicated → original sin nullified → Hobbesian and Lockean doctrines of nature → Modern science, “a means to domination” → materialism → reductionism → physiological behaviorism → abysmality.

[1] Richard Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences, (University of Chicago Press: 1948) 1.

[2] Ibid, 4.

[3] Ibid, 5.

[4] Ibid.

Popperian Falsification vs. Lakatosian Research Programmes

2008-12-22T18:10:00.000-08:00

The following article is perhaps too technical for most readers, but I thought it important enough to post, regardless. The conclusion is the acme of the article:

Perhaps the scientist should seek a judicious compromise between Popperian and Lakatosian theory.

The fundamental disagreement between Popper and Lakatos exists in their two divergent theories of scientific progress. While the Popperian model centers on the theory of falsification, the Lakatosian model amalgamates Popperian theory to construct the formula of a quintessential “hard-core” that is at the center of methodical theory. Based on Popper’s overall philosophy, Lakatos’ “protective belt” is intrinsically considered ad hoc. Thus we see that the Popperian and Lakatosian schools of thought are not easily reconcilable.

Based on the a priori presuppositions of the author of this essay, Lakatosian theory presents a stronger case than its counterpart. Popper’s theory, falsificationism, proposes that scientists advance theories and that nature shouts, “no” in the form of a conflicting observation. Consequently, according to Popper, it is absurd and illogical for a scientist to maintain his theory in the face of Nature’s rejection. However, Lakatos suggests that, “it is not that we propose a theory and Nature may shout NO rather we propose a maze of theories and nature may shout INCONSISTENT” (sic).[1] This inconsistency is dealt with by altering the auxiliary hypotheses—not by abandoning the hard-core.

Lakatos presents precisely what the Christian scientist must utilize: the possibility to preserve Scripture, and yet combat the evidence that purportedly refutes Scripture. The hard core of Christianity remains, when the protective belt does its job. Lakatosian theory should be fundamental to the evidential support of the testimonies of Scripture.

While there are strenuous differences, the scientific method of Lakatos and Popper do not innately contradict one another. However, the Lakatosian module seems to be an advantageous critique of Popperian method. Both the protecting and the falsifying of theories constitute critical elements of scientific process. Perhaps the scientist should seek a judicious compromise between Popperian and Lakatosian theory.

[1] Lakatos, “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, eds. Lakatos and Musgrave, Cambridge University Press, 1970.

The Advent of Yellow Journalism

2008-12-19T11:54:00.000-08:00

"As the press of this country now exists, it would seem to be expressly devised by the great agent of mischief, to depress and destroy all that is good, and to elevate and advance all that is evil in the nation. The little truth that is urged, is usually urged coarsely, weakened, and rendered vicious, by personalities; while those who live by falsehoods, fallacies, enmities, partialities and the schemes of the designing, find the press the very instrument that the devils would invent to effect their designs." –James Fenimore Cooper, American Democrat, 1838

For more information see:

Newspapers Struggling, Profits drop 20%, the End of the Newspaper Business?

Is Digg Sexist: A Reply

2008-12-17T18:49:00.000-08:00

Is Digg Sexist? That is the question that has never crossed my mind since I started Diggin'. And honestly - from what I've seen so far, the answer is no.

For those who don't live on the internet, Digg.com is a social bookmarking and news sharing site where users submit content they think others might find interesting, and diggers digg it or bury it based on interest.

For full disclosure, I'm a girl who loves Digg. I share what I like and Digg what I like. If I don't like it, well, that's why there's the bury option. Unless I missed the whiny option, which is what ~~whiner~~ writer Jen Nedeau points out in her article about how sexist Digg is.

She was whining about how her article about the top moments in feminism of 2008 only received 180 diggs in two days, and this must have been due to the male dominated area that is digg.

She doesn't mention how her list sucked or anything. No, her list should have made front page because she made a list.

She also doesn't mention how her article was submitted by a guy......from Texas.

Diggers tend to make friends with other diggers who enjoy the same topics, and I doubt this guy from Texas had a strong female following who enjoyed discussing feminism.

Not only did she act like a stereotypical girl, she is giving me, a female digger, a bad name. Digg is not sexist. Even I buried her article list for being lame.

The most insulting on the list for the feminist movement was her pick of Sex & the City and how she said it was used as a platform for a voter drive. If someone needs to watch a movie about using sex to register to vote, do we really want them voting? I certainly don't want morons voting. Do you?

Her list itself probably sent women back to the stone ages more than anything Digg does. I buried it. Yes, I'm a girl and I believe in civil rights and equal rights, but when you claim to be all about feminism and then sit back and whine about Digg, that itself is anti-feminism. Feminism was meant as a way to be treated equally, and if you want to play with the boys, then you have to play how boys play.

It's like wanting to be on the boys wrestling team and then saying you want everyone to wear pink because you're a girl. Sorry. You have to man up!

Sure, there have been times when I've commented on Digg, when other diggers have referred to me as “he” or a single guy who lives in my mother's basement playing video games. That does not mean they are sexist, that just means they thought I was a guy. I don't take it personal. I do that often myself. I assume most of them are guys. I enjoy giving my opinions and being Dugg, or even buried based on the content of my comment and not on my gender.

What I don't do on Digg is bitch and complain about how Digg is being sexist, because that would be, well, you know, typical of a woman.

I'm not typical. I'm better than typical. I am smart. I am not a whiner. I got through life as a minority not complaining about what a minority I am. I also got through life as a girl not complaining how it sucks to be a girl, because it doesn't.

If you are to make a silly list about feminism and list Obama as number one, then learn from him and stop bringing attention to what a whiny girl you are. Obama didn't sit back and complain and bring attention to how black he was or wasn't. I've never felt threatened by males on digg. Quite the opposite. Some have been quite pleasantly surprised that I am a girl.

I don't need to tell diggers that I'm a girl in order for me to get a Digg on Digg. Heck, I don't even need to show my boobs to get a Digg on my comment. How awesome is that?

If I deserve a Digg, Digg it. If not, bury it. But I won't write a whiny article complaining on why I didn't make front page.

Look, I'm not mean. From woman to woman, I made a few revisions to your list, Jen, and I think that it will get to the front page next time. Check it out.

Now, go make me a sammich!

-elidet is a 29-year-old grrrl from Port Hueneme (US) who joined Digg on November 30th, 2007.

Newspapers Struggling, Profits drop 20%, the End of the Newspaper Business?

2008-12-17T06:51:00.000-08:00

The newspaper business is in trouble.

The Oregonian, Oregon's largest newspaper is no longer making daily deliveries to Eugene.

"rising newsprint and distribution costs make it too expensive for The Oregonian to bring its papers to home or retail outlets in Eugene-Springfield on a daily basis."

The Detroit Free Press and The Detroit News will now only deliver the newspaper three times per week.

"Detroit Media Partnership is losing millions of dollars this year" Detroit Media Partnership expects to cut nearly 200 jobs. The Detroit Free Press and The Detroit News have seen circulation drops of 6.8% and 10% respectively.

The Chicago Tribune and The Los Angeles Times, earlier this month filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The company is saddled with debt totaling more than $13 billion.
The New York Times Co. is borrowing $225 million against recently-constructed headquarters in Manhattan to ensure it will be able to make its debt payments next year. Revenue declines at some of its properties, including The Boston Globe, New England's largest daily newspaper, have reached double-digit percentages this year.
Earlier this year, Journal Register Co., owner of dozens of smaller community newspapers throughout Michigan, was banned from trading on the New York Stock Exchange, when its stock price fell below $1.
The Grand Rapids-based chain that includes the Ann Arbor News, Flint Journal and Grand Rapids Press is eliminating many positions and restructuring the company.
The Christian Science Monitor announced earlier this year that it would cease printing its five-days-a-week newspaper.

On average, newspaper revenues are down 15-20%.

Possible reasons?

The declining economy
People are growing tired of "doom and gloom" reporting
People are growing tired of ultra-biased ulterior motives of most newspapers

Fair reporting was the standard of the past. Within the last 20 years it has altogether disappeared

The advent of the internet

If a customer can get the same product on the internet for free, why should he pay for a hard copy?

Conclusion

Americans are smart enough to know the better deal when two options are placed in front of them.

Pay for doom-and-gloom
Read whatever you'd like to online for free

Newspapers will never go entirely out of business. Many people (including myself) simply like reading a hard copy. Additionally, you can take a newspaper anywhere. However, this does not mean that their circulation will not continue to decrease (it will). Newspapers should prepare themselves for continuing profit losses.

Radical Environmental Obstructionism

2008-12-17T02:48:00.000-08:00

How the fanatic extremism of the few poses grave dangers to us all

Russ Walker, the Director of Oregon FreedomWorks has just released a new study, examining the dangers of the radical environmental movement. Here is a summery of the study highlighting the most important parts. I encourage you to pass this study around. Truth will prevail.

Energy is Necessary

Recently, energy shortfalls in Pakistan resulted in widespread rioting and massive injuries.[1] Many recall the infamous news footage of the 1997 New York City blackout that led to mass public hysteria and more than $61 million in property damage.[2] More recently, huge swaths of the Western United States suffered brownouts during the hottest summer months that engendered fears of a repeat of the New York debacle yet on a potentially massively larger scale.[3] In 2003, 15,000 people died in France and another 5,000 throughout Western Europe when temperatures hit 104 degrees.[4]

The reason?

This was at least in part due to too many people unable to afford air conditioning because of the high cost of energy resulting from excessive energy regulations, high energy taxes, and barriers to energy development. That’s the path down which the radical environmentalists are leading the rest of us who want sensible energy and environmental policies.

The primary problem with the radical fringe environmentalist obstructionists is that their efforts, if left unchecked, result in potentially devastating energy shortages, significantly increased prices (not just for energy, but for all goods) and a legal system crushed by the weight of frivolous lawsuits. The economic costs of energy shortfalls are manifest in higher home heating and cooling bills, in skyrocketing gasoline prices, higher costs of all goods that require energy to produce—which is to say almost all goods, and families left unable to meet their obligations.

What energy projects have radical environmentalists blocked?

A proposed $400 million plant project in Southern Oregon that would use the earth’s own retained heat to power more than 100,000 homes with 100 percent renewable, emission free power was blocked by a radical offshoot of the Sierra Club using the legal system to, in its own words, “halt exploration”.
FW Enviro book.indd

Hydroelectric: Continued provision of this 100 percent renewable energy source is being hamstrung by fish-rights activists who, disavowing any compromise, instead advocate removing—literally blowing up—the dams on the Snake River. Similar obstruction risks compromising the hydroelectric power generated from the Klamath River.[5]

Wave Power: A project proposed near Florence to harness the immense, zero emission, 100 percent renewable power of the sea and that would initially power 15,000 homes and be expanded to power more than 100,000 Oregon homes was blocked in court by a fringe element wanting to protect surfers’ ability to surf in the area.[6]

Wind Power: The $1.3 billion proposed Shepherds Flat (wind farm) Project, also in Oregon, would power an additional 220,000 homes. Yet environmentalist obstructionists, who publicly clamor for renewable, sustainable, clean energy sources, have attempted to delay and block these projects because of the risk to birds or rodents that may crawl or fly into mills or turbines. One radical leader proclaimed, “We need to be able to adjust these projects so that they do work as well as possible to meet our power needs and take into consideration endangered species.” (emphasis added). [7]

No energy project satisfies the radical fringe. These radicals loudly denounce “big oil” and profess the need for clean, renewable, sustainable, affordable energy—at least when the media is listening. They champion alternative energy sources to the media yet then abuse the legal system to seek to block the very projects that would help create those very energy sources they say are so necessary. If this fails, they employ violence or fear of violence to terrorize proponents of new energy sources. They launch attacks on hydro power for destroying river habitat, solar power for impacting the desert and geothermal power for toxic discharge.[8] Sometimes they resort to both terrorism and legal assaults to thwart alternative energy solutions.[9]

Conclusion

Education and renewed dedication to the development and delivery of all energy are reasonable goals, and are goals that are supported by a broad majority of the public —the silent majority is too often drowned out by the media-grabbing radical fringe.

[1] Power Politics: The Violence of Energy Security, All Things Pakistan, April 16, 2008.

[2] After 20 Years, New Yorkers Recall Night the Lights Went Out, CNN, July 12, 1997.

[3] Rolling Blackouts Again Hit California, Los Angeles Times, January 18, 2001.

[4] Frances largest undertaker says 15,000 died in heat, USA TODAY, September 9, 2003; Heat Wave UK and Europe, Hazard Research Center, July 8, 2003 – February 20, 2004, http://www.benfieldhrc.org/activities/cat_reports/cat_report4/pages/uk_heat.htm.

[5]Volunteer Opportunities, www.oregon.sierraclub.org/groups/juniper, Sept. 28, 2008.

[6]Save Our Wild Salmon, Northwest Salmon Are A National Treasure, www.wildsalmon.com/actioncenter; see also The Battle Over The Columbia, Fisherman’s News, Oct. 1997.

[7]www.oregonwild.org; http://governor.oregon.gov/Gov/P2008/press_111308.shtml

[8] Surfrider Files Motion On Proposed Wave Park, www.surfrider.org, Aug. 28, 2007.

[9]Windmills vs Squirrels?, FoxNews.com, July 6, 2001.

G.A. Wells: The Historicity of Scripture

2008-12-16T14:47:00.000-08:00

Biography of Wells

George Albert Wells was born on May 22, 1926, and is usually known as G. A. Wells. He is best known as an advocate of the theory that Jesus is a largely mythical rather than a historical figure. He is married and lives in St. Albans, near London. Wells studied at the University of London and Bern, and holds degrees in German, philosophy, and natural science. He has taught German at London University since 1949, and has been Professor of German at Birkbeck College since 1968. Wells is an Emeritus Professor of German at Birkbeck, University of London. He is a former Chairman of the Rationalist Press Association.

Introduction

In his many works criticizing the historicity of Jesus, Wells presents a plethora of arguments supporting his thesis.[1] While this essay will not examine them all, it will present a summary of his beliefs and then proceed in a historical and theological critique. First, this essay will analyze Wells’s beliefs regarding the virgin birth; second, a more general examination will be given to Wells’s claims regarding the historicity of Scripture.

Historicity of Scripture

Wells holds that the earliest references to the historical Jesus are so vague that it is not necessary to hold that Jesus ever existed:

Christianity could have originated without a historical Jesus. The theory I offer is consistent with the available evidence, but as this evidence is regrettably scanty, I cannot claim to demonstrate what actually did happen, only what might well have happened.[2]

Joseph Hoffmann, the author of the foreword of one of Wells’s books, states, “It is not longer possible to dismiss the thesis that Jesus of Nazareth never existed as the ‘marginal indiscretion of lay amateurs’ . . . .”[3] In the closing words of Wells’s Historical Evidence for Jesus, he states that he finds it more satisfactory than the alternatives to

regard the Jesus of the earliest documents as someone about whose life nothing was known, who had certainly not been a contemporary or near-contemporary of Paul, but who was later regarded as having lived about AD 30 and as having preached in Galilee before his death in Jerusalem, perhaps because he was identified with an obscure Galilean preacher of the same name (which after all was a common one). [4]

Wells argues that both the external and internal evidence of the New Testament is errant. Regarding the former he states that the “non-Christian evidence is too late to give any independent support to the gospels.”[5] Regarding the latter, he says that

Reconstituting Christian origins from the New Testament depends on establishing a reliable text. None of the original documents is extant, and the oldest existing copies . . . were altered and combined . . . . [T]he manuscript tradition is defective.[6]

Finally, among other arguments, Wells makes an external and internal case against the virgin birth as found in the New Testament:

As for the [New Testament], if we are to accept its miracles, we need more cogent evidence than the kind of mutually exclusive and uncorroborated narratives found there. The evidence is particularly weak where Christian doctrine requires it to be strong, namely . . . of the virgin birth.[7]

The Virgin Birth: Miracles in the New Testament

Wells does not a priori rule out the possibility of miracles. Rather, he holds that the evidence presented in the New Testament is “insufficient to warrant their acceptance.”[8] Wells begins his argument in opposition to the traditional acceptance of the virgin birth by pointing out that the celebration of Christmas on 25 December as the birth of Jesus is 1) nowhere justified in the New Testament, 2) first began in the 4th century, and 3) followed the pagan tradition of the Roman Emperor Aurelian.[9] “The Christians seem to have taken over pagan ideas in order to make Christianity more attractive to pagans, and so persuade them to be converted,” he says.[10]

Wells presents two powerful arguments against the virgin birth, 1) the contradiction between the fact that Jesus is proclaimed to be of the line of David (Matt 1:1, et al.), and yet he is also declared to be born of a virgin (Lk 1:27, Matt 1:18, et al.);[11] 2) that “Matthew represents the nativity as fulfillment of prophecy by means of fantastically arbitrary interpretation of numerous OT passages.”[12]

Wells also highlights[13] a two-pronged argument regarding the Virgin birth as outlined in the Oxford Companion to the Bible:

1. In Isaiah 7:14 the original Hebrew does not read, “a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,” but rather the Hebrew word for “young women” (עלמה) appears there, not the Hebrew word for Virgin (בּתוּלה). The word “virgin” comes from the Septuagint where this passage is rendered as the Greek παρθένος. Thus, when Matthew quotes this (Matt 1:23), he quotes it as “a virgin,” as he was quoting from the Septuagint, not the original.
2. Alleged references to the virgin birth in the New Testament are “at best vague allusions.” For, “nothing in the Jewish Scriptures suggests that anyone was or was to be born of a virgin….”[14]

Another intriguing argument that Wells brings to light is that John, who never mentions the virgin birth in his gospel, makes “not only the Jews [Jn 6:41], but also one of Jesus’ disciples refer to him as he son of Joseph [1:45]—those being the only occasions Joseph is mentioned in J[oh]n.”[15] Why then, does Luke, who mentions Joseph and the virgin birth, repeatedly refer to Joseph as ‘the father’ of Jesus, or to Mary and Joseph as his ‘parents’ (Lk 2:27, 33, 41)? How can the same reference be made by both disciples if John did not know about the virgin birth (or simply did not find it important enough to record)? Moreover, why does Paul, who never mentions the virgin birth, declare that Jesus was “born of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom 2:3)?

Critique of Wells

While Wells maintains that purely empirical evidence dictates his beliefs,[16] he proclaims that, “most men who write on Christian origins are trained theologians, committed to certain conclusions before they begin.”[17] Regardless of the validity of this statement, the following examination of Wells claims will be purely factual.

Christmas’ Pagan Origins

Regarding Wells’s first argument that Christmas is 1) not Scriptural, 2) followed pagan traditions, and 3) was instituted to make Christianity “more attractive to pagans,”[18] no argument in opposition can be mounted.[19] However, the validity or invalidity of the origin of Christmas does not affect the legitimacy of the virgin birth. To claim it does is to commit the classic logical fallacy non sequitur.

Jesus, of the Line of David and Born of a Virgin?

Wells’s alleged contradiction between the Messiah of the New Testament being both born of a virgin and the physical son of Joseph can easily be resolved. The distinguished specialist F.C. Burkitt, who cannot be charged with apologetic motives, attests that even the phrase, “Joseph begat Jesus” in the Hebrew sense, does not indicate physical paternity, but rather, legal heirship. A child born to a man’s wife, and accepted by her husband, was for all purposes, his son.[20] Thus, Jesus was legally of the line of David—according to his father (Mat 1:1-16).

Translating almah “virgin”

The great Jewish scholar Alfred Edersheim maintains that the Jews recognize eight stages of development for children.[21] He says that the word almah pertains to the sixth stage, which is amid dependent childhood and independent youth.[22] The word implicates firmness, strength, and the rapid bodily growth of early adolescence.[23] An almah was a girl about twelve to fourteen years old. The closest English equivalents to almah are “maiden” and “damsel.”[24] The rabbis taught that it is better for a father to betroth his daughter to his slave rather than keep her unbetrothed beyond puberty.[25] In general, young girls married before they passed the age of fourteen.[26] Hence, since almah denotes a girl particularly at the period of development directly preceding marriage—it became a term that signifies an “unmarried girl of marriageable age.”[27] Moreover, since virtually all unmarried girls in ancient Hebrew culture were chaste, the word seems to have acquired the auxiliary denotation of “virgin.”[28] Indeed, in a handful of the Biblical texts translating almah, “virgin” is undoubtedly the most suitable rendition (Rebekah in Gen 24:43, Miriam in Exo 2:8). In addition, the Septuagint translates the Isaiah seven passage παρθένος “virgin.” Similarly, the Syriac Scripture in this passage contains the Hebrew word בתולה which is the traditional Hebrew word for virgin. The evidence supporting the rendition of the Hebrew word almah as a “virgin” is overwhelming. To claim otherwise is to err.

The Virgin Birth Absent in John and the Writings of Paul

The Presbyterian theologian, Albert Barnes answers Wells’s objections to Paul and John’s treatment of the virgin birth:

In all the Scriptures it is never said of any prophet or apostle, any lawgiver or king, or any man in any capacity, that he came in the flesh, or that he was descended from certain ancestors according to the flesh. Nor is such an expression ever used anywhere else. If it were applied to a mere man, we should instantly ask in what other way could he come than in the flesh? Has he a higher nature? . . . The expression would be unmeaningful. And when, therefore, it is applied to Jesus Christ, it implies, if language has any meaning, that there was a sense in which Jesus was not descended from David.[29]

Only an extraordinarily prejudiced reader can conclude otherwise.

Historicity of Scripture: the Burden of Proof

Among historians, there is an important presupposition that guides the majority of their work—that being, unless there is a reason to the contrary—one will assume that given details in the work of a particular historian are factual.[30] According to Neil McEleney, if one does not accept this presupposition, than “no historiography, ancient or modern, would win acceptance.”[31] Thus, the burden of proof is placed squarely upon the shoulders of the critic.[32] To a priori presume a certain text unreliable is to wholly disregard any normal canon of historiography.[33] This historical methodology directly refutes the premises of Wells’s argument. Even he admits that evidence in his favor is “regrettably scanty.”[34] “Regrettably scanty” pales in the light of a classic Wittgensteinian maxim: “Of that which one cannot speak, one must remain silent.”[35] Wells’s theory does not only lack affirmative evidence, but in fact, it is diametrically opposed[36] to the majority of evidence.[37] For example, contrary to the theory that the New Testament is not historically reliable, the great language scholar, Sir Frederic Kenyon states that:

The New Testament text . . . is far better attested than that of any other work of ancient literature. Its problems arise not from a deficiency of evidence but from an excess of it. In the case of no work of Greek or Latin literature do we possess manuscripts so plentiful in number or so near the date of composition . . . we are far better equipped to observe the early stages of textual history in the manuscript period in the case of the New Testament than of any other work of ancient literature.[38]

In another one of his works, Sir Frederic declares that:

The interval between the dates of original composition (of the New Testament) and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.[39]

If the same standard is applied to Scripture that is always utilized in all other areas of historiography, than the historicity of Scripture cannot be denied.[40]

The Original Autographs

In response to the claim that there is not a surviving original autograph of the New Testament, it has been pointed out that the same is true for the entire corpus of ancient literature. To textually discount the New Testament, is to discount the “entire body of Graeco-Roman historical and literary remains, since the textual authority for the latter is considerably inferior to the textual value of the former” (italics original).[41]

Higher Criticism

Wells’s perpetual reliance on higher criticism and neoorthodox theologians in place of primary sources and traditional orthodoxy is perhaps the nadir of his scholarship. Strict reliance on the primary sources of the first and second centuries must be maintained to present a scholarly study of the time of Jesus—and of the New Testament. In response to Wells’s historical approach, Dr. John Warwick Montgomery notes that

Instead of attempting to look at the primary records of Jesus, he [Wells] gazes at them through the colored glasses of the documentary, form, and redaction critics—and the Bultmannian and post-Bultmannian efforts to apply existential anti-objectivism to the study of Christian origins.[42]

Conclusion

“Come now, and let us reason together, says Yahweh.”[43] The follower of G.A. Wells should carefully and thoughtfully consider these words. Does the evidence truly indicate the non-historicity of the New Testament? Does Wells employ a legitimate burden of proof according to historiographical methodology? Is one’s future life (or lack thereof) so invaluable that an argument from possibility is a high enough standard? If one removes one’s presuppositions, one can plainly see that the evidential, textual, and historical arguments shout “no.” The historicity of the New Testament and the personhood of Jesus Christ reasonably cannot be denied.

[1] See G. A. Wells, George Albert, Can We Trust the New Testament?: Thoughts on the Reliability of Early Christian Testimony (Chicago: Open Court, 2004); The Acts of the Apostles: a Historical Record? (London: South Place Ethical Society, 2000); The Jesus Myth (Chicago, Ill: Open Court, 1999); The Jesus Legend (Chicago: Open Court, 1996); The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1982); Who Was Jesus?: A Critique of the New Testament Record (La Salle, Ill: Open Court, 1989); Did Jesus Exist? (London: Elek, 1975); The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1988); The Jesus of the Early Christians: A Study in Christian Origins (London: Pemberton, 1971).

[2] The Jesus of the Early Christians, 4.

[3] The Jesus Legend, vii.

[4] The Historical Evidence for Jesus, 216.

[5] Who was Jesus?, 20.

[6] The Historical Evidence for Jesus, 1.

[7] The Jesus Legend, 66.

[8] The Jesus Myth, 114.

[9] Ibid, 115.

[10] The Jesus of the Early Christians, 33.

[11] Wells presents this argument in a number of his works; see The Jesus of the Early Christians, 23; The Jesus Myth, 113.

[12] The Jesus Myth, 115.

[13] Ibid, 120.

[14] Who Was Jesus?, 78.

[15] The Jesus of the Early Christians, 15.

[16] The Jesus Myth, 114.

[17] The Jesus of the Early Christians, 6.

[18] Ibid, 33.

[19] See Philippe Walter, Christianity: The Origins of a Pagan Religion (Rochester, Vt: Inner Traditions, 2006); Encyclopedia Britannica Online, “Christmas.”; Clement A. Miles, Christmas in Ritual and Tradition, Christian and Pagan (Detroit: Gale Research Co, 1968).

[20] Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe (Cambridge, 1904), ii, 260 f, as quoted in The Virgin Birth of Christ, Gresham Machen (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974).

[21] Alfred Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1974), 103-104.

[22] Ibid, 104.

[23] Ibid; Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1956), 2:44-45; Brown, Francis, Edward Robinson, S. R. Driver, Charles A. Briggs, and Francis Brown, The New Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon: With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1979), 761.

[24] Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965), 289; John Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39 (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1986), 1:287.

[25] Babylonian Talmud, Pesachim 113a.

[26] William Coleman, Today's Handbook of Bible Times & Customs (Minneapolis, Minn: Bethany House Publishers, 1984), 87.

[27] Hengstenberg, 2:45; Joseph Addison Alexander, Commentary on Isaiah (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1992), 1:168; H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968), 1:156; Young, 1:287-289; Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39, 210.

[28] Hengstenberg, 2:45; Alexander, 1:168; Leupold, 1:156; Oswalt, 210.

[29] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament, Explanatory and Practical (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1949), Rom 1:3.

[30] Stewart C. Goetz & Craig L. Blomberg, “The Burden of Proof,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 11 (1981): 39-63.; R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament; His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission (Downers Grove, Ill: Inter-Varsity Press, 1971), 15-24.

[31] Neil McEleney, “Authenticating Criteria and Mark 7:1-23,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, (1972): 446.

[32] For the critic, a standard of “possible doubt” is not adequate and should not be employed (unless the probability of falsehood is high enough). The inevitability and indeed the necessity of reaching conclusions and advocating them based on their plausibility of fact is generally recognized by historians. William Wand points out that historical judgment of fact should necessarily be made according to their evidence; however, this cannot intrinsically establish their truthfulness (only their probability). William Wand, Christianity: A Historical Religion? (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1972), 25-27, 51-52, 156. The philosopher/historian W. H. Walsh further echoes this by pointing out that historical result are determined by conclusions that best fit the evidence. W.H. Walsh, The Philosophy of History in Our Time (Garden City: Doubleday, 1959), 18-19.

[33] Gustaaf Johannes Renier, History, Its Purpose and Method (London: Allen & Unwin), 1950, 90-91.

[34] The Jesus of the Early Christians, 4.

[35] Ludwig Wittgensteinian , Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 7.0.

[36] For even Rudolf Bultmann proclaims that “by no means are we at the mercy of those who doubt or deny that Jesus ever lived.” Rudolf Boltmann, “The Study of the Synoptic Gospels,” Form Criticism, transl. by Frederick C. Grant (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962), 60.

[37] See Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2007); J. N. D. Anderson, Jesus Christ, the Witness of History (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985); Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, Mo: College Press, 1997).

[38] Frederick Kenyon, Recent Developments in the Textual Criticism of the Greek Bible (New York and London: Oxford University Press, 1933), 74-76.

[39] Frederic Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology (New York: Harper, 1940), 288-89.

[40] The respected scholar Michael Grant notes “if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.” Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner’s, 1977), 199-200.

[41] John Warwick Montgomery, Tractatus Logico-Theologicus (Christian Philosophy Today, 1. Bonn, Ger: Verlag für Kultur und Wissenschaft 2003), 3.257.

[42] John Warwick Montgomery, “Did Jesus Exist?,” New Oxford Review (May 1993), 21.

[43] Isaiah 1: 18, author’s translation.

What Machiavelli Thought of Gun Control

2008-11-21T11:26:00.000-08:00

Niccolò Machiavelli (1459-1527) the great Italian diplomat, political philosopher, musician, poet and playwright wrote in his famous work The Prince:

There never was a new prince who has disarmed his subjects; rather when he has found them disarmed he has always armed them….But when you disarm them, you at once offend them by showing that you distrust them...and either of these opinions breeds hatred against you. And because you cannot remain unarmed, it follows that you turn to mercenaries...even if they should be good they would not be sufficient to defend you against powerful enemies....Therefore, as I have said, a new prince in a new principality has always distributed arms. Histories are full of examples.

The Prince, Chapter XX, “Are Fortresses, And Many Other Things To Which Princes Often Resort, Advantageous Or Hurtful?” Available online.

Albert Einstein: "Modern teaching methods strangle the curiousity of inquiry"

2008-09-16T08:28:00.000-07:00

"It is almost a miracle that modern teaching methods have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry; for what this delicate little plant needs more than anything, besides stimulation, is freedom."

Then, later in life, Einstein said:

"One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike—and yet it is the most precious thing we have."

What is there to add?

Turning the Lights Up: the Campaign for Renewable Energy

2008-08-29T13:20:00.000-07:00

The recently launched campaign, Lights On Oregon, is well, working on turning the lights back on in Oregon.

The central question the campaign asks is,

"Why do radical environmentalists oppose clean sources of energy for Oregon?"

From the campaign:

The US economy runs on fossil fuels. They provide 86 percent of our energy, with renewable fuels and nuclear making up the rest.

That mix will surely change, but how?

We don't know and neither do our elected officials. The right approach allows the market to change the mix as new technologies alter the relative costs of different sources. Let consumers choose to power their lives with the resources they like best.

In a recent statement, Lights on Oregon announced that it will start radio advertising:

The statewide ad buy is part of the million dollar campaign launched by FreedomWorks Oregon. The ad will hit the airwaves on Wednesday in the Portland market on 15 stations, before beginning to run in Eugene and the rest of the state later in the week.

Listen to the First Ad (mp3)

Listen to the Second Ad (mp3)

For more information, see this information found on their website:

Wind Power
It's clean and renewable, so why do some groups oppose it?

Natural Gas
We need more clean power for buses, cars, and power plants.

Wave Power
Fringe groups oppose harnessing ocean waves for power.

Hydroelectric
Tearing down dams makes Oregon more dependent on fossil fuels.

Geothermal Power
Plants near Newberry could produce renewable clean po

What to Expect From Obama's VP

2008-08-22T10:09:00.000-07:00

Obama seems likely to pick his Vice-Presidential running mate today or tomorrow. Here are a few things to expect:

* A "dark horse" selection: Obama will probably not pick someone who is terribly well known and has been receiving a lot of speculation, like Hillary Clinton. Instead, expect him to pick someone like Rep. Chet Edwards, or Sen. Evan Bayh, who are not too well known, or perhaps former Senators Tom Daschle or Lincoln Chaffee, who have not received too much speculation. The most likely scenario is probably none of those, though.

* Experience: Despite speculation about people like Governors Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and Tim Kaine of Virginia, I think Obama will pick someone with more experience; probably either a current or former member of Congress. An inexperienced pick may highlight Obama's perceived lack of experience. As pointed out by Karen Tumulty in a Time blog, Obama mentioned he wanted someone who would "complement" his strengths. He didn't say supplement or augment. This is probably reading too much into it, but that may be a hint that he will pick someone who has more experience, rather than someone who will highlight the outsider argument.

* A safe pick: At this point, Obama probably won't want to risk his lead by picking someone risky. He will probably pick someone tested and safe who probably won't end up making a huge difference in the election. Many people have suggested that Senator and former Presidential contender Joe Biden is a frontrunner. This is always possible, but I think that Biden's tendency to make controversial remarks makes it unlikely.

* A decent campaigner/debater: The VP selection will be helping to spread Obama's message, as well as fundraising, and debating probably once with his or her counterpart. Obama will want someone who is at least ecent in all these areas, if not stellar.

Top VP Choices for McCain and Obama

2008-08-21T12:01:00.000-07:00

I have returned from an 11 day absence, and hopefully I will be able to post regularly again. For now, I will leave you with the Fix's top VP choices for McCain and Obama:

McCain:

5. Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA)

4. Mitt Romney, former MA Gov. and former 2008 Presidential contender.

3. Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-CT)

2. Tom Ridge, former Sec. of Homeland Security and former PA Gov.

1. Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN)

Obama:

5. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS)

4. Sen Jack Reed (D-RI)

3. Gov. Tim Kaine (D-VA)

2. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)

1. Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)

The Rise of China and the Decline of the U.S.

2008-08-15T12:03:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking about China in the last few days here as prompted by the Olympics. They are dominating gymnastics if you care to know. But I don't want to talk about their gymnastic supremacy. Slowly but surely, they are gaining industrial clout thanks to corporations (Wal-mart comes to mind) outsourcing production to or simply buying from China. They are expected to surpass the U.S. in carbon emissions by early 2009. As is the case in an increasing percentage of the world, China is now a consumer in the global market and not primarily a producer.

The U.S., on the other hand, is seeing decline of the dollar value continue (as a point of reference, the U.S. dollar to Yuan [Chinese currency] ratio is 1 to 6.8745, which has been decreasing*). Not much in the way of production is found in the Unites States compared to China. Further, products made in the U.S. aren't being bought; consumers favor foreign brands (as is the case in the automobile** industry).

With this brief setup, I'd like to deal in the hypothetical for the remainder of my post, however logically precarious it may be...

Let's say that current trends of decline (in the U.S.) and climb (globally, but China specifically) continue. Where is our place on the international stage if we are superseded as the highest political and economical power? I have a theory. It's really an hypothesis if we propose applying scientific method. To be precise and accurate, we'll label it an "hypothesis"; I have little economical background, so my assertion cannot be taken too seriously based on my experience or qualifications to speculate. Enough with fireproofing myself, let's get on with it. If the U.S. is replaced as the superpower, I think an interesting situation develops. Once the U.S. dollar drops below the Yuan (as it already has in ratio to the Euro), we become one of many countries for foreign-based corporations to outsource production to at a cheaper cost than in their own country. Should this be the case, it seems to me that we have one distinction over every other country in the same position: infrastructure. The basics of civilized, or more aptly mechanized and industrialized civilization, is already in place in the majority of the nation. This isn't the case in other countries such as India where areas are brought fully into the 21st century by the arrival of a major corporation. Paved roads run everywhere, as often does clean water, electricity, and other amenities. The bottom line of my conjectures: Could we become the country of choice for outsourcing major production and industry? In essence we become the next China, Taiwan, or Korea. Just a thought...

What do you think? I'd love to hear more perspectives. Please take a minute and chime in on the conversation.

*- The U.S. dollar value to the Chinese Yuan did show a slight increase in July. It remains to be seen if the trend continues...

**- I, the author, am fully aware that "automobile" is a tad old-fashioned verbiage.

.:Roy G. Biv:.

Democrats, Unions

2008-08-14T09:19:00.000-07:00

Are You Really A Liberal? Here's Why I'm Not...

2008-08-13T16:28:00.000-07:00

Ok, I was listening to my usual news programs and reading my usual blogs, and came across this fantastic column by Radio host Dennis Prager, aptly titled "Why I Am Not a Liberal". I began to reflect on my own positions as the column prompted me to do so, and I realized I see totally eye to eye with Mr. Prager(Although, it is no secret where I stand, I try to absord and disseminate information freely and with a clear mind, but I am proudly conservative). I've copied the article below, but you can read the actual column HERE.

Take a look, then I would challenge you...are you a liberal? If so, why? During reflection, I would ask you to do so free of emotion. Do you agree with the positions below? You may be surprised where you stand....

The following is a list of beliefs that I hold. Nearly every one of them was a liberal position until the late 1960s. Not one of them is now.
Such a list is vitally important in order to clarify exactly what positions divide left from right, blue from red, liberal from conservative.
I believe in American exceptionalism, meaning that (a) America has done more than any international organization or institution, and more than any other country, to improve this world; and (b) that American values (specifically, the unique American blending of Enlightenment and Judeo-Christian values) form the finest value system any society has ever devised and lived by.
I believe that the bigger government gets and the more powerful the state becomes, the greater the threat to individual liberty and the greater the likelihood that evil will ensue. In the 20th century, the powerful state, not religion, was the greatest purveyor of evil in the world.
I believe that the levels of taxation advocated by liberals render those taxes a veiled form of theft. "Give me more than half of your honestly earned money or you will be arrested" is legalized thievery.
I believe that government funding of those who can help themselves (e.g., the able-bodied who collect welfare) or who can be helped by non-governmental institutions (such as private charities, family, and friends) hurts them and hurts society.
I believe that the United States of America, from its inception, has been based on the Judeo-Christian value system, not secular Enlightenment values alone, and therefore the secularization of American society will lead to the collapse of America as a great country.
I believe that some murderers should be put death; that allowing all murderers to live does not elevate the value of human life, but mocks it, and that keeping all murderers alive trivializes the evil of murder.
I believe that the American military has done more to preserve and foster goodness and liberty on Earth than all the artists and professors in America put together.
I believe that lowering standards to admit minorities mocks the real achievements of members of those minorities.
I believe that when schools give teenagers condoms, it is understood by most teenagers as tacit approval of their engaging in sexual intercourse.
I believe that the assertions that manmade carbon emissions will lead to a global warming that will in turn bring on worldwide disaster are a function of hysteria, just as was the widespread liberal belief that heterosexual AIDS will ravage America.
I believe that marriage must remain what has been in every recorded civilization -- between the two sexes.
I believe that, whatever the reasons for entering Iraq, the American-led removal of Saddam Hussein from power will decrease the sum total of cruelty on Earth.
I believe that the trial lawyers associations and teachers unions, the greatest donors to the Democratic Party, have done great harm to American life -- far more than, let us say, oil companies and pharmaceutical companies, the targets of liberal opprobrium.
I believe that nuclear power, clean coal, and drilling in a tiny and remote frozen part of Alaska and offshore -- along with exploration of other energy alternatives such as wind and solar power -- are immediately necessary.
I believe that school vouchers are more effective than increased spending on public schools in enabling many poorer Americans to give their children better educations.
I believe that while there are racists in America, America is no longer a racist society, and that blaming disproportionate rates of black violence and out-of-wedlock births on white racism is a lie and the greatest single impediment to African-American progress.

I believe that America, which accepts and assimilates foreigners better than any other country in the world, is the least racist, least xenophobic country in the world.
I believe the leftist takeover of the liberal arts departments in nearly every American university has been an intellectual and moral calamity.
I believe that a good man and a good marriage are more important to most women's happiness and personal fulfillment than a good career.
I believe that males and females are inherently different. For example, girls naturally prefer dolls and tea sets to trucks and toy guns -- if you give a girl trucks, she is likely to give them names and take care of them, and if you give a boy trucks, he is likely to crash them into one another.
I believe that when it comes to combating the greatest evils on Earth, such as the genocide in Rwanda, the United Nations has either been useless or an obstacle.
I believe that, generally speaking, Western Europe provides social and moral models to be avoided, not emulated.
I believe that America's children were positively affected by hearing a non-denominational prayer each morning in school, and adversely affected by the removal of all prayer from school.
I believe that liberal educators' removal of school uniforms and/or dress codes has had a terrible impact on students and their education.
I believe that bilingual education does not work, that for the sake of immigrant children and for the sake of the larger society, immersion in the language of the country, meaning English in America, is mandatory.
I believe that English should be declared the national language, and that ballots should not be printed in any language other than English. If one cannot understand English, one is probably not sufficiently knowledgeable to vote intelligently in an English-speaking country.
Finally, I believe that there are millions of Americans who share most of these beliefs who still call themselves "liberal" or "progressive" and who therefore vote Democrat. They do so because they still identify liberalism with pre-1970 liberalism or because they are emotionally attached to the word "liberal."
I share that emotion. But one should vote based on values, not emotions.

Who is This Man? Is he a celebrity? Is he ready to lead?

2008-08-11T09:38:00.000-07:00

By Mackenzi Siebert

Perhaps the most influential man in the world addressed a gathering of 120,000 people. He addressed the specter of Communism even as the two global super powers waged an ideological battle between freedom and control. In the midst of the Cold War, US President John F. Kennedy declared to those present, and to the watching world, "Ich bin ein Berliner." (I am a Berliner).
He went on to declare, "All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin."

We know the history. This speech marked a turning point in the Cold War by most historian's accounts. Mere months later, JFK was dead, victim to an assassin's bullets.

But an idea had been introduced, the idea of a world citizen.

Ever since the days of Woodrow Wilson's dream of a League of Nations - the concept of a solitary global government has captured minds and hearts of those that yearn for peace. The ineffectiveness of the UN, the questionable usefulness of NATO, the opposition to the EU has suggested that world government never will be, never can be, achieved. But does that mean that it is a dream which is worth rejecting?

July 24, 2008:

A man who has recently been labeled as the 'greatest celebrity of all time' addresses a crowd of 200,000 people in the city of Berlin. This man proclaims himself to be a citizen not just of America, not of Berlin, but of the world. His rhetoric invigorates, the stories which weave seamlessly into his message inspire, and the message of hope and change resonate with the very soul. He suggests that the only way to further prosperity in the world is to unite. For all to become not only citizens of their home country or citizens of Berlin, but of the world. To bring in a world government, one that would be the utopia that can achieve our wildest dreams and fulfill human destiny.

In many ways, Presidential Candidate Senator Barack Obama has been compared to President JFK. His family is nearly picture perfect. His girls are beautiful, his wife is, at times, perfectly charming. He is young, energetic, preaches hope, and inspires the masses with his immaculate stage presence. He predicts that with him at the helm of American government, America will be ushered onto the global stage as she never has been before. America will undergo change and be thrust into the 21st Century. America will have the audacity to hope for the American dream, once again.

But who is this man?

Is he the man that America needs? Is he the leader that is needed to kick the image of the American government as being an overinflated house of windbags who talk of change but are incapable of making a difference?

Perhaps.

But does he want us to see the world through rose colored glasses? Does he genuinely seek what is best for America, or what is best to further an ideal of of world government headed by your's truly. Does he believe in America, the American dream, freedom, democracy, hope -- or is that just the rhetoric that is needed to take a speaker from the position of an inspiring convention speaker in 2004 - to the President of the greatest nation in the world in 2008?

I don't know. And that's what scares me.

Who is the man running for president?

{I'd really like to know before November rolls around}

Introducing...

2008-08-05T12:37:00.000-07:00

Hi,

My name is Roy G. Biv, at least on screen. I've recently been invited to post on this here blog. I plan to do exactly that. I'm a friend of aj526; I tend to be a tad nearer the left than he is. Don't get me wrong, I will probably vote for McCain over Obama (I don't like either). I'll try to post with some frequency, but I can't guarantee it once school gets going in a couple of months. To get things started, I'll leave you with something to ponder... (Yes, I am aware that I used "start" and "leave" in the same sentence. No, it isn't an oxymoron. ;-)

Iraq:

A lot has been said about the U.S. military presence in Iraq. Some say we cannot leave a fledgling government to fall into the hands of terrorist groups. Others say we have been there long enough and that every day costs more lives; some speculate that our presence is draws terrorist groups into the country. Given ever increasing U.S. debt ($9 trillion last I heard*) and concern that sticking around will compromise our image as "leader of the free world", I do not believe a prolonged stay is in our best interests, especially if no progress is made. However, those that advocate a hasty exit forget moral responsibility. While destroying the dictatorial regime, the U.S. has created much instability in the region. Violence and poverty remain day in, day out. Being responsible to some degree for Iraq's current state, the U.S. is responsible to "fix" the elements of peace and prosperity that we "broke". To leave would be selfish and irresponsible. That's my two cents...

*This number is from several months ago. I'm not up on current numbers.

Please comment and share your thoughts. Have a nice day.

The Philosophy Behind the Democracy we Know Today

2008-07-31T23:37:00.000-07:00

The American tradition is rich and vibrant. This is a short examination of the beliefs of some of the more popular philosophers.

Aristotle’s Three Forms of Government
The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC) stated that "The true forms of government…are those in which the one, or the few, or the many govern, with a view to the common interest."

Aristotle defined the three types of government as:

A Monarchy. That is, a government a government run by one person.
An Aristocracy. Government by the few.
A Polity. We now call this a Constitutional Democracy.

However, to these three forms of good government, three forms of bad government correspond:

A Tyranny. That is, a monarchy ruled by an antagonistic monarch.
An Oligarchy. That is, a rule by a few corrupt men.
A Democracy. That is, rule by the masses.

Of the three deviations, tyranny is the worst, and mob rule is the least evil.

Plato’s Condemnation of Democracy

Plato (428-327 BC) argued against democracy. His primary reasons are summarized as follows:

Democracy leads inevitably to “mob rule.” Those in power pander to “pleasure-seekers” whose chief goals are the fulfillment of their immediate desires.
Democracy leads to rule by the stupid, who while they may have fine rhetorical (speaking) skills; they have no true knowledge itself.
Democracy leads to disagreement and conflict, which leads to the weakening of governments and should usually be avoided.

What about America

America is a Polity, or a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, as so many people believe. This is why in the pledge allegiance we pledge allegiance to the "republic."

Why Democracy?

Vox populi, vox Dei, “The voice of the people, is the voice of God.” As illustrated in the words of the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, all men intrinsically have a conscience. He proclaimed, “Conscience, conscience! Divine instinct, immortal and celestial voice.” Similarly, Seneca wrote, “God is near of you, with you, in you. A sacred spirit has its seat in us. It is the observer and keeper of our good deeds and our wrongdoings.” This is the idea of conscience: it is divine.

In Western governments, law arises from the will of “the people.” The people know what to do because they listen to their conscience. Thus, the law is based, or should be based, on the conscience of the people. To put it simply:

Men have consciences
Men elect people who represent their conscience
Elected officials rule according to their conscience

Conclusion
This is simply the tip of the iceberg. Read Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, and Hobbs. Government is an important institution. It can be used for good...or for evil....

Senator Atkinson Wounded by Accidental Gunshot

2008-07-31T14:43:00.000-07:00

Oregon State Senator Jason Atkinson was wounded by an accidental gunshot yesterday. From the Oregonian:

When an Oregon state senator lay bleeding on a campaign sign on his garage floor, wounded by an accidental gunshot, his wife grabbed something handy and flexible to stanch the bleeding -- a bicycle tube.

The quick thinking by Stephanie Atkinson spared her husband, Republican Jason Atkinson, more serious injury, said Jason's brother, Andy Atkinson. She used the tube as a tourniquet, he said.

Jason Atkinson is listed in serious condition at a Medford hospital.

He was wounded Tuesday while working on a friend's bicycle. From it, he detached a small cloth bag that, unbeknown to him, held a two-shot, .38-caliber derringer, police say.
Police say he dropped it, and the gun went off.

Andy Atkinson said the bullet missed the right kneecap, but his brother worries his thigh bone may be damaged.

"He's aware he's going to have reconstructive surgery," said Andy Atkinson.

The 37-year-old Republican state senator and 2006 contender for the Republican nomination for governor saw friends and visitors Wednesday.

"He is one tough guy," said Sen. Alan Bates, an Ashland Democrat. "He's taking it like a champ."

Senate Republican leader Ted Ferrioli had this to say:

"Our thoughts and prayers are with Senator Atkinson and his family, and we know he is in the best of care at the Medford Providence Medical Center, where he is currently listed in serious condition. At this time we ask that any questions be directed to the Senate Republican Office at 503.986.1950.”

Best wishes Senator! I hope you have a speedy recovery, and we will keep you in our prayers!