"White on the inside"

Once more, I'm going to comment on this post:

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2013/12/yellow-on-the-outside-white-on.php

In the nature of the case, I have to resort to some generalizations. No doubt there are many exceptions.

i) What does Leon mean by "white on the inside"? To begin with, I think there's something we might call the immigrant work ethic. Immigrants are motivated to succeed in the new country. That's why many of them move here in the first place. To get ahead. By the same token, they motivate their kids to succeed. 

To the extent that many Asians are recent immigrants, they may have more of an immigrant work ethic. A strong incentive to move up the social ladder. 

Is that "yellow on the outside, but white on the inside"? Are they acting white? Or is this a case of acting American? Adapting to the new culture? 

Assimilation is a common feature of immigrant kids. If you come here at an early age, you learn to blend in. Master the social skills you need to survive and excel in the new culture. 

If, by contrast, you're born here to immigrant parents, then you're not acting American. You really are bicultural. That's second nature. 

ii) By contrast, take Cuban Americans in S. Florida, especially the first generation who were escaping the Castro revolution, after Battista was overthrown. Were they acting white? Were they even acting American? Or was it just a case of the Cuban business class relocating? They transplanted their preexisting entrepreneurial culture to America.

Same thing with Jewish Americans. Are they acting white? Or does this reflect Old World values? European values? Jews already value education. Academic excellence. Lucrative jobs. 

iii) By contrast, many black and white Americans have been here for generations. They don't have to adapt. And there's not the same sense of having to start from scratch, on the bottom rung of the social ladder. They were born into a certain social status. Say, if they were born to middle class parents. Socioeconomic stasis may be sufficient. They don't necessarily aspire to a higher standard of living. They already have what they need. It's a matter of doing just enough to maintain their lifestyle. 

A more analogous comparison would be Americans born poor who resent poverty, who work their way up the social ladder. Pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. Phil Robertson and Mike Huckabee are two examples. 

iv) To the extent that the Asian-American culture values social mobility, I doubt "acting white" carries the same stigma as it does in segments of the black community, where that has invidious connotations with the national mythos of the master/slave relation. 

Nature is a picture book

http://bylogos.blogspot.com/2013/12/gods-two-books-and-history.html#more

Can we cheat fate?

Nowadays, fate is generally reserved for fantasy and science fiction movies. On one scenario, the protagonist has a dream about the future. But that poses a dilemma. If he can truly foresee the future, then that seems to mean the future was written in advance, in which case there's nothing he can do to alter the future. Usually, though, the protagonist is defiant. He views the premonition as a challenge or opportunity to deflect the foreseen outcome.

But what about real life? Is there such a thing as fate in real life? 

i) Epistemological fate

Some events are inevitable due to our ignorance of the future. Our ignorance of the causes leading up to the outcome. Take a fatal traffic accident. In principle, that's easily avoidable. Usually, a traffic accident is all about timing. Change a single variable in the chain of events, and you escape. If the driver leaves the house a minute sooner or a minute later, he avoids the accident. If he stops at the yellow light rather than speeding through the yellow light, at the intersection three blocks from the scene of the impending accident, he avoids the accident. If he turns left instead of right, he avoids the accident. If he stops to buy his wife flowers, he avoids the accident. He never crossed a line of no return. Every step of the way there was an out. 

Starting with the accident, we can systematically trace it back through a series of links in the chain. From the moment he left home (or left work for the return trip), he was fated to die in the traffic accident. But that's something we can only see after the fact. Because he can't see it coming, it's too late for him to step out of the way. 

ii) Ontologial fate

Some events are inevitable despite our knowledge of the future. Medical science may be close to telling you ahead of time if you will develop an incurable degenerative illness, like Parkinson's, Huntington's, or multiple sclerosis. That's very much like fate in the Classical sense. You are doomed. You know you are doomed. And there's nothing you can do, short of suicide, to avoid it. 

This also raises the question of whether it's better to know your medical fate, or remain in blissful ignorance. That's a dilemma, for there are tradeoffs on both scenarios. 

On the one hand, if you knew that you were going to develop a degenerative illness, then you might well make better use of your time. Make the most of your opportunities. Not take friends and family for granted. Not fritter away your best years on trivia. 

On the other hand, knowing how the story ends, if it ends badly, casts a shadow over your life long before you develop the disease. It robs you of hope. It's hard to enjoy the present when you know what awaits you just around the corner.  Lurking in the shadows.

CSI on the fly

A few days ago, Steve linked to RD Miksa's post on the reliability of eyewitness testimony. It's well worth the read. I agree with and appreciate most of what Miksa said on eyewitness testimonial evidence.

I'd also like to add what little I can to what Miksa said about eyewitness testimony often trumping scientific evidence.

Roman Catholicism as a misinformation campaign

Roman Catholicism: How Myth Becomes Dogma

Roman Catholicism as a whole is a misinformation campaign of incredible proportions. In fact, a close study of Roman Catholicism, and especially its apologetic methods since the Reformation, shows precisely how myths (many myths, in fact) become dogma and become etched in the popular belief system surrounding it.

In my last blog post, on the topic of The Roman Catholic “Eucharist”: Accretions, Equivocations, and Anachronism, I cited Paul Bradshaw, a Professor of Liturgy at the University of Notre Dame, from his work “The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship” (Second Edition, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, ©1992, ©2002). Bradshaw, an Anglican professor of liturgy at Notre Dame, was very clear about the state of the evidence:

"Calvinism and the First Sin (Again)"

"Calvinism and the First Sin (Again)" by Prof. James Anderson.

The Affordable Hair Act

The Washington Post

March 13, 2017

Last year, as readers may recall, President-for-Life Barak Obama introduced the Affordable Hair Act to improve the availability of wigs and toupees for aging rock stars and transgender individuals. All Americans 18 years old and above were required to purchase gov't approved hairpieces. 

Youth groups initially objected on the grounds that teens and twenty-somethings with full heads of hair shouldn't be required to buy wigs and toupees, but as Kathleen Sebelius patiently explained, it was necessary for those who didn't need them to invest in the follicular risk pool to make hairpieces universally available for those who might need them. She also shamed youthful dissidents as freeloaders. What if, 40 years from now, they needed a wig or toupee? 

Under the Affordable Hair Act, the Consumer Products Safety Commission recalled wigs and toupees manufactured before 2016 which failed meet the stringent new standards. Americans were required to turn in substandard hairpieces at collection stations around the country or face stiff fines and jail time. 

Today, acting on a tip from the NSA, an M1 Abrahms convoy of ATF agents descended on Polly Parton's estate to confiscate contraband wigs. Escaping through the back door, Miss Parton was kneecapped by a domestic drone. After handcuffing the country music star, she was airlifted to GITMO. 

What's a genius?

From what I've read, Ramanujan is a contender for the greatest math genius who ever lived.  Contemporary mathematicians are still playing catch-up with his insights.

What's striking is that he himself didn't take personal credit for his insights. He attributed his insights to religious dreams. A devout Hindu, he said the Hindu gods gave him visions of mathematical formulas. When he awoke, he simply jotted down what he remembered. He was just a scribe of the Hindu muses (as it were). And, in fact, he only wrote down a fraction of what he saw in his dreams, because that's all he remembered.

This raises the question of how we should interpret his claims. On the one hand, we might consider a naturalistic explanation. Discount his self-testimony. On this view, mathematical intuition operates at a subliminal level. But because Ramanujan has internalized his religion, his mathematical intuition manifested itself in these cultural categories. That's how he tapped into his subconscious. Dreams are part of our subconscious mental life, which intersects with intuition.

On the other hand, we might take his explanation more seriously. What if he really was tapping into a superior mind? What if the Hindu "gods" did, in fact, reveal these insights? 

Of course, from a Christian standpoint, we'd say that's occultic. But it's possible that his mathematical discoveries were, indeed, supernatural in origin. Perhaps he was truly "inspired." The supernatural isn't confined to the divine. And the notion that genius is a type of possession is a very old notion. 

Assuming that's the case, then he wasn't a genius after all. He may have been a man of average or even below average intelligence who was channeling the dark side. A medium. His own contribution was merely instrumental. 

Maybe The Gospels Weren't Anonymous After All

Here's a thread in which James McGrath, a liberal New Testament scholar, and some commenters question the widespread claim that the gospels originally circulated as anonymous documents. There are many reasons to reject the notion that the gospels were initially anonymous. Anybody who's interested can search this blog's archives for my posts on the subject. When people like McGrath and his commenters are so critical of the anonymity of the gospels, that's significant.

The issue of why Matthew would use Mark's material repeatedly comes up in McGrath's thread. I've written on the subject elsewhere, like here. The theory that the fourth gospel was written by some John other than the apostle also comes up. I've addressed that argument many times, such as here.

Biblical "fatalism"

Many commentators find Ecclesiastes puzzling. For centuries, they've found it puzzling. Different commentators offer different interpretive strategies.

They reach for different adjectives. Is Ecclesiastes "cynical"? "Pessimistic"? "Hedonistic"? 

I'd suggest that, in a qualified sense, Ecclesiastes is fatalistic. Fatalistic in an epistemological rather than ontological sense. Ecclesiastes has a strong doctrine of providence. Everything happens for a reason. 

But from a human viewpoint, life often seems to be pointless or perverse. Judging by appearances, there often seems to be no logic or pattern to events. 

The attitude Ecclesiastes seeks to foster isn't resignation in the face of the inevitable, but resignation in the face of the inscrutable. 

i) One of the book's themes is the cyclical nature of life. Nothing lasts. The same kinds of things recur over and over again. The younger generation replaces the older generation.  Things reach a certain point, then start all over again. We are quickly forgotten. Time erodes our sand castles. Nothing we do in this life makes any ultimate difference in this life. That's "fatalistic." 

What do people gain from all their labors
    at which they toil under the sun?

Generations come and generations go,
    but the earth remains forever (1:3-4).

What has been will be again,
    what has been done will be done again (1:9).

No one remembers the former generations,
    and even those yet to come
will not be remembered
    by those who follow them (1:11).

The wise have eyes in their heads,
    while the fool walks in the darkness;
but I came to realize
    that the same fate overtakes them both.

 Then I said to myself,

“The fate of the fool will overtake me also.
    What then do I gain by being wise?”
I said to myself,
    “This too is enigmatic.”

For the wise, like the fool, will not be long remembered;
    the days have already come when both have been forgotten.
Like the fool, the wise too must die! (2:14-16).

Everyone comes naked from their mother’s womb,
    and as everyone comes, so they depart.
They take nothing from their toil
    that they can carry in their hands (5:15).

for death is the destiny of everyone;
    the living should take this to heart (7:2).

ii) Another theme is the apparent randomness of life. Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. Some good people have bad luck while some bad people have good luck. 

Life is unpredictable. You can plan. Make preparations. Take precautions. But it only takes one unforeseeable accident or illness or natural disaster for all your fond hopes to end in tragedy. That, too, is "fatalistic"–you can't avoid it.  

Since no one knows the future,
    who can tell someone else what is to come? (8:7).

There is something else enigmatic that occurs on earth: the righteous who get what the wicked deserve, and the wicked who get what the righteous deserve. This too, I say, is enigmatic (8:14).

So I reflected on all this and concluded that the righteous and the wise and what they do are in God’s hands, but no one knows whether love or hate awaits them (9:1).

I have seen something else under the sun:

The race is not to the swift
    or the battle to the strong,
nor does food come to the wise
    or wealth to the brilliant
    or favor to the learned;
but time and chance happen to them all.

 Moreover, no one knows when their hour will come:

As fish are caught in a cruel net,
    or birds are taken in a snare,
so people are trapped by evil times
    that fall unexpectedly upon them (9:11-12).

14 There was once a small city with only a few people in it. And a powerful king came against it, surrounded it and built huge siege works against it. 15 Now there lived in that city a man poor but wise, and he saved the city by his wisdom. But nobody remembered that poor man. 16 So I said, “Wisdom is better than strength.” But the poor man’s wisdom is despised, and his words are no longer heeded (9:14-16).

iii) This outlook seems despairing, and if that's all we had to go by, it would be pretty bleak, but even if we make allowances for the mundane outlook, there are some things it has to teach us. This outlook can be liberating. 

There are people who are very future-oriented. Very goal-oriented. They have great discipline. They sacrifice many opportunities to enjoy the present because they are aiming for a big payoff in the future. 

And there's a measure of wisdom to their approach. Living for short-term pleasure can lead to long-term misery. A measure of patience is a good thing. A measure of self-denial is a good thing.

But because life is unpredictable and sometimes fickle, you may forfeit both present and future happiness by a single-minded focus on a future that will never be. If you burn today to light tomorrow, you may lose both. 

There are two extremes to avoid: being so future-oriented that you neglect the present; being so present-oriented that you neglect the future.

Take parents who are very ambitious for their children. They push their children to be overachievers. They miss out on many opportunities to just enjoy their children when they are young. But what happens if your teenager dies of bone cancer or leukemia? You didn't plan for that. And you can't make up for the lost years. What happens when you watch your grown child waste away from drug addiction? 

There are men who slave away at a job they hate for the pension. Everything is put off for retirement. But what happens if they lose their pension because their company is bought out? Or because the pension fund was mismanaged? 

What happens if you have to take early retirement due to Parkinson's disease? That's not something you planned for. 

This is where the author's carpe diem passages come into play. Where possible, take time to enjoy the moment. Don't just look ahead–look around. 

12 I know that there is nothing better for people than to be happy and to do good while they live. 13 That each of them may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all their toil—this is the gift of God (3:12-13).

Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this enigmatic life that God has given you under the sun—all your enigmatic days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun (9:9).

You who are young, be happy while you are young,
    and let your heart give you joy in the days of your youth.
Follow the ways of your heart
    and whatever your eyes see,
but know that for all these things
    God will bring you into judgment (11:9).

Likewise, consider all the ruinous revolutions or social programs by idealistic do-gooders who are determined to improve the world. Yet when the dust settles, things are no better than they were before. Sometimes worse. Or just as bad in a different way. 

iv) Ecclesiastes is a book that cries out for a doctrine of the afterlife to set things right. It just hints at this, with its reference to final judgment. 

Although there's not much we can do to make the world a better place, there are things we can do to prepare some people for a better world. Raising your kids in the Christian faith. Practicing friendship evangelism. Nothing we do in this life makes any ultimate difference in this life, but it may make all the difference in the next life. Preparing for the world to come. 

By all means plan ahead–way ahead. 

Naïve Presuppositionalism

http://pousto.wordpress.com/2013/12/27/more-on-naive-presuppositionalism/

Hear the word

Happy New Year, everyone!

A good way to kick off the year is to acquaint oneself with the Bible to acquaint oneself with its Author.

With this in mind, Christian Audio is offering the ESV on audio for free. Please see here.

Also, Justin Taylor has several Bible reading plans to help.

For the great day thyself prepare

"The Message of Ecclesiastes - Living Presently" by Paul Helm.

Twinkies

I'm going to comment on this post:

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2013/12/yellow-on-the-outside-white-on.php

What is yellow on the outside but white on the inside? If you guessed a "banana," though the inside appears more cream than white, you would be close. The answer is, a twinkie. Have you eaten one? They are fairly inexpensive and only about 135 calories. If you eat too many you might get a stomachache. There is definitely not enough sugar in these bite-size snacks to give you a significant energy boost like Red Bull or Starbucks coffee. Nevertheless, they are fairly tasty. Eat them. Yes! Use that term to describe people. No! 
In response to my brief blog post titled, "Listen Up White America," a dear friend responded to me by email. He described some of his experiences as a Korean Presbyterian pastor. He said that the black experience in Reformed and Presbyterian "churches are very similar to what I have experienced. The most interesting part of it is that those racial experiences didn't happen to me until I arrived at [said seminary] and entered the larger (i.e., outside of the Reformed Korean-American community) Reformed circles. [M]any people at [said seminary] assumed I didn't speak English. It was ridiculous."
He went on to say that he believes Asians, though he can intimately speak as a Korean, are seen either as twinkies (i.e., yellow on the outside, white on the inside) or non-English speaking asians," what he called, "F.O.B.," which means "fresh off the boat." He said, "Most would initially identify us as the latter. It's sad, but it's the truth…But I see changes... [Asians are] slowly shedding the image of kung-fu kicking Bruce Lee out of people's heads..."

Let's begin with some definitions. According to the Urban Dictionary:

OreoA racist slur and schoolyard name based on racist stereotypes wrongly assuming that intelligence, articulateness, dapperness, and manners are traits of whites and not blacks. Therefore, a black who possesses these traits is an oreo, white on the inside and black on the outside. A corollary slur is banana, yellow (Asian) on the outside and white on the inside.
twinkieAn asian person who is either adopted or living in a white community. Hence, yellow on the outside and white on the inside.
twinkyAn asian who acts like a white person, hangs out with white people, dresses like a white person, etc. Basicly, yellow on the outside, white on the inside. Used as an insult.
oreoA insulting termed often used by blacks to derogate other blacks as "Black on the outside, white on the inside." White on the inside meaning anything from speaking proper english, getting good grades, liking music that isn't hip hop, rap or R&B and having a diverse group of friends.
oreoTerm for African Americans that the black community is generally offended with for betraying their roots usually for dating caucasion girls, dressing too white, talking too white, etc. The term is branded OREO since they are "Black on the outside, White on the inside"
oreoA Black African American person who, because he/she has the desire to make a success of their life, has gained the wrath of foolish Black African Americans who have decided to make a shambles of their own. Often OREO's are educated, intelligent, and the respect of the business community. Thus, in the eyes of the dominant Black African American community, they are "guilty" of being "White" on the inside.
oreoA stereotype created by blacks to be used for other blacks who are "black on the outside, white on the inside". Black being their skin color, and white meaning to display characteristics of a "white" person, therefore "betraying their black roots". 
These characteristics being (but not limited to), raised in an environment that's NOT the projects, speaking proper english/very limited use of slang, having an eclectic taste in music, having a diverse group of friends, being well-educated, being legitimately employed, not abusing the welfare system, being well-mannered and civilized, saves money for college instead of bling and cheap grills, and wearing nice clothes that are not Roca Wear, Sean Jean, Baby Phat and so on. 
Most blacks confuse the "oreo" stereotype to being "bourgie", which is a very rude, stuck-up black, who thinks they are more "high-class" than they really are. 
This stereotype is stupid, and apparently stems from the fear most nigg3rs have of success. Blacks believe that unless you are a talentless rapper, a professional athlete, or "gangsta", it is impossible to be successful without being an "oreo". 

Note is that "twinkle," "banana," and "oreo" are intraracial epithets.  This isn't, in the first place, how whites characterize certain blacks or Asians. Rather, this is in-group slang. How some members of a racial or ethnic group view fellow members of the same racial or ethnic group.

For some reason, Leon and his Korean friend turn the tables. They project this attitude onto whites. They imagine that when whites view black or Asian professionals, whites seem them as "twinkles" or "oreos." 

I'm curious as to why Leon and his friend make this assumption about what whites are thinking. Is this based on anecdotal conversations? Sociological polling data? 

ii) Why assume that whites in general even indulge in these comparisons? Why assume that if a white sees a black or Asian professional, his automatic reaction is to mentally compare that individual to whites? Why assume that whites in general are that racially self-conscious? Why assume whites in general spend a lot of time thinking about what it means to be white–in contrast to other ethnicities? 

iii) I'm curious as to what Leon and his Korean friend think it means to be "white on the inside" or act white. If Yo-Yo Ma plays Classical music, does that make him white on the inside? If so, from whose perspective? Do Asians think Yo-Yo Ma is a "twinkie"? If so, isn't that a problem within the Asian community?

iv) Classical music originates in England and Europe. So Yo-Yo Ma usually performs white composers.  

What about jazz? Is jazz a black art form? Many jazz musicians are Jewish. Are they Jewish on the outside, but black on the inside? 

v) What about something more abstract? Many great mathematicians are Caucasian. Does that make math a white thing? If a Chinese or Japanese mathematician is a math prof. at Harvard, Princeton, or MIT, is he acting white?

For that matter, many great mathematicians are Jewish.  Does that mean an Asian math prof. is acting Jewish? 

What about Srinivasa Ramanujan. From what I've read, he's typically considered to be the greatest natural mathematician. The most naturally gifted mathematician who ever lived. How would Leon classify him? Is he East Indian out the outside, but something else on the inside? Or is mathematical aptitude race-neutral in Leon's classification scheme?

vi) BTW, isn't Leon overgeneralizing about Asian pigmentation? What about South Asians? 

vii) To the extent that whites associate Asians with kung-fu, isn't that a case of racial self-stereotyping? Don't Asian actors and directors promote that image?

Moreover, that's not a negative image, is it? Isn't martial arts widely admired in segments of the white community? 

I've only read three things by Leon, but thus far it's almost the mirror image of how David Duke might divide up the world. All these racial boxes. Which box is the right box for you? 

In the coming months I hope to write a 6-part series on some of the issues surrounding ethnicity in (broadly speaking) Reformed and Presbyterian circles. On the one hand, I am fully aware that many people do not believe there are any problems. I normally receive this response from those in the majority. Though I overstate my case for the purposes of this illustration, to say there are no problems is like the slave owner telling the slave, "Everything is okay." The slave owner is not aware, or perhaps suppresses, the myriad of issues surrounding the establishment because he is the superior; he is the majority. From the slave's perspective, however, issues abound. I do not categorize whites in Reformed and Presbyterian Churches today as slave owners nor do I classify African-Americans (or non-whites) in the aforementioned circles as slaves. However, based on personal study, numerous conversations, and personal experience, I think it is clear that we look through a different lens much like the slave and slave owner.

Well, if he insists on framing the issue that way, it would be easy to recast it. Obama is Baby Doc Duvalier. Eric Holder, Susan Rice, Todd Jones, Valerie Jarrett, and Ayo Kimathi are the Tonton Macoutes.

This is your brain on Barth

I'm going to comment on this post by Steven Nemes:

http://acthe.wordpress.com/2013/12/31/johns-gospel-and-classical-calvinism/

I believe Nemes is currently a Barthian universalist. There are many problems with his analysis of John:

i) He ignores Johannine dualism, which is present in both the Gospel of John and 1 John. We can depict this in terms of three overlapping circles. In the center is the world. The elect intersect with the world on one side, while the reprobate intersect with the world on the other side. 

Nemes is oblivious to the subtleties of kosmos in Johannine usage. He seems to think this is a universal expression. Yet that fails to take into account the way John often sets "the world" in antithetical contrast to believers. But if the world encompasses everyone, then there's no room for contrast.

ii) As we see in the prologue, Christ enters a world that isn't open to the Gospel, or even neutral. Rather, the world of the Jews and Gentiles is already hostile to its Creator. In the Fourth Gospel, Christ has many personal encounters, both with individuals and groups. The reaction to Christ exposes a preexisting rift, a predisposition to shrink from the light and withdraw into the shadows. The open revelation of God in Christ has a hardening effect on many. 

iii) But some individuals respond in faith. Their positive response also exposes a preexisting mindset. The differential factor is the Father's choice and the Spirit's renewal. 

Both faith and disbelief are effects of something more ultimate. Unbelievers reveal their diabolical paternity while believers revealed their divine paternity. Children of God and children of Satan. 

Left to their own devices, everyone would be under the spell of Satan. Only the Spirit can break the diabolical spell. 

As the Good Shepherd, Christ comes to rescue lost sheep who were marked out for salvation by the Father antemundane election. Like branded sheep who've strayed. The Son comes into the world from outside the world, to implement a redemptive plan which conceived outside the world. Before creation.  

Cf. A. Köstenberger, A Theology of John's Gospel and Letters, 458-64; J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, 40-42. Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel of John, 46-47. 

The hidden hypotheses behind the Big Bang

The following is from the book Progress in New Cosmologies: Beyond the Big Bang:

The evidentiary value of eyewitness testimony

In addition to the body of the text, Miksa and Jayman both makes useful remarks in the comment thread:

http://randalrauser.com/2013/12/rd-miksa-on-the-evidentiary-value-of-eye-witness-testimony/

The red shift

http://creation.com/halton-arp-dies

Human guinea pigs

Sheldrake: In theory science does portray humans as just machines, computers, “lumbering robots” in Richard Dawkins’s phrase, with no free will. From this point of view our minds are merely the activities of our brains. On the other hand, most scientists subscribe to secular humanism, which says we should do everything we can to improve human welfare, stop suffering, and so on. So there’s a conflict there. If you consider humans machines, then you should treat them the same way science treats animals, which is what the Nazi doctors did in the death camps; the same experiments long carried out on animals were applied to humans there. There’s nothing in science that tells us humans are special and shouldn’t be treated this way. That idea comes from secular humanism, which is a kind of quasi-religious faith. 

http://thesunmagazine.org/issues/446/wrong_turn

Guerrilla atheism

Although this article concentrates on Rupert Sheldrake and paranormal researchers, it documents a broader strategy on the part of militant atheists to infiltrate and manipulate Wikipedia. Make no mistake: this is an ideological war. Like Ho Chi Minh, militant atheists are fanatically determined opponents who take no prisoners:

http://realitysandwich.com/179887/wikipedia_battle_rupert_sheldrakes_biography/

Pope Francis Alienates his LGBT Base of Support

Jorge “Pope Francis” Bergoglio, the LGBT “Person-of-the-Year”, is said to have “stunned” his followers when he himself “reportedly was ‘shocked’ by a bill that would allow gay couples to adopt children in Malta”.

HuffPo carries the shocking story:

Pope Francis reportedly was "shocked" by a bill that would allow gay couples to adopt children in Malta….

The Holy See's reaction may come as a surprise to those who have viewed him as progressive on gay rights. LGBT magazine "The Advocate" even named him their person of the year, citing his comments about homosexuals. "Who am I to judge a gay person of goodwill who seeks the Lord?" he told reporters in Italian in July….

Despite his July comments, the pope has a long history of being against gay rights. He has come out strongly opposed to same-sex marriage and called it "a destructive attack" on God's plan.

More Evidence That Republicans And Democrats Are Significantly Different

Advocates of third parties, supporters of Ron Paul, and other people often make the absurd claim that there's no significant difference between the Republicans and Democrats. It's often suggested that neither party is more Christian than the other, as if a person's Christianity shouldn't motivate him to be a supporter of one party rather than the other. Here's another example of how inaccurate such claims are:

The survey also revealed remarkable divisions along political and religious lines when it comes to belief in evolution. Far more Democrats believe in it than Republicans, for example, and disbelief among the GOP is rising rapidly.

Roughly two-thirds of Democrats (67 percent) and independents (65 percent) say that humans have evolved over time, compared with less than half of Republicans (43 percent). And belief in the theory of evolution fell from 54 percent in 2009 to 43 percent today, the survey found. Opinion among both Democrats and independents has remained about the same.

The wording used in the poll seems problematic. Still, that wording would have been problematic across the board, regardless of whether the participant was a Republican, Democrat, or something else. On so many issues, this one just being one example among many, there are significant differences between the parties, with the Republicans aligning far more closely with Christianity.

Corporate pride

http://swordandploughshare.com/main-blog/2013/12/30/the-search-for-authority-and-the-fear-of-difference

Under the thumb

The following are from or related to Nobel laureate molecular and cell biologist Randy Schekman:

Many of you can recount similar stories where an investment in basic science has resulted in a direct application to medicine and technology. And yet we find a growing tendency for government to want to manage discovery with expansive so-called strategic science initiatives at the expense of the individual creative exercise we celebrate today.

(Source)

Randy Schekman, a US biologist who won the Nobel prize in physiology or medicine this year and receives his prize in Stockholm on Tuesday, said his lab would no longer send research papers to the top-tier journals, Nature, Cell and Science.

Schekman said pressure to publish in "luxury" journals encouraged researchers to cut corners and pursue trendy fields of science instead of doing more important work. The problem was exacerbated, he said, by editors who were not active scientists but professionals who favoured studies that were likely to make a splash....

Schekman criticises Nature, Cell and Science for artificially restricting the number of papers they accept, a policy he says stokes demand "like fashion designers who create limited-edition handbags." He also attacks a widespread metric called an "impact factor", used by many top-tier journals in their marketing.

A journal's impact factor is a measure of how often its papers are cited, and is used as a proxy for quality. But Schekman said it was "toxic influence" on science that "introduced a distortion". He writes: "A paper can become highly cited because it is good science - or because it is eye-catching, provocative, or wrong."...

Sebastian Springer, a biochemist at Jacobs University in Bremen, who worked with Schekman at the University of California, Berkeley, said he agreed there were major problems in scientific publishing, but no better model yet existed. "The system is not meritocratic. You don't necessarily see the best papers published in those journals. The editors are not professional scientists, they are journalists which isn't necessarily the greatest problem, but they emphasise novelty over solid work," he said.

Springer said it was not enough for individual scientists to take a stand. Scientists are hired and awarded grants and fellowships on the basis of which journals they publish in. "The hiring committees all around the world need to acknowledge this issue," he said.

(Source)

Which Republicans defended Phil Robertson?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/12/27/Silence-on-the-Lambs-Palin-Cruz-Jindal-Had-Duck-Dynasty-Patriarch-s-Back-GOP-Leadership-Didn-t

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, and Sen.Ted Cruz (R-TX) emphatically defended Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson from the moment he was suspended by A&E for supposedly anti-gay remarks. The suspension provoked a relentless outpouring of support online, which pressured A&E to reinstate Robertson on Friday.

Palin, Jindal, and Cruz's support was in contrast to the silence of the Republican establishment, its leadership, and the Republican National Committee. The latter focused instead on Kwanzaa and promoting amnesty, which the Congressional Budget Office determined would lower the wages of working class Americans, many of whom make up the bulk of the Duck Dynasty audience....

"The reason that so many Americans love Duck Dynasty is because it represents the America usually ignored or mocked by liberal elites: a family that loves and cares for each other, believes in God, and speaks openly about their faith," Cruz wrote.

Palin, Cruz, and Jindal were repeatedly mentioned in stories in the mainstream media about Robertson. In contrast, the Republican establishment organizations and D.C. figureheads were ducking for cover and nowhere to be found, reinforcing the suspicions of the "Teavengelical" base that has always suspected that the Republican elite on the coasts and in D.C. disdains them and their "flyover country" values.

Bugging your computer

http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/29/nsa-can-reportedly-bug-computer-equipment-before-it-sees-buyers/

Faithful Saints

Just click on the names, under the table of contents:

http://www.reformedspokane.org/Doctrine_pages/Doctrine_Intro/Portraits%20of%20Faithful%20Saints/Portraits.html

Swimming the Tiber

I don't normally recommend that folks convert to Roman Catholicism, but I suppose that even that denomination has it's uses. For instance, I think the PCA should invite Peter Enns to swim the Tiber, where he'd clearly be more at home:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/adam-and-eve-thats-just-mythology-says-pell/story-e6frg6nf-1226322379822

Pope Osteen

Why has the church of Rome changed its position on issues like the fate of suicides or unbaptized babies? Why is the Vatican currently poised to lift restrictions on receiving communion for Catholics who openly flout church teaching on divorce, abortion, &c.? 

The face-saving explanation is that, somehow, this reflects a greater understanding of human nature than we had in the past. But there's a more plausible explanation.

Back when the church of Rome has a religious monopoly in Western Europe, when it was the state religion, when it had the patronage of the ruling class, when it was a crime to buck the religious system, Rome could get away with taking unpopular positions. It's like a company town where you have to buy overpriced goods from the company store. That's the only store in town. 

But with the loss of Rome's hegemony, it's becoming a Pander Bear. Pope Francis is like a Catholic Joel Osteen or Robert Schuller. Inclusion. Happy-talk. 

Catholic apologists have touted Rome holding the line on issues like contraception, unlike those compromising Protestant denominations. But if Rome keeps softening its position, where will that leave the argument?  

Vatican shakeup

http://www.christianpost.com/news/cardinal-raymond-burke-replaced-by-pope-francis-conservatives-out-moderates-in-111039/

Was the Septuagint the Bible of the Early Church?

Among other things, this is germane to debates over the scope of the OT canon:

http://diasporablog.net/was-the-septuagint-the-bible-of-the-early-church/#more-132

"Same-sex attraction"

John Piper's old outfit has sponsored a couple of articles on "same-sex attraction." This may be catching on. I notice a PCA pastor who plugged it, saying:

Roen believes there is a distinction between experiencing temptation and engaging in sin. I believe this is a helpful and, most importantly, biblical distinction. Our Lord was tempted in every way as are we yet without sin. Certainly, since we are fallen and "groaning" (Rom 8) we know what it is for temptation to give way to lust which then gives birth to evil deeds. But this does not change the fact that being tempted is not the same thing as being carried away by our lusts. Indeed, to equate the experience of temptation with sinful lusts and evil deeds is to place a burden upon our brothers and sisters that Scripture does not.  

http://www.toddpruitt.blogspot.com/2013/12/attraction-temptation-and-lust.html

It's good for Christian churches to have outreach ministries to the homosexual community. That said, the analysis by both parties suffers from serious confusions:

i) I'm struck by the "same-sex" as  a substitute for "homosexual." Is this a studied euphemism to avoid the more invidious connotations of "homosexual"? Should Christian churches accept this euphemism?

ii) How can Pruitt say homosexual attraction isn't equivalent to sinful lust? Homosexual attraction is contrary to God's design in a way that heterosexual attraction is not. Therefore, we're dealing with something intrinsically perverse, whether or not you act on it.  It's not the way you're supposed to feel. 

iii) Likewise, how does Pruit distinguish between sexual temptation and lust? Is he using "lust" in a specialized sense, which he differentiates from sexual attraction or erotic desire? If so, is that hairsplitting dichotomy psychologically plausible? 

Perhaps hovering in the background is a particular interpretation of Mt 5:28. I happen to think D. A. Carson's interoperation makes the most sense. Cf. REBC 9:184.

iv) How does it place an undue burden on Christians to say homosexual attraction is sinful? What's wrong with stating that some Christians struggle with homosexual impulses. Those impulses are sinful. However, all Christians struggle with sinful impulses. As long as we are contrite, as long as we resist temptation, as long as we seek daily forgiveness, we are faithful, heavenbound believers? 

v) It's true that feeling tempted isn't necessarily sinful. And resisting temptation is virtuous. However, to say feeling tempted isn't always sinful doesn't mean feeling tempted is never sinful. To begin with, sin isn't confined to what we do. Sin includes thoughts and feelings. Indeed, a sinful act is commonly (but not necessarily) the outworking of a sinful desire. 

vi) Apropos (vii), some desires are innocent, but it would be sinful to act on them. I don't think finding someone's spouse desirable is sinful. But acting on that desire would be sinful. 

By contrast, pedophilia is not an innocent desire. An adult shouldn't feel that way about prepubescent children in the first place. That reflects a twisted inclination or disposition. 

vii) Pruitt's appeal to Heb 4:15 needs to be qualified. The statement is hyperbolic. The point is not that Jesus felt tempted by everything that Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer found desirable. Some sinful desires are an acquired taste. Second-order desires which presuppose sinful indulgence. You have to be hardened to find that appealing. 

Conversely, Jesus was subject to some unprecedented temptations. Temptations unique to his redemptive mission–a distinction which the author of Hebrews expounds in some detail. 

We also need to distinguish between "tempted" and "tested." In the social context of Hebrews, with its focus on Christian persecution, the author's point is that Jesus doesn't call on his followers to suffer anything he didn't suffer. Indeed, he suffered more than they ever will, and suffered in ways which will spare them ultimate suffering. 

Logos or wisdom?

Dale Tuggy has taken issue with Bnonn's post on the deity of Christ. A few quick observations are in order:

There are many crippling problems which beset Dale's appeal to Prov 8 as the background for Jn 1:

i) There's the question of wisdom's identity in Prov 8. This is a personification of divine wisdom. But in Jn 1, the Logos is not a personification, but a real person. Not a literary device, but a personal agent.

ii) Jn 1 uses logos rather than sophia.

iii) The primary background for Jn 1 is Gen 1. That's clear from pervasive parallels: (a) the "in the beginning" preface; (b) the creation context; (c) creation by means of God's spoken word; (d) the repetition of other leitworte (e.g. life, light, darkness), as well as other Pentateuchal allusions from Exodus (e.g. the tabernacle, the invisible God, the giving of the Law).   So the predominate usage comes from the Pentateuch rather than Wisdom literature.

iv) Dale is resorting to the Arian interpretation and application of Prov 8. But that's at odds with Dale's humanitarian universalism. If Jesus was just a man, then he came into existence in the 1C. By contrast, if we identify the Logos in Jn 1 with Wisdom in Prov 8, then even if Wisdom is the first creature, it came into existence at the time of creation, not 1C Palestine. 

v) There's also the problem of pressing the poetic imagery. Taken literately, this would mean God lacked wisdom before he made wisdom. Wisdom would be the product of an initially unwise God. 

vi) As Waltke points out, this is just a metaphor for the wisdom of Solomon. His divine inspiration participates in God's primordial, creative wisdom. 

His appeal to Heb 1:1-2 is off the Mark. In that passage, the point of contrast lies, not between OT Christophanies and the Incarnation, but between OT prophetic writings and the Incarnation.

Likewise, Hebrews 1 doesn't distinguish "God" from "Jesus." Rather, it distinguishes the Father from the Son. Dale constantly equivocates. 

Regarding Christophanies, I did a post on that last year:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/12/christophany.html

Since Mike Gantt is a fellow unitarian (just a different toxic flavor), he naturally rushes to the defense of Dale. 

The Roman Catholic “Eucharist”: Accretions, Equivocations, and Anachronisms

This is not the Lord’s Supper

Roman Catholicism is a bankrupt system in many ways. In recent years I’ve written extensively about the nonexistent early papacy and the relative lateness of “apostolic succession”. One of the other really big themes upon which Roman Catholicism hangs its hat is “the Eucharist”. However, I’ve been reading about that topic recently, and I hope to publish more on it in the near future.

While Roman Catholicism confidently asserts that it offers “the fullness of the faith” in these matters, more likely it is offering accretions from the fourth century, equivocations on words, and historical anachronisms, void of any real connection with the teachings of the New Testament.

To be sure, Rome made many of its confident claims at a time when any real historical understanding of the earliest church was lost. The right thing to do would be to say “oops, we goofed”, and to move on with it. However, Rome’s confident assertions were made “infallibly”, and so, a mere apology is not workable. Instead, there are claims of “development” and still more different kinds of dissembling.

In essence, the Lord’s Supper (the “agape” meal) from New Testament times probably through the fourth century was based on “common meal traditions” of the Roman empire of that time period, and as it was observed, it probably looked more like a Baptist pot-luck dinner than a priest doing a “consecration” and lines of sour-faced “communicants” waddling down the center aisle to get their little white chips (This latter model was a much later invention.)

The eternal nada

"Do Atheists Exist?"