Everybody knows small businesses are the engines of "job creation" in our economy.
But the problem is not that small businesses are not creating jobs -- they just can't find enough qualified workers who can fill them. Almost a third of small businesses today are reporting that they have job openings, but no skilled applicants for them. Check out this article from the WSJ yesterday.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Geisler adversus Geisler
It’s essential!
Indeed, contrary to Licona's claim that this Matthew 27 issue "was outside the primary thesis of the book," for the resurrection of these saints was directly connected to the resurrection of Christ and listed as a result of it (see Matthew 27:50-53). So, the two events are interwoven. Hence, to deny the literal historical nature of the saints who were resurrected as a result of Christ's resurrection, is also to deny the literal historical nature of the cause of their resurrection, namely, Christ's resurrection itself.
No, it’s not essential
Why should the enemies of Christians focus on this relatively minor byproduct of Christ's resurrection when the major issue was whether Christ had risen bodily from the grave. Neither did they concentrate on attacking the resurrection (resuscitation) of Lazarus or others who came back from the dead by the hands of Jesus and the apostles. After all, the essential truth of Christianity did not rest on these resurrections, as it did on the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:12-19).
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me
Why I am a Democrat
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2008
For reasons I have presented earlier, while I don't subscribe to what I think is a doctrinaire commitment to "a woman's right to choose," I don't think that is an area where the President can make a direct impact. I am being told that if McCain is elected, we'll get a fifth pro-life justice on the Court, Roe will be overturned, and abortion will at least be prohibited the the red states. I think that won't happen; I think the abortion rate will actually rise if McCain is elected and fall if Obama is elected. So pro-lifers should vote Democratic this time.
posted by Victor Reppert @ 12:09 PM
Obama Administration Circumvents N.H. Executive Council
September 14, 2011 2:57 P.M.
By Michael J. New
In response to the New Hampshire Executive Council’s decision to cut of taxpayer funds for Planned Parenthood, the Obama administration announced last week that they would oversee the awarding of family planning contracts in New Hampshire. This means that that there is a good chance that New Hampshire Planned Parenthood affiliates will recover the $1.8 million in taxpayer funds that they previously lost.
Here is some background. This summer, the New Hampshire state legislature approved $1.8 million in state funds for Planned Parenthood. However, New Hampshire, unlike many other states, has an Executive Council which oversees state contracting. The Executive Council usually stays out of controversial issues. But this summer, the Executive Council overturned the decision of the state legislature and blocked state funding for Planned Parenthood. Three of the five members of the Executive Council thought it was inappropriate for the state to be subsidizing an organization that performs abortions.
However, the heavy handed response of the Obama administration — effectively nullifying New Hampshire decision — should come as no surprise. This summer, Indiana decided to cut off Medicaid funds for Planned Parenthood, reducing taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood anywhere from $2 to $3 million. The Obama administration responded by telling the state it could not implement the new law. Specifically, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Donald Berwick stated that “Medicaid programs may not exclude qualified health care providers from providing services that are funded under the program because of a provider’s scope of practice.” The Obama administration filed a lawsuit and a judge issued a preliminary injunction requiring Indiana to continue Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood.
Obama's banana republic
Obama’s trying his best to turn America into Amerika.
There is, for instance, the lawlessness of the Obama administration. Many examples spring to mind. Eric Holder refusing to equitably enforce the law against voter intimidation. Indeed, to use the law to squelch Constitutional free speech:
To take another example, Congress refuses to pass the Dream Act, so ICE is does an end-run around Congress.
In the same vein, ICE flouts Arizona law:
Likewise, Congress rejects cap and trade, so EPA does an end-run around Congress:
And now the Obama campaign has an Attack Watch website where Obamatons can narc on their fellow citizens for expressing dissent. What’s next? Minders? Secret police?
The upcoming election isn't between Republicans and Democrats, but between Republicans and banana republicans.
Be a snitch for Obama
Here's a chance to rat out your fellow citizens:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/obama-attack-watch-website-to-help-supporters-fight-back/
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/obama-attack-watch-website-to-help-supporters-fight-back/
What's a myth?
CRUDE SAID:
If I were to interpret the fall of Adam as a real historical fall - but viewed the fall as having happened to a group of humans rather than just one - am I making Adam into a myth?
What if I interpret the fall as the fall of a man and a woman, but who weren’t the singular parents of humanity - say, there was some breeding with those they were interfertile with (or perhaps their offspring did)? Myth?
Mind you, I imagine someone could argue that both of these interpretations are wrong. But would they be full-blown myth if they affirm that what Genesis describes is a real fall?
Let’s begin by defining our terms. Here’s a sympathetic definition by a renown theologian and literary critic:
A traditional narration which relates to events that happened at the beginning of time and which has the purpose of providing grounds for the ritual actions of men of today and, in a general manner, establishing all the forms of action and thought by which man understands himself in his world. For us, moderns, a myth is only a myth because we can no longer connect that time with the time of history as we write it, employing the critical method, nor can we connect mythical places with our geographical space. This is why the myth can no longer be an explanation; to exclude its etiological intention is the theme of all necessary demythologization.
This new level of expression embarrasses the modern man. In one sense, he alone can recognize the myth as myth, because he along has reached the point where history and myth become separate.
P. Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil (Beacon Press 1967), 5,161.
HPV
Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum recently made some comments against vaccination in the GOP Tampa debate. I won't talk about the politics or ethics involved in their decision. But I thought it might be worth informing people about the medical science behind HPV and cervical cancer. I'll try to keep it simple without hopefully being simplistic or at least overly simplistic. Physicians and scientists may take issue with what I've said or how I've said it, but I hope they'll keep in mind I'm attempting to target the average person. But if any of the information is incorrect, I'd appreciate and welcome correction so that this post gives people accurate information.
Ponzi scheme
Rick Perry recently said:
Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today's young may well get less than they put in).
That kind of alarmist rhetoric is sadly typical of opportunitistic, rightwing demagogues like Perry, who resort to shameless scare tactics to win.
Well, almost…
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR21.6/krugmann.html
Mass vaccination
In principle, one could have a legitimate ideological debate over the role of gov't. For instance, a libertarian could consistently oppose the mass vaccination of children.
From what I can tell, the basic reason we vaccinate school children is convenience. If you want to perform mass vaccination, then that gives you a captive audience. Due to compulsory public education (with some exceptions), you already have the younger generation massed in various locations where it's easy to administer vaccination. Moreover, since they're minors, they can't protest the way the adult population could.
However, Bachmann and Santorum aren't libertarians. They don't oppose public education. And they don't oppose the mass vaccination of school children for smallpox, polio, diphtheria, &c.
Can God Suffer?
Martin Luther’s “theology of the cross” is not merely a theology that provides great comfort in the midst of suffering. It is, in fact, foundational for his whole understanding of “justification by faith alone”, and I hope to explore this theme further in coming blog posts.
But there’s something that needs to be clarified from the outset. In discussing Luther’s Theology of the Cross, or theologia crucis, Alister McGrath alluded to “Luther’s daring phrase”, “The ‘crucified God’”. This, he says, “is not merely the foundation of the Christian faith, but is also the key to understanding the nature of God.”
While I believe that Luther’s “theology of the cross” is, historically, one of the most important ways to understand “God” and “church” and “salvation” that came out of the Reformation, it is important to understand what Luther is and isn’t talking about. John Frame makes some helpful distinctions in his “The Doctrine of God,”( Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, © 2002).
But there’s something that needs to be clarified from the outset. In discussing Luther’s Theology of the Cross, or theologia crucis, Alister McGrath alluded to “Luther’s daring phrase”, “The ‘crucified God’”. This, he says, “is not merely the foundation of the Christian faith, but is also the key to understanding the nature of God.”
While I believe that Luther’s “theology of the cross” is, historically, one of the most important ways to understand “God” and “church” and “salvation” that came out of the Reformation, it is important to understand what Luther is and isn’t talking about. John Frame makes some helpful distinctions in his “The Doctrine of God,”( Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, © 2002).
Recently, a number of theologians have questioned the traditional Christian view that God is unable to suffer. Richard Bauckham summarizes Jurgen Moltmann’s “three reasons for speaking of God’s suffering”. The first is the passion of Christ. Moltmann sees his argument as following the tradition of Luther’s “theology of the cross,” which “makes the cross, for all its stark negativity, the basis and criterion of Christian theology.” Moltmann believes that the doctrine of impassibility in the church fathers was based on Greek philosophy rather than on trying to “understand the being of God from the event of the cross.”
Moltmann’s second reason for attributing suffering to God is the nature of love. In Moltmann’s view, divine love entails “reciprocity” between God and creation. It must be possible for him to be “affected by the objects of his love.” So God must be vulnerable to suffering. This argument is based, not on a mere analogy between divine and human love, but upon the nature of divine love revealed in the Cross.
Thirdly Moltmann appeals to the problem of human suffering. He finds no adequate answer to the problem of evil, except to say that God suffers with suffering human beings. Again, he does not argue merely from human suffering to divine suffering, but rather from God’s suffering with Jesus on the cross. This event has soteriological implications: “all suffering becomes God’s so that he may overcome it” (emphasis in original).
. . .
But is there any sense in which God suffers injury or loss? Certainly Jesus suffered injury and loss on the cross. And I agree with Moltmann that Christ’s sufferings are the sufferings of God. The Council of Chalcedon, which defined orthodox Christology, said that Jesus has two complete natures, divine and human, united in one person. We may say that Jesus suffered and died on the cross “according to his human nature,” but what suffered was not a “nature,” but the person of Jesus. And the person of Jesus is nothing less than the second person of the Trinity, who has taken to himself a human nature. His experiences as a man are truly his experiences, the experiences of God.
. . .
To summarize, let us distinguish … between four modes of divine existence:
1. In his atemporal and nonspatial transcendent existence, God ordains grievous events and evaluates them appropriately. He grieves in that sense, but does not suffer injury or loss.
2. In his temporal and spatial omnipresence, he grieves with his creatures, and he undergoes temporary defeats on his way to the complete victory he has foreordained.
3. In his theophanic presence, he is distressed when his people are distressed (Isa. 63:9), but he promises complete victory and vindication both for himself and for his faithful ones.
4. In the Incarnation, the Son suffers injury and loss: physical pain, deprivation, and death. The Father knows this agony, including the agony of his own separation from his Son. He regards this event as the unique and awful tragedy that it is, but also as his foreordained means of salvation. What precise feelings does he experience? We do not know, and we would be wise not to speculate.
Moltmann is right to find divine suffering in the cross in the in the senses mentioned above. But he is wrong to conclude that the doctrine of God’s impassibility is merely a remnant of Greek philosophy. As we have seen, the doctrine of impassibility should not be used to deny that God has emotions, or to deny that God the Son suffered real injury and death on the cross. But God in his transcendent nature cannot be harmed in any way, nor can he suffer loss to his being. In his eternal existence, “suffering loss” can only mean losing some attribute, being defeated in his war with Satan, or otherwise failing to accomplish his eternal plan. Scripture assures us that none of these things will happen, and so they cannot happen. In this sense, God is impassible.
. . .
As we have seen from Hebrews, Christ was made like us so that he could be a merciful and faithful high priest, empathizing with our infirmities. He takes away sin, the cause of those infirmities, and he hears our prayers with understanding. But this principle should not be magnified into a metaphysical assertion about God’s vulnerability, for, as we have seen, God’s eternal nature is invulnerable, and that invulnerability is also precious to the believer.
God’s suffering love in Christ, therefore, does not cast doubt upon his aseity and unchangeability. It is, however, ground for rejoicing (Frame, 611-616).
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Bachmann on Perry
Dear Fellow Conservative,
I'm offended.
If you watched tonight's Republican debate, you saw Rick Perry defend his decision to mandate a vaccine for young girls through an executive order while he was governor of Texas. As a mother, I have raised three biological daughters and 23 foster daughters, and I believe taking away a parents right to direct the health care of their children is flat out wrong. It’s a violation of liberty and everything you and I stand for.
i) But from what I’ve heard, Perry’s mandate had parental opt-out provision. So how did his mandate “take away” parental rights?
ii) But while we’re on the subject, what about parental rights? Suppose a Muslim-American couple wants to have their daughter circumcised? Would Bachmann support the imposition of female genital mutilation on their daughter as a parental right to direct the heath care of their children?
Ethical issues are often not as cut-n-dried as she makes them out to be.
Tonight, I also questioned why Governor Perry made this executive order. When you look at the facts, the question becomes, is this about life or is this about millions and potentially billions for the drug company? We cannot forget that in the midst of the executive order, a big drug company made millions of dollars because of this mandate. This drug company's PAC made thousands of dollars in political donations to Governor Perry, and his own former Chief of Staff was working as the lobbyist for this drug company when he issued the mandate. This is flat out wrong.
Conflict of interest is a valid issue to raise. At the same time, this is simply an allegation.
Governor Perry says if given the option again he would not issue the mandate. However, as President of the United States there are no mulligans; there are no do-overs.
Of course, there no do-overs for women who die from cervical cancer. They can’t go back in time and get vaccinated.
I am also concerned that Governor Perry also supports giving subsidies to illegal immigrants. The American way is not to give taxpayer-subsidized benefits to people who have broken the law and are here illegally. That is not the American way.
Geisler responds to Licona
Norman Geisler has responded to Licona:
I’ll make a few observations:
i) Appealing to the ETS action against Gundry is a weak reed to lean on. Gundry was ousted in 1983. That’s over a generation ago. There’s been tremendous turnover in the composition of the ETS since then.
ii) More recently, the late Roger Nicole, who was one of the founding fathers of the ETS (and the drafter of the ETS statement of faith) valiantly tried and failed to have the open theists ousted because their views implicitly contradicted inerrancy. That already indicates a leftward shift in the ETS membership.
iii) The basic problem with Geisler is that he’s trying to use a definition of inerrancy to do the work of a creed. I don’t think there’s a simple general rule of thumb that’s going to preemptively adjudicate these specific debates.
Ultimately, Christian institutions have to take some specific positions on some specific issues.
iv) Geisler says:
Licona reveals the basis of his own problem when he admits that his view on Matthew 27 "is based upon my [his] analysis of the genre of the text" and that this was based on a comparison with "similar phenomena in the Greco-Roman literature in general." But this is clearly not the way to interpret a biblical text which should be understood by the "historical-grammatical" method (as ICBI held) of (a) looking at a text in its context and (b) by comparing other biblical texts, affirming that "Scripture is to interpret Scripture" (as ICBI mandated).
Geisler is giving us very idiosyncratic definition of the grammatico-historical method. Certainly the grammatico-historical method considers the potential relevance of extrabiblical background material in ascertaining what a Bible writer had in mind.
v) Geisler says:
The proper meaning is certainly not found by superimposing some external pagan idea on the text in order to determine what the text means.
Of course, Licona would deny that he’s trying to “superimpose” anything on the text. Rather, he’d claim that he’s trying to hear the text the way it would be heard by the original audience.
vi) Geisler says:
By this same kind of fallacious hermeneutic one can also conclude that other biblical stories, like the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ, are just legends too, along with the creation record in Genesis 1-2.
a) That’s certainly a valid concern. It’s also the case that “hermeneutics” can become a ruse for denying inerrancy without saying so.
b) However, you can’t use a definition of inerrancy to rule out certain interpretations. You have to counter bad exegesis with better exegesis. There’s no shortcut for exegesis.
c) And this is another example of Geisler trying to use an abstract definition of inerrancy as a substitute for creeds. But that’s too generic.
If you want to guard against demythologizing the Resurrection, the virgin birth, or the creation account, there’s a straightforward way of doing that: the Christian institution in question includes that in its statement of faith. Address the issue directly.
To a great extent, that’s what a creed is: a creed codifies a particular interpretation of Scripture on some particular teaching of Scripture.
The creed also functions as a criterion for membership or ordination. It specifies the terms of admission–as well as excommunication.
d) To my knowledge, many or most founders of the ETS were old-earth creationists. Yet young-earth creationists think that disregards “authorial intent” by “superimposing” a concordist agenda on Scripture.
vii) Geisler says:
For once we begin to neglect the "authorial intent" (to use a phrase from Licona's "Open Letter") of the ETS and ICBI statements, and replace it with what we think it should mean, then "inerrancy" is a wax nose that can be formed into almost anything we want it to mean.
That depends. There’s a difference between what the framers meant, and whether what they meant is binding on all subsequent generations. The meaning is, indeed, tied to original intent. What the framers intended.
However, that doesn’t mean subsequent generations are honor-bound to uphold the intentions of the framers. The older generation doesn’t have that authority over the younger generation. The dead can’t command the allegiance of the living. This isn’t ancestor worship. If that were the case, we wouldn’t have the Reformation.
If the older generation was right, then that’s right for the younger generation. But what matters is where the truth lies–not venerating past opinion. In principle, a document can be revised.
BTW, I don’t say this to criticize the ETS or ICBI positions. I don’t have a problem with that. But Geisler is giving us a Catholicism-lite, where you simply default to tradition. I demur. Those documents rise or fall on the merits.
I appreciate Geisler’s concerns. But he’s trying to win on the cheap.
Tampa debate
I didn’t see the last GOP debate. But I did see the Tampa debate last night. A few impressions:
Because Perry is (or was) the current titular frontrunner, he was the target for Romney, Bachmann, and Santorum. However, there’s a sense in which this is a win-win situation for Perry. For even when he falters in a debate, the opponents are still making him the center of attention. The post-debate coverage will focus on Perry’s performance. As a result, the other candidates still play second-fiddle to Perry.
Romney ran to the left of Perry on social security last night. That’s a losing strategy in GOP primaries. Romney acts as if it’s outrageous to even question the status quo ante of social security. But why not? Why not give future retirees the option of keeping and investing their own earnings?
Perry could also borrow a page from Newt, who make an excellent point last night: “Why do we make young people be afraid their whole lives of the government taking away their social security?”
Perry is potentially vulnerable on illegal immigration. In theory, he could have done a better job of defending his policy in TX. He could have said the following:
“Since the Federal gov’t refuses to secure the border, refuses to enforce the law, refuses to deport illegal aliens, TX has to pick up the tab; TX has to take up the slack. Given the hand we were dealt, it makes more sense to educate illegals, to mainstream illegals, to integrate them into society, than to foot the bill for incarceration or social services.”
And, indeed, his answer contained elements of that response. That would give a pragmatic rationale. A lean, easily understood argument. And that would logically segue to his then saying that if he’s elected president, he will stop the problem at the source.
But instead of confining himself to a consistently pragmatic justification, he combined that with an appeal to principle. He made it a states rights issue. But that’s in tension with his complaint about the negligence of the Federal gov’t. Either he thinks the Federal gov’t has a duty to enforce a uniform nation-wide policy on immigration, or else he thinks each state should have the right to formulate its own immigration policy.
He also stressed the historical ties between TX and Mexico, which makes it a special case. But that, too, is a principled argument.
He also stressed the historical ties between TX and Mexico, which makes it a special case. But that, too, is a principled argument.
In addition, he repeatedly threw in the line about how we’re not apportioning benefits based on the sound of the recipient’s last name–which carries the insinuation that opponents of illegal immigration are motivated by racism. And that’s a typically leftwing charge. That doesn’t endear him to Republican primary voters.
However, his position cuts both ways. It carries the potential of losing him some votes in the primaries, but picking up some votes in the general election (if he’s the nominee).
Bachmann and Santorum also attack him on the HPV vaccine. I’m not sure how this will play. At one level, his action does evoke the specter of the long arm of gov’t reaching into the sanctity of the home. To that extent it triggers an instinctively hostile reaction from many conservatives.
On the other hand, the argument mounted by Bachmann and Sanctorum was fundamentally incoherent. The TX law has an opt-out clause. Yet they retreated into the privacy/autonomy argument. But that’s precisely the argument abortionists use to oppose parental consent or even parental notification.
Moreover, Bachmann is waxing hysterical about vaccination, as if receiving a mandatory vaccination somehow traumatizes a child for life. Haven’t we all received mandatory vaccinations as kids?
Bachmann and Santorum end up sounding like crackpots on this issue. They are so desperate for a leg-up that they are using a cynical, contradictory argument.
Offhand, the only principled argument I can see for opposing the mandatory vaccination of public school children is if you oppose public education. If you think we should privatize public education. But, of course, Bachmann and Santorum aren’t that radical.
Perry needs more debate preparation. There’s a customary way of doing this. The campaign hires a consultant who plays the role of hostile questioner in mock debates. When the candidate gives bad answers, the consultant coaches the candidate on how to formulate a better answer. He then keeps peppering the candidate with variations on the same set of questions until the candidate has the answers down pat.
Finally, you had Ron Paul, playing the crazy uncle. This is the first time I’ve seen him blink. Seen him balk.
He was caught off guard by the hypothetical question about the uninsured patient who will die without treatment. One response he gave was the connection between individual liberty and risk. People should be free to gamble. They may lose the bet, but that’s the cost of freedom.
That would be a consistently libertarian answer. But he didn’t seem to be comfortable with that answer. So he went on to talk about how, when he was in medical practice, indigent patients were never turned away.
However, I assume the reason for that is because it was already against the law–even back then–to refuse treatment. But isn’t that the sort of law libertarians ought to oppose? Isn’t that antithetical to his earlier appeal to individual liberty?
Ron Paul also has a fundamentally medieval notion of national defense. Until modern times, the primary line of defense was the fortified city. When the enemy comes over the hill, withdraw behind high, thick walls. To some extent that was undermined by the invention of the siege cannon, although that cut both ways–since city-states could also mount cannons on the defensive perimeter to return fire.
But in the age of airplanes, fortified cities are obsolete. A fortified city is no defense against aerial bombardment.
Yet Ron Paul still acts as though, if we just withdraw behind our political borders, the jihadis will stop at a line on the map.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)