Clouser on Heisenberg

I have, for the past few years, wondered if we cannot know the velocity and position of an electron because it has none, or if we just cannot measure both. Here is Clouser's take on it:

But the view Heisenberg held of the nature of atoms and other particles required him to take a very special interpretation of the uncertainty between the momentum and location of particles-one that has come to be known as the "Copenhagen interpretation." Since he was committed to the view that reality is mathematically calculable "in every detail," and since we cannot calculate both the position and momentum of a particle, Heisenberg said that particles must not have both speed and location. This means that any particle for which we choose to measure either momentum or location only ever had whichever one of those properties we chose to measure! That is, if we find a particle's velocity, then it never had location; while if we find its location, then it never had velocity.(Clouser 155)

From The Myth of Religious Neutrality - Revised edition.

Clouser is clearly stating that we cannot know the velocity and position of subatomic particles simply because we cannot measure it. Is this the reason for all the headaches? It seems too simple to me, and if Clouser is wrong-if there isn't some further evidence for particles having neither velocity nor position, he is greatly sacrificing his credibility. I think so enough to think that he wouldn't say what he said unless he had done his homework.

Flauvius Josephus

Josephus was a historian around the time of first century church. As he was not a believer, I suspect that his words about Christ may be sarcastic, but interesting nonetheless.

On Jesus:

Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it is lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. (Antiq. 18.3.3)

On John the Baptist:

Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now, when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were greatly move [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties by sparing a man who might make him repent of ti when it should be to late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death, Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure against him. (Antiq. 18.5.2)

Excerpts from "The works of Josephus" translated by William Whiston. 1987 by Hendrickson Publisers, Inc.

Per Se

I just realized that I had the wrong understanding of the phrase "per se". I had assumed that it meant that the statement coming before it was true in a sense, but is not true in all senses. That was rather wrong. If this word is unfamiliar to you, it essentially means "intrinsically". While I was reading Roy Clouser's "The Myth of Religious Neutrality" I kept asking myself, "why does he keep saying "divine per se". Under my previous understanding, he would have only needed to say that once. Any subsequent uses of the word would be supurfluous. But since per se means intrinsically, it is clear that he uses the term to mean that which is divine of itself, and does not receive its divinity from something else. Because of this, he must use "per se" to distinguish between the two kinds of divinity.
To clarify Clouser's use of the term, he would speak of Christians as believing that God is divine per se, while other religions, like the ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Norwegians, and Hindus would have something they regard as divine per se, distinct from "gods" they might consider divine.

I Finished Reading a Book

Called How to Read a Book. I highly recommend it.

Joe Carter writes on Gen-X

See X-Cons:The Conservative Mind of Generation X at the Evangelical Outpost. I can't say all of it is true of me, but it is very accurate. My favorite line is, "X-Cons believe that if liberals would only take a class on economics that they would see the light and repent of their collectivist ways." So true, so true...

On the Pope

Lee Harris writes an interesting article at the Weekly Standard about the Pope's recent lecture.

I don't like the Greek bent on it, but if that is what the Pope was talking about, then I think this article clears up a lot.

The Names of God

This is an interesting article about the names of God. Many of the Jehovah-[] names are about God, but they are not names of God. They are instead names of places and alters, or just statements describing God's character. The article is not long, so I commend it to you.

Free Theological Resources

Here's a link to Biblical Training.

Here's a link to Monergism.

Enjoy!

More Hypostatic Union

I think I have arrived at the point of understanding how "No one"..."but the Father" is consistent with the hypostatic union. In the ears of Jesus's hearers, they were not aware of the Trinity, yet. Therefore, "no one" is working with the people's current knowledge (or lack of knowledge) about the Trinity. In addition, Son must refer to the human nature of Christ for us to have an understanding of Christ that is consistent with the rest of Scripture.

Some other intersting concepts I had never heard of before...
-Jesus Christ is the name of the God-Man. Only the divine nature existed, before the incarnation, as the Son, the second Person of the Trinity. At the incarnation - boom - the God-man Jesus Christ, the Word became flesh, put on flesh, had a complete human nature (under the curse of Adam, but without the orignal sin) while maintaining a complete divine nature. Mind bending, but what an amazing thing we celebrate at Christmas. Even if Santa were able to zip from house to house to drop off presents in one night (he could always delegate, you know), the incarnation is by far a greater miracle and is worthy of our attention and reflection.
-Christ did not lose his human nature at the assension (and thus cease to become the Christ). His human nature was and is now glorified. His human nature was and is no longer under the curse of Adam.

Hypostatic Union and The Day and Hour

Through the exhortation of a brother in Christ, I have been learning about the Hypostatic Union. I am perplexed by a statement of Christ in Matthew 24:36 and I am wondering how this is reconciled with the doctrine of the hypostatic union. Jesus says, "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only."

I would not have a problem if the Jesus said, "The Son does not know the day or the hour" because then we could say that he was speaking about his human nature. But he does not say this. He puts his statement in a negative form to exclude all persons, but a single member of the Trinity. And because he included, "the Son," it makes clearer the distinction that it is not his humanity he speaks of, but his distinction in the Trinity.

If I am unclear, the problem is this: how is Christ the fullness of God in His omniscience, knowing all things, and at the same time, not knowing the day nor the hour. If anyone suggests Monophysitim, I will call you on it. Please comment.

More on Ebryonic Stem Cell Research

I apologize for the long delay, but I have Internet now and will be able to respond to the thoughtful comments on one of my recent posts.

In order:

Paul, I agree that my knowledge of embryonic development is limited and that there may be a difference between an embryo and stem cells. I would then ask, what is the difference. Do the stem cells have a shell or are there other kinds of cells that make up the embryo at that time in the humans life? After I wrote my post, I did see an article in the National Review Online that expresses my opinion:

It is also not clear if cells removed from embryos at that very early stage do not themselves, when isolated, have the ability to develop as full individual embryos. The question here is whether embryo biopsy amounts to a form of induced identical twinning. That question, too, suggests the ethics of this proposed technique are very much in doubt.

It may be that stem cells do not a human make, but there is reason to suspect that it could.

Adam, For the sake of argument, couldn't fusion be the natural death (as opposed to unnatural death) of one of the souls, much like a miscarriage or the separation of conjoined twins where only one survives? Anyway, I know you weren't being definitive one way or the other, but we are talking about two viable organisms where only one results. And for your assurance about the twinning thing, here are some comments on twinning at Wikipedia:

Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of an existing, or previously existing human or growing cloned tissue from that individual. The term is generally used to refer to artificial human cloning: human clones in the form of identical twins are commonplace, with their cloning occurring during the natural process of reproduction.

Kaarlo, I do think that so long as embryos are intentionally created through IVF, and effort is not made for their survival (being placed in a womb) it is wrong. I also hold that is wrong to use research found through inhumane practices. It gives incentive for others to practice inhumanely such as those who do it in the name of the greater good. They need a clear message that their deeds, if made public, will be for nought. I thank you for making sure that I remain consistent with my views. By the way, could you email me your current address? We have contact information to send you.

Home

Thoughts on Embyonic Stem Cell Research

The news has been reporting about a research "development" whereby embryonic stem cells can still be used without killing the embryo. I am skeptical that this makes it ethical for a couple of reasons.

1. That embryo is still going to die unless it finds a mother to nurture it, although one could get stem cells from artificial insemination instances where this occurs in order to have children.

2. Could it be that if you put that stem cell in the proper environment (like a womb) it would grow into the original embryo's twin? Although I don't know much about these matters, I have been told that cloning is nothing more than twinning. Natural clones occur all the time. The problem with cloning is when people wish to clone at the expense of the embryo's life and well-being or assume that the twin is somehow not really human, so it is moral to use it for spare parts. Rubbish, I say, rubbish. Anyway, maybe that stem cell will never grow into a twin in which case this point is irrelevant.

Fish

Not that this is all that interesting, but since we have recently attained a camera, I am compelled to use it for posts. I typically don't like blogs that have lots of pictures because they take a while to load...at least with a dial-up connection.

Anyway, some of our fish had babies, so here are some blurry shots.



Any hints why this isn't formatting nicely?

Employment Status

God has been good. Both Heather and I now have jobs, just like that. I will be working for Stanley Consultants, while Heather will be working for Cintia's of Mexico. Heather will most likely be waitressing days (rather than evenings) so we will be able to maximize our time together and apart. I will be engineering in both electrical and mechanical. We are both so thankful because they are both reasonably close, and close to where we hope to move. I can't think of how this could work out better except if my position were permanent instead of a contract. God is my help.

Mockingbird 2

I learned recently that there are plans to allow free downloads of the Mockingbird cd's songs sometime in September. I am not sure how official this is or if they will be available forever. I will post a link when I learn more.

The Gospel of the Kingdom

I have started "The Gospel of the Kingdom" by George E. Ladd. Here are some highlights:

"The primary meaning of both the Hebrew word malkuth in the Old Testament and of the Greek word basileia in the New Testament is the rank, authority and sovereignty exercised by a king...First of all, a kingdom is the authority to rule, the sovereignty of a king."(p. 19) Italics are Ladd's.

"'Thy kingdom come; thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.' This prayer is a petition for God to reign, to manifest His kingly sovereignty and power, to put to flight every enemy of righteousness and of His divine rule, that God alone may be King over all the world."(p. 21) Italics are Ladd's

"When we trace this word in the New Testament, we discover that in the course of God's redemptuve purpose, there are two ages which are frequently called 'This Age' and 'The Age to Come.'"(p. 26)

"The point is this: it is the character of This Age to choke the working of the Word of God. The spirit of the Age is hostile to the Gospel.(p. 29)

"All forms of wickedness ultimately grow out of the root of unglodliness. Sin is primarily religious and secondarily ethical. Man is God's creature and his primary responsibility is towares God. The root of sin is found in his refusal to acknowledge in grateful dependence the gifts and the goodness of God (Rom 1:21), which are now imparted in Christ. Darkness is the assertion of independence rather than God-dependence."(p. 31)

"The New Testament sets The Age to Come in direct opposition to This Age. The present age is evil, but the Kingdom of God belongs to the Age to Come. The Kingdom of God, both as the perfect manifestation of God's reign and the realm of completed redemptive blessing, belongs to the Age to Come."(p. 31)

"Thus we find that the Kingdom of God belongs to The Age to Come and is set in sharp contrast to This Age. In This Age there is death; in the Kingdom of God, eternal life. In This Age, the righteous and the wicked are mixed together; the Kingdom of God, all wickedness and sin will be destroyed. For the present, Satan is viewed as the "god of this age;" but in the Age to Come, God's Kingdom, God's rule will have destryed Satan, and righteiousness will displace all evil."(p. 34)

"The solution of this problem is found in what we may call the Biblical prophetic perspective, a phenomenon which occurs throughout the prophetic Scriptures. Usually the prophets, as they looked into the future, spoke of coming events without attempting to give the temporal sequence of the several stages of the accomplishment of God's purpose. Not only is the distant future viewed as a single although complex event, but the immediate future and the distant future are described as though they constituted a single act of God."(p. 36)

Terror and terror

The leak of top secret information by the New York Times and the LA times about the finacial tracking program lead me to wonder if that could be considered treason. I think one must look at the definition. The key words are consciously and purposely. These newpapers may have committed treason, but they claim that they didn't think these reports would aid the enemy; therefore, according to public record, they did not commit treason. But if this is not treason, they are incredibly arrogant and irresponsible, willing to compromise the lives of countless troops and civilians.
If that is not obvious, consider this: if the US catches someone funding terrorists, that someone will no longer be supplying money to the terrorists. If the terrorists have less money, they can only buy fewer bombs. If they have fewer bombs, they are blowing up fewer bombs. And if they are blowing up fewer bombs, they are killing fewer troops and civilians. If the newspapers fail to see this, they are either very ignorant or very deceptive. If it is the latter, I say they knowingly aided the enemy, hence treason.

Cell Phone parody

See here for original.

For drivers, danger in the car-pool
A study calls talking to passengers as risky as driving drunk.
By Tim Gavril
Inquirer Staff Writer

Drivers who talk to passengers may be just as dangerous as those who drink.

That's the sobering conclusion of a study published yesterday by University of Gillsburg researchers who monitored 40 men and women on a driving simulator.

Drivers using gestures were no better than those with their hands on the wheel, confirming previous studies. That suggests New Jersey's ban on driving while talking to passengers, which allows talking while hands are on the wheel, is only partly effective.

The findings, published in the journal, X-Factor, take a swipe at a popular pastime that is taken for granted by millions of multitasking drivers.

At any given moment during the day, 10 percent of drivers are talking to their passengers, according to a 2005 estimate by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Bad idea, said psychologist Drew A. Franks, one of the Gillsburg study's authors.

"It's kind of almost unpredictable how they are driving," Franks said.

When talking to passengers, drivers had slower reaction times and more accidents, and they drove inconsistently, sometimes approaching other cars and then falling back, he said.

Cellular industry officials acknowledge that passengers can be distracting but said they can be talked to sensibly. It's unfair to single out passengers, said Wally Johnson, a spokesman for TACI-The Passenger Association, a Colorado-based trade group.

"I think there are just a multitude of distractions that are out there," Johnson said. "And by focusing on just one, you're creating a false sense of security among people."

In another recent study, by the Mississippi Tech Transportation Institute, some other distractions - such as applying makeup and reading - were found to be much more risky.

In the Utah study, both passengers and alcohol caused participants to "drive" more erratically over the simulated 24-mile course, but in different ways.

Those talking to passengers were involved in more "accidents," and they took about 70 milliseconds longer to react when the car on the video screen in front of them hit the brakes - a delay during which a car moving at 55 m.p.h. would travel more than five feet on the road.

When the drivers were drunk - with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08, the legal threshold for intoxication - they followed other cars more closely and they braked 23 percent more forcefully, a potential problem for motorists behind them. They also had twice as many close calls - defined as stopping less than four seconds away from a collision - as they did when sober.

The participants were given a mixture of vodka and orange juice. Their level of drunkenness - equivalent to four drinks in an hour on an empty stomach for a 170-pound man - was verified with a monitor.

By one key measure, those talking to passengers were even worse than drunken drivers.

When talking to a passenger, the drivers had three accidents, but when they were drunk, they had none. The drivers also had no accidents when they were sober and had no passengers.

Researchers said they were surprised that the drunken drivers were accident-free. They urged people not to misconstrue the results as suggesting that drunken driving was safe. The authors speculated that the lack of accidents may have been due to the fact that the study was conducted in the morning, when participants were well rested.

Because the drunken drivers followed too closely and had more close calls, they would be expected to have accidents in the long run, Drews said.

Drunken drivers in the Gillsburg study were barely illegal, while in real life, they may be much more impaired, said Anne MacCurt, vice president for research at the nonprofit Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Crash rates start to rise with blood-alcohol levels below 0.08, and they climb steadily after that, she said.

The Gillsburg researchers presented preliminary findings three years ago and are publishing them now after further analysis and peer review.

Besides New Jersey, the only states to ban driving while talking to passengers are Connecticut and New York. Washington and some other communities have also banned it, including Conshohocken and West Conshohocken. A statewide ban passed the Pennsylvania Senate this week, sponsored by Sen. Joe Cinto (R., Bucks), but a House bill has not been approved.

In New Jersey, police issued at least 7,000 tickets to drivers who were talking passengers during the first six months of 2005, the most recent time period for which data are available.

The real number of offenses is likely much higher, in part because charges are often negotiated away in municipal court, said Robert Rodrig, director of the state Division of Highway Traffic Safety.

Told about the new study, Rodrig said he wasn't surprised that researchers found no difference between drivers who used gestures while they talk and those who in the gestureless variety legal in New Jersey.

"You are not cognizant of what is going on around you" during a conversation with a passenger, he said. "That is the danger."

New Jersey Sen. Murtha Burk (R., Burlington), a sponsor of the talking-to-passenger law, said the exemption for the gesture-free variety was a compromise to get an unpopular measure passed.

Bark said that she got her own passenger (though blind thus rendering gesturing useless) only at her children's urging and that she uses it sparingly.

"I do not talk to my passenger," Burk said. "I just turn to my passenger and say, 'This trip will take fifteen minutes. Then I face forward and do not utter another word for the rest of the trip.' "

Frank, the Gillsburg researcher, said he never talks to his passenger while driving. His reason is more than just safety.

"I enjoy my quiet time," he said.

Good Water

I just wanted to mention how much better the water is in Minneapolis than Sioux Center. In Sioux Center, I would buy water because the tap had a metallic flavor, even when cold and with a Brita Filter. The water in Minneapolis is fine from the tap and actually quite tasty when cold. Its like candy in comparison.

Illegal Immigration 1

It appears to me that there are many arguments on this debate that are poor or at least misplaced. I will be discussing the merits of these arguments and why they just don't work for me. Here are some of the arguments I have heard that I think are poor or misplaced.

"Its illegal alien not illegal immigrant"
"Illegal immigration is bad for the economy"
"Immigrants ought to learn and speak English to assimilate with this country; illegal immigrants typically do not"
"They send their wages to be spent in Mexico rather than the US"
"They don't pay taxes"



"Its illegal alien not illegal immigrant"

Here is a definition of immigrant from dictionary.com
immigrant: im·mi·grant n.

1. A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another.

You can say that some persons in our country illegally are not immigrants, but for the vast majority, they are immigrants, they just have not gone through the legal immigration process.

I think the people who generally make this arguement think "illegal immigrant" is meant to spin the issue and arouse sympathy from unsuspecting listeners. I don't see how this is so as it contains the very word "illegal". One may make that arguement for "undocumented worker," but "illegal immigrant" is specific and accurate.

"Illegal immigration is bad for the economy"

It may be that in its current state, illegal immigration is bad for the economy, but I don't think this is so. It is feared that illegal immigrants use the resources of our partially socialist economy (heathcare and public schools) without paying into it. Even if this were true, there are numerous economic benefits to having people who are willing to work for a cheaper wage. Capitalists should not complain about US workers losing their jobs due to cheap labor especially when our unemployment rate is lower then ever. This is supply and demand, and the cheaper workers means cheaper goods for everyone. Cheap labor is basically the competition of the worker market. When has competition been bad for the economy? Also, one could argue that the cheaper labor creates more jobs. Not only will there be more companies able to employ workers, but there will be more production.

Anyway, shutting down hundreds of businesses, whether directly or by shipping the workforce out of the country would be an economic disaster. There would be less businesses able to afford the market, and they would go out of business. Then there would be even less jobs. Not only that, but companies would raise prices. I don't know if this means $5 milk, but I wouldn't be surprised. Less businesses, less jobs, and less buying power: not what I call an economical solution.

I will be dealing with the other arguments in subsequent posts.

Moving

If you havn't heard I have made the move to Minneapolis. The move went well, but we have a few things to get cleaned up and organized. I don't have easy access to internet so I have not been able to update as frequently as I would like. I am hoping to do a series on the illegal immigration debate, but we shall see.

Soon, They Will Be Getting Welfare Checks

Socialists: Give apes human rights - The Spain Herald

Bush Approval

Proof that Bush is avenging his approval rating by fixing the prices of gas...or not. You'd think his approval rating had more to do with the price of gas than the war in Iraq.

How Now Shall We Live part 3

The main theme of the book can be summarized in the following:

This is how Chirsitanity is meant to function in society-not just as a private faith but as a creative force in the culture. The inner life of faith must shape our action out in the world. In every choice and decision we make, we either help to overcome the forces of babarism-whether midieval or modern-or acquiesce to those forces; we either help build a life-giving, peace-loving ethos, or fan the flames of egoism and destruction.(p.302)

Coleson and Pearcey discuss a destructive philosophy in the current method of education:

...education has been greatly influenced by a therapeutic model of redemption, in which teachers treat children's psyches while teaching hem the ABCs. The source of this widespread trend is the philosophy of existentialism, which casts each individual as an autonomous self. According to this worldview, people must create their own puropse by making choices, even though there is no standard to tell them whether or not the choices they are making are right...(p.335)

They also point out a theory as to how crime gets so bad, and how enforcing the little laws can greatly dimish the big crimes (this happens to demonstrate how a Christian worldview fits reality better than the others):

...in the early 1980's, a breakthrough came when social scientists George Kelling and James Q. Wilson advanced what became known as the broken-window theory. They discovered that if a broken window in a building is left unrepaired, soon all the windows are knocked out. Why? Because damage left untended sends a message that no on cares, that no one is in charge, and that further vandalism will incur no penalty. A single broken window soon attracts the kind of people who will smash more windows. Likewise, a city that allows pockets of public disorder, starting with graffiti and litter, sends a message that authorities are either unwilling or unable to enfore standards of behavior-to control their space and their citizens. And once a city sends that message, law abiding citizens leave, and the criminal element is attracted-exactly the cycle that has ravaged Amercia's major cities.(p.364)

The authors say that moral authority is greater than civil authority and that civil authority is grounded in moral authority. To this they make several points as to the effect of losing that moral authority:
1. "The loss of moral authority in the law removes restraints on individual behavior."
2. "The loss of moral authority in the law means government is reduced to utilitarisan procedures."
3. "The loss of moral basis for law means we can no longer engage in moral debate."
4. "The loss of moral authority in the law means we have forfeited the rule of law and reverted to arbitrary human rule."(p.409-410)
The authors expound these more, but we can see the effects of losing moral authority in our country based on how the meaning of law has been changing over the past decades.

Then they give the reasons why Chritiantiy set forth a worldview that made science possible.
1. "The physical world is real, not an illusion."
2. "Nature is good but not divine."
3. "Nature is orderly and predictable."
4. "Humans can discover nature's order."
5. "We need to experiment."

The ending of the book gives several examples of how Christians of the past century have been a creative force in culture. Some of the examples may show the Chrisitan worldview, but also shows the brokenness of our world, which is not always suitible for children. The concrete examples where helpful in understanding what the authors mean when they mean by influencing and transforming culture.

Consistent, but Sad

A logical result of the right to "Choose"

An old friend.

I recently got in touch with an old high school friend of mine, and it tuns out he is now a brother in Christ and has a blog here

Untitled No. 1

Here it is: a photo of one of my wife's sculptures. It is not my style, but perhaps it is yours.

It's not for sale, by the way.

New Blog Ideas

I am considering starting a new blog, one that is more focused. Less about my random thoughts, or my book comments, more about the news and research on a specific topic. I , of course, will still post the latter on this blog, but it would isolate the specific from the non-specific.

Perhaps I will watch a company and look at the products it develops or the law suits its involved in. Perhaps I will research spiders and report all that I can find about them (including Spiderman). Perhaps I will study an author, reading all that I can from that author and post about their lives and books.

I am open to any ideas, but I will quickly shoot them down if I don't like them.
Ready? Comment.

How Now Shall We Live part 2

The authors take time to discuss major views of Redemption that are competing in our society. One of these is Marxism. They write:

"...Marxism, though largely discrediteed as a political ideology, is still very much alive and well in Western intellectual life. Reborn as multiculturalism and political correctness, it remains one of the most widespread and influential forms of counterfeit salvation. Government-mandated group rights and other outgrowths of multiculturalism are even being read into the U.S. Constitution, so that though original Marxism never took over our nation, this reborn Marxism may yet do so."

I never thought of multiculturalism as a form of Marxism. But it makes sense.

How Now Shall We Live part 1

I am currently reading the Chuck Colson/Nancy Pearcey(not to be confused with Palose) book on the Christian Worldview and how it relates to culture. Here is a quick summary as to why we shall never reach utopia in our sinful state of being:

"Of course, nowhere has this vision of scientific utopinanism become a reality. And the reason it continually fails is lodged in the logic of the scientific method itself. If we turn human beings into objects for scientific study, we implicitly assume that they are objects to be manipulated and controlled, like scientific variables. That means we have to deny things like the soul, conscience, moral reasoning, and moral responsibility. And when we apply these assumptions to real social problems, we inevitably dehumanize and demoralize people, placing them at the mercy of social scientists in the employ of the technocratic state. The end result is not utopia but another form of despotism."

Holiday Picture

I am mainly just testing my ability to put pictures on here without picasa. This was our holiday picture. Heather has aspirations for me to post pictures of her art.

ESV Browser Integrated Search

Internet Explorer Google Toolbar ESV Search
Firefox ESV Search

Theological Blogs

Some new blogs on Theology.

Together for the Gospel - Various Theologians mingle, including CJ Mahaney.

Blog and Mablog The blog of Douglas Wilson

Crosswalk The blog of Albert Mohler

Today's Beef with Conservative Talk

Specifically with Laura Ingraham. She has her values mixed up a bit. Of course we are a nation of laws and this nation is not doing enough to enforce those laws. But she uses this line to criticize those who wish to save the lives of those who break the law. I think her main concern is that these maps will provide incentive for people to try to cross the border, that is, encourage people to break the law. That is a fair concern, but at what cost? It seems that she is suggesting that she would rather these people die than that they break the law. She should fight tooth and nail for stronger border patrol, but to trivialize the fact that people are dying trying to find their way to a better life where they can support there families is reprehensible.

I agree with Laura on a lot of things, but here she ends up sounding heartless and arrogant. She does not represent me here. I would hope there are enough conservatives to send a message that this opposition to life is inappropriate and helping people survive does not conflict with a desire to enforce our borders.

The maps, although intent on diminishing the number of deaths, may actually increase them by giving people hope, but not being detailed enough to actually help people. This is my concern with the maps.

Mexico, decided not to distribute the maps after deciding that the maps would give Border Patrol forces a lead as to where to find the illeagally immigrating people. I guess Mexico thinks its better that they die than get sent back.

But Laura praises Mexico for this decision. But, of course, they didn't change their mind for the reason they actually said, says Laura, but because the Bush administration criticized the maps.

By Laura's logic, we have no obligation to help someone in a car wreck if they were breaking the law (speeding) the midst of the accident. Helping them out would simply encourage more people to break our laws.

Intelligent Design Blog is Back and Kicking

Here. I happened to check in on it and sure enough, there were a lot of new posts. Apparently Bill Dembski is selectively letting other people moderate and add posts. I may put it back on my links sometime in the future.

Happy Anniversary to Us

Today is my first wedding anniversary!!!

Stephen Meyer on Michael Medved

Clip from one of Michael Medved's shows on Intelligent Design.

1hr mp3 format.

Finally

I never did post my thoughts on a book I finished. "The Gifts of the Jews" is Thomas Cahill's attempt to show the many ways that the Jews have influenced the world.

I have two objections. First, he picks and chooses what to believe from the Bible with out really substantiating it. It may be basic Theology for him, but he is not writing for Bible scholars. He fails to convince that if I am not going to believe all of the Bible, why I should believe any of it. But neither is he writing for Evangelical Christians, so most people who read it will probably take him at his word here. I don't.

Secondly, he tries to force the ancients into a box of repetition and cycles. I can buy this as typical, but there still seems to be some change, very slow change. Somebody invented a sword. Somebody invented a plow. These changed warfare and farming. His point still remains, that change was slow enough for people to not notice and if there was, they viewed it as a cycle. I am still in doubt.

So what are the gifts? I will try to spell them out.
1. A change from static repetition in cycles to an unmapped changeable future (ie Abraham went)
2. A change from ritual religions to personal relationship with God.
3. An understanding that one must go through the fire of God (either refining or wrath)
4. An expression of the joy and pain of real existence (like the Song of Songs)

He writes, "Most of our best words, in fact--new, adventure, surprise; unique, individual, person, vocation; time, history, future; freedom, progress, spirit; faith, hope, justice--are the gifts of the Jews."

He then ends with a plea for "social justice." It doesn't really fit with the rest of book. It seems more like an addendum suggested by the publisher because they wanted a practical application.

Mocking Bird

I bought the new Derek Webb album. David will like the horns. I am very impressed. The only turn off for me is the "war is always wrong" message. I don't think its Derek's purpose to try to make anyone feel guilty for supporting a war. I think he is more interested in pursuading the Christian to take some issues more seriously. War hurts people and we as Christians could show a little more grief and love over those who might be killed, even the enemies.

Lyrics are available here.

Justin Taylor Blog

Justin Taylor has been working for Desiring God ministries for years. He updates his blog several time a day. There is a lot of Theological and Political information there. It is called "Between Two Worlds" and is linked under the Theological heading, right here, at my blog.