What a powerful piece, especially during Lent.
Duke Divinity Call & Response Blog | Faith & Leadership | Lisa Nichols Hickman: Grief halved; joy doubled
Surefootedness
I have just finished talking with my Gettysburg doctor's office and they have set up an appointment for me with an orthopedist who will do the surgery. Seems simple enough, but for the next few months, I am here on internship in Petersburg, WV and have been seeing an orthopedist and having physical therapy in Winchester, VA. But the therapist and doctor in Winchester are working with me so that we can get this done as seamlessly as possible. I will finish internship here, move back to Gettysburg for my last year of seminary, then have the surgery.
As I was reading this morning and praying, this piece of scripture encouraged me:
It is God who girds me about with strength* and makes my way secure. He makes me sure-footed like a deer* and lets me stand firm on the heights. He trains my hands for battle* and my arms for bending even a bow of bronze. You have given me your shield of victory;* your right hand also sustains me; your loving care makes me great. You lengthen my stride beneath me,* and my ankles do not give way. Psalm 18:33–37
I particularly like the part "...and my ankles do not give way."
Google Images
FEARLESS FOSDICK OBAMA
MANY IF NOT MOST OF OUR THREE READERS WILL NOT REMEMBER THE "LI'L ABNER" COMIC STRIP WRITTEN AND DRAWN BY AL CAPP. WE HAVE REFERENCED THE STRIP BEFORE IN THIS PUBLICATION (enter "shmoo" in the search box). THE STRIP WAS ABOUT A BUNCH OF HILLBILLIES IN THE FICTITIOUS TOWN OF DOGPATCH. THE MAIN CHARACTER, "LI'L ABNER" YOKUM, READ THE FUNNIES RELIGIOUSLY, AND HIS HERO WAS AN INEPT BUT WELL-MEANING DETECTIVE NAMED "FEARLESS FOSDICK". In one memorable episode, the Chief of Police tells Fosdick that some fiend had planted cans of poisoned beans in local supermarkets. The Chief ordered Fosdick to make sure nobody ate those beans. Fosdick carried out his assignment by posting himself at the grocers and shooting anyone who tried to purchase a can of beans.
Now comes "President" Obama, at first dithering and then - with the advise and consent of the United Nations - bombing Libya. In the name of "regime change"? NO! No, the bombing (and recently, the use of AC130 "Spectre" gunships) is being done on "humanitarian" grounds. Albert Schweitzer and Mahatma Ghandi must be beaming smiles down from Heaven on "president" Obama. He has made history. He has conducted the world's first "humanitarian" bombing campaign. Can you imagine if Dubya had called the invasion of Iraq a "humanitarian endeavor"?? What a joke of a "president" we have. He needs to step down NOW, or in the alternative, be impeached. Life imitates Fearless Fosdick? What a joke.
Addicted to “Answers” | internetmonk.com
I'm so guilty. My internship supervisor keeps reminding me to ask questions, to just be curious.
Addicted to “Answers” | internetmonk.com
Addicted to “Answers” | internetmonk.com
Weavings Newsletter
Please check out this wonderful newsletter on prayer. I particularly like the third item "Prayer of Thanksgiving." May you be blessed.
Weavings Newsletter
Weavings Newsletter
C. S. Lewis on the Dangers of Extrapolating from Past Scientific Success
This is in response to a Secular Outpost post by Keith Parsons.
I am afraid you don't have Lewis right here at all. In fact, when you read him, and when I read him, it is as if we are reading the same words, but getting an entirely different message. Now I could be being exasperatingly generous, or maybe you aren't giving him a fair shake, but somehow we just aren't seeing the same things. Lewis isn't romanticizing dryads, etc. What he is doing is pointing out the problems with taking successful scientific developments and extrapolating from those to other areas of discourse where treating something else in the same way as science treated another area results in bad conclusions.
In the case of psychology, I take it that since you and I are close to the same age, you remember what psychology departments were like in the early 1970s. They were filled with people, following B. F. Skinner, who thought to really treat human beings in a scientific manner we had to stop talking about consciousness. It's the extrapolation from previous successes in science, the idea that we can look at the trajectory of science and make confident predictions about how science is going to have to treat certain types of subject matter, that we get into trouble.
Now the reason this is not an attack on science is because this history of science should really teach us that we can't plot the course of future scientific success. Science progresses sometimes by coming up with successful reductions, and sometimes progresses by recognizing that reductionism isn't going to work. Cognitive science, while not going anti-naturalistic, has come to reject the idea that consciousness has to be denied (although it is still very much a scientific mystery). The behaviorist hegemony which seemed to pervasive in psychology in my undergraduate days (the entire ASU philosophy department was one huge rat lab) is now considered a Dark Age.
This passage, from the Abolition of Man, helps to see that Lewis is complaining about extrapolations from science, not about science itself.
From this point of view the conquest of Nature appears in a new light. We reduce things to mere Nature in order that we may `conquer' them. We are always conquering Nature, because `Nature' is the name for what we have, to some extent, conquered. The price of conquest is to treat a thing as mere Nature. Every conquest over Nature increases her domain. The stars do not become Nature till we can weigh and measure them: the soul does not become Nature till we can psychoanalyse her. The wresting of powers from Nature is also the surrendering of things to Nature. As long as this process stops short of the final stage we may well hold that the gain outweighs the loss. But as soon as we take the final step of reducing our own species to the level of mere Nature, the whole process is stultified, for this time the being who stood to gain and the being who has been sacrificed are one and the same. This is one of the many instances where to carry a principle to what seems its logical conclusion produces absurdity. It is like the famous Irishman who found that a certain kind of stove reduced his fuel bill by half and thence concluded that two stoves of the same kind would enable him to warm his house with no fuel at all. It is the magician's bargain: give up our soul, get power in return. But once our souls, that is, ourselves, have been given up, the power thus conferred will not belong to us. We shall in fact be the slaves and puppets of that to which we have given our souls. It is in Man's power to treat himself as a mere `natural object' and his own judgements of value as raw material for scientific manipulation to alter at will. The objection to his doing so does not lie in the fact that this point of view (like one's first day in a dissecting room) is painful and shocking till we grow used to it. The pain and the shock are at most a warning and a symptom. The real objection is that if man chooses to treat himself as raw material, raw material he will be: not raw material to be manipulated, as he fondly imagined, by himself, but by mere appetite, that is, mere Nature, in the person of his de-humanized Conditioners.
I originally brought this up in connection with a passage from Richard Swinburne about how some of these past scientific successes were achieved.
There is a crucial difference between these two cases. All other integrations into a super-science, or sciences dealing with entities and properties apparently qualitatively distinct, was achieved by saying that really some of the entities and properties were not as they appeared to be; by making a distinction between the underlying (not immediately observable) entities and properties and the phenomenal properties to which they give rise. Thermodynamics was conceived with the laws of temperature exchange; and temperature was supposed to be a property inherent in an object. The felt hotness of a hot body is indeed qualitatively distinct from particle velocities and collisions. The reduction was achieved by distinguishing between the underlying cause of the hotness (the motion of the molecules) and the sensations which the motion of molecules cause in observers. The former falls naturally within the scope of statistical mechanic—for molecules are particles’ the entities and properties are not of distinct kinds. But this reduction has been achieved at the price of separating off the phenomenal from its causes, and only explaining the latter. All reduction from one science to another dealing with apparently very disparate properties has been achieved by this device of denying that the apparent properties (i. e. the ‘secondary qualities” of colour, heat, sound, taste, etc.) with which one science dealt belonged to the physical world at all. It siphoned them off to the world of the mental. But then, but when you come to face the problem of the sensations themselves, you cannot do this. If you are to explain the sensations themselves, you cannot distinguish between them and their underlying causes and only explain the latter. In fact the enormous success of science in producing an integrated physico-chemistry has been achieved at the expense of separating off from the physical world colours, smells, and tastes, and regarding them as purely private sensory phenomena. The very success of science in achieving its vast integrations in physics and chemistry is the very thing which has made apparently impossible any final success in integrating the world of the mind with the world of physics.
It was Lewis who said, "It is the glory of science to progress." But progress may not go in the same direction as past progress.
GOLD
We have been for some time following the increasing number of radio announcements that the time to buy gold is now. Some of these advertisements warn that the U.S. Dollar is about to collapse, and wise people will buy gold (which they just happen to have for sale),
SO.
These folks say the dollar will collapse soon. Hurry, hurry, buy our gold.
With our soon-to-be-worthless dollars???
The only example I can think of relevant to this is the bad guy in the story of Aladdin and the Lamp. The bad guy lost the lamp with the magic genie, so he went through the town offering to give folks a brand new lamp in an even swap for the old one.
If gold is so goddamn valuable, and if the Dollar is hopelessly spiraling into worthlessness, then to offer to trade gold for dollars is like offering to trade diamonds for dog shit.
SO.
These folks say the dollar will collapse soon. Hurry, hurry, buy our gold.
With our soon-to-be-worthless dollars???
The only example I can think of relevant to this is the bad guy in the story of Aladdin and the Lamp. The bad guy lost the lamp with the magic genie, so he went through the town offering to give folks a brand new lamp in an even swap for the old one.
If gold is so goddamn valuable, and if the Dollar is hopelessly spiraling into worthlessness, then to offer to trade gold for dollars is like offering to trade diamonds for dog shit.
The Steve argument and the AFR
I need to go back over what the Steve argument is. It is a response to the "anti-causal" reply to the argument from reason, or, more particularly, the problem of mental causation. Actually, it's one of a few arguments I use against this position, which goes back to Anscombe's critique of Lewis. I have to give kudos to Clayton for keeping focused on what this post is about.
The Steve argument is an illustration of the fact that when we say that someone is rational, we are saying that evidential relationships are relevant to the actual occurrence of beliefs as psychological events. In particular, when we try to explain why we are rational in believing something, we make counterfactual claims about the relationship between evidence and our beliefs, such as "If the evidence for evolution weren't so strong, I wouldn't believe in it." A typical way in which people impugn the rationality of others is to say that smart people believe things for not-so-smart reasons, and then use their reasoning powers to justify what they have already committed themselves emotionally to believe. In fact, people like Loftus very often charge that Christians are something like Steve; that is, they for a belief in Christianity through processes that could just as easily produce a false belief as a true belief, and then find whatever arguments they can to undergird those beliefs which were really reached in a non-truth-conducive way.
But what we are saying when we say we believe something for a good reason is that the presence of reasons is relevant to the production of our beliefs, that, unlike those benighted folks over there, we have actually paid attention to the evidence and are following it wherever it leads, whether it makes us feel good or not.
But what that means is that evidential relationships are relevant to what beliefs we hold, and therefore, what states our brains get themselves into. But evidential and logical relationships are abstract states. They are not physical things, and they do not have particular locations in space and time. Yet they are, apparently, causally relevant to the beliefs we form. Or, at least they can be.
But these same people will say that the mind is the brain, and that what goes on in the brain is simply physical causation playing itself out. Abstract objects don't, they say, cause anything to happen in the brain, since the brain is a physical system and events in the brain are caused just like any other events. It's just the laws of physics playing themselves out.
Lewis wrote: But even if grounds do exist, what exactly have they got to do with the actual occurrence
of the belief as a psychological event? If it is an event it must be caused. It must in fact be simply one link in a causal chain which stretches back to the beginning and forward to the end of time. How could such a trifle as lack of logical grounds prevent the belief’s occurrence or how could the existence of grounds promote it? (1960b: 20)
(1960b) Miracles: A Preliminary Study, 2nd edn. (London: Fontana, 1974)
It seems to me that this points to something paradoxical in the naturalist's view of reasoning.
The Steve argument is an illustration of the fact that when we say that someone is rational, we are saying that evidential relationships are relevant to the actual occurrence of beliefs as psychological events. In particular, when we try to explain why we are rational in believing something, we make counterfactual claims about the relationship between evidence and our beliefs, such as "If the evidence for evolution weren't so strong, I wouldn't believe in it." A typical way in which people impugn the rationality of others is to say that smart people believe things for not-so-smart reasons, and then use their reasoning powers to justify what they have already committed themselves emotionally to believe. In fact, people like Loftus very often charge that Christians are something like Steve; that is, they for a belief in Christianity through processes that could just as easily produce a false belief as a true belief, and then find whatever arguments they can to undergird those beliefs which were really reached in a non-truth-conducive way.
But what we are saying when we say we believe something for a good reason is that the presence of reasons is relevant to the production of our beliefs, that, unlike those benighted folks over there, we have actually paid attention to the evidence and are following it wherever it leads, whether it makes us feel good or not.
But what that means is that evidential relationships are relevant to what beliefs we hold, and therefore, what states our brains get themselves into. But evidential and logical relationships are abstract states. They are not physical things, and they do not have particular locations in space and time. Yet they are, apparently, causally relevant to the beliefs we form. Or, at least they can be.
But these same people will say that the mind is the brain, and that what goes on in the brain is simply physical causation playing itself out. Abstract objects don't, they say, cause anything to happen in the brain, since the brain is a physical system and events in the brain are caused just like any other events. It's just the laws of physics playing themselves out.
Lewis wrote: But even if grounds do exist, what exactly have they got to do with the actual occurrence
of the belief as a psychological event? If it is an event it must be caused. It must in fact be simply one link in a causal chain which stretches back to the beginning and forward to the end of time. How could such a trifle as lack of logical grounds prevent the belief’s occurrence or how could the existence of grounds promote it? (1960b: 20)
(1960b) Miracles: A Preliminary Study, 2nd edn. (London: Fontana, 1974)
It seems to me that this points to something paradoxical in the naturalist's view of reasoning.
A Critique of the AFR
Apparently this was written by Charles Echelbarger of SUNY Oswego, though it never quite says anywhere.
But I wonder how he handles my "Steve" case?
If you were to meet a person, call him Steve, who could argue with great cogency for every position he held, you might be inclined to consider him a very rational person. However, suppose that on all disputed questions Steve rolled dice to fix his positions permanently and then used his reasoning abilities only to generate the best-available arguments for those beliefs selected in the above-mentioned random method. I think that such a discovery would prompt you to withdraw from him the honorific title “rational.” Clearly, we cannot answer the question of whether or not a person is rational in a manner that leaves entirely out of account the question of how his or her beliefs are produced and sustained.
It seems to me that how beliefs are produced and sustained is crucial to assessing whether someone is rational. If it is a consequence of the fact that everything in the universe occurs as a result of the motions of a fundamentally non-teleological substrate that reasons never really affect the actual occurrence of belief as a psychological event, then there has to be something wrong with a world-view according to which everything in the universe occurs as a result of the motions of a fundamentally non-teleological substrate.
But I wonder how he handles my "Steve" case?
If you were to meet a person, call him Steve, who could argue with great cogency for every position he held, you might be inclined to consider him a very rational person. However, suppose that on all disputed questions Steve rolled dice to fix his positions permanently and then used his reasoning abilities only to generate the best-available arguments for those beliefs selected in the above-mentioned random method. I think that such a discovery would prompt you to withdraw from him the honorific title “rational.” Clearly, we cannot answer the question of whether or not a person is rational in a manner that leaves entirely out of account the question of how his or her beliefs are produced and sustained.
It seems to me that how beliefs are produced and sustained is crucial to assessing whether someone is rational. If it is a consequence of the fact that everything in the universe occurs as a result of the motions of a fundamentally non-teleological substrate that reasons never really affect the actual occurrence of belief as a psychological event, then there has to be something wrong with a world-view according to which everything in the universe occurs as a result of the motions of a fundamentally non-teleological substrate.
IMPEACHMENT TIME
OVER THE WEEKEND "PRESIDENT" OBAMA ORDERED THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMS AGAINST LIBYA AND, IN ORDER TO FACILITATE A UN-MANDATED "NO-FLY ZONE", BEGAN BOMBARDING LIBYAN FORCES. Then he went on a trip to Rio as if he had just picked new drapes for the Lincoln bedroom.
You might think we are going to say that George W. Bush did much the same thing and was excoriaated for it by the Left. But Dubya did NOT pull aany kind of a stunt like this.
The Afghanistan Campaign was a direct response to an act of war and a response to an imminent threat. The causus belli against Iraq was NOT the "WMD" issue, it was Iraq's defiance of every provision of the truce that ended the First Gulf War, defiances which included Iraqi antiaircraft fire against United States aircraft enforcing the UN - mandated "No-Fly" zone. Bush's invasion of Iraq was approved by the United Nations and authorized by Congress.
In both cases, the actions taken were the result of imminent threat and/or acts of war against the United States, and were either permitted by the War Powers Act and/or authorized by Congress.
The bloody repression of an uprising against a bloodthirsty maniacal dictator is - words fail us - distressing. But it is not an imminent threat to nor an act of war against the United States of America. By all lights, "President" Obama should have - was required to, even - sought the approval of Congress before involving these United States in somebody else's civil war. He had ought to have made his case before a joint session of Congress, but instead he looked to the United Nations and the Arab League for permission, and without so much as a by-your-leave to Congress, ordered American forces to start blowing the crap out of targets in Libya.
Then he flys to Rio to play.
Who the HELL does he think he is?
Bush was falsely accused of acting against the law. Obama does so as if he were King instead of "President". And yet, scarcely a peep from the Left (except loons like Louis Farrakhan and Micheal Moore and Ralph Nader, and this time I'll give them a partial pass).
There are I believe enough Democrats in the Senate and the House to recognize, finally, that "President" Obama; either through incompetence or design (and likely both) poses a mortal threat to this Republic. He has unlawfully, wilfully, and wantonly thrown a blowtorch into a powder keg, completely bereft of the required authorization of Congress and/or compliance with the War Powers Act. The man seems to think he was chosen Absolute Monarch.
It is time to try, impeach, convict, and remove from office this disastrous, megalomaniacal buffoon. Beyond time, even.
You might think we are going to say that George W. Bush did much the same thing and was excoriaated for it by the Left. But Dubya did NOT pull aany kind of a stunt like this.
The Afghanistan Campaign was a direct response to an act of war and a response to an imminent threat. The causus belli against Iraq was NOT the "WMD" issue, it was Iraq's defiance of every provision of the truce that ended the First Gulf War, defiances which included Iraqi antiaircraft fire against United States aircraft enforcing the UN - mandated "No-Fly" zone. Bush's invasion of Iraq was approved by the United Nations and authorized by Congress.
In both cases, the actions taken were the result of imminent threat and/or acts of war against the United States, and were either permitted by the War Powers Act and/or authorized by Congress.
The bloody repression of an uprising against a bloodthirsty maniacal dictator is - words fail us - distressing. But it is not an imminent threat to nor an act of war against the United States of America. By all lights, "President" Obama should have - was required to, even - sought the approval of Congress before involving these United States in somebody else's civil war. He had ought to have made his case before a joint session of Congress, but instead he looked to the United Nations and the Arab League for permission, and without so much as a by-your-leave to Congress, ordered American forces to start blowing the crap out of targets in Libya.
Then he flys to Rio to play.
Who the HELL does he think he is?
Bush was falsely accused of acting against the law. Obama does so as if he were King instead of "President". And yet, scarcely a peep from the Left (except loons like Louis Farrakhan and Micheal Moore and Ralph Nader, and this time I'll give them a partial pass).
There are I believe enough Democrats in the Senate and the House to recognize, finally, that "President" Obama; either through incompetence or design (and likely both) poses a mortal threat to this Republic. He has unlawfully, wilfully, and wantonly thrown a blowtorch into a powder keg, completely bereft of the required authorization of Congress and/or compliance with the War Powers Act. The man seems to think he was chosen Absolute Monarch.
It is time to try, impeach, convict, and remove from office this disastrous, megalomaniacal buffoon. Beyond time, even.
Steve Lovell's Doctoral Dissertation on Lewis and Philosophy
This is really excellent work on Lewis. It was completed the same year my book was published.
Ed Feser on the Materialist Shell Game
A redated post.
Along the same lines, here's a Lewis quote, from The Empty Universe:
The process whereby man has come to know the universe is from one point of view extremely complicated; from another it is alarmingly simple. We can observe a single one-way progression. At the outset the universe appears packed with will, intelligence, life, and positive qualities; every tree is a nymph and every planet a god. Man himself is akin to the gods. The advance gradually empties this rich and genial universe, first of its gods, then of its colours, smells, sounds and tastes, finally of solidity itself as solidity was originally imagined. As these items are taken from the world, they are transferred to the subjective side of the account:classified as out sensations, thoughts, images or emotions. The Subject becomes gorged, inflated, at the expense of the Object. But the matter does not rest there. The same method which has emptied the world now proceeds to empty ourselves. The masters of the method soon announce that we were just mistaken (and mistaken in much the same way) when we attributed “souls” or ‘selves” or “minds’ to human organisms, as when we attributed Dryads to the trees. Animism, apparently, begins at home. We, who have personified all other things, turn out to be ourselves mere personifications. Man is indeed akin to the gods, that is, he is no less phantasmal than they. Just as the Dryad is a “ghost,” an abbreviated symbol for certain verifiable facts about his behaviour: a symbol mistaken for a thing. And just as we have been broken of our bad habit of personifying trees, so we must now be broken of our habit of personifying men; a reform already effected in the political field. There never was a Subjective account into which we could transfer the items which the Subject had lost. There is no “consciousness” to contain, as images or private experiences, all the lost gods, colours, and concepts. Consciousness is “not the sort of noun that can be used that way.”
Along the same lines, here's a Lewis quote, from The Empty Universe:
The process whereby man has come to know the universe is from one point of view extremely complicated; from another it is alarmingly simple. We can observe a single one-way progression. At the outset the universe appears packed with will, intelligence, life, and positive qualities; every tree is a nymph and every planet a god. Man himself is akin to the gods. The advance gradually empties this rich and genial universe, first of its gods, then of its colours, smells, sounds and tastes, finally of solidity itself as solidity was originally imagined. As these items are taken from the world, they are transferred to the subjective side of the account:classified as out sensations, thoughts, images or emotions. The Subject becomes gorged, inflated, at the expense of the Object. But the matter does not rest there. The same method which has emptied the world now proceeds to empty ourselves. The masters of the method soon announce that we were just mistaken (and mistaken in much the same way) when we attributed “souls” or ‘selves” or “minds’ to human organisms, as when we attributed Dryads to the trees. Animism, apparently, begins at home. We, who have personified all other things, turn out to be ourselves mere personifications. Man is indeed akin to the gods, that is, he is no less phantasmal than they. Just as the Dryad is a “ghost,” an abbreviated symbol for certain verifiable facts about his behaviour: a symbol mistaken for a thing. And just as we have been broken of our bad habit of personifying trees, so we must now be broken of our habit of personifying men; a reform already effected in the political field. There never was a Subjective account into which we could transfer the items which the Subject had lost. There is no “consciousness” to contain, as images or private experiences, all the lost gods, colours, and concepts. Consciousness is “not the sort of noun that can be used that way.”
The Wikipedia entry on Delusion
Maybe this will help us get an idea of what the delusion-rhetoric is all about.
School Prayer? Sure, so long as it's Islamic prayer
Where is the ACLU when we need them? (Well, they're actually suing.)
Can an Intelligent Person be a Christian? Some Plantingian Reflections
A redated post from a couple years back.
In going on the Secular Web and looking at some atheist blogs, the answer seems to be no. In Alvin Plantinga's essay "A Christian Life Partly Lived," he writes:
At Wayne, the late Hector Neri-Casteneda, George Nakhnikian, and Edmund Gettier confronted me with antitheistic argumetns of a depth and philosophical sophistication and persistence I had never encountered before....Nakhnikian was our chairman; he thought well of my powers as a budding young philosopher, but also thought no intelligent person could possibly be a Christian. He would announce this sentiment in his usual stentorian tones, whereupon Robert Sleigh would say "But what about Al, George? Don't you think he's an intelligent person?" George would have to admit, reluctantly, that he thought I probably was, but he still thought there had to be a screw loose in there somewhere."
In going on the Secular Web and looking at some atheist blogs, the answer seems to be no. In Alvin Plantinga's essay "A Christian Life Partly Lived," he writes:
At Wayne, the late Hector Neri-Casteneda, George Nakhnikian, and Edmund Gettier confronted me with antitheistic argumetns of a depth and philosophical sophistication and persistence I had never encountered before....Nakhnikian was our chairman; he thought well of my powers as a budding young philosopher, but also thought no intelligent person could possibly be a Christian. He would announce this sentiment in his usual stentorian tones, whereupon Robert Sleigh would say "But what about Al, George? Don't you think he's an intelligent person?" George would have to admit, reluctantly, that he thought I probably was, but he still thought there had to be a screw loose in there somewhere."
Such a Shady Character
Friday, I was able to join Joyce, the hospice social worker as a volunteer for the very first time. The people we visited were Lutheran, so I was able to bring communion to them from our service at Grace. They were a delightful couple. Joyce noticed that as we prayed and I gave them communion, the patient visibly relaxed. God is so faithful and good to use even a shady lady like me. The bread and wine, God's word, the body and blood, truly are the means of grace to us all.Google Image
The Alban Institute - 2011-03-14 What is the Substance of Our Hope?
A wonderful excerpt from the book "Reframing Hope."
Naturalism without materialism
Many people have made the argument that difficulties for materialism need not be difficulties for ontological naturalism. But that leaves an important question: what is a non-materialist naturalism supposed to look like?
I can imagine a form of naturalism in which God, angels, and what we used to call human souls are part of nature. But then we could even imagine the physical in such a way that all these things are physical. When I took a course on physicalism with Hugh Chandler, who eventually became my doctoral dissertation advisor, he suggested that the physical is whatever is quantified over in an ideally completed physics. Since some theories in physics quantify over God, on that view, God would be physical.
Such definitional liberality, however, would make it difficult to define even methodological naturalism, since it would then no longer exclude what most of typically think it is supposed to exclude.
I can imagine a form of naturalism in which God, angels, and what we used to call human souls are part of nature. But then we could even imagine the physical in such a way that all these things are physical. When I took a course on physicalism with Hugh Chandler, who eventually became my doctoral dissertation advisor, he suggested that the physical is whatever is quantified over in an ideally completed physics. Since some theories in physics quantify over God, on that view, God would be physical.
Such definitional liberality, however, would make it difficult to define even methodological naturalism, since it would then no longer exclude what most of typically think it is supposed to exclude.
Homophily and the Good Samaritan
This piece, from Internet Monk, suggests that the besetting sin that people today are failing to notice is homophily, the restriction of our love to people who are like us.
An ethical genius from two millennia ago told us when we ask ourselves who we should love, in other words, who is my neighbor, we have to ask that question from a position of dire need, the kind of need one would be in if one had just been mugged and left for dead on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho. From that vantage point, try thinking that the person who takes care of you is too Samaritan, too feminist, too Republican, too Democrat, too rich, too poor, or too gay, or too immoral, or too illegal, to be my neighbor.
An ethical genius from two millennia ago told us when we ask ourselves who we should love, in other words, who is my neighbor, we have to ask that question from a position of dire need, the kind of need one would be in if one had just been mugged and left for dead on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho. From that vantage point, try thinking that the person who takes care of you is too Samaritan, too feminist, too Republican, too Democrat, too rich, too poor, or too gay, or too immoral, or too illegal, to be my neighbor.
From the Mountain to the Desert
Chronologically, things are a bit out of order in our lectionary. In January we celebrated the Baptism of Our Lord. Last week it was the Transfiguration of Our Lord. This week we go back before the transfiguration to a time immediately following Jesus’ baptism. Last week we were on the mountaintop and this week we are with Jesus in the wilderness of temptation.
Into that desolate place, “Jesus was led by the Spirit … to be tempted by the devil” (v. 1). If we want to know what today’s gospel is about, it’s all summed up in the first verse, then fleshed out in the following verses.
Do any of you remember the comedian Flip Wilson? His character, Geraldine Jones had an excuse for everything she did wrong. She would say, “The devil made me do it.” In this encounter between Jesus and the devil, the devil’s even quoting scripture. Certainly that could be an excuse for Jesus to do what the enemy suggested, couldn’t it? After all, it was God who got him into the situation in the first place since the Spirit led him there. After the high of his baptism and hearing the Father’s pleasure and the voice calling him “my beloved Son” this was a desert experience beyond our worst nightmares.
We might wonder if this really was the devil Jesus battled with. Was it just doubtful thoughts? Or after being without food 40 days and nights, was this dream? What it all boils down to though is anything which opposes God and God’s ruling in one’s life is the work of the enemy. Temptations to do something other than God’s will may come from the devil, from evil people, or from perfectly good, wonderful, well-meaning Christian people who are confused. Such well meaning people may wonder why some of us started our theological education in later life, in the prime of our careers. Some of us were making so much money. We were doing so much good right where we were. We sang in the church choir, taught Sunday school, assisted with the liturgy and sometimes even preached. Why start all over again? Couldn’t we serve God at the church and remain in our current professions? Yes we could, except we heard a voice—the voice of the Spirit leading us to work for God and the kingdom in a different way.
Couldn’t Jesus do things just a little differently than what the voice of the Father said? Maybe he could skip the cross and go straight to being the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He could rescue the Jewish people from their enslavement to Rome and be the triumphant messiah everyone was expecting. Couldn’t he?
The three temptations Jesus experiences concern: Power, Popularity, and Privilege. Jesus’ first temptation was the wrong use of power. His hunger was natural and eating is not evil. If you can, what’s wrong with turning a few stones into bread? Later Jesus feeds 5,000 with a couple of fish and 5 loaves of bread. The issue was not whether Jesus could perform a miracle to feed himself, but whether he should. It wasn’t the right time, the right place, or the right word. Jesus’ motivation was the word of God, not his own needs.
The second temptation was that of the wrong way to popularity. People were expecting a messiah who could save them from the Romans. This temptation would take him to a very public place, the symbol of God’s presence, to show the world who he was as the messiah. What’s wrong with believing scripture so strongly that you trust the angels to protect you? Jesus later walked on water. Jesus did receive notoriety and popularity by miracles such as walking on the water and healing. But this was the wrong way to popularity. This was not the voice of the Father speaking to Jesus.
The third temptation was that of the wrong kind of privilege. Satan offers Jesus something that will belong to Jesus anyway. So, what’s wrong with the King of Kings and Lord of Lords taking control a bit early? There’s a big caveat in the devil’s offer—that of worshipping someone or something other than God his father. Jesus could get this now in league with the enemy or he could wait and do things God’s way.
Some of what the devil suggests aren’t bad things. The problem with all three temptations is that their source is other than God. They came from a word that wasn’t God’s. If Jesus did these things the devil asked, even if they were good things, he would be living by a word that did not come from the mouth of God (Brian Stoffregen).
For us as Christians, the temptations are not usually obviously wrong—to rob a bank, kill someone, lie our way out of situations. It may just be a matter of choosing between the good, the better, and the best. Last week I returned from a 3 day retreat. I find that when I take the time for quiet like this, I feel closer to God. I can hear God through worship, Eucharist, and other people. And I can hear God in the quiet. But we have to make the time to attune our hearing to the voice of the Father.
Sometime I have trouble sleeping at night. I have a confession to make. When this happens, I usually go downstairs, get into a recliner, get my laptop out and watch something on Netflix. Eventually sleep comes. At this retreat however there was no TV, no internet, no radio, no nothing! I had to just lie there and try to go to sleep. When I would wake up, I would hear part of the refrain of a hymn we had sung. It ran repeatedly through my mind. God would say, “I love you and you are mine.” Without TV or internet, I could hear God speak. By spending time listening in God’s presence we learn to tell his voice from the others vying for our attention.
So, it’s one thing to talk about knowing the difference between God’s voice and the devil’s and our own, but how do we really know? We have our own temptations to deal with that threaten to take us down the wrong path, away from God. Sometimes it’s a fight for us to make time to read God’s word. In Jesus’ temptations and in ours, the devil uses God’s words, but wrenched out of context, with a different twist. That’s what happened in the garden in Genesis, that’s what happened in the desert to Jesus, and that’s what happens to us.
But we don’t have the kind of time to spend in scripture and prayer that the pastor does, that the seminarian does. After all, that’s their job! Some people are giving up the time they’d spend on Facebook for Lent. Others aren’t watching TV. Some people fast. It’s not a matter of just giving up something for Lent, but by doing so, creating time for God. This is how we grow in the knowledge of whether or not what we hear is God’s voice, God’s will. A crying child can sometimes be comforted just by hearing mom or dad’s voice—the one they know and love. It’s over time spent in that family that a parent’s voice can be differentiated from another adult’s voice. But even when we’re sure about God’s will, we may find ourselves asking, “Lord, is that really you?”
This is not an easy thing God is calling us to as his children. We still have to keep our eyes open to look for God in the unexpected places of life.
One of those unexpected places for me has been during the drive to Winchester and back. The last couple of times I’ve seen so many trucks with lumber. I think I’ve seen more in the last few days than I’ve seen since our arrival in Petersburg—so I’ve been thinking about trees and lumber. Wooden objects have been catching my attention more than usual—whether it’s a log home set on a mountainside or a wooden chest in an antique store. I came across a story that captures the essence of today’s gospel and yes, it’s related to wood.
The Strong Timber Is Tested
A group of mountain hikers came across an old woodsman with an axe on his shoulder. "Where are you going?" they asked him.
"I'm headed up the mountain to get some wood to repair my cabin," replied the woodsman.
"But why are you going up the mountain?" they asked incredulously. "There are plenty of trees all around us here."
"I know," he said, "but I need strong timber and it grows only on the highest elevations, where the trees are tested and toughened by the weather around them. The higher up you go, the stronger the timber grows."
And that is what God desires for us - that through the winds of trial and the storms of temptation we would grow strong and live on a higher level - strong to resist the devil's urging, strong to serve God, and strong as we stand together in faith and service to one another.
Lee Griess, Return to The Lord, Your God, CSS Publishing Company, Inc.
"I'm headed up the mountain to get some wood to repair my cabin," replied the woodsman.
"But why are you going up the mountain?" they asked incredulously. "There are plenty of trees all around us here."
"I know," he said, "but I need strong timber and it grows only on the highest elevations, where the trees are tested and toughened by the weather around them. The higher up you go, the stronger the timber grows."
And that is what God desires for us - that through the winds of trial and the storms of temptation we would grow strong and live on a higher level - strong to resist the devil's urging, strong to serve God, and strong as we stand together in faith and service to one another.
Lee Griess, Return to The Lord, Your God, CSS Publishing Company, Inc.
Amen.
What would disprove Christianity
A redated post.
I have often reflected on world-views and disconfirmation. Many non-believers will tell me that they would believe if God were to do something miraculous. God could provide a dramatic, Spielbergian confirmation of his existence which would disconfirm atheism, perhaps decisively. The galaxies in the Virgo cluster spelling out "Turn or Burn: This Means You, Parsons" is my personal favorite. Though Perezoso has been pointing out Christine Overall's argument that miracles wouldn't confirm the goodness of God, and might be one more piece of evidence that the Infinite One is not good, even if he exists.
Can the theist point to something similar that would decisively refute his own theism? After all a God who doesn't exist can't dramatically demonstrate his non-existence. In most atheist post-mortem scenarios, both the theist and the atheist have gone out of existence, so no one will be around to collect their bets. But there is no Spielbergian scenario that the theist can point to. Most people who come to believe, or disbelieve, do so for a variety of reasons put together, and so I can offer a vague suggestion that a lot of things going south with respect to my faith might undermine it decisively, without being able to specify exactly what that would amount to.
It is somewhat easier to think of a circumstance according to which my Christian beliefs might fall apart, though this is a post-mortem scenario.
I die, and stand before an august figure who is carrying a curved sword, and a gong mallet. The august figure asks me who my God is. I tell him "The triune God, the Father, on and Holy Spirit." The august figure scowls and bangs the gong. This isn't going so well. "The true God is Allah, he says." Oops. Then he asks "Who is your prophet?" I answer, "There were many prophets. There were the nonliterate prophets, like Elijah and Elisha, there were the Major Prophets, and the Minor Prophets. The gong bangs again. "And Muhammad is his prophet." I then find myself falling into a desert. There are lots of mirages but no water. And lots of demonic laughter whenever I realize there is no water. I'm really thirsty.
Then I reach a canyon, which I can't cross. I see all of the 9/11 hijackers enjoying...uh... the fruits promised them in the Muslim paradise, and praising Allah. I mean, this is serious damnation.
After awhile it will get through to me that this is not a bad dream, and the logical conclusion would have to be that Islam was true and Christianity was not.
I have often reflected on world-views and disconfirmation. Many non-believers will tell me that they would believe if God were to do something miraculous. God could provide a dramatic, Spielbergian confirmation of his existence which would disconfirm atheism, perhaps decisively. The galaxies in the Virgo cluster spelling out "Turn or Burn: This Means You, Parsons" is my personal favorite. Though Perezoso has been pointing out Christine Overall's argument that miracles wouldn't confirm the goodness of God, and might be one more piece of evidence that the Infinite One is not good, even if he exists.
Can the theist point to something similar that would decisively refute his own theism? After all a God who doesn't exist can't dramatically demonstrate his non-existence. In most atheist post-mortem scenarios, both the theist and the atheist have gone out of existence, so no one will be around to collect their bets. But there is no Spielbergian scenario that the theist can point to. Most people who come to believe, or disbelieve, do so for a variety of reasons put together, and so I can offer a vague suggestion that a lot of things going south with respect to my faith might undermine it decisively, without being able to specify exactly what that would amount to.
It is somewhat easier to think of a circumstance according to which my Christian beliefs might fall apart, though this is a post-mortem scenario.
I die, and stand before an august figure who is carrying a curved sword, and a gong mallet. The august figure asks me who my God is. I tell him "The triune God, the Father, on and Holy Spirit." The august figure scowls and bangs the gong. This isn't going so well. "The true God is Allah, he says." Oops. Then he asks "Who is your prophet?" I answer, "There were many prophets. There were the nonliterate prophets, like Elijah and Elisha, there were the Major Prophets, and the Minor Prophets. The gong bangs again. "And Muhammad is his prophet." I then find myself falling into a desert. There are lots of mirages but no water. And lots of demonic laughter whenever I realize there is no water. I'm really thirsty.
Then I reach a canyon, which I can't cross. I see all of the 9/11 hijackers enjoying...uh... the fruits promised them in the Muslim paradise, and praising Allah. I mean, this is serious damnation.
After awhile it will get through to me that this is not a bad dream, and the logical conclusion would have to be that Islam was true and Christianity was not.
Vallicella on the naturalist version of fides quaerens intellectum
Do naturalists use the principle of faith seeking understanding. In this old post, Bill Vallicella argues that they do, rebutting some objections that I have heard from time to time from naturalists.
A Scientific American article on the impasse in origin of life research
Scientists, according to this article, have no clue as to how life began. But the author thinks this doesn't support a theistic account, because theists can't answer the question "Who made God?"
SPICE
WE HAVE BEEN HEARING AND READING FOR SOME TIME ABOUT "SPICE" SMOKING MIXTURE, TOUTED AS A 'LEGAL ALTERNATIVE" TO MARIJUANA. So when we spotted some on sale cheap (the store owner was in a hurry to get rid of the stuff before Virginia Governor O'Donnell signs a recently-passed ban on the stuff into law), we decided to give it a try while it was still legal.
Frankly we were quite skeptical that anything as supposedly "powerful" as this "spice" stuff would work as advertised. The stuff has been around for at least two years, yet the DEA just got around to banning the main ingredient?
Now, we have not smoked marijuana for a couple decades, so we did not have the needed equipment - ie; a pipe and a screen - so we took a 24 Oz beer can, made a depression in the side, punched it full of little holes, and put the "spice" in there. We lit it, and inhaled through the top opening.
This stuff is several orders of magnitude stronger than the Lebanese hashish that used to be so widely available in this country. It is a short-acting hallucinogen that is as strong and intense in its peak effect as is a double dose of mescaline. The distortion especially of time was remarkable. Colors intensified, patterns formed, the whole bit.
And the while we listened to Rush Limbaugh. Here's a note to all you Lefties who think that if you could just get us Conservatives stoned we'd mellow out and see it your way: A tripping Conservative Nationalist is just that much more intensely conservative and nationalist.
Side effects? We were able to take our pulse even in the stupor we were in. Slightly elevated. No mouth-dryness as with actual pot, and Spice seems to be a broncho-dilator. No increase in appetite, either.
Duration of effects were : rapid onset ten seconds after first inhalation, intensifying to peak level three minutes after last inhalation. Peak effect lasting for about 45 minutes, petering out to simple drowsiness over the next two hours. Total time: a bit less than 3 hours. Afterward we slept for eight hours and woke up refreshed and completely sober, a fact we verified by playing a game of computer chess and a tile-match game, winning both; and putting ourselves through a series of field sobriety tests such as the cops use. We are glad to report that we're just fine.
This is not something we'd do again. We simply do not have the time, and unlike a few beers, this stuff blows you right out of your gourd for better than half-an-hour with a "trip" reminiscent of powerful agents such as LSD, Mescaline, and Psylocybin. We only smoked 1/4 gram of this stuff.
So if you've never tried this stuff, here's what the effects are; personally reported by the Alexandria Daily Poop.
Were this stuff illegal, we never would have tried it. If it remains legal, we personally would not go there again, anyway. But if this stuff does remain legal, then marijuana and hashish should be completely legal also. Spice is MUCH more powerful.
Frankly we were quite skeptical that anything as supposedly "powerful" as this "spice" stuff would work as advertised. The stuff has been around for at least two years, yet the DEA just got around to banning the main ingredient?
Now, we have not smoked marijuana for a couple decades, so we did not have the needed equipment - ie; a pipe and a screen - so we took a 24 Oz beer can, made a depression in the side, punched it full of little holes, and put the "spice" in there. We lit it, and inhaled through the top opening.
This stuff is several orders of magnitude stronger than the Lebanese hashish that used to be so widely available in this country. It is a short-acting hallucinogen that is as strong and intense in its peak effect as is a double dose of mescaline. The distortion especially of time was remarkable. Colors intensified, patterns formed, the whole bit.
And the while we listened to Rush Limbaugh. Here's a note to all you Lefties who think that if you could just get us Conservatives stoned we'd mellow out and see it your way: A tripping Conservative Nationalist is just that much more intensely conservative and nationalist.
Side effects? We were able to take our pulse even in the stupor we were in. Slightly elevated. No mouth-dryness as with actual pot, and Spice seems to be a broncho-dilator. No increase in appetite, either.
Duration of effects were : rapid onset ten seconds after first inhalation, intensifying to peak level three minutes after last inhalation. Peak effect lasting for about 45 minutes, petering out to simple drowsiness over the next two hours. Total time: a bit less than 3 hours. Afterward we slept for eight hours and woke up refreshed and completely sober, a fact we verified by playing a game of computer chess and a tile-match game, winning both; and putting ourselves through a series of field sobriety tests such as the cops use. We are glad to report that we're just fine.
This is not something we'd do again. We simply do not have the time, and unlike a few beers, this stuff blows you right out of your gourd for better than half-an-hour with a "trip" reminiscent of powerful agents such as LSD, Mescaline, and Psylocybin. We only smoked 1/4 gram of this stuff.
So if you've never tried this stuff, here's what the effects are; personally reported by the Alexandria Daily Poop.
Were this stuff illegal, we never would have tried it. If it remains legal, we personally would not go there again, anyway. But if this stuff does remain legal, then marijuana and hashish should be completely legal also. Spice is MUCH more powerful.
Another argument for atheism- the argument from explanatory vacuity
A redated post.
1) If Billy Graham were to fall ill, many Christians all over the world would pray for his recovery.
2) If Billy were to recover, they would all praise God and credit him with the healing.
3) If Billy were to die, they would say that it was not God’s will for Billy to recover.
4) But if God can be used to explain why something occurs but also why something does not occur, then it really does not explain it at all.
5) But if this is so, the appeal to God explains nothing.
6) If God explains nothing, then we should simply deny God’s existence.
7) Therefore, we should believe that God does not exist.
1) If Billy Graham were to fall ill, many Christians all over the world would pray for his recovery.
2) If Billy were to recover, they would all praise God and credit him with the healing.
3) If Billy were to die, they would say that it was not God’s will for Billy to recover.
4) But if God can be used to explain why something occurs but also why something does not occur, then it really does not explain it at all.
5) But if this is so, the appeal to God explains nothing.
6) If God explains nothing, then we should simply deny God’s existence.
7) Therefore, we should believe that God does not exist.
This is a review of Wright's "hate-filled hypocrites" book
This passage in the review is especially interesting from the point of view of some of the things we have heard of late.
Fourth, there is a modest apologetic aspect to Wright's book. Wright does not try to persuade people to convert to Christianity. He does not gloss over the many shortcomings he finds in the way Christians think and act. But he does not hesitate to debunk the myths—David Bentley Hart would say delusions— proffered by critics of Christianity. Is it true that "everyone knows" Christianity is dying? Are Christian claims widely discredited? On the contrary, Wright's findings suggest Christians in the United States need not panic or overhaul everything they are doing. He cheekily includes this summary judgment in the conclusion. "You know, I'm kind of enjoying this oversimplification, so let's take it a step further. That's right, after about a year of reading the scholarly literature and analyzing scores of data sets, I am distilling my evaluation of Evangelical Christianity to a single grade. I give American Evangelical Christianity a B." The reports of Christianity's demise continue to be regularly exaggerated, as Books & Culture readers will be well aware (cf. John G. Stackhouse, Jr.: What Scandal? Whose Conscience? July/August 2007. Jon A. Shields: A Scandal of the Secular Conscience? January/February 2008. Andy Crouch: Transmission Routes: World Christianity and American churches. January/February 2010). What stands in the way of fruitful Christian life? Not massive problems that defy all efforts by Christians, but rather unsurprising obstacles (like institutional bureaucracy and people's penchant for sin), perennial problems that individual Christians and churches empowered by the Holy Spirit continue to faithfully address.
Fourth, there is a modest apologetic aspect to Wright's book. Wright does not try to persuade people to convert to Christianity. He does not gloss over the many shortcomings he finds in the way Christians think and act. But he does not hesitate to debunk the myths—David Bentley Hart would say delusions— proffered by critics of Christianity. Is it true that "everyone knows" Christianity is dying? Are Christian claims widely discredited? On the contrary, Wright's findings suggest Christians in the United States need not panic or overhaul everything they are doing. He cheekily includes this summary judgment in the conclusion. "You know, I'm kind of enjoying this oversimplification, so let's take it a step further. That's right, after about a year of reading the scholarly literature and analyzing scores of data sets, I am distilling my evaluation of Evangelical Christianity to a single grade. I give American Evangelical Christianity a B." The reports of Christianity's demise continue to be regularly exaggerated, as Books & Culture readers will be well aware (cf. John G. Stackhouse, Jr.: What Scandal? Whose Conscience? July/August 2007. Jon A. Shields: A Scandal of the Secular Conscience? January/February 2008. Andy Crouch: Transmission Routes: World Christianity and American churches. January/February 2010). What stands in the way of fruitful Christian life? Not massive problems that defy all efforts by Christians, but rather unsurprising obstacles (like institutional bureaucracy and people's penchant for sin), perennial problems that individual Christians and churches empowered by the Holy Spirit continue to faithfully address.
ENTITLEMENT MORASS
Issues involving the national debt and increased spending and borrowing have reached the point where they can no longer be ignored and/or put off. The dance that began with FDR's Social Security has ended, and the piper is getting impatient for his wage.
What is interesting is the manner in which the Leftist mass media is trying to frame the debate. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, etcetera; are termed by the Left to be "Mandatory spending" while essentials such as National Defense are termed "Discretionary Spending".
What the fuck is going on here?
Well, for one thing the terms "Mandatory" and "discretionary" are misnomers. Our Constitution does NOT AUTHORIZE ANY of the so-called "Mandatory" spending. Even if FICA IS a "tax" authorized by the 16Th Amendment, the purpose to which it has been put since before I was born is COMPLETELY UNAUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION!! SS, Medicare and Medicaid (and other) spending is not only not "mandatory", it is also completely unauthorized by the Constitution, and therefore ILLEGAL.
The only reason we have Social Security today is that it was peddled to the public as an "insurance investment". But when someone objected and took his objection all the way to the Supreme Court, the Government argued that FICA deductions were one of the taxes (not tax, singular) on incomes authorized by the sixteenth amendment.
And being no more than a tax, the imposts were then dumped into the general fund. SS and its adjuncts were "paid for" with U.S. Treasury Bonds. And the money was used for whatever our wannabe-massas thought good.
There ain't no fuckin' money to pay social security NOW.
Nevertheless, there are people who either are anticipating SS benefits in the future or who are dependent on them NOW. The slimeballs who thought up this mess KNEW that they needed but set the hook to ultimately land the fish. (By the way, this is also why the Obama administration is fighting like mad to stave off and delay challenges to the unconstitutional and unsustainable scheme known as Obamacare. It's the same principal a dope pusher uses: first get 'em hooked, then gouge the hell out of 'em.)
Eliminating Social Security would provide enough savings to retire our debt to China. We are not talking just payments to retirees here. Those are the tip of the iceberg. The cost of paying government employees to administer this boondoggle amount to two or three times the amount paid out. If there were a charity with such a high overhead, it would rightly be labeled a FRAUD.
What we would propose to wean the public off Social Security would be to:
- Assure all persons already recieving benefits that they will not lose them.
- Give people who have already paid at least $20,000 into the system, and are ten years or less from retirement on the date of adoption of this plan, the choice of a one time lump-sum tax free payment of $15,000 OR to recieve benefits as the system is already set up to provide them.
- All others would continue to pay the FICA tax at present rates until such time as they have paid in $65,000 or until they reach eligibility, whichever comes first; at which time they will no longer be required to pay the FICA tax and will recieve a $15,000 one-time tax-free lump sum "benefit" as described above.
- All employers will continue to pay the payroll tax on wages, regardless of whether the worker has met his $65,000 quota or is at or beyond the age of eligibility.
- Self-employed and independent contractors will not be required to pay both the FICA and payroll tax portions, and the "self-employment tax" will be re-written to reflect this.
- When the point has been reached at which all workers who have paid at least $60,000 into the system are assured of their $15,000 benefit AND all persons recieving benefits under the present arrangement are dead or otherwise ineligible, the FICA tax and the Social Security Administration will be abolished.
- The payroll tax will remain in effect but will substitute for the income tax on employees earning up to the "cap" on FICA obligations. The abolition of FICA will serve to provide an automatic benefit to those workers who have not paid in $65,000 at the time Social Security is ended.
This plan could in our estimation wean the nation off Social Security in the space of a generation (or less). And with "Obamacare" shot down, maybe we can get back to the idea that, other than life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and what you have earned; you are entitled to a kick in the ass. That way lies prosperity.
The Appetizer
Have you ever walked into a restaurant or a room and opened the door only to be blown away by the noise? That happened to my husband and me when we were on vacation a few weeks ago. We had made plans to have dinner with our children and their spouses. Our daughter picked out the restaurant. When we got inside the foyer the earsplitting music was so loud that we could not even hear each other talking. Because of my husband’s hearing problem, we knew that if we ate at this restaurant, he would not hear the conversation at the table. We decided to go elsewhere. The second restaurant had a much quieter atmosphere and we were able to enjoy our time together.
I may be stating the obvious here, but have you noticed that it’s easier to hear a conversation when there aren’t a lot of loud distractions blaring in your ears? This is true in our relationship with God as well. It’s the daily living part that was as difficult for the disciples as it is for us.
Today’s second reading and the gospel talk about the transfiguration of Jesus. This is when Christ was changed into his glorified body. The transfiguration is described in three of the gospels. Why does Peter talk about it in his letter as well? Didn’t Peter’s audience already know about it? These believers had been taught that Jesus would return, but it still hadn’t happened. Perhaps they were discouraged and wondered if it ever would. Peter appeals to the witness of the transfiguration to encourage his audience as they wait.
In the retelling of the transfiguration, the community becomes eyewitnesses with the three on the mountain who witnessed Christ’s splendor. God’s majesty was displayed. The Father’s voice was heard, calling Jesus “Son…Beloved, with whom [he was] well pleased” (verse 17). Peter, James, and John heard God’s voice from heaven--referring to what follows, suggesting it has an unusual aspect (BDAG). There’s something very unique about the message being proclaimed (NET Bible notes).
The transfiguration is the appetizer for the main course, when Jesus comes again in his glory—not as the crucified one, but as the glorious king. The Old Testament scriptures foretell this.
Peter, James, and John had to look to see this epiphany. They had to listen to hear the voice. We may not have opportunities as dramatic as that to see God’s presence and to hear God’s voice, but are there ways we can be more aware of God in our midst?
Do we always have the TV, radio, I Pod, or some other kind of device on? Are we uncomfortable with quiet, with silence? I am! Some of us grew up with the continual racket of the TV on in the background for much of our lives. But sometimes we just need to be still and quiet and listen.
I just got back Fri. from a 3 day retreat. I find that when I take the time for quiet like this, I feel closer to God. I can hear God through worship, Eucharist, and other people. And I can hear God in the quiet. But I have to take the time.
Let me tell you a story. I often have trouble sleeping at night. When this happens, I usually go downstairs, get into a recliner and watch TV or get my laptop and watch Netflix. Eventually I fall asleep. At this retreat however there was no TV, no internet, no radio, no nothing! I had to just lie there and try to go to sleep. When I would wake up, part of the refrain of a hymn we sang kept running through my mind. God would say, “I love you and you are mine.” Without TV or internet, I could hear God speak.
It is impossible to hear God speaking to us when we are distracted by the hustle and bustle of everyday life. We need to take time to slow down. When you do this can you hear God’s gentle voice? Shhhhhhhh, listen God is speaking.
God may speak through scripture as you read. God may speak through a friend, through worship, or through an impression. Listen, God still speaks.
Be on the lookout for God presence, whether clothed in the light of the transfiguration or in subtle, easy to miss ways. You may see the face of God in your neighbor, in the homeless, the hungry, those in need on the other side of the world or those living right next door. Let the truth of God’s Word be your light in the darkness, showing you the way.
God wants to transform our lives. Let the distractions fall away so we can see Jesus. May we close our ears to the din and open them to the voice of the Holy Spirit. God is waiting for an opportunity to talk to us. We need to slow down and listen for His voice. This is expressed in some of the words from the hymn, “You Are Mine”:
I will come to you in the silence
I will lift you from all your fear
You will hear My voice
I claim you as My choice
Be still, and know I am near
I am hope for all who are hopeless
I am eyes for all who long to see
In the shadows of the night,
I will be your light
Come and rest in Me
I will lift you from all your fear
You will hear My voice
I claim you as My choice
Be still, and know I am near
I am hope for all who are hopeless
I am eyes for all who long to see
In the shadows of the night,
I will be your light
Come and rest in Me
Chorus:
Do not be afraid, I am with you
I have called you each by name
Come and follow Me
I will bring you home
I love you and you are mine
Do not be afraid, I am with you
I have called you each by name
Come and follow Me
I will bring you home
I love you and you are mine
Amen.
Google Image