Showers, Flowers, and allergies

You know the old adage, "April showers bring May flowers." Well along with the showers comes mold (to which I'm especially allergic). Ray, on the other hand is allergic to most anything green that grows--grass and trees. The spring is a beautiful time of year, but we're a bit on allergy overload right now. The last couple of weeks we've had few days without rain. And just to make it interesting, there have been tornado watches and warnings!

So, we are finding our energy flagging a bit from the allergies. This is at a time that although Holy Week is done, there remains much to do that requires energy. My internship winds up in June and there really isn't that much time between now and then. 

So, basically, I think I may just be whining a bit, but neither Ray nor myself feel very good right now. We're not sick, but just are off the charts with allergies. So, this seems to be another reminder of my inability to do anything in my owns strength, of which there's none at the moment. God's strength is made perfect in weakness according to Paul. It's a good thing with all that tomorrow and the coming days have in store for us. Now if I can only bloom as well as the trees and flowers, I'll be all set.


Google Images

The Argument from Truth in Augustine

This is from Katherin Rogers' website. She is at the University of Delaware.


Proof from Truth: Summary
1. You know you exist.  (Si fallor, sum)
2. You know you also live and think. (To know 1 you'd have to.)
3. Your reason is superior to mere existence or existence and life.
A. It contains the other two.  (Existence is good, the more being a thing has, the more there is to it, the better it is.  Corollaries: The Great Chain of Being, The Principle of Plenitude.)
B. Reason judges other aspects of cognitive apparatus.
4. Therefore reason is the "highest" thing in our world.
5. Something would be God if it were...
A. really existent
B. not part of physical world
C. eternal and immutable
D. superior to reason
6. There is something like that, Truth i.e. Numbers and Wisdom
A. We all "see" it.
B. Clearly not part of physical world (We know it will be the case tomorrow, Idea of unity, mathematical rules that hold for infinite number system....)
C. Recognize don't change over time
D. Reason must conform to it, not vice versa.
7. And this Truth is the SOURCE of our world.
A. To exist must have form
B. Form depends on number.
C. A thing cannot form itself.

Therefore: God

Angus Menuge develops Puddleglum's argument a different way

A redated post.

In Bassham and Walls ed. The Chronicles of Narnia and Philosophy (Open Court, 2005), Angus Menuge finds an implicit argument against materialism that is not pragmatic in nature. In "Why Eustace Almost Deserved His Name: Lewis's Critique of Modern Secularism" he writes:

The argument is left rather implicit, but Lewis is clearly attacking the intelligibility of the debunkers' claim that our ideas of "higher" things can derive from "lower" sources. How can the idea of something great derive from something lacking that greatness? Could the idea of eternity arise from the materialist's temporal world? Could the ideas of infinity and perfection derive from the finite, imperfect world of the secularist? Could the idea of a necessary being like God derive from the secularist's contingent universe? There is a good case to be made that material causes do not account for the content of those ideas. pp. 202-203.

This is reminiscent of an argument found in Descartes' Meditations.

See also this discussion.

A Peculiar Prophet

UMC Bishop Will Willimon's response to disaster.

A Peculiar Prophet

What's Important and What If?

Things have been very interesting weather-wise in our country lately. Places that never have tornadoes have experienced devastation beyond what we can fathom. Several times in the last week we've been under tornado watches and warnings. Last night was one of those times.

We considered how seriously we should take the warning. Do we go down to the basement or just go to bed as usual. We decided to err on the side of caution and gathered up a few necessary things (including the dog and cat) and went to the basement. Ray was attuned to the weather radio and I kept watching the updates on my laptop.

I experienced a couple of different emotions and thought processes last evening. First off, I didn't think I was so materialistic. Going through a mental checklist of what we HAD to have downstairs with us brought me to that conclusion. And how would I live without my stuff (including clothes) if we did get hit?

Secondly, I struggled with the issue of knowing that God takes care of and protects us and yet...God does allow us to go through some very difficult times as well. Certainly many of those experiencing devastation and flooding in so much of the country are those who trust in the Lord as well. If we had been at the receiving end of such damage, would it mean God was not protecting us or that God was not faithful? Of course not. So how does one balance that knowledge of God's almighty saving and protecting power with the understanding that bad things happen to good people and God does allow stuff to happen? And in connection with all this, how do we not live in fear of what could happen?

I admit my emotions fluctuated a lot last night. Sometimes I was perfectly calm just waiting and riding out the warning and possible tornado. At other times I was trying to visualize how losing everything physically would impact my future.

Needless to say, our area was left unscathed. The tornado warning became a watch and we came upstairs to go to bed. I was left with a lot to ponder however. Psalm 27 is one of those Bible passages I keep coming back to. What about you?

Google Image

An Interview with Tim McGrew

On undesigned coincidences.

What Lewis means by "supernatural"

A redated post.

To call the act of knowing--the act, not of remembering that something was so in the past, but of 'seeing' that it must be so always and in any possible world--to call this act 'supernatural', is some violence to our ordinary linguistic usage. But of course we do not mean by this that it is spooky, or sensational, or even (in any religious sense) 'spiritual'. We mean only that it 'won't fit in'; that such an act, to be what it claims to be--and if it is not, all our thinking is discredited--cannot be merely the exhibition at a particular place and time of that total, and largely mindless, system of events called 'Nature'. It must break sufficiently free from that universal chain in order to be determined by what it knows.

From Miracles, Chapter 3.

Devotion for Wednesday - Google Docs

Thanks to Dave Westphal for this challenging devotion.

Devotion for Wednesday - Google Docs

Hylemorphic Dualism

An essay by David Oderberg.

Universalism amongst the early church fathers

If this is correct, universalism was, if anything, more prevalent than the doctrine of everlasting torment in the Patristic era.

Tom Talbott on the Outsider Test for Faith

Thomas Talbott has written a detailed critique of the Outsider Test for faith. I've been long convinced that the discussion of the OTF needs to move out of the blogosphere and into the realm of peer-reviewed journals. If Tom can be prevailed upon to submit this paper to such a journal, hopefully this can begin. It is the first essay on his list of "other writings."

Oh What a Week!!!


This past week was the most amazing Holy Week I have ever experienced. Considering I spent a number of them in the Holy Land, that's really saying something. I have never been so involved in the planning and participation of the services. Although I'm not yet a pastor, the experiences I've had during internship have whetted my appetite even more to be doing this for the rest of my life.

According to Frederick Buechner, vocation is “the place where your deep gladness and the world's deep hunger meet" With the tiredness, yet the high of Holy Week following me into this week, these words describe this job, work, vocation of serving God and God's people more than ever.

I experienced this today as I made my weekly trek to Winchester, VA for physical therapy. It's an hour and a half drive one way. Winchester Hospital is just down the road, so I've been able to combine physical therapy days and hospital visits. Today's visits were especially poignant. One woman had previously been in the local Petersburg hospital for a long time. I became acquainted with her through my times as chaplain there. Now she's in Winchester. She responded very positively to seeing me again and it seemed to lift her spirits. She is a devout believer in Jesus and we had prayer together. The other woman I saw is really struggling and is scared. She also seemed to appreciate the visit and we prayed together as well. We don't always receive that kind of response, that's for sure. But boy do I love doing this.


We are given such amazing opportunities to walk with people in this calling: visit in homes, in hospitals, eat together, worship together, be the people of God together in this place. What a great privilege we have to serve God and others.

We have traveled together through the weeks of Lent, through Holy Week and Easter Sunday. Our journey continues through these next weeks of Easter. Christ is risen! He is risen indeed! Alleluia!


Google Images

HAROLD CAMPING

MUCH ATTENTION HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO THE PREDICTION OF ONE HAROLD CAMPING THAT THE "RAPTURE" OF CHRISTIANS WILL TAKE PLACE ON THE 21ST DAY OF NEXT MONTH. Both Christians and those who hate them would love for this to be true. In fact, I would welcome it in the next ten minutes. It is hard to fathom how much worse things can get before God finally says "ENOUGH!!"


Israel is surrounded by enemies, one of which - Iran - is trying like mad to develop a nuclear weapon which her president Mahmoud Ahmedi-Nijad has all but promised to use to blow Israel off the map. Scientists are using their knowledge to try and manipulate life. There is a proposition afoot in the United Nations to give human rights to insects and trees and rocks (and no, i''m NOT KIDDING).

The world has gone COMPLETELY INSANE.

May 21st??? I would not be surprised if God decided he'd finally had it in the next ten seconds.
But Camping has been wrong before. He claims that "further study" has enlightened him. However, the "clear teaching of the Bible" he claims to espouse teaches that "no man knows the day or hour".

And why is knowing the date so important? Shouldn't Christians be prepared always for this event? Shouldn't we always be trying to lead others on the path to God and Heaven?
One day, and soon, I hope, the dead who are in Christ will arise to meet Him, and we who are alive will be taken up to join Him in the air, and so shall we always be with the LORD.
Something tells me that Brother Camping will be among us, and that Jesus will look at him and say something like:

"Harry, you're an idiot. But I still love you."

Would Lewis have supported ID?

Michael Peterson argues that he would not.

No Argument for God

Tom Gilson reviews a book by a Christian youth pastor proudly proclaiming that there is no argument for God. Don't tell Loftus this book is out there.

The Light of Christ...This is the Night...

We celebrated the Easter Vigil tonight at Grace Lutheran Church in Petersburg, WV.  I have participated in a number of Vigil services, but this is the first time I have been on the planning side. Many months ago, Pr. Larry asked Ray to do the Easter Proclamation or Exsultet part of the service, which is a lengthy chanted section. He has been rehearsing daily since that time and did a fine job tonight. 

It is also the first time in several years that Grace has celebrated the Vigil. To some, it was the first time ever. Many participated in various ways to make this a rich reminder of all that God has done throughout salvation history. One of the members built the fire that began our time together. Others were lectors declaring the Word (we did only 4 Old Testament readings), others were ushers, and we had a wonderful organist as well. 

It was a joyful excursion from the tomb to the celebration of resurrection. Alleluia! Christ is risen! He is risen indeed! Alleluia!

Google Images

Obama and the Democrats: Too Far to the Right?

While right-wingers think of Obama as a Leftist, Taner Edis of the Secular Outpost think he, and the Democrats, are way too far right.

Sometimes, you can't please anybody.

C. S.Lewis on the AFR and the Scientific Juggernaut

The link is to an article by Jim Slagle in Quodlibeta. 


The picture so often painted of Christians huddling together on an ever narrower strip of beach while the incoming tide of "Science" mounts higher and higher corresponds to nothing in my own experience. That grand myth which I asked you to admire a few minutes ago is not for me a hostile novelty breaking in on my traditional beliefs. On the contrary, that cosmology is what I started from. Deepening distrust and final abandonment of it long preceded my conversion to Christianity. Long before I believed Theology to be true I had already decided that the popular scientific picture at any rate was false. One absolutely central inconsistency ruins it; it is the one we touched on a fortnight ago. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears. Unless we can be sure that reality in the remotest nebula or the remotest part obeys the thought laws of the human scientist here and now in his laboratory -- in other words, unless Reason is an absolute -- all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.

RevGalBlogPals: Good Friday: My Song is Love Unknown

Thank you Mary Beth--one of my favorite hymns.
RevGalBlogPals: Good Friday: My Song is Love Unknown

Telling Stories and Learning Faith: life under construction: Thoughts for Good Friday

Telling Stories and Learning Faith: life under construction: Thoughts for Good Friday

journalling: The things he carried - The amazing love of God

Thank you Liz. This says it all.

journalling: The things he carried - The amazing love of God

What if?

GOOD FRIDAY

PERHAPS THE MOST GALLING SWIPE AT CHRISTIANITY EVER UTTERED WAS UTTERED BY MAHATMA GHANDI, WHO SAID "I WILL BECOME A CHRISTIAN WHEN I MEET ONE." His implication, of course was that a Christian must be a perfect human being, according to what he percieved as Christian standards. His snide little remark has allowed who-knows-how many people to deny God the chance to forgive their sins. Some of them have no doubt died in their sin.

"Perfect human being" is the mother of all oxymorons. It is because of this that we have Good Friday.

Good Friday of course commemorates the day when God, who had taken the form of a man, died by the horrible method of crucifixion. He then was entombed and rose from the dead three days later. He, being the ONLY perfect human ever to walk the face of the Earth, in dying in such a manner; ABSOLUTELY INNOCENT of any wrong before Man or God; shed His Blood in a sacrifice for every sin; past, present, and future; of ANYONE who accepts the pardon by confessing with his mouth that Jesus is LORD GOD and that God has raised Him from the dead.
Christians do change their ways. Some gradually and some radically. But this change is not a requirement of Salvation but rather its inevitable final result. And everyone remains unto death in some measure imperfect.

Christians disagree on what this perfection is. I don't think drinking alcohol is a sin, but many of my bretheren and sisteren do. (I smoke and gamble, too; but I can't dance worth a hoot). Even so, there's always room for improvement, and I could use a little. Readers of this blog will be the first to point out that I use some pretty ripe language to get my point across, and I have a tendency to be cynical.

Perhaps Mahama Ghandi thought himself perfect, and assumed that a true Christian would agree with him on all points. But if Ghandi himself were perfect, then there would have been no need for God the Son (not "son of God" but "God the Son", and it isn't a fine distinction) to have lived sinlessly in a sea of temptation for 33 years and then die a horrible death by torture - being first brutally beaten and then whipped with a Roman knout with lead and sharp metal woven into the braids, having his beard pulled out by the roots and having a "crown" of 2-3 inch thorns pressed down on His head, then stripped naked and nailed through the wrists and ankles to a cross that was then raised and dropped into a post-hole, there to suffer for three hours; finally feeling the ultimate pain of Hell, abandonment by God.

It is not a perfect life that makes anyone a Christian. What makes a person a Christian is the bloody Cross and the empty Tomb.
Ghandi met many, many Christians. I hope in his last moments he realized it and joined them. If he didn't, his fate is horrible and will get even worse at the Judgment.

Will You Let Me Be Your Servant?

Tonight I participated in the most moving Maundy Thursday service ever. This is something the Lutheran and Presbyterian churches in Petersburg do together. We sang and prayed and read scripture and heard God's Word proclaimed...then the foot washing. Every Maundy Thursday service I have been to until tonight, needed "plants" in the congregation--those few people who agree ahead of time to go forward for foot washing in hopes of convincing others to do so as well. It always feels awkward and a bit contrived.

Tonight, you could barely keep people away. No one was asked ahead of time to come forward first. The spirit in which Pastors Cantu and Cardot washed each one's feet was noteworthy as well. Neither was using a particular formulaic blessing or prayer, but each was blessing the congregants by name and in relationship to who they were. All were known and were accordingly blessed. It was impossible to hold back the tears. There was a mix of humble service and such honesty. The foot washing was followed by the prayers of the people and communion and the stripping of the altar. God was among us in such a tangible way.

As I have been pondering this experience, a song has been running through my head, "The Servant Song."




Have a blessed Holy Week.


Google Image

Holy Saturday: The Space Between

Holy Saturday is probably my favorite part of the Holy Week liturgy. This is a nice article I came across. Hope you enjoy it.

Holy Saturday: The Space Between

The Arizona Birth Certificate Bill is Not about Obama


From a news report. 
On Thursday night Arizona’s birther bill passed through the House with a handy 40-16 margin. It was the final hurdle for the bill, which will require any presidential or vice presidential candidate to provide proof of their U.S. citizenship before they can be put on the state ballot.
Among the acceptable documents are a “long-form birth certificate,” an early baptismal or circumcision certificate, hospital birth record, early census record or a postpartum hospital record given to the mother, Politico reported.



“This bill is not about Obama. It’s not about that,” Arizona Rep. Carl Seel insisted to CNN. “It’s about future elections and maintaining the integrity of the Constitution.”


Yeah, right. If you'll buy that, I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona. Anyway, Gov. Brewer had the good sense to veto it. 

Parsons on Mental Causation

The Secular Outpost: The Problem with Metaphysical Naturalism (According to Victor Reppert)

First, I do share Parsons' concern about getting definitions right. When I deal with a naturalistic view, I offer an account of what that is supposed to have in it, which includes the mechanistic character of the base level, the causal closure of the base level, and the superveniece of everything else on the base level. By mechanism I mean that we are excluding from that base level four properties: intentionality, purpose, first-person subjectivity, and normativity. Now someone might come along and say that they have a view that doesn't fit these characteristics but is still naturalistic in some sense, in which case we'd have to look at their theory to see in what sense they're calling it naturalistic and whether I think a version of the AFR can be advanced against it. Here, I am going to assume that Parsons agrees with this account, and move forward. 

Looking at this post, it seems to me that there are a couple of issues that we have to be careful about conflating. One of them is the claim that some version of nonreductive materialism can meet the argument from reason. In the combox, you get some discussion of that, and some responses to some exchanges with Clayton Littlejohn. However, the impression that I have had in discussion with Clayton is that he believes that mental events qua mental events do cause other mental states and physical states. Troubles with mental causation have been the focus of some of Jaegwon Kim's criticisms of nonreductive materialism, in particular the nonreductivism of Donald Davidson. Kim writes:

Davidson's anomalous monism fails to do full justice to psychophysical causation in which the mental qua mental has any real causal role to play. Consider Davidson's account: whether or not a given event has a mental description (optional reading: whether or not it has a mental characteristic) seems entirely irrelevant to what causal relations it enters into. Its causal powers are wholly determined by the physical description or characteristic that holds for it; for it is under its physical description that it may be subsumed under a causal law.

Jaegwon Kim, "Epiphenomenal and Supervenient Causation" ch. 6 of Supervenience and Mind, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) 106.

Now, of course, there can be a debate as to whether a case cam be made for mental causation in a non-reductive materialist framework. I think it can't. It's not that I don't think higher-level properties can be causally relevant. They can be if the are configurational combinations of physical states. If a bowling ball knocks all the pins down, this is perfectly possible even though basic physics makes no reference to bowling balls and pins. However, I take it if you add up the physical states and know what words mean, you can't avoid the conclusion that the bowling ball knocked down the pins. What I don't see is how you can add up non-normative states and get normative states, how you can add up non-intentional states and get intentional states, how you can add up non-first-person states and get first-person states, or how you can add up non-purposive states and get purposive states.

Science always prefers the most tractable accounts it can get. Scientists are happy when they can analyze the movement of a bullet through space, and determine what kind of impact it would have to make given the speed at which it was traveling. But there is another type of explanation that we might be interested in with respect to the bullet. It was fired by someone who had some intention with respect to what he wanted the bullet to do. Perhaps, he fired the bullet to kill his mother-in-law, whom he believes to be the worst person he knows. That is an agent-explanation, and as such is less tractable to science than a ballistic explanation. However, it isn't a total mystery; we can understand the person's motivations, and perhaps not find the action totally unexpected. After all, we are talking about the motivations of a fellow human. Now, as action might be the action of a superior being of some kind, and there it is even less tractable. Still, I would not want to call it a pseudo-explanation, because we can have some understanding of a superior mind, even the mind of God.

But it is a natural impulse in science to want to analyze the world in as tractable terms as possible, and hence we can understand why materialism is appealing from the point of view of science. However, at the same time, science described the activity of scientists in mentalistic terms. Scientists gather evidence, they form hypotheses, they perform logical and mathematical inferences, etc. It would indeed undermine the scientific enterprise if these mentalistic explanations of the behavior of scientists were simply untrue. Few people would be materialists if it weren't appealing from a scientific standpoint, but if mentalistic explanations are all false, then there are no scientists, and therefore no science. So, some kind of explanatory compatibility thesis must be defended by materialists. Scientists are, in the last analysis physical beings whose actions can be fully explained at the physical level as part of a closed mechanistic system, and their rationality, such as it is, must be some supervening property that emerges through evolution in a materialist world.

Parsons' strategy for establishing explanatory compatibility is essentially the same as the one Elizabeth Anscombe, (not a naturalist herself, but surely the most famous critic of C. S. Lewis's AFR). The mentalistic explanations we need in order for science to be science are compatible with materialism because those explanations aren't causal explanations, while those offered by physics are causal explanations.

Now Parsons, like Anscombe, points out that there are compatible explanations. Of course there are. For example, if we ask why the soda-can is sitting on the bookshelf, I might say "Because I put it there yesterday, since I am planning on recycling it," or "because it has a cylindrical shape, and is sitting on its base." But there are, certainly, incompatible explanations. Otherwise, there would be no hope that scientific explanations could ever supplant religious explanations.

Parsons tries to establish the explanatory compatibility as follows, using as an example Sam's acceptance of Krugman's arguments that the Ryan budget is a recipe for disaster. 

When we say that Sam was convinced by Krugman’s arguments it seems to me perverse to attribute some very (I think in-principally) mysterious kind of causal power to the sense or propositional content of Krugman’s arguments. Attributing causal powers to Fregean Sinn (meaning), if this is what Victor wants to assert, just seems to me a straightforward category mistake. It is like saying that the set of all integers broke the deadlock between NFL players and owners. No, to say that Sam was convinced by Krugman’s arguments means that Sam considered Krugman’s claims, examined the supporting reasons, weighed them in the light of prior knowledge and norms of good reasoning, and judged that these were persuasive. However, considering Krugman’s claims, examining the supporting arguments, evaluating them, and judging them to be persuasive are things that Sam does with his brain, and happenings in Sam’s brain, being physical events, can cause things. 

Well, if Sam's considering and accepting Krugman's arguments is a brain process, it looks like we are going to end up attributing properties to Sam's brain that are going to violate the causal closure of the physical. If Sam finds Krugman's arguments persuasive, one of the things he has to be persuaded by is the logical connection between the Krugman's premises and his conclusions. To be aware of something is to be causally influenced by it. So, yes, my awareness of a stop sign causes me to stop, not the stop sign itself. If I don't see the sign, I'll barrel right through. But, the stop sign has to cause my awareness of the stop sign. And if the physical is causally closed, then everything that I am aware of has to be also physical, and by physical I take it we mean that it has a particular location in space and time. A logical relationship has no particular location in space and time, and so if I am aware of a logical relationship, and that logical relationship affects my brain, then the causal closure of the physical has been violated, because something that has no particular location in space and time is bringing it about that I think certain things.

If I am aware that the cat is on the mat, then there is a causal connection between the cat and my brain, which occurs within space and time. If I am aware of the fact that, if a=b, and b=c and a=c, then in order for this awareness to be fitted within the framework of a causally closed physical order, that truth has to have a particular location in space and time. But it has not particular location in space and time, so, if the physical is closed, I can't be aware of it.

Explanations have ontological commitments. If I explain the existence of presents under the Christmas tree by saying that Santa put them there, then I commit myself to the existence of Santa. If I say I believe something because I perceive a logical relationship, that means that there are logical relationships. But where is this logical relationship for me to be aware of?

I don't see that you really resolve the problem naturalism has with rational inference by denying the causal character of these explanations.

BRING BACK HUAC - AND INVESTIGATE OBAMA

THE MUCH-REVILED HOUSE UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE OF THE LATE 1950s WAS ACTUALLY A VERY NECESSARY INSTITUTION FOR THE TIMES. THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND HOLLYWOOD REALLY WERE FULL OF COMMUNISTS. YES, SOME VERY FAMOUS FOLKS DID GET "BLACKLISTED" AND COULDN'T WORK IN PICTURES ANYMORE, BUT THERE WERE VERY FEW OF THEM WHO WEREN'T PINKOS IF NOT TOTALLY RED.
(Just a note here. there seems to be a problem with this blogging widget in that it has not respected my paragraph divisions on the last couple of posts. No, I haven't forgotten how to write, it's the program. Anyhow...)
Today we face another infiltration of the government from the Left, and this one is more dangerous than the one in the 50s. It is all the more dangerous because the Left has managed to install a sock puppet in the White House, and what is more a sock puppet with delusions of grandeur.
As we have previously noted, Obama has his own private "political organization" called "Organizing for America". What this bunch mainly organizes is rent-a-mobs of Union thugs to do such things as beat up elderly African-American conservatives, shout down TEA party speakers, and recently to "boo" and jeer THE NATIONAL ANTHEM as it was being sung at a TEA party rally. (one day soon the patriots are going to kick the shit out of the goons. Note to the goons: you ask why we carry firearms at our rallies? Answer: in case you thugs show up.)
Either "president" Obama is DELIBERATELY trying to bring about and sustain such things as the current high price of gasoline, OR he is the STUPIDEST politician in history. Actually, it could very well be both, as it doesn't take a genius to fuck everything up.
So let's bring back HUAC and investigate the Czars, the price of gas, the latest war (started by Obama, unlawfully, by the way) , the ordering of the printing of nearly a trillion more dollars out of thin air, OFA and the rent-a-mobs, all of it.
"President" Obama is not just committing un-American activities. His presidency IS one huge un-American activity. In fact, it is TREASON.
Bring back HUAC.

Palm/Passion Sunday Sermon: Who is Jesus?

The text I’m preaching from is Matthew chapter 21which was read in the processional liturgy.
            Jesus is coming into Jerusalem. Something new is in the air. This could really change everything. How many of us have experienced an event like that in our lives—whether it be a new job, graduating from school, getting married, having a child, retiring…the list goes on. I don’t know about you, but when there’s something exciting on the horizon in my life, I fantasize about it. I imagine just how it will be. I can’t wait for the occasion to take place.
            Let me give you an example. When Ray and I first got married, I thought when he retired; we’d just ride off into the sunset together and live happily ever after. That just sounded great. I couldn’t imagine anything much better than that.
            Those were my plans. But God had other ideas. Ray did retire in 2008. We rode off into the sunset but we only got as far as Gettysburg. And I started attending a seminary. And we’re off on an adventure together, but it’s different than the one I had in mind. There are times I wonder what in the world I’m doing at my age getting ready for another career. But I’m glad God is God and I am not.
            Just as we have our hopes, dreams, and ideas of what our future will look like, so did the Jewish people in Jesus’ day. They were under Roman occupation. They were taxed to death. They wanted to be delivered from their current state. There are all kinds of Old Testament prophecies about the coming messiah with which the Jewish people were familiar. He would be like a Davidic king. He would deliver his people. The warrior king to save them from their current fate was the most popular ideal of the messiah. Jesus did not fit that mold, at least not at the time he walked the earth.
            The disciples understood a bit more than the average Jews about Jesus as messiah. They saw him do things that others didn’t associate with the messiah—like healing the sick, raising the dead, forgiving sins. Jesus’ followers struggled too--hoping he was the long awaited messiah who would establish the golden age of Israel. They still didn’t get it even after the resurrection.  They asked, "Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6 NRS).      
The followers of Jesus thought that his entry into Jerusalem was the beginning of the new kingdom. As usual Jesus turned their expectations upside down just as he does ours. How did rulers of that day typically make their entrance?  First of all, according to one scholar, these were “carefully choreographed displays of imperial power and greatness involving processions, crowds, hymns, welcome speeches by elites, and a cultic act” (Carter, Warren, Matthew’s Gospel: An Anti-Imperial/Imperial Reading, p. 8). All of these elements are in this scene, except for the elite scenes of welcome. Everything is there, but with a God-spin to it.
            Rather than coming as the great conqueror of all, He came as one who was humble, not overly “impressed by [his] sense of self-importance, gentle…considerate…unassuming” (BDAG). Rather than riding a warhorse, he rode a lowly donkey.  Rather than having the elite to welcome him, there were the common people. Rather than hymns of praise to the great imperial god-king, there were cries of a desperate people shouting, “Hosanna,” meaning, “Save us!” or “Help!” The Greek text indicates this shouting was done continually.
            Who is this Jesus? Over and over again Jesus continued to turn people’s expectations upside down as he’d done throughout the gospel of Matthew, throughout his earthly life, and throughout our lives. “Jesus is a rival king enacting God's [end time] purposes that will end Roman power” (Carter). We see this when Jesus quotes Zechariah regarding how Israel’s king would come, celebrating God’s victory over the nations. Jesus makes it all happen, just as the prophets proclaimed.
            The crowds were on board for the deliverance part, but they wanted it now, not in the future. The king is here. The kingdom is now. But some of it will not be experienced until Jesus returns at the end of the age. We sometimes refer to this as the now, but not yet aspect of the kingdom of God.
            Can you imagine how this procession into the city of Jerusalem, proclaiming Jesus as King, went over? “When he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was in turmoil, asking, ‘Who is this?’”  He was not unknown. Who is this Jesus? Many in the crowd may have understood Jesus as a local prophet, but messiah? This turmoil was a “violent movement or disturbance, especially of universal dimension, [to] shake, agitate” (Friberg, Analytical Greek Lexicon).
Jerusalem was Jesus’ city of destiny. The Roman governor was there. The Jewish temple was there. The cross was there.
God’s presence was supposed to be there. The temple was not only a source of worship, but of commerce and of employment. Here was the home of the status quo. The average person was not only oppressed by the Romans, but by the temple leadership, the high priest, the chief priests and elders as well. This more elite Jewish leadership didn’t like the Romans, but they didn’t want things to change that much either. These Jewish leaders still maintained their power. Later in Matthew, Jesus demonstrates what he thinks of that power as he cleanses the temple. Jesus’ kingdom was not that of the business as usual status quo.
Jesus clearly demonstrated who he was on Palm Sunday. So, why did the crowd turn on him the way they did on Good Friday? It all boils down to their answer to this question, “Who is this?” Their answer was, “This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee.” Yes that’s true, but is that enough?  Jesus is so much more. The crowds in Jerusalem don’t fully grasp who this Jesus is. They stop at “the prophet…from Nazareth.”  If he was just a mere man, even a good teacher, would that be enough to make them follow Jesus? The people of Jerusalem had to answer for themselves. We have to answer for ourselves as well.
Palm Sunday is but the beginning of Holy Week. We cannot stop with the crowds praising him. Those same people turn on him and agree to his crucifixion later that same week. Jesus rides into Jerusalem, challenging the Romans, challenging the Jewish elitists, “…challenging [the leaders of the day] over societal leadership, and condemn[ing] their world as temporary and facing imminent destruction under God’s judgment” (Carter). Will the powers that be allow Jesus to be God’s servant king in this city of power? We see their answer on Friday.
We are like Jerusalem in some ways. Jesus rides into our lives through the waters of baptism. He desires to lead and guide us as the good shepherd. He nourishes us with his own body and blood. He gives us the Holy Spirit to work through us, to be his people glorifying him. Who is this Jesus to us? If we stop short of allowing him to be king of our lives, Lord of our hearts, our master and savior, then we really don’t know who he is any more than the crowds did.
Who is this Jesus? Our answer determines whether we’re one of the fickle crowd who hails him one day and crucifies him another or if we are disciples who follow him to the cross. This doesn’t mean we won’t fall, that we won’t have our own times of fickleness. After all, the disciples will fall asleep as Jesus prays in Gethsemane. Peter will deny Jesus. We will stumble and fall and fail, but can rise up again in Jesus’ power to serve him as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
Pr. Dave Westphal of Wheeling offers these thoughts about Palm Sunday:
Who is Jesus?  The tone of that question is colored by our expectation of the answer.

Who is Jesus?  He is an itinerant, Jewish, preacher from Nazareth, who was executed by the Romans for treason.

Who is Jesus?  He is the second person of the Trinity.

Who is Jesus?  He is a great prophet who healed the sick and raised the dead.

Who is Jesus?  Some said that he was a false prophet who claimed to be the Messiah and perverted the teachings of Moses.

Who is Jesus?  He is our Lord and Savior, the One who died on the cross for our salvation.

Who is Jesus?

During Holy Week, more than at any other time in the Church year, we look closely at Jesus.  As we cheer with the crowds on Palm Sunday, we do so with full awareness that we will join the crowd that cries for his death only a few days later.  This reality is bearable only because we know that, however we perceive him, Jesus loves us, forgives us and welcomes us into his waiting arms.

Amen.
  
Google Image

THE BATTLE IS JOINED

With the agreement on a budget averting a Federal government shutdown last week came an unsheathing of blades in preparation for the 2012 election campaign. This battle promises to be bloody, and (this is news?) full of DemonRat dirty tricks, DemonRat lies, DemonRat dissemblings, DemonRat obfuscations, and in not a few cases, DemonRat physical violence and intimidation. "President" Barack Obama took the first shot with his speech - made in front of an adoring herd of brainwashed teenaged shitheads who cheered his every remark. He accused the conservatives and Republicans in general of the usual crap about wanting to get rid of inconvenient old folks, wanting to starve "the poor" and give "tax cuts to the rich". Obama tipped the DemonRatz' hand a bit when he spoke of how Americans have become dependent on "entitlement" programs. This is how the DemonRatz run things: like a dope dealer, getting folks hooked on what they are selling. The only real difference is that instead of the addict stealing your air conditioner, the government does the addict's stealing for him. Who says government doesn't provide great service? The next battle will be over the proposed raising of the debt ceiling, already at 14.3 TRILLION DOLLARS. To give you an idea of how much that is: One thousand inches equals 83.33 feet, about 27 yards or 1/3 of a city block. One MILLION inches equals fifteen and three-quarters MILES. One BILLION INCHES equals FIFTEEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-TWO MILES, and ONE TRILLION INCHES EQUALS FIFTEEN MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY EIGHT MILES. A tape measure with a billion inches would go a tad more than halfway around the Earth's Equator. A tape measure with a TRILLION inches would circle the Equator SIX HUNDRED THIRTY-ONE AND ONE THIRD TIMES. The Ratz whine that if the debt ceiling is not raised, the country will go into default. This means that - if what the Ratz say is true, unless we can borrow more money to pay the interest on what we owe, then we are in default. But meanwhile, they have big plans to spend more, more, more; just as soon as the public has forgotten the spectacle of the fight over the debt ceiling. Doubtless the Ratz will accuse the TEA party of being willing to drive the nation into default if they refuse to raise this debt ceiling without getting major, deep spending cuts and provisions to block any new spending. The conservatives need to stand their ground, and make it plain where the blame lies. the battle cry needs to be: "THERE AIN'T NO FUCKIN' MONEY, DUMBASSES!" The only sane response to "President" Obama's speech was - surprise - Vice President Joe Biden's; who - no surprise - slept through the whole pile of blathering by the Nincompoop in Chief.

Titanic-sized Unanswered Prayer | Ben Unseth's Red-Letter Ideas

Titanic-sized Unanswered Prayer | Ben Unseth's Red-Letter Ideas

Gilbert Meilaender reviews Nagel's The Last Word

A redated post.

I believe that Thomas Nagel's The Last Word is really a defense of the Argument from Reason that stops short of offering theism as the conclusion. Nevertheless it does attack naturalism as we know it. The is Lewis scholar Meilaender's review of Nagel's book.

Titanic-sized Unanswered Prayer | Ben Unseth's Red-Letter Ideas

Titanic-sized Unanswered Prayer | Ben Unseth's Red-Letter Ideas

Old Lutheran - The Center for Lutheran Pride! (but not too proud)

Look at the Old Lutheran Tidbit of the day. It's so apropos for April 15.

Old Lutheran - The Center for Lutheran Pride! (but not too proud)

From a Faith and Philosophy review of Soul, Body, and Survival: Essays on the Metaphysics of Human Persons ed. Kevin Corcoran

Jaegwon Kim’s essay “Lonely Souls: Causality and Substance Dualism” comes from a philosopher who operates out of the physicalist tradition. Unlike some in that tradition, however, he has been very serious about pressing difficulties for otherwise popular forms of physicalism in the area of mental causation. In this paper he presents some problems for dualism in the area of mental causation. He reconsiders the familiar objection to Descartes’ dualism that dualism is untenable because we cannot see how something nonphysical can interact with something physical. As Kim points out, this is often presented with no or almost no supporting argumentation. However, Kim does supply some argumentation to put some meat on the bones of the familiar objection, by generating what he calls the pairing problem.
Kim maintains that a spatial framework is necessary for the existence of a causal relationship amongst objects. If two rifles are fired and two people are killed, what criteria would lead us to correctly pair the causes and effects? The answer, says Kim, is the spatial relationships between deadly bullets and the victims. Kim also points out that lack of a spatial relation between a suspect and the victim is often sufficient to ground an alibi in a murder case. But since souls are not spatial, spatial pairing relationships between souls and matter cannot exist. Kim considers the possibility that souls have spatial locations, but he finds some difficulties with that idea as well, but he thinks this is problematic as well. We need to locate souls at a particular point in space, and claims that it would beg the question to locate the souls in the brain. Second, he argues that to locate souls in space would require that not more than one soul could occupy a location in space, that is, something like the impenetrability of matter would have to obtain. But he asks, if this is so, “why aren’t such souls just material objects, albeit of a very special, and strange kind?” And he thinks the soul found in a geometrical point could not have a structure capable of accounting for the rich mental life that humans have. Finally, he is suspicious of any solutions to the problem dictated by “dualist commitments.” He says “We shouldn’t do philosophy by first deciding what conclusions we want to prove, and then posit convenient entities and premises to get us where we want to go.”
First of all, it needs to be made clear just what it is for something to be a material thing. The book makes it evident that the concept of “materiality” and “matter” need to be made clearer than they are. This is especially imperative for Christians who want to go as far as possible in accommodating their faith to “materialism.” Orthodox materialism is a corollary of philosophical naturalism, and is typically committed to at least this: that the physical order is causally closed, and that whatever other states exist supervene on the physical; that is, there cannot be a difference without a physical difference. But what is more, physicalism is committed to the idea that the physical order is mechanistic, that is, purposive explanations cannot be basic-level explanations at the physical level. If the material is defined in this way, then it seems to me that something could have a spatial location, and it could also possess impenetrability, and still not be material in the orthodox sense. It could still be the case that the mental is sui generis and fundamental, and one of Foster’s dualist theses would still be true.

What does PETA think of Michael Vick

What do you think they'd think?

Is there a Republican War on Science?

I'm not a Republican, but can they be accused of being anti-science? This article, referencing David Klinghoffer, suggests otherwise.

What Would Jesus Tax? - Chuck Collins - God's Politics Blog

This is a thought provoking article that offers some other ways of reducing the deficit without necessarily doing it on the backs of the poor.

What Would Jesus Tax? - Chuck Collins - God's Politics Blog

Plantinga on Dennett

This is an entertaining read.


Dennett's rejoinder to the argument is that possibly, "there has been an evolution of worlds (in the sense of whole universes) and the world we find ourselves in is simply one among countless others that have existed throughout all eternity." And given infinitely many universes, Dennett thinks, all the possible distributions of values over the cosmological constants would have been tried out; [ 7 ] as it happens, we find ourselves in one of those universes where the constants are such as to allow for the development of intelligent life (where else?). 
Well, perhaps all this is logically possible (and then again perhaps not). As a response to a probabilistic argument, however, it's pretty anemic. How would this kind of reply play in Tombstone, or Dodge City? "Waal, shore, Tex, I know it's a leetle mite suspicious that every time I deal I git four aces and a wild card, but have you considered the following? Possibly there is an infinite succession of universes, so that for any possible distribution of possible poker hands, there is a universe in which that possibility is realized; we just happen to find ourselves in one where someone like me always deals himself only aces and wild cards without ever cheating. So put up that shootin' arn and set down 'n shet yore yap, ya dumb galoot." Dennett's reply shows at most ('at most', because that story about infinitely many universes is doubtfully coherent) what was never in question: that the premises of this argument from apparent design do not entail its conclusion. But of course that was conceded from the beginning: it is presented as a probabilistic argument, not one that is deductive valid. Furthermore, since an argument can be good even if it is not deductively valid, you can't refute it just by pointing out that it isn't deductively valid. You might as well reject the argument for evolution by pointing out that the evidence for evolution doesn't entail that it ever took place, but only makes that fact likely. You might as well reject the evidence for the earth's being round by pointing out that there are possible worlds in which we have all the evidence we do have for the earth's being round, but in fact the earth is flat. Whatever the worth of this argument from design, Dennett really fails to address it.

Aquinas's Critique of the Argument from the Actual Infinite

This post, from Siris, argues that St. Thomas Aquinas provided the basis for rejecting versions of the Kalam Cosmological Argument that appeal to an actual infinite, beating Wes Morriston to the punch by eight and a half centuries.

A Place for Prayer: A Friday Morning Prayer from St Francis

Amen.
A Place for Prayer: A Friday Morning Prayer from St Francis

Modern Healing Miracles

This is a discussion of a doctor's investigation into modern healing miracles. This was a well-known and popular book from the 1970s.

Groothuis on Multiverses and Intelligent Design

Why is the multiverse theory science, and ID not science? Can we appeal to the unobserved and unobservable, so long as it's not personal? Can one, with a straight face, reject theism because of Ockham's razor, and then believe in the multiverse?

Calvindude's argument that logic proves the existence of God

God is not Tinkerbell

Some people seem to have the strange idea that God really exists for the people who believe in God, but does not exist for atheists. No side is in error, reality is just what you believe.

This makes no sense to me.

Lawrence Krauss responds to William Lane Craig

This, I think, illustrates the weakness of the debate format.

Author Meets Critic

A redated post. 

Do Near Death Experiences support the idea of an afterlife? Or are they the hallucinations of a dying brain? Greg Stone challenges Susan Blackmore's research in support of the latter hypothesis.

Keith Augustine's argument that Near Death Experiences are Hallucinatory

C. S. Lewis's Classic Reply to the Wish Fulfillment argument

A redated post. 

This is from Lewis's essay "On Obstinacy of Belief," to which I have linked. This is Lewis's classic response to the argument from wish fulfillment. It isn't a matter of riding Lewis's coattails here, it is simply pointing out that if you want to use a wish fulfillment argument against Christianity, this is the response you've got to answer. If you want to defend the argument from design, you've got to answer Hume. If you want to defend the evidentialist objection, you've got to answer Plantinga. If you want to defend psychological egoism, you've got to answer Butler. If you want to defend the wish fulfillment argument, you've got to answer Lewis.

Lewis's claim is that wish fulfillment arguments can be made on all sides, so they are pretty much useless to any side in particular.

There are of course people in our own day to whom the whole situation seems altered by the doctrine of the concealed wish. They will admit that men, otherwise apparently rational, have been deceived by the arguments for religion. But they will say that they have been deceived first by their own desires and produced the arguments afterwards as a rationalization: that these arguments have never been intrinsically even plausible, but have seemed so because they were secretly weighted by our wishes.



Now I do not doubt that this sort of thing happens in thinking about religion as in thinking about other things; but as a general explanation of religious assent it seems to me quite useless. On that issue our wishes may favour either side or both. The assumption that every man would be pleased, and nothing but pleased, if only he could conclude that Christianity is true, appears to me to be simply preposterous.


If Freud is right about the Oedipus complex, the universal pressure of the wish that God should not exist must be enormous, and atheism must be an admirable gratification to one of our strongest suppressed impulses. This argument, in fact, could be used on the theistic side. But I have no intention of so using it. It will not really help either party. It is fatally ambivalent. Men wish on both sides: and again, there is fear-fulfilment as well as wish-fulfilment, and hypochondriac temperaments will always tend to think true what they most wish to be false.


Thus instead of the one predicament on which our opponents sometimes concentrate there are in fact four. A man may be a Christian because he wants Christianity to be true. He may be an atheist because he wants atheism to be true. He may be an atheist be-cause he wants Christianity to be true. He may be a Christian because he Wants atheism to be true. Surely these possibilities cancel one another out? They may be of some use in analysing a particular instance of belief or disbelief, where we know the case history, but as a general explanation of either they will not help us. I do not think they overthrow the view that there is evidence both for and against the Christian propositions which fully rational minds, working honestly, can assess differently.



Burgess-Jackson on explaining religion away

For every scurrilous explanation of theistic belief, there is a scurrilous explanation of atheistic belief. If theism is suspect because of its origins, then atheism is suspect because of its origins. Why don't we cease playing this stupid explanatory game and get on with the real game, which involves justifying one's beliefs?

HT: Steve Hays

Remembering Martin Luther King as a man, not a saint - The Washington Post

A thought provoking article.

Remembering Martin Luther King as a man, not a saint - The Washington Post

Lead or Mislead—- The Curious Case of the Lead Codices | The Bible and Culture

Ben Witherington adds some clarity to the latest discovery.

Lead or Mislead—- The Curious Case of the Lead Codices | The Bible and Culture

Lydia McGrew on the Naturalistic induction

Lydia formulates the "naturalistic induction" as follows. 

Most problems which were unexplained by science in purely naturalistic terms have now been explained by science in purely naturalistic terms. So, by direct induction, any alleged evidence against naturalism has a scientific explanation in purely naturalistic terms.

Science has made and continues to make such great progress throughout history, gradually whittling away at the set of things that were previously not scientifically understood, that whatever it is that you are presently bringing forth as evidence against naturalism, I am sure that science will eventually get to that in time and explain it, as well, as entirely the product of natural causes.

 And then she argues that this induction is not going to work. And this refers to the Balfour quote she references.

What did you say, Newt?

"I have two grandchildren: Maggie is 11; Robert is 9," Gingrich said at Cornerstone Church here. "I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."-Newt Gingrich

HT: Taner Edis.
Ping your blog, website, or RSS feed for Free