The Political Compass is an interesting idea. It was obviously designed by someone who possesses a fundamentally socialist economic worldview, but I think it is valuable in that it splits the political spectrum into both vertical and horizontal axes - the Liberty/Authority axis and the social Left/Right axis.
According to the test, I fall almost exactly in the middle of the Authority/Liberty spectrum, but I think those who know me will admit that I am actually strongly Libertarian in my views toward the state. Many of the questions belie the fundamental bias of the test-builders. For example, I strongly agreed with the statement that abortion should be outlawed. In the worldview of the test-makers, that is a strongly "Authoritarian" response, but in reality, it is exactly the opposite. The Libertarian view is that no person has the right to forcibly deprive another of his property, and nothing could more forcefully deprive another of his property than the abortionist who deprives a baby of its life.
That is a strongly libertarian view.
The libertarian view is consistent with the 6th commandment prohibiting murder.
Abortion is murder any way you slice it. Only those who wilfully delude themselves, only those who claim that a baby must experience birth to be a person can argue otherwise. These folks claim that no murder is committed because no human died.
Words fail me.
The libertarian view is consistent with the 8th commandment prohibiting stealing.
Abortion deprives another of his property - his life - without his consent.
The libertarian view is consistent with the 10th commandment prohibiting covetousness.
John Piper has made the point in Future Grace that the essence of covetousness is trusting in something other than God to satisfy us. Believing that murder and theft are necessary ingredients in your own satisfaction is the height of delusion, the zenith of unbelief.
This is where the abortion issue gets really difficult, because for those women facing an unwanted pregnancy, it requires nothing less than an act of faith to carry that baby to term. Yet living a life which is consistently honouring to our Creator sometimes requires us to do things that our modern "have-it-all-right-now" culture perceives as utterly archaic.
As our brother Jude reminds us, sometimes we have to contend for the faith which was once delivered to us. That means we gotta fight.
Thursday, June 20
Friday, June 14
Poverty and Justice... and Basketball?
Cool article over at Chalcedon- not written by me incidentally - analysing the relationship between poverty and justice. Here's a key phrase:
The underlying assumption, usually left unstated, is that the distribution of wealth that arises from normal property transfers (especially market transactions and inheritances) is unjust because some people wind up with more than others. Inequality and injustice are equated.
I wish there were some way to write across the sky that "Unequal" is not the same thing as "Unjust".
To illustrate: I love basketball. Back before my knees finally gave out, I would rather play hoop than eat. I loved everything about the game. I'm a white guy who used to have just enough juice in his tanks to dunk the ball during pickup games - if the stars were aligned and I timed my jump just right. In other words, I think I have actually dunked once during a competitive game in my whole life. I regularly dream that I am playing basketball and that I am a leaping, flying, dunking machine - think Michael Jordan in his prime or Kobe Bryant now. That is my absolute favourite dream and I hate waking up from it.
Now the fact of the matter is, as much as I love basketball, I was never a very good player and I am even worse now that I'm on the dark side of 40. As much as I would give to be as good as Jordan or Bryant, no amount of wanting to will ever get me to that level. When it comes to hoop, I am not now, never was, and never will be equal to those guys. But does the fact of our unequal skills imply some injustice has been committed? Of course not.
Yet if you translate the exact same argument into the field of economics and wealth, you will hear apparently sane people arguing that inequality equals injustice.
Wrongo.
Here's the last sentence from the article, which I think summarises it nicely:
Welfare programs... enrich and empower the state to the detriment of all other institutions in society.
Cool article over at Chalcedon- not written by me incidentally - analysing the relationship between poverty and justice. Here's a key phrase:
The underlying assumption, usually left unstated, is that the distribution of wealth that arises from normal property transfers (especially market transactions and inheritances) is unjust because some people wind up with more than others. Inequality and injustice are equated.
I wish there were some way to write across the sky that "Unequal" is not the same thing as "Unjust".
To illustrate: I love basketball. Back before my knees finally gave out, I would rather play hoop than eat. I loved everything about the game. I'm a white guy who used to have just enough juice in his tanks to dunk the ball during pickup games - if the stars were aligned and I timed my jump just right. In other words, I think I have actually dunked once during a competitive game in my whole life. I regularly dream that I am playing basketball and that I am a leaping, flying, dunking machine - think Michael Jordan in his prime or Kobe Bryant now. That is my absolute favourite dream and I hate waking up from it.
Now the fact of the matter is, as much as I love basketball, I was never a very good player and I am even worse now that I'm on the dark side of 40. As much as I would give to be as good as Jordan or Bryant, no amount of wanting to will ever get me to that level. When it comes to hoop, I am not now, never was, and never will be equal to those guys. But does the fact of our unequal skills imply some injustice has been committed? Of course not.
Yet if you translate the exact same argument into the field of economics and wealth, you will hear apparently sane people arguing that inequality equals injustice.
Wrongo.
Here's the last sentence from the article, which I think summarises it nicely:
Welfare programs... enrich and empower the state to the detriment of all other institutions in society.
Tuesday, June 11
More Thoughts on Freedom
Today I am pondering the implications of God's Absolute Freedom. As one who holds firmly to the conviction that it is God alone who chooses whom to save from eternal damnation, God alone who effectively executes that salvation, and God alone who perfectly carries out that salvation, I must also acknowledge that until a man is regenerated by God, that man's will is utterly in bondage to sin. He is not free to do anything except please the dictates of sin.
On the other hand, every man regenerated through the work of the Sovereign God is free to obey God. And the character of this freedom is different from the slavery of the unregenerate man. For while the unregenerate man is not free to obey God, the regenerate man is free to disobey God.
And this causes me stop and shudder - what a horror to be redeemed by the blood of Jesus and then use that marvelous freedom as an opportunity to indulge my flesh.
This would be like a man miraculously cured of emphysema using his new-found health to smoke as many cigarettes as quickly as possible. It would be like an alcoholic miraculously delivered from liver failure using his new-found health to drink even more booze. It would be like a convicted murderer miraculously pardoned using his new-found freedom to become a serial killer. This is not why God saved us!
Galatians 5:13 tells us that You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love.
Another way of viewing this is to recognise that until God saves us, we are not free to serve one another. Rather, we are enslaved to our own desires and must work to serve our own desires. It is only the free man, only the man whom God has foreknown, predestined, called and justified who can serve his fellow-believers. And this is one reason that we were set free.
Today I am pondering the implications of God's Absolute Freedom. As one who holds firmly to the conviction that it is God alone who chooses whom to save from eternal damnation, God alone who effectively executes that salvation, and God alone who perfectly carries out that salvation, I must also acknowledge that until a man is regenerated by God, that man's will is utterly in bondage to sin. He is not free to do anything except please the dictates of sin.
On the other hand, every man regenerated through the work of the Sovereign God is free to obey God. And the character of this freedom is different from the slavery of the unregenerate man. For while the unregenerate man is not free to obey God, the regenerate man is free to disobey God.
And this causes me stop and shudder - what a horror to be redeemed by the blood of Jesus and then use that marvelous freedom as an opportunity to indulge my flesh.
This would be like a man miraculously cured of emphysema using his new-found health to smoke as many cigarettes as quickly as possible. It would be like an alcoholic miraculously delivered from liver failure using his new-found health to drink even more booze. It would be like a convicted murderer miraculously pardoned using his new-found freedom to become a serial killer. This is not why God saved us!
Galatians 5:13 tells us that You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love.
Another way of viewing this is to recognise that until God saves us, we are not free to serve one another. Rather, we are enslaved to our own desires and must work to serve our own desires. It is only the free man, only the man whom God has foreknown, predestined, called and justified who can serve his fellow-believers. And this is one reason that we were set free.
Monday, June 10
In the shower this morning I began pondering the nature of freedom. One of the things that smacks you in the face moving from the US to England is the difference in how we perceive freedom. In my mind, the Brits are far less free where it really matters, and far more free where it doesn't. I could elaborate at great length I suppose, but it ultimately boils down to this: the US still seems to harbour some reverence for private property whereas the UK does not, (this matters), and the average Brit is not subjected to the huge volume of politically correct behaviour restrictions that the the average American has come to accept as normal, (this matters little).
But I digress.
What does it mean to be free?
To be free means I can do whatever I want to do and that I choose to do the right thing. Most folks stop with the first half of that sentence, but without the second half the first half is impossible. To the extent that people choose to do the wrong thing, to that same extent or greater they limit the ability of other people to do what they want. To illustrate, consider the following:
The 8th commandment tells us not to steal and the 10th tells us not to covet. These are the two sides of private property rights and responsibilities.
"Do not steal" is pretty clear, but to help my children understand it a little better, I have explained to them that anytime you use someone else's property without their permission, you are stealing. This includes not only those acts of outright physical theft, but also activities such as graffitti, plagiarism, and claiming that you are acting upon authority you have not been granted. "Do not covet" covers whatever "Do not steal" fails to cover as far as private property is concerned. Whereas stealing involves using someone else's property without their permission, coveting means depriving someone else of the use of their property without their permission, whether you gain use of it or not. In some ways, coveting is more reprehensible than stealing. We can have pity on the thief who takes from someone else to use for himself when he has need, but who is more contemptible than the person who destroys someone else's property just for the sheer thrill of destruction? Is this not the sin that so pricked the heart of St. Augustine? Some commentators have expressed wonder at Augustine's remorse for stealing and destroying his neighbour's fruit, but I think his horror at his actions was entirely justified.
Conduct a little thought experiment with me now and consider how much freer you would be if everyone in your community chose to obey those two commandments - "Do not steal" and "Do not covet".
If everyone in my community chose to obey these two laws, I would have no locks on my doors and no alarm on my house or car. I would therefore be free from worry about accidentally locking myself out of my own house. I would have more money to use as I saw fit rather than paying for expensive alarms and locks. I would have greater use of my own house, since things which I am now forced to store indoors or in the back garden could be safely left in the front garden. I could reduce my monthly insurance costs, since I wouldn't have to protect myself and my property from theft. It is possible that the amount of money saved by some people would enable them to spend more time with family and less time working wage jobs. And that could have a very beneficial ripple-through effect in the community.
Furthermore, my community would be much cleaner and much more attractive, since graffitti are litter and both forms of stealing/coveting. If these no longer existed, then my council tax could be lower as there would be far less need for public monies to be spent on clean-up. The police would be free to pursue other matters. Therefore police protection could be more thorough, if needed at all, or if not, general taxation levels could be reduced. Merchants would no longer have to devote a portion of their profits to security and expect a portion of their profits to be lost to employee theft. In other words, the only losers in such an environment are those who are determined to break the 8th and 10th commandments. Otherwise, everyone wins with such an arrangement.
Question: Am I missing something, or is this really as simple as it sounds?
But I digress.
What does it mean to be free?
To be free means I can do whatever I want to do and that I choose to do the right thing. Most folks stop with the first half of that sentence, but without the second half the first half is impossible. To the extent that people choose to do the wrong thing, to that same extent or greater they limit the ability of other people to do what they want. To illustrate, consider the following:
The 8th commandment tells us not to steal and the 10th tells us not to covet. These are the two sides of private property rights and responsibilities.
"Do not steal" is pretty clear, but to help my children understand it a little better, I have explained to them that anytime you use someone else's property without their permission, you are stealing. This includes not only those acts of outright physical theft, but also activities such as graffitti, plagiarism, and claiming that you are acting upon authority you have not been granted. "Do not covet" covers whatever "Do not steal" fails to cover as far as private property is concerned. Whereas stealing involves using someone else's property without their permission, coveting means depriving someone else of the use of their property without their permission, whether you gain use of it or not. In some ways, coveting is more reprehensible than stealing. We can have pity on the thief who takes from someone else to use for himself when he has need, but who is more contemptible than the person who destroys someone else's property just for the sheer thrill of destruction? Is this not the sin that so pricked the heart of St. Augustine? Some commentators have expressed wonder at Augustine's remorse for stealing and destroying his neighbour's fruit, but I think his horror at his actions was entirely justified.
Conduct a little thought experiment with me now and consider how much freer you would be if everyone in your community chose to obey those two commandments - "Do not steal" and "Do not covet".
If everyone in my community chose to obey these two laws, I would have no locks on my doors and no alarm on my house or car. I would therefore be free from worry about accidentally locking myself out of my own house. I would have more money to use as I saw fit rather than paying for expensive alarms and locks. I would have greater use of my own house, since things which I am now forced to store indoors or in the back garden could be safely left in the front garden. I could reduce my monthly insurance costs, since I wouldn't have to protect myself and my property from theft. It is possible that the amount of money saved by some people would enable them to spend more time with family and less time working wage jobs. And that could have a very beneficial ripple-through effect in the community.
Furthermore, my community would be much cleaner and much more attractive, since graffitti are litter and both forms of stealing/coveting. If these no longer existed, then my council tax could be lower as there would be far less need for public monies to be spent on clean-up. The police would be free to pursue other matters. Therefore police protection could be more thorough, if needed at all, or if not, general taxation levels could be reduced. Merchants would no longer have to devote a portion of their profits to security and expect a portion of their profits to be lost to employee theft. In other words, the only losers in such an environment are those who are determined to break the 8th and 10th commandments. Otherwise, everyone wins with such an arrangement.
Question: Am I missing something, or is this really as simple as it sounds?
Wednesday, May 22
The Tory Leader, Iain Duncan Smith, (or as I heard some one call him recently - "Iain Duncan Thingy" - I spit coffee out my nose when I heard that), was interviewed on Radio 4 this morning and -- since I am not British -- I was able to listen to him without going apoplectic. (Is that a place you can go or am I mangling the language??)
Not to imply that he actually made a lot of sense. If there is one thing virtually every English politician has in common - dang, virtually every English mammal shares this characteristic - it is an overweaning yearning not to be perceived as actually possessing any opinions that someone somewhere might find objectionable. (I need to be careful not to go wandering off down every rabbit trail that presents itself to my undisciplined mind all at once - and let me tell you, when I start talking about English waffling, lots of opportunities present themselves unbidden!)
{Deep Breath}
As I was saying, Mr IDS was being grilled about the apparent conflict between his statement that every English child deserves an equal opportunity to a good education while he is sending his son to that crustiest of upper-crust education establishments, Eton. IDS had a great chance to score some major points with me - points that no doubt would have done him a world of good come the next election - but like a true 21st century English politician, he completely weenied out.
But I'm not English, and I'm not a politician, so I will respond to the interviewers questions as I can only wish some alleged Leader would do when asked such silly, stupid questions:
Interviewer: During a heated exchange on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, interviewer John Humphrys asked Mr Duncan Smith how a child at an inner-city school could have an equal chance to one who attended a private school.
Me: He can't, you ninny. People are not equal, therefore any set of organisations that involve people will inherently be unequal. That's life. Get used to it.
Interviewer: But you said you believe all children should have an equal opportunity.
Me: Nope, that was Mr Duncan Thingy. I think children and parents should quit complaining about what the government is not giving them and get busy doing something for themselves. If they don't like it, they should change it, not sit around whinging because the government isn't making everything equal. Equality exists in only two places - the grave and the ghetto. I don't believe people really want equality, they just want more of what somebody else has.
Interviewer: So are you prepared to say that your government would support raising taxes to get more money into the schools
Me: Absolutely not. I think the government schools should all be disbanded, the educational bureaucrats should be shot, the school buildings sold to the highest bidder, and the proceeds refunded to all non-government employee tax-payers. Parents should band together and form education co-ops; they could rent space for classes from the people who own the buildings using the refunded tax money to pay their way. They can hire the teachers who they believe are qualified and fire the teachers they hire if they don't do the job. All government administration buildings should be bull-dozed and turned into parks. Any educational administrator who doesn't actually work with children should given passage to the Palestinian West Bank where they can put to work their educational theories about self-esteem, whole language, outcome based education and especially multi-culturalism in an environment where they cannot possibly do any additional damage.
(I'm a little off message here, aren't I. Perhaps I'm giddy because I'm going home in less than two weeks.)
Anyway, Mr. Duncan Smith failed to point out that - by definition - government education is supported by taxes, that taxation is - by definition - legalised theft, and that government education, merely by existing, violates the 8th commandment. And we haven't even gotten around to talking about the law-breaking, anti-God, rebellious content of a government education.
Not to imply that he actually made a lot of sense. If there is one thing virtually every English politician has in common - dang, virtually every English mammal shares this characteristic - it is an overweaning yearning not to be perceived as actually possessing any opinions that someone somewhere might find objectionable. (I need to be careful not to go wandering off down every rabbit trail that presents itself to my undisciplined mind all at once - and let me tell you, when I start talking about English waffling, lots of opportunities present themselves unbidden!)
{Deep Breath}
As I was saying, Mr IDS was being grilled about the apparent conflict between his statement that every English child deserves an equal opportunity to a good education while he is sending his son to that crustiest of upper-crust education establishments, Eton. IDS had a great chance to score some major points with me - points that no doubt would have done him a world of good come the next election - but like a true 21st century English politician, he completely weenied out.
But I'm not English, and I'm not a politician, so I will respond to the interviewers questions as I can only wish some alleged Leader would do when asked such silly, stupid questions:
Interviewer: During a heated exchange on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, interviewer John Humphrys asked Mr Duncan Smith how a child at an inner-city school could have an equal chance to one who attended a private school.
Me: He can't, you ninny. People are not equal, therefore any set of organisations that involve people will inherently be unequal. That's life. Get used to it.
Interviewer: But you said you believe all children should have an equal opportunity.
Me: Nope, that was Mr Duncan Thingy. I think children and parents should quit complaining about what the government is not giving them and get busy doing something for themselves. If they don't like it, they should change it, not sit around whinging because the government isn't making everything equal. Equality exists in only two places - the grave and the ghetto. I don't believe people really want equality, they just want more of what somebody else has.
Interviewer: So are you prepared to say that your government would support raising taxes to get more money into the schools
Me: Absolutely not. I think the government schools should all be disbanded, the educational bureaucrats should be shot, the school buildings sold to the highest bidder, and the proceeds refunded to all non-government employee tax-payers. Parents should band together and form education co-ops; they could rent space for classes from the people who own the buildings using the refunded tax money to pay their way. They can hire the teachers who they believe are qualified and fire the teachers they hire if they don't do the job. All government administration buildings should be bull-dozed and turned into parks. Any educational administrator who doesn't actually work with children should given passage to the Palestinian West Bank where they can put to work their educational theories about self-esteem, whole language, outcome based education and especially multi-culturalism in an environment where they cannot possibly do any additional damage.
(I'm a little off message here, aren't I. Perhaps I'm giddy because I'm going home in less than two weeks.)
Anyway, Mr. Duncan Smith failed to point out that - by definition - government education is supported by taxes, that taxation is - by definition - legalised theft, and that government education, merely by existing, violates the 8th commandment. And we haven't even gotten around to talking about the law-breaking, anti-God, rebellious content of a government education.
Thursday, May 2
Dead Language Update
Here I am, entering my fifth decade of life and discovering that I know practically nothing. Nothing! Fortunately, I ain't dead yet. I was telling Karen this morning that I really want to learn Latin, partly to keep up with my children and partly so that I can read the classics in the original languages.
So this afternoon, while I was testing and waiting for the completion of a test cycle, I stumbled across this little jewel - Latin Online. Is that cool, or what?
When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.
Here I am, entering my fifth decade of life and discovering that I know practically nothing. Nothing! Fortunately, I ain't dead yet. I was telling Karen this morning that I really want to learn Latin, partly to keep up with my children and partly so that I can read the classics in the original languages.
So this afternoon, while I was testing and waiting for the completion of a test cycle, I stumbled across this little jewel - Latin Online. Is that cool, or what?
When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.
Heavenly Thoughts
Amongst my favourite books of all time is CSLewis' The Great Divorce in which Lewis contemplates the nature of heaven and of heavenly natures. Today I discovered this gem in the same general vein-Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven by Mark Twain. Definitely worth a read.
Mark Twain!? Who'da thunk it?
Amongst my favourite books of all time is CSLewis' The Great Divorce in which Lewis contemplates the nature of heaven and of heavenly natures. Today I discovered this gem in the same general vein-Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven by Mark Twain. Definitely worth a read.
Mark Twain!? Who'da thunk it?
Wednesday, May 1
Nathan Wilson has a killer column on the problem of evil in Credenda Agenda. Thunder rolls, lightning strikes, the earth quakes, the wind blows, skin itches, heads ache, legs cramp, men die. Can we assault a King and not expect to see His armies?
I'm going to read this to my kids tonight. We've been discussing the PoE lately around the dinner table, and I am both pleased and astonished that a young man, (Nathan is not much older than my oldest), can express the nature of the problem so succinctly and so fluently.
I'm going to read this to my kids tonight. We've been discussing the PoE lately around the dinner table, and I am both pleased and astonished that a young man, (Nathan is not much older than my oldest), can express the nature of the problem so succinctly and so fluently.
Harry Seabrook over at Little Geneva pointed out, in reference to my Human Scum post, that the scripture does not pronounce slavery a sin. He's right. Idolatry is a sin. Saying that God said something He didn't say is a sin. Failing to remember the Sabbath is a sin. Dishonouring your parents is a sin, as is murder, adultery, stealing, lying about your neighbour and coveting. Self-worship is sin. Lack of faith is a sin. That list should make it abundantly obvious to all of us that, unless God is a God who forgives sin and covers iniquity, we are all in deep yogurt.
So perhaps we should ponder these thoughts from the Old Testament:
Blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the LORD does not count against him and in whose spirit is no deceit. Psalms 32:1
And the LORD passed before him, (Moses) and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.”Exodus 34:6-7
I believe I'll have some of that...
So perhaps we should ponder these thoughts from the Old Testament:
Blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the LORD does not count against him and in whose spirit is no deceit. Psalms 32:1
And the LORD passed before him, (Moses) and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.”Exodus 34:6-7
I believe I'll have some of that...
Tuesday, April 30
I have been pondering the implications of God's Sovereignty.
If God is utterly, totally, completely in control of every last detail of the universe, (and the confession of the church through the ages is that He is), and if He really does cause everything to work together for good for those who are the called according to His purpose, (and Romans 8 makes that pretty clear), then how can I react with grumbling and complaining when things don't go my way?
Grumbling and complaing are evidences of a lack of faith, and without faith, it is impossible to please God.
I'll confess it has taken me some time to feel that I have even begun to wrap my head around this, but I can see no other way to view the circumstances of my life. Paul made it very clear that, for the elect:
(a) nothing can separate us from God's love
(b) we will probably suffer quite a bit
Does this mean that we live in the best of all possible worlds? Of course not. But we have nothing to fear from famine, sickness, nakedness, peril, sword, height, depth, things present, things to come, life, death, angels or demons. God rules over all and has already declared the end from the beginning.
I am beginning to conclude that I have tolerated an unbelieving attitude in myself and in my family for far too long.
If God is utterly, totally, completely in control of every last detail of the universe, (and the confession of the church through the ages is that He is), and if He really does cause everything to work together for good for those who are the called according to His purpose, (and Romans 8 makes that pretty clear), then how can I react with grumbling and complaining when things don't go my way?
Grumbling and complaing are evidences of a lack of faith, and without faith, it is impossible to please God.
I'll confess it has taken me some time to feel that I have even begun to wrap my head around this, but I can see no other way to view the circumstances of my life. Paul made it very clear that, for the elect:
(a) nothing can separate us from God's love
(b) we will probably suffer quite a bit
Does this mean that we live in the best of all possible worlds? Of course not. But we have nothing to fear from famine, sickness, nakedness, peril, sword, height, depth, things present, things to come, life, death, angels or demons. God rules over all and has already declared the end from the beginning.
I am beginning to conclude that I have tolerated an unbelieving attitude in myself and in my family for far too long.
Great leapin' horny toads!
Wouldja look at the date of my last post? I guess this would qualify as a case study of how not to build a successful blog, huh? My project is very intense right now, and I am up to my eyeballs in "issues", (that's corporate weasel-speak for bugs), and "scope-expansion", (more corporate weasel-speak for the client changed their minds at the last minute.)
In spite of the fact that I have not been writing, I have been thinking and reading. Since the purpose of this blog is to evaluate culture and current events in light of the Law of God, I believe I am behaving in a logically consistent manner when I forgo writing this blog in favour of working whole-heartedly for the good of my employer and my client.
More later...
Wouldja look at the date of my last post? I guess this would qualify as a case study of how not to build a successful blog, huh? My project is very intense right now, and I am up to my eyeballs in "issues", (that's corporate weasel-speak for bugs), and "scope-expansion", (more corporate weasel-speak for the client changed their minds at the last minute.)
In spite of the fact that I have not been writing, I have been thinking and reading. Since the purpose of this blog is to evaluate culture and current events in light of the Law of God, I believe I am behaving in a logically consistent manner when I forgo writing this blog in favour of working whole-heartedly for the good of my employer and my client.
More later...
Wednesday, March 27
Human Scum - The people who trafficked in human souls over 135 years ago are already paying for their sins if they did not repent and throw themselves upon the mercy of God through the substitionary death of Christ. As Jesus said, they already have their reward.
That said, I cannot find words strong enough to condemn the moral bankruptcy of the people in this story who attempt to profit from their ancestors' slavery.
Reprehensible, revolting, disgusting and vile come to mind immediately.
They violate the Law of God by breaking at least the 8th, 9th and 10th commandments, but I suspect that idolatry is also involved, violating the 2nd commandment, and they certainly bring shame on their parents, thereby violating the 5th commandment.
The lawyers who brought this suit should be disbarred and publicly reprimanded for wasting the time of all parties involved. I was going to say they should be publicly humiliated, but anyone this shameless is obviously incapable of experiencing so cleansing an emotion.
That said, I cannot find words strong enough to condemn the moral bankruptcy of the people in this story who attempt to profit from their ancestors' slavery.
Reprehensible, revolting, disgusting and vile come to mind immediately.
They violate the Law of God by breaking at least the 8th, 9th and 10th commandments, but I suspect that idolatry is also involved, violating the 2nd commandment, and they certainly bring shame on their parents, thereby violating the 5th commandment.
The lawyers who brought this suit should be disbarred and publicly reprimanded for wasting the time of all parties involved. I was going to say they should be publicly humiliated, but anyone this shameless is obviously incapable of experiencing so cleansing an emotion.
Monday, March 25
A Christian response to Global Warming? - A story out of Science Magazine tells us of evidence that global warming is a natural phenomena, not a man-made one.
If this is true, (and the evidence against man-made global warming is overwhelming), then how should we think about this whole global warming gig?
Like many issues, the answers are simple, though not necessarily easy.
1. Examine the scientific evidence. Determine for yourself if global warming is something caused by man. The vast weight of the evidence contradicts the thesis, everything from the article quoted here, to the impossible physics of the thesis, to the failure of the computer models.
2. Examine the political evidence. Who stands to gain as a result of perpetrating lies about global warming? It appears to me that the same crowd that does not trust you with with your own guns, your own money or your own body also want to prohibit the use of hairspray and refrigerants.
3. Compare the beliefs of the global warming-niks with the Law of God. As best as I can tell, the people who tell me that I shouldn't have a refrigerator or a car because it's making the polar ice cap melt are lying about the evidence. That all by itself is not necessarily a violation of God's Law, but when they use those lies as a means of stealing my property, they are violating both the 8th and the 9th commandments. And make no mistake, regardless of whether or not man-made global warming is actually happening, the global-warming crowd want to deprive you of the use of your own property.
I suspect they also covet the fruits of western civilisation - better standard of living, more personal freedom and greater opportunity - and are too lazy to earn their own bread. If true, they also violate the 10th commandment. But I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.
If this is true, (and the evidence against man-made global warming is overwhelming), then how should we think about this whole global warming gig?
Like many issues, the answers are simple, though not necessarily easy.
1. Examine the scientific evidence. Determine for yourself if global warming is something caused by man. The vast weight of the evidence contradicts the thesis, everything from the article quoted here, to the impossible physics of the thesis, to the failure of the computer models.
2. Examine the political evidence. Who stands to gain as a result of perpetrating lies about global warming? It appears to me that the same crowd that does not trust you with with your own guns, your own money or your own body also want to prohibit the use of hairspray and refrigerants.
3. Compare the beliefs of the global warming-niks with the Law of God. As best as I can tell, the people who tell me that I shouldn't have a refrigerator or a car because it's making the polar ice cap melt are lying about the evidence. That all by itself is not necessarily a violation of God's Law, but when they use those lies as a means of stealing my property, they are violating both the 8th and the 9th commandments. And make no mistake, regardless of whether or not man-made global warming is actually happening, the global-warming crowd want to deprive you of the use of your own property.
I suspect they also covet the fruits of western civilisation - better standard of living, more personal freedom and greater opportunity - and are too lazy to earn their own bread. If true, they also violate the 10th commandment. But I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Friday, March 15
Today we take up the question of school vouchers. Ilena Mercer makes a cogent argument against them, an argument which I believe will hold up nicely in light of the Law of God.
To whit: School vouchers use tax-money. Tax-money is forcibly extracted not only from people who have school-age children, but from people who do not. Therefore, school voucher programs are only possible because the government takes money from those who do not willingly give it.
In economic terms this is called "coercion".
In biblical terms you call it "theft".
School vouchers are a clear violation of the 7th commandment.
Sometimes it hurts to be principled, doesn't it?
To whit: School vouchers use tax-money. Tax-money is forcibly extracted not only from people who have school-age children, but from people who do not. Therefore, school voucher programs are only possible because the government takes money from those who do not willingly give it.
In economic terms this is called "coercion".
In biblical terms you call it "theft".
School vouchers are a clear violation of the 7th commandment.
Sometimes it hurts to be principled, doesn't it?
Thursday, March 14
There He Goes Again
Doug Dahl gets out a big ole' can of whup-ass and goes after Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye and that gang of sincere but foolish evangelicals who hold to that silly doctrine known as "The Rapture".
This heresy originated about 160 years ago in either northern England or Scotland, (I don't remember which right now), when some poor woman began "receiving" ecstatic messages during a home Bible study. John Darby - one of the leaders of the home church - picked it up and began propogating it. When Mr. Scofield decided to incorporate it into the study notes of the Bible he published around the start of the 20th century, it entered into mainstream western evangelical thought.
Aside from the fact that the doctrine is patently unbiblical, it also engenders a kind of pathological fatalism in those Christians who adhere to it. Instead of boldly proclaiming that the whole earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Glory of the Lord, they instead preach that Christians need to hunker down and "hang in there" because it is God's will for the world to go to hell in a hand-basket.
Kudos, Doug!
Doug Dahl gets out a big ole' can of whup-ass and goes after Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye and that gang of sincere but foolish evangelicals who hold to that silly doctrine known as "The Rapture".
This heresy originated about 160 years ago in either northern England or Scotland, (I don't remember which right now), when some poor woman began "receiving" ecstatic messages during a home Bible study. John Darby - one of the leaders of the home church - picked it up and began propogating it. When Mr. Scofield decided to incorporate it into the study notes of the Bible he published around the start of the 20th century, it entered into mainstream western evangelical thought.
Aside from the fact that the doctrine is patently unbiblical, it also engenders a kind of pathological fatalism in those Christians who adhere to it. Instead of boldly proclaiming that the whole earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Glory of the Lord, they instead preach that Christians need to hunker down and "hang in there" because it is God's will for the world to go to hell in a hand-basket.
Kudos, Doug!
Wednesday, March 13
Another Presidency. Another Bombing of Iraq
According to this journalist, Saddam needs to be punished, but does that give us the right to punish every Iraqi citizen, including those who weren’t even born during the Gulf War?
Good question.
According to this journalist, Saddam needs to be punished, but does that give us the right to punish every Iraqi citizen, including those who weren’t even born during the Gulf War?
Good question.
Those who planned and executed the destruction of the WTC are guilty of violating both the 5th and the 7th commandments. The 5th commandment prohibits murder - that violation is fairly obvious. The 7th prohibits stealing and is not so obvious. However, if theft is defined as the act of preventing an individual from the free use of his own proprty, then it is fairly easy to see that the bombers stole the free use of individual lives and property.
In the same vein, the USGovernment has engaged in a 10 year-long bombing campaign against Iraq that has resulted, directly or indirectly, in the deaths of 1.5 million Iraqi citizens. How is this action of the USGovernment different from that of Al Qaeda?
When God judges the terrorists who violated his commandments by destroying the WTC and murdering 3000 non-combatants, will He not also judge the terrorists who have violated His commandments by bombing Iraq and murdering 1.5 million non-combatants?
In the same vein, the USGovernment has engaged in a 10 year-long bombing campaign against Iraq that has resulted, directly or indirectly, in the deaths of 1.5 million Iraqi citizens. How is this action of the USGovernment different from that of Al Qaeda?
When God judges the terrorists who violated his commandments by destroying the WTC and murdering 3000 non-combatants, will He not also judge the terrorists who have violated His commandments by bombing Iraq and murdering 1.5 million non-combatants?
If the idea of limited government is no longer a valid one, then Joe Sobran is certainly 'Anti-American'. However, all governments of this world are under the authority of the government of God. And any government that exceeds the authority delegated to it by God is necessarily out of line.
I am firmly convinced that the American Ideal as expressed by the Declaration of Independence is worthy or defending. I am equally convinced that USGovernment is exactly that kind of government the early patriots fought to resist, not to establish.
I am firmly convinced that the American Ideal as expressed by the Declaration of Independence is worthy or defending. I am equally convinced that USGovernment is exactly that kind of government the early patriots fought to resist, not to establish.
GWBush issued an ultimatum to the Taliban prior to commencing the bombing - turn over Bin Laden or the bombs will fall.
Does Iraq have the same opportunity to avoid becoming the next victim of American aggression, or will that sovereign country inevitably be bombed back to the stone ages, regardless if what they do?
Does Iraq have the same opportunity to avoid becoming the next victim of American aggression, or will that sovereign country inevitably be bombed back to the stone ages, regardless if what they do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
