Environmentalism in the inbox

Received this today from a friend and verified it at Snopes.com and several other blogs (including Canada's own Treehugger.com).

LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.

HOUSE # 1:

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.

HOUSE # 2:

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas,and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE # 1

(20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville,Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE # 2
(model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you WON'T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an inconvenient truth."

Any guesses as to whether or not this will make a difference to the lefties?

Didn't think so....

Something Truly Indifferent

Alright. Adiaphora are supposed to be truly indifferent, and I haven't blogged much on inessential things (or much of anything). To that end, I offer this post:

Where is the Red Dawn equivalent of the War on Terror? I mean, there have been a few movies that obliquely reference the Iraq War (normally posing as generic middle east conflict/conspiracy or - following the M*A*S*H route - are set in a different conflict or a parallel reality). But this is not high schoolers taking up arms against the enemy.

(This was prompted because I just found Red Dawn at Wal-Mart for $5.50! What a bargain!)

Unmistakable Truths

Hmmm... dig up the corpse of Jesus and you get to claim that your faith is not beholden to fact because you can make it a metaphor or just dump the whole "realism" project. (Not to mention that everyone else who disagrees with your interpretation does so from intellectual dishonesty or, worse, moral bankruptcy.)

Dig up something an anthropologist claims is a human ancestor and you demand that everyone's faith claims have to change in accordance with that "fact."

Anyone else smell inconsistency? (Hint: it smells kind of lemony.)

Evolution and relativism = "unmistakable truth" over which only the mentally deficient can disagree.

orthodox Christianity = misogynistic powerplay for privileging a narrow "western" view.

A most fascinating hermeneutic....

The Baby and the Bathwater

At the dawn of the Middle Ages, Western Christendom began to teach that it was immoral to bathe. This has a long history in the ascetic branches of the church (and its predecessors in Judaism - cf. John the Baptizer). In fact, two of the Seven Ecumenical Councils actually wrote Canons (laws) against public baths (Laodicea and Trullo). In practice, it was far from uniform. One bishop is remembered for two things: his wit and the fact that he bathed twice daily (Sisinius, the first sissy?). Meanwhile, St. Augustine was asked if it was okay to use baths that had cultic connections (cf. 1 Cor. 8).

The real reason, as Clement of Alexandria (2nd c. AD) demonstrates, was a condemnation of licentiousness. Baths were seen as lusty both to the senses and to the sex. They were indulgent, and thus to be avoided (even though some room was left for acknowledging their benefits). Avoiding baths became rather extreme (such that in the Arabian Nights, a Muslim suggested that once Christians were doused with baptismal water they felt entitled to avoid bathing for the rest of their lives).

What we need is an encyclical or ecumenical council or something that says it's pious to bathe. That way, the French can claim they don't wash because they like staying secular.

Online Evangelism

Below is a transcript of a conversation I had this morning. A 13 year old boy (TW) raised by Wiccans has apparently had a friend telling him about Jesus. He turned to me for some answers. Please pray that God uses the planted seed to the salvation of this young man.

TW: Hi

TW: my name is Xxxx

Me: Hi, Xxxx.

TW: I found your profile on the yahoo members page, and I think it said you were a minister......or at least a christian

Me: Yes.

TW: ok

Me: The least of Christians, perhaps.

TW: really?

Me: Probably not - I’m a big guy. What can I do for you?

TW: I had a few questions if thats ok

Me: Sure

TW: ok

TW: What do you worship as a christian?

TW: one God.......instead of a God and Goddess right?

Me: One God, that’s correct.

TW: ok

Me: It’s not exactly accurate to say God has a gender, though God has revealed as a Father.

TW: ok

TW: So is Jesus another name for God?

TW: or someone seperate

Me: Ah...it looks like you are asking for some clarification on the greatest mystery of the faith.

Me: The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, correct?

TW: im not sure what that is

Me: Fair enough.

Me: There is only one “thing” that can be called “god”

TW: im 13, and my family is wiccan, so I know nothing about christianity

TW: but i am curious and maybe one day I want to become christian

Me: It’s okay - I was actually Wiccan during college.

TW: wow

TW: and your a minister?

TW: for a christian church

Me: One of the greatest heroes of our faith, a man named Paul of Tarsus, was a persecutor of the early church (in the decades following Jesus’ death).

Me: Nevertheless, God used Paul to write nearly half of the New Testament (the portion of the Bible that deals explicitly with Jesus).

TW: ok

TW: Ive read some of John in the new testiment

Me: God uses all kinds of people, and his greatest delight is in making his enemies his friends.

Me: John is a great place to begin.

Me: It not only tells the story, but it also talks about the importance of those events.

TW: thats what I was told

TW: are you parents christian

Me: Yes.

TW: ok

Me: I was raised a Christian and believed in “god” but didn’t want to accept Jesus as the focus of God’s work in the world.

TW: ok

Me: To go to your original question, you were asking what Christians believe about the nature of God.

TW: right

Me: We believe that there is only one God - one entity, if you will - that is God. And that God is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, all holy, all GOOD, etc.

Me: However, God is also three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

TW: ok

TW: I think I understand

Me: To be honest, we can say more about what we know God is not rather than what/who God is.

TW: ok

TW: what is God not

Me: To illustrate: There are not three Gods, but only one God. God is not “made up” of three persons; rather God is three persons.

Me: God doesn’t “switch hats”: now acting like the Father, then acting like the Son, and sometimes acting like the Holy Spirit.

Me: Rather, each of those persons is fully God.

Me: One of the most ancient - and beautiful - explorations of God is called the Athanasian Creed.

TW: ok

Me: Another place to look for why Christians believe this doctrine is found here.

TW: ok

TW: thanks

Me: No problem.

Me: Here is a helpful analogy, comparing the Trinity to a book. For example, a book has length, width, and thickness. The length is not the book’s width, the width is not the book’s thickness. These three dimensions can be described separately, yet they are connected together. If you remove one dimension, you are no longer describing a book. In the same way, the Godhead has three separate members that are connected together, and if you try to remove one you no longer have the Godhead.

TW: ok

Me: Does that make sense?

TW: i think so

Me: Don’t worry if you find this perplexing.

Me: Any honest Christian will say the same thing.

TW: ok

Me: God is so much greater than we are - it’s impossible for us (trapped in bodies, experiencing time in a linear fashion, of limited mental/spiritual capacity) to truly understand a God who is infinite.

TW: ok

Me: The important thing to know is that God loves us, and we see that love in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Me: Have you ever felt guilty?

TW: maybe

Me: I have. That’s because we know that there are some things that are right and some things that are wrong.

Me: Even the Wrede teaches that to harm another is to bring harm to yourself and the world (three-fold harm)!

TW: right

Me: Yet we say nasty things to each other, and sometimes do nasty things to each other.

Me: And we heap the same abuse upon ourselves.

TW: ok

Me: The things that we do to hurt others and our world is called “sin.”

Me: Sin breaks our relationships with other people, with ourselves, with our world, and - most importantly - with God.

TW: ok

Me: God does not want us to miss out on who he is - all of his goodness.

Me: So Jesus - who is God the Son in human flesh - came to earth.

TW: ok

Me: He taught us how to live, he healed the sick, he fought the powers of darkness, and then - at the appointed time - he died on a cross.

Me: The Bible says that the wages of sin is death.

Me: That means that when we sin, we’ve earned death.

Me: But the gift of God is eternal life. God the Son takes our punishment for us.

Me: The debt for sin - which is death - is paid for in his death on the cross.

Me: God proved to us that the sin-debt was canceled by raising Jesus from the dead.

TW: ok

Me: Because of Jesus Christ, we can have peace with God.

TW: awsome

Me: When we have peace with God, we begin to change from the inside out.

Me: God restores all those relationships that we messed up with our sin.

Me: He makes us able to love him and know him, for the first time.

Me: He makes us able to really love other people - for who they are, rather than what they can do for us.

Me: Peace with God means we can have peace in ourselves, too.

TW: what makes you think I cant already love people for who they are?

Me: I didn’t say you couldn’t.

Me: Genesis - the first book of the Bible - tells about how God made the world.

Me: When God made humankind, the Bible says that he made us “in his image.”

Me: That is - there is something inside of us that resembles God.

TW: ok

Me: And when we are able to love God, we can love other people in a deeper sense because we understand that they carry the image of God in themselves.

TW: ok

Me: You’ll understand - hopefully - one day when you have children.

Me: I have four children, and when I look at them I see something of myself reflected back at me - yet with their own distinctiveness.

Me: And I love what I see - myself and my wife in them, as well as the unique person they are.

TW: sooo

TW: whats your name dude jw

Me: My name is Chris.

Me: Christopher, actually. It means: “Bearer of Christ” or someone who carries the message of Christ into the world.

Me: My mother named me well.

Me: Brent, let me just say that it is a real privilege for me to get to speak with you.

TW: thanks

TW: but why

Me: Why? Have you got your Bible?

Me: Or the Gospel of John?

TW: i know of an online bible

Me: Read this: http://tinyurl.com/32ll8t

Me: It’s a privilege for me to share with you what little I know about how much God loves us in Jesus Christ.

TW: ok

Me: That link was to Jesus’ words.

Me: The sin in our lives keeps us from even being interested in learning about God.

Me: So when someone has these...stirrings...it can only be because God is already at work in their lives.

Me: God brings us to himself, draws us into his embrace.

Me: And it’s a real privilege for me to see how God is already calling out to you.

TW: i gotta go

Me: God bless you!

TW: later

Me: Keep reading that gospel of John

Keep going out into those information highways and byways, folks!

"May the Lamb that was slain receive the reward of His suffering!"

Esoteric Presbyterianism

A certain minister in good standing with my presbytery has a church member who actively promulgates (in writing, lectures, etc.) the following doctrines:

• The infinite and eternal Godhead manifests through a cascading hierarchy of divine entities, energies, and laws. The divine entities include the Solar and Planetary Logoi, Sanat Kumara, the archangels and angels, the Hierarchy of Masters, and ourselves. A cosmic entity of even greater power and consciousness than the Solar Logos is associated with the star groups: Ursa Major, Sirius, and the Pleides (sic; Pleiades, ed.).
• At every level the divine force is expressed first through a triplicity and then a septenary. The triplicity is referred to in Christianity as the Trinity. The septenary consists of the seven rays. Together, the triplicity and septenary can be compared with the ten sephiroth of the Kaballah.
• The Christ--the World Teacher--is the head of the Hierarchy of Masters and the embodiment of divine love on Earth. Two thousand years ago the Christ overshadowed the Master Jesus to create the "historic Christ."
• The Hierarchy of Masters owes its origin to an impulse from the star Sirius, which forms the heart center of the cosmic entity mentioned above.
• The great dramas of human history, such as the life of the Historical Christ, are part of a larger story that also includes the world's myths and legends.

I'm left shaking my head in wonder that a Presbyterian minister endorses this stuff without any mention that the whole idea of "emanations" from the "pleroma" of the Godhead is nothing more than a rehashing of the Gnostic heresy. (No news yet as to whether this guy is the new Sunday School Supervisor.)

I understand the fascination with mystical and esoteric thought. In fact, I did an independent study in Jewish Mysticism while an undergrad, and further work on Merkabah Mysticism in a class on Apocalyptic Literature in seminary. But to broadcast approvingly with no guidance as to where it crosses the line and steps outside of Biblical Christianity - especially on a blog that's part of one's teaching ministry - seems rather...incomplete.

Don't get me wrong. I like John as a person. We have a tremendous amount of stuff in common. He's a damn-decent human being. But that doesn't stop me from being critical of heresy - and this one is full of it.

What makes Jesus so unique?

James Tabor's article makes the same mistake that all heretical movements make: Jesus is the messenger, but not the Messiah.

The message he carried wasn't vastly different from the message that other rabbis preached. It wasn't really different from that found in the prophets or in the Torah.

What makes Jesus unique is the claim he makes about himself as the particular summation of God's saving acts in the world. Jesus' claim to be the Savior - to be God in the flesh - is what was distasteful to his contemporaries. His "I AM" statements, his exclusive claims to access to the Father, his ability to send the Spirit - all of these make him unique (not his teaching or his healing ministry). It is Jesus' ontology rather than his deontology (who he is rather than his moral teaching) that makes him the Savior of humankind.

Liberalism's problem (well, one among many) is that it sets up a mindset that distinguishes Jesus based on differentiating him from his contemporaries in such a way that little can be found in common. It was precisely this mindset that led to German scholarship being so derisive and dismissive of the Israelites (thinking of their religion as Primitive whereas Christianity is an enlightened opening of that Urreligion). It sets the Jews up as scapegoats - rejecting the religion of enlightened peoples and thus worthy of contempt. (sho'ah, anyone?)

I'm not saying this doesn't happen within "conservative" circles. Certainly, dispensationalists are quite dismissive of the faith of the Hebrews (despite Hebrews 11-12!). But the Reformed (i.e., Biblical) Christians take a different view: Adam was equally a member of the same Church as Paul.

Why? Because their faith was centered in The Coming One, the Serpent-trodder (Gen. 3:15), their Savior who was displayed to them in types and shadows until the time was fulfilled.

The message was there in the Torah all along. They weren't waiting on the message or even a new messenger - they were waiting on a messiah - the Mediator of the everlasting covenant.

Maranatha! Come, Lord Jesus!

Lamentations 2:14

"Your prophets have seen for you
false and deceptive visions;
they have not exposed your iniquity
to restore your fortunes,
but have seen for you oracles
that are false and misleading." (esv)

Silence about sin is not a good thing. Exposing sin allows people to turn from it. Exposing sin allows it to be recognized for what it is, so that we can walk in obedience. Reading through Lamentations, I get the sense that the narrator who bewails Jerusalem's razing would like nothing better than a chance to recognize sin in time to do something about it.

That's part of why I stay in the PC(USA). I believe that it is an imperative for those who minister to sound the warning. But it's equally important for me to hear denunciations of my own sin. There are times when I let sins that society endorses (pride, greed, etc) sneak up on me - heck, sometimes I even relish them. And it's at that moment that I need somebody with a different perspective to point me to a broader reading of the Scriptures with a chance to repent.

May God continue to send instruments of his hand - sharpening irons - in my path. Amen.

Trendy Bracelet Slogan for PoMos

I was ruminating the other night about all the zany alternatives we came up with for WWJD at several Presbyterian youth/college meetings back in the mid 1990s. It started me thinking about what kind of slogan I'd have to use now that I'm cemetary edumicated. Here's my stab at it:

What Do You Think Jesus Might Have Done In a Given Situation, Recognizing Our Limited Knowledge as Finite Human Beings and Our Distance from the Historical Context?

Of course, how you get WDYTJMHDIGSROLKFHB&ODHC on bracelet (or even a belt) might require more power than even the God of Open (pan)Theism wields!

Discovering Divine DNA

Okay...they've tested the DNA of the Talbiot tomb and found that the woman named Mariamene and the man they claim is named Joshua (the name is scratchy and hard to make out) are not related on their mother's side. Big whoop.

If the skeptics want me to believe that it's really Jesus of Nazareth, they're going to have to show one convincing bit of evidence: haploidy. Of course, if he's really virgin-born would we even be seriously considering that his bones would be on earth?

10 Things the Process/Open Theism God might say

(Why I Am Not An Open Theist)

1) Oops!
2) I think this will work.
3) Wow – I won’t do that again.
4) Uh-oh.
5) Huh?
6) There’s always plan B, C, D, E, ....
7) Let me get back to you on that...
8) Whoa! I didn’t think you’d do that.
9) C’mon, c’mon, c’mon – YES! I love it when a plan finally comes together.
10) Dude – no way! (exclamation of incredulity upon learning something new and unexpected)

Holston Heretics

John Shuck, a Nicodemite MoWaS in my presbytery of care, has made the bold claim that fundamentalism (of the "Jesus got up bodily from the dead" type) is a heresy and that orthodoxy has never made the claim of a carnal resurrection.

Thus, I've asked him to take me to court and let us see who the church deems heretical. Here's my response:

Fundamentalism is a heresy? Orthodox faith never claimed a bodily resurrection?

Do you say this out of ignorance or resistance?

• John underscores Jesus' resurrection in a body with physical form in two post passion narratives;
• a panoply of confessions from the Bible;
• Irenaeus confesses a bodily resurrection and ascension in the 160s;
• the Apostles Creed places Jesus' passion and resurrection in history by lumping it with Pilate's reign - then insisting on a resurrection of the body / flesh / carnis / sarkos
• Calvin, in the Consensus Tigurinus says that the ascended body of Christ is physical and thus locally removed from the sacramental elements
• the Scots Confession puts it as strongly as it can by sayin he was resurrected and ascended in "the selfsame body which was born of the virgin, was crucified, dead, and buried, and which did rise again (which is what the rest claim or assume, but is here set forth explicitly).
  

Tell you what, John. How about you put me on trial at the June presbytery for being a fundamentalist. In turn, I'll ask you to defend your position on the physical resurrection of Jesus. You can even go first.

It'll be great! (You did enjoy Gawain and the Greene Knight, didn't you?)

Talpiot Tomb Tricks Truant

I just posted the following at John Shuck's blog. No claims to originality - most of this was culled from various readings and some outright copied from Ben Witherington.

A couple of things:

1) Craig Evans has written a recent (2003) article on Jewish burial traditions, focusing on how they illuminate the Gospel narratives. You can find it in a PDF file here.

By following his footnotes, you can find a wealth of information. Take a look at the Anchor Bible Dictionary or the Encyclopedia Judaica (you can read the old article on burial here). You'll find that the Gospels reflect intimate acquaintance with these traditions.

You'll also discover that the tomb of the family of Jesus would not be in Jerusalem. It would be somewhere in Galilee or Bethlehem (either the one in Galilee/Zebulun or the one in Judea/Judah).

2. The tomb was discovered in a suburb of Jerusalem back in 1980 by arcaheologists of the Israeli Antiquities Authority (though outside of the Jerusalem of ancient times, as all burials had to be done outside the city). Amos Kloner and Joe Zias, two of the original archaeologists involved in the project, have openly repudiated the findings of the show in strong terms, both on television and in the public forum.

Let's face it - if Jews could prove that they had the body of the man Christians say was resurrected (and Muslims say ascended without death), why would they sit on it for twenty years?

3) It does seem to date from before the second century, and it is a very nice tomb belonging to a middle-class (or better) family. It was decorated from the outside and on the inside with a strange rosette shape, indicating the attention was to be drawn to it rather than being a secret.

Do we believe that Jesus' family was well-to-do? Do we believe that anyone associated with Jesus and his family closely enough would want to draw attention to his burial place? It could hardly be argued that any of his disciples would want to do so.

4) The names are a big problem for those who believe it's the biblical Jesus. Some names are in Hebrew, others in Aramaic, and the one of Mariamne is in Greek! That suggests it's a multi-generational tomb (rather than everyone being piled in there at roughly the same time).

5) History of the names - Richard Bauckham provides the following statistics. Out of a total number of 2625 males, these are the figures for the ten most popular male names among Palestinian Jews. the first figure is the total number of occurrences (from this number, with 2625 as the total for all names, you could calculate percentages), while the second is the number of occurrences specifically on ossuraies.

1 Simon/Simeon 243 59
2 Joseph 218 45
3 Eleazar 166 29
4 Judah 164 44
5 John/Yohanan 122 25
6 Jesus 99 22
7 Hananiah 82 18
8 Jonathan 71 14
9 Matthew 62 17
10 Manaen/Menahem 42 4

No mention is made in the documentary of the fact that though we only have a few hundred ossuaries with inscribed names, there is in fact another ossuary with the inscription 'Jesus son of Joseph'. Apparently this was not a rare combination of names at all.

For women, we have a total of 328 occurrences (women's names are much less often recorded than men's), and figures for the 4 most popular names are thus:

Mary/Mariamne 70 42
Salome 58 41
Shelamzion 24 19
Martha 20 17

At one juncture we are told that the name Mariamenon is found in Hippolytus a second century church historian. Two problems with this. Firstly so far as I can see, that name never occurs in the works of Hippolytus [I'm using the Lightfoot The Apostolic Fathers vol. i, part ii (London, 1889-1890)]. Secondly, Hippolytus died in about A.D. 236. He comes to us from the end of the second century A.D. He could never have known any eywitnesses or even second-third generation followers of Jesus. Even if he did mention the name in question (the one on the ossuary found at Talpiot), he provides no early second century evidence for this name, much less for the theory that this name is one way of referring to Mary Magdalene.

In fact the Acts of Philip, at best a fourth century document is the basis of the theory of Prof. Bovon that Mariamenou Mara= Mary Magdalene, but nowhere in that document are the two equated. The woman referred to in that document is an evangelist in Greek who is the sister of Philip (whether Philip the apostle or the later Philip the evangelist found in Acts 8, is up for debate).

In sum, there is a reason that every Biblical archaeologist, save possibly one, interviewed either in the Discovery Channel special or in the hour long debate thereafter repudiates or is unpersuaded by the findings of the show.

It's not the tomb of the biblical Jesus of Nazareth.

If you want to find his body, you'll see it come together (usually on Sunday mornings) to be fed on the Word and then sent out into the world.

Or you can ask John Dominic Crossan to point to some fossilized dog turd to find the remains of a Jewish rabble-rouser that people falsely called God.

Kanye West and Katrina Konniptions

You'll remember rapper Kanye West's outburst at how the callousness of wicked white folks (especially George Bush who "doesn't care about black people" so much that he's appointed more African Americans to high level cabinet positions than any prior president) prevented aid from reaching non-white victims of Hurricane Katrina. (video here) He said that he would contact his business manager "to see how much I can give" because the government wasn't doing enough.

Apparently, his business manager now thinks that so much money has been spent rebuilding the lives of those effected by the disaster that Kanye can afford to spend nearly $5,000 dollars on one meal flown in to New York from a restaurant in Cardiff, Wales.

Folks, you can't make this stuff up.

Global Warming again

I'm not a scientist (2/3's of an undergrad pre-med education - which doesn't qualify me jor jack squat). I don't play one on TV. So I when I want to know about science, I ask a scientist.

Timothy Ball is a climatologist with impeccable scientific credentials. He has championed a thorough-going review of global warming claims. A recent interview has some gems for those who are skeptical of the claims made in the last decade. He also suggests a number of websites to read about further critiques. Here's a sampling of some of his inconvenient truths:

“...consensus is not a scientific fact.”

'[T]hey have switched from talking about global warming to talking about climate change...since 1998 the global temperature has gone down -- only marginally, but it has gone down. In the meantime, of course, CO2 has increased in the atmosphere and human production has increased. So you've got what Huxley called the great bane of science -- “a lovely hypothesis destroyed by an ugly fact.” So by switching to climate change, it allows them to point at any weather event -- whether it's warming, cooling, hotter, dryer, wetter, windier, whatever -- and say it is due to humans. Of course, it's absolutely rubbish.'

“[T]he world has been warming since 1680 and the cause is changes in the sun. But in their computer models they hardly talk about the sun at all and in the IPCC summary for policy-makers they don't talk about the sun at all. And of course, if they put the sun into their formula in their computer models, it swamps out the human portion of CO2, so they can't possibly do that.”

Something I really appreciate is how he reminds us of things we should have known - like how the earth has warmed since the Little Ice Age and how beneficial the Medieval Warming Period was for human civilization (wiki articles - ymmv). Similarly, Archimedes Principle suggests that claims of low-level inundation are grossly inflated. I agree with him that the most likely player in terran climate change is the sun. This is backed up by repeated scientific observation and solid historical correlative data.

Anyway, it's something to look at. One thing I know for sure - I don't trust politicians playing scientists.

God of the oppressed and the oppressor

Why do people act as if God has an agenda of salvation for the poor/oppressed and damnation for the rich/oppressor? (Especially odd in folks who would never suffer anything that clear-cut in terms of non-economic/political morality.) Ecclesiastes 4:1 seems to lament that both oppressed and oppressor need a comforter (paraclete?). Moreover, it was a fundamental tenet of the Mosaic law that you don't give impartial favor to anybody - poor or rich!

Jesus ate with poor outcasts (prostitutes, etc.) and rich ones (e.g., Zaccheus). And let's not forget that he supped with Pharisees - the righteous orthodox - on a regular basis. Now that's the table-fellowshipping Jesus we need for today!

Global Warbling

After reading this article, I have but one choice: VEGETARIANISM.*

*Not because I love animals, but because I hate plants.

Seriously, I think that there are a lot of people rushing to judgment 0n this issue. It's getting to the point where dissent is not tolerated - even when it's well documented and reasonably argued. Where's the humility at the complexity of terran climatology?

Free to be Offended and Offensive

Selwyn Duke makes some excellent points in his recent article about offensive speech.

Let me whet your appetite:

If you can’t defeat your adversaries in the arena of ideas, you have to keep them out of the competition; if you can’t refute what’s argued, you must stop it from being spoken.

The voicing of the unpopular, being the very soul of free speech,
the right to give and take offense shall not be infringed.

Sometimes I think it is time to insert the above into our First Amendment.

So, first you demonize speech refutative of your agenda by labeling it “offensive,” which cultivates social codes and attendant social pressure facilitative of the change you desire. Then, as these social codes become more widely accepted and entrenched, expressing them through rules and laws becomes more acceptable. This leads to the next stage, the organizational expression of them – the speech codes in various private institutions. And once sufficiently inured to these, it’s time for the last stage of this imprisoning of ideas: The legislative expression of these social codes known as hate speech laws.

Thus, there is a lesson here we ignore at our own peril. You can have freedom from being offended or you can freedom of speech, but you cannot have both.

This is why I have no tolerance for the Offensiveness Ploy. It is manipulation by the mediocre, victory for the vacuous, derision by the dull.

I encourage you to read the rest of the article. I firmly believe free speech is losing ground in academia and will soon be non-existent in the public sphere.

Resurrection Fun

Okay - it's Lent. That means that we're preparing ourselves for one thing: EASTER!!!

I understand that our repentance (which should be continual, but is especially intentional in this season) is often accompanied by a somber turn of character. However, in the interests of keeping Lent a truly proleptic time of anticipation (kinda like Advent), I encourage everyone to repent of their unbelief in the true, bodily resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Sure, there are people who don't believe it and say as much (some of whom who should really know better). But there are plenty of folks that would confess belief in Jesus' triumph over death, yet the accompanying joy of that fact never reaches their hearts (much less their daily living). Folks, there is only one response to Jesus Christ having been raised for our justification (Rom. 4:25) - a more profound ALLELUIA!!

As James Dennison reminds us:

Eschatological death is past for us—Jesus paid it all.

Eschatological judgment is past for us—Jesus endured it all.

Eschatological wrath is past for us—Jesus bore it all.

Eschatological righteousness is present for us—Jesus has it all.

Eschatological forgiveness is present for us—Jesus gives it all.

Eschatological life is present for us—Jesus lives it all.

Even now to those who are in Christ Jesus—no condemnation!

Even now to those who are in Christ Jesus—no more wrath!

Even now to those who are in Christ Jesus—no more death!

Even now to those who are in Christ Jesus—you are justified!

Even now to those who are in Christ Jesus—you are forgiven!

Even now to those who are in Christ Jesus—you have been raised from the dead!

In that spirit, I encourage you all to take this whimsical test by Gary Habermas.

They Might Be Giants - Minimum Wage

This is the referent to the last title.