Recently, I noted a discussion about homosexuality and other things which didn’t get a response. I’d like to return to the idea of repugnance and ethics. Consider the following two examples:

Questioning and interrogation in the next 10 years takes a pharmaceutical turn with the perfection and development of a drug which prevented the transference of short term to long term memory. Coupled with the refinments on the early infamous waterboarding which enabled technicians to trigger primal basic primitive organic fears every person held to break the conscious will. In part these refinements included the monitoring method which insured that no organic damage whatsoever would be incurred by the subject. Within 6 hours after questioning the subject had no physical or biological/mental memory of the questioning. From the point of view of the subject, it never occurred.

This is wrong. It is repugnant and evil. But why? Repugnance is not the reason why it is wrong. It is a cue that there is a problem here. What exactly is wrong with it? In that prior post, I noted that a consequentialist would/shoult have no problem with either. In fact, a utilitiarian argument would, I’d think, encourage and applaud this in a lot of cases not just involving National security but those involving, quite likely, an ever expanding list of crimes for which accurate interrogation of a hostile witness is deemed necessary to get to the truth.

Biblical ethics would, however, reject both. The essential problem with this method is that it rejects the dignity of man. Torture is not wrong because it inflicts pain, because we remember it, or because it is dehumanizing for the practitioner. It is wrong because it strips man of dignity.

Clear and cool, in the mid 40s, expected high around 60.

• Narnia and myth.
• Cause of death in Western Europe.
• I didn’t know that.
• Mom. A Day. Three in a row.
• Roomsweepers and home defense, and “WW-II war-crime” claims from the side with Auschwitz.
• Cool-tech.
• A Pentecost homily. Or oil and canvas? and on Freedom. And in the East … Myrrbearers and Joseph of Arimethea.
• Serbia and a film recomendation.
• As Mr Obama attempts to dig himself out of a bad historical gaffe (claiming Roosevelt and Truman among others were “always willing to talk to their enemy” (but eliding the “only about unconditional surrender part” I guess) a supporter offers slander instead.
• Hollywood time is not real.
• Illegal?
• Reconciliation.
• Clauswitz on hypothesis.
• Rumbling in the ranks of the wicked.
• American nobility.
• If you need that … do you also need Lipitor?
• Single earner household?

One of my favorite words is obfuscate. This word is rare enough that most people don’t know the meaning of this word.

obfuscate: make obscure or unclear

This word often “does what it means” (if the hearer doesn’t know the meaning of the word then using it obscures the meaning of the passage) which is why I find it so amusing.

Onomatopoeia is the use of words which sound like what they describe. Obfuscate is, perhaps, noetic onomatopoeia. Words that “do” what they mean. Are there any other examples of word which do what they mean? A word meaning nausea which induces nausea might be an example. Or a word meaning to anger that angers some? Any suggestions for more noetic onomatopoeia?

Good morning.

•  On high school, one problem I see is that the emphasis on helping “raise the bar” and concentrating on helping the slowest, we fail to provide the more profitable assistance to the brightest.
• A day in the life, of being a dad.
• Art and beauty: Verse. ePsalm. Oil. Czech cinema. Pen and ink.
• On the evangelical manifesto.
• Apparently we’ve been misinformed. Jihad is not always spiritual.
• Cuteness.
• Theodicy.
• The status of operation turtle rescue.
• Heh.
• Life and the Reformed.
• Wisdom.
• A jersey for a cause.
• A lady of renown.
• Much more record setting cold and the global warming crowd … will stay unaffected as usual.
• Succinct statement of why all those “important legal/social/political decisions” need to be made locally at the lowest level possible. Engagement.

From a Christmas gift, a day-by-day Dave Barry Calendar:

As your recall from dozing face-down on your history textbook, medieval cities were surrounded by high stone walls with massive iron gates that would not open unless you punched in the secret digital Roman-numeral pass code.

Right. Carry on.

Frequent commenter in these here parts, Dan Trabue and others brought up the discussion of homosexuality and Scripture. It is said, where two or three or gathered there will be four or five opinions on theological matters and that seemed to be the case. As this conversation too often brings up lots of heat and little light, I’m going to put most of it below the fold. Read the rest of this entry »

Peter Kirk has started a discussion on gifts of the Spirit and glossalia. Some of those links, I think, read this blog. I have some questions.

What is it? From Acts, those speaking in tongues were understood as speaking in other known languages by bystanders, i.e., Acts 2:6 “And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language.” Is that expected to happen? If not, what is thought to be occurring?

Eastern Orthodoxy also ideas of gifts of the Spirit, but those gifts are generally thought to come primarily to fools and monks, and the gifts run to prophecy, healing, and (more common) witnessing the Taborite light. Are those gifts also part of the Pentecostal experience?

Good morning. Cooler today, mid-40s.

• A meme.
• Myths of divorce.
• Oprah, Obama, and the church of Rev. Wright.
• Phariseeism in our midst.
• The dutch and death.
• The US Marines and the Afghan cash crop.
• On church unity, the point of which is, I think, that the differences between Catholic, Calvinist, and Reformed wouldn’t have fazed the Fathers. Why do they for you?
• A headline sure to grab the google hordes.
• Quantum and real.
• For the terminally ill.
• Setting the record straight on the faith of Mr Obama … from the right.
• Exit polls of Tuesday simplified.
• Kids … and a legal drug. You know the real problem with kids is that they are so darn immature.
• One tribute to the women of one’s past.
• Unimpressed by Ms Clinton.
• Context?
• Mr King and a remark. A response.
• Debt and the middle class … the reality.
• Sin and sight.
• More advice on meeting with atheists.
• A film to look out for.
• A point on defining evangelicals.
• Orthodox theological books 4 sale.
• A good time had by all.

Two posts. First, Richard Chappell notes:

Some people judge that homosexuality is immoral, because they find it intuitively repugnant. They must also be aware that a few short decades ago people thought that interracial sex was immoral, on the same basis. This suggests that such intuitions provide a very flimsy basis for discrimination. Indeed, I find it completely baffling that homophobic conservatives fail to realize that they are the modern day equivalent of yesterday’s racist conservatives. Why are they not humbled by history? What makes them think that their disgust-based moral intuitions are any more reliable than their grandparents’ were?

There are two aspects to this, one fairly trivial. Mr Chappell goes from “Some people judge … because” to “homophobic conservatives fail … equivalent of yesterdays racist conservatives”. The “some people” goes from an adjectival description that (rightly) describes a small minority, while on the other hand to my reading “homophobic conservatives” is less likely to read as an even smaller subset (those in the “some people” category of before who are also conservative) to a notion that of a notion tarring essentially all conservatives as homophobic.

In the comment trail, Brandon argues for repugnance as a basis for other issues such as incest, which Mr Chappell finds acceptable.  I offer two alternative tests:

 Consider abmnemnopaedophilia, that is hiring young children (from poor family backgrounds) so that one might apply a drug which prevents the creation of long-term memory and then “use them” for the purposes of sexual enjoyment. That is, paying a family to give up their child for a night’s “entertainment” (with material renumeration) along with the application of a drug which prevents the child from having any memory (the next day) of nights events. This, from a purely utilitarian standpoint, should have no issue. That is, no lasting or measurable harm is done, the paedophile gets his “reward”, and the family gets some much needed financial assistance. It would seem that the primary argument against is repugnance (or perhaps virtue ethics).

Consider also the following sort of slave trafficking. In this sort of traffic young orphan girls from third world cities, who have been captured by street elements and sold locally into brothels might then re-acquired into first world, say European or American brothels. In those brothels, these girls are still sexual chattel … but they get better clothes, better food, work more reasonable hours and have a substantially improved lifespan and as well, the third world nation gets an influx of captial. Again a utilitarian can offer no complaint.

I would argue that both of these situations are “intuitively repugnant.” As well, one might be able to hoist reasoned arguments why they are bad, however there also utilitarian reasons why they are “good.” However one might ask those who would support either of the two test cases, “Why are you not humbled by history?” Why do you think your utility-based moral intuitions are reliable? Perhaps instead of proving a reason to doubt “repugnance” might we find instead utility a flimsy basis for ethical decision-making.
Mr Schraub asks:

A new ad out tries to force McCain into that question pro-lifers never want to answer: if abortion should be a crime, how much time should women who have them serve?

[…]

I’ve yet to hear a coherent justification (at least, one that isn’t nakedly paternalistic — e.g., women are irrational creatures controlled by their emotions, so they can’t be punished) for why abortion can be outlawed (as murder), but the murderers should get off scot-free. I suppose if someone doesn’t think abortion is murder, but still can come up with a reason for it to barred, they could dodge out of this, but the few arguments I’ve heard on those lines are also pretty paternalistic (it’s a serious decision, and we can’t know if you’re taking it seriously enough unless you’re willing to prove it somehow to the state).

A counter question that “pro-abortion proponents” never want to answer (or offer coherent justification) for is why they are for regulation (are paternalistic?) on virtually every other phase of life/issue, e.g., gun ownership, seat belts, hay rides, retirement, school regulation, and so on …  but when it comes to killing the fetus brook no regulation or oversight at all. Paternalism per se is not a thing from which the left shirks … except in the case of abortion. The “pro-abortion” proponents also fail to offer “a coherent justification” for the notion that the pater, i.e., father, has any rights at all in this matter, which is unfortunate.
Now, the argument for regulation of abortion that I’ve made is not, I think, paternalistic (that is based on the idea that the state is wise but women are “irrational creatures”) but motivated instead by the idea that virtue is the path to happiness and that providing an environment in which virtue can flourish is one of the primary ends of the state. My argument was not singling out young women by any means, but was based on the notion that every serious ethical personal decision that affects society, i.e., marriage, divorce, abortion, and end-of-life issues might rightly be confronted by methods in the public square so that the society might be assured that the person(s) involved recognize that a serious ethical decision is being made. Men or women considering marriage often declaim they would climb any mountain or brave any raging torrent to be with their beloved. Aboriginal American cultures often had such barriers, fasting, vision-quest, or other feats to overcome which one might argue served this purpose. In modern Babylon, i.e., our culture, civil courts currently serve something of that purpose. Currently our courts have a limited set of tools, like prison, fines, and service. It seems likely if we considered the task of the courts to assign barriers to demonstrate one’s resolve, a larger set of tools might be assigned to their disposal, which could then be also used perhaps at a generically higher level, for those who don’t present their case in court.

That is basically a less mocking restatement of the “serious ethical decision” argument. It is one I’d argue for at a local level, so that if/when barriers would be set, they would be made at a micro-scale to be proportionate and be seen as reasonable to those setting them. However, in policy, it is one I don’t ascribe to on a national level. I’m currently of the opinion that these decision of abortion, euthenasia, divorce, marriage, and so on should all be made locally, at the village/precinct level.  At the local level, one response to deciding to forego the regulations put up in these matters is that, you must face the set consequences … or move (preferably prior to breaking the law and facing said consequences).

Raining and cooler today …. oh, and good morning to all of you out there.

• Alevis … an Islamic sect I’ve never heard of featured.
• Really, Jews returning to … Russia?
• Russia, and war.
• Living the life of luxury, err, mystery.
• “Off with their heads”, said the Queen of Hearts … and in a different story, on the plight of the headless.
• Live, Memorex, or what?
• Two churches, one and two.
• I hope that’s art, because otherwise … it’s really stupid.
• Speaking of stupid.
• Classifying church.
• A Christian Jewish girl making waves … in Israel.
• Praise for the chain eateries.
• Two cultures, love and life vs death and utility.
• Some words on sin.
• One man, teacher & killer.
• Cool.

On the Internet said something wrong.

Hmm. Our friendly neighborhood racist, Mr Schraub notes:

Moreover, the Liberation Theology mantra, “God is on the side of the oppressed”, also seems to my ears to ring more Jewish than Christian. In part, this is simply historical: Jews have spent more time oppressed than (White) Christians, so obviously we’re going to develop theological accounts that provide sustenance in such situations. [emphasis mine]

What? White? Are Bulgarians, Greeks, Slavs, et al, not White? If people from the Caucasus aren’t Caucasian, words have no meaning, I think. If the Russian serf wasn’t oppressed then nobody was … ever. What “history” is being mentioned, does that mean mainly the 20th century? Earlier? Bulgarians and Greeks were not oppressed by the Ottoman? The Rus by the Mongol? Eastern Europe apparently is not “White”, just Northern Europe.

Oppressed and White … there are examples to numerous to count. Jews more than Christians, numerically, likely not. By other metrics, perhaps, but as Mr Schraub noted earlier, when you start comparing millions and millions. The tally is not useful. Miroslav Volf (an oppressed White Christian) in the book, The End of Memory: Remembering Rightly in a Violent World, as a Protestant Christian draws his experiences and on Jewish and Christian theological responses to consider responses to oppression. In that sense, Christians in part, are “exploring connections and commonalities” with Jewish accounts.

I’m a little curious why Mr Schraub would seek a relative backwater like Liberation Theology in the Christian theological development instead of more orthodox (or likely Orthodox) accounts. Perhaps better questions would be to explore how do/did the Roman-pagan era, or modern Coptic, Syrian, Soviet bloc Christians deal with oppression from a theological perspective and what commonalities/connections might be gotten there. The only relevant reason to go to (B)/(non-B) LT is that it seems topical (for likely all the wrong reasons) today. That doesn’t mean in a wider perspective that it is a more useful tack, more likely the contrary.

Good morning. Two days, both nice weather … so here we are waiting for the hammer to drop.

• Putin and Georgia.
• Friendship and the whole me Tarzan you Jane thing.
• Tongues of fire and … administration?
• Pray for Myanmar/Burma … and connect with a charity that’s helping as well.
• Lance!
• Exactly right, stay-at-home-mom is a disappointing move from housewife.
• Ecumenical theology and some examples that don’t involve the Theotokos.
• A picture of a man striving not to believe Emmy Noether’s theorem.
• Heh.
• Looking at N.T. Wright.
• Monsters in our midst. (HT: Mere Comments)
• Sin city.
• Abortion and psyche.
• A pro.
• The academy and military history … another view.
• First, I’m not sure they can be separated, and second, I’m even if true, I think it’s wrong.

One point of view when we have the regrettable carbon/climate debate or the more important energy resources debate that is left out is what policies lead to more virtue. What sorts of energy policies will lead to us being better, more virtuous (and hence happier) people?

• Are we burning oil to increase communion and meaningful interaction between people, or do we get more of that by staying nearer to home?
• We complain about rising oil prices, but that just makes alternatives reasonable. Is that a bad thing or not?
• When we push to burn edible food as alcohols and oils … which segment of society does that affect the most? That may not be necessarily such a bad thing, as it’s also then an opportunity for charity and … mixing of more peoples (see the first bullet above).
• When our policy makers craft policy they tend to concentrate on material benefits for their particular constituents (or social benefits that don’t directly benefit their consitutents but allow them to feel “better” about themselves in some way). Rarely however do they consider policy on the basis of what policies might lead to better people.

As Christians, the question besides the generic one of stewardship, should be regarding energy, a holy fool long ago said, “Preach the Gospel; if necessary, use words.” Our lawmakers might consider, “Live the Gospel in all ways, if necessary, use laws” … but only where necessary.

And it is good to remember, if you compel me to do a thing by force of law, I am not learning virtue by that. That is a problem shared by the right and left, for example abortion and publicly funded charities.

Off limits for me these days.

I’ve sworn off talking about (trashing) Mr Obama or his erstwhile opponent until after the nomination is settled. Contrary to the notion, however that the “anti-Obama” gruel is thin these days because there’s nothing left to say bad about him, my problem would be the reverse. The pro-Obama gruel is mighty thin, I can’t imagine why anyone would support him in the first place. But, as they say, different strokes and the rest of that will be explored if he does indeed get the nomination.

So that’s pretty much it these days … politically.

Good morning. Nice day today 50 at the break of day, expected in the 70s.

• A Protestant looks at the Catholic church, part one and part two. And finds it not wanting.
• One way to keep the credit card debt in check.
• Witnesses, rape/incest, Islam and why.
• An attempt to crash the Amazon recommendation system.
• A list of 10 things to be happy about in the Church and its movement in the 20th and 21st century.
• Levelling SSM and the slippery slope.
• A defense of navel gazing.
• NTY, apparently, thinks hard work not an American value. Huh?
• Mr Hagee and some catholics.
• The Theotokos in France.
• The pre-War German church and the Holocaust examined.
• East and further East, an Orthodox looking at Buddhism. (part one here)
• Because “we like nihilists have gone astray” sounds really stupid (or free thinkers)
• A look at Cuba.
• Advice for talking with Atheists. (HT: an ex-atheist)
• Smile!
• St. Athanasius.
• Huh?
• “They’ll” ordain anyone these days. Apparently.
• Liberation theology.

Dan Trabue, in a comment thread at Stones Cry Out on Black Liberation Theology and liberation theology in general, held that Jesus message (and more generally the main thrust of Scripture) was one of class warfare and providing assistance to the poor and oppressed. I disagreed. Mr Trabue asked for my interpretation on the verses of Luke noted above. I’ll quote the ESV as it’s popular with many bloggers (and online and easily accessible):

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”And all spoke well of him and marveled at the gracious words that were coming from his mouth. And they said, “Is not this Joseph’s son?” And he said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘Physician, heal yourself.’ What we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well.” And he said, “Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown. But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land,and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow.And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.” When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. And they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff. But passing through their midst, he went away.
I had previously noted that Matthew (and as it turns out Mark) both when noting “Jesus first preaching” was on repentance, which I was arguing was at the heart of Biblical teaching not social issues. It is interesting as well, via Luke (Acts 2:37-38) to note the first teaching of the Apostles noted in Acts after Jesus leaves them, “Repent and be Baptized” is their theme as well. Mr Trabue keys on the quoted verses from Isaiah and notes connects this with the idea that Jesus mission. The key question then is who are the “poor”, the blind and the captives (oppressed). I think that neither Jesus nor his hearers took “the poor” not to mean the poor (blind and oppressed) dwelling among those in Israel, but instead the common notion was that all of Israel itself was poor, blind and oppressed. In noting that Jesus mission is one to help the literally poor and oppressed is to get his point exactly backwards.

The major themes of Old Testament are one of exile/slavery and redemption. Israel is enslaved in Egypt and is redeemed by Moses. Then, later, they are enslaved in Babylon. In the first century, they have returned … but are still enslaved (now by Rome, but that only replaced Greek/Alexandrian rule). All of Israel hopes for redemption and a release from bondage. They yearn for a second Moses, the Christ to return and redeem them materially and politically with fire and the sword (or other dramatic acts like the parting of the Red Sea) as God had done for them the first time. This is exactly the same sort of redemption that Mr Trabue hopes for the poor and takes as the message of the Gospels. This is exactly the notion which Jesus rejects however. Jesus countered the peoples expectations (of the liberation theologians) and the 1st century Hebrew people. Jesus didn’t give the expected response (John 18:36) “Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.’” Specifically, Jesus came and offered a healing of Adam’s fall, emptying the tombs, and healing creation. The “poor” are all of the Israel. The “blind” are those hoping for political redemption. The liberty that is promised is, in Dostoevsky’s/Zizioulas’ terms the “ontological freedom” made available to either the person willing to die (Dostoevsky) or Baptized into Eternal life (Al of Christianity via Zizioulas).

In lieu of starting something new, a more extended commentary/ramble through things I noticed.

The left continues to be tone deaf regarding biblical references … The comments take the linked piece to task for misreading Jonah. But before that, they misread Jeremiah wasn’t preaching against oppression. If you find that this warning (Jeremiah 7:5-15 in which the primary warnings can be found):

For if you truly amend your ways and your deeds, if you truly execute justice one with another, if you do not oppress the sojourner, the fatherless, or the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own harm, then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your fathers forever.

“Behold, you trust in deceptive words to no avail. Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, ‘We are delivered!’—only to go on doing all these abominations? Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I myself have seen it, declares the Lord. Go now to my place that was in Shiloh, where I made my name dwell at first, and see what I did to it because of the evil of my people Israel. And now, because you have done all these things, declares the Lord, and when I spoke to you persistently you did not listen, and when I called you, you did not answer, therefore I will do to the house that is called by my name, and in which you trust, and to the place that I gave to you and to your fathers, as I did to Shiloh. And I will cast you out of my sight, as I cast out all your kinsmen, all the offspring of Ephraim.

Note, “oppress the sojourner, the fatherless, or the widow” certainly might be remarks against oppression but to hold that as the primary focus of the message and not “stealing, murder, committing adultery, and seeking false gods” … then one is, well, wrong.

What is he talking about. Mr Westmorland-White at Levelers notes:

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught his disciples to refuse to swear any oaths at all. Since the time of Constantine, most Christians have refused to take Jesus seriously at this point with oath-taking being common in Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, and all kinds of Protestantism. In this nation, we even use Bibles in administering oaths–having people swear on a book that includes Jesus’ ban on swearing!!

I suppose one could take a very wide (liberal?) understanding of what “swearing an oath” means … but I’ve been Eastern Orthodox for over a year now (and that’s first on his list of offending denominations) and I have no idea what he’s talking about. Do you? Does reciting the creed with it’s profession of faith equal an oath? If so, I proudly announce that I’m guilty. But … otherwise I have no clue what he’s trying to get at, oaths “being common” in Eastern Orthodoxy. Is this just ignorance on his part?

Over at Positive Liberty, Jim Babka looks at science and religion, which is interesting in its own right, ultimately I think I’m agreeing with much of what he says.. However, it seems to me the view that science as expressed by Dawkins is merely an unusual divorce from the theology and, in essence, the expression about what is the goal and end of science from religion. Religion (and specifically the Hebrew/Christian faith) does connect with science as a process and its goals. [aside: This is also not an emergent process as noted in a comment, but something a little more complicated, see for example Polanyi’s engagement with what science is about and how it is done in Personal Knowledge.] I’d make the Chestertonian claim that mainstream/orthodox Christianity doesn’t just engage and connect with the scientific endeavor … it “gets it exactly right” and further that ‘getting right’ is not to resort to non-overlapping magisteria.  Genesis 1 for example, with it’s onotological classification of living things, can be noted as an affirmation of the idea that the material world is intelligible. In that view, the first chapter of the first book (which is very foundational) asserts from the very beginning that the bedrock of the materialism on which science is based is true. This notion, that the universe is intelligible, is in fact the crucial idea, taken on faith, that everyone engaged in science believes. St. Augustine in his Confessions, notes that the material universe praises (worships) its creator through our understanding of how it is made and fits together. In that view, scientists (be they believers or not) are embarking on the project of allowing God’s universe to praise Him. Which leads to the interesting remark, if Augustine is right … then scientists atheist or not are worshipping God by their actions. For does motive matter so much, if I beat a child with a chain with the “intention of improving him” it is still remains child abuse, even if “my heart” was in a different place.” For the materialist atheist scientist the origins of his belief in the material consistency of nature derive intellectually from Christian roots. Further, his actions are that by which Nature praises its Creator. To not engage in worship, for the scientist, is not a thing which is possible for that is the basis of his action.

I will however disagree with Mr Babka’s recent parting remark (in a comment):

I actually don’t like using the term “Christian.” One reason is, that term is associated, in most folks minds, with Christianity — the institution. And I’m no fan of institutions.

If, as St. Paul remarks on marriage, the relationship between husband and wife is to be as Christ and his Church … then one cannot abandon the institution … for that is the church, well, specifically the Christian people, worshipping, praying, and forming that/those institution(s) known as our churches cannot be let go. One cannot, I think, be truly Christian and not be a fan of the Church.

Wow, 60 degrees in the morning. Spring?

• Jesus mails it in.
• On winning a prize, making light of a real issue dodged or evaded by the carbon evangelists.
• Ms Cyrus and the meatgrinder.
• DDT and testicular cancer, which needs to be compared of course to DDT and malaria.
• More stupid tech.
• Slow and steady?
• A law. Good, bad, or both.
• Denial of reality, reaching for the (cheese) moon.
• An amazing lady.
• Protestants and the Theotokos.
• The Christian carnival comes to town. Weekly.
• A tune.
• One prediction, $200/barrel oil -> $7 per gallon at the pump by years end.
• Knit bib.
• On Psalm 103(104).
• On Christian unity.
• On Obama’s church.
• What is science?
• A book noted.
• Nuclear Physics in a nutshell.

It is sometimes said the the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Is this so?

Do numbers matter in the ethics of politics? In a recent remark, JA asked if about how we distinguish if one sometimes supporting those who use terrorists methods (or even using them ourselves) and the terrorists themselves.  It is useful to remember in this, that the thing one is trying to stop, is essentially, genocide. Bonhoeffer, a noted pacificist, was arrested and killed for engaging in an assasination attempt of Adolph Hitler. A few questions then.

1. Was it wrong to engage and support the French Resistance against the Nazi regime? Given the context of Holocaust and the various horrors of the Eastern front/war would it have been so obviously wrong to support groups using modern terror techniques which would be then applied within Germany? If it was wrong, how is that worse than Dresden? What if it turned out that was the difference between victory and defeat?
2. I personally dislike framing questions this way, but others find it useful. You can choose to killing a man or not, the only means at our disposal are not “clean”, i.e., not a quick painless death. If you do not, the person you do fail to kill will himself killl in a simlar fashion ten others per day until stopped? Do you act? If you do not act, are you in part responsible, for you have the means to stop him?

I think a distinguishing feature between our country, in our “terrorist” origins in the winter campaign in New Jersey in 1776/1777 for example and as well some of the unpleasant methods attributed to our country in the struggle against Communism is that in the former, civilians were not targeted. In the latter, if they were,  … it remains that the goal and end was to prevent far more numerous deaths and worse things.

Hamas and other Islamic terrorists do not have as motive the saving of life. Genocide is not being halted or confronted by their actions. They are not choosing to kill one, who if unchecked will kill hundreds. Nor do they choose military targets.  That is the, uhm, an important difference

Champaign to Chicago, just over 140 miles, 89.7 mpg aided by 68 degree temperatures and a 15 mile/hour tailwind. But still, pretty good. Not bad for an 8 year old car?

Good morning. Actually today I’m not at home, but on a job downstate in Champaign. Here it’s 56 and breezy expected high of 76.

• Academia stands against scholarship in other fields … here’s one, military history.
• A peer reviewed paper contra-global warming.
• Chesterton’s Orthodoxy … 100 years. A link filled essay of praise. The Scoop notes it as well.
• For Bright Thursday, for those non-Orthodox … the week following Pascha (Easter) is called “Bright Week”. A paschal hymn transcribed here.
• Biomagic pixie dust, which sounds a lot better than “modified cells scraped from the lining of a pig’s bladder cleaned into a general-purpose tissue generator,” I think.
• Activism in the East.
• Some patristics notes on Clement.
• In praise of politeness and civility.
• Contra literalism in Scripture.
• Iron Man.
• US Navy as inspiration.
• Praise of systematic theology.
• Hmmm, are Roman Catholics the largest American protestant denomination?
• Welfare and despotism.
• Rev Wright and a defense, of sorts. Why did Obama seek Wright 20 years ago?
• What is American Orthodoxy?
• I’d go for that, … if the socialists in America tied their socialism to completely unfettering the market, a compromise I’d make.
• Not technically a recession.
• The moral relativism of our youth considered. Explained?
• Noting a very wrong premise.
• Gang, drugs, and a plug for a book I’ve been plugging, the The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It, which everyone should read.

From a recent comment exchange (italics mine):

We can try to help make them prosperous. Marx had it wrong, religion is not the opiate of the masses (see Jihad). Prosperity is the opiate of the masses.

That I agree with, 100%. Prosperity + freedom of (and from) religion is even better. Turns out letting (e.g.) Christianity branch into hundreds of denominations is a lot more effective at detribalizing people than forbidding religion is.

Atheists like to encourage that freedom from religion is a good thing. It isn’t. Part of the problem here is the notion of High and Low Atheists, following Vox Day’s book contra the trio of recent (relatively inept) Atheist apologists Larry, Curly, and Moe, ahem, Hitches, Dawkins, and the other guy. Yes High Atheists, the bright, if not occaisonally brilliant, college/post-graduate educated introspective atheists are on the large very moral people. Just as are the “High Deists”, those bright, if not occaisonally brilliant, college/post-graduate educated introspective faithful are also by and large very moral. The problem for the claim above, is the Low Atheist. Our jails for example, have very few if any “High Atheists”. However the vast majority of the prison population don’t give a crap about God, self-examination, or anything like that. The don’t call themselves atheists because that would mean actually addressing the question. However, they are in fact, atheists.

Freedom from religion has not helped them at all. And that should be a moral problem that the high atheists need to confront. That is, to recognize their rhetoric in part, is enabling and used as justification by the Low Atheists.

In a book I read recently alas, which one I don’t recall), there was a remark something like the following. A neo-Nazi skinhead in Germany was questioned on why he was doing the, well, bad and descructive things he was doing. His response was to spout out the very latest psychological babble which was currently in vogue justifying why he was “that way.” Likewise the High Atheists rejection of religion, is likely taken as justification by the Low for their actions … thereby easing their way to avoid moral censure, teaching, and community connecction that they might find in a faith community.

Freedom “from” religion might be a grand thing, if you’re a High atheist, but for the sake of your Low brethren, shut up about it and don’t start spouting the wonders of “freedom from religion” instead encourage all to get thee to some sort of synagogue, temple, church, or mosque.

Good morning. Clear and cold (34 today) again in Lemont.

• Saving the Book that came from Hell (or a place very close to it).
• The other side of Holy Week, Bright Week.
• (start to) Learn a language via song.
• Obama and one implausible denial.
• An evangelical and Mr Dawkins. In many ways … not what you’d expect.
• Considering a pacifist who planned murder.
• Inside a mosque.
• Climate.
• Feminism … and making sense.
• Feminism and evangelicals … “used to agree” on the fight against pornography … do they still? Related post here.
• Get your Bard fix.
• I really hate the implicit superiority in essays like this. If Obama fails its because you neanderthals weren’t “ready for him” … as if being “ready for him” was the only reason to opppose an far-left liberal.
• On suffering.
• One thing to remember as Rev Wright is on center stage, he’s minority representative of Black ecclesial life.
• Works gospel and modern times.
• Men in goofy rubber suits … returning?

Here’s where I’ll be tonight. For fairly obvious reasons, I couldn’t go to my regularly scheduled Saturday night date last weekend … the whole Pascha thing and all. For those not following the link, it’s the Symphony … Wagner, Chin (whom I’ve never heard) and …. (drumbeat) … Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique.

Good morning. 32 clear and cold today in Chicago, err, or at least Lemont.

• Taxes, gas and the candidates.
• The Paschal homily of Pope Leo.
• Homosexual practice and divorce compared. One problem, not confronted in that essay, is that the contention “Divorce and remarriage has become generally acceptable even in socially conservative circles in western countries” is itself not by any means good or to be applauded but instead should be vehemently countered (if true).
• History and the inquisitions. A book.
• A word. Blessed.
• A short remark on O’Reilly, Wright, and the Democrats, in which the spin guy is unspun. Another view of the Wright kerfuffle here. The Ayer’s problem pointedly marked.
• Contra public pornography.
• Praise of the former President Carter.
• Free-Tibet flags … made in China!?
• On the Hobbit film and the proposed choice of director.
• Fun in the sun.
• Cool.
• An interesting view on global warming … it’s good!
• On the other hand, a contention that all global warming models share a feature in which the most marked warming is to be found in the equitorial troposphere … but it isn’t to be found there. A serious problem for the global warming devotee I’d think.
• Voter ID and Indiania, on the predicted consequences I’d say it’s just as well.
• Friends and marriage.
• What you don’t know about evangelicals.
• Cash to encourage safe sex praxis.
• Black liberation theology out of the closet.
• Beauty in song.

David Schraub writing recently on denial has a interesting view of history. In part, I think, this is due to a certain “denial” on his part. This is in some sense his defense of Mr Wright’s accusation that 9/11 is America’s crimes “coming home to roost.” He has two propositions from which he draws a conclusion. The problem is, that his thesis are false so I’m going to ignore the conclusion for now. His ideas are that denial (by a Nation or group) is implicitly a harm and then he notes how weak are the methods usually used. Now, in the past, Mr Schraub and I have argued somewhat extensively on whether Nation’s are culpable … and I think that largely they are not and he disagrees. I’m going to attempt to bypass that argument for this, for we’ve hashed that over quiet a bit not getting very far, except to each individually become more convinced that the other was wrong I think. In this latest sally, his location of denial as implicit harm is can be addressed without considering the personal/group axis. Denial is harmful on an individual basis, I’m not going to contest that. I’m not interested here in the individual vs group/national responsibility. The problem is, denial isn’t the problem. The problem is one of will. Read the rest of this entry »

Good morning. Rainy and cold in Chicago today.

• Church. You can’t fix it from the outside.
• Wife beating and old stuff under water.
• On throwing the first stone and the high court, at On the Square.
• I think, which upon reflection is really quite odd.
• Same sex marriage and the notion that “emotional” and “sexual” fidelity are seperable. They’re not.
• A big boy.
• Our busy lives.
• East and West.
• Pascha links. From the West, best wishes and a plug for Ancient Faith Radio, an exclamation, and a video. From the East, a piece of the Paschal Matins, light, a quote, “the” homily with links, and Satan’s error.
• Mary or Martha  (St. Siluan vs St. Augustine?).
• Abortion as a piece of racial warfare?
• A poem of pain.
• God and film.
• Half empty means half full.
• A beautiful bride no longer a babysitter.
• Uncovered meat? Uhm, no.
• On marraige and modern demographics.
• Don’t waste the moon.
• Screwtape email.

Henry Neufeld has been having a round of discussions on the Christian response to healthcare. His last post is here, but tonight I’m going to concentrate on this post. In the first linked essay before I get into the meat … Mr Neufeld remarks that, “Through this conversation Mark has been making good theological points while I have been telling stories.” Keep up with the stories! Narrative is a great way of making good theological points … likely better (and more pastoral) than the rhetoric employed by me.

However, in the post I intend to focus on, Mr Neufeld drills into an important feature of healthcare and end of life issues. Fear. In Being As Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church, Metropolitan John Zizioulas draws on Dostoevsky (note the ‘narrative’ connection above) from his novel The Possessed. In The Possessed Dostoevsky provides a shocking notion which Zizioulas identifies as “ontological freedom”. The character Kirilov remarks (quoted from pg 42 of Being as Communion):

Every man who desires to obtain total freedom must be bold enough to put an end to his life … this is the ultimate limit of freedom; this is all; there is nothing beyond this. Whoever dares to commit suicide becomes God. Whoever dares to commit suicide becomes God. Everyone can do this and so bring the existence of God to an end, and then there will be absolutely nothing …

Zizioulas correctly rejects this nihilistic notion of ontologial freedom … but connects it to Christianity. Via Baptism and the promise of Ressurection, Christians possess ontological freedom. Death has been “trampled” by Christ as expressed/sung about zillion times on in the Paschal liturgy last night and for until Pentacost) :

Christ is risen from the dead,
Trampling down death by death,
And to those in the tombs
He has given life!

Mr Neufeld in identifying fear focuses on two facets of this. Fear to the immediate family and fear, and anticipated by those concerned caring members of the parish community as they interact with the person and family who has a member suffering a diagnosed-to-be-fatal health related crises. This fear is present in most if not all parish communities … except I’d like to note two exceptions and follow with some prescriptive remarks.

In the line of narrative, some years ago when my youngest daughter was about three, one of the dear old ladies of our parish, with whom my daughter interact, had died. My daughter was completely unfazed by this. At first we were unsure if she undestood, because she was assuring us that “she’d see her soon.” We thought she misunderstood about the nature of death. What we didn’t realize was that she did, and further, had really understood even better than we what it meant to be Christian. Death has lost it’s sting and she knew that instinctively. Scripture tells us that we need the faith of the little ones … and this is an example of what was meant by this.

It is my impression that within monastic communities I’ve been told that death of one of the brethren (or sisters if a convent) is normally not a sorrowful thing, in fact quite the reverse. Death is seen as a joyful time. The assurance of heavenly reward and the ressurection and life (here on earth) to come has resulted in the ontological freedom which should be the part of every one of our communities and our families. It might be remarked however, that the monastic community while having close relationships and a particular focus on the vocation of seeking Christ in all things … lacks the marital connection. Husband and wife are one flesh, and children are precious gifts (Obama’s “punishment” meme notwithstanding … or more to the point, a thing to be firmly and absolutely rejected).  Loss, if only temporary, of the flesh of my flesh or one’s child is and will always be a hard thing. But this should be ultimately tempered with joy, especially if the duel with cancer (for example) is hard on the dying.

If, as is likely the case, the internalizing the idea of ontological freedom and the release from fear relating to death is not a part or prevalent in our  Christian communities then we need to take the advice from a famous quote of Albert Einstein. Einstein remarked that making mistakes was not dumb. But that doing a thing repeatedly and expecting a different result was. If our parish communities and praxis aren’t working to acheive the result of internalizing the Christian message then we can’t just keep doing things the same way and expecting that the results will change. If what we are doing isn’t working for us … and it is for the monks … then it is imperative that we all take up those things that those monastics and incorporate them into our lives and our parish communities.

A second remark is, that we should consider, when we think of how to interact with those who are in the process of dealing with dying … that, how we interact is also witness.  Our culture tries to hide death the ultimate obscenity, and rejects this far more than that the real obscenities in our midst. If we are mindful that death has been trampled by Christ when we interact with the dying and their families it seems to me that should temper our timidity and counter the hesitancy we might have in dealing with them.