I just learned that he passed away Saturday. He was one of the few remaining great actors. This is a sad occasion, and I'll miss him.
Charlton Heston, 1923-2008
God bless and keep him.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
In Lighter Vein
Why does the Iraqi Navy have glass-bottom boats?
*****
So they can see their Air Force.
*****
So they can see their Air Force.
Friday, March 28, 2008
The Way of the Dodo
At Vox’s blog, a commenter said this in a discussion about secularism’s corrosive influence on society:
Mr. Day,
I recall a statement by you in support of the institution of Christianity. You summed it up with two words. "It works".
At the time I wondered how does he figure? In many western countries the marriage rate and birth rate among Christians has plummeted, and both the numbers of raghead immigrants, and the number of births to raghead immigrants, have skyrocketed.
By what perverse definition can you conclude that this works? It works to destroy Christian societies?
Humans evolved for several million years on this earth. As they spread around the globe, those societies either prospered or failed. Those that "worked" prospered, those that did not work, failed.
That was all before Christ's time. Christianity really doesn't work. It's just hasn't totally failed yet. It looks like another century or so should do the job though.
Eddie 03.27.08 - 11:06 am #
A strange observation; too bad it isn’t the least bit observant of reality. What does a profusion of ragheads have to do with whether or not Christianity “works?” Perhaps he should consider that importing Islamoids by the baker’s thousand is a relatively recent phenomenon—a product of political correctness and multiculturalism, which find their headwaters in secularism. Of course, that means gleaning information from deeper sources than tonight’s episode of Are You Dumber than a Pre-skeweler?
Christianity works because it’s true; it has a tempering effect on Man’s passions. The current portrait of Western Civilization is one of a world in flight from its roots, a society in which ideals once taken for granted as true now meet with sneers. The unquestionable is questioned; the sacred is profaned; moral virtue draws hisses, while lasciviousness becomes enthroned over all. When secularism usurps Christianity’s place in society, all that remains is “Do what thou wilt, with due consideration to the policeman around the corner.” This is synonymous to the biblical description of a land without God being one in which “every man did what was right in his own eyes.”
Why the surprise about marriage and birth rates plummeting, when denouncing motherhood as a form of enslavement, “no-fault” divorce, sexual promiscuity, and an insistence on a mythological right to abortion-on-demand have become commonplace? I contend that the expectation of stable marriage and birth rates in such a scenario is a position unacquainted with Reason.
It’s interesting how secularists conclude that problems stemming from a rejection of Christian values somehow indicate Christianity’s failure as a belief system. This is like Oprah blaming Jenny Craig for her weight gain, despite her regular, midnight chocolate rendezvous. It seems secularists are looking for a scapegoat for whatever problems assail us, and Christianity fits their bill.
Christian influence too pervasive? “Help! I’m being repressed! Now I can’t indulge in all my favorite sins and continue receiving pats on the head and 'Attaboy!'s from society.” Christian influence too sparse? Why, we’ll just chalk up all the attendant problems to Christianity’s ineffectual nature. Notice how Christianity takes it on the chin, whatever the outcome.
This is an intellectually dishonest stance having less to do with Christianity’s warts and inadequacies than with the secularist’s refusal to address the logical outcome of his beliefs put into practice: a civilization in decay.
It would be humorous, if it weren’t so sad and destructive: For upwards of fifty years, the Eddie’s of the world have dedicated their lives to eradicating or limiting Christian influence on western societies. They’ve captured public education, most institutions of higher learning, the news media, government, and virtually the entire entertainment industry. With the exception of the internet—and radio, to a lesser extent—they dominate the communication outlets of our countries. They’ve indoctrinated our children into the notion that truths and mores higher than Man’s desires are fairy tales. They insist that our “fearfully and wonderfully made” selves are products of mindless, undirected chemical processes and favorable mutations—despite convincing evidence to the contrary. And to top it all off, when the inevitable collapse precipitated by their outlook rears its ugly head, do they see this as cause for introspection, for a reevaluation of their worldview? Alas, no. Rather, they castigate the very people who built from the ground up and maintained our society, who created it from scratch, with God’s help, who stand as its sole guardians, albeit imperfect ones. Oh, the blind irony.
When a civilization expels Christianity as its foundation, another philosophical paradigm takes over. The products of secularism are apathy and nihilism, both of which strive with Christian values. The negative commentary on our society is not a representation of Christian influence, but of its attempted displacement.
Mr. Day,
I recall a statement by you in support of the institution of Christianity. You summed it up with two words. "It works".
At the time I wondered how does he figure? In many western countries the marriage rate and birth rate among Christians has plummeted, and both the numbers of raghead immigrants, and the number of births to raghead immigrants, have skyrocketed.
By what perverse definition can you conclude that this works? It works to destroy Christian societies?
Humans evolved for several million years on this earth. As they spread around the globe, those societies either prospered or failed. Those that "worked" prospered, those that did not work, failed.
That was all before Christ's time. Christianity really doesn't work. It's just hasn't totally failed yet. It looks like another century or so should do the job though.
Eddie 03.27.08 - 11:06 am #
A strange observation; too bad it isn’t the least bit observant of reality. What does a profusion of ragheads have to do with whether or not Christianity “works?” Perhaps he should consider that importing Islamoids by the baker’s thousand is a relatively recent phenomenon—a product of political correctness and multiculturalism, which find their headwaters in secularism. Of course, that means gleaning information from deeper sources than tonight’s episode of Are You Dumber than a Pre-skeweler?
Christianity works because it’s true; it has a tempering effect on Man’s passions. The current portrait of Western Civilization is one of a world in flight from its roots, a society in which ideals once taken for granted as true now meet with sneers. The unquestionable is questioned; the sacred is profaned; moral virtue draws hisses, while lasciviousness becomes enthroned over all. When secularism usurps Christianity’s place in society, all that remains is “Do what thou wilt, with due consideration to the policeman around the corner.” This is synonymous to the biblical description of a land without God being one in which “every man did what was right in his own eyes.”
Why the surprise about marriage and birth rates plummeting, when denouncing motherhood as a form of enslavement, “no-fault” divorce, sexual promiscuity, and an insistence on a mythological right to abortion-on-demand have become commonplace? I contend that the expectation of stable marriage and birth rates in such a scenario is a position unacquainted with Reason.
It’s interesting how secularists conclude that problems stemming from a rejection of Christian values somehow indicate Christianity’s failure as a belief system. This is like Oprah blaming Jenny Craig for her weight gain, despite her regular, midnight chocolate rendezvous. It seems secularists are looking for a scapegoat for whatever problems assail us, and Christianity fits their bill.
Christian influence too pervasive? “Help! I’m being repressed! Now I can’t indulge in all my favorite sins and continue receiving pats on the head and 'Attaboy!'s from society.” Christian influence too sparse? Why, we’ll just chalk up all the attendant problems to Christianity’s ineffectual nature. Notice how Christianity takes it on the chin, whatever the outcome.
This is an intellectually dishonest stance having less to do with Christianity’s warts and inadequacies than with the secularist’s refusal to address the logical outcome of his beliefs put into practice: a civilization in decay.
It would be humorous, if it weren’t so sad and destructive: For upwards of fifty years, the Eddie’s of the world have dedicated their lives to eradicating or limiting Christian influence on western societies. They’ve captured public education, most institutions of higher learning, the news media, government, and virtually the entire entertainment industry. With the exception of the internet—and radio, to a lesser extent—they dominate the communication outlets of our countries. They’ve indoctrinated our children into the notion that truths and mores higher than Man’s desires are fairy tales. They insist that our “fearfully and wonderfully made” selves are products of mindless, undirected chemical processes and favorable mutations—despite convincing evidence to the contrary. And to top it all off, when the inevitable collapse precipitated by their outlook rears its ugly head, do they see this as cause for introspection, for a reevaluation of their worldview? Alas, no. Rather, they castigate the very people who built from the ground up and maintained our society, who created it from scratch, with God’s help, who stand as its sole guardians, albeit imperfect ones. Oh, the blind irony.
When a civilization expels Christianity as its foundation, another philosophical paradigm takes over. The products of secularism are apathy and nihilism, both of which strive with Christian values. The negative commentary on our society is not a representation of Christian influence, but of its attempted displacement.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Prelude to a Sermon
Overheard during the "hymnal" session at Barack Obama's Church of Blackitude:
My man Barack,
He black.
He ain' white!
Ahhhh'ight?
When da Man git ya down,
Obama comin' aroun,'
An' he takin' on Hill
Wit'out gittin' shrill.
Now he gonna rep-uh-zent
All da homies an' hoods;
He creepin' to da Black Howse
While da creepin' be good.
An' he 'bout ta bus' a cap
In all da howse niggas.
Oh, it gives me da sniggas
When he pull dose triggas.
He diggin' down deep
Like a l'il black chigga,
An' da itch dat ya scratch
Git bigga an' bigga.
He comin' on strawng
Like da National Det,
Poppin' on da muzzle,
Takin' Hill to da vet.
He a ink-jet threat
To da Lizardette,
An' he tawkin' up da Bible
From a high minaret.
He a big-time Black-powah marionette.
He take yo life in his han's an' play Russhun Roolette.
So git down wif Obama,
Cuz he sellin' da drama.
He don' like Brahma or da Dalai Lama,
But he 'bout ta let loose a big "Yo Mamma!"
To a smelly camel jockey by da name'a Osama.
He givin' free helth care
Wit' style an' flair,
An' he handin' out cheks
To da brothas on wellfare.
He suaver den Kildare
So ya bettah beware!
He dumpin' Hill down a stair
Like a crip in a wheelchair.
Now I gots ta mention McCain--
He insane in da membrane--
Obama gonna hit 'im like a bullet train;
Won' be nuffin' lef' but a greasy ol' stain.
So doncha complain; maintain an' refrain
From callin' him "BHO" or "Barack Hussein."
He bringin' on Change.
If ya find dat strange,
Well, let me explange
His national gearchange.
We need ourselves a whole lotta Progress;
I confess I guess we need ta fix diss mess.
He kickin' sum butt like a bully at recess,
An' slippin' threw da cracks like da monstah in Loch Ness.
I profess I regress when he starts ta impress,
An I can't supress; I jus' acquiesce:
Ever'thing starts ta coalesce
When I break out my trusty ol' Afferkin headdress.
But I digress.
Ya see, Big's gittin' Bigga,
An bettah iz bettah;
Da grass gittin' greenah, an'
Da sea gittin' wettah.
Da sky gittin' blue-ah,
So take dat, crackuh!
Barack keep on gittin blackah an' blackah;
He gonna rock yo worl' like a
Septembah hijackah.
So take heed of my rap,
An don' gimme no crap.
Watch my lips flap
While I steal yo hubcap.
Hear my mind snap
Like a well-oiled mousetrap.
An' whatevah ya does,
Don' ax fo' a recap!
My man Barack,
He black.
He ain' white!
Ahhhh'ight?
When da Man git ya down,
Obama comin' aroun,'
An' he takin' on Hill
Wit'out gittin' shrill.
Now he gonna rep-uh-zent
All da homies an' hoods;
He creepin' to da Black Howse
While da creepin' be good.
An' he 'bout ta bus' a cap
In all da howse niggas.
Oh, it gives me da sniggas
When he pull dose triggas.
He diggin' down deep
Like a l'il black chigga,
An' da itch dat ya scratch
Git bigga an' bigga.
He comin' on strawng
Like da National Det,
Poppin' on da muzzle,
Takin' Hill to da vet.
He a ink-jet threat
To da Lizardette,
An' he tawkin' up da Bible
From a high minaret.
He a big-time Black-powah marionette.
He take yo life in his han's an' play Russhun Roolette.
So git down wif Obama,
Cuz he sellin' da drama.
He don' like Brahma or da Dalai Lama,
But he 'bout ta let loose a big "Yo Mamma!"
To a smelly camel jockey by da name'a Osama.
He givin' free helth care
Wit' style an' flair,
An' he handin' out cheks
To da brothas on wellfare.
He suaver den Kildare
So ya bettah beware!
He dumpin' Hill down a stair
Like a crip in a wheelchair.
Now I gots ta mention McCain--
He insane in da membrane--
Obama gonna hit 'im like a bullet train;
Won' be nuffin' lef' but a greasy ol' stain.
So doncha complain; maintain an' refrain
From callin' him "BHO" or "Barack Hussein."
He bringin' on Change.
If ya find dat strange,
Well, let me explange
His national gearchange.
We need ourselves a whole lotta Progress;
I confess I guess we need ta fix diss mess.
He kickin' sum butt like a bully at recess,
An' slippin' threw da cracks like da monstah in Loch Ness.
I profess I regress when he starts ta impress,
An I can't supress; I jus' acquiesce:
Ever'thing starts ta coalesce
When I break out my trusty ol' Afferkin headdress.
But I digress.
Ya see, Big's gittin' Bigga,
An bettah iz bettah;
Da grass gittin' greenah, an'
Da sea gittin' wettah.
Da sky gittin' blue-ah,
So take dat, crackuh!
Barack keep on gittin blackah an' blackah;
He gonna rock yo worl' like a
Septembah hijackah.
So take heed of my rap,
An don' gimme no crap.
Watch my lips flap
While I steal yo hubcap.
Hear my mind snap
Like a well-oiled mousetrap.
An' whatevah ya does,
Don' ax fo' a recap!
Friday, March 21, 2008
That's Gratitude for Ya
The Washington Post reported recently that Iraq has ordered $100 million worth of military equipment for its police forces from China. The Iraqis claim the U.S. is too slow in delivering arms shipments. Here's the funny part: in light of this complaint/explanation for its behavior, Iraq's security forces already cannot account for the location of 190,000 weapons shipped to Iraq by the U.S. Would Iraq find speedy weapons shipments so necessary, if it actually could keep track of the weapons once they entered its territory?
I think this situation provides us a clear insight into the minds of Iraqi government officials, revealing just how appreciative they are of American efforts on their behalf. Agree with the Iraq war or not, our country has built schools, hospitals, and power plants for these people--at American taxpayer expense, for the most part. Our men in uniform died fighting the revolution Iraq's citizens had neither the courage nor the wherewithal to fight. Our soldiers continue dying in misguided efforts at keeping the Iraqi people "liberated" and "stable" in their government and nation. Iraq repays us by accepting all of this largesse, and doing business with China.
We're spending $12 billion a month in Iraq. The Bush Administration has requested $189 billion for Iraq in the next fiscal year.
It's time the well dried up. Let them dig their own.
I think this situation provides us a clear insight into the minds of Iraqi government officials, revealing just how appreciative they are of American efforts on their behalf. Agree with the Iraq war or not, our country has built schools, hospitals, and power plants for these people--at American taxpayer expense, for the most part. Our men in uniform died fighting the revolution Iraq's citizens had neither the courage nor the wherewithal to fight. Our soldiers continue dying in misguided efforts at keeping the Iraqi people "liberated" and "stable" in their government and nation. Iraq repays us by accepting all of this largesse, and doing business with China.
We're spending $12 billion a month in Iraq. The Bush Administration has requested $189 billion for Iraq in the next fiscal year.
It's time the well dried up. Let them dig their own.
Work 'Em If Ya Got 'Em
From Congressman John J. Duncan's Legislative Update:
Best Workers
Contrary to what some think, the U.S. is not losing jobs because American workers are spoiled or lazy. In fact, according to the latest rankings by the International Labor Office of the U.N., American workers are the most productive in the world, by far, mainly due to working longer hours. U.S. workers produce about $64,000 a year in value-added labor--$8,000 a year more than Ireland, the next closest economy. Most countries are not even close to the U.S. in this ranking, with the less-developed nations producing at least three times less per worker. Sub-Saharan Africa is the lowest, producing about one-twelfth per worker as in the developed or industrialized countries.
This belies the notion that Mexicans and others are such stellar workers--far exceeding the efforts of Americans--that our economy simply can't function without them. If they're such workaholics, why aren't Mexico and other countries running rings around the U.S., economically speaking? I note that Duncan gleaned his information from the U.N.--not a body well-known for its pro-American stances on a host of issues.
I patronize businesses almost every day, where dark-skinned, jet-haired people work, speaking broken or no English. A few short years ago, American citizens--many of them teenagers--performed these duties. So I ask myself: in a nation with a growing population, where did all those people go? Should we believe that these folks refuse to do such jobs--as we're told by our illustrious president--or should we believe that businesses who idolize the dollar above all else consciously seek out or favor applicants with questionable legal status, or even legal immigrants, in hopes of cutting corners on payday? Which seems more probable?
Best Workers
Contrary to what some think, the U.S. is not losing jobs because American workers are spoiled or lazy. In fact, according to the latest rankings by the International Labor Office of the U.N., American workers are the most productive in the world, by far, mainly due to working longer hours. U.S. workers produce about $64,000 a year in value-added labor--$8,000 a year more than Ireland, the next closest economy. Most countries are not even close to the U.S. in this ranking, with the less-developed nations producing at least three times less per worker. Sub-Saharan Africa is the lowest, producing about one-twelfth per worker as in the developed or industrialized countries.
This belies the notion that Mexicans and others are such stellar workers--far exceeding the efforts of Americans--that our economy simply can't function without them. If they're such workaholics, why aren't Mexico and other countries running rings around the U.S., economically speaking? I note that Duncan gleaned his information from the U.N.--not a body well-known for its pro-American stances on a host of issues.
I patronize businesses almost every day, where dark-skinned, jet-haired people work, speaking broken or no English. A few short years ago, American citizens--many of them teenagers--performed these duties. So I ask myself: in a nation with a growing population, where did all those people go? Should we believe that these folks refuse to do such jobs--as we're told by our illustrious president--or should we believe that businesses who idolize the dollar above all else consciously seek out or favor applicants with questionable legal status, or even legal immigrants, in hopes of cutting corners on payday? Which seems more probable?
Saturday, March 15, 2008
"If You Build It, They Won't Come"
Wouldn't that make a good bumper sticker promoting a fence on our southern border?
Monday, March 10, 2008
She Blinded Me with Science II
Scientific theories change over time. So do paradigms. Case-in-point: Preceding Darwin's cloaking of evolution in respectability, and its subsequent popularization, the prevailing understanding of origins in the western scientific realm was one of a Creator who brought all that exists into being. This assessment changed after Darwin--at least in terms of those who controlled the discussion.
Another example is Phlogiston Theory. The American Heritage Science Dictionary describes it thusly: A hypothetical colorless, odorless, weightless substance once believed to be the combustible part of all flammable substances and to be given off as flame during burning. In the 18th century, Antoine Lavoisier proved that phlogiston does not exist.
First postulated in 1702, this theory remained intact for nearly a century.
Even today, some scientists--Stephen Hawking, among others--debate the validity of Big Bang Theory.
From the biblical viewpoint, God's Word does not change over time.
In Mark 13:31, Jesus tells us: Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
2 Timothy 3:16-17: 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
One either believes these verses, or he doesn't. But if you do believe, then God's holy Word should be placed on a pedestal far above the assertions and dogmas of sinful, misguided men.
If God's Word remains ever the same, while science verifiably does change over time, then tailoring one's understanding of scripture to science is a mistake. If you accept Big Bang Theory, and this in turn informs your view of scripture, what happens to your lodestar if the Big Bang becomes discredited? Will you continue following the zeitgeist, in crying: "Oh science gods, what's next on your endless list of theories? Please tell me what to believe." Will you continue in the assumption that it is theirs to declare, and yours faithfully to accept? That seems an erratic, unstable method of viewing reality.
I'll put faith in the Word of God, while exercising cautious respect for science, in light of its shortcomings. Better that than placing my faith in science, while pinballing back and forth over fluctuating scriptural interpretations based upon naturalistic science du jour.
All beliefs need a mooring. Will you dock yours in the immutable berth of scripture, or the mined shoals of science?
Another example is Phlogiston Theory. The American Heritage Science Dictionary describes it thusly: A hypothetical colorless, odorless, weightless substance once believed to be the combustible part of all flammable substances and to be given off as flame during burning. In the 18th century, Antoine Lavoisier proved that phlogiston does not exist.
First postulated in 1702, this theory remained intact for nearly a century.
Even today, some scientists--Stephen Hawking, among others--debate the validity of Big Bang Theory.
From the biblical viewpoint, God's Word does not change over time.
In Mark 13:31, Jesus tells us: Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
2 Timothy 3:16-17: 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
One either believes these verses, or he doesn't. But if you do believe, then God's holy Word should be placed on a pedestal far above the assertions and dogmas of sinful, misguided men.
If God's Word remains ever the same, while science verifiably does change over time, then tailoring one's understanding of scripture to science is a mistake. If you accept Big Bang Theory, and this in turn informs your view of scripture, what happens to your lodestar if the Big Bang becomes discredited? Will you continue following the zeitgeist, in crying: "Oh science gods, what's next on your endless list of theories? Please tell me what to believe." Will you continue in the assumption that it is theirs to declare, and yours faithfully to accept? That seems an erratic, unstable method of viewing reality.
I'll put faith in the Word of God, while exercising cautious respect for science, in light of its shortcomings. Better that than placing my faith in science, while pinballing back and forth over fluctuating scriptural interpretations based upon naturalistic science du jour.
All beliefs need a mooring. Will you dock yours in the immutable berth of scripture, or the mined shoals of science?
Friday, March 7, 2008
She Blinded Me with Science
I understand why certain folks have devotional awe of science. Each person approaches science from a different paradigm. On the one hand, some people believe that nothing exists beyond the material, while others have faith in something that supersedes the material universe.
The materialist sees science as humanity's best tool for studying all of existence. So to him, science is the ultimate if not only arbiter of truth.
However, the genuine Christian sees science as a flawed tool, albeit a useful one--an imperfect implement forged by an imperfect people. Science is limited in its capacity to analyze reality. For him, it never can be the paramount or sole arbiter of truth.
The point is that science is a neutral mechanism. The paradigm already in place in a person's mind determines how one views science: as the Alpha and Omega, or as a method of examining merely one aspect of a much broader reality. It is the rare individual who comes to science as a tabula rasa, deriving his worldview from his scientific studies. Rather, science becomes a validator of views long possessed.
There is no such thing as neutrality in the human heart. No one lacks biases. This is why blind acceptance of "scientific" conclusions is dangerous; religious or not, doing so means subordinating oneself to the pronouncements of people who are neither infallible nor objective in their determinations.
The materialist sees science as humanity's best tool for studying all of existence. So to him, science is the ultimate if not only arbiter of truth.
However, the genuine Christian sees science as a flawed tool, albeit a useful one--an imperfect implement forged by an imperfect people. Science is limited in its capacity to analyze reality. For him, it never can be the paramount or sole arbiter of truth.
The point is that science is a neutral mechanism. The paradigm already in place in a person's mind determines how one views science: as the Alpha and Omega, or as a method of examining merely one aspect of a much broader reality. It is the rare individual who comes to science as a tabula rasa, deriving his worldview from his scientific studies. Rather, science becomes a validator of views long possessed.
There is no such thing as neutrality in the human heart. No one lacks biases. This is why blind acceptance of "scientific" conclusions is dangerous; religious or not, doing so means subordinating oneself to the pronouncements of people who are neither infallible nor objective in their determinations.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Thus Spake Wheelie
Have y'all ever read Mr. W. Lindsay Wheeler's babblings over at Vox Popoli? For those who've missed out, let me give a brief summation of his shtick:
1. There's a Jew in every woodpile, and he spends an inordinate amount of time sullying it.
2. Protestants are stupid.
3. Christianity owes as much (if not more) to Hellenism as it does to a timeless, sovereign God's influence and inspiration.
4. One should offer slavish, fawning devotion to human rulers, if the philosopher-kings-in-question fit certain "leadership" criteria--determined, of course, by Wheelie himself.
Now, who could argue with such impeccable reasoning?
Here's a recent Wheelie quote:
Protestants are such simple-minded peasants.
For instance The Flood--that covered "the whole world". Now Protestants think this means today's concept of an earth. Notice the word "concept" that I used. Reading other ancient texts, one comes across a saying of Sargon the Great, and he exclaims, "I have conquerod the """Whole"""" world".
Did he really?
The concept that the earth is a globe, that is round and huge is a MODERN concept due to technology.
The ANCIENT concept is from "horizon to horizon". The ancient peoples had NO concept of a globe of a Pacific Ocean and huge bodies of waters. Their concept of the World was of their eyesight from horizon to horizon. That the Flood was a huge event that covered their world.
And this is why Protestants are such simple-minded fools, and they bring true religion into disrepute, because they are NOT sophisticated enough to understand cultural context, don't make an effort to understand ancient peoples and take things for face value. Applying MODERN concepts to ancient phrases that NEVER had that meaning.
WLindsayWheeler Homepage 03.02.08 - 10:03 am
This entire critique seems based on a false assumption: namely, that scripture is a product of the human mind, not that of God. First, all Protestants don't hold unanimous views on the biblical Deluge; some take the Bible at its word, while others "spiritualize" the text. So his blanket criticism of Protestants is silly and demonstrably inaccurate.
Second, the relevant biblical passages on the Flood indicate a world-wide event, if taken at face-value. Rather than rehash this detailed argument, here, I'll point interested parties to, "A Worldwide Flood?," wherein I discuss the matter at length.
Third, due to the element of divine inspiration, for a Christian to compare the words of Sargon to the words of God seems a somewhat bizarre tactic in making one's point. Sargon was a mere man, and was either ignorant, exaggerating for effect, or perpetrating a deceit. His expressions of hubris or cluelessness shouldn't serve as interpreters of God's message to Mankind.
Fourth, that Earth is a globe is not "a modern concept due to technology." If Wheelie spent more time reading his Bible, and less drooling over the spoutings of long-dead Mesopotamian kings, he might grasp that scripture specifically addresses this topic:
Isaiah 40:22: It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in. . .
Outside scriptural confines, the ancient Greeks and Indians understood that Earth was a round ball, not a flat plane supported on the backs of four gigantic turtles, or a piece of flotsam swirling in a celestial toilet bowl, or a Burroughsian raft floating in a lake of fire, or whatever.
Fifth, the "horizon to horizon" myth may have infected some ancient peoples, but not all, for conquering armies and wanderers had travelled farther than the far horizons--many times over, in some cases. They knew that the world encompassed more than what lay within their eyesight, though they couldn't see or experience it by walking outside and looking around. Technological inferiority doesn't equal irredeemable stupidity and ignorance.
And of course, what better method of ending an arrogant, condescending tirade than with a little good old-fashioned name-calling? That hits the spot. Right, Wheelie?
1. There's a Jew in every woodpile, and he spends an inordinate amount of time sullying it.
2. Protestants are stupid.
3. Christianity owes as much (if not more) to Hellenism as it does to a timeless, sovereign God's influence and inspiration.
4. One should offer slavish, fawning devotion to human rulers, if the philosopher-kings-in-question fit certain "leadership" criteria--determined, of course, by Wheelie himself.
Now, who could argue with such impeccable reasoning?
Here's a recent Wheelie quote:
Protestants are such simple-minded peasants.
For instance The Flood--that covered "the whole world". Now Protestants think this means today's concept of an earth. Notice the word "concept" that I used. Reading other ancient texts, one comes across a saying of Sargon the Great, and he exclaims, "I have conquerod the """Whole"""" world".
Did he really?
The concept that the earth is a globe, that is round and huge is a MODERN concept due to technology.
The ANCIENT concept is from "horizon to horizon". The ancient peoples had NO concept of a globe of a Pacific Ocean and huge bodies of waters. Their concept of the World was of their eyesight from horizon to horizon. That the Flood was a huge event that covered their world.
And this is why Protestants are such simple-minded fools, and they bring true religion into disrepute, because they are NOT sophisticated enough to understand cultural context, don't make an effort to understand ancient peoples and take things for face value. Applying MODERN concepts to ancient phrases that NEVER had that meaning.
WLindsayWheeler Homepage 03.02.08 - 10:03 am
This entire critique seems based on a false assumption: namely, that scripture is a product of the human mind, not that of God. First, all Protestants don't hold unanimous views on the biblical Deluge; some take the Bible at its word, while others "spiritualize" the text. So his blanket criticism of Protestants is silly and demonstrably inaccurate.
Second, the relevant biblical passages on the Flood indicate a world-wide event, if taken at face-value. Rather than rehash this detailed argument, here, I'll point interested parties to, "A Worldwide Flood?," wherein I discuss the matter at length.
Third, due to the element of divine inspiration, for a Christian to compare the words of Sargon to the words of God seems a somewhat bizarre tactic in making one's point. Sargon was a mere man, and was either ignorant, exaggerating for effect, or perpetrating a deceit. His expressions of hubris or cluelessness shouldn't serve as interpreters of God's message to Mankind.
Fourth, that Earth is a globe is not "a modern concept due to technology." If Wheelie spent more time reading his Bible, and less drooling over the spoutings of long-dead Mesopotamian kings, he might grasp that scripture specifically addresses this topic:
Isaiah 40:22: It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in. . .
Outside scriptural confines, the ancient Greeks and Indians understood that Earth was a round ball, not a flat plane supported on the backs of four gigantic turtles, or a piece of flotsam swirling in a celestial toilet bowl, or a Burroughsian raft floating in a lake of fire, or whatever.
Fifth, the "horizon to horizon" myth may have infected some ancient peoples, but not all, for conquering armies and wanderers had travelled farther than the far horizons--many times over, in some cases. They knew that the world encompassed more than what lay within their eyesight, though they couldn't see or experience it by walking outside and looking around. Technological inferiority doesn't equal irredeemable stupidity and ignorance.
And of course, what better method of ending an arrogant, condescending tirade than with a little good old-fashioned name-calling? That hits the spot. Right, Wheelie?
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Sola Scriptura and Tradition
Roman Catholics and Protestants tussle over many ideas, not the least of which is sola scriptura. Some Catholics consider Protestants wayward brothers and sisters of the same faith, while others have a virulent dislike of the Reformers. I find it interesting that people who elevate the beliefs and philosophies of men to an equal plane with God's Word sneer and label as heretics those who refrain from doing so. However, if one cracks his Bible, from time to time, he might understand the complete disdain revealed therein for Man's maundering over philosophical matters. Here's what Jesus said about the traditions and wisdom of Men:
7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.--Mark 7:7-9
In Colossians 2:8, Paul said: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
In I Corinthians 1:18-25, Paul delivers this critical message on the subject of Man's wisdom:
18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
It seems to me that God has a very low estimation of Man's wisdom, and certainly doesn't consider it on a par with His own. A coherent reading of scripture makes this obvious. If the Bible represents God's wisdom and insight, how can the traditions and opinions of men stand in their radiance and not flinch? That is the ridiculous concept. That is the nigh-heretical view. That is the unbiblical perspective.
The concept of sola scriptura doesn't mean that truth is found nowhere outside scripture. Rather, it is the notion that the Holy Bible is the ultimate authority--never trumped, and never equalled.
Man's traditions and wisdom should subject themselves to God's Word. Not the other way around.
*For further reference, here's a past blog post that I wrote on the same topic.
7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.--Mark 7:7-9
In Colossians 2:8, Paul said: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
In I Corinthians 1:18-25, Paul delivers this critical message on the subject of Man's wisdom:
18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
It seems to me that God has a very low estimation of Man's wisdom, and certainly doesn't consider it on a par with His own. A coherent reading of scripture makes this obvious. If the Bible represents God's wisdom and insight, how can the traditions and opinions of men stand in their radiance and not flinch? That is the ridiculous concept. That is the nigh-heretical view. That is the unbiblical perspective.
The concept of sola scriptura doesn't mean that truth is found nowhere outside scripture. Rather, it is the notion that the Holy Bible is the ultimate authority--never trumped, and never equalled.
Man's traditions and wisdom should subject themselves to God's Word. Not the other way around.
*For further reference, here's a past blog post that I wrote on the same topic.
Friday, February 29, 2008
You've Got Mail
A man was in his front yard mowing the grass when his attractive blonde female neighbor came out of the house and went straight to the mailbox. She opened it then slammed it shut & stormed back in the house.
A little later she came out of her house again, went to the mailbox and, again, opened it, and slammed it shut again. Angrily, back into the house she went.
As the man was getting ready to edge the lawn, here she came out again, marched to the mailbox, opened it and then slammed it closed harder than ever.
Puzzled by her actions the man asked her, "Is something wrong?"
To which she replied:
"There certainly is! My stupid computer keeps saying, 'YOU'VE GOT MAIL.'"
A little later she came out of her house again, went to the mailbox and, again, opened it, and slammed it shut again. Angrily, back into the house she went.
As the man was getting ready to edge the lawn, here she came out again, marched to the mailbox, opened it and then slammed it closed harder than ever.
Puzzled by her actions the man asked her, "Is something wrong?"
To which she replied:
"There certainly is! My stupid computer keeps saying, 'YOU'VE GOT MAIL.'"
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Proverbial Wit
Some old adages I find insightful or just plain amusing:
A clear conscience is a soft pillow.--German Proverb
A close friend can become a close enemy.--Ethiopian Proverb
A dimple on the chin, the devil within.--Gaelic Proverb
A dog is wiser than a woman; it does not bark at its master.--Russian Proverb
A drowning man is not troubled by rain.--Persian Proverb
A friend's eye is a good mirror.--Irish Proverb
A good husband is healthy and absent.--Japanese Proverb
A lie travels round the world while truth is putting her boots on.--French Proverb
A man is not honest simply because he never had a chance to steal.--Yiddish Proverb
A prudent man does not make the goat his gardener.--Hungarian Proverb
A rumor goes in one ear and out many mouths.--Chinese proverb
A single Russian hair outweighs half a Pole.--Traditional Russian Saying
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.--Greek Proverb
A thief believes everybody steals.--Proverb of Unknown Origin
A wise man makes his own decisions, an ignorant man follows the public opinion.--Chinese Proverb
A woman has the form of an angel, the heart of a serpent, and the mind of an ass.--German Proverb
Advice when most needed is least heeded.--English Proverb
After shaking hands with a Greek, count your fingers.--Albanian Saying
An ass in Germany is a professor in Rome.--Traditional German Saying
An enemy will agree, but a friend will argue.--Russian Proverb
As sluttish and slatternly as an Irishwoman bred in France.--Traditional Irish Saying
Both your friend and your enemy think you will never die.--Irish Proverb
Children suck the mother when they are young and the father when they are old.--English Proverb.
Deal with the faults of others as gently as with your own.--Chinese Proverb
Death always comes too early or too late.--English Proverb
Do not blame God for having created the tiger, but thank him for not having given it wings.--Indian Proverb
Every ass loves to hear himself bray.--Proverb of Unknown Origin
Everyone loves justice in the affairs of another.--Italian Proverb
Glutton: one who digs his grave with his teeth.--French Proverb
God heals, and the physician takes the fee.--French Proverb
Gray hairs are death's blossoms.--English Proverb
He lied like an eyewitness.--Russian Insult
He that marries for money will earn it.--American Proverb
He that seeks trouble never misses.--English Proverb (17th century)
He who knows nothing, doubts nothing.--Spanish Proverb
He who sups with the devil has need of a long spoon.--English Proverb
Heaven lent you a soul Earth will lend a grave.--Chinese Proverb
If you wish to die young, make your physician your heir.--Romanian Proverb
In a calm sea every man is a pilot.--Spanish Proverb
It is better to exist unknown to the law.--Irish Proverb
Laws control the lesser man. Right conduct controls the greater one.--Chinese Proverb
Life without a friend is death without a witness.--Spanish Proverb
Love enters a man through his eyes, woman through her ears.--Polish Proverb
Love your neighbors, but don't pull down the fence.--Chinese proverb
Luck has a slender anchorage.--English Proverb
A clear conscience is a soft pillow.--German Proverb
A close friend can become a close enemy.--Ethiopian Proverb
A dimple on the chin, the devil within.--Gaelic Proverb
A dog is wiser than a woman; it does not bark at its master.--Russian Proverb
A drowning man is not troubled by rain.--Persian Proverb
A friend's eye is a good mirror.--Irish Proverb
A good husband is healthy and absent.--Japanese Proverb
A lie travels round the world while truth is putting her boots on.--French Proverb
A man is not honest simply because he never had a chance to steal.--Yiddish Proverb
A prudent man does not make the goat his gardener.--Hungarian Proverb
A rumor goes in one ear and out many mouths.--Chinese proverb
A single Russian hair outweighs half a Pole.--Traditional Russian Saying
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.--Greek Proverb
A thief believes everybody steals.--Proverb of Unknown Origin
A wise man makes his own decisions, an ignorant man follows the public opinion.--Chinese Proverb
A woman has the form of an angel, the heart of a serpent, and the mind of an ass.--German Proverb
Advice when most needed is least heeded.--English Proverb
After shaking hands with a Greek, count your fingers.--Albanian Saying
An ass in Germany is a professor in Rome.--Traditional German Saying
An enemy will agree, but a friend will argue.--Russian Proverb
As sluttish and slatternly as an Irishwoman bred in France.--Traditional Irish Saying
Both your friend and your enemy think you will never die.--Irish Proverb
Children suck the mother when they are young and the father when they are old.--English Proverb.
Deal with the faults of others as gently as with your own.--Chinese Proverb
Death always comes too early or too late.--English Proverb
Do not blame God for having created the tiger, but thank him for not having given it wings.--Indian Proverb
Every ass loves to hear himself bray.--Proverb of Unknown Origin
Everyone loves justice in the affairs of another.--Italian Proverb
Glutton: one who digs his grave with his teeth.--French Proverb
God heals, and the physician takes the fee.--French Proverb
Gray hairs are death's blossoms.--English Proverb
He lied like an eyewitness.--Russian Insult
He that marries for money will earn it.--American Proverb
He that seeks trouble never misses.--English Proverb (17th century)
He who knows nothing, doubts nothing.--Spanish Proverb
He who sups with the devil has need of a long spoon.--English Proverb
Heaven lent you a soul Earth will lend a grave.--Chinese Proverb
If you wish to die young, make your physician your heir.--Romanian Proverb
In a calm sea every man is a pilot.--Spanish Proverb
It is better to exist unknown to the law.--Irish Proverb
Laws control the lesser man. Right conduct controls the greater one.--Chinese Proverb
Life without a friend is death without a witness.--Spanish Proverb
Love enters a man through his eyes, woman through her ears.--Polish Proverb
Love your neighbors, but don't pull down the fence.--Chinese proverb
Luck has a slender anchorage.--English Proverb
Saturday, February 23, 2008
The Crusades: Myth Vs. Reality
How many times have you read criticism from atheists/agnostics/Islamophiles/anti-Western deconstructionists about the wretched, soul-searing evil of the Crusades--you know, those proto-imperialistic attempts at conquering the noble turbaned savages of Eden. Yes, you've probably read about how Duke George W. I looked across the turbulent Mediterranean and said: "Thou shalt heareth all of us sooneth," or some such grand expression, at which point he and Cheney of Blois, Condi of Lusignan, and papal legate Rumsfeld powwowed about how best to parcel up those oily sands and peaceful townships, for the satiation of God's greed.
The problem is that this depiction is bunk, and anything remotely resembling it is a crock. In fact, if your understanding of the crusades is limited to popular histories and film, you know even less about the Crusades than Osama bin Hiden.
In 632, Muhammed--blessings upon his flea-bitten backside--gave up the ghost and ventured for hotter climes. He had pacifistically conquered a portion of the Arabian Peninsula during his waging of relentless peace. His immediate successor finished that endeavor, saw the rest of the world, and said, "Wow, more kindling for the fire!" And so the warriors of heaven continued in their greatest skill: the art of killing and enslaving for Allah. One hundred years after Muhammed's demise, they had destroyed the Persian Empire, made forays against the Byzantines, taken the Holy Land and Syria, consumed northern Africa (including Egypt), conquered three-fourths of Spain, and invaded France. Charles Martel halted their advance into French lands and sent them fleeing at the battles around Tours and Poitiers. With the exceptions of Arabia and Persia, all of the above lost territories were components of Christendom. The Spaniards--exhibiting Job's own patience--spent the next seven hundred sixty years winning back their stolen country from Muhammed's Peaceniks, in what is known today as the Reconquista.
The Islamic world continued spreading smiles into lands known today as Khazakhstan and Pakistan, as well as Sicily. They also took to beating the peace out of each other, such was their penchant for unity and harmony. The Sunni caliphate of Baghdad began disintegrating, and the Fatimids--Shiites who claimed descent from Muhammed's daughter--ruled over Egypt. A third group of newly-Islamocized nomads, the Seljuk Turks, found Byzantine lands enticing. Even within these three major divisions of Islamic lands, infighting and dynastic struggles ran amok.
During this time period, Western Christendom failed in presenting a united front against expansionist Islam, due to the petty exigencies of surviving swarms of invading Vikings and Magyars. However, the West managed integrating and converting most of these troublemakers by the tenth century's end.
The Seljuks began raiding Byzantine territory--a favorite pasttime of Muslims in the region--and the emperor became worried as these attacks hit close to home. So he reluctantly asked the pope for help. This is an important point: The First Crusade was, in part, a direct response to Byzantine pleas for aid. The pope saw the situation as one in which he could kill several birds with one stone, as it were: He wanted to help fellow Christians in the fight against Muslims, heal the rifts between the Eastern and Western Churches, and even make efforts at winning back Jerusalem, a holy city to Christians. The pope understood the Islamic threat, as north Africa had been utilized already as a launching platform for assaults on western Europe.
Christians didn't call their efforts a "crusade," but an armed pilgrimage. The word "crusade" is a more modern appellation for these events. Christians saw their aid of the Byzantines and subsequent journey to the Holy Land as pleasing to God. The trek to Jerusalem was as much an act of worship as one of warfare. Other crusades to the Holy Land followed from this first endeavor, which began in 1095, and ended in 1099.
Islamic threats in the East and West were tangible, but more immediate in the East at the time of the First Crusade. Virtually since Muhammed's day, Christians had endured numerous onslaughts by Muslims, who violated their boundaries and their women, sacked their towns, and proselytized with their swords. They offered three appealing alternatives: death, de facto or literal enslavement, or conversion to Islam. One cannot make heads or tails of the Crusades outside this critical context: that they were a response to centuries of unprovoked Islamic aggression. Imagine tolerating unrelenting attacks against your friends and neighbors for a period twice as long as America has existed as a nation, then ask yourself: what would I have done?
So we have a history fashioned from myth, a web of lies thicker than that of Tolkien's Shelob.
Lie: Crusaders were the aggressors.
Lie: The Islamic world was peaceful, before the dreaded Christians struck.
Lie: Mesopotamia, Arabia, the Holy Land, and their environs all were united under Islam's banner, just prior to the Crusades.
Lie: Crusaders were imperialists (the Crusades had enormous monetary costs; rich men broke themselves on their behalf, and poor men went bankrupt, losing everything they owned. The absurdity of suggesting that the Crusades were precursors to 18th and 19th century European/white colonialism is demonstrated by the fact that, when a Crusade ended, the vast majority of crusaders returned home).
Were there excesses? Certainly. Undertakings of such magnitude always attract opportunists, ne'er-do-wells, and bloodthirsty hatemongers. But the typical crusader--of high or low station--fit none of these descriptions. His involvement was an act of worship, or penance, or a good work motivated by hope of salvation, however the wrongheadedness of such a works-based outlook.
I think it's pathetic and infuriating that people shriek in outrage about the Crusades, formulating their questions as "How dare those Europeans. . .", or "Why did the Crusaders do. . .", fill-in-the-preferred-atrocity, etc. A sure sign of ignorance is asking the wrong questions within a faulty framework. Often, one's true worldview is found therein. Revealing repugnance toward the West when discussing the Crusades is asinine, when one looks at the actual events, instead of relying upon the works of anti-Western "historians" like Karen Armstrong. It's like condemning Israel for not going belly-up in the course of one of its many wars. Come to think of it, I've heard castigations along those very lines.
My question is: how was Christendom able to stomach so much unmitigated wrecking of its lands and the wholesale murder of its people for so long, before hitting back? That's a far more reasonable question.
The problem is that this depiction is bunk, and anything remotely resembling it is a crock. In fact, if your understanding of the crusades is limited to popular histories and film, you know even less about the Crusades than Osama bin Hiden.
In 632, Muhammed--blessings upon his flea-bitten backside--gave up the ghost and ventured for hotter climes. He had pacifistically conquered a portion of the Arabian Peninsula during his waging of relentless peace. His immediate successor finished that endeavor, saw the rest of the world, and said, "Wow, more kindling for the fire!" And so the warriors of heaven continued in their greatest skill: the art of killing and enslaving for Allah. One hundred years after Muhammed's demise, they had destroyed the Persian Empire, made forays against the Byzantines, taken the Holy Land and Syria, consumed northern Africa (including Egypt), conquered three-fourths of Spain, and invaded France. Charles Martel halted their advance into French lands and sent them fleeing at the battles around Tours and Poitiers. With the exceptions of Arabia and Persia, all of the above lost territories were components of Christendom. The Spaniards--exhibiting Job's own patience--spent the next seven hundred sixty years winning back their stolen country from Muhammed's Peaceniks, in what is known today as the Reconquista.
The Islamic world continued spreading smiles into lands known today as Khazakhstan and Pakistan, as well as Sicily. They also took to beating the peace out of each other, such was their penchant for unity and harmony. The Sunni caliphate of Baghdad began disintegrating, and the Fatimids--Shiites who claimed descent from Muhammed's daughter--ruled over Egypt. A third group of newly-Islamocized nomads, the Seljuk Turks, found Byzantine lands enticing. Even within these three major divisions of Islamic lands, infighting and dynastic struggles ran amok.
During this time period, Western Christendom failed in presenting a united front against expansionist Islam, due to the petty exigencies of surviving swarms of invading Vikings and Magyars. However, the West managed integrating and converting most of these troublemakers by the tenth century's end.
The Seljuks began raiding Byzantine territory--a favorite pasttime of Muslims in the region--and the emperor became worried as these attacks hit close to home. So he reluctantly asked the pope for help. This is an important point: The First Crusade was, in part, a direct response to Byzantine pleas for aid. The pope saw the situation as one in which he could kill several birds with one stone, as it were: He wanted to help fellow Christians in the fight against Muslims, heal the rifts between the Eastern and Western Churches, and even make efforts at winning back Jerusalem, a holy city to Christians. The pope understood the Islamic threat, as north Africa had been utilized already as a launching platform for assaults on western Europe.
Christians didn't call their efforts a "crusade," but an armed pilgrimage. The word "crusade" is a more modern appellation for these events. Christians saw their aid of the Byzantines and subsequent journey to the Holy Land as pleasing to God. The trek to Jerusalem was as much an act of worship as one of warfare. Other crusades to the Holy Land followed from this first endeavor, which began in 1095, and ended in 1099.
Islamic threats in the East and West were tangible, but more immediate in the East at the time of the First Crusade. Virtually since Muhammed's day, Christians had endured numerous onslaughts by Muslims, who violated their boundaries and their women, sacked their towns, and proselytized with their swords. They offered three appealing alternatives: death, de facto or literal enslavement, or conversion to Islam. One cannot make heads or tails of the Crusades outside this critical context: that they were a response to centuries of unprovoked Islamic aggression. Imagine tolerating unrelenting attacks against your friends and neighbors for a period twice as long as America has existed as a nation, then ask yourself: what would I have done?
So we have a history fashioned from myth, a web of lies thicker than that of Tolkien's Shelob.
Lie: Crusaders were the aggressors.
Lie: The Islamic world was peaceful, before the dreaded Christians struck.
Lie: Mesopotamia, Arabia, the Holy Land, and their environs all were united under Islam's banner, just prior to the Crusades.
Lie: Crusaders were imperialists (the Crusades had enormous monetary costs; rich men broke themselves on their behalf, and poor men went bankrupt, losing everything they owned. The absurdity of suggesting that the Crusades were precursors to 18th and 19th century European/white colonialism is demonstrated by the fact that, when a Crusade ended, the vast majority of crusaders returned home).
Were there excesses? Certainly. Undertakings of such magnitude always attract opportunists, ne'er-do-wells, and bloodthirsty hatemongers. But the typical crusader--of high or low station--fit none of these descriptions. His involvement was an act of worship, or penance, or a good work motivated by hope of salvation, however the wrongheadedness of such a works-based outlook.
I think it's pathetic and infuriating that people shriek in outrage about the Crusades, formulating their questions as "How dare those Europeans. . .", or "Why did the Crusaders do. . .", fill-in-the-preferred-atrocity, etc. A sure sign of ignorance is asking the wrong questions within a faulty framework. Often, one's true worldview is found therein. Revealing repugnance toward the West when discussing the Crusades is asinine, when one looks at the actual events, instead of relying upon the works of anti-Western "historians" like Karen Armstrong. It's like condemning Israel for not going belly-up in the course of one of its many wars. Come to think of it, I've heard castigations along those very lines.
My question is: how was Christendom able to stomach so much unmitigated wrecking of its lands and the wholesale murder of its people for so long, before hitting back? That's a far more reasonable question.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Honestly, Abe?
According to a recent (Jan. 14-22, 2008) Harris Interactive poll, Americans consider Abraham Lincoln the overall best President of the United States:
Abraham Lincoln: 20% of respondents labeled him "best."
Ronald Reagan: 14%
Franklin Roosevelt: 12%
George Washington: 12% (tie w/ FDR)
John Kennedy: 11%
Bill Clinton: 7%
Thomas Jefferson: 4%
Theodore Roosevelt: 3%
Harry Truman: 2%
George W. Bush: 1% (tie w/ Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, & Richard Nixon)
George H.W. Bush: less than 0.5% ( along w/ LBJ, Ford, John Adams, Jackson, Wilson, & Coolidge)
Looks like all that Yankee propaganda paid off.
Abraham Lincoln: 20% of respondents labeled him "best."
Ronald Reagan: 14%
Franklin Roosevelt: 12%
George Washington: 12% (tie w/ FDR)
John Kennedy: 11%
Bill Clinton: 7%
Thomas Jefferson: 4%
Theodore Roosevelt: 3%
Harry Truman: 2%
George W. Bush: 1% (tie w/ Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, & Richard Nixon)
George H.W. Bush: less than 0.5% ( along w/ LBJ, Ford, John Adams, Jackson, Wilson, & Coolidge)
Looks like all that Yankee propaganda paid off.
Humble Pride
From Foxy News:
Brokeback Osama’s wife, Michelle, is under fire for leaving the impression that she hasn’t been proud of her country until now, when Democrats are beginning to rally around her husband’s campaign.
Speaking in Milwaukee, Wis., on Monday, she said, "People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and … for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."
Isn't that special? Now that Brokeback's in the limelight, with people fawning all over him like he's the second coming of Martin Luther King, Jr.--now she's suddenly proud? The woman was born in 1964. Not once in that time period has she ever found reason for pride in her American identity? Pretty interesting that she requires her husband to be skipping on the cusp of the presidency before she can feel pride in her country. High standards, indeed.
By the way, I love Osama's "Change" schtick. "We need change. Why? Because change is the kind of change we need. Change is good. Don't ask what changes I'll make; that's beside the point. The important factor, here, is that I'm for change, which is a great moral virtue, in and of itself."
Brokeback Osama’s wife, Michelle, is under fire for leaving the impression that she hasn’t been proud of her country until now, when Democrats are beginning to rally around her husband’s campaign.
Speaking in Milwaukee, Wis., on Monday, she said, "People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and … for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."
Isn't that special? Now that Brokeback's in the limelight, with people fawning all over him like he's the second coming of Martin Luther King, Jr.--now she's suddenly proud? The woman was born in 1964. Not once in that time period has she ever found reason for pride in her American identity? Pretty interesting that she requires her husband to be skipping on the cusp of the presidency before she can feel pride in her country. High standards, indeed.
By the way, I love Osama's "Change" schtick. "We need change. Why? Because change is the kind of change we need. Change is good. Don't ask what changes I'll make; that's beside the point. The important factor, here, is that I'm for change, which is a great moral virtue, in and of itself."
Sunday, February 17, 2008
The Mist
A better title would've been The Mist Opportunity.
I went and saw it friday night, with my wife. It's based on a "novella" by Stephen King (King has a habit of writing novel-length works of about half the length of his typical six-inch thick tome, and dubbing them "novellas;" this is one of those). If you've never read the story, I recommend it--for the nail-biting suspense, if for no other reason. It's one of his best.
As for the movie: if you scare easily, or have a low threshold for gore, I advise against it. The bloodletting's nasty, though I wouldn't quite call it gratuitous. My wife covered her mouth or hid her eyes several times. Frank Darabont, who directed The Green Mile and The Shawshank Redemption, also helmed this film. He follows the original story as closely as one could ask of a Hollywood director--until the final five minutes. At this point, Darabont says: "Aw, what does King know? Just because he's sold quintillions of books doesn't mean he knows what an audience wants. Let's throw out his ending and craft our own! Yeah, that's a great idea! Love me for my courage!"
Darabont's conclusion--which I won't detail for the sake of those planning to see this film--is a contrived piece of crap that brings nothing to the table, in terms of story improvement. In fact, it's so twisted and perverse and, yes, evil, that it ruins the entire movie. It's that bad. This is sick even by King's standards, which is no glowing testimonial of Hollywood's decency. King's story has a much better, more organic conclusion. If the director had been present at my screening of his little experiment in the ruination of a plot, I'd have fought the temptation to punch him dead in the face. Some people in the audience were so disgusted, they got up and made their exit en masse.
Aside from this major flaw, the movie's scary and well-made. The acting's universally good, and the special effects are far better than some of the critics have claimed, to my puzzlement.
One other flaw, which one expects from contemporary filmmakers: A major character is a religious fanatic, in the Christian tradition. She reads her Bible, prays, preaches, and literally raves about the End of the World. To his credit, the director doesn't present her as the sole representative of religion; other characters who are not depicted as lunatics express belief in God, and see her as a repugnant, extreme idiot. So whereas there's some balance, the first nut is a far stronger, more dedicated person than the others in her beliefs. It seems the message is that religious adherence is acceptible, but great religious zeal is insane. When the woman is ranting, she mentions the monstrosities of abortions and stem-cell research; but this is in the context of a lunatic's frothings, not the calm attempts of someone reasoning with those steeped in error. Interestingly, I don't recall the original story mentioning stem-cells or abortions, so I suppose the director felt the irresistible urge to "contemporize" it, since anything that happened before yesterday can't be adapted to the screen without drawing parallels with today's headlines--even when doing so makes zero sense.
This movie is a bizarre mixture of respect and contempt for both its audience and the work upon which it's based.
I went and saw it friday night, with my wife. It's based on a "novella" by Stephen King (King has a habit of writing novel-length works of about half the length of his typical six-inch thick tome, and dubbing them "novellas;" this is one of those). If you've never read the story, I recommend it--for the nail-biting suspense, if for no other reason. It's one of his best.
As for the movie: if you scare easily, or have a low threshold for gore, I advise against it. The bloodletting's nasty, though I wouldn't quite call it gratuitous. My wife covered her mouth or hid her eyes several times. Frank Darabont, who directed The Green Mile and The Shawshank Redemption, also helmed this film. He follows the original story as closely as one could ask of a Hollywood director--until the final five minutes. At this point, Darabont says: "Aw, what does King know? Just because he's sold quintillions of books doesn't mean he knows what an audience wants. Let's throw out his ending and craft our own! Yeah, that's a great idea! Love me for my courage!"
Darabont's conclusion--which I won't detail for the sake of those planning to see this film--is a contrived piece of crap that brings nothing to the table, in terms of story improvement. In fact, it's so twisted and perverse and, yes, evil, that it ruins the entire movie. It's that bad. This is sick even by King's standards, which is no glowing testimonial of Hollywood's decency. King's story has a much better, more organic conclusion. If the director had been present at my screening of his little experiment in the ruination of a plot, I'd have fought the temptation to punch him dead in the face. Some people in the audience were so disgusted, they got up and made their exit en masse.
Aside from this major flaw, the movie's scary and well-made. The acting's universally good, and the special effects are far better than some of the critics have claimed, to my puzzlement.
One other flaw, which one expects from contemporary filmmakers: A major character is a religious fanatic, in the Christian tradition. She reads her Bible, prays, preaches, and literally raves about the End of the World. To his credit, the director doesn't present her as the sole representative of religion; other characters who are not depicted as lunatics express belief in God, and see her as a repugnant, extreme idiot. So whereas there's some balance, the first nut is a far stronger, more dedicated person than the others in her beliefs. It seems the message is that religious adherence is acceptible, but great religious zeal is insane. When the woman is ranting, she mentions the monstrosities of abortions and stem-cell research; but this is in the context of a lunatic's frothings, not the calm attempts of someone reasoning with those steeped in error. Interestingly, I don't recall the original story mentioning stem-cells or abortions, so I suppose the director felt the irresistible urge to "contemporize" it, since anything that happened before yesterday can't be adapted to the screen without drawing parallels with today's headlines--even when doing so makes zero sense.
This movie is a bizarre mixture of respect and contempt for both its audience and the work upon which it's based.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
The Irrational Atheist
Vox Day's new book, The Irrational Atheist, aptly demonstrates the basic thesis implicit in the book's title: that today's most outspoken atheists have no idea what they're talking about, having utilized a healthy dose of conscious falsehood, illogic, and error in arriving at this point of intellectual "brightness."
Imagine watching Andre the Giant piledrive a blind, quadraplegic midget, and you'll have an inkling of the proverbial head-handing Vox provides. I actually felt sorry for Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens upon finishing the book. Not only do they come across as dishonest, mistaken, and desperate, but they also look like bumbling idiots. These "brights" must have broken headlights.
Vox does not set out to debunk atheism by making a positive case for God; rather, he shows that leading proponents of atheism provide reasoning for their arguments that are anything but reasonable. Their attacks on religion--particularly Christianity--are fallacious, while their attempts at insulating themselves from the logical actions and ends of disbelief make clear the higher standard to which they hold religion. The book's novelty is that it meets atheists on the ground of their choosing--i.e., reason and science--and achieves victory, not content in a mere defeat of the enemy, but gnashing for a full-on rout.
I enjoyed the humor and highly factual nature of the text. The footnotes slow one's reading pace a bit, but they're worth the effort, offering anecdotes, tidbits of information, and snickers.
I disagree with some of Vox's assessments, such as his take on the Crusades and his game designer concept of God, articulated near the book's conclusion. I also question his declaration, "I don't care if you go to Hell," in Chapter One, though I appreciate his candor. But in the long run, these are just quibbles, because they don't constitute the book's focus, nor do they negate its basic premise: that the leading lights of atheism are far dimmer than their followers imagine.
Imagine watching Andre the Giant piledrive a blind, quadraplegic midget, and you'll have an inkling of the proverbial head-handing Vox provides. I actually felt sorry for Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens upon finishing the book. Not only do they come across as dishonest, mistaken, and desperate, but they also look like bumbling idiots. These "brights" must have broken headlights.
Vox does not set out to debunk atheism by making a positive case for God; rather, he shows that leading proponents of atheism provide reasoning for their arguments that are anything but reasonable. Their attacks on religion--particularly Christianity--are fallacious, while their attempts at insulating themselves from the logical actions and ends of disbelief make clear the higher standard to which they hold religion. The book's novelty is that it meets atheists on the ground of their choosing--i.e., reason and science--and achieves victory, not content in a mere defeat of the enemy, but gnashing for a full-on rout.
I enjoyed the humor and highly factual nature of the text. The footnotes slow one's reading pace a bit, but they're worth the effort, offering anecdotes, tidbits of information, and snickers.
I disagree with some of Vox's assessments, such as his take on the Crusades and his game designer concept of God, articulated near the book's conclusion. I also question his declaration, "I don't care if you go to Hell," in Chapter One, though I appreciate his candor. But in the long run, these are just quibbles, because they don't constitute the book's focus, nor do they negate its basic premise: that the leading lights of atheism are far dimmer than their followers imagine.
Big Endorsement
"Howdy, folks. I believe the Right Honorable Juan McAmnesty will make an excellent President of the United States of Aztlanica. He's a strong conservative--and by "strong conservative," I mean someone who strongly believes in the empowerment of our divine elder sibling, Big Brother. Take campaign finance reform as an example: Juan believes "there's too much money in politics;" and I agree, one hunnert percent. So what better solution than ensuring that only the most fabulously wealthy citizens can afford to run a political campaign? Makes perfect sense to me. After all, wealth=virtue. We must keep all the Middle and Lower class riffraff as far away from the presidency as an Iranian mullah from a suitcase nuke.
"Additionally, my friend Juan has assured me that he will not stop until everyone on Earth's an Aztlanican. He's a strong proponent of immigration reform--and by "reform," I mean erasing all our borders, welcoming aliens with open arms--especially those of third-world, non-European ancestry--and creating a heterodisingenuous polyglot of perfection, a stock-pot of Balkanized municipalities and communities, a Promised Land where the Amero is our lingua franca, and skin colors, religions, loyalties, and worldviews change starkly, depending upon which side of the street you're standing.
"So I ask potential voters one question: who better than a man who believes in cultural incohesion, and simultaneous unbridled federal power?
"Juan McAmnesty is a true statesman for the twenty-first century. Let him provide amnesty from your doubts and fears."
"Additionally, my friend Juan has assured me that he will not stop until everyone on Earth's an Aztlanican. He's a strong proponent of immigration reform--and by "reform," I mean erasing all our borders, welcoming aliens with open arms--especially those of third-world, non-European ancestry--and creating a heterodisingenuous polyglot of perfection, a stock-pot of Balkanized municipalities and communities, a Promised Land where the Amero is our lingua franca, and skin colors, religions, loyalties, and worldviews change starkly, depending upon which side of the street you're standing.
"So I ask potential voters one question: who better than a man who believes in cultural incohesion, and simultaneous unbridled federal power?
"Juan McAmnesty is a true statesman for the twenty-first century. Let him provide amnesty from your doubts and fears."
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Not So Super
After tuesday's orgy of primaries and caucuses, I noted that Yuckabee and Her Scaliness won my home state of Tennessee. Ugh. Ron Paul made a respectable showing in my county, coming in ahead of Giuliani and Thompson.
I heard today that Sniff Romney tearfully dropped out of the race. Ah, well. I suppose he'll just have to go back to working toward godhood via Mormonism, instead of politics.
So all we have left is Juan McAmnesty, Yuckabee, and Paul. That leaves us with an erratic schizophrenic with a bad temper, a socialist for Jesus, and someone who believes the Constitution should be read, understood, and followed--not used as birdcage lining.
So vote for Ron Paul, or don't vote at all. That's how I see it. A vote for anyone else is a vote for socialism.
I heard today that Sniff Romney tearfully dropped out of the race. Ah, well. I suppose he'll just have to go back to working toward godhood via Mormonism, instead of politics.
So all we have left is Juan McAmnesty, Yuckabee, and Paul. That leaves us with an erratic schizophrenic with a bad temper, a socialist for Jesus, and someone who believes the Constitution should be read, understood, and followed--not used as birdcage lining.
So vote for Ron Paul, or don't vote at all. That's how I see it. A vote for anyone else is a vote for socialism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)