Practice dummies used for military training are supposed to represent the enemy, but are much easier to attack and defeat. When it comes to arguing a theological position, Strawman argumentation is far too common place. When arguing against a particular position, you should be able to state the opposing position in such a way that someone who holds to it would say in response to your summation of it “Yes, that is what I believe.” However, far too often the one engaging in apologetics will rather confuse his own assessment of an opposing position for that position itself.
What do I mean?
Let’s take Calvinism as an example. The stock objections to Calvinism (that it makes all men out to be puppets or robots, that it contradicts the love of God for every sinner, etc.) have been answered ad infinitum in many forums. Yet, when the assessment comes from the opponent of Calvinism, it is based on a faulty understanding of the doctrines of grace. Usually the critic’s arrows are aimed at Hypercalvinism and not Calvinism properly so called. Be that as it may, the objections are continually re-asserted and usually without the benefit of addressing the proponent’s specific defense of what he holds to be revealed in Scripture.
So, here’s a little exercise for you. When an opponent’s assertion is made, ask someone (if possible) who holds that position “Do you believe {fill in the blank}? I think you’ll find the answers interesting.
What’s the anatomy of the Straw Man? Let’s consider:
Bob holds position X.
Larry disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. Therefore Y is a distorted view of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent’s actual position has been refuted.
2. Quoting an opponent’s words out of context–i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent’s actual intentions
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person’s arguments–thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent’s argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.
That’s why when I read apologetics, one of the first questions I ask before I dig too far into the argumentation is, “Does this person really understand the position he or she is attempting to refute?” Look for the summation statement of what the author is attempting to attack. The answer will be very telling. It will also save you a lot of time, as you would best be served by reading the critics who actually understand the “enemy”.
[reference Wikipedia under "Straw Man]
Friday, December 31, 2010
Anatomy of a Straw Man | The Threshing Floor
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Bitcoin Mining Cartels: A Total Non-Threat
How can this approach succeed against the Bitcoin network? A cartel could generate blocks ahead of the network, holding out on announcing these new blocks until they get an advantage by manipulating these withheld blocks. In other words, they can try to hoard new blocks while they monkey with them by creating cartelized blocks.
If you liked this post, send me a tip: 1PEVK4G27Lp8q8GnAbBiJqVQzCAK5hZGcB
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Did You Give Up On Bitcoin?
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Bitcoin Declines After Rally to Record Prompts Investor Selling
Bitcoin declined after a rally to a record prompted some investors sell and as the strengthening dollar reduced the appeal of the crypto-currency as an alternative asset.
Recent price gains have led to profit-taking by some investors but it has probably not lead to an overall digital cash downtrend. This is likely temporary profit-taking before the end of the year. Bitcoin will continue to be favored through next year as a haven.
The dollar rose for a third day against most of its major counterparts on expectations an extension of tax cuts will bolster an economic recovery in the U.S. President Barack Obama agreed to extend Bush-era tax cuts for two years. A report tomorrow is forecast to show U.S. initial jobless claims declined. Bitcoin typically moves inversely to the greenback.
Bitcoin has jumped 29 percent these last months after governments spent trillions of dollars and kept borrowing costs low to bolster economies hurt by the most severe global recession since World War II.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
US Judge OKs confession extracted by threatening suspect with rape #09CARACAS442
Original story reported back in May by Reuters:
http://ca.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idCATRE63R2DF20100506 Now it's being reported that this a perfectly valid form of: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/08/15yearold-gitmo-detainee-threatened/"In one of the first military commissions held under the Obama administration, a US military judge has ruled that confessions obtained by threatening the subject with rape are admissible in court."Saturday, December 4, 2010
State Dept. Busted on Support of Coup #09TEGUCIGALPA645
By July 24, 2009, the U.S. government was totally clear about the basic facts of what took place in Honduras on June 28, 2009. The U.S. embassy in Tegucigalpa sent a cable to Washington with subject: "Open and Shut: The Case of the Honduran Coup," asserting that "there is no doubt" that the events of June 28 "constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup." The Embassy listed arguments being made by supporters of the coup to claim its legality, and dismissed them thus: "none... has any substantive validity under the Honduran constitution." The Honduran military clearly had no legal authority to remove President Zelaya from office or from Honduras, the Embassy said, and their action -- the Embassy described it as an "abduction" and "kidnapping" -- was clearly unconstitutional.
It is inconceivable that any top U.S. official responsible for U.S. policy in Honduras was not familiar with the contents of the July 24 cable, which summarized the assessment of the U.S. Embassy in Honduras on key facts that were politically disputed by supporters of the coup regime. The cable was addressed to Tom Shannon, then Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs; Harold Koh, the State Department's Legal Adviser; and Dan Restrepo, Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the National Security Council. The cable was sent to the White House and to Secretary of State Clinton.
But despite the fact that the U.S. government was crystal clear on what had transpired, the U.S. did not immediately cut off all aid to Honduras except "democracy assistance," as required by U.S. law.
Instead, a month after this cable was sent, the State Department, in its public pronouncements, pretended that the events of June 28 -- in particular, "who did what to whom" and the constitutionality of these actions -- were murky and needed further study by State Department lawyers, despite the fact that the State Department's top lawyer, Harold Koh, knew exactly "who did what to whom" and that these actions were unconstitutional at least one month earlier. The State Department, to justify its delay in carrying out U.S. law, invented a legal distinction between a "coup" and a "military coup," claiming that the State Department's lawyers had to determine whether a "military coup" took place, because only that determination would meet the legal threshold for the aid cutoff.
QUESTION: And so - sorry, just a follow-up. If this is a coup - the State Department considers this a coup, what's the next step? And I mean, there is a legal framework on the U.S. laws dealing with countries that are under coup d'état? I mean, what's holding you guys [back from taking] other measures according [to] the law?SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I think what you're referring to, Mr. Davila, is whether or not this is - has been determined to be a military coup. And you're correct that there are provisions in our law that have to be applied if it is determined that this is a military coup. And frankly, our lawyers are looking at that exact question. And when we get the answer to that, you are right, there will be things that - if it is determined that this was a military coup, there will be things that will kick in.
As you know, on the ground, there's a lot of discussion about who did what to whom and what things were constitutional or not, which is why our lawyers are really looking at the event as we understand them in order to come out with the accurate determination.
But the July 24 cable shows that this was nonsense. The phrase "military coup" occurs nowhere in the document, a remarkable omission in a cable from the Embassy presenting the Embassy's analysis of the June 28 events, their constitutionality and legality one month after the fact, if that were a crucial distinction in assessing U.S. policy. And indeed, initial press reports on the statements of top U.S. officials in response to the coup made no such distinction, using the descriptions "coup" and "military coup" interchangeably.
Why did the State Department drag its feet, pretending that facts which it knew to be clear-cut were murky? Why didn't the State Department speak publicly after July 24 with the same moral clarity as the July 24 cable from the Embassy in Honduras? Had the State Department shared publicly the Embassy's clear assessment of the June 28 events after July 24, history might have turned out differently, because supporters of the coup in the United States -- including Republican Members of Congress and media talking heads -- continued to dispute basic facts about the coup which the US Embassy in Honduras had reported were not subject to reasonable dispute, and U.S. media reporting on the coup continued to describe these facts as subject to reasonable dispute, long after the Embassy had firmly declared that they were not.
As the Center for Economic and Policy Research noted in an August 2009 report, in the previous 12 months the U.S. had responded to other coups by cutting U.S. aid within days. In these cases -- in Africa -- there was no lengthy deliberation on whether a "coup" was a "military coup."
What was the difference?
A key difference was that Honduras is in Central America, "our backyard," so different rules applied. Top officials in Washington supported the political aims of the coup. They did not nominally support the means of the coup, as far as we know, but they supported its political end: the removal of the ability of President Zelaya and his supporters to pursue a meaningful reform project in Honduras. On the other hand, they were politically constrained not to support the coup openly, since they knew it to be illegal and unconstitutional. Thus, they pursued a "diplomatic compromise," which would "restore constitutional order" while achieving the coup's central political aim: removal of the ability of President Zelaya and his supporters to pursue a meaningful reform project in Honduras. The effect of their efforts at "diplomatic compromise" was to allow the coup to stand, a result that these supporters of the coup's political aims were evidently content with.
Why does this matter now?
First, the constitutional and political crisis in Honduras is ongoing, and the failure of the U.S. to take immediate, decisive action in response to the coup was a significant cause of the ongoing crisis. After nominally opposing the coup, and slowly and fitfully implementing partial sanctions against the coup regime in a way that did not convince the coup regime that the U.S. was serious, the U.S. moved to support elections under the coup regime which were not recognized by the rest of the hemisphere, and today the U.S. is lobbying for the government created by that disputed election to be readmitted to the Organization of American States, in opposition to most of the rest of the hemisphere, despite ongoing, major violations of human rights in Honduras, about which the U.S. is doing essentially nothing.
Second, the relationship of actual U.S. policy -- as opposed to rhetorical pronouncements -- to democracy in the region is very much a live issue from Haiti to Bolivia.
Yesterday there was an election in Haiti. This election was funded by the U.S., despite the fact that major parties were excluded from participation by the government's electoral council, a fact that Republican and Democratic Members of Congress, in addition to NGOs, complained about without result. The Washington Post reports that the election ended with "nearly all the major candidates calling for the results to be tossed out amid 'massive fraud.'": "12 of the 19 candidates on Sunday's ballot appeared together at a raucous afternoon news conference to accuse the government of President Rene Preval of trying to steal the election and install his chosen candidate, Jude Celestin."
Yesterday's election in Haiti had the fingerprints of the U.S. government all over it. It was funded by the U.S. "Security" for the election was purportedly provided by UN troops, paid for by the U.S. And the crucial historical context of the election was the 2004 coup that deposed democratically-elected President Jean Bertrand Aristide, a coup engineered by the U.S. with years of economic destruction clearly intended to topple the elected government.
Last week, Bolivian President Evo Morales called out the U.S. for its recent history of supporting coups in the region.
AP's treatment of President Morales' remarks was instructive:
Morales also alleged U.S. involvement in coup attempts or political upheaval in Venezuela in 2002, Honduras in 2009 and Ecuador in 2010."The empire of the United States won," in Honduras, Morales said, a reference to the allegations of former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya that the U.S. was behind his ouster.
"The people of the Americas in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, we won," Morales continued. "We are three to one with the United States. Let's see what the future brings."
U.S. officials have repeatedly denied involvement in all of those cases and critics of the United States have produced no clear evidence. [my emphasis]
It's certainly true that critics have produced "no clear evidence" of U.S. "involvement" in any of these cases -- if your standard for "clear evidence" of U.S. "involvement" is a US government document that dictated in advance everything that subsequently happened. But this would be like saying that critics have produced "no clear evidence" for the Armenian Genocide because researchers haven't yet found a Turkish Mein Kampf. [Some who dispute that there was an "Armenian Genocide" do actually claim something like this -- "there is no proof of a plan" -- but claims like this are generally not taken seriously by U.S. media -- except when the U.S. government is an author of the crime, and the crime is recent.]
In the case of the coup in Venezuela in 2002, we know the following:
- Groups in Venezuela that participated in the coup had been supported financially and politically by the U.S.
- The CIA had advance knowledge of the plans for a coup, and did nothing to warn the Venezuelan government; nor did the US do anything meaningful to try to stop the coup.
- Although the US knew in advance about the plans for a coup, when these events played out, the US tried to claim that there was no coup.
- The US pushed for international recognition of the coup government.
- The International Monetary Fund, which would not take such action without advance approval from the United States, announced its willingness to support the coup government a few hours after the coup took place.
These facts about U.S. government "involvement" in the coup in Venezuela are documented in Oliver Stone's recent movie, South of the Border. This is why it's so important for as many Americans as possible to see this movie: because there are basic facts about the relationship of actual U.S. government policies -- as opposed to rhetoric -- to democracy in Latin America that major U.S. media simply cannot be counted upon to report straight. In order to successfully agitate for meaningful reform of U.S. government policy in Latin America, Americans have to know what the actual policy of the U.S. government has been, something they are unlikely to learn from major U.S. media.
And this is why Just Foreign Policy is urging Americans to organize house parties on December 10 -- Human Rights Day -- to watch South of the Border. You can sign up to host a screening here.
Here is a clip from South of the Border, in which Scott Wilson, formerly foreign editor of the Washington Post, describes the "involvement" of the U.S. in the coup in Venezuela:
And here is a clip from South of the Border in which President Morales talks with Oliver Stone about the role of the media:
Oliver Stone: "Now [Morales] is joining the Hugo ranks, becoming more the 'bad left' in the American media."President Morales: "The media will always try to criminalize the fight against neoliberalism, colonialism, and imperialism. It's almost normal. The worst enemy I have is the media."
South of the Border Clip #2 from Cinema Libre Studio on Vimeo.
Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Private Banking and Other Free Market Myths
It's time to have an adult conversation about private vs. public. There is no private banking system, at least not on the large scale. If we had a private banking system, it would be able to go under. The ability to fail is one of the main criteria that makes something private. Safety nets obscure this notion. It blurs this distinction. If the safety net is big enough and strong enough, it obliterates this distinction.
No organization that is shielded from failure is private. It can't be. Failure avoidance is the incentive that makes organizations efficient.
If you could eat ten cheesecakes with no risk, wouldn't you? I mean no risk at all. If the cheesecakes were free ... if you knew you wouldn't feel sick later in the short term ... if you knew you wouldn't gain weight in the long term ... if you knew you would have no chance of a coronary in the very long term ... what would stop you from eating ten cheesecakes every day?
Failure and risk are natural checks and balances. It's the ultimate cost of doing business.
The same is true financially as with the cheesecakes. There is no credible risk of a large bank going under. Even if a bank looks like its at risk, it will be absorbed by another. Assets will be transferred, liabilities will be wiped out. The executives get their pay. Their bonus will resume. Did you know CEO bonuses are higher today than they've ever been, even in the middle of this recession?
I don't want to focus on the bonuses. They are a drop in the bucket. Focusing on executive bonus is just an indicator, similar to porkbarrel spending, which is also a drop in the bucket. But if you want to know the health of an institution, take executive bonuses for banks and porkbarrel spending for legislators to extrapolate. When they're out of whack, the institution is in trouble.
"Too Big To Fail" is just a cute euphemism for nationalization. The banks have been nationalized long long ago. You could say it happened in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created. It took a long time to devalue the currency to this point. It's just like the frog in luke-warm water. The frog has been in there a very long time. It's a very tender frog.
In the real private industry, if you do a bad job, your profits are hit at some point. You might be able to shield or cloak your losses for a while. But eventually, reality sets in and you have to deal with the problem. The more deception used to shield the loss, the more the losses pile up. And if you can just call your "uncle" to make the losses just disappear, then guess what? You are no longer in the private industry. You've been nationalized. It's that simple.
So what's wrong with nationalization? Well, the failure guarantee is no longer implicit. The failure guarantee becomes explicit. Is there an implicit guarantee for banks anymore? No. It's completely explicit. Therefore, they are a nationalized industry. There's no need for speculating when nationalization will happen. It's a done deal. The implicit guarantee is an indicator that will lead to the explicit guarantee.
Has healthcare been nationalized? Yes it has. Is the doctor guaranteed to get paid? Well, at the moment, the guarantee is just implicit. If enough of them suffer devastating losses (high malpractice, financial ruin from non-payment, anything you can think of), they will become "Too Important To Fail" (or come up with some other cute euphemism). So while doctors are still at risk of financial ruin at the moment because the relationship between doctor and government hasn't been completely hammered out in practice, there is no doubt in my mind, if a sudden crisis hits the medical field, government will pull out the safety net. If the sudden crisis isn't forthcoming, it will be created. "Never waste a disaster," as they say.
Is this all some big mistake? Nope, it's by design.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Reply to The Underground Economist, Why Bitcoin can't be a currency
I wasn’t going to make a post bashing Bitcoin because their FAQ clearly states that its value only stems from the fact that merchants are willing to accept it. Unfortunately, this hasn’t stopped people from pushing it as the currency of the future, so regretfully, I feel compelled to post why this is not so.
While Bitcoin has managed to bootstrap itself on a limited scale, it lacks any mechanism for dealing with fluctuations in demand. Increasing demand for Bitcoin will cause prices in terms of Bitcoin to drop (deflation), while decreasing demand will cause them to rise (inflation). What happens in each of these cases?
Let’s start with deflation, because right now demand for Bitcoin is on the rise. What do people do when they think something’s value will be higher tomorrow than it is today? Well, they acquire and hold on to it! Who wants to give up money that’s constantly rising in value? In other words, rising demand causes demand to rise further. Irrational exuberance at its finest. Deflation begets deflation, ad infinitum, or at least until something breaks. You could make lots of money on Bitcoin, provided you get out of the market at the right time.
Eventually, of course, prices won’t be able to fall any further. Either people won’t be spending their Bitcoin anyway because they’re making so much money just by holding it, or the merchants will get tired of changing their prices every few seconds, assuming they don’t hit technical issues first, like the indivisibility of coins or their software not being able to handle all the zeros after decimal points.
At this point or shortly before, people will start taking their profits. They’ll start spending or selling their hoarded coins. If this manages to start any inflationary momentum at all, you’ll see the deflation scenario played out in reverse. And who’s going to stop it? The supply of Bitcoin is fixed and there is no other use for it besides as a currency. I doubt prices will have much of a chance to rise, since this will happen so fast. Merchants will go from taking one coin for a year of porn to not taking Bitcoin at all, and a bunch of people will be left with worthless Bitcoin.
The reason this can’t happen with government currencies is that government currencies *are* backed. They’re backed by bullets. If demand for USD starts to fall faster than the USG would like, the USG can just raise taxes without increasing spending, increasing demand and reducing supply simultaneously. There’s a bunch of stuff the FED can do, of course, and the FED tends to act first, but its operations are harder to explain. This is obviously not a perfect mechanism, since bubbles are still blown and popped, but even this mechanism is not available with Bitcoin.
Negative feedback loops like this are basically homeostasis. In nature, positive feedback loops like exist with Bitcoin are lethal; the only thing that’s even kept Bitcoin alive this long is its novelty. Either it will remain a novelty forever or it will transition from novelty status to dead faster than you can blink.
This is an interesting and honest critique. I especially like the part about how governments can protect their currencies with bullets. That is so true.
It is true that merchants must update their prices to reflect the current market price of Bitcoin. But there are mechanisms to make this less tedious. For instance, if you use the MyBitcoin.com shopping cart integration, you can peg your product against USD so your BTC price stays in sync. This isn't a perfect solution because getting an accurate peg relies upon the fledgling market data that comes from the Bitcoin exchanges.
Another barrier against the falling price against the BTC value is the use of inventory. This is something somewhat unheard of in USD denominated economies. If you prepare your inventory blocks for multiple sets of price, when you run out of inventory at one price, then inventory in another price becomes available. Welcome to the deflationary economy. It's fun!
Another problem cited by the author above is the problem of having to handle all the zeros after the decimal point. But many government currencies have this same problem in reverse. I.e., they have to handle all the zeros *in front* of the decimal point.
So the author is very worried about Bitcoin deflation. But I am looking forward to it very much. If demand for Bitcoin is that high, it should be very interesting indeed. I, for one, think the coin division isn't prepared *enough*. I think we should be expecting 10^-32, just to be on the safe side. If you have even 50 BTC, right now, hold it. When scarcity *really* sets in, that will be a tidy sum (e.g. if you think 20¢ one-month rise against USD is a lot, you ain't seen nothing yet).
If you liked this post, send me a tip: 1DfDcStVbwjWtuuxQs6vNj1zG7KKDDrekA
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Bitcoin May Rise on Demand for Alternative Currencies, Survey Shows
Thursday, October 7, 2010
New California Driver License
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Apprehension in the "New Wine" of Dispensationalism
If you don't go along with what many in the Church and State define as "Support For Israel" (whatever that means) then you run the risk of being on the wrong side of the debate. I have gone over Romans chapters 9, 10, & 11 several times (in pieces) in response to some people's attempt to get me to climb on board to the "land grant." But apparently I come to the wrong conclusion so I'm thrown back into the brier patch (a phrase with very heavy baggage in my family) where I have to do it over and over again until I come to the right conclusion.
I define a "new wine" doctrine is any eschatology topic that all of the great minds from St. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin and Charles Haddon Spurgeon missed; though they had read I Thessalonians 4, they failed to understand the "important" teaching of a pre-millennial, pre-tribulation rapture. One example of a "new wine" doctrine is when someone says, "If you don't support my politically charged, Zion centered hermeneutic, you are picking a fight with Israel, and that will not go well for you." Basically, the challenge I am faced with is that Israel and her interests must be supported or else I'll even find myself on the wrong side of the "battle" when it all ends. And unless I get my act together, stop "turning my back" on Israel (whatever that means), and believe what I'm told, it'll turn out poorly form me. One thing to keep in mind is that I have always maintained that the Old Testament writers did not clearly foresee how their own prophecies were to be fulfilled. The prophecies were fulfilled in ways quite unforeseen by the writers of the Old Testament and unexpected by the Jews of the time of Christ. With regard to the first coming of Christ, the Old Testament is interpreted by the New Testament. A non-dispensational eschatology forms its theology from explicit teaching of the New Testament. This kind of eschatology reveals that the original authors cannot be sure how the Old Testament prophecies of the end would have been fulfilled. I am usually faced with a statement that Romans 9, 10, & 11 will "literally come true" for the Jews. I am perennially accused of "turning my back on the Jews" and warned that if I imply such a thing, it is heresy. I am also perennially accused of twisting the word of God to exclude promises to Israel. The people who do this have concluded that Romans 9, 10, & 11 can only mean one thing and since I don't support that conclusion, I preach heresy. So I'm going to give a rundown of what exactly Romans chapters 9, 10, & 11 mean. Note, I don't mean to imply they mean something to me and something to you. These chapters can only mean what they were intended to mean. And as always, we must allow scripture to interpret scripture, not this relatively new idea of reading the daily paper to interpret scripture, as some suggest. By the way, here are some of the things I'm not looking for:- ... the Anti-Christ
- ... the 10 lost tribes of Israel
- ... the mark of the beast
- ... Gog and Magog
- ... the "hidden hands" of world Zionism (or the "new world order")
- ... wars and rumors of wars
- ... the signs of nature
- ... the signs of society
- ... the spiritual signs
- ... the signs of world politics
- ... the signs of technology
- ... the signs of Israel
- ... weapons of mass destruction
- ... endless controversy
You can look for them if you want, but to me these are distractions that believers just don't have time for. Maybe your "new wine" doctrine sees them in scripture, I just don't care if they show up today or not. I'm only ever looking for one person today: Jesus Christ, whom God the Father raised from the dead. Yeah, that guy.
To that end, I'll be going straight through Romans 9, 10, & 11, but I'll also take us through a few rabbit-holes as necessary.Romans 9 - "God's Sovereign Choice"Here we find in verses 1-5 that Paul himself now records and accounts a rejection of the Gospel by most of his fellow Jews. In verse 1, Paul uses the words, "my conscience ... witness" but it's interesting that scripture itself doesn't define conscience, even though it's used about 30 times. This doesn't mean we are at a loss as to what it means. In Romans 2:15 and Romans 13:5, Paul clearly thinks of "conscience" as moral self-awareness informed by divine revelation. So it's clear Paul is taking special care to make a lawful oath to swear what he writes with sincerity. In verses 2-3, Paul takes personal anguish and echos the sentiments of Moses in the face of the unbelief of the Jews (Exodus 32:30-32), even while he is the apostle to the Gentiles. The Jews are his own countrymen and he agonizes over them in love, such that he'd be willing to suffer God's curse for them. Paul uses the words "to them ... the adoption" in verse 4 to confirm his earlier statement in Romans 3:1-2; here there were eightfold privileges juxtaposed to their magnified unbelief and rejection that (verse 5) Jesus Christ is God and man (John 1:14). As of verse 6, we see that the word of God delivers the promise and plan which will be the God of Abraham's seed (Genesis 17:7-8). In the Old Testament era, natural descent did not automatically guarantee inheritance of the promise. God chose who should inherit it. This argument and principle is evident in the families of Abraham and Isaac. Paul's case of Jacob and Esau clinches this argument in three ways, because ...
- ... they were twins, as nearly equal in nature as possible.
- ... the purpose of God reversed even the small distinction that did exist, by causing the older brother to serve the younger.
- ... the purpose of God was stated before they were born (and therefore was not dependent on their actions).
Election (verse 11) is not based on foreseen actions, deeds, or even faith. Rather, it is based on God's sovereign predestinating grace. In fact, (verse 13) this distinguishing purpose of God in election is further confirmed by the words of Malachi 1:3-4, which explain God's love to Israel as rooted in His free choice of Jacob rather than Esau. "Hated" here cannot be reduced to "loved less," as the context of Malachi 1:3-4 makes clear. It must carry the sense of rejection and antipathy (enmity).
In verse14, "what shall we say then" should be compared to Romans 8:31, "What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?" Paul recognizes that his previous statement cannot be allowed to pass without further comment. Could the distinguishing sovereign purpose of God throw into jeopardy His attribute of perfect righteousness? The idea is clearly unthinkable, "by no means" (Paul uses the same kind of language in Romans 6:2, 15; 7:7). Paul explains why "by no means" by citing two biblical texts (Exodus 33:19; 9:16) in verses 15, 17, from which he concludes that God is righteous in showing mercy to some while He hardens the hearts of others. When God shows mercy it is not a person receiving a reward earned by one's own efforts, but God's sovereign free grace extended to persons who are morally incapable of any acceptable effort (Romans 1:8-3:20). God owes mercy to none, so there is no injustice when mercy is not shown. Mercy is a divine prerogative (God's own); it rests on God's good pleasure. When God hardens Pharaoh's heart (verse 18), He does not create fresh evil in it, but gives Pharaoh over to his already evil desires as an act of judgment, resulting eventually in God's display of power (verse 22) in the destruction of Pharaoh's army (Exodus 4:21; 14:17-18; 23-28). It was God who thus spoke to Pharaoh through Moses (Exodus 9:16), but for Paul the words of Scripture and the voice and authority of God are one. As in verse 19, "Why does he still find fault?" What right can God lay the blame for their sins on those He has hardened against Himself? Paul answers partially in terms of human experience (verses 20-21). It is unreasonable and irreverent for anyone to question the rightness of God's ways. Potters have every right to do as they please with the clay (Isaiah 64:8). All belong to the same lump (compare verses 10-13) of fallen humanity in Adam (Romans 5:12-14); all actively sin even before God hardens them in sinning (Romans 1:18-28). That God should show mercy to any from the "Adamic" lump and create vessels of honor from it is the kindness of grace; that others should become vessels for lesser use is a matter of His sovereign prerogative and is itself a display of perfect justice towards them. So who resists His will? Everyone!Where we see (verse 23) "... which he has prepared beforehand," the "predestination" word is often used to signify God's foreordaining of all the events of world history (past, present, and future). The usage is quite appropriate. In Scripture and reformed theology, however, "predestination" refers specifically to God's decision, made in eternity before the world existed, regarding the final destination of individual persons. In general, the New Testament speaks of predestination, or election, of particular sinners for salvation and eternal life (see Romans 8:29; Ephesians 1:4-5, 11), although Scripture also on occasion ascribes to God an advance decision about those who are finally not saved (here in verses 6-29; 1 Peter 2:8; Jude 4). For this reason, it is usual in reformed theology to define predestination as including both God's decision to save some from sin (election) and the corresponding decision not to save others (reprobation).
In verses 23-29, Paul does not elaborate on the preparation in view. The addition of "beforehand" in connection with the vessels of mercy may be pointing to the mercy that originates in God's good pleasure from eternity (Romans 8:29-30), while the wrath in view is in direct response to existing ungodliness and unrighteousness (for further clarification on this idea, see Romans 1:18-32). The distinction between elect and reprobate does not lie in anything in themselves (all deserve wrath), but exclusively in the will of God. Within the context here, however, the objects prepared for destruction experience wrath that is the only possible and just reward for sin.
As in verse 30, "What shall we say, then ..." See verse 14 for the same language, yet again. Having accounted for Jewish unbelief in terms of divine sovereignty, Paul now diagnoses it as due to a fatal prior commitment to a false way of righteousness. Divine sovereignty and the guilt of human willfulness are for Paul two aspects of reality. By God's grace and sovereignty, Gentiles who did not seek God's righteousness have now received it through faith in Christ, but Israel as a people have failed to receive it because they sought it by basically a legal means in which it could not be found. Christ has been a stumbling stone for the Jews (this image is from Isaiah 8:14; 26:16) over which they have fallen (compare verses 32-33 to 1 Peter 2:8). Paul probably has the Mosaic law in view again (verse 31). The mistake that the Jews have made lies not in what they pursued, but in the manner of pursuing it ("not by faith, but ... works," verse 32). Romans 10 - "Israel's Unbelief, cont."
In verse 1, Israel's unbelief is developed by Paul more as a heartfelt appeal to the sympathy of his fellow Christians, the poignancy of which is underlined by his recent reference to his relatives of the flesh (also defined back in Romans 9:3), "that they may be saved." Paul's concern in chapter 9 was with the salvation of the Jews, not merely with their role in this overall redemptive history that follows. Paul speaks in verse 2 from personal experience, as to both the reality of the zeal and its wrong-headed and wrong-hearted character (same in Philippians 3:4-6). Paul contrasts the divinely established righteousness with a person's efforts to establish one's own, in verse 3. Also, the word "establish" is covenant language (like in Genesis 6:18; 17:7). We express our love for God through doing what pleases Him, and He in His kindness promises to reward us for what we do. As St. Augustine noted, God in rewarding us is graciously crowning His own gracious gifts. But even in the context of the covenant God had made with the Jews, they perverted His grace by seeing it as dependent on their own works of law-keeping.Yet, in verse 4, we see that Christ is the goal or purpose of law-keeping (Galatians 3:24). For believers, Christ makes the law obsolete because they no longer strive to establish their own righteousness by it. Romans 10 - "The Message of Salvation to All"Paul's quotation from Leviticus 18:5 is set originally in the context of God's redemptive grace requiring a person's responsive obedience (Leviticus 18:2, clarified further in Exodus 20:1-17); it is not a statement about self-established righteousness. Deuteronomy exhibits God's salvation as achieved not by humanity's strenuous efforts, but by divine grace bringing it near. In particular, Deuteronomy 30 sets this in context of an anticipated return from exile/judgment (specifically Deuteronomy 30:1-6). Paul sees this fulfilled in the new covenant by verse 6 in Christ (Jeremiah 31:31-34, clarified in 2 Corinthians 3:7-18). Thus Christ was the end (goal) of the Mosaic law. To seek a self-established righteousness now is equivalent of attempting to do what God alone could do and has done in Christ's incarnation and resurrection. By contrast with all human efforts, God has brought near the word of salvation, and with it salvation itself. In the parallelism of verse 10, Paul reverses the order of verbs in verse 9 and thereby indicates that heart-belief and mouth-confession belong together for justification ("righteousness") and salvation (verse 11). In verse 12, this lack of distinction is confirmed not only by the unity of universal kindness of God, but specifically again by teaching of the Old Testament in Joel 2:32, the statement so dramatically fulfilled at Pentecost (Acts 2:21). In verses 13-15, we have an analysis of what is involved when anyone calls on the name of the Lord in order to be saved. "Him in whom," is literally "Him whom," which is an indication that for Paul, Christ Himself is the one true preacher of the Gospel (this idea is clarified in Ephesians 2:17; John 10:16). The ministry of preaching Christ is therefore one of great honor, hence the quotation in from Isaiah 52:7 (as in 2 Corinthians 5:18-20). The immediate context of the citation in verse 18 from Psalm 19:4 is that of God's great general revelation (fuller context: Psalm 19:1-3). Paul's use of it here is used to prove from Scripture that Israel has heard the message of God, which implies that his quotation of this section of the psalm carries with it the teaching of the entire psalm. It speaks of both general revelation in nature and special revelation in His word. The latter takes place in the context of the former. The underlying logic: If those without special revelation have heard the message of God's glory in creation, how much more have those who received special revelation heard that message? So the failure of the Jews (verses 19-21) cannot be excused because they did not hear the message or because they could not understand it. Moses and Isaiah contrast God's own people with those who lack understanding (as in Deuteronomy 32:21) with those who were not God-seekers but who were brought to know Him (as in Isaiah 65:1). Romans 11 - "The Remnant of Israel"
Now, Paul pointedly asks whether God has rejected His people (verse 1). The verb "rejected" conveys the sense of vigorous pushing away from Himself. The form of the question in the Greek anticipates a negative answer. I.e., Paul has an impeccable lineage that can be traced back to Abraham as well as Benjamin. Paul himself is evidence that God has not fully and finally rejected the people whom He set His love. Just as a believing remnant could be found in Israel in Elijah's day, so there continues to be a remnant formed by God's grace. There is a hint in verse 2 that God's special love and gracious choice of the Jews makes it unthinkable that He should finally reject them as a people, even though they have now rejected Him by rejecting Christ. By grace the elect obtained the salvation they sought. The rest were hardened. In Elijah's time, there was wholesale apostasy, and yet the pretense of a remnant of the faithful (verse 5) indicated that God had not fully and finally rejected His people. Paul's thinking about the remnant is rooted in the teaching of Isaiah, whose son Shear-jashub's name means "a remnant shall return" (Isaiah 7:3, clarified by Romans 9:27; Isaiah 1:9; 6:13; 10:20-22; 11:11-16). But again, in verse 6, the way of grace is contrasted with works of the law (Romans 3:20, 27-28; 4:2, 6; 9:12, 32). There is a biblical pattern cited in verses 8-10 that describes the divine activity in judicial hardening of hearts (Deuteronomy 29:4; Isaiah 2910; Psalm 69:22-23). This is a pattern Paul repeats in his own day. Romans 11 - "Gentiles Grafted In"
The rejection of the Jewish people is neither total nor final. Just as the rejection of Christ in favor of the law among the Jews has led to the acceptance of the Gospel in spite of the law among the Gentiles, so God means to use the Gentiles to provoke the Jews to envy the Gentiles' blessings (verse 11), leading to their salvation by the same Gospel and correspondingly greater riches than would have resulted by the law. Again, Paul questions if "they stumble in order that they might fall" in anticipation of an answer in the negative. The Jews' rejection of Christ is not irreversible. Paul sees a pattern and purpose behind the unbelief of which the Jews are guilty. The pattern of his thought in verse 11 is as follows:
- ... the transgression of the Jews has lead to the justification of the Gentiles.
- ... the salvation of the Gentiles will cause the Jews to envy.
- ... the envy of the Jews will draw them to the same salvation as the Gentiles through the Gospel.
Of course, "full inclusion" in verse 12 can only signify their reception of Christ and their restoration to God. But the more difficult question is whether the term "full" points to a) a full restoration of the remnant or b) to the full restoration of the full number of the nation in any sense. I have to admit the second seems to fit better in the general direction of the later part of the passage (verses 25-32), but I am skeptical of this interpretation when people use it to support the "new wine" doctrine.
So why does Paul single out the Gentiles in the church at Rome at verse 13? Actually, this is made clear in verses 17-24. Paul also provides unique insight into his thinking about his own ministry to the Gentiles; it too has his own Jewish people in view, with regard to Romans 9:19; 11:11 (also see Acts 9:15; Ephesians 3:1; Galatians 2:8). The phrase "life from the dead" in verse 15 is probably indicating unprecedented blessing. Although some theorize the phrase refers to general resurrection of the last day, with an understanding (as in verse 12) that the conversion of the Jews is to be an event of the end times, an immediate herald of the final resurrection, I have my doubts because the theory here in verse 15 depends heavily on a wording that is slightly different from Paul's normal usage (i.e. "life from the dead" vs. "resurrection from the dead," see 1 Corinthians 15:12-13, 21, 42).
In verse 16, Paul applies the principle that the first-fruits spiritually serve a a pledge of the final harvest (as originally explained in Numbers 15:17-21). In keeping with the harvest theme, take a look at Jeremiah 11:16; Hosea 14:6. In verse 17, we see that Israel is an olive tree that has had wild shoots grafted into it. These wild shoots bring fresh vitality because Gentiles have been grafted into the people of God "contrary to nature" (verse 24). Because the Gentiles' salvation is entirely by grace, they have no cause for boasting or despising their fellow Jewish believers. Such Gentile arrogance (verse 18) in relation to Jews would just mirror the same old spiritual pride that led to the Jews' hardening (see Romans 2:17).
Romans 11 - "The Mystery of Israel's Salvation"Paul's reasoning in verses 25-32 has been understood in perhaps three major ways:
- ... showing how God saves all of His elect people (e.g. "all Israel" in verse 26 being taken as basically synonymous with the church, that is, spiritual Israel).
- ... showing how God saves all the elect of Israel who are predestined to be saved.
- ... showing how God will, in the future, bring such widespread salvation to the Jewish people that, in an obvious general sense, it can be said that "all Israel will be saved."
While not without difficulties, some form of the last view above seems most likely for the following reasons. First, hints of it seem to appear already in verses 11-12, 15-16, & 24. Second, verse 25 suggests that and end to the partial hardening of Israel is in view. Third, the Israel mentioned in verse 26 is not naturally interpreted as signifying a different entity from the Israel mentioned in verses 1-24 and verses 28-31, where national Israel (not spiritual Israel) is in view. Fourth, a mystery in verse 25 would seem inappropriate and exaggerated if Paul's teaching were simply that all elect Jews would be saved. Finally, the third view fits well with the quotations in verses 26-27 from Isaiah 59:20-21; 27:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34, which appear to speak of a comprehensive banishment of that sin that has been the cause of Israel's alienation from God.
Let me take a moment to point out one example I can demonstrate about promises being fulfilled literally vs. spiritually. Moses was promised a city, but he died in a tent. Isn't that right? God prophesied that he would be given a city, and instead, he died in a tent. In fact, all of the Old Testament prophets, judges, and "men of old" did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect. But we accept this at least partially spiritualized fulfillment. The mystery in verse 25 is a divine secret that has now been revealed. Some interpreters conclude that what immediately follows constitutes the mystery (the widespread conversion of the Jews). But others hold that the mystery is in the pattern of God's working in the Jew-Gentile interrelationship referred to in verse 11. The "fullness" term may be taken to have a specific numerical connotation. The term "has come in" is an expression used infrequently by Paul, but commonplace in the Gospels to describe the entrance into life or the Kingdom of God.The term "all Israel" is a critical expression at this point in Paul's argument and one who's meaning is much debated. It could mean "all (spiritual) Israel," that is, all elect persons both Jew and Gentile. Alternately, it may also mean "all" Israel in the sense of "all Jews destined to be saved throughout history." Or, as suggested earlier, it may point to a time of mass conversion among Jewish people. The exegesis of "all Israel" will depend heavily on the interpretation and weight of other factors in the passage. That the Deliverer will come from Zion in verse 26 is a reference to Psalm 14:7 (the place where God most personally and directly revealed his presence, from the Father); Isaiah 27:9 (their debt to divine justice for their idolatry will be paid on a national level after the destruction of their high places by atonement, from the Son); 59:20-21 (by and with the Word in our hearts from the Holy Spirit). And the gifts are irrevocable in verse 29. So Paul's argument concludes at verse 30 in a manner parallel to Romans 3:19-21, stressing that Jew and Gentile are united in two things: the disobedience of sin, and the offer to them of the mercy of God. The wisdom and sovereignty of God's grace are demonstrated in the way in which His purposes are fulfilled: the disobedience of the Jew leads to God's mercy reaching the Gentiles; the mercy of God to the Gentiles leads to the reception of mercy by the Jews. There is no difference. All (Jew and Gentile alike) have sinned (Romans 3:23), and God has mercy on both (Romans 1:16). Having drawn together the various threads of his argument, in verses 33-36, Paul now responds in lyrical fashion with a song of praise that reaches heights that correspond to the depth of concern he had sounded in Romans 9:2-3. God's dealings with Jew and Gentile display a cross-section of His majesty in which His sovereign will ("from him"), His sovereign activity ("through him"), and His sovereign glory ("to him") are richly displayed.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
The Prime Directive is Immoral
Remember The Prime Directive from Star Trek? It is Starfleet's General Order #1, the most prominent guiding principle of the United Federation of Planets. And it is totally and 100% morally bankrupt.
The Prime Directive is defined thusly:WHEREAS, the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred. WHEREAS, interference includes introducing superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the United Federation of Planets, in meeting duly assembled, accepts and supports the following findings: No Starfleet personnel may interfere with the normal and healthy development of alien life and culture. Starfleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship, unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation.
The Prime Directive violates morality since this moral behavior should be preferred (or proscribed) for all Starfleet personnel in all places at all times (i.e., universal). Starfleet is included as a protected culture since no exemption of any culture is listed.
For a proposition to be defined as moral, it must advocate a logically consistent set that violates The Prime Directive, such as “do not interfere.”Anyone who argues for The Prime Directive must do so using clear language, arguments, logic and evidence; all based on the principle that truth is better than falsehood.Clear language, argument, logic and evidence (and a universal preference for truth over falsehood) are all examples against The Prime Directive because the United Federation of Planets can only argue The Prime Directive by violating The Prime Directive. This assumes anyone who argues is acting on the premise that clear language is universally preferred to gibberish, logic to illogic, and truth to falsehood.Since The Prime Directive can be opposed by accepting the premise of The Prime Directive, it must stand as an invalid concept.Sunday, July 4, 2010
The Good Stuff
Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) is an American space-transportation startup company founded by PayPal co-founder Elon Musk. It is developing partially reusable launch vehicles - the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 - and the Dragon series of space capsules.
The reason this is impressive is that they did this in spite of all the resistance and interference of the government. But it also illustrates where private industry is technologically.Chinese Food Technically, I'm referring to American-Chinese Food, but this 15 minute video sums it all up: Is America Number One? Here's an ABC special from late 1999 featuring John Stossel. It's 40 minutes long and outlines exactly why I'm happy to be here. Coming To AmericaSo there you have it. That's the good stuff about America. I'm sure there's a lot more, but remember, I'm a curmudgeon.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Save PDF to iTunes (for iBooks)
- Create a folder called "PDF Services" in your Library folder (~/Library/PDF Services).
- Create an alias of iTunes (right-click on Applications/iTunes, click Make Alias).
- Drag the new alias (called iTunes alias) to PDF Services.
- Rename the alias to "Save PDF to iTunes".
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Your Token Government
Monday, May 3, 2010
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
Without the Gospel
What difference does the gospel make? What difference does it make in your life? These are good questions to ask, I think, and good answers to ponder. How does your belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ impact your life? In what way is your life, even your Christian life, distinctly different because of the gospel?
Here is a quote I found somewhere or another, that addresses these questions head-on. It comes from the pen of John Calvin.
Without the gospel everything is useless and vain; without the gospel we are not Christians; without the gospel all riches is poverty, all wisdom folly before God; strength is weakness, and all the justice of man is under the condemnation of God. But by the knowledge of the gospel we are made children of God, brothers of Jesus Christ, fellow townsmen with the saints, citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, heirs of God with Jesus Christ, by whom the poor are made rich, the weak strong, the fools wise, the sinner justified, the desolate comforted, the doubting sure, and slaves free. It is the power of God for the salvation of all those who believe.
It follows that every good thing we could think or desire is to be found in this same Jesus Christ alone. For, he was sold, to buy us back; captive, to deliver us; condemned, to absolve us; he was made a curse for our blessing, sin offering for our righteousness; marred that we may be made fair; he died for our life; so that by him fury is made gentle, wrath appeased, darkness turned into light, fear reassured, despisal despised, debt canceled, labor lightened, sadness made merry, misfortune made fortunate, difficulty easy, disorder ordered, division united, ignominy ennobled, rebellion subjected, intimidation intimidated, ambush uncovered, assaults assailed, force forced back, combat combated, war warred against, vengeance avenged, torment tormented, damnation damned, the abyss sunk into the abyss, hell transfixed, death dead, mortality made immortal. In short, mercy has swallowed up all misery, and goodness all misfortune.
For all these things which were to be the weapons of the devil in his battle against us, and the sting of death to pierce us, are turned for us into exercises which we can turn to our profit. If we are able to boast with the apostle, saying, O hell, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting? it is because by the Spirit of Christ promised to the elect, we live no longer, but Christ lives in us; and we are by the same Spirit seated among those who are in heaven, so that for us the world is no more, even while our conversation [life] is in it; but we are content in all things, whether country, place, condition, clothing, meat, and all such things. And we are comforted in tribulation, joyful in sorrow, glorying under vituperation [verbal abuse], abounding in poverty, warmed in our nakedness, patient amongst evils, living in death.
This is what we should in short seek in the whole of Scripture: truly to know Jesus Christ, and the infinite riches that are comprised in him and are offered to us by him from God the Father.
