tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-130120392024-03-28T20:28:57.910-07:00Luke 10:27Beth Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00080711997032932991noreply@blogger.comBlogger1502125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13012039.post-35561519000801665532024-03-21T22:58:00.000-07:002024-03-21T22:58:18.807-07:00Peter Harrison: 2019 Bampton Lectures <p> I need to watch these: </p><h1 class="style-scope ytd-watch-metadata"><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="yt-core-attributed-string yt-core-attributed-string--white-space-pre-wrap" role="text" style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="yt-core-attributed-string--link-inherit-color" style="color: #131313;">The Bampton lectures were founded by the will of John Bampton and have been taking place in the University of Oxford since 1780. These two day conferences are open to the public as well as members of the University. They are suitable for anyone with an interest in the relationship between science and religion.
The relationship between science and religion is often thought of in terms of competing factual claims or ways of knowing - evolution vs creation, reason vs faith. But arguments along these lines are rarely persuasive.
Peter Harrison, the Bampton Lecturer, will argue that this is because the dialogue is an expression of commitments to implicit historical narratives about science and religion. The most common is the conflict narrative, which proposes an enduring historical conflict between science and religion. Less commonly remarked upon is a naturalism narrative, according to which there is nothing in the universe but physical forces and entities.
The lectures will trace the historical emergence of these powerful narratives and the ways they have unhelpfully shaped contemporary arguments about divine action and purpose.
Peter Harrison is a former Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford. He is now an Australian Laureate Fellow and Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Queensland. He has written numerous books and articles on the historical and contemporary relations between science and religion. In 2011 he delivered the Gifford Lectures at the University of Edinburgh, now published as The Territories of Science and Religion (2015). His most recent book is Narratives of Secularization (2017).<br /><br /></span></span></span></h1><h1 class="style-scope ytd-watch-metadata">Bampton Lecture 1 Peter Harrison 2019 Supernatural Belief in a Secular Age<br /><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="yt-core-attributed-string yt-core-attributed-string--white-space-pre-wrap" role="text" style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="yt-core-attributed-string--link-inherit-color" style="color: #131313;">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paTZeJjH43Y<br /><br /></span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/paTZeJjH43Y" width="320" youtube-src-id="paTZeJjH43Y"></iframe><br /><br /><h1 class="style-scope ytd-watch-metadata">Bampton Lecture 2 Peter Harrison 2019 Science and the Disenchantment of Nature</h1></div>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbGrXo0sH4Q<br /><br /><br /></span></span></h1><h1 class="style-scope ytd-watch-metadata">Bampton Lecture 3 Peter Harrison 2019 Nature and the Idea of the Supernatural</h1><h1 class="style-scope ytd-watch-metadata"><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="yt-core-attributed-string yt-core-attributed-string--white-space-pre-wrap" role="text" style="font-weight: normal;">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G3eiEiH2NE<br /><br /><br /></span></span></h1><h1 class="style-scope ytd-watch-metadata">Bampton Lecture 4 Peter Harrison 2019 Religious Belief and the Myth of Scientific Naturalism<br /><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="yt-core-attributed-string yt-core-attributed-string--white-space-pre-wrap" role="text" style="font-weight: normal;">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6WB0hsGq8M<br /></span></span></h1>Beth Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00080711997032932991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13012039.post-67240951177414213902024-03-14T10:33:00.000-07:002024-03-14T10:33:49.709-07:00To Lead, or to Serve? <p> <span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u x1yc453h" dir="auto">When
I worked at the local evangelical/charismatic Bible college, the goal
was to "Develop Leaders." Today, I saw a van from Eugene's largest
evangelical Baptist church, and on the side was emblazoned, "Live, love
and lead like Jesus." I'm beginning to think that maybe the way to tell
evangelicals from mainliners is that that instead of leading, the
latter seek to serve. Like Jesus.<br /><br />A former student commented: </span><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" dir="auto" lang="en">"I've
been saying this for years. The evangelical churches are being run more
and more like businesses. They only want to create leaders, but if
everyone's leading, then no one's following, and honestly, at that point
no one's really leading either. Churches can't be a commodity, and
people don't exist to be the consumers."</span></p>Beth Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00080711997032932991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13012039.post-57718539399269056142024-03-06T07:39:00.000-08:002024-03-06T07:39:16.052-08:00FB conversation about citizenship, nations, nationality, and nationalism <p><b> FRIEND:</b> <span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" dir="auto" lang="en">I am so glad my citizenship is in heaven!<br /><br /><b>ME</b>: </span><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" dir="auto" lang="en">yes;
but we need to be careful not to be gnostics. God has created us as
material beings, and as such, we must incarnate Christ wherever we live.
For better or worse, we are in the world, even if we are not of it.<br /><br /><b>FRIEND: </b></span><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" dir="auto" lang="en">Amen.
I have never seen myself as only living for what is to come, but rather
to practice/ learn what the treasures are that I can accumulate for the
city I am a citizen from, by being Jesus‘ hands and feet.</span><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" dir="auto" lang="en"></span></p><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><br /><b>ME: </b><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" dir="auto" lang="en">
I agree with N.T Wright that when the Kingdom comes, it will be a
complete healing of the world that God created and called good; not a
completely different/discontinuous one to replace what He had first
created. Too many American dispensationalists believe
the latter, which allows them to hold that they can trash this world
because God will totally replace it with a brand new model.<br /><br /><br /><b>FRIEND</b>: </span><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" dir="auto" lang="en">Since
I have lived in 4 different countries I was always comforted by having
my citizenship in heaven, cause that is where I want my loyalty to lie.</span><br /><br /><b>ME:</b> <span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" dir="auto" lang="en">I
look on people like you and our grandson as having a jump on the rest
of us. You have experienced a wider variety of humanity, and have had
the opportunity to have your mind and heart grow as a result.</span><br /><br /><br />Scripture talks a lot about "the nations." For instance, </div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">cf. Ps. 22:27-28, , Ps. 86:9, Is. 2:2, Matt. 8:11, Rev. 15:3-4, and in particular, Rev. 21:26 and 22:2. </div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">In
the NT the word "nations" is from ἔθνος, (ethnos) from where we get
our word "ethnic." It means a group of people, joined by shared
language, customs, history, and culture. </div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">As
I understand it, "heaven"/the Kingdom will be the peaceful community
of all nations, somehow preserving their diversity but doing so within
the unity of the Spirit. </div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">I
think there are two ways of understanding "citizenship." One is
literal and particular, qualifying one to hold a specific passport. The
other is metaphorical and general: to be a member of a group of
people/ἔθνος. <br /><br /></div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">So
yes, absolutely: our loyalty as Christians is to Christ; but ISTM that
He will not erase our "nationality"-- that is, our corporate character.
That metaphorical sense of "citizenship" will remain. </div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">However,
I think "nationality" is different from "nationalism." "Nationalism"
recognizes only the literal sense of citizenship, and insists that any
other "nationality" besides one's own is inferior. The sin of
"nationalism" is to idolize nationality over Christ. He alone is the
King of Kings, and the Lord of all nations. </div></div><p></p>Beth Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00080711997032932991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13012039.post-21944180580001882052024-03-04T23:19:00.000-08:002024-03-04T23:19:30.865-08:00Catholics at least have a tradition of social thought; even if they ignore it<p> <span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u x1yc453h" dir="auto">As
Michael Gerson put it when describing Catholic social thought, “The
doctrinal whole requires a broad, consistent view of justice, which—when
it is faithfully applied—cuts across the categories and clichés of
American politics. Of course, American Catholics routinely ignore
Catholic social thought. But at least they have it. Evangelicals lack a
similar tradition of their own to disregard.”</span></p>Beth Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00080711997032932991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13012039.post-66613821626951116012024-02-23T14:38:00.000-08:002024-02-23T14:38:58.540-08:00I-270 and My Mom's Dementia <p> <span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">When I was 10-12 years old, part of our property was claimed by eminent domain to build I-270 in St. Louis. Instead of fireflies, there were headlights. The sound of sirens and gears shifting uphill replaced the murmur of the creek, and the wind in oak trees. And the first year the interstate opened, our plum tree produced twisted, misshapen fruit, and then refused to ever bear again. </span><br /><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Two decades later my mother developed dementia. </span><br /><a class="x1fey0fg xmper1u x1edh9d7" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/02/23/alzheimers-brain-air-pollution-study/"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/02/23/alzheimers-brain-air-pollution-study/<br /><br /></span></a></p><div class="teaser-content"><div class="wpds-c-PJLV article-body" data-qa="article-body"><p class="wpds-c-cYdRxM wpds-c-cYdRxM-iPJLV-css overrideStyles font-copy" data-el="text" data-testid="drop-cap-letter" dir="null"></p></div></div><blockquote><div class="teaser-content"><div class="wpds-c-PJLV article-body" data-qa="article-body"><p class="wpds-c-cYdRxM wpds-c-cYdRxM-iPJLV-css overrideStyles font-copy" data-el="text" data-testid="drop-cap-letter" dir="null">People
who inhale higher concentrations of tiny airborne particulates, like
from diesel exhaust or other traffic-related air pollutants, are more
likely to have signs of Alzheimer’s disease in their brains, according
to a new study, the latest in a growing <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/04/05/air-pollution-dementia-health-effects/?itid=lk_inline_manual_2" target="_blank">body of research</a> that shows a link between air pollution and cognitive decline.</p></div></div><div class="wpds-c-PJLV article-body" data-qa="article-body"><div class=" mb-md hide-for-print" data-qa="subscribe-promo"><div class="wpds-c-dbVHzF wpds-c-dbVHzF-hDkAcj-variant-default" data-orientation="horizontal" role="separator"></div></div></div><div class="wpds-c-PJLV article-body" data-qa="article-body"><p class="wpds-c-cYdRxM wpds-c-cYdRxM-iPJLV-css overrideStyles font-copy" data-el="text" data-testid="drop-cap-letter" dir="null">For the study, published this week in the journal <a href="https://www.neurology.org/doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000209162" target="_blank">Neurology</a>,
researchers examined the association between concentrations of ambient
air pollution and signs of Alzheimer’s disease in the human brain. They
found that people who were exposed to higher concentrations of fine
particulate matter air pollution, also known as PM2.5,<b> </b>at least a year before their death were more likely to have higher levels of <a href="https://www.alz.org/alzheimers-dementia/what-is-alzheimers/brain_tour_part_2" target="_blank">plaques</a> — abnormal clusters of protein fragments built up between nerve cells, which is a sign of Alzheimer’s in brain tissue.<b> </b>The
research also found a strong association between the pollution and
signs of the disease for people who were not already genetically
predisposed to Alzheimer’s.</p></div><div class="wpds-c-PJLV article-body" data-qa="article-body"><p class="wpds-c-cYdRxM wpds-c-cYdRxM-iPJLV-css overrideStyles font-copy" data-el="text" data-testid="drop-cap-letter" dir="null">“This
suggests that environmental factors like air pollution could be a
contributing factor to Alzheimer’s disease, especially in patients in
which the disease cannot be explained by genetics,” said Anke Huels, the
lead author of the study and an assistant professor at Emory
University’s School of Public Health. While the study does not prove
that air pollution causes Alzheimer’s disease, it found an association
between exposure to specific kinds of pollution and signs of the
disease.</p></div><div class="wpds-c-PJLV wpds-c-PJLV-bHCGeL-isStandardLayoutAd-true article-body" data-qa="article-body"></div><div class="wpds-c-PJLV wpds-c-PJLV-bHCGeL-isStandardLayoutAd-true article-body" data-qa="article-body"></div><div class="wpds-c-PJLV article-body" data-qa="article-body"><p class="wpds-c-cYdRxM wpds-c-cYdRxM-iPJLV-css overrideStyles font-copy" data-el="text" data-testid="drop-cap-letter" dir="null">Researchers
examined tissue from 224 donors in Atlanta’s metropolitan area who,
before their deaths, volunteered to donate their brains to research.</p></div><div class="wpds-c-PJLV article-body" data-qa="article-body"><p class="wpds-c-cYdRxM wpds-c-cYdRxM-iPJLV-css overrideStyles font-copy" data-el="text" data-testid="drop-cap-letter" dir="null">“Donors
who lived in areas with particularly high levels of traffic-related air
pollution showed more plaques related to Alzheimer’s disease at death
than donors who lived in areas with lower air pollution concentrations,”
Huels said.</p></div><div class="wpds-c-PJLV article-body" data-qa="article-body"><p class="wpds-c-cYdRxM wpds-c-cYdRxM-iPJLV-css overrideStyles font-copy" data-el="text" data-testid="drop-cap-letter" dir="null">What
that told researchers, she added, is that being exposed to high levels
of the pollution increases your risk for Alzheimer’s disease.</p></div><div class="wpds-c-PJLV article-body" data-qa="article-body"><p class="wpds-c-cYdRxM wpds-c-cYdRxM-iPJLV-css overrideStyles font-copy" data-el="text" data-testid="drop-cap-letter" dir="null">More
than half of the donors had what’s known as the APOE gene, the
strongest genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease. But for the
donors who were not already genetically predisposed, researchers found a
stronger association between traffic-related air pollution and signs of
Alzheimer’s disease.</p></div><div class="wpds-c-PJLV article-body" data-qa="article-body"><p class="wpds-c-cYdRxM wpds-c-cYdRxM-iPJLV-css overrideStyles font-copy" data-el="text" data-testid="drop-cap-letter" dir="null">It’s long been known that concentrations of PM2.5 can trigger short-term respiratory problems. That’s because the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/03/06/air-pollution-unhealthy-levels-exposure/?itid=lk_inline_manual_13" target="_blank">particulates are so small</a>
— measuring 2.5 microns and smaller in diameter — that they enter the
bloodstream after being inhaled. Breathing in smoke can also irritate
your sinuses, throat and eyes, according to the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/air/particulate_matter.html" target="_blank">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention</a>.
In more severe cases, exposure is linked to cardiovascular impacts —
including heart attacks and stroke — as well as lung cancer and damage
to cognitive functions.</p></div><div class="wpds-c-PJLV wpds-c-PJLV-bHCGeL-isStandardLayoutAd-true article-body" data-qa="article-body"></div><div class="wpds-c-PJLV wpds-c-PJLV-bHCGeL-isStandardLayoutAd-true article-body" data-qa="article-body"></div><div class="wpds-c-PJLV article-body" data-qa="article-body"><p class="wpds-c-cYdRxM wpds-c-cYdRxM-iPJLV-css overrideStyles font-copy" data-el="text" data-testid="drop-cap-letter" dir="null">Gaurab
Basu, the director of education and policy at Harvard’s center for
climate, health and the environment, said the study shines a spotlight
on ambient air pollution’s dangers to the brain.</p></div><div class="wpds-c-PJLV article-body" data-qa="article-body"><div class="PJLV PJLV-ilotWTr-css hide-for-print" data-testid="gift-share-inline" id="gift-share-inline"></div></div><div class="wpds-c-PJLV article-body" data-qa="article-body"><p class="wpds-c-cYdRxM wpds-c-cYdRxM-iPJLV-css overrideStyles font-copy" data-el="text" data-testid="drop-cap-letter" dir="null">“We
often think about air pollution in the lungs, but it’s critical that we
put the brain at the forefront of the conversation of the ways that air
pollution impacts our health,” Basu said.</p></div><div class="wpds-c-PJLV article-body" data-qa="article-body"><p class="wpds-c-cYdRxM wpds-c-cYdRxM-iPJLV-css overrideStyles font-copy" data-el="text" data-testid="drop-cap-letter" dir="null">While
this study primarily examined the brains of White, college-educated
men, Basu said poorer communities and communities of color are often
more exposed to particulate matter and traffic-related pollution —
because highways and roadways are intentionally built in their
communities.</p></div><div class="wpds-c-PJLV wpds-c-PJLV-bHCGeL-isStandardLayoutAd-true article-body" data-qa="article-body"></div><div class="wpds-c-PJLV article-body" data-qa="article-body"><p class="wpds-c-cYdRxM wpds-c-cYdRxM-iPJLV-css overrideStyles font-copy" data-el="text" data-testid="drop-cap-letter" dir="null">“This
pollution does not impact everyone the same,” Basu said. “Vehicular air
pollution is fundamentally an issue of health equity.”</p></div><div class="wpds-c-PJLV article-body" data-qa="article-body"><p class="wpds-c-cYdRxM wpds-c-cYdRxM-iPJLV-css overrideStyles font-copy" data-el="text" data-testid="drop-cap-letter" dir="null">More
research is needed to determine the exact connection between
traffic-related air pollution and the brain changes of Alzheimer’s
disease, said Heather Snyder, the Alzheimer’s Association vice president
of medical and scientific relations.</p></div><div class="wpds-c-PJLV wpds-c-PJLV-bHCGeL-isStandardLayoutAd-true article-body" data-qa="article-body"></div><div class="wpds-c-PJLV article-body" data-qa="article-body"><p class="wpds-c-cYdRxM wpds-c-cYdRxM-iPJLV-css overrideStyles font-copy" data-el="text" data-testid="drop-cap-letter" dir="null">“We
know that Alzheimer’s is a complex disease, and it is likely that there
are a variety of factors, in combination, that impact a person’s
lifetime risk,” Snyder told The Post in an email. “Avoiding exposure to
air pollution is a risk factor that some people can change, but others
can’t, or can’t so easily.”</p></div><div class="wpds-c-PJLV wpds-c-PJLV-bHCGeL-isStandardLayoutAd-true article-body" data-qa="article-body"></div><div class="wpds-c-PJLV article-body" data-qa="article-body"><p class="wpds-c-cYdRxM wpds-c-cYdRxM-iPJLV-css overrideStyles font-copy" data-el="text" data-testid="drop-cap-letter" dir="null">This study is also<b> </b>just the latest in the growing literature revealing<b> </b>associations between ambient air pollution and cognitive decline. Emerging <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?type=printable&id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228092#:~:text=Reduced%20cortical%20thickness%20was%20observed,the%20frontal%20and%20limbic%20regions." target="_blank">research</a>
has also found that exposure to traffic-related fine particulate matter
is correlated with reduced cortical thickness and thinner gray matter
in the brain, which may influence information processing, learning and
memory. Experts pointed to mounting evidence that links exposure to air
pollution with cognitive decline, mood disorders and diagnoses of
Alzheimer’s disease.</p></div><div class="wpds-c-PJLV article-body" data-qa="article-body"><p class="wpds-c-cYdRxM wpds-c-cYdRxM-iPJLV-css overrideStyles font-copy" data-el="text" data-testid="drop-cap-letter" dir="null">To
Huels, the best way to mitigate exposure is to make individual changes
such as limiting time outdoors when air pollution concentrations are
high and wearing a mask when appropriate. She said other changes such as
driving an electric vehicle or taking public transportation can
contribute to reducing air pollution.</p></div><div class="wpds-c-PJLV article-body" data-qa="article-body"><p class="wpds-c-cYdRxM wpds-c-cYdRxM-iPJLV-css overrideStyles font-copy" data-el="text" data-testid="drop-cap-letter" dir="null">“To
really reduce air pollution exposures, we need political decisions and
changes,” Huels said. “There really isn’t a safe or healthy level of air
pollution in general or traffic related air pollution.”</p></div></blockquote><div class="wpds-c-PJLV article-body" data-qa="article-body"><p class="wpds-c-cYdRxM wpds-c-cYdRxM-iPJLV-css overrideStyles font-copy" data-el="text" data-testid="drop-cap-letter" dir="null"></p></div><p><a class="x1fey0fg xmper1u x1edh9d7" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/02/23/alzheimers-brain-air-pollution-study/"><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></a></p>Beth Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00080711997032932991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13012039.post-18700841649558345122024-02-21T20:14:00.000-08:002024-02-21T20:14:52.751-08:00He Gets Us, but We Don't Get Him. <p> <span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><“Jesus is the really strong brand here,” said Steve French, president of The Servant Foundation.></span><br /><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">I disagree. Jesus is a Person, and persons are not brands. </span><br /><br /><a class="x1fey0fg xmper1u x1edh9d7" href="https://baptistnews.com/article/he-gets-us-part-1-the-men-and-money-behind-the-movement/"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">https://baptistnews.com/article/he-gets-us-part-1-the-men-and-money-behind-the-movement/</span></a></p>Beth Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00080711997032932991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13012039.post-15832445808710463102024-02-13T13:43:00.000-08:002024-02-13T13:43:45.907-08:00Cookies, Christ and Koran <p> https://www.facebook.com/notes/1675768542581053/<br /><br />This is a transcript of a conversation I had with a Valley Covenant Church youth group many years ago <span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x676frb x1lkfr7t x1lbecb7 xo1l8bm xzsf02u" dir="auto"><span><span>(Wednesday, February 11, 2009) </span></span></span><br style="white-space: pre-wrap;" /></p><div class="x78zum5 xdt5ytf x1iyjqo2 x1n2onr6"><div class="x1jx94hy x1lq5wgf xgqcy7u x30kzoy x9jhf4c xquyuld x78zum5 xamitd3 xdt5ytf xeuugli x1wmrhtn xh8yej3 x1iyjqo2 xs83m0k xw7yly9 xktsk01 x1yztbdb x1d52u69"><div class="x1q541hq x193iq5w xx4vt8u xktsk01 x13ihpsm x1d52u69 xamitd3"><div class="x1iyjqo2 x78zum5 xdt5ytf x1qjc9v5 xh8yej3 x13faqbe" style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x676frb x1lkfr7t x1lbecb7 xo1l8bm xzsf02u" dir="auto"><div class="_8emu"><span><p class="x1qodse3" dir="auto"><br /><span>Tonight at our High school youth group the conversation turned to the question of whether Jesus is the only way, or if other religions are also ways to God. I had made chocolate chip cookies, and three were left in the plastic container. They became the perfect teaching aids. What follows is a transcript of the evening (more or less.)
</span><br /><br /><b><span>ME:</span></b><span> Okay, well, as I see it, everybody has a front door and a back door into their souls. The front door is reserved for God to speak directly to you, through the testimony of His holy word or through direct encounter. (We read </span><a class="x1i10hfl xjbqb8w x1ejq31n xd10rxx x1sy0etr x17r0tee x972fbf xcfux6l x1qhh985 xm0m39n x9f619 x1ypdohk xt0psk2 xe8uvvx xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r xexx8yu x4uap5 x18d9i69 xkhd6sd x16tdsg8 x1hl2dhg xggy1nq x1a2a7pz xt0b8zv x1qq9wsj xo1l8bm" href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biblegateway.com%2Fpassage%2F%3Fsearch%3D2%2520Tim.%25203%253A16%253B%26version%3D31%253B%26fbclid%3DIwAR2SJvd1tkrq9mffgxMZ_6G_23BQmKTCfjd6mLtRxpMZ1sG_1EuKQiMVSNQ&h=AT2VhqTc7NYW6NB1VM0QsEvhc_WrWqfIp1uRl97Il5jOsXVw2flfXVhM27xwuww5xve7KzhOLI6ZOVjuG-FTVb8RRSTU7zTqbeOeoYALqOivyCzF0HZFz-ZQ8aHbfqCLdNy0JXHOzBeBDX3s1zylzklVFrdC3-l2" rel="nofollow noreferrer" role="link" tabindex="0" target="_blank"><span>2 Tim. 3:16,</span></a><span> </span><a class="x1i10hfl xjbqb8w x1ejq31n xd10rxx x1sy0etr x17r0tee x972fbf xcfux6l x1qhh985 xm0m39n x9f619 x1ypdohk xt0psk2 xe8uvvx xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r xexx8yu x4uap5 x18d9i69 xkhd6sd x16tdsg8 x1hl2dhg xggy1nq x1a2a7pz xt0b8zv x1qq9wsj xo1l8bm" href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biblegateway.com%2Fpassage%2F%3Fsearch%3D1%2520Peter%25201%253A16-21%253B%26version%3D31%253B%26fbclid%3DIwAR3R_w25SL3eDPVDRcud-6LsA6TDG3BjdMx40NVFPWh7MqH7oPivvNMClXw&h=AT2EBVD3ozkwk4Y3Tqs_V5H8FCzUVP376oYYT49SXn3E_MUw2qeuZb-1lPyKH79-BAuXffqQw1cz3nbopoBfDp-Od6HLfS-pj7YwnukoGfF_MP_Tey5xQAdT435kZ-ry372Y2MuQq_vI6CRQXk7CP50cuGTDdyac" rel="nofollow noreferrer" role="link" tabindex="0" target="_blank"><span>1 Peter 1:16-21.</span></a><span>) The back door is the way He comes into you, indirectly, through the creation. (We read </span><a class="x1i10hfl xjbqb8w x1ejq31n xd10rxx x1sy0etr x17r0tee x972fbf xcfux6l x1qhh985 xm0m39n x9f619 x1ypdohk xt0psk2 xe8uvvx xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r xexx8yu x4uap5 x18d9i69 xkhd6sd x16tdsg8 x1hl2dhg xggy1nq x1a2a7pz xt0b8zv x1qq9wsj xo1l8bm" href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biblegateway.com%2Fpassage%2F%3Fsearch%3DRom.%25201%253A20%253B%26version%3D31%253B%26fbclid%3DIwAR36kzhzmbOomNFqG9liGL5iESTr5HOfuKaIulEnwvF1EyPFAQXMUGaJJwk&h=AT2qAmDvk4R4TJrIV3moS1iMeUmfVQ_rphMzk6soya_8gbesObEFPuABBCtrMnLGYB9fqzLSbTF-DsOSWQxnL3gWhV7Ncib75_rUicTpEczDcXudJK2-9iYRX2ZbZJLpuUAeP359zbvb7Nc28sWGwFfNiEBa1_TA" rel="nofollow noreferrer" role="link" tabindex="0" target="_blank"><span>Romans 1:20</span></a><span>).
</span><br /><br /><span>Let's let the container represent you, and let the lid be your "front door." (Having already removed the two cookies, I take the lid off the top of the container.) Let's talk about front doors tonight, and save back doors for later. Now, one way of approaching the question is to consider the other religions' scriptures. Let's let the cookies represent God speaking to us.
</span><br /><br /><span>1. Now, we could say that </span><b><i><span>everything</span></i><span> is Cookie</span></b><span>. This is what Hinduism does. They believe that everything is god. Hindus don't think there is any distinction between the container and/or the cookies, or between them and us. I am cookie, you are cookie, we are all Cookie.
</span><br /><br /><span>(I imagine one kid proceding to bite another kid.) But see? That doesn't seem to fit our experience very well. It would be rather difficult to live out that belief. We'd have to constantly tell ourselves to ignore or deny what was happening to us. So let's shelve it.
</span><br /><br /><span>2. Another thing we could say is that </span><b><span>there are </span><i><span>no </span></i><span>cookies</span></b><span>. That would be like believing there isn't any God speaking to us. That's what naturalists say, people like Dawkins and Hitchens and others who claim that reality reduces to matter in motion.
</span><br /><br /><span>However there </span><i><span>are</span></i><span> cookies, aren't there. "Ahh," says the naturalist, "Maybe they are an illusion. A projection of your own consciousness, a wish fulfillment, an opiate to help ease the pain of life: whatever, they are something you dreamed up." </span></p><p class="x1qodse3" dir="auto"><span>Poppycock! I'm here to tell you </span><i><span>I was there when those cookies came out of the oven. I saw them and smelled them and I tasted some crumbs.</span></i><span> Do you trust my testimony? Am I a reliable witness? (More nodding heads. This would have been a great point for somebody to have read </span><a class="x1i10hfl xjbqb8w x1ejq31n xd10rxx x1sy0etr x17r0tee x972fbf xcfux6l x1qhh985 xm0m39n x9f619 x1ypdohk xt0psk2 xe8uvvx xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r xexx8yu x4uap5 x18d9i69 xkhd6sd x16tdsg8 x1hl2dhg xggy1nq x1a2a7pz xt0b8zv x1qq9wsj xo1l8bm" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom.%201%3A20%3B&version=31%3B&fbclid=IwAR1gs05v7esFNoysEAjqdSSwpx63KaESw3FIBLnJXo54rU2_9SqakrETLPw" rel="nofollow noreferrer" role="link" tabindex="0" target="_blank"><span>1 John 1: 1-4.</span></a><span>) It's very important who you trust, who you take to be your authorities. But that's a class in itself. What's the bottom line? There </span><i><span>are</span></i><span> cookies here!
</span><br /><br /><span>3. So, do we all agree that </span><b><span>there are indeed some cookies before us</span></b><span>? (Heads nod.) Well, now all we have to do is decide </span><i><span>how many</span></i><span> cookies we should put in the container. Let's let one cookie represent the Old Testament, and one the New Testament. People who say there is only one cookie are Jews. They don't believe the other cookies belong in the container. They believe only the OT is the word of God. (I put one cookie in the container.)
</span><br /><br /><span>Now, we are Christians. We believe that the NT is God's word, too. (I put the second cookie in the container.) But we don't think the third cookie belongs. Let the third cookie represent the Koran.
</span><br /><b><br /><span>KID A:</span></b><span> How do we know that the third cookie </span><i><span>doesn't</span></i><span> belong? Or for that matter, that the second cookie </span><i><span>does </span></i><span>belong? Maybe there should only be </span><i><span>one</span></i><span> cookie!
</span><br /><br /><b><span>ME:</span></b><span> Good for you! That's the crux of the problem, isn't it. What should we do?
</span><br /><br /><b><span>KID B:</span></b><span> Well, the OT has prophecies that the NT fulfills. If you can demonstrate that, you can accept the NT.
</span><br /><br /><b><span>ME:</span></b><span> Excellent! That's exactly the strategy that Peter uses in his Pentecost sermon. (We read Acts 2:14-36).
</span><br /><br /><span>(Kid C reads </span><a class="x1i10hfl xjbqb8w x1ejq31n xd10rxx x1sy0etr x17r0tee x972fbf xcfux6l x1qhh985 xm0m39n x9f619 x1ypdohk xt0psk2 xe8uvvx xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r xexx8yu x4uap5 x18d9i69 xkhd6sd x16tdsg8 x1hl2dhg xggy1nq x1a2a7pz xt0b8zv x1qq9wsj xo1l8bm" href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biblegateway.com%2Fpassage%2F%3Fsearch%3DActs%25202%253A17-21%253B%26version%3D31%253B%26fbclid%3DIwAR3ZlZSf3ccNifuKQ1GiCpugpxH2gkOLfhdeDxQFHTiy-59pMamvQ7SFpn8&h=AT1qKy5jaGGVJKN4xDeqksNKUeE7Qn8wx5nNQnCiLtPfTtuI7NQx0GwBmH7YpL95K02o2E0fg9NB5d7CrQdzmABb2M2j6MfZ7-rLWEF3FO8sKMmPBy8qE5d5nGOPo1tow_6m-RiGKhyiVpZad3KLw91v8iZKdq_zwbIKcOh12K15Xg" rel="nofollow noreferrer" role="link" tabindex="0" target="_blank"><span>Acts 2:17-21.</span></a><span>) See, this is straight from the OT, Peter directly quotes the prophet Joel. Now look what Peter says. (Kid D reads </span><a class="x1i10hfl xjbqb8w x1ejq31n xd10rxx x1sy0etr x17r0tee x972fbf xcfux6l x1qhh985 xm0m39n x9f619 x1ypdohk xt0psk2 xe8uvvx xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r xexx8yu x4uap5 x18d9i69 xkhd6sd x16tdsg8 x1hl2dhg xggy1nq x1a2a7pz xt0b8zv x1qq9wsj xo1l8bm" href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biblegateway.com%2Fpassage%2F%3Fsearch%3DActs%25202%253A22-24%253B%26version%3D31%253B%26fbclid%3DIwAR3XzqLKGNjeBMsD8Qv0bqoK0jq_MtE-mERpo2XkiGNyKOOthu4Ptr9_JLw&h=AT1ECD83c3BB_vUE8OZjjr3wwQ419269ik1zNF1d86WesO9im3sCu4e9TO0DO6EaRB2_ys8KnmbV0y2ShVfayETYmWoRTaKWx_XcVHrgjdZjHhJI8oYZCobH4aziF8vBsHx2qqgJ_ER2GVwTJ0OYRGnUeSgRe7GZ" rel="nofollow noreferrer" role="link" tabindex="0" target="_blank"><span>Acts 2:22-24</span></a><span>). Peter specifically reminds his listeners of all the miracles, wonders and signs Jesus did, and of his ultimate sign: resurrection.
</span><br /><br /><span>To further nail his point, he quotes </span><a class="x1i10hfl xjbqb8w x1ejq31n xd10rxx x1sy0etr x17r0tee x972fbf xcfux6l x1qhh985 xm0m39n x9f619 x1ypdohk xt0psk2 xe8uvvx xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r xexx8yu x4uap5 x18d9i69 xkhd6sd x16tdsg8 x1hl2dhg xggy1nq x1a2a7pz xt0b8zv x1qq9wsj xo1l8bm" href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biblegateway.com%2Fpassage%2F%3Fsearch%3DPsalm%252016%253A8-11%253B%26version%3D31%253B%26fbclid%3DIwAR1uokd04Jgbp_clHXJPnEcG9Qtq5pgINelfhvO9ge5OvC0Rv2Xo07BY6tA&h=AT0lBPxDxwL8KDt-fkhhaleCEL_WU9_RHHP-rIn-K3lc736hRR0YcQ20yeSLDmxaHtZqWGF-St_C37as-Pce-OLj2RHAZ4N2xsoRW-0KY4irUvBKgxL7sSosw07mTJ8l5zFGfPjBYtZnioGfAlgUTgkuE1ONZTZ7" rel="nofollow noreferrer" role="link" tabindex="0" target="_blank"><span>Psalm 16:8-11,</span></a><span> a psalm of King David himself. (Kid A reads </span><a class="x1i10hfl xjbqb8w x1ejq31n xd10rxx x1sy0etr x17r0tee x972fbf xcfux6l x1qhh985 xm0m39n x9f619 x1ypdohk xt0psk2 xe8uvvx xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r xexx8yu x4uap5 x18d9i69 xkhd6sd x16tdsg8 x1hl2dhg xggy1nq x1a2a7pz xt0b8zv x1qq9wsj xo1l8bm" href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biblegateway.com%2Fpassage%2F%3Fsearch%3DActs%25202%253A25-28%253B%26version%3D31%253B%26fbclid%3DIwAR3W7sVhqCo_o0USRTVTGCjokDrzYASDFVbZWtbKdkafekJGA3KWTkg3c94&h=AT0luAh_lISUF80k8Jg-WO8U65oaTlWCQkXEfUl9COnaWM6S-NJhXt7A1LBbGEzCX0hgAJpSw-WxG6eUUW725DDtfXl4eyLfw-WEIRcerR4biKWixUOXBQgDaEySnjt3TOwaYGR0Bxinw3ufuI-0g1JIPuWeIFRL" rel="nofollow noreferrer" role="link" tabindex="0" target="_blank"><span>Acts 2:25-28</span></a><span>.) Then he shows how even though the Jews thought it referred to David, it actually is fullfilled in Jesus: (Kid B reads </span><a class="x1i10hfl xjbqb8w x1ejq31n xd10rxx x1sy0etr x17r0tee x972fbf xcfux6l x1qhh985 xm0m39n x9f619 x1ypdohk xt0psk2 xe8uvvx xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r xexx8yu x4uap5 x18d9i69 xkhd6sd x16tdsg8 x1hl2dhg xggy1nq x1a2a7pz xt0b8zv x1qq9wsj xo1l8bm" href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biblegateway.com%2Fpassage%2F%3Fsearch%3DActs%25202%253A29-36%253B%26version%3D31%253B%26fbclid%3DIwAR3JV3c-4hDJmOQA_aP4_kpjfMuyyBTXo43hxomsXtfUdqTJVMXPbiT00yM&h=AT35zxISQQTk6d_DoHnqwOfg1njesarvTqa1KL9JXvVwOdwdbNrj8qf_NaPH1QUMYu5lF4s5dTy3oK1uppSOfcJLj9MfpEan9wHJn41QPOaQ1nPzpcu8GFsIglDLXVI5RVfTgIe-RVbI4WkrkOqRqyqX2-f5ZbQR" rel="nofollow noreferrer" role="link" tabindex="0" target="_blank"><span>Acts 2:29-36</span></a><span>.)
</span><br /><br /><span>Okay, so there are two cookies in the container. But how do we know there shouldn't be a third?
</span><br /><br /><b><span>ME:</span></b><span> A crucial question, which we must face if we are to have mature faith. The usual contender for third cookie is the Koran. What criteria do you think we should we use for admitting it into the container?
</span><br /><br /><b><span>KID C:</span></b><span> The same one as what got the second cookie in.
</span><br /><br /><b><span>ME:</span></b><span> Okay, and this is where we have some problems. If the OT promises a coming Messiah, and if the NT claims that Jesus is the Messiah, and that He has arrived claiming to be the Son of God and has proved it by dying and rising again, the </span><a class="x1i10hfl xjbqb8w x1ejq31n xd10rxx x1sy0etr x17r0tee x972fbf xcfux6l x1qhh985 xm0m39n x9f619 x1ypdohk xt0psk2 xe8uvvx xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r xexx8yu x4uap5 x18d9i69 xkhd6sd x16tdsg8 x1hl2dhg xggy1nq x1a2a7pz xt0b8zv x1qq9wsj xo1l8bm" href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FIslamic_view_of_Jesus%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3fFDmMHifNIooItc3WNMUbKM0NKJlP0pYrreshEeDab-R3kTxIeranG_Q&h=AT2NX7w8lvbu5xArqa3zvmN_4p3jWU57DiL7r7SS7s3eZK5EPuoKrB6RTZmNKjLfOyLv-2q7fBbhSdELN4Nrk_p1-G6mitsE-Q4ohd4Kf1Qg9S-k4H3mXjOcZVbC001yj568OcPv1Eo88OsNpvNku029YAXhD7EL" rel="nofollow noreferrer" role="link" tabindex="0" target="_blank"><span>Koran </span><i><span>contradicts</span></i><span> that message.</span></a><span> Muslims honor Jesus (Isa) as a </span><i><span>prophet</span></i><span>, but not as God incarnate. Furthermore, they do not believe that "he was crucified, dead, and buried, and that on the third day he was raised from the dead." Rather than fulfilling and completing the NT (as if there was anything more to be fulfilled!) the Muslim narrative requires denying its main character and plotline. It looks like it the third cookie fails the admission test. It may </span><i><span>look</span></i><span> a lot like a chocolate chip cookie, it may even contain a few chocolate chips, but in reality it is made of a different dough which isn't very good to eat. It shouldn't go in the container.
</span><br /><br /><b><span>KID D:</span></b><span> Then what if I were a Muslim, who never heard of Jesus? I'd have three cookies in my container from the day I was born. Would that mean I would go to hell?
</span><br /><br /><b><span>ME:</span></b><span> Another important question, and time is running out. Quickly, I'll just say that if it is true that only two cookies actually belong in our containers, then someone who has three cookies or just one cookie is </span><i><span>closer </span></i><span>to the truth than someone who has none, or someone who has a dozen, or someone who thinks everything is a cookie.
</span><br /><br /><span>Look at Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham and the other OT saints of </span><a class="x1i10hfl xjbqb8w x1ejq31n xd10rxx x1sy0etr x17r0tee x972fbf xcfux6l x1qhh985 xm0m39n x9f619 x1ypdohk xt0psk2 xe8uvvx xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r xexx8yu x4uap5 x18d9i69 xkhd6sd x16tdsg8 x1hl2dhg xggy1nq x1a2a7pz xt0b8zv x1qq9wsj xo1l8bm" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011%3B&version=31%3B&fbclid=IwAR2TRuw9Ul0qScZLzDVcIg7uw-wLv1ynoZYfCCsK5R_1TCTgfajj-45OKXc" rel="nofollow noreferrer" role="link" tabindex="0" target="_blank"><span>Hebrews 11.</span></a><span> They only had one cookie in each of their containers--Christ hadn't even been born!--yet they are listed in "the rollcall of the faithful." They aren't in hell. I side with C. S. Lewis on this. Remember Emeth in </span><i><span>The Last Battle</span></i><span>? Aslan accepts all Emeth's Tash-worship and considers it as directed to Him. But when Emeth thinks Aslan is Tash and Tash is Aslan, Aslan lets out a huge, angry roar. God is merciful, but He is also </span><a class="x1i10hfl xjbqb8w x1ejq31n xd10rxx x1sy0etr x17r0tee x972fbf xcfux6l x1qhh985 xm0m39n x9f619 x1ypdohk xt0psk2 xe8uvvx xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r xexx8yu x4uap5 x18d9i69 xkhd6sd x16tdsg8 x1hl2dhg xggy1nq x1a2a7pz xt0b8zv x1qq9wsj xo1l8bm" href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biblegateway.com%2Fpassage%2F%3Fsearch%3DEx.%252020%253A5%253B%26version%3D31%253B%26fbclid%3DIwAR1GDnopfUtx7Mkt7DnwQGV0iUTeePIJc9YkznQ0l-i7mv-ZRJ76qMIm19U&h=AT1MiOaZtUdZH2AUjYUQ1sJHcTUBVcUoYHJIW2ktN2dYzJwTbUTs-98L_HtiD0l4TmqPbusuwS_78lgDBTJr0V_yIo-LNBeWEnvj8FiV__QUBLAccxhx-7M_WbhSU5grxHMNe3uHhfiVgCACRcD9gdcxx2gUFC94" rel="nofollow noreferrer" role="link" tabindex="0" target="_blank"><span>"jealous." </span></a><br /><br /><br /></p></span><div class="xg87l8a"><div class="x1n2onr6 x1ja2u2z x9f619 x78zum5 xdt5ytf x2lah0s x193iq5w x13spgsm"><div class="x9f619 x1n2onr6 x1ja2u2z x78zum5 xdt5ytf x1iyjqo2 x2lwn1j xl56j7k"><div class="x9f619 x1n2onr6 x1ja2u2z x78zum5 xdt5ytf x2lah0s x193iq5w x6s0dn4"><br /></div></div></div></div></div></span></div></div></div></div></div>Beth Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00080711997032932991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13012039.post-20508141717587107322024-02-04T17:46:00.000-08:002024-02-04T17:46:59.004-08:00A Majority of White American Evangelicals are Christian Nationalists <p> <span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" dir="auto"><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u">What a bitter irony that a people who used to be known as ambassadors of the Good News should now be proud "Christian nationalists." <br /><br /></span></span></p><blockquote><White
evangelical Protestants are more supportive of Christian nationalism
than any other group surveyed. Nearly two-thirds of white evangelical
Protestants qualify as either Christian nationalism sympathizers (35%)
or adherents (29%).<br /><br />...Only about one-third of Americans (32%)
disagree that white supremacy is still a major problem in the U.S.
today, compared to 65% who agree. However, majorities of Christian
nationalism sympathizers (53%) and adherents (57%) disagree that white
supremacy remains a problem. Among Christian nationalism sympathizers
and adherents who are white, disagreement rises to nearly two thirds
(64% and 66%, respectively)...<br /><br />...Americans who are supportive of
Christian nationalism generally hold less favorable views of
immigrants. Among Americans overall, only 32% affirm the core tenet of
so-called “replacement theory,” the belief that immigrants are “invading
our country and replacing our cultural and ethnic background,” while
67%disagree. However, 57% of Christian nationalism sympathizers and 71%
of adherents agree with this assertion of replacement theory. Among
Christian nationalism sympathizers and adherents who are white, belief
in replacement theory rises to 66% and 81%, respectively....<br /><br />...About
three in ten Americans (29%) agree that we should prevent people from
some majority Muslim countries from entering the United States, while
two-thirds disagree (68%). Around half of Christian nationalism
sympathizers (49%) and two-thirds of adherents (67%) agree. Among
Christian nationalism sympathizers and adherents who are white,
agreement rises to 52% and 72%, respectively....<br /><br />...An element of
the more extreme versions of Christian nationalism is a willingness to
fight to make the United States. a Christian nation. Christian
nationalist symbols were proudly on display at the violent riot at the
U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. To examine the relationship between
attitudes about violence and views on Christian nationalism, we asked
respondents about their experiences with handling disagreement,
including whether they had ever resorted to violence. We also asked
about their views on political violence.<br /><br />...Only 16% of Americans
agree with the statement “Because things have gotten so far off track,
true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save
our country,” while the overwhelming majority of Americans (81%)
disagree.<br /><br />Christian nationalism adherents are nearly seven times
as likely as Christian nationalism rejecters to support political
violence. Four in ten Christian nationalism adherents (40%) agree with
this statement about patriots resorting to violence, compared to only
22% of sympathizers, 15% of skeptics, and 6% of rejecters. There are no
significant differences by race within the groups.<br /><br />...Nearly six
in ten QAnon believers are also either Christian nationalism
sympathizers (29%) or adherents (29%), compared to 31% who are Christian
nationalism skeptics and 10% who are rejecters....<br /><br />https://www.prri.org/research/a-christian-nation-understanding-the-threat-of-christian-nationalism-to-american-democracy-and-culture/<br /><br /><a href="https://www.prri.org/research/a-christian-nation-understanding-the-threat-of-christian-nationalism-to-american-democracy-and-culture/" target="_blank">https://www.prri.org/research/a-christian-nation-understanding-the-threat-of-christian-nationalism-to-american-democracy-and-culture/</a><br /></blockquote><p> </p><p></p>Beth Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00080711997032932991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13012039.post-34994363356100884742024-02-03T21:11:00.000-08:002024-02-03T21:11:22.778-08:00Adam Schiff's closing argument, Feb. 3, 2020<p> <span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">This was Adam Schiff's closing argument for T----'s impeachment, Feb. 3, 2020 As you know, the Senate refused to say ENOUGH, and refused to impeach T----. In my mind, they are thus responsible for the insurrection that took place a year later, on Jan. 6. 2021. The abuses of power that Schiff warned about became a dangerous reality. Within 36 hours of the event, five people had died: one was shot by Capitol Police, another died of a drug overdose, and three died of natural causes, including a police officer. Many people were injured, including 174 police officers. Four officers who responded to the attack died by suicide within seven months. And worst of all, America saw that truth, right and decency no longer matter for T---, his Brownshirt Republicans, and Americans beguiled by them. </span><br /><a class="x1fey0fg xmper1u x1edh9d7" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQEH62vbwoQ"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQEH62vbwoQ</span></a><br /><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><If abuse of power is not impeachable, even though it is clear the founders considered it the highest of all high crimes and misdemeanors, but if it were not impeachable, then a whole range of utterly unacceptable conduct in a president would now be beyond reach. </span><br /><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Trump could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in the next election; or decide to move to Mar-a-Lago permanently and let Jerod Kushner run the country, delegating to him the decision of whether to go to war. Because those things are not necessarily criminal, this argument would allow that he could not be impeached for such abuses of power. Of course this would be absurd. More than absurd, it would be dangerous.</span><br /><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">So, Mr. Dershowitz tried to embellish his legal creation and distinguish among those abuses of power, which would be impeachable from those which wouldn’t. Abuses of power that would help the President get reelected were permissible, and therefore unimpeachable, and only those for pecuniary gain were beyond the pale. Under this theory, as long as the President believed his reelection was in the public interest, he could do anything and no quid pro quo was too corrupt, no damage to our national security too great.</span><br /><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">...But what we do here, in this moment, will affect its course and its correction. Every single vote--even a single vote--by a single member, can change the course of history. it is said that a single man or woman of courage makes a majority. Is there one among you who will say, 'ENOUGH!'? </span><br /><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">America believes in a thing called truth. She does not believe we are entitled to our own alternative facts. She recoils at those who spread pernicious falsehoods. To her, truth matters. There is nothing more corrosive to a democracy than the idea that there is no truth.</span><br /><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">America also believes that there is a difference between right and wrong, and right matters here. But there is more. Truth matters. Right matters. But so does decency. Decency matters."><br /><br /><br /></span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SQEH62vbwoQ" width="320" youtube-src-id="SQEH62vbwoQ"></iframe></div><br /></blockquote><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><p></p>Beth Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00080711997032932991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13012039.post-9020539195755061632024-01-30T15:06:00.000-08:002024-01-30T15:07:00.991-08:00Rabbi Jonathan Sacks on the Great Partnership of Science and Religion<p> <span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u x1yc453h" dir="auto">"Science takes things apart to see how they work. Religion puts things together to see what they mean.”-- Rabbi Jonathan Sacks <br /><br />https://rabbisacks.org/videos/great-partnership/<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LltoUg_WL2k<br /><br /><br /></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LltoUg_WL2k" width="320" youtube-src-id="LltoUg_WL2k"></iframe></div><br /><p></p>Beth Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00080711997032932991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13012039.post-22744101320005597792024-01-30T14:20:00.000-08:002024-01-30T14:21:13.643-08:00Disenchantment, Mystery, and Certainty<p><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u x1yc453h" dir="auto">This
is the difference between premodern and modern philosophy: the
premoderns, following Aristotle, say philosophy begins with wonder; the
moderns, following Descartes, say philosophy begins with doubt. One is a
search for truth; the other is a search for certainty. A friend asked, "</span><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" dir="auto" lang="en">Would it be accurate to say one lives in an enchanted world while the other does not?" I think so. <br /></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">During a conference at München in 1917, Max Weber stated: “the fate of our time is characterized by rationalization and intellectualization and, above all, by the disenchantment of the world” (2004, p. 30). The original German expression for “The disenchantment of the World” is “die Entzauberung der Welt”, which could be translated as “the elimination of magic from the World” or “the de-magification of the world.”-- Andres Felipe Barrero, "Max Weber on Disenchantment: Is Religion Obsolete?"</span></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"> https://www.thecollector.com/max-weber-disenchantment-world-religion/</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">I wonder if it might not be better to translate it as "the elimination of mystery from the world." </span><br /><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Josef Pieper wrote, "Things are intelligible because they are created. Things are mysterious because they are created.". A quest for certainty that eliminates mystery ultimately eliminates intelligibility. No wonder we are left with a world where Will is paramount, and intellect (understood in its fullest sense, as ratio/discursive logic and intellectus/intuition) is increasingly eclipsed. </span><br /><br /><a href=" https://www.thecollector.com/max-weber-disenchantment-world-religion/" target="_blank"> https://www.thecollector.com/max-weber-disenchantment-world-religion/</a><br /></p>Beth Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00080711997032932991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13012039.post-44489668715498222602024-01-29T21:28:00.000-08:002024-01-29T21:28:19.002-08:00Why Republicans Have Caved <p> </p><div class="" dir="auto"><div class="x1iorvi4 x1pi30zi x1l90r2v x1swvt13" data-ad-comet-preview="message" data-ad-preview="message" id=":r294:"><div class="x78zum5 xdt5ytf xz62fqu x16ldp7u"><div class="xu06os2 x1ok221b"><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u x1yc453h" dir="auto"><div class="xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">1) This story was absolutely chilling and does not bode well for our future. Republican Brownshirts are now in place and are being employed on behalf of tR---.</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">2) It offers the best explanation of why Republicans have caved en masse to tR---. <br /><br /></div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><KELLY: This is uncharted waters. But just one more on this before we turn to the ground that you covered in the book - if Fani Willis is forced to recuse herself - and I want to stress again that's by no means a given. But if it were to <span><a tabindex="-1"></a></span>come to pass, how damaging would it be? Could the case against Trump and his co-defendants - could it go on?<br /><br /></div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">ISIKOFF: It would be grievously damaged. I mean, look. Fani Willis and Nathan Wade and the team have been immersed in this case and the details of this case for close to two years now. If a whole new team had to come in and start from scratch, not being familiar with the witness testimony to - and what the evidence is, it would set back this case many, many months, if not, you know, more than that and certainly beyond the November election.But one of the things we do report in the book is that Fani Willis had trouble finding anybody to take this job because of the threats that were so permeating in Georgia with anybody who touched it. She reached out to former governor of Georgia Roy Barnes, who turned her down, saying - and this is quoted in our book - hypothetically speaking, do you want to have a bodyguard follow you around for the rest of your life?</div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">In fact, the night of the indictment, the Fulton County District Attorney's office had picked up a possible assassination threat on a MAGA website. The best time to shoot her is when she's leaving the building. And that led to this extraordinary scene. After her midnight indictment, she goes back to her office. She gets out of her black business suit and pearls, puts on sweatpants and a T-shirt and a baseball cap. And a body double wearing a Kevlar vest - a bulletproof vest - puts on the business suit or something resembling the business suit that Fani Willis was wearing and then drives out as a decoy while Fani Willis is smuggled out of the office through a back door. I mean, it's an astonishing moment, but it gives you a sense of just how dangerous these threats were and how alarming they were to everybody involved.<br /><br /></div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">...KLAIDMAN: You know, we've always been asking ourselves, why haven't more people stood up to Donald Trump the way this iron wall in Georgia did? And the reality is that over and over again, members of his own party and others don't stand up to him. I think a big part of the reason is the threats. And we look at the consequences to the Brad Raffenspergers and other Republican officeholders in Georgia. But more than the elected officials, more than the principals, it's their families. They were all getting horrific threats as well. Brad Raffensperger's wife, Tricia Raffensperger, got the most unbelievably horrible, sexualized threats of violence. And you see this over and over again - not just the elected officials but their families. And I have heard kind of off the record from Republicans saying, you know, we're worried about our own families, and that's part of the reason that we don't speak up.<br /><br /></div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">KELLY: Daniel Klaidman and Michael Isikoff are the co-authors of "Find Me The Votes: A Hard-Charging Georgia Prosecutor, A Rogue President, And The Plot To Steal An American Election." Thanks to you both.><br /><br />https://www.wxxinews.org/npr-news/2024-01-29/new-book-finds-trumps-plot-to-overturn-2020-election-crazier-than-anybody-imagined<a href="https://www.wxxinews.org/npr-news/2024-01-29/new-book-finds-trumps-plot-to-overturn-2020-election-crazier-than-anybody-imagined" target="_blank"><br />https://www.wxxinews.org/npr-news/2024-01-29/new-book-finds-trumps-plot-to-overturn-2020-election-crazier-than-anybody-imagined</a><br /><br /></div></div></span></div></div></div></div>Beth Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00080711997032932991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13012039.post-52591369090850492372024-01-26T12:59:00.000-08:002024-01-26T13:00:21.199-08:00Trump as Messiah Video: Give us Cyrus, no Christ! <p> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object
classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><i>White American evangelicals are largely ignorant of both
secular and church history, so don't realize that the Persians were all about
autocracy, while the Greeks were about democracy. </i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>I wonder if they also don't have a lingering streak of
anti-Catholicism that prejudices them against the Greeks. Catholics have
traditionally balanced faith and reason, Athens
and Jerusalem,
but American evangelicalism has been sadly anti-intellectual. In my lifetime,
this has even led to mass biblical illiteracy and a shift from understanding
faith in terms of scripture to understanding it in terms of experience So it is
little wonder that American evangelicals are calling for a Cyrus to save them,
instead of Christ. </i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">__________________________</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><ROBERT JONES: I think [the "God Gave us Trump"
video is] in line with really a long set of appeals to kind of square the
circle of why white, evangelical Protestants have been one of the most stalwart
supporters of a candidate and president such as Donald Trump. We see this
presentation of Trump as a kind of messiah figure, but it's notable that it's
not really Jesus that we're getting the comparison to but, you know, the one
you hear in evangelical circles more often is a comparison to, like, the
Persian king Cyrus from the Book of Isaiah in the Hebrew Bible. And that's
important because there, Cyrus is presented as an ungodly king who nonetheless
frees a group of Jews who are held captive in Babylon. So by comparison, Trump here is the
powerful, strong, authoritarian liberator, someone who by definition and maybe
even by necessity is even above the law and who alone is capable of liberating
conservative, white Christians from their oppressors.> </p>
<a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1227070827/a-video-making-the-rounds-online-depicts-trump-as-a-messiah-like-figure" rel="nofollow">Morning Edition: God Gave Us Trump<br />https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1227070827/a-video-making-the-rounds-online-depicts-trump-as-a-messiah-like-figure<br /><br /></a><div class="storytitle">
<h1></h1></div><blockquote><div class="storytitle"><h1>A video making the rounds online depicts Trump as a Messiah-like figure</h1>
</div>
<div class="dateblock">
<time datetime="2024-01-26T05:16:54-05:00">
<span class="date">January 26, 2024</span><span class="time">5:16 AM ET</span>
</time>
</div><div class="storytext storylocation linkLocation" id="storytext">
<p>A new video, "God Made Trump," casts Donald Trump as a
Messiah-like figure. NPR's Steve Inkseep unpacks its meaning with Robert
Jones, founder of the Public Religion Research Institute.</p> <aside aria-label="advertisement" id="ad-backstage-wrap">
</aside>
</div>
<b class="icn-story-transcript-wrap">
<b class="icn-story-transcript"></b>
</b>
<p></p><p>A MARTÍNEZ, HOST: </p><p> A video making the rounds online depicts Donald Trump as a messiah-like figure.</p><p>(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)</p><p>UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: God looked down on his planned Paradise and said, I need a caretaker. So God gave us Trump.</p><p>MARTÍNEZ:
The video comes from the Dilley Meme Team, a group of video creators
that support Trump for president. It's called "God Made Trump" and it's
played at some Trump campaign events. So we wanted to dig into how its
message is playing with an important group of Trump supporters - white
evangelicals. Robert Jones is the president and founder of the Public
Religion Research Institute. He spoke with our colleague Steve Inskeep.</p><p><span style="color: #cc0000;">ROBERT
JONES: I think it's in line with really a long set of appeals to kind
of square the circle of why white, evangelical Protestants have been one
of the most stalwart supporters of a candidate and president such as
Donald Trump. We see this presentation of Trump as a kind of messiah
figure, but it's notable that it's not really Jesus that we're getting
the comparison to but, you know, the one you hear in evangelical circles
more often is a comparison to, like, the Persian king Cyrus from the
Book of Isaiah in the Hebrew Bible. And that's important because there,
Cyrus is presented as an ungodly king who nonetheless frees a group of
Jews who are held captive in Babylon. So by comparison, Trump here is
the powerful, strong, authoritarian liberator, someone who by definition
and maybe even by necessity is even above the law and who alone is
capable of liberating conservative, white Christians from their
oppressors.</span></p><p>STEVE INSKEEP, BYLINE: God's unholy tool. You know, a
couple of years ago, we had on the program Kristin Kobes Du Mez, who
wrote a book called "Jesus And John Wayne" about the evangelical
movement. She's from an evangelical background, and she describes
evangelicals who feel that they're fundamentally in an evil world, in a
bad world. And part of the logic here might be that you need a bad
person to protect you. And so if Trump is corrupt, if he's evil, if he's
cruel, if he's even indicted as he's since been, that's good, not bad,
to some people.</p><p>JONES: I think that's the most accurate
characterization. In fact, what the data, you know, shows, again, that
it really isn't about character. It's, you know, and this is remarkable -
right? - from a group that previously talked about itself as so-called
values voters. But with Trump at the top of the ticket, they really
wholesale abandon this idea of a candidate's character. In fact, we see
this in public opinion polling. In 2011, we asked a question at PRRI
about whether a political candidate could commit an immoral act in their
personal life and still behave ethically and fulfill their duties in
their public life. In 2011, only three in 10 white evangelicals thought
this was possible. Once Trump gets to the top of the ticket in 2016, we
asked this question again, and the number of white evangelicals who said
they thought that a candidate could commit an immoral act in their
personal life and still perform their duties in their public life jumped
from 30% to 72%, largely in response to Trump.</p><p>INSKEEP: Is this
just an act of partisan rationalization? People are going to be for
Republicans, no matter what, and they come up with this rationalization
after the fact once Trump becomes the nominee.</p><p>JONES: You know, I
do think a large part of it is partisanship, to be sure. It's worth
remembering that white evangelicals used to be stalwart Democrats. But
really, in reaction to the Civil Rights Movement, began moving into the
Republican Party and finally solidified under Reagan. But I think with
Trump, there's something much stronger than that. It's not just
partisanship. It really does hinge on this idea of Trump as the
protector of this worldview. We have majorities of white, evangelical
Protestants telling us that they believe that God intended America to be
a promised land for European Christians. Even when we put it that
starkly on a public opinion survey, we have majorities of evangelicals
affirming that view.</p><p>INSKEEP: If you were an opponent of Trump, if
you were Nikki Haley, who's still in the race, or if you were Joe
Biden, what, if anything, would you try to do to peel away even a small
slice of that evangelical support? Because a small slice could make a
difference.</p><p>JONES: It could make a difference. And particularly in
some Midwestern states - Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia,
North Carolina - these are places with significant numbers of white,
evangelical voters. It's really tough, I have to say. They've been so
consistently - and in fact, their support for Trump went up slightly
between 2016 and 2020. If anything, I think there is the appeal to, you
know, just a different vision of the country. So I think that's where
the Biden campaign and really Haley has to engage Trump. I think the
biggest mistake the Democratic Party could make here is trying to run a
campaign that's all about economic well-being, that ignores these deeper
cultural claims about who we are as a country and who this country is
for and what our future is going to look like together.</p><p>INSKEEP:
Robert Jones of the Public Religion Research Institute and author of the
new book, "The Hidden Roots Of White Supremacy." Thanks so much.</p><p>JONES: Thank you.</p><a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1227070827/a-video-making-the-rounds-online-depicts-trump-as-a-messiah-like-figure" rel="nofollow"></a></blockquote><a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1227070827/a-video-making-the-rounds-online-depicts-trump-as-a-messiah-like-figure" rel="nofollow"><br /><br /><br /></a>Beth Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00080711997032932991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13012039.post-59123252212604376662024-01-24T22:01:00.000-08:002024-01-24T22:01:50.018-08:00Hauerwas on the task of the church <p> <span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u x1yc453h" dir="auto"><“The
first task of the church is not to make the world more just but to make
the world the world.” (--Stanley Hauerwas) Put plainly, the church is
neither chaplain nor soul of the nation-state; it is the sacrament of
God’s redemption, bearing witness to the work of the God who made and
still loves the world, a witness that takes the form of a certain common
life.><br /><br />https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-ruins-of-christendom/<br /><br /></span></p>Beth Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00080711997032932991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13012039.post-47633648747132824742024-01-22T12:33:00.000-08:002024-01-22T12:33:13.716-08:00Margaret Atwood: On Democracy <p> <span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Margaret Atwood (author of "The Handmaid's Tale") "On Democracy":</span><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">(Here's the transcript of the 6 minute video; but the visuals are excellent.) </span><br /><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><Is democracy fragile and easily destroyed, or flexible and resilient? We may be about to find out. The planet heats, the clock ticks, and with each increase in temperature, world harvests shrink, famines loom, and fire and flood impact millions. When a government fails to deliver basic necessities the result is either the toppling of power or a brutal crackdown. So says history. Democracy, by Margaret Atwood.</span><br /><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Imagine a circle. At the top is totalitarianism. At the bottom is chaos. Dictators ruled totalitarianisms, and gangs, mobs, and the war of each against all thrive in chaos.</span><br /><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Through the middle of the circle is what we might call the temperate zone. It respects the concept that those ruled ought to have a say in their rulers, or no taxation without representation, that rulers should be accountable to rule of law, that the judiciary, those interpreting and implementing the laws, should not be controlled by a dictator, and that freedom of religion, freedom to debate, and freedom of peaceful assembly are sacrosanct.</span><br /><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">From the temperate zone, there's an arrow going up to totalitarianism on the political right and one on the political left. You can get there either way. Hitler was elected, to begin with. The USSR began with communitarian communism, but ended with the dictatorships of Stalin and his successors.</span><br /><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">There are also two arrows going down towards chaos on left and right. Upset the balance of the temperate zone, find yourself in a civil war. Witness a breakdown of the institutions that keep things running - the supply chain, the tax department, healthcare, the schools - and chaos will be the result.</span><br /><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">From chaos, there are two big arrows going all the way up to dictatorship, one on the right and one on the left, because when things get too chaotic, and no democratic institutions work any longer, people will accept the abolishment of their former rights just so they can live and eat. The conditions leading to the appointment of Julius Caesar as dictator in ancient Rome are instructive: too much civil war followed by more civil war once he was assassinated.</span><br /><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Which is why both the extreme right and the extreme left tried to create as much chaos as possible. It gives them a better shot at a dictatorship. They say things like, burn it all down, and only I can fix it. Each has an ingrained contempt for ordinary people - useful idiots, sheep, parasites, and so forth; a firm belief in their own divine right to rule - only they are pure, true, just, and good; and each proceeds to purge any enemies from the other side, as well as any lukewarm slackers or potential rivals from their own side.</span><br /><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">How close are we to the great, big arrows? Depends where you live. If in Canada, not very close. The zeal for dictatorship doesn't seem strong at the moment. In the United States, too close. The extremist right already has a plan to make Donald Trump dictator for life, and it includes widespread purges and the bringing of all branches of government under the direct control of the president. This is to be done in the name of an Orban-like faux Christian ideology, which bears as much relation to the core tenets of Christianity as gravel does to breakfast.</span><br /><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Those working to enact this plan will attempt to weaken or abolish as many democratic institutions as they can, so they can say, look, democracy doesn't work. It's broken. You'd almost think these folks want to destroy their own country.</span><br /><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">What is the antidote? Educate people about the hazards, strengthen essential democratic institutions, diminish the possibility for chaos by combating the effects of climate change and enabling a more widespread material prosperity.</span><br /><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Call the bluff. > </span><br /><br /><br /><a class="x1fey0fg xmper1u x1edh9d7" href="https://www.ft.com/video/bd19b92f-f0e5-4668-a9a8-33b3ed68ddde"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">https://www.ft.com/video/bd19b92f-f0e5-4668-a9a8-33b3ed68ddde</span></a></p>Beth Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00080711997032932991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13012039.post-83641559214747222842024-01-13T12:43:00.000-08:002024-01-13T12:43:50.848-08:00The HOly Spirit, Belief, Tradition and Experience <p> </p><div><div class="" dir="auto"><div class="x1iorvi4 x1pi30zi x1swvt13 xjkvuk6" data-ad-comet-preview="message" data-ad-preview="message" id=":r1a6:"><div class="x78zum5 xdt5ytf xz62fqu x16ldp7u"><div class="xu06os2 x1ok221b"><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u x1yc453h" dir="auto"><div class="xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">"I am convinced that the epistemic significance of the work of the Holy Spirit is mostly a matter of aligning our discernment and belief with those of the Christian tradition. This happens, typically, not by revealing separate beliefs to us, one at a time, but rather by illuminating the Christian community or tradition as the locus of God's activity in the world...The individual's experience with the Holy Spirit is only one very small part of the process by which the truths <span><a tabindex="-1"></a></span>of the Christian faith are revealed, even to that individual. His confidence in the truth of the relevant beliefs involves the implicit confidence that the Holy Spirit has been active, revealing important truths to the Christian community for a very long time. " --Caleb Miller, "Faith and Reason"<br /><br /><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" dir="auto" lang="en">"And
this is where Christianity diverges from the American approach to
faith. We Americans presuppose that the individual experience must
define all of significance. (And we know the source of that idea.) So
tradition is only valuable to the degree that it
reinforces someone's individualized experience of God. This is the
starting point for any conversation in the American church."--Brad Boydston<br /></span></div></div></span></div></div></div></div></div><span aria-label="See who reacted to this" class="x1ja2u2z" role="toolbar"><span class="x6s0dn4 x78zum5 x1e558r4" id=":r1a9:"><span class="x6zyg47 x1xm1mqw xpn8fn3 xtct9fg x13zp6kq x1mcfq15 xrosliz x1wb7cse x13fuv20 xu3j5b3 x1q0q8m5 x26u7qi xamhcws xol2nv xlxy82 x19p7ews xmix8c7 x139jcc6 x1n2onr6 x1xp8n7a xhtitgo"><span class="x12myldv x1udsgas xrc8dwe xxxhv2y x1rg5ohu xmix8c7 x1xp8n7a"><span class="x4k7w5x x1h91t0o x1h9r5lt x1jfb8zj xv2umb2 x1beo9mf xaigb6o x12ejxvf x3igimt xarpa2k xedcshv x1lytzrv x1t2pt76 x7ja8zs x1qrby5j"></span></span></span></span></span>Beth Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00080711997032932991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13012039.post-81634130297929591272024-01-10T20:20:00.000-08:002024-01-10T20:20:02.847-08:00Orwell and Huxley on what will ruin us<p> <span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u x1yc453h" dir="auto"></span></p><div class="xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a <span><a tabindex="-1"></a></span>captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy.<br /><br /></div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions."</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">"In 1984", Huxley added, "people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure."<br /><br /></div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us. <br />~Neil Postman</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">(Book: Amusing Ourselves to Death <span><a class="x1i10hfl xjbqb8w x6umtig x1b1mbwd xaqea5y xav7gou x9f619 x1ypdohk xt0psk2 xe8uvvx xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r xexx8yu x4uap5 x18d9i69 xkhd6sd x16tdsg8 x1hl2dhg xggy1nq x1a2a7pz xt0b8zv x1fey0fg" href="https://amzn.to/45aSmYt?fbclid=IwAR0rz2XWyCCfS7-3CEN5xt90Ox_lBihud3JSok73C1xgUvyZcfH1ZkWCXKA" rel="nofollow noreferrer" role="link" tabindex="0" target="_blank">https://amzn.to/45aSmYt</a></span>)<br /><br /><br /></div></div><p></p>Beth Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00080711997032932991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13012039.post-61672500211873729392024-01-05T22:06:00.000-08:002024-01-05T22:06:58.342-08:00How atheists and theists differ with regard to explanations<p><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" dir="auto" lang="en">A Facebook conversation on how atheists and theists differ with regard to explanations<br /><br /><b><u>Person A: </u></b><br />I
know of nothing in Christianity (or any other religion, though I know
much less about those) that offers any explanatory power at all. An
explanation offers predictive insight into a phenomenon. I do not see
how Christianity does that.<br /><br /><b><u>Person B: </u></b><br /></span><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" dir="auto" lang="en">where does evil come from, why, how does it get resolved, why are there
morals, where do they come from, what is the meaning of life, what is
the ultimate origin of the universe, what is future, is there justice
and so on - how on earth do you not think Xianity has explanatory power?
Whether you think those answers and explanations are wrong - they exist
ons level atheism can't touch<br /><br /><b><u>Person A (responding to Person B)</u></b> <br /></span><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" dir="auto" lang="en"></span></p><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">1. Where does evil come from and how is it resolved?</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">Evil
comes from others taking actions and/or producing consequences that we
find unconscionable. “Natural evil” comes from events happening that we
would find unconscionable if they were consciously enacted. We resolve
them by finding ways to mitigate or prevent their occurrence (laws,
medicine, earthquake fortification, etc.).<br /><br /></div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">2. Why are there morals and where do they come from?</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">We
are entities with personal preferences and brains capable of predictive
modeling and empathy for others. Virtually all humans desire to be
alive, safe, happy and healthy, and we care about others enough to
desire the same for them. We evaluate actions and attitudes that promote
these goals as good and those that hinder them as bad. Since we share
such desires, yet occasionally act in ways that deliberately or
inadvertently run counter to them, we have societies that together
(through familial, tribal or national structures) enforce certain ideas
about behaviors through encouragement or discouragement.<br /><br /></div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">3. What is the meaning of life?</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">This
question makes no sense to me. Meaning comes from an evaluating mind
and is specific to that mind. We find meaning in the things we do and
have and the people we interact with that cause us to build up memories
and association over time. “*The* meaning of life” implies some singular
overarching narrative that applies to everyone, something which is
neither apparent nor (to me) desirable.<br /><br /></div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">4. What is the ultimate origin of the universe?</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">Our
universe of spacetime and energy (as you know) began expanding around
13.8 billion years ago. It's not known and likely not knowable if there
was a prior state or if “prior” is even a meaningful term in that
context.<br /><br /></div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">5. What is the future?</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">Much
like the past and the present. Our ability to predict specifics is
directly proportional to the amount of knowledge available.<br /><br /></div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">6. Is there justice?</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">Yes, insofar as humans impose consequences for unconscionable actions.</div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">None
of these involve a deity or religion, nor do I see how most of them
could. If you like, I can go into how religion would simply have no
practical relevance to any of them.<br /><br /></div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">Christianity
doesn't explain any of these things. It (and many other religions)
makes assertions about them, but either those assertions offer no
predictive insight into the phenomena or they predict them incorrectly.
Just as the “answers in Genesis” are merely answers without substance,
so more generally is religion. To the extent an idea is original or
exclusive to a religion, it fails to explain anything.</div></div><br /><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" dir="auto" lang="en">Me: <br />Person A wrote, <br /></span><p></p><div class="xdl72j9 x1iyjqo2 xs83m0k xeuugli xh8yej3"><div class="xmjcpbm x1tlxs6b x1g8br2z x1gn5b1j x230xth x9f619 xzsf02u x1rg5ohu xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x193iq5w x1mzt3pk x1n2onr6 xeaf4i8 x13faqbe"><div class="x1y1aw1k xn6708d xwib8y2 x1ye3gou"><span class="xt0psk2"><a aria-hidden="false" class="x1i10hfl xjbqb8w x6umtig x1b1mbwd xaqea5y xav7gou x9f619 x1ypdohk xt0psk2 xe8uvvx xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r xexx8yu x4uap5 x18d9i69 xkhd6sd x16tdsg8 x1hl2dhg xggy1nq x1a2a7pz x1heor9g xt0b8zv" href="https://www.facebook.com/iainkobak?comment_id=Y29tbWVudDoxNDA4MDM3NzM5Nzg4NjEyXzMzNzUzOTk0OTA0MTAwNA%3D%3D&__cft__[0]=AZUIcp-XZCiZo9x7FFgX0RvPEgxOYsEJXudfdVgCvYbWfj_1jE1e24P5GZZOyK7B9XG2xFufRUfBZSkyvPDwAlY6pu07NJkwZXD77tRAoEjk9WdRBBFx3X_rbj7uhZi_6KLMLe3M2i7UpU8cmFbxUl60&__tn__=R]-R" role="link" tabindex="0"><span class="x3nfvp2"><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x x4zkp8e x676frb x1nxh6w3 x1sibtaa x1s688f xzsf02u" dir="auto"></span></span></a></span><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" dir="auto" lang="en"><div class="xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><Christianity doesn't explain any of these things. It (and many other religions) makes assertions about them,> </span></div></div></span></div></div></div><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">One's basic beliefs about what is real determine what one will accept as reasons and causes. Thus, premodern explanations which included metaphysical causes were eclipsed by modern notions of explanation, which eschewed them. As Devid Hume, the consummate empiricist and modernist, wrote: “[A]ll causes are of the same kind, and that in particular there is no foundation for that distinction, which we sometimes make betwixt efficient causes, and formal, and material … and final causes” (Treatise of Human Nature, I.iii.14). The one type of cause that remains in Hume--constant conjunction--serves to explain the production of the effect; it is most similar to Aristotle’s efficient cause.</span><br /><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Atheists, insofar as they are naturalists, have a reductionist view of explanation. Matter is all that is real, so efficient causality is all that is necessary for explanations; indeed, it all that is possible for them. </span><br /><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Christians, on the other hand, do not limit reality simply to material beings which are able to be quantified, measured, predicted and controlled. Thus efficient causality may be necessary, but not sufficient for explaining natural phenomena, while supernatural beings and events require even a more robust kind of explanation, which modernists cannot countenance. <br /><br /></span><span class="ILfuVd" lang="en"><span class="hgKElc"><span><span>“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy” (<b><span role="tooltip" tabindex="0"><span class="c5aZPb" data-enable-toggle-animation="true" data-extra-container-classes="ZLo7Eb" data-hover-hide-delay="1000" data-hover-open-delay="500" data-send-open-event="true" data-theme="0" data-ved="2ahUKEwiQm5eIiciDAxVKFjQIHQr3A5gQmpgGegQIJhAD" data-width="250" role="button" tabindex="0"><span class="JPfdse" data-bubble-link="" data-segment-text="Hamlet">Hamlet</span></span></span>, 1.5.</b> <b>165–66</b>).</span></span></span></span></p>Beth Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00080711997032932991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13012039.post-49689657941481476862024-01-05T14:59:00.000-08:002024-01-05T14:59:55.776-08:00Irrational faith and unreasonable unbelief<p> </p><div><div class="" dir="auto"><div class="x1iorvi4 x1pi30zi x1swvt13 xjkvuk6" data-ad-comet-preview="message" data-ad-preview="message" id=":r408:"><div class="x78zum5 xdt5ytf xz62fqu x16ldp7u"><div class="xu06os2 x1ok221b"><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u x1yc453h" dir="auto"><div class="xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">"Let's set the record straight. Faith is not the opposite of reason. The opposite of faith is unbelief. And reason is not the opposite of faith. The opposite of reason is irrationality. Do some Christians have irrational faith? Sure. Do some skeptics have unreasonable unbelief? You bet. It works both ways."</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">—Greg Koukl (from, "Is God Just a Human Invention?")</div></div></span></div></div></div></div></div>Beth Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00080711997032932991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13012039.post-15759618036944068572024-01-04T21:12:00.000-08:002024-01-04T21:12:57.743-08:00"Reason" and "Heart" <p> <span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u x1yc453h" dir="auto">Premoderns
viewed "reason" as having two parts: "ratio" (discursive
reason/step-by-step, objective logic) and "intellectus"
(intuition/immediate, subjective knowing). "Heart" was seen as the locus
of will/choice. The problem is that we now live in a reductionist
modern/postmodern world, where as Peter Kreeft argues, "Reason" has
been reduced simply to discursive </span><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u x1yc453h" dir="auto">logic; and similarly, "heart" has been reduced simply to feeling/emotion.</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgme_HsDu0Neo3_FEhvojpzZTm2zJrALiKJ_kSHGpz0jg3W0cl55d8CvxHGmfmuOWqgmaqjOSb2l2gKCN_J4sugfnXWMmOW5w3tzmsNDb9u0zA1ycFSsd6iyOx9TIUGi-t7Pm8Qngjy86FNTU8t3FoDE1CaiSaz_n2-4yLC8IEro40ctbD1IAxA/s960/I%20know%20in%20my%20heart.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="617" data-original-width="960" height="206" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgme_HsDu0Neo3_FEhvojpzZTm2zJrALiKJ_kSHGpz0jg3W0cl55d8CvxHGmfmuOWqgmaqjOSb2l2gKCN_J4sugfnXWMmOW5w3tzmsNDb9u0zA1ycFSsd6iyOx9TIUGi-t7Pm8Qngjy86FNTU8t3FoDE1CaiSaz_n2-4yLC8IEro40ctbD1IAxA/s320/I%20know%20in%20my%20heart.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p></p>Beth Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00080711997032932991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13012039.post-34787711802016956322024-01-04T10:12:00.000-08:002024-01-04T10:12:40.338-08:00Wills Bernard's Nominalist Note <p>An excellent essay, especially noting the impact of nominalism on how the Reformation changed our view God. <br /><br /></p><h3 class="post-title entry-title"></h3><blockquote><h3 class="post-title entry-title">
A Nominalist Note
</h3>
<div class="post-share-buttons post-share-buttons-top">
<div class="byline post-share-buttons goog-inline-block">
<div aria-owns="sharing-popup-Blog1-byline-1264929293651371906" class="sharing" data-title="A Nominalist Note">
</div></div></div><div class="post-share-buttons post-share-buttons-top"><div class="byline post-share-buttons goog-inline-block"><div aria-owns="sharing-popup-Blog1-byline-1264929293651371906" class="sharing" data-title="A Nominalist Note"><div class="share-buttons-container">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-header">
<div class="post-header-line-1">
<span class="byline post-timestamp">
<a class="timestamp-link" href="https://willsbernard435.blogspot.com/2022/05/a-nominalist-note.html?m=1" rel="bookmark" title="permanent link">
<time class="published" datetime="2022-05-11T09:00:00-07:00" title="2022-05-11T09:00:00-07:00">
May 11, 2022
<br /></time></a></span><a class="timestamp-link" href="https://willsbernard435.blogspot.com/2022/05/a-nominalist-note.html?m=1" rel="bookmark" title="permanent link"><time class="published" datetime="2022-05-11T09:00:00-07:00" title="2022-05-11T09:00:00-07:00"> https://willsbernard435.blogspot.com/2022/05/a-nominalist-note.html?m=1</time></a></div>
</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In philosophy we have a series of idealized positions
and arguments about which we argue like nominalism, realism, idealism,
materialism and so on. This is both good and bad. It is bad because the use of
such categories often distorts the complexity of individual thinkers. Historical
positions aren't pure examples of idealized conceptual stances. A rationalist
may have empirical elements in his thought and vice versa. One person’s realism
or nominalism may be more radical than another’s and a philosopher, who after
all is not an all knowing machine, may build doubts and hesitations into his
position. He may even have unresolved contradictions. He may even have
contradictions he does not WANT to resolve as (after all) what is a
contradiction but an unfinished thought? That said it is sometimes necessary to
paint in broader strokes as all analysis can’t be carried out at the individual
level. This is as much as to say that in history there are broad movements
that cohere over time and maintain a certain shape however much the individual
instances may vary or mix promiscuously with other currents. This is a tangle that
can be frustrating to unwind but such, alas, is history which does not have the
rigor and clarity of discursive thought. Something I have mentioned a few times
on this blog is nominalism. Nominalism in my mind is something as dangerous as
it is essential. By essential I mean it is part of the development of the
concept of freedom in Western Europe. Nominalism is not a ‘mistake’ in the
historical sense (I don’t really believe in mistakes in that sense). At the
same time a fixation on the nominalist viewpoint produces positions that strike
me as ambivalent at best or wrong at worst. This, alas, is both the greatness
and the danger of an idea. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Nominalism is a position about universals and a position
about will. This may be by logical entailment or by historical association it
does not matter at this point. According to the nominalist (in the conceptual
sense) there are no forms or universals only particular things and events.
Divine intellect is not concrete in nature as the ideas. Therefore reason does
not reveal or measure God even by the basic notions of the true and the good.
Therefore, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ad nos</i>, God is pure power.
The more accustomed people are to this notion, of course, the more they drop
the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ad nos </i>qualification so that God
simply becomes power: sheer, immediate unmitigated will. This has a number of
outcomes across a broad range of cultural phenomena. One of these is the
Protestant Reformation. Though Luther and Calvin may or may not have been ‘pure’
nominalists in the conceptual sense (history does not care about that) they are
none the less part of an intellectual world shaped by it. From this we get not
so much a series of positions but a set of dangers: stances that could harden
into over determinate positions. Here are the ‘strong versions’ of these
positions though there may be any number of ‘weak’ versions. This 'nominalist world' does not assume the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">analogia entis</i>
between God and creatures. Divine intellect is not the prism through which nature
is seen nor is nature, in any sense, seen through the divine ideas or forms.
The relation of the soul to God is then direct as in the reformed doctrine of
justification. This relation is one of direct dependence to which the human qua
human does not contribute. There is no ‘human nature’ to develop or perfect through
grace but the immediate fact of election or damnation. Also, scripture is now
directly positive revelation that is not mediated by philosophical tradition or
anagogical ascent. The Bible is now, if you like, a worldly object to whose authority
the Christian submits in a direct way exclusive of tradition or human mediation
(Luther, to his eternal credit, actually insists that the word of God is not
the positive text of scripture but the Divine word itself!). Morality, too, is
no longer grounded in the natural law or reason but is a matter of divine
commands positively revealed in scripture. From this we get what I think IS an
atrocity; divine command ethics! In contradiction to what is given in Plato we
are now told, not that the gods will what is good because it is good but that what
is good is good because the Gods will it. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Calvin sometimes takes this view though he
shrinks from it elsewhere.<a name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri","sans-serif"" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span></span></span></a>
It became prominent enough subsequent to Calvin that people like Hooker and
Cudworth (and indeed Leibniz) had to issue pointed critiques of it. At any rate
so successful was this shift that you will scarcely find an ‘atheist’ today who
does not assume that Christian ethics is divine command ethics which, of
course, he has ‘destroyed’! Still, we have in the reformation people moving
towards positions of this type as we have people, like Melancthon, who move away
from them. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The second aspect of this nominalist mood, if I may call
it that, manifests in scientific and philosophical culture both of which, in
early modern times, were intimately connected to theology. If, now, the divine
thought is not immanent in nature as the ideas, then final causes are not
explanatory principles. Both Descartes and Malebranche explicitly tell us this.
Final causes are in the hidden wisdom of God and not mediated rationally.
Naturally, as these cease to be relevant to concrete investigation, they become
increasingly ignored. We move, again, from final causes being hidden to us to
there simply being no final causes. The object of finite knowledge is empirical
regularities ordered mathematically under the conception not of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">telos</i> but of law. This allows a shift
toward quantitative precision and away from qualitative sensation as in the old
classification of the elements as cold, hot, wet and dry. This produces the
world as mathesis, which, Heidegger informs us, involves both number and
recollection. The modern subject pulls out of its own recollection the mathematical
form of nature now liberated from divine reason and ready to hand as a simple
empirical object, a set of atomic facts, subject to prediction and control. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">This
simple potted history, which let me add, does no justice
to the complexity of any historical figure (is Descartes a nominalist?
Is
Malebranche?), gives us a rough idea of the major fault line in European
culture
on the relation of will and thinking to natural and divine order. One
side of
this fault line is clearly revealed in Hobbes. Hobbes believes general
terms
are simply names. He therefore believes that being equals body and that
body
consists of corpuscules arranged by the direct legislation of a
corporeal
God. This translates into politics as royal absolutism for the Leviathan
is not
subject to any law but that of his own will. Both God and the sovereign
are law
givers in the sense that all effects in nature and all positive
injunctions of divine law (whether natural or scriptural) are simply
positive injunctions of will (which, in protestant fashion, focus
heavily on notions of covenant!). This produces the world as
determinate fact rather than intelligible form. It also produces
scripture as
positive and purely propositional. Now, my bias, alas, falls on the
other side
of this fault line. STILL, and I can’t emphasize this enough, this short
piece
is NOT a polemic. The relationship of reason and will, of logos and
spirit was
vexing then and is vexing now. It is vexing to me personally. What is
more, the
difficulty of the question is amplified when we acknowledge the
‘nominalist’
moments in ancient Platonism (where the one is in fact pure productive
power though
what it produces first is pure mind) and the realist hesitations in
figures
like Calvin. Plus, who has fully sorted out the tangle of reason and
will, justice and power that is Augustine? Augustine does all in his
power to subordinate will to reason and justice yet still ends up with
double predestination and the damnation of infants! History constitutes
this boundary but also, as history does, consistently
blurs and even erases it. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 4;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;"> </p>
<br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<a name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri","sans-serif"" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span></span></span></a> As
more than one person has insisted to me that, after all, there is not a trace
of nominalism in Calvin who is either just ‘mere Christianity’ or ‘simply an
Augustinian’ here is a scholarly account of what is and is not nominalist about
Calvin and where his doubts and hesitations lay (<a href="https://robinmarkphillips.com/calvin-nominalist-part-3-voluntarism-nominalism-theology-calvin-2/">https://robinmarkphillips.com/calvin-nominalist-part-3-voluntarism-nominalism-theology-calvin-2/</a>).
Here is a corresponding piece on Luther (<a href="https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/01/post-tenebras-lux/">https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/01/post-tenebras-lux/</a>).
The problem, as one would expect, is how strict a definition of
nominalism one wishes to employ: I assume for the sake of thick
historical description that one wants something looser than a strict
dictionary definition though others may differ. The question, as is the
case with literally ANY historical figure, is what
aspect of these thinkers you want to emphasize. Both these thinkers
tried to elevate
the transcendence and sovereignty of God over and against what they saw
as an
overly naturalized grace and a crude doctrine of works. The
‘plausibility
structure’ of nominalist thought was one ready framework for doing that.
That
said, Luther and Calvin’s aims were spiritual not philosophical. If
their
emphasis on the mystery of divine freedom threatened to evacuate nature
of any
and all significance (and ultimately reduce it to an object of simple
exploitation)
then we do not need to attribute this to them as a ‘fault’ or even a
‘mistake’.
Certainly we do not need to attribute it to them as an intent! This is
why I am
NOT a polemicist. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></blockquote><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span>Beth Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00080711997032932991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13012039.post-82401450493271152372024-01-04T10:09:00.000-08:002024-01-04T10:09:05.984-08:00Five Essential Questions <p> <span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><So these are the five essential questions. </span><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">"Wait, what?" is at the root of all understanding. </span><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">"I wonder" is at the heart of all curiosity. </span><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">"Couldn't we at least..." is at the beginning of all progress.</span><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">"How can I help?" is at the base of all good relationships. </span><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">And "What really matters?" gets you to the heart of life. </span><br /><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">If you ask these questions regularly, especially the last one, you'll be in a great position to answer the bonus question, which is, at the end of the day, the most important question you'll ever face. This bonus question is posed in many ways, and you've surely heard a version of it before..."and did you get what you wanted out of life, even so?" The :Even so" part of this to me captures perfectly the recognition of the pain and disappointment that inevitably make up a full life, but also the hope that life, even so, offers a possibility of joy and contentment. </span><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><br /><a class="x1fey0fg xmper1u x1edh9d7" href="https://www.facebook.com/HarvardEducation/videos/10153898240346387"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">https://www.facebook.com/HarvardEducation/videos<br />https://www.facebook.com/HarvardEducation/videos/10153898240346387</span></a></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /><br /></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bW0NguMGIbE" width="320" youtube-src-id="bW0NguMGIbE"></iframe></div><br /><p></p>Beth Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00080711997032932991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13012039.post-33650521383702575292024-01-03T12:15:00.000-08:002024-01-03T12:15:01.063-08:00Stephen Bilynskyj's EGG NOG <span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x x4zkp8e x676frb x1nxh6w3 x1sibtaa xo1l8bm xi81zsa x1yc453h" dir="auto"><span><span><span class="x4k7w5x x1h91t0o x1h9r5lt x1jfb8zj xv2umb2 x1beo9mf xaigb6o x12ejxvf x3igimt xarpa2k xedcshv x1lytzrv x1t2pt76 x7ja8zs x1qrby5j"><a class="x1i10hfl xjbqb8w x6umtig x1b1mbwd xaqea5y xav7gou x9f619 x1ypdohk xt0psk2 xe8uvvx xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r xexx8yu x4uap5 x18d9i69 xkhd6sd x16tdsg8 x1hl2dhg xggy1nq x1a2a7pz x1heor9g xt0b8zv xo1l8bm" href="https://www.facebook.com/beth.bilynskyj/posts/pfbid036JVHciBRAasuFrbLyoSG7BsyKME2DT3qsH2Ewow92m2L61Q9AAYtM6mzRgfrchQJl?notif_id=1704312673150607&notif_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif#" role="link" tabindex="0"><span><span aria-labelledby=":r3bt:" class="x1rg5ohu x6ikm8r x10wlt62 x16dsc37 xt0b8zv"><span class="xmper1u xt0psk2 xjb2p0i x1qlqyl8 x15bjb6t x1n2onr6 x17ihmo5 x1g77sc7" style="display: flex;"><span class="xt0psk2 x1qlqyl8 x1n2onr6 x17ihmo5 xpchg7c"></span></span></span></span></a></span></span><span class="xh99ass"><span><span class="xzpqnlu xjm9jq1 x6ikm8r x10wlt62 x10l6tqk x1i1rx1s"> </span><span aria-hidden="true"> · </span></span></span></span></span><div class="x78zum5 xdt5ytf xz62fqu x16ldp7u"><div class="xu06os2 x1ok221b"><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x x4zkp8e x676frb x1nxh6w3 x1sibtaa xo1l8bm xi81zsa x1yc453h" dir="auto"><span><div class="x6s0dn4 x3nfvp2 xl56j7k"><span class="x4k7w5x x1h91t0o x1h9r5lt x1jfb8zj xv2umb2 x1beo9mf xaigb6o x12ejxvf x3igimt xarpa2k xedcshv x1lytzrv x1t2pt76 x7ja8zs x1qrby5j"><span class="x1n2onr6"><span class="xzpqnlu x179tack x10l6tqk"><br /></span></span></span></div></span></span></div></div><div><div class="" dir="auto"><div class="" dir="auto"><div class="x1iorvi4 x1pi30zi x1l90r2v x1swvt13" data-ad-comet-preview="message" data-ad-preview="message"><div class="x78zum5 xdt5ytf xz62fqu x16ldp7u"><div class="xu06os2 x1ok221b"><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u x1yc453h" dir="auto"><div class="xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;"><span><a class="x1i10hfl xjbqb8w x6umtig x1b1mbwd xaqea5y xav7gou x9f619 x1ypdohk xt0psk2 xe8uvvx xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r xexx8yu x4uap5 x18d9i69 xkhd6sd x16tdsg8 x1hl2dhg xggy1nq x1a2a7pz xt0b8zv x1qq9wsj xo1l8bm" href="https://www.facebook.com/stevebilynskyj?__cft__[0]=AZVtcPtgFtjeBCyOEYWasEmZDz4D_2hShWR2BJLFek4DKAgtaDEqzSd2QqtjD8_HHtIoSPiQafGW-F4bvqsXTBr3-lIwY3eNgkpnu33rjUc8TJ1HQjSReWzvoz6RKchVXe3zsDPCCEvvQu40xOa6rqXh&__tn__=-]KH-R" role="link" tabindex="0"><span class="xt0psk2"><span><br /></span></span></a></span></div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">(like melted ice cream! Once you taste this, you will NEVER drink that travesty that is sold in the grocery store) <br /><br /></div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">1 dozen eggs</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">1 qt. heavy whipping cream</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">1 qt. half & half</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">1-2 cups whole milk</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">1 pound powdered sugar</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">¼ cup REAL vanilla extract</div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">1. Separate eggs and set aside whites (in refrigerator if not serving immediately).</div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">2. Beat yolks on low until smooth, then slowly add in powdered sugar until consistency of a very soft frosting.</div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">3. With mixer set very low, beat in the whipping cream, scraping sides and bottom to get the yolk mixture fully blended in.</div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">4. Still on low, beat in the vanilla and pour into gallon container. Add half & half and maybe a cup of whole milk. Shake and refrigerate if serving later.</div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">5. When ready to serve, whip egg whites until just less than stiff, then fold into the yolk and cream mixture, maybe in a punch bowl.</div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">6. Top servings with ground nutmeg if desired. (We use whole nutmeg, and grate it with a tiny grater straight into the cup) </div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a"><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">NOTE: </div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">1) the longer you let this sit, the more the flavors improve</div><div dir="auto" style="text-align: start;">2) This recipe uses raw eggs. If you don't avoid sampling cookie dough or eating Caesar Salads, you won't hesitate to drink this nog. But if you are concerned about salmonella, drink at your own risk.</div></div></span></div></div></div></div></div></div>Beth Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00080711997032932991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13012039.post-10472294448642958502023-11-22T16:50:00.000-08:002023-11-22T16:51:24.314-08:00Sixty years since Nov. 22, 1963<p> Today is the 60th anniversary of the death of JFK, Aldous Huxley and C. S. Lewis. This article in the <i>National Catholic Register</i> is gold. <a href="https://www.ncregister.com/features/nov-22-1963-and-the-frontiers-of-lewis-huxley-and-kennedy" target="_blank">https://www.ncregister.com/features/nov-22-1963-and-the-frontiers-of-lewis-huxley-and-kennedy</a><br /> <br />https://www.ncregister.com/features/nov-22-1963-and-the-frontiers-of-lewis-huxley-and-kennedy<br /><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">I was in fourth grade when the intercom crackled on with a fuzzy radio broadcast, mid sentence. We were startled at this intrusion into our normal routine, not really understanding what was being said, but when our teacher burst into tears, we understood that Whatever It Was, It Was Not Good. My teacher told us to turn our desks toward the window and write a poem. It was snowing.</span><br /><br /><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"> When the bus dropped me off, and I opened the heavy white door of our home, there was my mom, ironing, with the TV on. She NEVER watched TV during the day. Though my parents were staunch Republicans, and despised the Kennedys, they made it clear to me that This Was Wrong.<br /><br /></span><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" dir="auto" lang="en">It would be another decade before I knew who Aldous Huxley and C.S. Lewis were.</span></p>Beth Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00080711997032932991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13012039.post-76257525220899701782023-11-15T21:03:00.000-08:002023-11-15T21:03:01.384-08:00Rachel Maddow and Stephen Colbert, Nov. 14, 2023<p> <span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">This is a brilliant conversation between Rachel Maddow and Stephen Colbert. I especially appreciated her answer to Colbert's final question. When the Republican Fascists take over, I hope these two will be safe in another country. <br /><br /><b><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Part 1: </span> </b></span><b><span style="font-size: small;">Trump’s “Vermin” Comment Wasn’t a Slip of the Tongue - Rachel Maddow</span></b></p><h1 class="style-scope ytd-watch-metadata"><span style="font-weight: normal; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Hz0eBCxHO7c" width="320" youtube-src-id="Hz0eBCxHO7c"></iframe></div><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz0eBCxHO7c</span></span></h1><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">__________________________________________________________<br /><br /><br /><span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><b>Part 2:</b> </span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><b>Rachel Maddow on America’s Previous Flirtation with Fascism</b></span></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XpTNrBr7zwE" width="320" youtube-src-id="XpTNrBr7zwE"></iframe></div><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpTNrBr7zwE<br /><br />________________________________________________________________<br /><br /><span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><b>Part 3: </b></span><span style="font-size: small;"> <b>Rachel Maddow Reacts to Speaker Johnson Passing Gov’t Funding Bill With Democratic Support</b><br /><br /><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EXh6oAJH2Zg" width="320" youtube-src-id="EXh6oAJH2Zg"></iframe></div><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXh6oAJH2Zg<br /><br /><br /><br /><p></p>Beth Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00080711997032932991noreply@blogger.com0