Have Evangelicals overemphasized how "personal" God is?

Evangelical Christians have revived in humanity an understanding about how personal God is. We have taught people to pray directly to God as if He were our friend, our brother, our King, our God. In fact, we even claim that salvation is found only in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

But have we gone too far? Have we overemphasized this to any harmful ends?

Have you ever run into someone who didn't believe in God because they felt that they didn't need Him? They felt like they could do just fine - they live and breathe and just don't see any real connection between life or success and a personal relationship with God.

I wonder if what these people need is a healthy dose of good theology. I wonder whether they need to be taught that God is not just another person (or three persons, as it were) with whom one can have a relationship, but the Creator and Sustainer of the entire universe. That He upholds the very fabric of space-time by the word of His power. That each second is a special act of Creation, and that what we call the laws of science are in reality simply the paths that God takes through Creation. That God doesn't weary and so has the tendency to do things the same way over and over again, but reserves the right to break the rules of the "system" just as the maker of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4 reserves the right to "break" the "laws" of the system and make his skater do things like, you know, fly, and do thousands of kick-flips and stuff before landing.

Perhaps then they can be shown that it is a fact that they in reality cannot do a single thing without God. That their very existence and persistence radically depend on God in a way that He deserves gratitude and respect for. God's providence isn't immediately or obviously connected to His personality (hence cometh Deism), and I wonder if we are ignoring it in favor of harping exclusively on Personality.

Surely belief in the personality of God sets Christianity - especially Evangelical Christianity - apart from many other worldviews. And surely it is important to believe in it, and to act on it by engaging God in a personal relationship.

I am just wondering if there might be a more strategic place to start when evangelizing, like Creation and Providential Sustenance.

Russell on Studying the Ancient Greeks

In Bertrand Russell's "A History of Western Philosophy", I found some insightful quotes.

To learn to conceive the universe according to each of [the various hypotheses as to the nature and structure of the world] is an imaginative delight and an antidote to dogmatism. Moreover, even if no one of the hypotheses can be demonstrated, there is genuine knowledge in the discovery of what is involved in making each of them consistent with itself and with known facts...

In studying a philosopher, the right attitude is neither reverence nor contempt, but first a kind of hypothetical sympathy, until it is possible to know what it feels like to believe in his theories, and only then a revival of the critical attitude, which should resemble, as far as possible, the state of mind of a person abandoning opinions which he has hitherto held. Contempt interferes with the first part of this process, and reverence with the second. Two things are to be remembered: that a man whose opinions and theories are worth studying may be presumed to have had some intelligence, but that no man is likely to have arrived at complete and final truth on any subject whatever. When an intelligent man expresses a view which seems to us obviously absurd we should not attempt to prove that it is somehow true, but we should try to understand how it ever came to seem true. This exercise of historical and psychological imagination at once enlarges the scope of our own thinking, and helps us to realize how foolish many of our own cherished prejudices will seem to an age which has a different temper of mind.

In the Twinkling of an Eye

I have undergone so much change in the last two weeks that I am tempted to start a new blog in illustration of my personal growth. I have entered an entirely new phase of thoughtlife.

Instead of illustrate however, I stated and decided to go no further.

At a church planting intensive in Seattle a few weeks ago I was inspired. I also heard a guy talk about non-manipulative intentionality. He also spoke about spending two hours or so per week in a coffee shop, learning the names of the baristas, saying hello to them often, and praying for them silently to himself (but sincerely to God).

I have decided to start learning all of the names of the baristas at Java. I know most of them anyway, I might as well go all the way (and I already spend way more than two hours per week there). I have also begun trying to say hi to each of them. Soon I will say hi to each of them by name. Someday I might consider praying for them too ;).

I met a man named William the other day.

I said hello to William today. Then later on I went back to refill my tea cup with hot water when I found myself caught in the conversational crossfire of him and another young man who frequents Java and other downtown venues, whom I happen to know. I inquired into their topic of conversation and William explained it to me. He then described himself as spiritual, but not religious ("could mean anything" I thought).

Later William came and sat down next to me (and Chris), and I learned that he used to be a missionary with YWAM, but had an encounter with God that changed his worldview. We proceeded to have an intelligent, dynamic (meaning two-directional) discussion about grace, inerrancy, and spirituality. I think he is a universalist who denies inerrancy, but he demonstrates a phenomenal amount of knowledge about the text of the Bible and the content of the faith of most evangelicals. He seems to have a view of grace that is just about right (more right than most evangelicals in my estimation), and he puts good works in their proper place. He is passionate and articulate.

We exchanged phone numbers. I chuckled inside because I didn't expect to find a friend so quickly using thing "just learn a guy's name and say hi" method.

We also discussed 1 Cor. 15:52:

in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.

I am not sure of when the concept of verses was applied to this particular letter that the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians, but it sure makes reading a single one awkward.

You start in the middle of a sentence.

Which to me is telling. How can you even begin to understand the message of this, or any, "verse" (whatever that is) devoid of its context?

William seems to think that this verse isn't about a future resurrection from the dead that individual believers will experience. He thinks it is about a "resurrection" from the "dead" that can happen inside each of us during our lifetimes. He talks poetically and philosophically about the "twinkling" part.

William, if you ever read this, know that I am glad we met and I anticipate learning from you, telling you stories, listening to you, exchanging ideas, being sharpened by you, sharpening you, and enjoying a non-manipulative but intentional friendship with you. This is not an excursus on why I am confident that you are wrong, nor is it preparation for an attempt at forcefully converting you to my worldview.

This post is an unorganized reflective story about my day and about this phase of my life. You happen to be a part of it.

Not to say that I don't think I have somethings correct, or that some of those things are very important for you to come to believe.

Anyway it was my stated opinion that "twinkling" in this passage is merely a statement of the time it will take for our resurrection bodies to be transformed. To be honest, to me it seems obvious that Paul was writing to the Corinthians about what will happen when Jesus comes back. Those who will have already been dead at the point of Jesus' return will be raised and transformed. And those humans who are living at the time will also be transformed. This transformation will take place as quickly as one blinks! Check it:

But someone will ask, ​“How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” You foolish person! ​What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

​So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; ​it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, ​“The first man Adam became a living being”; ​the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. ​The first man was from the earth, ​a man of dust; ​the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, ​so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

I tell you this, brothers: ​flesh and blood ​cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold! I tell you a mystery. ​We shall not all sleep, ​but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For ​the trumpet will sound, and ​the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:

​“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
​“O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?”

The sting of death is sin, and ​the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, ​who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

-1 Cor. 15:35-50 (ESV)

There is a lot going on in this passage, and much of it is no doubt difficult to discern at first, since we don't all understand the historical context in which this letter was written. I want to be sensitive to that.

The MW Collegiate Dictionary (11th Ed.) defines the dative noun "twinkling" as "the time required for a wink", and "the instant’s duration of a wink".

The Strong's entry for the Greek work translated "twinkling" in this passage is

4493 ῥιπή, ῥοπή [rhipe /hree·pay/] n f. From 4496; GK 4846 and 4856; AV translates as “twinkling” once. 1 a throw, stroke, beat. 2 a moment of time.

Wiersbe explains that the Greeks at the time rebutted the early Christians conception of the resurrection by pointing to what happens to a physical body after death - bodies turn to dust, and oftentimes trees or other things use the matter from decomposed bodies to grow. How can all that matter be collected again such that a body can be resurrected? He says that

Paul’s reply to this kind of reasoning was very blunt: “You fool!” Then he made the important point that resurrection is not reconstruction. Nowhere does the Bible teach that, at the resurrection, God will “put together the pieces” and return to us our former bodies. There is continuity (it is our body), but there is not identity (it is not the same body).

Paul knew that such miracles cannot be explained, so he used three analogies to make the doctrine clear.

Seeds (vv. 35–38, 42–48). When you sow seed, you do not expect that same seed to come up at the harvest. The seed dies, but from that death there comes life. (See John 12:23–28 for our Lord’s use of this same analogy.) You may sow a few grains of wheat, but you will have many grains when the plant matures. Are they the same grains that were planted? No, but there is still continuity. You do not sow wheat and harvest barley.

Furthermore, what comes up at the harvest is usually more beautiful than what was planted. This is especially true of tulips. Few things are as ugly as a tulip bulb, yet it produces a beautiful flower. If at the resurrection, all God did was to put us back together again, there would be no improvement. Furthermore, flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom. The only way we can enjoy the glory of heaven is to have a body suited to that environment.
Paul discussed the details of this marvelous change in 1 Corinthians 15:42–48. The body is sown (in burial) in corruption, because it is going to decay; but it is raised with such a nature that it cannot decay. There is no decay or death in heaven. It is buried in humility (in spite of the cosmetic skill of the mortician); but it is raised in glory. In burial, the body is weak; but in resurrection, the body has power. We shall be like Jesus Christ!

Today, we have a “natural body,” that is, a body suited to an earthly environment. We received this body from our first parent, Adam: he was made of dust, and so are we (Gen. 2:7). But the resurrection body is suited to a spiritual environment. In His resurrection body, Jesus was able to move quickly from place to place, and even walk through locked doors; yet He was also able to eat food, and His disciples were able to touch Him and feel Him (Luke 24:33–43; John 20:19–29).

The point Paul was making was simply this: The resurrection body completes the work of redemption and gives to us the image of the Saviour. We are made in the image of God as far as personality is concerned, but in the image of Adam as far as the body is concerned. One day we shall bear the image of the Saviour when we share in His glory.

First Corinthians 15:46 states an important biblical principle: first the “natural” (earthly), and then the “spiritual” (heavenly). The first birth gives us that which is natural, but the second birth gives us that which is spiritual. God rejects the first birth, the natural, and says, “You must be born again!” He rejected Cain and chose Abel. He rejected Abraham’s firstborn, Ishmael, and chose Isaac, the second-born. He rejected Esau and chose Jacob. If we depend on our first birth, we shall be condemned forever; but if we experience the new birth, we shall be blessed forever...

We must remember that this discussion was not written by Paul merely to satisfy the curiosity of believers. He had some practical points to get across, and he made them very clear in 1 Corinthians 15:29–34. If we really believe in the resurrection of the body, then we will use our bodies today to the glory of God (1 Cor. 6:9–1

-Wiersbe, W. W. (1996, c1989). The Bible exposition commentary (1 Co 15:29). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

And what's a discussion of the resurrection without commentary from last generation's revolutionary good ol' boys from Dallas Theological Seminary? They help out here by emphasizing the theological symmetry between Adam and Jesus that Paul's writing draws from (as well as adding some free, insightful tidbits):

15:44b-49. Discussion of the contrast between Adam and Christ (mentioned earlier in v. 22) is resumed here. Adam exemplified the earthly (v. 40) natural body (the word trans. being, v. 45, psychē, is related to psychikos, which is trans. natural in v. 44). Adam gave his nature to all who followed him (the man without the Spirit is the natural [psychikos] man; cf. 2:14). The last Adam, Christ, exemplifies the heavenly spiritual body (15:22) which those who belong to Him (v. 23; cf. 2:15) will likewise assume at His coming from heaven (cf. Phil. 3:20-21). The full harvest will be like the firstfruits (1 Cor. 15:23; cf. Col. 1:18). First the seed must die; then the spiritual body will emerge...

The dead in Christ will first be raised, and then the living will be instantaneously transformed. The trumpet, as in the Old Testament, signaled the appearance of God (cf. Ex. 19:16). It is the last blast for the church because this appearance shall never end (cf. 1 Cor. 13:12). (There is no basis for posttribulationists equating this trumpet with the seventh trumpet in Rev. 11:15-19. The trumpets in Rev. pertain to judgments during the Tribulation, whereas the trumpet in 1 Cor. 15:52 is related to the church.)

15:53-54. Like the dead (vv. 42-43), the living will exchange the temporal and imperfect for the eternal and perfect (cf. 13:10). For those who belong to Christ, death’s power will be removed.

15:55. As in the allusion to Isaiah 25:8 (1 Cor. 15:54), Paul again recalled an Old Testament passage which prophesied the cessation of death (Hosea 13:14). (The recollections were adapted by Paul and do not correspond exactly to any of the extant Gr. or Heb. texts.) The apparent victories of Satan, in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:13) and on Golgotha (Mark 15:22-24) were reversed on the cross (Col. 2:15; Heb. 2:14-15) and vindicated in the resurrection of Christ. From the vantage point of the certain resurrection of the saints, Paul voiced his taunt against death and Satan...

15:58. Paul’s doctrinal declarations led to practical directives and this chapter’s conclusion was no exception. The Corinthians were urged to stand firm in the apostles’ teaching (v. 2), unmoved by the denials of false teachers (cf. Eph. 4:14). This certainty, especially concerning the Resurrection, provided an impetus to faithful service (cf. 1 Cor. 3:8; Gal. 6:9) since labor in the resurrected Lord is not futile (kenos, “empty”; cf. 1 Cor. 15:10, 14, 17, 30-32).

-Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-c1985). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures (2:545). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

I maintain skepticism concerning some of the points various commentators make regarding this passage, but the majority of commentators whose reputation, credentials, and methodological presuppositions resonate with me seem to be of the consensus that this passage is about Jesus coming back to earth (the way He ascended into heaven: bodily! Cf. Acts 1:11), and about the future resurrection and transformation of those under grace (both dead and alive).

I find it interesting that our resurrection is compared to Jesus' (indeed He is the first of us!), and Jesus Himself made sure that those who saw Him after the Resurrection knew that He had been raised bodily (He ate fish, and insisted that "...a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have..." Luke 20).

The resurrection will be funky.

I hope William and I get to hang out. I don't care if we talk about the resurrection. At least, I don't care if we talk about it right away. I have no agenda. At least, not any manipulative or hidden one. And whatever it is that I do have, it is not without a genuine attraction to his personality.

Um, I have more to ramble about. I don't feel like elaborating on my view of election, but I feel like I owe it to Brandon. I think there are some other explanations I "owe" to people who have commented on this blog.

I HEREBY ABDICATE FROM ANY BURDEN TACITLY OR EXPLICITLY UNDERSTOOD TO BE INCUMBENT UPON ME TO EXPLAIN MYSELF OR FOLLOWUP/REBUT/REJOIN ARGUMENTS OR DISCUSSIONS RECORDED IN FORMER POSTS ON THIS BLOG.

Sorry guys. I know it disappoints.

Treasury Secretary Contradicts Himself

Paulson said the financial industry's situation has worsened since the bill was passed, prompting him to spent nearly $250 billion to buy equity stakes in banks.

"Although the financial system has stabilized, both banks and nonbanks may well need more capital — given their troubled asset holdings, projections for continued high rates of foreclosures and stagnant U.S. and world economic conditions," Paulson said.

The Treasury secretary warned that the nation's financial system "remains fragile" and that "significant illiquid assets" continued to present difficulties.

But "overall, we are in a better position than we were" two months ago, he said.

-NPR (bold and underline mine)

Cool bro.

Is it just me, or is everyone pretty much going around spouting nonsense?

Things like: "The situation has worsened" and "we are in a better situation".

And: We should give "banks and nonbanks" more capital. "Banks and nonbanks", huh? Is that sort of like 'males and nonmales' or 'everyone under the age of 18, and everyone else', or 'everything that is grilled cheese sandwich and everything that isn't', or 'everyone who is on fire and everyone who is not'?

Doesn't he know that no two people are not on fire? You'd think we'd have learned that by now. It's DeluXx, son. It's not that hard.

Or: Giving them money has "worsened" our situation, so they require "more capital".

Huh.

Look, I don't care what your position is quite as much as I care that you have (a preferably coherent) one and state it plainly.

7 Reasons Why It's Ok That Obama Won

Why did Obama win?

You could look at it this way:

Candidate John McCain seemed to have it all.

Few in America did not know about his decades of service, his breath-taking heroism as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, his foreign policy expertise and his ability to reach across the Congressional aisle.

Mr McCain's opponent was largely untested, inexperienced and, initially at least, unknown; his race only added to his challenge.

If there is such a thing as a perfect political storm though, John McCain found himself caught in the middle of it. In a leaky boat. With limited fuel...

From the start, his biggest problem was finding the money to compete with Barack Obama's $650m (£403m) campaign juggernaut. By accepting federal funding (which Mr Obama declined) he capped his general election campaign spending at $85m (£53m)...

In the end, he projected an image as a man from America's past, who had been through much and served his country well.

But in a disgruntled nation, deeply disenchanted with Republicanism, he couldn't match the appeal of his younger opponent and his message of change.

Richard Lister - BBC News, Washington

Or you could look at it this way:

the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

Matthew 7:13-14

Should we be so surprised that there are more free-loaders in America than hard-workers?

In all seriousness though, I am not upset that Obama won.

First of all, he won fairly and democratically. The people have spoken. Awesome.

Second of all, I never found any good reasons to adopt any of the more extreme arguments against Obama, so I am not bracing myself for the apocalypse or anything (at least not any more so than I would be anyway).

Third of all, while I am disinclined to opt for rendering unto the government monies generally, and much less so with respect to things at which I believe the government will do an extremely poor job... it's only money. Honestly, it is only money. Plus, Obama's primary motivation for taking my money is to do things like balance the budget, and help the hungry, poor, orphaned, widowed, and the little children of our society. There could be worse things to take my money for. Personally I think I could do a better finding ways to disperse those funds, and I think other organizations than the government, that are forced to compete to earn my charitable donations, could do a better job of utilizing those funds. But still, Obama is not Hitler (despite the smears). It will be ok. It will be alright.

And honestly, maybe it won't be. Maybe Obama will turn out to be the freakin' Antichrist. But there is no reason to think so as of yet, so why worry? Bush could have turned out to be the AC, too. Besides, I won't be here. Not that we shouldn't oppose those who come in the spirit of the AC; it's just that I might as well not harbor paranoia towards everyone I have a few political disagreements with if there is no other reason to suspect him of being The Antichrist, ya know?

Fourth, while some may think of taxation categorically as theft, I just don't find myself convinced. I have thought about it, and while I understand the arguments, I just don't see it. So I am not super upset that Obama plans to tax the hell out of me. Like I said, it is only money.

Fifth, the President doesn't actually have that much power (though the power of Executive branch has regrettably swollen, and pretty significantly, thanks to the second Bush administration and its corresponding Congress).

Sixth, though the Democatic party has control of Congress, it won't for long. People like to blame the President, and soon enough Obama will field his fair share of blame. Then Congress will turn over and we'll be able to strong-arm anything too terribly extreme Obama might just try to pull (or repeal anything he might have gotten through already).

Seventh, the rest of the world likes us again. So that's cool.

...I could easily go on.

I know FOCA is a big issue, and I don't want to undermine that. But all is not lost. There is a lot we can still do. We can work to change the hearts and minds of individuals at the grass-roots level. We can work toward state legislation that strong-arms any federal law that makes it through (like Idaho is doing with our wolf issue). We can write to the President elect and his party and try to change their minds about abortion. We can applaud maverick pro-life Democrats like my wife. We can support policies or organizations that will work to mitigate the number of abortions by one means or another. We can stand up for whole-life ideals. Et cetera.

Barack Obama is our President (elect) now, and we should pray for him.

PS
I liked McCain's concession speech, and I think it is not enough to react to it with thoughts like "what a good sport", but we should actually heed his words.

I also liked Amy's post.

And I will probably like the post my wife is writing right now.

God bless America.

See you in 4, baby.

Peace out.

Fiction...?

This guy pretty much sums it up.

Microsoft's Dirty Little Secret

I wanted to link to an "I'm a PC" commercial so that I could comment on how Microsoft's best reply to the "I'm a Mac" ads, no matter how funny it might be, can never transcend them because it simply parodies them.

But what I discovered was even more epic. It turns out that Microsoft's commercials themselves were created on a Mac, using Adobe software!

Sarah Palin did not slash funding for teen moms - she actually tripled it.

The Washington Post (and about a bajillion blogs) claims that Sarah Palin slashed funding for teen moms. They show a photocopy of the budget Palin marked on, crossing out the 5 million dollar figure and writing in 3.9.

Turns out that the previous year's state funding for this particular charity, that happens to include a program for teen mothers, was only 1.3 million dollars. Palin tripled their budget.

[By the way, state-funding only accounts for about 15% of the faith-based Covenant House Alaska's annual budget.]

I didn't even think to blog about this until I looked around in the results pages of several Google queries and found that everyone is railing against Palin for "slashing funds for teen mothers", calling her a hypocrite given her pro-life stance and her own daughter's young pregnancy. I only initially found this one dude that took the time to look at the context and it just doesn't seem right to me.

In fact, Deirdre Cronin, Executive Director of Covenant House Alaska, said she "is grateful for the support [Covenant House has] received from Governor Sarah Palin, the Alaska legislature and [Alaska's] Congressional delegation over the years".

Hopefully this post and these links will boost Warren Throckmorton's pages in Google's results pages. I used the "nofollow" tag in my hyperlink to Washington Post's story so that they don't get any of my link juice.

I Am Currently Unaware of Any Respectable Study Supporting the Hypothesis That the Whole of Mainstream US Media is Significantly Biased But...

...leads are appreciated. Here you can read my qualm with the study I posted previously.

Misc. on Tolstoy

On July 22, 1910, when Tolstoy was in the middle of what was to be his final crisis, he went into the woods with three friends to copy and sign the testament that had been drawn up according to his instructions, hoping thereby to settle both the tormenting spiritual problems and the distasteful bickering with his wife and family that the disposition of his property and rights induced. As Tolstoy began to copy the document he misspelled “twenty”, started to correct it and to reach for a fresh sheet of paper, but then smiled and said, “All right, let it be thought that I was illiterate,” adding “I will put the numeral next to it so that there will be no possibility of doubt”.

- “Tolstoy” by Ralph Matlaw, p. 1

Tolsoy's wife Sophie wrote in her journal of copying War and Peace, that it "uplifted her spiritually, ie morally".

Sophie hand-wrote seven copies of "War and Peace".

She wrote to the man who published her biography:

“You write about the ‘home’ interests which must have been subordinated to Leo Nikolaevich’s writing of War and Peace and Anna Karenina. But what was that home? It consisted only of Leo Nikolaevich and myself… In so far as I could tear myself from domestic matters, I lived in my husband’s creative activity and loved it…You mention among professional writers Gogol, Turgenev, Goncharov, and I would add Lermontov and others; all of them were bachelors without families, and that is a very different matter. This was reflected in their work, just as Leo N.’s family life was completely reflected in his works… It is perfectly true that Leo N. was generally a man and not merely a writer. But it is not true, if you will pardon me, that he wrote easily. Indeed, he experienced the ‘tortures of creativity’ in a high degree; he wrote with difficulty and slowly, made endless corrections; he doubted his powers, denied his talent, and he often said: ‘Writing is just like childbirth; until the fruit is ripe, it does not come out, and, when it does, it comes with pain and labor’.”

UCLA Social Scientists Find Significant Liberal Bias in Nearly All Major Media Outlets

A UCLA study that "is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly" found that "there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of [the major media outlets] lean to the left" (Sullivan, 2005).

Before you react, read to the end of the article cited.

UPDATE: I found the study itself. If you or your school isn't subscribed to the MIT Press Quarterly Journal of Economics, you have to pay $10 to download it. But the abstract is free:

We measure media bias by estimating ideological scores for several major media outlets. To compute this, we count the times that a particular media outlet cites various think tanks and policy groups, and then compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups. Our results show a strong liberal bias: all of the news outlets we examine, except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with claims made by conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received scores far to the left of center. The most centrist media outlets were PBS News Hour, CNN's Newsnight, and ABC's Good Morning America; among print outlets, USA Today was closest to the center. All of our findings refer strictly to news content; that is, we exclude editorials, letters, and the like.

-(MIT Press Quarterly Journal of Economics, November 2005)

Obama vis-à-vis Palin: Parenting

Here's how Obama says he would handle a hypothetical teen pregnancy:

I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old... I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.

Here's how Palin actually handled her daughter's pregnancy:

Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned... We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support.

Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi's privacy, as has always been the tradition of children of candidates...

Aside from the glaring irony of Obama's insulting comments about his own daughters (think of telling YOUR CHILDREN you wouldn't want them PUNISHED by CHILDREN OF THEIR OWN), there is the slightly more subtle presence of just plain bad parenting latent in such a position. What happened to "morals" like taking responsibility for one's decisions, Mr. Obama?

Being pro-life is important, not just because of any legislation a leader might be involved in or judges he, or she, might appoint. Being pro-life is important because it reflects a proper understanding of reality, of values, of responsibility, and of parenting.

Google has the right to do whatever they want with anything you ever create or transmit on the web

...if you do so using their new web browser - here's why.

Plus, Chrome is slower than FireFox 3 and Safari 3 (except when it comes to JavaScript), has no way to manage bookmarks yet, falls short in other areas (although admittedly has some serious strengths too), and isn't available for Mac yet!

As I read one commenter write, umm... don't be evil?



-XKCD

Obama fans, you're just driving our point home!

Just watched Obama's speech, and I loved it.

My favorite part:

Obama: ...he said, and I quote, that "this nation has become [pause] a nation of whiners!"
Crowd: BOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

McCain Ambushes Obama w/ Sharp-Shooting Search Engine Marketing

I said earlier that good Search Engine Optimization gets you nominated for President. But will good Search Engine Marketing get you elected for president?

Sen. John McCain is in some ways outsmarting Sen. Obama when it comes to Internet marketing. One example: As of Wednesday, a Google search for "Joe Biden" or even just "Biden" resulted in a prominently displayed ad labeled "Joe Biden on Obama" that links to Sen. McCain's site. There, a video begins playing that shows Sen. Biden criticizing Sen. Obama during the Democratic primaries...

In recent days, [McCain's team] has bought search ads tied to key terms such as "U.S. economy" and "housing crisis," which take visitors to Web sites outlining Sen. McCain's plan on those issues...

Barack Obama is running a Web-savvy presidential campaign, but John McCain's campaign has managed to outpace the Democratic contender in a few key areas.

Meanwhile, the Obama camp largely has yet to advertise around these terms, missing a key opportunity, according to experts, to communicate his message to undecided voters.

"The big downfall is that Obama's not reaching the undecided voters," says...

(Wall Street Journal, Aug. 28, 2008)

Good SEO gets you nominated for President of the United States of America

McCain and Obama had the best-run Search Engine Marketing campaigns. Coincidence? I think not.

A Second Attitude-Nature Analysis of Reformation Christianity

I've really enjoyed the A-Team blog. The writers there seem so grounded, so well-rounded, and so reasonable. Their edges seem sharp and properly located, and their allowances seem earnest and also properly located. There efforts seem diligent and aimed in the correct direction. Their voices are distinct and likable.

Recently, "David N." wrote a post about an attitudinal shortcoming he's spotted in some of his Calvinist brothers. I think he's correct and I'm glad he wrote the post. Here's the gist:

The Augustine-Pelagius debate may have meant eternal life or death, but the Augustine-semi-Pelagian debate was an intramural one.

-The A-Team Blog

Devoid of context it seems simple and obviously true. But the fact does remain that many Calvinists don't behave accordingly. Arminians, sometimes almost slanderously called "semi-Pelagians", are sometimes not regarded and treated as brothers, about whom Jesus said that we will be known by our love for.

There are benefits unique to the practice of debating about theology with other Christians, but our motives for debating ought to be righteous, and those benefits that I mentioned ought not be pursued to the detriment of other virtues, such as love and level-headedness.

Let's leave fanaticism to the Liberals ;).

Why dreary doesn't rhyme with weary.

Quine points out in so many words that dreary cannot rhyme with weary as they are both feelings, and feelings cannot have any rhyming qualities. Rather it is more precise to say that 'dreary' rhymes with 'weary', as 'dreary' and 'weary' are names of feelings, and names may rhyme. This distinction becomes important in certain circumstances but I thought I'd forward it independent of its context.

Insisted upon due to alternate motivations or during improper contexts, analytic methods can be annoyingly smart-alecky

Grappling with the Temptation to Withdraw

Often I find myself in contexts that conjure in me a desire to withdraw. Typically I want to withdraw from situations in which I have a more advanced understanding of a concept than everyone else around me. The thought of bringing others around me up to speed is so daunting that I give up before I seriously consider it.

These situations are also often textured with culturally defined roles. It is not always appropriate for me to take the lead. I find myself ill-equipped with the necessary cultural information and/or interpersonal skills to know what my goal should be in these situations and/or how to achieve such a goal. I also recognize that the particulars of each situation may be relevant to these things as well.

I have only recently realized that I must fight this desire in 99% of cases. It is almost always the case that I can and should participate without either withdrawing or dominating. I must learn to be a follower, a member, a participant, a contributor. The role of submission is just as important and valuable as the role of leader.

God the Father is glorified by God the Son, especially so by His submission, and even unto death.

Sometimes taking a task over robs another of a growing/learning experience. Catching a man a fish... well, you know the story.

I should seek to meet every man exactly where he is and play my proper role in elevating him even a little bit in wisdom.

And where it's my place to grow, God, let me grow with all humility.