<body>
Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Friday, October 31, 2008

Halloween Memories

A Hip and Thigh Classic
(originally posted Nov. 2005)

My wife and I have been living in the same condo for five years since we were married. During the past four years on Halloween we have played the role of the stodgy, self-righteous, baptized in pickle juice, fundamentalist Christians who turn off the lights and bring in the welcome mat. We never thought about handing out a bunch of anti-Halloween Chick tracts, but our attitude made it clear to our neighbors that the Butler family didn't want anything to do with their pagan, devil worshippin' holiday.

This year, my wife and I decided we wanted to present more of an inviting atmosphere for Halloween, as well as reclaim October 31st as Reformation Day. We had been thinking of ways to be Christ-like to our neighbors and with the run up to Halloween, we thought rather than becoming recluses, we could at least have a light on and be ready with the candy.

Logistically, however, we did have a slight problem with our condo set up: our entire living area is on the second floor while our front door is on the first. That meant if we were going to hand out candy we would be running up and down the stairs everytime the door bell rang.

My wife was telling a neighbor of our dilemma and he suggested setting out a card table with a bowl of candy and placing a sign informing the trick-or-treaters to help themselves to one or two pieces. My wife wisely asked, "But don't you risk having a group of kids take it all?" "Oh no," replied our confident neighbor, "I did it last year and it was fine; besides, the parents are with them."

Right....

So, I carved a pumpkin with my boys (a jolly, happy face, not a sinister, evil face), and my wife made up a sign that read: Happy Reformation Day! Please help yourself to one or two pieces. We set up a small table out by the front door, put a candle in the pumpkin and sat out an assortment of miniature candy bars with the sign.

Maybe 10 minutes later I hear from up in our living room a boy yell out, "Ah man, lookit that!" followed by a chorus of squeals from other children. I looked out the window to see a heavy set mother passing out candy to four or five corpulent 11 year olds. I then hear them bicker back and forth about who was going to get which candy bar and then someone say, "just take another one." Finally, they go marching off with their plunder.

My suspicion was that they looted the entire bowl containing 3 bags of candy bars. Not wishing to doubt my fellow neighbors, but just to make sure, I went down to take a peak at the bowl. Guess What. It was entirely empty! I was stunned and appalled all at once. Do you mean to tell me the Largebottom family took every one of our candies!? Thus ended our Halloween.

At least the truths proclaimed by the Reformation were reaffirmed in a disgusting display of greed, gluttony, and pure selfishness. I got to experience in real life what the Reformers taught us about the nature of men.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Brain Dead

Putting aside politics a moment...

Charles Johnson, Little Green Footballs curator, continues his ignorantly misinformed smears against biblical creationism. He does this occasionally, posting a link to some item highlighting the debate between a Darwinian worldview and a creationist worldview, and then tacking on his moronic remarks about how dumb creationists are.

Not that I am looking to make a living blogging about every time Charles intellectually embarrasses himself on this subject, but his latest attempt took aim at someone I happen to know.

here's the link: Creation Scientists Display Latest Find

The post is making fun of a possible petrified brain, and I guess in Charles mind, what makes this funny is there could be no such thing as a "petrified" brain because petrification, according to the uniformitarian point of view, takes millions of years. "Them creationists are so dumb; dont they no dat?"

If you follow the link, at the top there is a picture of a man and a woman. I happen to know the man quite well. He's Dr. Ross Anderson of The Master's College with his wife. Contrary to what LGF wants to portray, he certainly isn't a bumpkin. I know him more from the Bible-Science Association of San Fernando where he serves as a leader in the group. He is often involved with setting up world class speakers to lecture on a variety of subjects pertaining to the Darwinian-creation debate.

I shot him an email after I saw the post and he wrote back thanking me for pointing it out to him. He did state he thought it was a petrified brain, which means all that is needed is the right conditions to petrify an object in a rather short time, not millions of years.

Amusingly, Johnson links to another article from the New Scientist that reports on the nature vs. mind debate. For those not paying attention, the debate pertains to the question of what controls the brain, nature or the mind. If it is nature, that implies evolutionary considerations, and thus material causation drives the brain. If it is the mind, then there is something non-material driving the brain, and thus a soul or some other non-material, supernatural causation. The nature argument is a problem for Darwinian naturalists, and biblical creationists have done a good job of exposing this problem for the Darwinians who by default conclude material causation as this thoughtful summary of the article reveals: Minding the Brain, or Braining the Mind.

If a person's choices, decisions, lifestyle, and behavior are merely the result of material causation which is driven by the mechanisms of Darwinian evolutionary natural selection, then how can a person even be held accountable for a crime he commits? Sure, we can put him on trial and pontificate about how he is a threat to society, but why is he being held responsible for choices and behavior that are purely biological? Think about it. If Darwinian evolution is correct, why is Johnson wasting his time mocking creationists over beliefs that are only a product of a brain virus, or some other genetic function? Creationists don't know any better because they can't help to know any better, which means those who mock creationists also can't know any better because they can't help but to know any better. Or is all this lost on Charles?

Labels: ,

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Biden and Murtha can say crazy stuff

Is SNL daring Obama's thugs to close them down?

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Gleanings from Job #19

...concluding my devotional series on the book of Job

Let God be God (38-42)

We come to the final chapters of the book of Job.

We have witnessed the false accusations by Job's three friends against his character. We have read Job's response to those accusations, and then read what his fourth friend said to re-orient Job back to having a biblical perspective.

Now, coming to chapter 38, the creator of the universe breaks His silence. This is the moment Job has been waiting for. Only God's response is not what is expected. Job was looking to have God answer Him in his suffering. Job wanted a legal hearing to prove His innocence to God. However, rather than explaining the role of evil and answering the "why" of Job's suffering, God rebukes Job and his friends for challenging His ways.

Through out chapters 38-40, God asks Job a series of 70 questions. It is the longest discourse recorded of God's direct speech. He begins in 38:1 and speaks through to 41:24. Interestingly, the author of the book identifies God by His covenant name, Yahweh.

God's response over the next four chapters demonstrated His absolute authority, His divine power, and His qualification to preside over all of creation. In contrast, God's words demonstrated Job's ignorance as a man, his impotence, and impatience. The question is quite simple:

How can Job (and his friends) pretend to comprehend and explain God's ways with man when he cannot even comprehend and begin to control the government of all of creation?

But, even though man cannot even begin to understand God's ways, they can for sure trust Him. Such glory must lead to praise and worship.

There are three broad areas of the created order God directs Job's attention: The earth, the heavens, and then the animal world. With each area God asks Job what knowledge or power, if any, does he have over these realms. The obvious answer is none.

I. God's Dealings with the earth (38:4-12)

After gripping Job's attention, along with his friends, by a display of power in a whirlwind, God challenges all of the arguments of Job and his 4 friends. Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge? It is a humbling rebuke by the creator of the universe.

After that rebuke, God draws Job to consider the creation of the earth (4-30). He opens His discourses by framing everything He is about to reveal with a question, Where were you Job when I laid the foundation of the earth? God then provides a series of illustrations from the planet earth, and follows each illustration with a series of simple, but challenging questions. In other words, what were you doing Job (and your buddies) when I created? Oh, you weren't even around, huh? The point being, Job has no authority to question God's purposes when he can only know about creation if God tells him about it.

II. God's Dealings with the heavens (38:30-38)

God moves from descriptions of the earth to asking Job about what he knows about the heavens. He points Job to the sky so as to consider the constellations and the stars and then asks him if whether or not he knows anything about their dominion and ordinances, which is to mean the laws regulating their orbits. They maintain their positions in heaven and come about in their season as God has determined. God then points Job to the weather system on earth and asks him what he knows about clouds, rain, and the lightening. His silence only speaks to his sheer ignorance in these matters.

III. God's Dealings with the animal kingdom (38:39-41:34)

After questioning Job's knowledge about the creation of the earth and heavens, the remainder of God's discourse describes the ways of various animals familiar with Job. There are at least 12 animals mentioned: Lions, ravens, goats, deer, wild donkeys, oxen, ostriches, horses, hawks, eagles, and then two strange beasts I personally believe refer to dinosaurs, the behemoth and the leviathan.

All of these creatures of God both great and small expose the fallible person Job is. After brazenly demanding a day in court with God to vindicate him before his friends, God gives him his day and Job falls dreadfully short of what it takes to make such demands from God.

But, in spite of his miserable short-comings, the God of all creation is ready to dispense grace.

IV. Job's Renewal (42)

The only appropriate response Job could give to God after such a withering rebuke was to put his hand over his mouth and repent. That is exactly what he does.

1) Job's Repentance - Job recognizes his foolishness in light of who God is. Thus he confesses his reckless accusations that questioned the character of the living God. He had not understood, but now he truly saw (5).

2) Job's Reconciliation - Job is declared to be God's servant. He now stands as a priest for his 3 friends whom God declares acted in folly against Job.

3) Job's Restoration - After his repentance, Job is restored to his former time of blessing. In fact, God gave him twice of what he owned before. The family who had forsaken him returned and ate food with him, implying they had a restored fellowship with Job. Moreover, they comforted him and consoled him as to all the adversity he had suffered. Then lastly, God restored to Job a new family of children, 7 sons and 3 daughters.

He then died a blessed man, old and full of days.

Through out the book, it is apparent Job bemoaned the calamitous situation brought upon him by God. It is not sinful to bemoan calamity brought on by God. It is only human to grieve over horrendous circumstances that befall a person. What is sinful, however, is charging God with folly, or lack of wisdom, or that He is malicious in character. Such would be foolish on our part, for we know not what God is doing. What is perceived as foolish and unwise and malicious, is really the holy purposes of a wise and good God working things out on behalf of those whom He has set His love.

Labels:

Rock the Vote

From my Canadian blogging foil, Neil.

Dead Goldfish Offered the Vote in Illinois


Thank the good Lord it was a McCain supporter.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Closing the Deal


The Comprehensive Argument Against Barack Obama



There is lots of video and external links.
Put up by the "young guns" at Hot Air.

Labels:

Adams earned his money on Sunday

Monday, October 20, 2008

...and a little child shall lead them.

This video stirs up within me conflicting emotion. There is comedy and tragedy all in one.



First off, I will not be surprised if the parents take this kid on the road as a traveling Pentecostal evangelist AND, here's the kicker, PEOPLE WILL FLOCK TO SEE HIM! If not that, I certainly could see this kid headlined at a Benny Hinn show.

And to think when my 2 year old picked up an open mike when we were setting up the sound system in Sunday school I thought he was just goofing around. How was I to know the holy ghost had done fallen on my boy and he was prophesyin' in Jesus name?

The heart break, however, is the fact that people in the congregation genuinely thought a toddler was being used to give a "Word from God." Listen carefully to the lady thanking Jesus.

Why am I reminded of Isaiah 3:12?

HT: Dan the Man

Labels: , , ,

Friday, October 17, 2008

Cat Painters

Awwww....

It is Halloween time and what better way to get into the Halloween spirit than highlighting those pet owners who excel with humiliating their pets and shaming themselves.

For this Halloween, why not take up the fine craft of cat painting?

People who humanize their cats are already a little "off" - I mean, if you name all of your 7 cats after the professors from Hogwarts out of the Harry Potter series, you take being a pet owner just a wee bit too seriously.

Of course, my immediate question: How did these folks get these cats to sit still long enough to be painted? What self-respecting cat allows itself to be subjected to the warped fancies of its owner?






















Note the irony in this next picture. Cats are known for staring at fish in a bowl, and the cat is painted to look like a fish!




















Why not paint the lab as Batman and then go trick-or-treat?




















IT'S A DEATH CAT!!!!




















These next two people have the look of "cat owners" on them, don't they?
wink,wink, nudge, nudge.
It wouldn't surprise me if they call their cats, "my babies."







































Billy Jack's cat. (Go Google if you don't know the pop cultural reference).




















And we can't forget the dog owners. This isn't exactly pet painting, but it comes close to the borders.

Labels:

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Evolutionary Mythology

Answers in Genesis counts down the Top Ten: Myths about Evolution.

All the points are awesome, but number 10, the thought of computer designers (emphasis on the word design), designing a computer program to prove evolution while at the same time claiming their program mimics randomness while denying design of any sort just cracks me up.

Labels:

Monday, October 13, 2008

"Teachable Moments"

Here's yet another reason I plan to vote "yes" on Proposition 8 here in California:

Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day


It is also a good reason to homeschool.

Labels: ,

25 years of Alpha and Omega Ministries

So James White is celebrating 25 years of ministry with Alpha and Omega Ministries.

I think I have recounted at one time about how I first met James back a number of years ago at my church. He was speaking on a Wednesday night, and as I was walking to the men's room, I run into him and Phil Johnson walking out of the choir room. I sort of froze and babbled a "hello" and Phil quickly said "Oh, this is Fred Butler, he is one of your fans" or something to that effect. James extends his hand to shake mine, and I just clasp his between both of mine and patting the top of his hand I say "I just love your books," or something like that. It was so dopey.

Any how, James has been asking for testimonies from folks as to how AOMIN has blessed their hearts. I sent in mine over the weekend with the hope it will get posted on the front page of his blog. But, if not, here it is:

James,

I didn't like you when I was first introduced to you and
Alpha and Omega Ministries.

I was a staunch and vocal KJV-Only apologist and I thought you were a pompous academic windbag who used clever argumentation to deny the truth about God's one and only Bible.

Of course, that personal evaluation came from a 23-year old punk who had deluded himself into believing G.A. Riplinger was a man and a reputable Bible scholar and competent researcher.

A friend gave me a booklet you wrote exposing her so-called "errors," and even though I first learned from you that "Gail" was really a woman, I was still convinced you were mistaken about the modern translations, so I was even more determined to refute your "attacks" against her tragedy of a book, "New Age Bible Versions". When the "King James Only Controversy" was released at our church's bookstore, I think I was the first person to purchase a copy. I probably read it twice, each time underscoring vast sections and writing my rudely mocking comments in the margins. Sometimes in all CAPS.

But God is a gracious God, smiling patiently from heaven as we slowly mature.

Though I was a strident KJV-onlyist, God was opening my heart to the glorious truth of the doctrines of Grace. I read everything I could get my hands upon concerning Calvinism. So, you can imagine my surprise when I discovered James White was also an unapologetic Calvinist. For many years I was thinking you were a moron regarding Bible versions, but you were swiftly becoming one of my favorite spokesman defending the biblical teachings on salvation. I responded to the "Potter's Freedom" much differently than I did the "King James Only Controversy" and I can say that book was probably one of the sources God used to open my eyes to the bankruptcy of KJV-Only apologetics.

Those men from whom I learned my KJV-onlyism were also the men who venomously attacked Calvinism, the doctrines which were so precious to me. Their argumentation against Calvinism I knew was ridiculous and sad. Then I began to think, "If they are mistaken with much of their arguments against Calvinism, perhaps they could be wrong about their arguments defending KJV-onlyism?"

Thus began my re-evaluation of my KJV-only convictions. This time, I picked up "The King James Only Controversy" and read it with different eyes. What you argued defending the transmission of God's infallible and inerrant Word, supplemented well a lot of the other good material I was reading which refuted KJV-onlyism. I am grateful to say now, some 15 years after I read that little booklet about New Age Bible Versions, Alpha and Omega Ministries was truly used of the Lord to free me from such crippling beliefs regarding our God's revelation.

Thanks Brother (And thanks for not laughing too hard when I showed you my marked up copy of the "King James Only Controversy").

Fred Butler,

(Phil's friend)

Labels: ,

Friday, October 10, 2008

Krauthammer has been reading my blog

Charles Krauthammer, a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist for the Washington Post (I mention that to say this isn't coming from a incendiary crank), must have read my post from Wednesday, because he comes to similar conclusions I did regarding Obama's relationship with Ayers and his entire squad of crack-pot leftists.

Obama & Friends: Judge Not?

He writes,

... even more disturbing than the cynicism, is the window these associations give on Obama's core beliefs. He doesn't share the Rev. Wright's poisonous views of race nor Ayers's views, past and present, about the evil that is American society. But Obama clearly did not consider these views beyond the pale. For many years he swam easily and without protest in that fetid pond.

Could we even imagine a young, charming Republican candidate who had close dealings with say, Eric Rudolph, convicted abortion clinic bomber, would be on the verge of potentially becoming the President of the United States? Or 20 years under the tutelage of a crazy preacher like Arnold Murray of The Shepherd's Chapel? Normal thinking, sensible people would not stand for it. The media certainly would not stand for it and he would had been dismissed way before there was any serious showing in the primaries.

By the way, my Facebook challenger left a good comment explaining his support for Obama under my Ayers post. In case anyone missed it.

Labels:

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Why William Ayers Matters

So over at Facebook, I have been having a few political back and forths with a fellow I knew in college who has become an Obamaton.

When "The One" ascends his throne in the White House next January and the despairing clouds of Bush are driven away, then we'll see the environment healed, disease banished from our shores, Democrats who governed our nation's cities with staggering incompetence will miraculously be filled with wisdom to govern without corruption, and the Hollywood elite who have been in exile from Washington these last 9 years will be free to return to the comforts of the Lincoln bedroom.

Or so you would think in our short-sighted and clueless postmodern culture with the 22-minute attention span that is easily hypnotized by luminous objects.

One of our points of contention during our interaction is the relevance of Bill Ayers, the 60s leftist terrorist who has had close associations with Obama for more than a decade. My challenger scoffed in one comment exchange that anyone who thinks he and Obama were more than just acquaintances is merely drinking the Republican Kool-aid.

Welp, contrary to this flippant brush, Obama certainly was more than an occasional neighborhood acquaintance, but carried on a close alliance with Ayers for many years as an up-and-coming Chicago politician. Stanley Kurtz of the National Review has been doing Woodward and Bernstein like investigative reporting on Obama's ties to Ayers tells how they both served on a board of directors whose sole purpose was to pass out money for community activities, including inner city educational projects. Much of the money didn't go directly to schools, but to leftist community activist groups like ACORN to use at their Marxist discretion to "radicalize" inner city communities with their anti-American propaganda. Kurtz summarized his findings on Hugh Hewitt's radio program on Monday and a transcript of that interview can be read here.

Additionally, Josephine six-pack, Sarah Palin, brought up Ayers and Obama's friendship in a speech a day or so after her debate with Biden. While she was scorned for raising a ridiculous non-issue that has been repudiated by Obama himself, Anderson Cooper of CNN aired a report on their connection that reveals a much deeper partnership than being occasional, neighborhood acquaintances. A You Tube clip of the report can be seen here. Keep in mind this is not the "biased" Fox News Network.

Now, what does any of this mean? Is it just a baseless charge to attempt to connect Obama to a man who did some so-called "terrorist" activities during the 60s? Obama was just 8 years old when Ayers was in trouble with the law as one of his advisers, Anita Dunn, points out in that CNN report. That's like 30 years ago. Besides, McCain was friends with that Keating fellow who got the government into all sorts of financial problems in the late 80s.

The McCain camp says the Ayers's connection reveals a lack of judgment on Obama's part as to who he associates with. Though I certainly agree it does reveal a profound lack of judgment on Obama's part to be aligned with a 60s era, American hating radical no matter what the setting may be, there is also severe lack of judgment on McCain's part to be taken to the cleaners in a financial scandal.

That being stated, however, there is a more fundamental difference between the two:

Whereas McCain learned from his foolish mistake and became a more aggressive financial reformer, Obama's alliance with Ayers reveals a foundational worldview perspective as to how he will pursue the political change he seeks. Moreover, the collection of characters like Ayers and his "crazy uncle" Rev. Wright show us who it has been shaping Obama's philosophical principles on life, leadership, and now government. That is why Ayers matters. Certainly Obama repudiates his violent terrorist past, but they certainly share the basic presuppositions which drive their left politics. That should be a concern for anyone with a bit of common sense.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

Irreligulously

Bill Maher has made a movie with an unpronounceable title, Religulous, which is meant to be a comedy exploring religion around the world. I don't plan to see it because the more important matters of my life won't allow me. Perhaps when it is out on DVD; but still, I am not inclined to watch it, because, as Hugh Hewitt often remarks about Bill Maher, he is not only wrong, but rotten.

A couple of reviews to consider:

Michael Medved notes how Maher spends much of his time attacking Christianity, which is to be expected, because it is the Christianity that provides him the political freedoms to allow him the opportunity to mock Christianity. Plus, Christians are not really known for butchering you and your family and then burning your house with fire if you choose to mock their prophet. That tends to happen only in Islamic countries when a person draws a crude cartoon depicting Mohamet as a bomb thrower. If Maher genuinely had the courage of his anti-religious convictions, he would have explored all the personal foibles of Mohamet with some Pakistan Muslims.

Then, Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis recount how Maher lied in order to sneak past security and get into non public areas of their creation museum last year, see HERE and HERE (by the way, the second post has security camera pictures of Maher standing outside the museum waiting to spring his "Gotcha" on the staff). Considering how Maher is an atheist who ascribes to a worldview in which there are no absolute morals, it really isn't lying to a person if the greater good is to get your important movie produced.

In reality Maher is just a bitter guy who hates his creator. Medved sums up Maher's life well,

Maher scrupulously avoids any honest examination of his own spiritual state or pursuit of happiness. At one point, he interacts with his mother and derisively recalls his Catholic upbringing, but there’s no hint as to whether his anti-religious path has led him to enlightenment and satisfaction or merely to bitter loneliness. Since Maher has established himself as a famous and rich comedian, we’re obviously meant to assume that he’s achieved some sort of happiness or fulfillment. But he never reflects on his own lack of a wife, children or family, or his comments elsewhere about his enthusiastic indulgence in drugs and hookers.
I think Medved's challenge for a sequel is stellar. Let's have Maher visit all those places where religion has been torn from the fabric of society, like say, North Korea. Maybe we can see how enlightened that society is without religion. We'll call it Irreligulous.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, October 06, 2008

Readings from Paul Johnson #6

Another selection from historian Paul Johnson's marvelous work, Intellectuals.


Karl Marx: Apocalyptic Poet

Marx was a child of his time, the mid-nineteenth century, and Marxism was a characteristic nineteenth-century philosophy in that it claimed to be scientific. "Scientific" was Marx's strongest expression of approval, which he habitually used to distinguish himself from his many enemies. He and his work were "scientific"; they were not. He felt he had found a scientific explanation of human behavior in history akin to Darwin's theory of evolution. The notion that Marxism is a science, in a way that no other philosophy ever has been or could be, is implanted in the public doctrine of the states his followers founded, so that it colours the teaching of all subjects in their schools and universities.

This has spilled over into the non-Marxist world, for intellectuals, especially academics, are fascinated by power, and the identification of Marxism with massive physical authority has tempted many teachers to admit Marxist "science" to their own disciplines, especially such inexact or quasi-exact subjects as economics, sociology, history and geography. No doubt if Hitler, rather than Stalin, had won the struggle for Central and Eastern Europe in 1941-45, and so imposed his will on a great part of the world, Nazi doctrines which also claimed to be scientific, such as its race-theory, would have been given an academic gloss and penetrated universities throughout the world. But military victory ensured that Marxist, rather than Nazi, science would prevail. ...

But in a deeper sense he was not really a scholar and not a scientist at all. He was not interested in finding the truth but in proclaiming it. ... But there was nothing scientific about him; indeed, in all that matters he was anti-scientific. The poet in Marx was much more important than is generally supposed, even though his poetic imagery soon became absorbed in his political vision. He began writing poetry as a boy, around two main themes: his love for the girl next door, Jenny von Westphalen, of Prussian-Scotch descent, whom he married in 1841; and world destruction. ...

He has himself, in the person of God, say: "I shall howl gigantic curses at mankind," and below the surface of much of his poetry is the notion of a general world-crisis building up. He was fond of quoting Mephistopheles' line from Goethe's Faust, "Every thing that exists deserves to perish"; he used it, for instance, in his tract against Napoleon III, "The Eighteenth Brumaire," and this apocalyptic vision of an immense, impending catastrophe on the existing system remained with him throughout his life: it is there in the poetry, it is the background to the Communist Manifesto of 1848, and it is the climax of Capital itself.

Marx, in short, is an eschatological writer from start to finish. It is notable, for instance, that in the original draft of The German Ideology, (1845-46) he included a passage strongly reminiscent of his poems, dealing with "the Day of Judgment," "When the reflections of burning cities are seen in the heavens...and when the "celestrial harmonies" consist of the melodies of the Maresillaise and the Carmagnole, to the accompaniment of thundering cannon, while the guillotine beats time and the inflamed masses scream Ca ira, ca ira, and self-consciousness is hanged on the lamppost."...The apocalyptic note of the poems again erupts in his horror-speech of 14 April 1856: "History is the judge, its executioner the proletariat" - the terror, the houses marked with the red cross, catastrophic metaphors, earthquakes, lava boiling up as the earth's crust cracks. The point is that Marx's concept of Doomsday, whether in its lurid poetic version or its eventually economic one, is an artistic not a scientific vision. It was always in Marx's mind, and as a political economist he worked backwards from it, seeking the evidence that made it inevitable, rather than forward to it, from objectively examined data. And of course it is the poetic element which gives Marx's historical projection its drama and its fascination to radical readers, who want to believe that the death and judgment of capitalism is coming. The poetic gift manifests itself intermittenly in Marx's pages, producing some memorable passages. In that sense that he intuited rather than reasoned or calculated, Marx remained a poet to the end. [Intellectuals, p. 52, 53, 54, 55]

Labels:

Friday, October 03, 2008

The Obama Truth Squad Brown Shirt Choir

Lifting our voices to change the world.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, October 02, 2008

Biases in Archaeology

I am not sure who this Jesse Long guy is, but he has some good comments about the up coming PBS NOVA documentary, The Bible's Buried Secrets, meant to hurl dispersions upon the historicity of the Bible. The producer of the documentary claims to have interviewed leading "experts," but usually that is code word for leading "critical God haters."

Jesse draws us to the one foundational issue often overlooked in documentaries like this: the role presuppositional biases play when archaeologists evaluate evidence.

PBS Program Claims Bible is Historically Unreliable

It's a good little reminder we are dealing with fundamental worldview commitments when we engage in apologetics and evangelism.

Labels: , , ,