Monday, February 27, 2006

The Monday Tour: 2/27/06

Catez Stevens looks at "Share the Love: City on a Hill or Salt of the Earth?"

There is a tension that can develop between two different aspects of the Christian life. Should we be the city on the hill or the salt of the earth? Should we be a very separate group of people removed from others and wait for people to come to us - or should we be sprinkled out in the world like seasoning making a difference in our particular circles? Of course the obvious answer is both, but we don't always find the balance of both so easily. As Christians we are going through a spiritual process which is called sanctification. We are forgiven, not perfect, and we are being perfected. We bring some of our imperfection to the way we view things and the way we sometimes communicate things.
----------
Ashley at Intellectuelle posts
"On Christian Education". Any liberal arts teachers in the crowd?
----------
Education week I guess: Bryce at The Lion Rampant with
"C.S. Lewis on Reading"
----------
In this thread at
Baghdadee there is speculation about who bombed the Samarra shrine. One prominent theory: the "Reichstag" theory.
----------
Tyler writes a really interesting post (I didn't join the fun) at Habakkuk's Watchpost: - when I am about to give up on Tyler he always gets interesting:
"God's Changing Hand". I don't even have to warn you about the language.
----------
There are two very good shrine updates at
Iraq the Model . One gives the actual damage from the riots afterwards; the other an idea of whodunit.
----------
Parableman thinks South Dakota and the four other states are
"Jumping the Gun on Abortion"
----------
Rick Moran looks at
"Iraq: The Bullwinkle Factor". The Boy who cried wolf is another good analogy.
----------
Teresa, a 2nd year law student,
"Answer to the High Court Question": she agrees with Parableman above - the Supremes will strike down the South Dakota abortion law and uphold Roe.
----------
Where Ben has noticed that Alicublog has
". . . Eyes, but Do Not See". Thanks Ben
----------
Last week Jan was talking about Pure Sex - now its
"Smart Sex". She quotes this:
"I think the key is that everyone wants to matter, especially to their sex partners. We have created a world in which we treat sex as a private recreational activity, with no moral or social significance. But when sex is a recreational activity, my partner becomes a consumer good. And we all know what we do with consumer goods that cease to satisfy: We get rid of them. In this world of consumer sex, it is socially acceptable to use other people. But no one really wants to be used."
----------
Carl and Hillary? What will Bill say (or what can he say?) about
"Sen. Clinton Says Rove Obsesses About Her"
----------
Austin Bay Blog has a series of internal Al Qaeda letters that have been declassified
here (Somalia). A whole list is here
----------
I ran out of gas by the time I got to the last Christian Carnival. Go read the posts. They are good. Next week

Read more!

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Christian Carnival CX(110) is up

The Education of the Soul Edition

The introduction from Alex at Jordan's View:

As Christians we are supremely fortunate to be in the hands of the infinitely wise Teacher, the One whose knowledge is without limit regarding all the vast intricacies of the universe He created, but even more amazingly, One who knows each of us as individuals-- by name. Picture Jesus speaking to Simon and naming him Peter (meaning Rock), as He spoke forth the destiny of the man. He foresaw that Peter would someday deny Him three times, yet be restored to become a builder and pillar of the church. Or remember when God spoke to Jacob saying, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed."

Yes, God knows us, and He still speaks to the souls of men, women and children today through His Word, by His Spirit, and most of all, through His Son . . .

About Christian Carnival:
Contributing a Post to the Christian Carnival


The Christian Carnival is open to Christians of Protestant, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic convictions. One of the goals of this Carnival is to offer our readers to a broad range of Christian thought.

Posts need not be of a theological topic. Posts about home life, politics, or current events, for example, written from a Christian worldview are welcome.

Update: As the goal of this Carnival is to highlight Christian thought in the blogosphere, entries will be limited to blogs that share that goal. Blogs with content that is focused on a business, that has potentially offensive material Christians may not want to link to on their sites, or has no reference to distinctively Christian thought may not be included in this Carnival. There are other Carnivals that would be a more appropriate venue for that material. I realize that this will be a judgment call on the part of the Carnival administrator, and being human she may make mistakes. However, as the Christian Carnival is getting quite large, and it is sometimes questionable whether the entrants are seeking to promote Christian thought, I find this necessary.

Update: We also expect a level of discourse that is suitable for a Christian showcase. Thus entries may be refused if they engage in name-calling, ad hominem attacks, offensive language, or for any similar reason as judged by the administrator.

So, if you have a post in this framework - go here to find out more: Christian Carnival info.

Read more!

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

The Monday (er, Tuesday) Tour: 2/21/06

Christian Carnival CIX posts:

Again, I self-limit myself to three posts from the Carnival to highlight - and there were so, so, so many more I could have listed.
----------
Hannah Im continues to catch my attention. First, my wife loves Biscotti and here is a recipe.

Next, she asks for help for what is going on in Northern Uganda where
A paramilitary group using Christian terminology and satanically twisted Christian theology is kidnapping thousands of children (congressional estimates are 20,000-50,000 children), forcing them to mutilate and murder their own parents and other children, and abusing them in unthinkable ways. It sounds too incredible to be true, but it is well-documented and has been going on for years.
She has links for more information, and action if you wish.
----------
For some interesting pseudo-science being taught to our children in schools today go here (HT: Parableman.) We must stop this now.
----------
An amazing story about the power of God: "When the Spirit is Willing" (HT: Sun Comprehending Glass)
----------
Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost weighs in (well) on "Embracing Naomi: Dobson and Reciprocal Beneficiary Contracts":
Some conservatives and libertarians may see no need for the government to expand the definition of civil unions in any manner. But the political reality is that the change is inevitable. The issue is no longer when civil unions will be recognized but what form they will take. (The Colorado bill is competing with a domestic partnership proposal from Democratic lawmakers.) By desexualizing the issue we preserve the government’s purpose (a social institution that brings stability to our society) without endorsing behavior that many of us consider immoral.

Besides, why should we extend social and government benefits to a group based on sexual orientation while excluding others who are equally worthy? Why extend civil unions to the lesbian couple down the street but not reciprocal beneficiary contracts to the elderly sisters who live next door?

The State doesn’t create marriage; it only recognizes its value. It has no authority to redefine the term to make is more inclusive. Marriage should be reserved for the intimate, exclusive, sexually complementary relationship of a husband and a wife. The State also doesn’t create civil unions. But when stripped of any sexual connotation and reserved for binary, dependent, committed relationships, the State should recognize their value.
Also, "Pro-Choice, Anti-Science: Informed Consent and Post-Abortion Health Risks".

And to make the Street Prophets crowd happy again: "Civility and the Coulterization of Conservatism"
"Conservatism is dead and Ann Coulter is its corpse.

That was my initial reaction to hearing Coulter’s latest semi-racists jibe: "I think our motto should be post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'"

Admittedly, I’m being a bit hyperbolic. While suffering from decrepitude, conservatism isn’t exactly dead. And though she possesses the same pallor and stench, Coulter isn’t exactly a corpse. But the two appear to have formed a symbiotic relationship of decay."
----------
Well, leave it to Jan at the View from Her to just get all … all … well all SEXUAL for God's sake (that was sincere and not swearing) with two posts: "The Bible, Sex and a Song". I gotta quote this
"…from the fourth chapter of the Song of Solomon:

_Awake, O north wind, and come, O south wind!
Blow upon my garden that its fragrance may be wafted abroad.
Let my beloved come to his garden and eat its choicest fruits._

Oh, behave!"
and: "Pure Sex" .
----------
I need a cold shower. Next week.

Read more!

Monday, February 20, 2006

Natural Law: Objections and C.S. Lewis's Tao

[Number five in a series ]

Objections

My last post on natural law [Brain Cramps for God or Street Prophets] drew a very interesting theological objection; and a criticism of my lack of charity. I should handle those now and not buried in the comments in two different posts.

Objection #1: The first from Elizabeth D at Street Prophets points out the fallacy of natural theology (as opposed to revealed theology) and accused natural law theory of falling into this trap; and some natural law thinkers have - both those that are theistically based and secularly based. I will point the reader to the series of comments starting here. Because it is so important, I will link the major articles that Elizabeth and I posted: The key quote to me in separating the natural law theory I am putting forth from natural theology is:

Henry: "William Klempa steers a middle course on Calvin, attributing to him a revised concept of natural law. [Calvin:] 'It is a fact that the law of God which we call the moral law is nothing less than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men.' . . . Klempa concludes that Calvin departed from the earlier natural law tradition by identifying natural law with moral law [As J. Bud has done] . . . as Harro Hopfl remarks, 'Calvin never allowed to natural knowledge of the moral law any independent adequacy as a guide to moral conduct for Christians.' [Nor do I - I have explicitly talked about a higher, specific revelation for Christians] Yet, contrary to Hopfl, says Klempa, Calvin held that natural law maxims provide 'enough moral knowledge to enable pagans to sustain a semblance of civility and to condemn them in their own consciences, and they are also supplementary political resources for the Christian.' [Precisely.]. Moreover, Calvin affirmed that a natural order of laws 'can be discerned, and men and women do in fact discern it.' But this is not unqualified, Klempa says. 'What is objectively available to them they subjectively repulse, or else misconstrue and pervert'"[through our sin nature]

Objection #2: From Tyler Simons - "my brother from another [theological] mother" - at [language alert] Habakkuk's Watchpost this criticism over at Brain Cramps;
"I actually agree that any belief system that excludes some form of theism is inherently incoherent, but I think that it is arrogant, intellectually dishonest and uncharitable to assume this without backing it up with an argument that is conducted on grounds those who don't believe in God would accept. I'll email you an essay by the excellent theologian Shubert Ogden where he tries to do this. It might actually help your case."
This essay, "The Strange Witness of Unbelief" (and indeed I hope it is argued on grounds those who do not believe in God will accept), is indeed very good; and I will email the PDF file to anyone who asks. My answer to this criticism was (with some insertions and rewriting):
This is, and isn't, a valid criticism. I did not even try to make an argument that would convince agnostics and atheists of God's existence - and realized when I put the first tablet in that it was a "slap in the face" of those who reject God. Guilty as charged.

In pleading for leniency, I have pointed folk to the first 5 chapters of
Mere Christianity where Lewis attempts to make that case from natural law. Of course, as Joe Carter (and Paul) rightly state:
Carter: "Denying the reality of God is, I believe, more a matter of the will and passions than of reason and intellect. This is one of the reasons that ontological arguments, which rely on reason and intuition alone, are almost completely unpersuasive to those of agnostic inclination."

Paul:
1 Corinthians 2:10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ."
I should have pointed folks to Carter's series, "Dismantling Implausibility Structures" . . . However, it is unlikely to do any good - you cannot argue people into a belief of God. They must experience God and (since Paul says they already have experienced God) actually stop allowing their "will and passions" to get in the way of God's revelation to them. Since I will not be a Calvinist, I will believe that God has not left them out of the revelation; and that they have simply chosen in their free will to pass by it. And in that, your criticism may be wrong.
The Tao of C.S. Lewis

In the appendix to "The Abolition of Man" states some examples he thinks are from what he calls the "Tao" - natural law. I cannot introduce this better than he did:
"The following illustrations of the Natural Law are collected from such sources as come readily to the hand of one who is not a professional historian. The list makes no pretence of completeness. It will be noticed that writers such as Locke and Hooker, who wrote within the Christian tradition, are quoted side by side with the New Testament. This would, of course, be absurd if I were trying to collect independent testimonies to the Tao. But
  1. I am not trying to prove its validity by the argument from common consent. Its validity cannot be deduced. For those who do not perceive its rationality, even universal consent could not prove it.

  2. The idea of collecting independent testimonies presupposes that 'civilizations' have arisen in the world independently of one another; or even that humanity has had several independent emergences on this planet. The biology and anthropology involved in such an assumption are extremely doubtful. It is by no means certain that there has ever (in the sense required) been more than one civilization in all history. It is at least arguable that every civilization we find has been derived from another civilization and, in the last resort, from a single centre—'carried' like an infectious disease or like the Apostolical succession."
He lists the following general laws and sub-divisions. I originally picked out some examples; but editing the list down to a rational number killed the effectiveness. Please go print this out (if possible) and look it over.
  1. The Law of General Beneficence
    • Negative Examples
    • Positive Examples

  2. The Law of Special Beneficence
  3. Duties to Parents, Elders, Ancestors
  4. Duties to Children and Posterity

  5. The Law of Justice
    • Sexual Justice
    • Honesty
    • Justice in Court

  6. The Law of Good Faith and Veracity
  7. The Law of Mercy
  8. The Law of Magnanimity

Next time: The Four Witnesses of Natural Law.

Read more!

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Christian Carnival CIX (109) is up

The introduction from Laura at Pursuing Holiness:

Welcome to the 109th edition of the Christian Carnival! Valentine's Day was Tuesday, and the theme of this week's carnival is love. True, some (well, okay, most) of the categories are lame, and true, categorizing some posts the way I did was really a s t r e t c h . But since love is patient and kind, I'm trusting you'll bear with me on that.
1 Corinthians 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

About Christian Carnival:
Contributing a Post to the Christian Carnival

The Christian Carnival is open to Christians of Protestant, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic convictions. One of the goals of this Carnival is to offer our readers to a broad range of Christian thought.

Posts need not be of a theological topic. Posts about home life, politics, or current events, for example, written from a Christian worldview are welcome.

Update: As the goal of this Carnival is to highlight Christian thought in the blogosphere, entries will be limited to blogs that share that goal. Blogs with content that is focused on a business, that has potentially offensive material Christians may not want to link to on their sites, or has no reference to distinctively Christian thought may not be included in this Carnival. There are other Carnivals that would be a more appropriate venue for that material. I realize that this will be a judgment call on the part of the Carnival administrator, and being human she may make mistakes. However, as the Christian Carnival is getting quite large, and it is sometimes questionable whether the entrants are seeking to promote Christian thought, I find this necessary.

Update: We also expect a level of discourse that is suitable for a Christian showcase. Thus entries may be refused if they engage in name-calling, ad hominem attacks, offensive language, or for any similar reason as judged by the administrator.

So, if you have a post in this framework - go here to find out more: Christian Carnival info.

Read more!

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Natural Law: What is included?

[Number three in a series]

The last two natural law posts seemed to develop questions around what I intended to deal with now anyway: What are those things "we cannot not know" or "cannot not learn"? In looking around the planet what can we recognize as:

". . . [flowing from] the authority of . . . the Creator, its content in the design He has imparted to us - which is also part of the design, and which includes deep conscience as a part" - J. Budziszewski [hereafter: J. Bud]
I will take a couple of lists from J. Bud [this time] and C.S. Lewis [next time] - and let everyone from different cultural, religious, and moral backgrounds see whether they jive with your personal grounding. Try to add and subtract.

The reason to examine these "first principles" (as J. Bud calls them) is to know what is foundational to human morals. For me the reason to do this is to find some foundation of agreement so I can have a discussion with those of other moral systems.

Remember, natural law is not genetic, and it is not programmed in any way that keeps us from violating it even while we know its there. I will talk in later posts about some of the witnesses of its existence; the results of its violation; and the ways it is being eclipsed in our culture. Finally, I will point out C.S. Lewis's predictions about what its eclipse will do to us - the abolition of man. First, let's argue over the list.

Also remember: rationalizations, justifications, and excuses are all proof the law exists. We would not need to explain and/or justify our acts to others if we did not know that there was a prima facie case against those acts.

In What We Can't Not Know, J. Bud focuses primarily on the Ten Commandments as being the Abrahamic (Christian, Muslim, Jewish) reflection of natural law. Please note what I just said: the reflection of natural law and not the source (Thank you).

This makes the "Decalogue debate" in the United States interesting. I believe that the United States legal system was not based explicitly on the Decalogue. However, I believe that English common law and foundational US law are based on natural law - so both the Decalogue and US law share a common root - that universal moral code. Since, as J. Bud notes, the Decalogue "states the most important part of the universal moral code in ideal form" - it also harmonizes with US secular law. Hence, while it may be true that the Ten Commandments were not the basis of US law, it becomes impossible to convince some of that.

The First Tablet
"Love God with your all"

The first set of commandments have to do with what we owe to God. This is the group that will "incite the crowd" when it comes to calling this a "universal moral code". As J. Bud points out, Thomas Aquinas made a distinction between those commandments "that are evident to every mind and those that are evident to the faithful mind". J. Bud clarifies this apparent contradiction by pointing out that it is like listening to music with, and without, your fingers in your ears - we all hear the basics of the music, but faith - removing the fingers - allows us to hear it as it really is. Faith then is not just a spiritual virtue, but also an intellectual one. This is why Paul, in Romans 1:19-20, would say:

. . . because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. [See also Isaiah 28:23-29 and Psalm 19]
The First Commandment:

'I am the LORD your God . . . 'You shall have no other gods before Me. 'You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 'You shall not worship them or serve them . . .
There are no atheistic cultures on the planet - and never have been. All attempts to impose atheism on people (particularly communism) have failed miserably; and brutally. Even Buddhism has internal debate about whether reincarnation, and the eternal nature of souls, implies a creator and, while the practice of the religion doesn't require one, they will not bring themselves to flat out deny His existence. Obviously, different cultures have different cosmologies and different sets of gods - but the human race, in general, knows a creator exists. J. Bud lists some other suppositions that arise from this:

  • We know benefit incurs obligation;
  • We recognize what is intrinsically worthy of our gratitude, and to pay such a debt ennobles us
The Second Commandment:

'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.
People all over the planet "just know" the bad-mouthing your own Creator is wrong; and most usually have codes written into their religion about bashing other people's. This brings light to the extreme emotional undercurrents in the Danish cartoon issue; and why so many moral and ethical people, whatever their beliefs on free speech or Islam, are bothered by the nature of the cartoons. We know the cartoons were wrong - because they were blasphemous - in our deepest fiber; and we have sympathy for those whose Creator was blasphemed even though the most extreme reactions are too much for us to take. It also illuminates why those who wish to bash God in the public square will simply talk themselves out of political existence.

The Third Commandment:

'Observe the Sabbath day to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you.
J. Bud points out the parts of this that are considered to be general moral knowledge:

  • Our complete engrossment in mundane affairs is not merely tiring but debasing - time must be set apart just for the remembrance of the Creator
  • While the created world in which we labor is important, the Creator is more important
  • We are built to run in cycles - it isn't possible for beings of our type to do the same thing all the time. We must intermit our work
BTW: The seven day cycle in the Bible is not part of natural law: it is a specific revelation to the Abrahamic religions.



The Second Tablet
"Love your neighbor as yourself"

The "Second Tablet Project" is J. Bud's name for those who wish to ignore the three previous commandments (the "loving God" ones); and focus on the rest (the "loving your neighbor" ones). He posits this position is actually more popular among lukewarm religious believers trying to make the moral law more palatable to non-believers than among non-believers themselves. Non-believers will fight the whole ten.

The Fourth Commandment (some place this in the first tablet):

Honor your father and your mother
The general moral knowledge according to J. Bud:

  • Parents are the Creator's delegated representatives to their children
  • They can be delegated verbally in specific revelations (such as this one in the Bible); or tacitly by the inclination to procreation and care of the family which has been imparted to us by the Creator
I will mention that since parents are the appointed representatives of the Creator to their children; this implies parents loving their children as the Creator does.

The Fifth Commandment:

You shall not murder.
The general revelations:

  • You may not take innocent life
  • Killing is not always murder: self-defense, just war, and the death penalty are some of the types of killing that have generally been excluded over time
  • Imago Dei (we are created in image of God) is not a general revelation; but some intuition of the sacredness of life is - and this intuition is what makes Imago Dei attractive when its first heard

The Sixth Commandment:

You shall not commit adultery.
The general suppositions that must be present for this rule to exist:

  • That marriage of some type exists. Marriage is a universal institution - while marriage hasn't always been for life, or monogamous.
  • While some short-term exceptions existed, marriage has always been esteemed over other erotic relationships
  • While some short-lived exce
  • It has been between a man and a women as a natural outgrowth of the procreative function. [Whatever changes may be occurring in a few cultures - there is no doubt this has been the historical truth in all cultures.]
  • Even polygamy and polyandry have never existed together; and have always been viewed as a series of marriages between one man and women. A series of marriages and not a group marriage.
The truth of marriage as a core moral element is proven to me by the desire of gays to be married. While couched in the desire for receiving the benefits society gives to straight marriages, the hunger for a sanctified union speaks to me of a deeper drive than just some civil rewards.

The Seventh Commandment:

'You shall not steal.
This commandment pre-supposes the existence of personal property. The point of the commandment is that no one can take from another what is theirs against their reasonable will.

Societies may differ on what may become personal property, how much may be accumulated, and what limits there may be on its use; but all societies recognize personal property and oppose theft.

As J. Bud points out, that word "reasonable" is not just inserted up there. It aligns with "the plain sense of common people - the only warrant for saying it belongs to the basics of natural law". Katrina and New Orleans points out the distinction: people stealing big screen T.V.'s were one thing; food and emergency supplies another. J. Bud:

"The will may be unreasonable; for example, it is unreasonable for the owner to withhold what he has in plenty at the cost of his neighbor's life. The point here is not that some thefts are permitted, but that some takings should not be considered thefts."

The Eighth Commandment:

'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
As J. Bud points out, this is not about lying per se - it is about lying to get someone else in trouble; especially in a judicial setting where one is offering evidence. It therefore pre-supposes that some provision exists for public justice. Indeed:

  • No people in the world live without some such customs;
  • The office of the judge, like the family and marriage, seems to be a spontaneous and natural human institution; and
  • the most fundamental role of government is judgment - not legislation.
J. Bud looks at moral codes and philosophies around lying per se and points out that that this is definitely not one of the things we cannot not know: it is not a part of natural law.

The Ninth and Tenth Commandments:

You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field or his male servant or his female servant, his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
This heightens the sixth commandment in the first part; and the seventh in the second. Not only should be not commit adultery - we should not even desire too. Not only should we not steal - we should not desire too.

The presupposition of the ninth and tenth is that the right ordering of our lives does not just rely on mere performance (or avoidance) of outward deeds; but on our entire inner life. This may also be said about the other eight as well.

Next time: "Natural Law: Objections and C.S. Lewis's Tao"

Read more!

Monday, February 13, 2006

The Monday Tour: 2/13/06

Here is a positively incredible thing: a nine part (or is it 11) - and growing - series on "Jesus and Homosexuality" at Jesus Creed. Scot McKnight wrote a book by the same title. Anyway, the incredible thing is the civility and intelligence of the discussion in the comments - no flame wars. A must read: I think you should start at "Context: Defining Homosexuality 1" and work your way through in order. [Oh no, it's the "Emergent" Church! :-) ] (HT: Hannah Im)

Hannah is, BTW, "A Culture Warrior Gone AWOL"
----------
I almost cruised by this; but I will repeat Ashley's 5 Random Questions for her reason - to "leave you all with some silly and perhaps interesting questions to answer":

  1. If you could name yourself something else than your name, what would it be and why?
  2. What is one thing that continually frustrates you and why?
  3. What's your favorite thing to eat for lunch?
  4. How do you know when you've made the `right' decision when you come to a decision-making crossroads, so to speak?
  5. What's the first thing you think of when your alarm clock goes off on a Monday?
----------
At Bagdaddee:
  • "Man alsunnah wa man alshia: Historical Analysis", by Aldoctor, o the historical roots of the Shia - Sunni split
  • For geeks, or just those interested in deeper understanding of some issues: "Re-engineering Iraq"
    U.S. and Iraqi officials have spent billions on restoring Iraq's electrical system. So why is Baghdad getting just 6 hours of electricity a day?
  • "Bonfire of the Pieties" takes on one of the assumptions in the cartoon controversy and says "Islam prohibits neither images of Muhammad nor jokes about religion."
----------
Jeremy at Parableman takes on . . .
[Warning: people with even a modicum of intelligence should not click the kinism link without restraining their ability to throw their keyboard through a window. Also, reading on a full stomach is not recommended]
. . . kinism in "Neither Male nor Female, Jew nor Greek"
----------
"Has BYU prof found AIDS cure?" (HT: Sun Comprehending Glass.) That would be very, very nice.
----------
Important last minute advice to guys for Valentine's Day (pssst - its tomorrow) from Evangelical Outpost on "How to Write a Love Letter"
----------
This argument for abortion makes me cringe (to put it mildly): "The Rights of the Born" where Anne Lamont concludes:
But as a Christian and a feminist, the most important message I can carry and fight for is the sacredness of each human life, and reproductive rights for all women is a crucial part of that: It is a moral necessity that we not be forced to bring children into the world for whom we cannot be responsible and adoring and present. We must not inflict life on children who will be resented; we must not inflict unwanted children on society.
That is pure Orwellian "newspeak" - each life is sacred so we must not "inflict life on children" if they might be "resented"; or "inflict unwanted children on society". As the hat tip reporter asked:
"Lamott's reasoning - death is better than resentment - should come as a surprise to most normal human beings who have faced resentment and lived to tell about it. Should we be disappointed that life was inflicted on us?"
----------
Until next week

Read more!

Thursday, February 09, 2006

Christian Carnival CVIII(108) is up

The introduction from jcb at Part Time Pundit:

Welcome to this week's Christian Carnival CVIII, a weekly roundup of self-submitted blog posts from Christian Bloggers. Sorry for the lateness of getting this posted but having just returned from vacation, I've fallen somewhat behind. Posts are in the uncreative order of receipt.

About Christian Carnival:
Contributing a Post to the Christian Carnival

The Christian Carnival is open to Christians of Protestant, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic convictions. One of the goals of this Carnival is to offer our readers to a broad range of Christian thought.

Posts need not be of a theological topic. Posts about home life, politics, or current events, for example, written from a Christian worldview are welcome.

Update: As the goal of this Carnival is to highlight Christian thought in the blogosphere, entries will be limited to blogs that share that goal. Blogs with content that is focused on a business, that has potentially offensive material Christians may not want to link to on their sites, or has no reference to distinctively Christian thought may not be included in this Carnival. There are other Carnivals that would be a more appropriate venue for that material. I realize that this will be a judgment call on the part of the Carnival administrator, and being human she may make mistakes. However, as the Christian Carnival is getting quite large, and it is sometimes questionable whether the entrants are seeking to promote Christian thought, I find this necessary.

Update: We also expect a level of discourse that is suitable for a Christian showcase. Thus entries may be refused if they engage in name-calling, ad hominem attacks, offensive language, or for any similar reason as judged by the administrator.

So, if you have a post in this framework - go here to find out more: Christian Carnival info.

Read more!

Monday, February 06, 2006

The Monday Tour: 2/6/06

Some posts I liked from Christian Carnival 107 Posts:

  • "Wherever Two or Three are Gathered" at CB.Blog about Christians and online community.
  • Dan Edelen at Cerulean Sanctum on "Hearing God"
  • "To Forgive is Divine" from Rev Ed. He quotes this linked wisdom:
    [Bell] suggested that until you are able to look at someone who has wronged you and wish them the best in life, you haven't truly reached a state of forgiveness. It's one thing to say "I forgive you". Not that that's an easy step either. That step alone could take years. But to then look at the person (either figuratively or literally) and tell them that you want the best for them and that you hope their journey is 'blessed'--that's a whole different thing. Our natural inclination is to wish they get what they deserve, and not in a good way. We usually want that person to suffer for what they've done, or at least pay the toll. But that's a call for vengeance. That's a sign that you haven't truly let go of your bitterness or resentment. You haven't really forgiven them.
It was a rich carnival this week - this could have been six posts if I hadn't held it to three.
----------
This was cute:
Pholph's Scrabble Generator

My Scrabble© Score is: 30.
What is your score? Get it here.


and: Global Voices Online - The world is talking. Are you listening?. Gathers blogs from around the world. Want to read Middle Eastern bloggers on the Danish cartoons? Just click.(HT for both: Hannah Im)
----------
What does a Super Bowl coaches wife do on Super Bowl Sunday: "What's More Important Than Super Bowl XL?". (HT: Off the Top)
----------
A disturbing post about "Cambodia: Land of the Killing Fields" from @Large.
----------
Just so we know all liberals do not believe in "safe, legal, and rare": "Pro-choice Quotes"

And, string theory is in trouble "scientifically". (HT for both: The Best of the Godblogs
----------
For those into Biblical studies: Biblical Studies Carnival II. (HT: Parableman)
----------
Until next time

Read more!

Sunday, February 05, 2006

Natural Law: Its Source and Discernment

[Number two in a series]

I posted "Natural Law" at both Brain Cramps for God and Street Prophets. I said at the time that I intend to spend some time looking at natural law, or as C.S. Lewis called it - the law of human behavior. I outlined three books I intended to start from and see where I got to from there.

I have not really "gone" anywhere because I haven't really known where to start. It is an important subject because it is important in this world to understand our similarities of belief so that we can try not to kill each other over our differences. If we understand where our philosophies and religions overlap, then we have some common ground to resolve our issues. In the actual field of law, it separates those moral issues that we can reasonably be certain that all people understand from those that may only embrace a narrower viewpoint: we are going to legislate morality, and natural law may give us a guide to which ones (and why) we decide to legislate. As individual Christians, it is far easier to love one's neighbor if we understand that they have the same moral underpinnings we do - even if they are halfway across the world.

I am going to start with this comment by Expat Britain at Street Prophets:

But how do we discern [natural law] except through nature? I think that's what I don't understand. Is the idea that animals generally don't kill their own kind a manifestation of natural law in the natural world, or are we trying to discern this moral framework through some other system?
My answer then was that this was a "whole post" kind of question. Here is that "whole post". So, what is the source of natural law (the law of human behavior) and how do we discern it?

The first answer is this is not genetic. It is not natural in the sense that we are born with it. It is not natural in the sense that the principles would be seen in anything else but humans. In fact, some indications of the laws existence can only be seen in humans; or at least known by anything else but humans. We cannot look to other beings than ourselves to understand it.

Natural law is not innate - we are not born with it. J. Budziszewski describes it as "what we cannot not know" or "cannot help learning". The natural question here is if it isn't instinct and we are not born with it - isn't it a result of societal moral and ethical education. Hasn't it been imposed on us from the outside by parents, schools, society, etc.? As such, what is "natural" about it?

The curiosity is that those things that natural law theorists would say comprise the natural law cut across cultures, time, religion, and philosophy - in other words they are nearly universal. The reason is that these are general revelations of God that overflow from His character because we are all created in His image. That, of course, leads us to the means to discern it: we look in the moral codes of the whole planet for those similarities that appear - those things that we "just know" are right and wrong.

In the chapter "Some Objections" in the book linked above Budziszewski raises an objection and answers it:
Objection: "You natural law thinkers seem confused about whether natural law comes from God, from nature, from conscience, or from reason.

Answer: Traditionally, the authority of natural law has been found in the Creator, its content in the design He has imparted to us - which is also part of the design, and which includes deep conscience as a part.
Next time (unless I get another really good question that comes first) I will try to identify some of the moral/ethical code that comprises the Law of Human Behavior - natural law.

Your assignment: read "The Abolition of Man", by C.S. Lewis. We will meet back here at some point.

Read more!

Thursday, February 02, 2006

Christian Carnival CVII(107) is up

The introduction from Rev Ed at Attention Span:

Welcome to the Carnival! I'm honored to have been asked to step in and host edition number 107 of the Christian Carnival. Since it's now February 2006, I thought I would take some of the best posts of the past week in the Christian blogosphere and organize them around the upcoming Winter Olympics, set to begin in 10 days in Torino, Italy. There are seven basic sports in the Winter Games, with each of these sports broken down into several disciplines with different events within those disciplines. Let's zip up the parkas, pull on the gloves, grab some hot chocolate, and head out to the various venues.

About Christian Carnival:
Contributing a Post to the Christian Carnival

The Christian Carnival is open to Christians of Protestant, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic convictions. One of the goals of this Carnival is to offer our readers to a broad range of Christian thought.

Posts need not be of a theological topic. Posts about home life, politics, or current events, for example, written from a Christian worldview are welcome.

Update: As the goal of this Carnival is to highlight Christian thought in the blogosphere, entries will be limited to blogs that share that goal. Blogs with content that is focused on a business, that has potentially offensive material Christians may not want to link to on their sites, or has no reference to distinctively Christian thought may not be included in this Carnival. There are other Carnivals that would be a more appropriate venue for that material. I realize that this will be a judgment call on the part of the Carnival administrator, and being human she may make mistakes. However, as the Christian Carnival is getting quite large, and it is sometimes questionable whether the entrants are seeking to promote Christian thought, I find this necessary.

Update: We also expect a level of discourse that is suitable for a Christian showcase. Thus entries may be refused if they engage in name-calling, ad hominem attacks, offensive language, or for any similar reason as judged by the administrator.

So, if you have a post in this framework - go here to find out more: Christian Carnival info.

Read more!