Last week, we discussed whether or not Christian organizations could, in good faith, hire mercenaries to defend the genocide victims of Darfur. Neatorama linked to the post and had its own discussion on the subject. In the comments here at Locusts & Honey, John Lomperis pointed out that such an effort would be a violation of a core tenet of classical Just War Theory:
Would such a private, religious army be an appropriate executor of violent force for the sake of justice. A: NOT according to Just War theory, which has as a key tenet the need for military force to be used by a proper government authority
One major consensual expression of this principle is Thomas Aquinas' statement that:
In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rm. 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps. 81:4): "Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority." Summa Theologica 2.2.40
I've never been comfortable with this demand, as it assumes that the existing government over a people (or an individual) can be relied upon to act in good faith of behalf of its people. If it cannot, how can an oppressed people rebel and remain in accordance with this principle? If people are so powerless that they cannot even constitute a governing authority (e.g. a slave revolt) should they simply accept injustice?
Or let's say that we're not talking about a minority group, but a single individual. If violent resistance to evil is justifiable for a group of people, is it not for a person? I've long thought that a wrong cannot become a right simply because it is perpetrated by a government.
But I'm going down a train of thought that is based upon civil liberties, not Biblical exegesis -- although Just War Theory's exegetical basis is pretty flimsy to begin with. Still:
Is there a Just War basis for individual self-defense?
Is there a Biblical basis for individual self-defense?
And yes, these are pretty much two separate questions. I'd like to write more, but I'm still thinking through these ideas, and Spongebob Squarepants is about to come on TV, so I'll stop here for now.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Caption Contest
Previous contest winnerWINNER: Ironic Catholic:
Letting it all hang out, Russian peasant style: tanned ankles. Ooh la la.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Does Anyone Have $700 In Loose Change Available?
Dan Trabue is skeptical of the proposed $700 billion bailout of U.S. credit markets. I tend to the follow the general rule with all addicts: when you reward bad behavior, you get more bad behavior. Let it burn.
Elsewhere, King Oblivious has several excellent suggestions on how else we could use $700 billion productively. Here are a few from his list:
Elsewhere, King Oblivious has several excellent suggestions on how else we could use $700 billion productively. Here are a few from his list:
- Buy the nation of Turkey (gross domestic product: $663 billion), cover it entirely with bacon and ham to make it a nation-sized open-faced club sandwich
- Clone 12 Bill Gateses (net worth: $58 billion) to constantly hang out and do weird non-sequitur activities with 12 Jerry Seinfelds (net worth: $225 million), place two pairs on each continent to confuse world about just what they're trying to sell
- Buy 35 billion Rock Band 2 sets (suggested retail price: $189.99), attempt to play them all at once, don't let anyone else touch them
- Add various parts to the International Space Station (estimated cost: $100 billion for NASA alone, plus the contributions of other countries) so that it has a head, two arms, two legs and a giant energy sword, because you never know when you might need a giant space Voltron
Question of the Day
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Weekend Music: Nothing Lasts by Matthew Sweet
I've long enjoyed this soft, mournful ballad about lost love.
The video is a fanvid for some anime thing, and is the only embeddable recording that I could find online. But the sound quality is high.
[Video Link]
The video is a fanvid for some anime thing, and is the only embeddable recording that I could find online. But the sound quality is high.
[Video Link]
The Five Step Zombie Guide to Going Green
If you're among the shambling undead and you care about protecting the environment for future generations, then this practical guide is for you.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Give Up Yer Aul Sins -- The Birth of John the Baptist
Give Up Yer Aul Sins is an Oscar-nominated animated short visually depicting scenes from the Bible, as told by children in audio recordings from the 1960s. This is the part about John the Baptist, part of the whole series.
[Video Link]
[Video Link]
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Question of the Day
Several years into the Darfur genocide, it's getting increasingly unlikely that any of the major powers will do anything to prevent the extermination of these people. This problem has led some people to propose a free market solution: mercenaries.Let us say, hypothetically, that a group of churches or denominations came together and hired a mercenary army to protect the people of Darfur from their Sudanese oppressors. Would their actions be consistent with Christian principles?
Monday, September 22, 2008
Caption Contest
Picture via Ace.
Previous contest winner.
WINNER: Jeff the Baptist:
Chicago voter fraud reduction efforts meet with unforeseen complications.
'Do Not Pray' Lists Prove Popular
DEARBORN, Mich. — Elias Al-Karim says he’s always gotten along well with his neighbors, who are evangelical Christians. But he was angered recently to learn that they had added his name, and the names of his wife and children, to Community Faith Center’s corporate prayer list. Elias called the church to complain.
"We do not want prayer from Christians, and we did not ask for it," he told a reporter. "It’s a violation to pray for someone without their knowledge or consent."
To ease tensions, the church did what many churches and ministries are increasingly doing: started a "do not pray" list. The list grew rapidly after Al-Karim alerted the local newspaper about his experience. Hundreds of Muslims, atheists, Mormons and even pagans called to have their names added to the list. Now when prayer requests come in to the church, names are checked against the list before they receive prayer.
"We have to respect people’s wishes," says the pastor. "If they really don’t want prayer, we honor that."
Story Link
"We do not want prayer from Christians, and we did not ask for it," he told a reporter. "It’s a violation to pray for someone without their knowledge or consent."
To ease tensions, the church did what many churches and ministries are increasingly doing: started a "do not pray" list. The list grew rapidly after Al-Karim alerted the local newspaper about his experience. Hundreds of Muslims, atheists, Mormons and even pagans called to have their names added to the list. Now when prayer requests come in to the church, names are checked against the list before they receive prayer.
"We have to respect people’s wishes," says the pastor. "If they really don’t want prayer, we honor that."
Story Link
Question of the Day
1 Timothy 2:13-14:
For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
Do you agree with Paul?
For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
Do you agree with Paul?
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Responding to Grief
Brett Royal has a good question about how people respond to good and bad fortune in praising God (or otherwise).
Here's my general rule: theological precision is less important than effective pastoral care. The last thing that you should ever do with grieving people is get into a theological argument with them. Work with them where they are, emotionally and theologically.
Here's my general rule: theological precision is less important than effective pastoral care. The last thing that you should ever do with grieving people is get into a theological argument with them. Work with them where they are, emotionally and theologically.
Performance Enhanced Video Games
I've only recently discovered the great blog Ironic Sans, which is a list of various, outside-the-box ideas by David Friedman. Great, great stuff, like this suggestion: sports-themed video games that have a steroid-enhanced mode.
Personally, I'd like to see a video game of the ordination process. Probably as a first-person shooter, since that's my preference in video games anyway.
Personally, I'd like to see a video game of the ordination process. Probably as a first-person shooter, since that's my preference in video games anyway.
FYI
The nurse pointed out to me yesterday that when you're standing on the scale at the doctor's office, sucking in your gut doesn't help any.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Obama Wants to Give Your Kids Cancer
Jared Wilson writes about ridiculous rumors (e.g. "Obama is a Muslim", "Palin had an affair") that surround election candidates, and how Christians are often all too willing to engage in dirty tricks in order to advance their political agendas:
Politics is yucky business, but this isn't just about politics. It's about anger, about fear, and most of all, about truth.From a gospel perspective, it makes sense that the world would not place a high premium on truth.
These days it only takes one enterprising blogger to create a story and before long the entire nation is buzzing with b.s.
The Church, however, is playing gleefully right along. That Obama/Antichrist thing? Some so-called Christian put that piece together to scare up some political leverage, and plenty of truth-deficient Christians ate it up. And passed it around. I got the email from a relative.
[snip]
Why do we eat this stuff up? Why aren't we different?
Christians follow Jesus, who is The Truth. This means we should be people set apart, keepers of truth, zealous about truth, relentlessly devoted to protecting and perpetrating truth.
When we buy into and pass along lies about public figures we don't mind vilifying -- whether Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal -- we commit a double sin. We are playing party to lies and in doing so we are playing party to hating our neighbor.
Read it all, for it is good.
I fully agree with Wilson that Christians should never engage in dirty tricks in any domain just to get an advantage. Small lies cannot serve greater truths -- they are simply lies.
However, I think that Wilson is erroneously assuming that Christians who pass on e-mail forwards and preposterous rumors, such as that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ, are doing so dishonestly. Remember Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
I, for one, am constantly amazed at the number of people, including mature Christians, who believe in the wildest conspiracy theories simply because they heard them through e-mail forwards.
My mother and library school taught me to believe half of what I see and none of what I hear, and as I get older, I'm inclined to think that they were being optimistic. But I don't think that such reflexive skepticism is the norm.
Many people are just far too willing to accept any information, regardless of veracity, that supports their worldview. One thing that I've learned in my life, particularly in the past few months, is that cognitive dissonance is among the most powerful forces in the universe.
UPDATE: In the comments, Jockeystreet points us to this excellent post at slacktivist, which examines responses to a crackpot conspiracy theory about Proctor & Gamble.
It gets me thinking: perhaps we're both making a mistake in framing our analysis with Hanlon's Razor.
Stupidity and malice are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Politics is yucky business, but this isn't just about politics. It's about anger, about fear, and most of all, about truth.From a gospel perspective, it makes sense that the world would not place a high premium on truth.
These days it only takes one enterprising blogger to create a story and before long the entire nation is buzzing with b.s.
The Church, however, is playing gleefully right along. That Obama/Antichrist thing? Some so-called Christian put that piece together to scare up some political leverage, and plenty of truth-deficient Christians ate it up. And passed it around. I got the email from a relative.
[snip]
Why do we eat this stuff up? Why aren't we different?
Christians follow Jesus, who is The Truth. This means we should be people set apart, keepers of truth, zealous about truth, relentlessly devoted to protecting and perpetrating truth.
When we buy into and pass along lies about public figures we don't mind vilifying -- whether Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal -- we commit a double sin. We are playing party to lies and in doing so we are playing party to hating our neighbor.
Read it all, for it is good.
I fully agree with Wilson that Christians should never engage in dirty tricks in any domain just to get an advantage. Small lies cannot serve greater truths -- they are simply lies.
However, I think that Wilson is erroneously assuming that Christians who pass on e-mail forwards and preposterous rumors, such as that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ, are doing so dishonestly. Remember Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
I, for one, am constantly amazed at the number of people, including mature Christians, who believe in the wildest conspiracy theories simply because they heard them through e-mail forwards.
My mother and library school taught me to believe half of what I see and none of what I hear, and as I get older, I'm inclined to think that they were being optimistic. But I don't think that such reflexive skepticism is the norm.
Many people are just far too willing to accept any information, regardless of veracity, that supports their worldview. One thing that I've learned in my life, particularly in the past few months, is that cognitive dissonance is among the most powerful forces in the universe.
UPDATE: In the comments, Jockeystreet points us to this excellent post at slacktivist, which examines responses to a crackpot conspiracy theory about Proctor & Gamble.
It gets me thinking: perhaps we're both making a mistake in framing our analysis with Hanlon's Razor.
Stupidity and malice are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Caption Contest
Via Pundit KitchenPrevious contest winner
WINNER: Sky Lowe-McCracken: Mother of God! Notre Dame has GOT to up their goal line defense!!!
Weekend Music: Weapon of Choice by Fatboy Slim
Thanks to Tim Sisk for reminding me of this great song and ingenious music video. Remember: walk without rhythm, and you won't attract the worm.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Mail Order Husbands
Are you a single woman looking for love? Then this is the site for you!
Hey, don't knock it! This is how my wife landed a great catch like me.
HT: The Presurfer
Guerilla Signage
The Glenn Group, a marketing firm in Reno, NV, placed fake street signs around their city with unique messages.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Capitalizing the Word "I"
Caroline Winter writes about the history of the English word "I", and the significance of its capitalization. Apparently many other languages don't do this:
Why do we capitalize the word “I”? There’s no grammatical reason for doing so, and oddly enough, the majuscule “I” appears only in English.
Consider other languages: some, like Hebrew, Arabic and Devanagari-Hindi, have no capitalized letters, and others, like Japanese, make it possible to drop pronouns altogether. The supposedly snobbish French leave all personal pronouns in the unassuming lowercase, and Germans respectfully capitalize the formal form of “you” and even, occasionally, the informal form of “you,” but would never capitalize “I.” Yet in English, the solitary “I” towers above “he,” “she,” “it” and the royal “we.” Even a gathering that includes God might not be addressed with a capitalized “you.”
HT: Jollyblogger
Why do we capitalize the word “I”? There’s no grammatical reason for doing so, and oddly enough, the majuscule “I” appears only in English.
Consider other languages: some, like Hebrew, Arabic and Devanagari-Hindi, have no capitalized letters, and others, like Japanese, make it possible to drop pronouns altogether. The supposedly snobbish French leave all personal pronouns in the unassuming lowercase, and Germans respectfully capitalize the formal form of “you” and even, occasionally, the informal form of “you,” but would never capitalize “I.” Yet in English, the solitary “I” towers above “he,” “she,” “it” and the royal “we.” Even a gathering that includes God might not be addressed with a capitalized “you.”
HT: Jollyblogger
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Poor Customer Service at Chuck E. Cheese
Bill Fentum:I’ll reserve judgment on which of them went through the biggest change—though I will say that the one or two trips I’ve made to a Chuck E. Cheese restaurants did nothing at all for my spiritual life.
Self-Denial in the Christian Life
John Meunier writes about a homosexual man who almost killed himself over the conflict between his sexual desires and traditional Biblical teaching. John writes:
Self-denial is hard. The self is fierce and tireless. When told to be subordinate to another - to God - the self is endlessly inventive in coming up with arguments and battling against such a claim.
Lord knows it is the work of a lifetime with God’s grace to put all that in its place. Should - because it is so hard or even impossible - should we stop teaching self-denial?
Is the church wrong to teach self-denial? If not, then how should we approach it?
How would you answer?
Self-denial is hard. The self is fierce and tireless. When told to be subordinate to another - to God - the self is endlessly inventive in coming up with arguments and battling against such a claim.
Lord knows it is the work of a lifetime with God’s grace to put all that in its place. Should - because it is so hard or even impossible - should we stop teaching self-denial?
Is the church wrong to teach self-denial? If not, then how should we approach it?
How would you answer?
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Evolutionists Flock To Darwin-Shaped Wall Stain
DAYTON, TN—A steady stream of devoted evolutionists continued to gather in this small Tennessee town today to witness what many believe is an image of Charles Darwin—author of The Origin Of Species and founder of the modern evolutionary movement—made manifest on a concrete wall in downtown Dayton."I brought my baby to touch the wall, so that the power of Darwin can purify her genetic makeup of undesirable inherited traits," said Darlene Freiberg, one among a growing crowd assembled here to see the mysterious stain, which appeared last Monday on one side of the Rhea County Courthouse. The building was also the location of the famed "Scopes Monkey Trial" and is widely considered one of Darwinism's holiest sites. "Forgive me, O Charles, for ever doubting your Divine Evolution. After seeing this miracle of limestone pigmentation with my own eyes, my faith in empirical reasoning will never again be tested."
Full article here
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Libertarian and Pro-Life
Henry Neufeld argues that although abortion is morally wrong, it should not necessarily be illegal. He quite prudently argues that a society may not effectively combat a vice merely by criminalizing it:
This is a position that I believe is logically flawed. I hear it expressed repeatedly. There is an unstated assumption in there, that “making something illegal” is always the best way to attempt to put a stop to it or reduce its incidence.
Murder is illegal, and yet it happens every day. The sale and use of quite a number of drugs are illegal, yet we have one of the worst drug problems in the world here in this country where we are purportedly fighting a drug war. I could cite many examples, including the fact that speeding is also illegal, yet it happens more often than not on most roads here in my own county.
Henry notes that the purpose of his post is not to lay out a case for legalized abortion, but to point out the fallacious reasoning of the automatic criminalization of socially undesirable activities. But I shall, however, use the opportunity to briefly explain why I am both libertarian and pro-life, and how the two positions are not in contradiction.
I take, as a given proposition for public policy, that human life begins at conception. Of course, defining precisely what is human life is a highly nebulous process. It's hard to argue that a two-celled zygote is as human as you and me. On the other hand, a seven-month old fetus is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, fully human. Of course, I've made this distinction without even defining human life -- a philosophical project that I could not even begin to undertake.
Is a minute-old zygote a human being? Is a baby in contraction a human being? The answer is probably somewhere in between. But as a matter of public policy, I'm unwilling to take the risk that the zygote is human and participate in a massive genocide of innocent human life.
As a libertarian, I should reflexively risk the consequences of unrestrained liberty. Henry points out that laws against abortion restrict a person's control over his/her own body, just as drug laws do. But when one person's liberty imposes on another's, the greater imposition is the more unjust. A woman may be inconvenienced by a pregnancy, and even be put as physical risk. But the child dies. Surely that is the greater harm. No one has a right to avoid inconvenience or even medical trauma at the expense of another innocent human life. And a fetus isn't simply a part of another human being; it is a human being itself and therefore deserves human rights.
The state has, at a minimum, three basic functions: protect people from invasion, protect people from violence, and enforce contracts. Abortion is violence against a human life, and therefore restricting it is a legitimate function of the state. And I make this conclusion even with my uncertainty about the definition of human life because the likelihood that a fetus is human is so high, and the moral cost to society for permitting it so horrible, that state intervention to prevent is justified.
This is a position that I believe is logically flawed. I hear it expressed repeatedly. There is an unstated assumption in there, that “making something illegal” is always the best way to attempt to put a stop to it or reduce its incidence.
Murder is illegal, and yet it happens every day. The sale and use of quite a number of drugs are illegal, yet we have one of the worst drug problems in the world here in this country where we are purportedly fighting a drug war. I could cite many examples, including the fact that speeding is also illegal, yet it happens more often than not on most roads here in my own county.
Henry notes that the purpose of his post is not to lay out a case for legalized abortion, but to point out the fallacious reasoning of the automatic criminalization of socially undesirable activities. But I shall, however, use the opportunity to briefly explain why I am both libertarian and pro-life, and how the two positions are not in contradiction.
I take, as a given proposition for public policy, that human life begins at conception. Of course, defining precisely what is human life is a highly nebulous process. It's hard to argue that a two-celled zygote is as human as you and me. On the other hand, a seven-month old fetus is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, fully human. Of course, I've made this distinction without even defining human life -- a philosophical project that I could not even begin to undertake.
Is a minute-old zygote a human being? Is a baby in contraction a human being? The answer is probably somewhere in between. But as a matter of public policy, I'm unwilling to take the risk that the zygote is human and participate in a massive genocide of innocent human life.
As a libertarian, I should reflexively risk the consequences of unrestrained liberty. Henry points out that laws against abortion restrict a person's control over his/her own body, just as drug laws do. But when one person's liberty imposes on another's, the greater imposition is the more unjust. A woman may be inconvenienced by a pregnancy, and even be put as physical risk. But the child dies. Surely that is the greater harm. No one has a right to avoid inconvenience or even medical trauma at the expense of another innocent human life. And a fetus isn't simply a part of another human being; it is a human being itself and therefore deserves human rights.
The state has, at a minimum, three basic functions: protect people from invasion, protect people from violence, and enforce contracts. Abortion is violence against a human life, and therefore restricting it is a legitimate function of the state. And I make this conclusion even with my uncertainty about the definition of human life because the likelihood that a fetus is human is so high, and the moral cost to society for permitting it so horrible, that state intervention to prevent is justified.
Oktapodi
[Video Link] A cute short film about two octopi in love, trying to keep together. RT: 2 minutes, 25 seconds.
HT: Neatorama
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Friday, September 05, 2008
Moral Hindsight is 20/20
In a must-read post, Jockeystreet contemplates people who stood on the sidelines during the Civil Rights Era, and ponders whether we are ever as good as we think that we could have been in past generations. Will we each rise to the occasion of our own challenges?
The answer might end up being, after deliberation, calls to insurance reps, discussion on high, "hey, yeah, of course we'll do this."
That's what I hope the answer will be. Because, clearly, that's what the answer should be. But also because, if that's the answer, I'm done, there's nothing for me to do.
If that's not the answer... then what?
What? Then what? What are the options? What, morally, ethically, am I obliged to do? To say? To express? Certainly, absolutely certainly, I will not be able to say to this staff person, this "decorated," long-term, trusted, in-line-for-promotion employee, "hey, sorry, they said no and I guess that's that."
Any more than, 45 years ago, I could have (ethically, morally) said to a staff person "hey, sorry, I really wish you could get vacation time, but you know how it is, vacation is a whites-only benefit, cost the agency a bundle to give it to you, too, I'm sure you understand."
I don't want to make a sacrifice. Even for the right thing. I'm selfish that way.
But, in the end, the thing I most don't want to sacrifice is my sense of self, the image I have of the person I could have been, 45 years ago, had I been there when things were so "clear," when I would have known what side of the line to stand on.
As always, read the whole thing.
The answer might end up being, after deliberation, calls to insurance reps, discussion on high, "hey, yeah, of course we'll do this."
That's what I hope the answer will be. Because, clearly, that's what the answer should be. But also because, if that's the answer, I'm done, there's nothing for me to do.
If that's not the answer... then what?
What? Then what? What are the options? What, morally, ethically, am I obliged to do? To say? To express? Certainly, absolutely certainly, I will not be able to say to this staff person, this "decorated," long-term, trusted, in-line-for-promotion employee, "hey, sorry, they said no and I guess that's that."
Any more than, 45 years ago, I could have (ethically, morally) said to a staff person "hey, sorry, I really wish you could get vacation time, but you know how it is, vacation is a whites-only benefit, cost the agency a bundle to give it to you, too, I'm sure you understand."
I don't want to make a sacrifice. Even for the right thing. I'm selfish that way.
But, in the end, the thing I most don't want to sacrifice is my sense of self, the image I have of the person I could have been, 45 years ago, had I been there when things were so "clear," when I would have known what side of the line to stand on.
As always, read the whole thing.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Hie Thee To the Wesley Report
Where Shane Raynor, the founder of the Methoblogosphere, has returned to blogging.
Caption Contest
Previous contest winnerWINNER: John Wilks:
Order in the next 10 minutes and we'll throw in our home baptism kit: a Brita water pitcher and two Sham-wows for easy clean-up. (Laying on of hands not included.)
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Denominations Reach Non-Compete Agreement
ATLANTA — Hoping to reverse on-going membership losses, several denominations have entered into a non-compete agreement that carves up certain U.S. cities into exclusive evangelism areas."We all need breathing room to build our congregations back up," says a Southern Baptist Convention representative who was at the negotiations. "Instead of competing head to head now we can plow our own fields."
Read the whole article
Will Palin's Pregnant Daughter Drive Off Christian Voters?
I think that this issue is a non-starter, and like the general rule for American politicians: if you keep your family out of the political arena, they will be left alone by the media and punditocracy.
But some commentators apparently disagree (roundup), and think that conservative Christian voters will shun the McCain/Palin campaign.
Steven Den Beste, an atheist, seems to understand that Christian teaching has a different understanding of sin:
The Christians are not going to be too concerned about the fact that Bristol got pregnant without being married. They're not really going to be happy about it, mind, but they're not going to be too put out about it, either. What's important to them is what happens after that, and everyone in the Palin family is doing what the Christians think they should.
Rabblerousing attempts by lefties to try to inspire a Scarlet Letter response will rally support to the Palins.
That's also why Christians are not particularly impressed with lefty attempts to talk about McCain's divorce. The man went to war and went through years of hell, and when he came back he wasn't the man he had been before. The love was gone; the relationship was over. It's a common fate for soldiers, and a sad one.
He divorced his first wife. He then married another woman and has been happily married to her for 30 years. That's the part that matters. He couldn't save the first marriage; it was dead. But when he got married again, he was by all accounts a loyal and loving husband, and remains so to this day.
Christians know that people make mistakes, and that people sin. From their point of view, the only man who never sinned was Jesus. They don't cast out sinners, because they believe that everyone is a sinner. What they look for is people trying to do right as well as they can, to live as good a life as they can, and to try to make up for their mistakes and sins. And from their point of view both McCain and the Palin family are doing so. And as long as they continue doing so, Christian voters won't turn away from them.
Speaking from inside the camp, I think that Den Beste may be a trifle naive in assuming that Christians will act according Christian principles, but I suspect that American Christian -- and especially evangelical culture -- will respond this way to the Palin family.
HT: Ace
But some commentators apparently disagree (roundup), and think that conservative Christian voters will shun the McCain/Palin campaign.
Steven Den Beste, an atheist, seems to understand that Christian teaching has a different understanding of sin:
The Christians are not going to be too concerned about the fact that Bristol got pregnant without being married. They're not really going to be happy about it, mind, but they're not going to be too put out about it, either. What's important to them is what happens after that, and everyone in the Palin family is doing what the Christians think they should.
Rabblerousing attempts by lefties to try to inspire a Scarlet Letter response will rally support to the Palins.
That's also why Christians are not particularly impressed with lefty attempts to talk about McCain's divorce. The man went to war and went through years of hell, and when he came back he wasn't the man he had been before. The love was gone; the relationship was over. It's a common fate for soldiers, and a sad one.
He divorced his first wife. He then married another woman and has been happily married to her for 30 years. That's the part that matters. He couldn't save the first marriage; it was dead. But when he got married again, he was by all accounts a loyal and loving husband, and remains so to this day.
Christians know that people make mistakes, and that people sin. From their point of view, the only man who never sinned was Jesus. They don't cast out sinners, because they believe that everyone is a sinner. What they look for is people trying to do right as well as they can, to live as good a life as they can, and to try to make up for their mistakes and sins. And from their point of view both McCain and the Palin family are doing so. And as long as they continue doing so, Christian voters won't turn away from them.
Speaking from inside the camp, I think that Den Beste may be a trifle naive in assuming that Christians will act according Christian principles, but I suspect that American Christian -- and especially evangelical culture -- will respond this way to the Palin family.
HT: Ace
Monday, September 01, 2008
Art Blogging: Norman Engel
Norman Engel is a Houston-based painter and animator. He studied at Morehead State University and Florida Atlantic University. This is his blog, which is regularly updated. I simply adore his vibrant, flowing colors and lines.Feisty (acrylic on canvas, 2005)
Woman in Pink (acrylic on canvas, 2005)
Bottles and Roses (acrylic on canvas, 2002)
tiki (acrylic on matte board, 2008)Engel is also an accomplished animator. This is his short film The Acorn:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
