If you have nothing better to do with your time, might I suggest looking for a "kitler."

Darwin award nominee?

I do not feel badly laughing at this.

In other news, one of Michelle's favorite shows is Law & Order (mostly the original and SVU). Anyone else notice how relatively frequently the "bad guys" are of the Christian and/or Republican variety? Not that such people don't exist, it's just getting on my nerves a little. I think some of the writers might have some issues they need worked out.

You know—I really enjoy when someone makes a simple comment that captures a situation from a previously unrecognized perspective. Example: the other day, Rush Limbaugh made an off-hand comment that baby formula and bottled water aren’t the enemy when it comes to airline safety; but rather, it is the whacko muslims. How simple, yet accurate—and much akin to Matt’s bird parody posted a few weeks back. The loss of absolute values secondary to the rise of relativism (in all its forms) has created a politically correct environment to the obscene. Deny my child her Vanilla Soy Milk, because we might offend Abdul over there by singling him out during the pre-flight boarding.

The reason why I dig up the dead issue is because we’re expected to fly to NC to see our respective families at least one time in the holiday season. But to be honest, I really don’t want to go through the hassle. I’ve got a toddler that likely won’t understand why she’s not allowed to have a drink in a cramped cattle-like atmosphere. Nor is she likely to be all that tolerant of our fear to offend Mr. Muhammad over there either.

And while I’m on it, apparently Miss England feels that stereotyping muslims causes terrorism. Yeah—ok, I’m seeing that as a valid excuse. If we can only accept and appease them a little bit more, then everything will be ok.

The whole thing just annoys me. Let my baby have her damn water bottle, stop frisking grandma, and why don’t you take a good hard look at Achmed Abdullah over there. I guess I must be an insensitive prick—but the cattle-class traveling environment is making me question if it’s even worth it.

You know Scott, I’ve been doing a lousy job trying to explain my thoughts on this whole Postman thing. And by relativism, in my head, it was more of a humanistic relativism. Moral relativism in that the cooking show is the same as a war scene; academic relativism in that taking a class on Elvis or the Beatles is equally as valid as that of American or world history; moral relativism where reporters can’t cal the hezbos terrorists and the like; economic relativism of equal outcomes where person X sees desirous item Y and subsequently feels entitled to “buy” such an item on credit to appease the urge of instant gratification. It just seems that relativism, in all its forms, has become the great mediocre-itizer. Without absolute values of quality and right vs. wrong, everything becomes an issue of individual perception; and since we’re no longer allowed to critique perceptions (such as your trained Biblical perspective vs. the arm-chair theologian example)--everything goes to crap. From education to morality. I suggest that the rise of relativism (in all its forms) directly equates to the loss of absolute values, which is a central tenet in the degradation of society.

And as a complete aside, clinical-based grad school programs are now almost exclusively offering night classes--which means that I don’t get home until around 7:30 or 8:00 on the nights in which I teach. (It was a whole lot worse in DC--which was like 9:30 or 10:00!) So anyway--it’s tough for me to get home all wound up, only to relax and sleep a few short hours later. So in such a situation, I sometimes choose to relax (self-medicate?) with a little Baker’s on the rocks. (A 5-ounce serving, and I think I’m going to start freezing distilled water into ice-cubes to preserve the flavor.) And at times, there are few things I enjoy more...

Continuing to beat a dead horse, one of the problems with our society is that we expect things to happen immediately. I don't need to read the paper...that would take too long. Instead, I'll flip on the TV and have it summarized while I write e-mail. Of course, if my e-mail doesn't get to it's destination in a matter of seconds, it will have taken too long and I'll switch ISPs in disgust. What's that thing called snail mail again?
Why should I plan for retirement and put any money in a 401K? I want to buy my new car today. Continuing education? Why would I want that? I would much rather get a high paying job immediately out of school. (I deserve one after all.) Everyone on TV gets a great job right away, why shouldn't I?
We live in a society where slow is bad. Since learning and critical thought takes time, I think people are developing a subconscious stigma against it. Just a thought.

I can't figure out if I'm a good person for recognizing the tragedy, or a very bad person for thinking that the whole situation is all too funny in a very dark way.

And Matt--I loved your post about the Media's credibility; I had actually been following that story since it broke on Little Green Footballs (or whatever that site's called). You should search out "Pallywood" on YouTube, if you're interested in the blatant media bias in middle east conflicts...

But today, this happened. And I make no bones about it--I believe most of the media to have a liberal bias. And I gotta wonder if such a gaff--that went on FOREVER--was an accident? The people at CNN have either hired junior-high-interns to do their engineering, or somebody somewhere is trying to make a point.

Putting an End to Postman ...

Not to prolong the discussion, but I must say that I think there is a flaw in your thinking here, Greg. In your last post, you argued that you believe that moral relativism is the major cause of the collapse in society. While I would agree with you that moral relativism is a major issue, I think we oversimplify when we suggest that any one thing is the issue. Do I agree that moral relativism is a major problem yes? But I also think that our society is being systematically dumbed down by both the form and the content of information dissemination. Reading is an isolating experience that requires certain critical skills as the reader sets aside everything else and engages the content in an intentional way. Surfing through hundreds of channels, on the other hand, tends to confuse the viewer. Studies have shown that when people do this, they begin to loose the ability to make moral differentiations. Viewing a war in Iraq on channel 12 becomes equivilent to viewing Blackhawk Down on channel 13 because they look alike, sound alike, and are taken in in a similar fashion. As time progresses, the distinctions blur even further. Before long, viewing a cooking show is processed in the same way as viewing a war.

In the end, that's what Postman is really getting at. He is essentially attacking the Postmodern collage that is offered through various technologies and is suggesting that we are becoming desenstized.

A quick note of explanation

(I had called Tim the other day as a Beta Tester of my new VOIP provider; Tim often screens my calls, so if I blabber enough into his machine—they eventually pick up. I’ve been using Vonage for over a year now, and while their service is alright, they have failed to provide me with a local number—so I’m leaving them. I’m now using Teliax, which is *much* more geeky, and the nerd-learning-curve is steep. Installation of the SIP device was relatively painless; I chose the Grandstream HandyTone 496. Tim was one of my first calls, as he could appreciate the geekiness of my achievement, as well as give me a critical ear in terms of jitter, latency, QOS, and overall voice quality.)

Life in the Deep South

You know Matt, I looked into that White-Only-Church in Saltillo MS. First thing I did was google it—and found that it’s a rural area north of Tupelo. Somewhat oddly, it’s also right close to Guntown—where we had just sent our students to do hearing screenings. I’m betting that many will have a noise induced hearing loss around 4khz. (SLP humor; the names of towns in this state can be hysterical.) Anyway—the church in question isn’t even listed in the phone book, so I actually wonder what kind of church it is in the first place. While I’m not doubting the actual event, it’s safe to stay that it’s not representative. (I shared it around the office, and people were generally disappointed in how it will appear, stereotypically. Personally—apart from the act itself, I rather don’t mind such bad press—as it keeps the yankees out.)

But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that this “church” of less than 30 members that isn’t even listed in the phone book; I assume that it’s a family-based congregation—consisting of anywhere from 1 to 3 extended family units. So these people did a dumb thing, and they’re actively choosing segregation for all the public to see. It’s blatant and non-apologetic; I believe that they are wrong, but they are also outliers.

But I also find the statement of “Living in blue-state Massachusetts makes it easy to forget that stuff like this still goes on” a bit presumptuous. Not your intent or your statement, but the fact that I’ve seen various acts of active segregation in every town and city in which I have lived. What is the functional difference between the active-segregation of this one so-called-church, and the de-facto socioeconomic segregation that I viewed running rampant in Chicago and DC? Personally, I would rather be a black man in the south than a black man in the SE of DC any day of the week. My point and pet-peeve is that I have seen many a blinded northerner cite the south for racism, when it lives just as prevalent all over the country—albeit in a different form. The southern flavor of prejudice just seems to be more of an easy target.

Thomas Sowell did a review of black academic achievement pre- and post-integration, and his findings stunned the hell out of me; IIRC, he found that black students did significantly better in segregated schools—a finding that he attributes to the changes in black culture and values.

Of Grade Inflation, the Postman, and the missed mark of Relative Values

Yeah—Grade inflation is a problem. Everybody bitches about it, and nobody claims to be guilty of it. Yet—it runs rampant; a sin acknowledged by all and admitted by no one. Perhaps until now; I have inflated grades. And I did so knowingly and deliberately. In the instance where I have inflated grades, I have done so simply to make my life easier—as the system would have attacked me (the instructor) and negated student responsibility. A classmate turned in 2 of her peers for cheating; the snitch wanted to remain anonymous. After looking at the data, the 2 students had clearly corroborated. The same answers correct, and the same answers incorrect for the same reasons. When asked how this could have occurred, they replied with, “we studied together.” When asked when they studied together, they gave entirely different answers. Yet—as the story unfolded, I had to recant my charge, and was forced to write a letter of apology to the cheaters—as dictated by my former chair (who had no balls). Why? Because he didn’t feel like dealing with it. His administrator-bosses (who had no balls) didn’t feel like dealing with it. Because Universities are now more fearful of litigation than they are the consequences of absolute performance standards. No balls people; no balls. I could have taken it to the mattresses, but the decision had already been made—and I would have made much ado about nothing, left in the sun to bake while bent over—inspecting my ankles for a bit of sanity in my reality. No thanks, no thanks. Is my pride worth it? With the same outcome happening regardless, I chose to skip a step; I also chose to leave that department.

It would not surprise me a bit if grade inflation occurs, in large part, because of this type of scenario. When holding kids to an absolute standard of performance and conduct becomes increasingly difficult (if not impossible) within the modern fusion of academic litigation and moral relativism that is academia.

The segue to Postman

I’ll try and approach this from another perspective, but it’s been my experience that the Postman perspective is cut from the same cloth as many the liberal advocating equal outcomes for all, rather than equal opportunity. That feelings and intent is more important than measurable outcomes. The notion that the free market or modern capitalism is ripping the cultural fabric, and that life was somehow better (i.e., glorified) in decades or centuries gone by. This projection onto Postman may be inaccurate on my part, although I doubt it. In any event, his speech seems to infer that technology (i.e., another modern evil corrupted by the greedy free market) is one of the central tenets for the social problems in the 21st century.

Admittedly, I don’t buy into his (projected) premise, and subsequently can’t accept his arguments as valid. But here’s why—he seems to point the finger at technology as the could-be-evil that is whored by capitalists… but his focus (I submit) is misplaced. I would argue something different—that it’s not technology nor capitalism that is at the greater root of social issues that he ultimately attacks (including examples of grade inflation or the dumbing down of America from our own discussions) … it is the mainstreaming of humanistic moral relativism. The systematic deletion of absolute right vs. wrong (or good vs. bad) within American (or global) culture (and academia), to me, is more the culprit. Thus fundamental shift in cultural values does share common elements with the technological ecology, but I would argue that his examples of technology are more symptomatic than causal to his greater vision. Although, I won’t be arguing that right now, as I’ve run out of time for this novel…

Sorry guys—just got caught up in the moment.

No Greg, I'm not screening my calls. We went on vacation before school starts up again tomorrow. Personally, I could use some of these inflated grades everyone is talking about instead of spending every waking hour studying. :) But back to your phone call. Our answering machine is kind of a piece of crap so voices don't always come in clear. I'll have to get first hand experience with your new phone service before I can say how good you sound on the other end.
For those of you who haven't been keeping up: my parents live in their own house now. Life for Beth and I is basically back to normal. Afterwards, I spent about two weeks out of town testing our software to see how it worked in a more real-world environment. Things went well, but we've got plenty to do between now and Christmas. One of our dogs can now drink her body weight in water each day. While this sounds cool, it means she has to "go potty" many times during the day - often on my floor. The doctor thinks Meg might have some variety of diabetes that causes this so were hoping to learn more and solve the problem with something that doesn't involve diapers. Oh yeah, and since school is starting soon, everyone wants to go on one last vacation so traffic sucks. I'm sure Greg really misses that aspect of this area.

I'll edit this into a real post later, but for now--here's some chic that did a dissertation on Star Trek. And apparently, those in power thought it was good.

What Can You Do ...?

Sarah and I talk about this whole grade inflation thing all the time. Within her department, she is known as one of the toughest graders, and consequently kids often ask to transfer to a different teacher. "So and so let's their students blah, blah, blah." "Well, when you get to college, you're not even going to get the blah, blah you're getting from me, so you might as well get used to it."

But it's not just the kids. Several years ago, I ran across this advertisement for the 100 Greatest Books of All Time published by Easton Press. These are truly amazing books bound in genuine leather, with smythe-sewn bindings and acid free paper. Anyway, I decided to start working my way through them because I realized that my education had neglected many of the classics. What's really odd is that when I have one of these books out in public, people will ask me what I am reading (because they recognize the unique quality of the book itself). When I tell them "A Tale of Two Cities" or "Livy's History of Ancient Rome," they look at me all spooked and say: "that sounds hard." I'm always polite, but inside I want to shake these people and scream: "Don't you realize that 50 years ago, 12 year olds were reading this stuff."

This dumbing down of America via the mass proliferation of entertainment options (ala Neil Postman) is going to cripple this nation. In fact, the pessimist in me sometimes wonders whether we have already passed the threshold of no return.

Grade Inflation, Anyone?

I have a feeling this will bug Scott even more than it did me...

We were talking informally in class not long ago, 17 college sophomores and I, and on a whim I asked who some of their favorite writers are. The question hung in uneasy silence. At length, a voice in the rear hesitantly volunteered the name of... Dan Brown.

No other names were offered.

The author of "The DaVinci Code" was not just the best writer they could think of; he was the only writer they could think of.
...
As freshmen start showing up for classes this month, colleges will have a new influx of high school graduates with gilded GPAs, and it won't be long before one professor whispers to another: Did no one teach these kids basic English? The unhappy truth is that many students are hard-pressed to string together coherent sentences, to tell a pronoun from a preposition, even to distinguish between "then" and "than." Yet they got A's.

Media Credibility In The Pooper

In case anyone still needs convincing...

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Pastor leaves after church turns away biracial boy

Twelve-year-old Joe recently asked Jesus to live in his heart.

Yet the church where Joe accepted his Savior not even two weeks before will no longer allow the biracial boy to enter.

On Aug. 6, during its scheduled Sunday night business meeting, Fellowship Baptist Church in Saltillo voted not to accept blacks within the church. More specifically, the congregation also voted Joe out and said he could not return.

Living in blue-state Massachusetts makes it easy to forget that stuff like this still goes on.

Hey Matt,

I read Neil Postman’s speech a while back, but haven’t had time to reply till now. And to be honest, I’m not quite sure what you’re after. I don’t buy the guy’s premise, so naturally—I’ll find flaws in his examples. At best, they’re painted with broad strokes; at worst—they are down right dogmatic.

For example, he talks about a cost of technology. I’m not sure this applies to all things, but one could find select examples to support his view. What he never discusses is the cost of no-technology (or no tech advancement). This simple contrapositive is reflective of the premise in which I find errant. Further, I never bought his comment of “winners and losers” at all; it’s dogmatic and socialist. I'm not even sure I need to take the time to undermine the position.

I could go on, point by point—but I don’t see the merit. I’m around these types of people all the time, so this type of pseudo-intellectualism doesn’t really do it for me. What I’ve found is that people such as this tend to live within a universe of their own, and often speak to an audience of one. However, since much of their prose often sounds “smart”, they gather an audience of pseudo-intellectual wannabees.

One of the major greek philosophers wrote somewhere that each generation thinks that society is going to hell in a handbasket. And yet, we all manage to survive. So I’m wondering if this guy’s neo-socialist-change-is-probably-bad-because-I-feel-guilty premise is more autobiographical than an actual commentary on the influence of technology on culture.

Just my thoughts...

One Headlight...

Before class, I'll play music just to liven the spirits in the room a bit... And tonight was my first class with the incoming 1st year grad students. I threw One Headlight (Wallflowers) into the playlist--and some girl raised her head and said, "Uhm, excuse me--but this song was popular when we were in the 6th grade."

You know Matt—I’m fully aware that people will read me as some type of anti-muslim bigot. And that’s fine; I honestly don’t care. Further, I’m fully aware that if 1 out of every 2 or 3 muslims being either an active or tacit terror supporter doesn’t mean that all muslims are terror supporters… again, I honestly don’t care. Until goofy groups like CAIR get off their hyper-sensitive butts and actively start doing something about their own people, I’m lumping them in with the tacit supporters. It is my view that security isn’t gained until one side is so thoroughly and dramatically beaten that they can’t think straight—that’s what I’m waiting on. (We jacked-up Japan, and they now make my cars and bow to me.) And that kind of victory can’t be won when you’re trying to sort through the “good” vs. the “bad” muslims. So as far as I’m concerned, if the so-called-good-ones aren’t policing their own people, then there are no civilians. There is no such thing as collateral damage. Right now, crazy muslims are attacking innocent people without provocation. And the fashion in which they are attacking and killing innocent civilians are essentially indefensible. Subsequently, that gives me (us) the right to reserve to use preemptive actions to decrease or eliminate the crazy muslims as a threat. Not my (our) choice--it’s the muslims. My right to actively and preemptively defend myself supersedes their right to claim civilianship or “good muslim” status. You're inferring this correctly--since they started an immoral series of actions, their lives are worth less than ours; when given a dichotomous choice, I vote they (not us) die. So I’ll stop harping on this--that’s where I stand. And--I don’t feel guilty about it.

And at this point in my life, I like to think that I don’t say or write things deliberately to wind people up; I wish I had that kind of time or emotional energy. But with that said, I read an article that may butter Scott’s tator-tots... Go Forth and Multiply -- Your Money. A Biblical interpretation as to why poor people are wicked and slothful and that money is a source of happiness.

Being a mathematician, I don't care if the study said it's 9/10 of muslims, the statement "All muslims are insane/terrorists/whatever" would still be false.

But that's really besides the point. We agree. I read the White Guilt article, and couldn't find a lot to disagree with.

About the whole Bush thing, I just found it funny that so many people think that the phrase "Islamic fascists" implies that all muslims are fascists. "Fascists" is a noun. (And an apt one at that.) "Islamic" is an adjective that modifies the noun. Oh, you're worried about the two labels being associated in the public's mind? Try maybe purging them from your ranks; that'd be a good start.

I have a reading assignment of my own for you... on a completely different topic. One of the best books I've ever read is Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves To Death, which is basically a warning against the infiltration of entertainment (via television) into every aspect of life (it was written in 1985). I suggest you find and read the book--its message is still relevant over twenty years later--but here's a (relatively) more recent talk he gave at a conference: Five Things We Need to Know About Technological Change

One warning, though, Greg... he disses capitalism.

Yeah--that's right... That's what I'm saying. If I cared enough, I'd find that study that found that something like 1/3 to 1/2 of muslims in the UK wouldn't turn in their active-in-terror-muslim-friends. So with statistics like that (one out of every 2 or 3 muslims), it's hard to buy into the PC party line. I respond to people's actions, not their whining.

I did find this quote to be interesting:

Brookings Institution senior fellow Michael O'Hanlon said Bush's term is not inaccurate. But, "I guess I don't see the benefit of doing it even though it is not wrong. It doesn't add much, and it sort of reopens an old wound."

Why yes--I see the light. Let's obscure reality so that we don't offend anyone. After all, the feelings of others is more important than the clarity of our current conflict. I guess what really annoys me is the lack of responsibility that muslims are accepting. Police your own actions, dammit--then we don't have to get involved. It's not rocket science--Iran is doing crazy crap to destabilize the area while driving up the price of oil.

Did anyone take the 10 minutes to read the "White Guilt" paper?

August 22'nd being some magical end-of-the-world-day for crazy muslims.

Whoa whoa whoa, "crazy muslims"?!? Are you saying all muslims are crazy?!?!?!?   ;-)

... Actually, based on some previous comments, maybe you are.

In other news, I quite enjoyed this. A few entries took me back to Traber 5.

Wondering if anyone else has thought of this? August 22'nd being some magical end-of-the-world-day for crazy muslims.

The stickers are off. The residue remains. I'll take care of that tomorrow or Wednesday.

Yeah, the more I thought about it, the less of a dilemma it became.

I talked with Beth about it a little earlier today (over Gmail Chat), and I liked her (paraphrased) suggestion for crap-givers, which goes along with some of what you were saying, Greg: "My classroom is a safe space for everyone."

I found this pretty funny...

Apparently, the Russians still don't get the concept of a free market.

Painter’s Razor & a bottle of nail-polish-remover…

You know--Those pink "GLBT SAFE SPACE" stickers have really begun to annoy me. I first saw them when I was interviewing at a so-called-Christian university a few years ago, and in my head—I kept on muttering WTF? So it’s a safe space, if you’re gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transvestite; and are you screwed if you happen to have CP, paraplegic, quadriplegic, Christian, Jewish, or find yourself in any other socially undesirable functional minority—Tourette’s or stuttering included? In my eyes, those stickers are nothing more than a tool for the propaganda of deviancy, and it would have been off my door since day one (if not hour one). And if anyone gives you crap, just tell them that you like to work from a clean slate. And if they continue giving you crap, start quoting Kramer about Wearing the Yellow Ribbon.

You can get a painter’s razor in the paint section of your local hardware store for around 3 bucks. Your boo probably has the nail-polish-remover.

And Scott—I actively like the MBP. Perhaps its best feature is the sub-8-second boot time. I mean, the thing just blazes. And as you know—the OS is just…better. You’re right in that the architecture between a PC and Mac are becoming identical; heck—there’s already many a compu-nerd that run OSX on a PC. The superfluous Mac premium ($) is annoying, and it did (for the record) stop me from buying a Mac w/ my own money. (The MBP is university property…) But with that said, until the Mac gains significantly in market share, I still believe that it will be easier to manage in terms of virus/spyware/malware; so in that sense, it’s just easier. And I will admit, there certainly does *feel* to be a “cool” factor, and that’s tough to give a dollar amount. Further—I’ve seen a lot of online comparisons that when the new Intel Macs are compared to comparably equipped PC’s, the price differential isn’t all that different. In short—I think Job’s switching to an X86 chipset was the right decision. IBM’s PowerPC just wasn’t keeping up. And I’m not even sure the MBP is worth it; the tricked-out MB are plenty powerful for us, unless we go heavy into video editing. (In which case, their new uber-priced tower would be the way to go.)

I guess I went with a Mac because I got tired of the PC BS, and I just kinda wanted one. What can I say, I was Mac-Curious. I had gotten one at Gallaudet, and liked it; actively missed it when I left there to come here. And as for software, there’s enough open source (i.e., free) mac software to cover almost all my needs, and I’ve already started using Parallels, which is a kick-butt way of running Windows XP (in near real-time) for all the other needed apps. And their text-editor, "Pages", kicks butt. I actively preferred it over MSFT Word after about 5 minutes of use...

The X86 Chipset on the Mac is a win-win for consumers and Apple alike.

So I'm blogging from my new classroom at my new school. There's a little bit of cleaning up to do, but right away I'm faced with a dilemma.

On the outside of my room, there is a small plaque that just says my room number on one line, then "CLASSROOM" on the second line. (This is how everyone's doors look. No names on the plaques.) On this plaque are two stickers. One is an American Cancer Society sticker that has a drawing of a camel and says, "Real camels don't smoke". The other is an upside-down pink triangle, with the words "GLBT SAFE SPACE" around it.

I don't feel as though I can label my classroom as such. Not that any such students are "unsafe" in my classroom, just that... I don't feel qualified to counsel or advise students looking for answers to such questions, Christian or otherwise.

So do I remove the sticker? It's not all that much of a dilemma--I most likely will remove both stickers--but I'm still a little uncomfortable with the scenario I'm imagining... students and/or faculty saying to themselves (or each other), "Hey, didn't Mr. So-And-So have a "Safe Space" sticker on his door?" and therefore concluding that I must have removed it because I hate gays.

Honestly, over 50% of the classrooms on this floor have the same sticker, so... it's not like they're hurting for safe spaces.

Oh, and I tried to remove it just now--while no one's around--and it is not coming off easily. There will be residue left behind.

Ideas? Thoughts?

No, you hadn't told me that you were using the new MacBook Pro. What do you think? I'm still a couple of years away from replacing my existing unit, but I am really a bit leary. With the new intel chips going into the Macs, there is less and less that differentiates them from other PC units. Yes, the operating system is about five to ten years ahead of windows and yes it is far more stable with its protected memory, etc... But the price point on a Mac is also substaintially higher, as is the cost of the accompanying software.

So all that to say: what made you go this direction? Were you worried about the chip issues?

Scott

Uhm, no--I don't feel bad.

Apparently there was a mutiny onboard an outbound flight from the UK. Passengers were demanding that the 2 muslims be forced off the plane.

I can't remember the exact specifics, but there was a survey of muslims in the UK a while back--and the results documented that while many (if not most) UK muslims wouldn't take part in terror themselves, a very significant portion of them wouldn't turn in their terrorist-friends either. (50% or greater--I *think*)

With data like that--that's why I see this as a religious war, in which muslims are the aggressors and the enemy. No--I'm not making any PC "not-all-muslims-are-bad" allowance; not when a very significant number of them would knowingly allow it to take place.

Scott... A few thoughts: (1) Perhaps this is God's way of leading you to reply to all two-thousand points on my previous point. (2) Perhaps this is the computer's way of asking you to clear your cache. You've tried reload, right? You could also go into your preferences and clear your cache manually. (I told you I'm using the new MacBook Pro, right?)

Having Problems with Blogger ...

Is anyone else having problems with Blogger. For whatever reason, whenever I click on the "View Blog" tab, the blog will only list postings up until Greg's 19 subpoint posting. Nothing beyond that. Is this happening with you?

Scott

Ok--so I'm not really loving the series of links... but this one is definately worth your time. Introducting Book 22.

I guess I could post about it--but I'm not even sure what to say.

Something for your little ones.

Not much time; found this interersting.

Scott, much appreciated, I'll respond more fully later.

I know this is a total non sequitur from everything that's been brought up recently, but the following occurred to me as I've been preparing for my classes this fall.

If I ever need a laugh, I'll just picture my high-school-self's reaction were I to tell him that in less than a month I'll be trying to teach logic to freshman girls.

Hey Matt,

I thought about writing to you off-line, but the more I thought about it, the more I decided that this was the better forum. I've been thinking about a post of yours that came through a week or so ago.

First, Scott... You and Greg both know that it's relatively easy to get me riled up, and you have both been known to do so just because you can. Of course, when that's the case, you have giant grins on your faces, and I can tell that ultimately you're just yanking my chain. That's not so easy to see in cyberspace. So anyway, I just decided I needed to go back to my corner for a bit to cool down, that's all.

I gotta say, this post has really bothered me. I should clarify. It hasn't bothered me because I disagree with anything you brought up. It bothered me because I think it is essentially true. Back when we all used to hang out on a regular basis at Wheaton, I used to "yank your chain" mostly for sport and mostly because it was a chain that was easily "yankable." But as the years have passed, I find that I do this less and less because I have found that it often leads to hard feelings. What I may be doing in jest, others take as serious. And the simple fact of that matter is this: I need friends. I need people around me that I know have my best interests at heart. Moreover, I want to be the kind of person that others know as being someone who has their best interests at heart.

And as I have pondered your email, I'm not entirely sure that you have always had that feeling from me. I have "yanked your chain" over and over again, to the point that when I am trying to contribute something genuine to the discussion, you were unaware that I was not merely giving you a hard time. And that is not something that I am terribly proud of.

Do I want to be the kind of person that is always serious and is completely unable to joke around with his friends? Absolutely not! But do I want to be the kind of person who is always so sarcastic and so biting that my friends first instinct is to duck for emotional cover? No ... I don't.

The thing is, I am actually much closer to being the kind of person I want to be now than I ever was at Wheaton. But do to the infrequency of our communication (and the nature of the written word), you would have no reason to know that. And so I want to take a moment to ask for your forgiveness. I want to be able to laugh with you, friend. But I also want you to know that I do value your thoughts and feelings and that I genuinely have your best interests at heart. So if you have ever felt slighted or disrespected by my sarcasm and my old habit of needing to rile people up, please forgive me . Forgive me becasue I want to be a better friend than that.

This apology actually goes out to Greg and Tim as well. While it was Matt's words that spawned this reflection, I am more than certain that I have acted in this regard with the both of you as well. So please, forgive a man the foolishness of his youth and know that I care for you all.

Matt,

That cartoon was absolutley hysterical!

Sorry Greg, but I just don't have the time to respond to 19 different subpoints (ranging from Israel, to slavery, to citizenship, to the ethics of premptive war, to the contestable claim that we are at war with all Muslims). Furthermore, any attempt to do so will likely only lead to a rather heated conversation due to the fact that we will be talking in sound bites and not in any substantive depth, because we're dealing with 19 different conversations! Care to limit the playing field? :-)

Things in which I no longer feel guilt...

So I read an article a while back that had some affect on the way I think… Shelby Steele wrote an op-ed entitled White Guilt and the Western Past, and the first time I read it—I wasn’t sure I really bought into his concept. But the more I thought about it (and the more I re-read his piece), the more I think he’s on to something.

So at this point, I’m not feeling so much guilt over all the things that too often go unspoken. Subsequently, I will present these admissions for your review. Feel free to respond or ignore, as you feel led.

1) Olmert screwed the pooch on this one. Half of the IDF’s power was their intimidation and the aura of being the most badass commandos out there. They’ve now lost that reputation; I predict their situation will only get worse from here. [That guy from the Karate Kid, Strike First, Strike Fast, Strike Hard... he was on to something. Further, Col. Nathan R. Jessep, from A few good men, was correct.]

2) National security comes from the complete and thorough defeat of the enemy. Roosevelt and Truman knew this—Unconditional Surrender. Limited or precision military actions represent a failed paradigm. Peace and stability comes from victory. Victory occurs when there is no such thing as a civilian.

3) Let’s cut the crap; we’re in a religious war against the muslims.

4) Due to our limited efforts, we are losing this conflict. This is our choice.

5) Appeasement and/or cease-fires have never resulted in lasting peace or security.

6) From the looks of it, it feels like the Western world won’t get serious about this new religious war until most feel like they have to fight for their own survival. This will take a while.

7) The only way to wage this religious war is through preemption. In order for us to win, we cannot recognize civilians. [I also wonder if muslims are the anti-christ?]

8) Life may have been easier if someone had rubbed out Ishmael from the start.

9) Modernity places too much value on human life. Can't win a conflict when the fear of losing human life supercedes the desire to win the conflict.

10) Most descendents of American slavery have more available opportunities as a result of living in the United States than they would in Africa.

11) Black “Thug Life” isn’t cultural. It’s the popularization of criminal behavior.

12) Black people who live in the “thug life” pseudo-culture (or otherwise on the take from the government) disrespect their enslaved ancestors by not utilizing the opportunities available to them.

13) I’m happy that at least 2 popular slave-icons remain: Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben’s. They amuse me, it’s very kitsch. I was disappointed when I learned of Ms. Butterworf’s whiteness.

14) Stop calling me Caucasian; you’ve got no idea if I originated from the Caucus mountains.

15) There *is* a soft bigotry of low expectations.

16) Welfare isn't working; there are no shortcuts; improving your family's standings is a function of values, effort, and time.

17) American citizenship needs to be revised. Citizenship should be dynamic and earned, not granted by birthright. If you’re on the take from the government, no citizenship for you. If you’re a felon, you've lost your citizenship. While we’re at it, earning citizenship should occur by serving in the military or other similar service, or by passing a test of basic knowledge and skills, which includes American culture and exceptionalism.

18) America is exceptional. Deal with it.

19) This "man is the cause of global warming" pseudoscience is crap.

Classic.

Former Scotland Yard chief John Stevens agrees. Well, with what I was saying earlier, at least.

I am currently not planning on attending. I wasn't close to all that many people--in fact, the people I was closest to are right here, and we can schedule our own reunion (are we still going to try to orchestrate something like that?)

Any news on whether or not any of you are planning to attend your 10-year reunion? Sarah and I have been talking about it, and I think we might go to see some of her classmates.

I'm Okay With This ...

You know, I gotta say that I am a-okay with this. So long as the individuals who are being screened are treated with a sense of dignity, I'm fine. Seriously, the media can scream racial-profiling all they want, but the fact of the matter is this: the United States is under seige from radical, Islamic militants who are bent upon creating as much havoc as they can for a nation that they (being radicals) believe to be infidels.

Is it inconvenient for the average Muslim traveler who is not a radical? Yes. But I too face incoveniences in this life; and I do so for the cause of the greater good. So if the average Muslim really is not in support of his/her radical brethern, than he/she ought to support the greater good as well. And if they are in support of the radicals, too freakin' bad for you. So sorry you were inconvenienced!

Seriously! Stuff like this really annoys me. We have, as a nation, elevated individual autonomy to such sacred heights, that we have lost the concept of personal sacrifice. And I know that I leave me open to charges of asking more out of others than I ask of myself. But let me be the first to say this: if the Irish Republican Army starts terrorizing the U.S. to the tune of 3,000 deaths in a single day, I'll be the first Irish-American to step up for some extra screening.

The system would be much more sophisticated than simply picking out young men of Asian appearance. But it would cause outrage in the Muslim community because its members would be far more likely to be selected for extra checks.

See this?... It's the world's smallest violin, playing just for the Muslims. Maybe if you'd clean house once in a while and actively shun and anathematize (or even better, infiltrate and tattle on) the radicals among you, we wouldn't be in this situation. If, that is, you truly believe they're as radical as you say you do.

I gotta think that terrorists are fully aware of our paralyzing reluctance to offend religious or racial groups, and will use it whenever possible. You KNOW that those guys that were caught had a plan in place, had they been sidelined for "extra checks"... scream racism and Muslim persecution until a lawyer, reporter, or photographer shows up (five minutes tops).

We're fighting an enemy that plays as dirty as possible, and if we continue to try to "take the high road, because we're America gosh darnit," we will lose.

Muslims (may) face extra checks in new travel crackdown

Thank ... you ...

Ella goes to Church...

So today was our first Sunday back at a church since Ella was born. A bit belated, yes--as parenting has been a learning experience for us. (We started looking around when we moved here, but stopped the search when Ella was born.)

We've made friends with a nice family up the street, so we went with them to their Methodist church. They've got a 2 year old son, and said the nursery was alright--so I took them at their word.

We get there, and their 1-year old room (in which Ella barely qualifies) was pretty skanky. Nasty carpet and non-interactive care-givers. But we drop her off, take one of those baby-beeper things (as instructed), and slip away when she wasn't looking. We attend an unmemorable service* and return to the nursery--to find our daughter crying hysterically. I go up to her, and one of the nursery people tell/ask me, "Did you check your pager? She's been crying the whole time and we've been paging you every 5 minutes." Her tone and intonation was as if I had done something wrong.

And at this point, my rather pissed and sarcastic nature thought of a few rebuttals. The first being, "No--all that buzzing and blinking got distracting, so I just hid it beneath the pew." Another response that came to mind was, "Yes--I checked the pager about every 5 seconds; apparently you didn't check your pager before you gave it to us."

I smiled at her courteously, took my child, and thanked her for her time. As for the church, I think we'll look elsewhere.

In Case It Was Keeping You Up At Night

The internet was somewhat of a help in my imponderable.

Apparently the icon to which I was referring is not Siddhartha Gautama, or any buddha at all. It's a Chinese Monk named Hotei.

He was considered a man of good and loving character. It was said of Hotei's benevolent nature, that he was to be regarded as an incarnation of Maitreya Bodhisattva (the future Buddha), but this claim was only allegorical, and due to his large protruding stomach & smile, he was caricatured as the "Laughing Buddha."

So that makes a little more sense.

Wheaton Alumni

First off--are you guys (out of towners) thinking of attending the 10 year reunion?
Secondly--Can someone confirm for me if Tim Epps was on T5 during our tenure there? I seem to remember him as a thin-build blonde-headed happy go lucky guy from T5. (I got an email from an old Wheaton friend yesterday, and began searching through the directory. While there, I read that Tim Epps from '96 is deceased.) Normally I would just look it up myself, but I think my books are still at my parents house. Wow was that admission shameful.)

Slow down everyone!

So much to respond to!

First, Scott... You and Greg both know that it's relatively easy to get me riled up, and you have both been known to do so just because you can. Of course, when that's the case, you have giant grins on your faces, and I can tell that ultimately you're just yanking my chain. That's not so easy to see in cyberspace. So anyway, I just decided I needed to go back to my corner for a bit to cool down, that's all.

Now, Greg... in light of your story about the poster session, I'd like to bring up the fact that your posts (at least the ones addressing me) frequently come off as condescending. Again, it's hard to detect tone well without body language, facial expression, and vocal inflections, but you frequently talk (tpye, whatever) to me as if I'm a Philosophy 101 student who's never thought about deep stuff before. I don't know if you go into "professor mode" or what, but... it contributes to my exasperation, and sometimes I'll wind up disagreeing with you "on paper" more vehemently than I actually do (and "going to my corner" more quickly) because of it. So... do with that what you will.

I did want to talk about "Tony". When I first read your story, I didn't really have a gut reaction. It's a tough call—justice or mercy? God's full of both, but we're very finite creatures. I don't think it's un-Christian-like to seek worldly justice on this earth. People who do wrong ought to be punished for it. Eternally? That's God's call. You could certainly prosecute him and pray for him. No contradiction there. Now, the issue of whether it's even worth it—financially or otherwise—to prosecute him is a different matter, in which I don't feel qualified to advise.

And finally...

The poll results indicate that 50% of all Christian men and 20% of all Christian women are addicted to pornography.

The men, I believe. I'm surprised it's not more. (I guess the 50% are the ones who'd admit to it.) But... 20% of Christian women addicted to pornography?!? Yeah, I'm not so sure about that one. Maybe they count soap operas as pornography or something.

This is a bad idea.

And I'm not sure I believe all of this either.

Que?

You know—Court and I have talked about this topic (albeit not this situation or example). True friendship, at least defined by me, is beyond the roles of social etiquette. In a sense, it really is an egalitarian commitment between two people of shared values or common interest, where each person gives and receives a relatively equal (averaged) amount of effort and fulfillment. Derivation: Court had a high school “friend” that became rather whorish (believe it—the stories are incredible), and was an unequal yoke in the relationship. My point to Court was—if you can’t tell her that she’s acting whorishly, then what type of friendship is that? So long story short, whorish friend doesn’t call here anymore.

Perhaps a better example. I’m at a professional conference with a good buddy of mine. A very secular Jew that has (superficially) nothing in common with me whatsoever. Yet—we’re like brothers from a different mother. So we’re walking through the convention space, and I see this research presentation that’s the biggest piece of crap I’d seen in about a year. No exaggeration. So I tell the guy—“you know your research is fatally flawed. It’s fatally confounded and is thus uninterpretable.” The so-called-scientist attempted to defend his work, and I proceeded to mop the floor with his butt. As we were walking away, Peter tells me—“you know, you were kind of a butthole.” And at that point, I knew he was my true friend. Because only a friend would say that in the fashion in which it was said; compassionate, yet firm. So I promptly turned around, caught up with the pseudo-scientist, apologized and made amends. True story. And—for the record, the science was really bad. Fatally flawed. Uninterpretable. Embarrassing.

Point being—If anyone here would have offended me, it would be brought up. Because in my eyes, that’s what friends do. Further, it’s exceedingly hard to offend a stutterer.

My post about Tony Carpenter was really a result of me working a good 12 hours in temperatures exceeding 100 degrees over the weekend. Those kinds of blisters on one’s hands change your perspective on things for a while. I mean—every fiber in my body wants vengeance. That asshole screwed me out of thousands, which has direct consequences on my family. On the other hand, I wonder if Romans 12:2 relates to me in this situation; I feel like Samuel Jackson in the diner at the end up pulp fiction.

And for the record—I really do like beavers.

But if you want a reply to your post—I think your thinking has its merit. In a sense, it reminds me of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, as one of the guy’s central tenets in the book (at least initially) is that quality is not relative. Thank You and Hallelujah. Quality is not relative. (I’m calling shenanigans on the whole concept of relativism.) And it makes every bit of sense that there is Quality of Thought. And it is for this reason alone that I have abandoned NPR and most of the mainstream media; this turning point for me was when they interviewed Hector the illiterate fruit-stand vender in Mexico City on his views of international politics and radical islam. As if his thoughts matter…

On the other hand, I wonder how much pseudo-intellectualism involves itself—me being a prime example. I tell my students all the time that if you can’t explain a concept to a 5 year old, then you don’t know it. And for the most part—I think that example has a lot of validity. Compound this with my growing belief that we really don’t know much of anything—and that much of our belief in science, nature, and possibly even theology is a great illusion… Suffice it to say that beyond simple faith, I honestly do wonder the point. To a large degree, I have come to feel like academic discussions are tantamount to Antarctic Sea Lions trying to defend their 5-square-foot beach head. And on the other hand, I have this dark side of me that seems to rather enjoy dropping 5 syllable words every now and then. And to what gain?

Case in point is the secret decoder ring. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard (what I consider to be) second rate pastors take an otherwise cryptic verse in the Bible, claim that the English version of the Bible misinterprets the Greek, and then change the entire meaning of the passage based on the subsequent redefinition of one word. (As if God would allow that in the first place; NO—there’s no conspiracy reverend. Is the Bible inerrant or not? Or is it only inerrant for those with the secret decoder ring?) For the most part—I’m not buyin’ it. I readily admit that I don’t get John 1 or the Revelation. Just like I don’t get why God designed the Recurrent laryngeal nerve to drop down into the thoracic cavity to the go back up and innervate the larynx. I have made peace with my colossal ignorance, and thus I don’t have to come up with a Chewbacca Defense. I don’t have to try and defend my 5 foot beachhead, because I’ve questioned if that beachhead is even worth my time. Beyond simple faith and the occasional intellectual masturbation that keeps life interesting (in both Science and Theology)—what’s the point. (Note the lack of a question mark.) Maybe this is a reflection of my relationship with God—good or bad, or perhaps it’s a reflection of my candor in the meaningless of human pursuits; I honestly don’t know.

It’s not the secret decoder ring itself, but rather someone projecting assured knowledge (almost conspiratorially so) based on arrogance. I know that I do not know, but I know that I have simple faith.

Specialization certainly has its place; I just don't know what that place is. Someone asks me what the cause of stuttering is; and I can point to them with confidence a part of the brain (basal ganglia) that is goofing up. Big whoop. Then they ask me how to fix or cure it; and I shrug my shoulders and ask them out for a pint. Where's the net benefit to society? I'm not sure if this carries over to theology, but when I look at the ever-morphing popular interpretations of the scripture from decade to decate and century to century--I kind of giggle. Antarctic Sea Lions trying to defend their 5-square-foot beach head.

Apologies ...

Good morning Gentlemen. I signed on to Hobo Signs this morning, and I was somewhat disappointed. I think part of me had been worrying all weekend that we had somehow offended one another with our rather animated conversation over the last week; and I took the relative silence (and rather drastic shift in conversation) to mean that maybe we really had done some damage.

If we have, I want to do my part to make things better. So if anything I have said in anyway offended either of you, I want to ask for forgiveness. That most certainly was not my intent. In fact, I came in on the middle of a conversation already in process, and I was simply trying to provide some clarification based upon some word studies I had done during grad school. But it may have come of as snotty or even arrogant, and if that was the case, I do apologize. My heart was to attempt to clarify -- not to draw lines.

So if I blew, please forgive me. And if I didn't, well ... I guess this posting isn't for you. Either way, I do genuinely respect the both of you and do honestly miss some of the exchanges we used to have in late-night, dorm room conversations.

I gotta run. Talk to you soon,
Scott

Beavers...

So I'm watching a tv program on Animal Planet about beavers. I love beavers--what other animal has that much impact on their environment? Further, I just love to see just how many traits most people consider "human" in many (if not most) over animal societies, beavers not withstanding. But I digress; Anyway--get this...Beavers mate for life, but the boy beaver builds his own (second) lodge for his private use. No doubt he loves her, he just needs his own dang space to get away from any nagging that may occur.

But on a more serious (and off topic) note--I've got this situation in which I really don't know the correct coarse of action. When we moved here, we wanted an in-ground irrigation system--but didn't know anyone or anything in the area. So we got a few referrals and ended up picking this absolute scoundrel of a human Tony Carpenter. In short, Tony makes his living lying to people while providing shoddy work. For for thousands of dollars, he installed an irrigation system, albeit exceedingly poorly. I don't want to go into how poorly, but suffice it to say that we've doubled the expense just to try to keep the thing operational--without success. It's a money pit that has cost us thousands, and one that we have officially (as of today) abandoned. You read that right--abandoned. He's outright lied to us countless times, and never repaired any of the known flaws in his system. (Not that I would want him to anyway.) We've had reputable people try and repair it, but due to the exceedingly poor installation--it is really beyond repair.

I have also heard that scoundrel Tony has got himself in quite a bit of trouble by installing a sewer system in a new sub-development. (He sold himself as a licensed and bonded plumber, none of which is true.) Rather than tying the sewer into the county line he chose to dump the sewer in an open field behind the subdivision. From what I'm told, countless creditors are after him, as is the EPA and the bank that now runs the subdivision. Any punishment that I could possibly inflict upon him, he has already inflicted upon himself.

This does little to quell my frustration and anger for the 5+ thousand that we've spent on this now abandoned irrigation money pit. Even if I take him to court, I don't know if I could win. And even if I win, I would be in a long line of shaftees. Further, I'm wondering what the correct response is from a Christian world view. At some point, I'll need to forgive this scoundrel--and cease viewing him as a worthless consumer of air; and I struggle with that. His actions deliberately have robbed choices and opportunities from my daughter, and that is hard for me to accept. I crave for vengeance, because I have been wronged by a scoundrel. Is the Christian response just to bend over and take it, or is it correct to try and recoup losses such as this?

The Secret Decoder Ring

You know, Greg, I'm with you on this issue, and yet I think each and every one of us falls into it. (By the way, I appreciate you saying that you didn't feel that I had at this particular juncture.) It seems to me that we have become so specialized as a society that this "Secret Decoder Ring" phenomena is almost inevitable.

Take me for example. Right now, I probably know more about Scripture than either of you. I don't say that as a point of pride. I say that because I have chosen to pursue studies in Greek, postmodernity and theology. By virtue of those studies, I have probably surpased the knowledge you possess in this arena. But that is not a bad thing to say or admit. If I was your pastor and you regularly walked out of a Sunday morning going "Even I know that passage isn't talking about what he said" -- that would be a very bad thing. In fact, I would even go so far as to suggest that you would probably leave the church. Because part of your tithe goes to paying a pastor to be a specialist so that he can teach you things that you may not know or fully understand. It's the same way with speech pathology or mathematics. You have both trained to become experts in your respective fields, and as such, you know far more about your respective areas that the average lay person.

I think the problem in the Christian world is that we have democratized the Bible to such a degree that everyone thinks that their opinion is the right one. That's why we don't have Bible studies anymore. We have a bunch of people spouting off ill-informed opinions. (I should probably say that I am not putting this recent debate into that category. I trust you both know that I hold you in far higher esteem than I do most others. What's more, I sincerely doubt that either of you spout off without having some basis for your thoughts. I'm talking more broadly about the issue of the Secret Decorder Ring and our democratized society).

As Christians, we have so taken to heart the idea that everyone should read the Bible on their own that we have lost the notion that deep study is different than devotional reading. But because we are Christians and the Bible addresses issues of ethics, standards, and morality, we all want a say because no one wants to be told what is right or wrong. Just try having a level headed discussion on predestination vs. free will with someone who disagrees with you. I almost guarantee that it will fall apart in moments over the issue of morality. Are we free to choose and responsible or puppets that are not responsible. [The answer of course is neither. :-)]

Long and short, specialization is a good thing. It may leave some folks out of the conversation at times, but in the end it is a good thing because it is the only way to continue to advance knowledge.

What do you think?

... I'll Put You In A Box...

"Let's just put this one to bed..."

Greg Boyd didn’t like that, because clearly God wasn’t in their box, God was in his box.

... by making intentionally baiting remarks that don't address anything other people have said and then declaring the horse dead. Hey, sounds great.

These conversations are much easier to have in person--namely, in college, at 2AM.

I will waylay my frustration long enough to agree with you with your Secret Decoder Ring mini-rant. I will admit that I love languages, and that I purchased a New Testament with the original Greek along with seven parallel English translations primarily NOT so I could "get deeper into the Word", but because I find words and languages (and the translations between) fascinating. I enjoy talking about "the Greek" for that reason--I find it interesting. And there certainly is a temptation, in certain discussions, to look something up and come back and say, "well the Greek says..." just to add something to the discussion. I personally wouldn't say that we need to be able to read the Greek in order to fully understand the gospel. One of the cool things about it is that children can understand the message just as well as--albeit in a different way than--scholars.

Clarification ...

Matt, I'm not sure what dictionary you are using, but the word church is most definitely derived from the Greek word ekklesia. That is not to say that there are no other words that get translated into the English as "church," but ekklesia is one of the roots coming out of the koine Greek. One possible reason that your dictionary may not reference it is because koine was essentially the "street Greek" of the day. It lacks the sophistication and nuance of more formalized Greek which is generally referenced in dictionaries. In fact, if I am not mistaken, the Bible is the only significant text we have the records the "language of the day" as it were. Anyway, if you are looking for an easily accesible dictionary addressing this issue, I would suggest either Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek or Interlinear for the Rest of Us: The Reverse Interlinear for New Testament Word Studies.

As to whether Christ would have preferred someone other than Ceasar to be running things, I don't know what to say to that. On one level, you have to go with a resounding "yes," because God generally opposed people masquerading as gods and saviors. On the other hand, what men intend for evil, God purposes for His good. So yes, Christ would prefer people don't go claiming salvation through politics, but at the same time used someone who was doing this to accomplish the purpose of His own death.

Either way, the point stands that our identity is directly wrapped up in the political world. We were told to gather in places (ekklesias) that stood in defiance of an evil political system that was built upon communities (ekklesias) that recognized the authority of that evil system. As such, we are called to stand against evil acts committed by this world.

Ok—let’s just put this one to bed.

There was this guy Greg Boyd. He likely had some right-wing neo-cons in his church that were getting a bit loud. These neo-cons likely thought that God was in their box. Greg Boyd didn’t like that, because clearly God wasn’t in their box, God was in his box. So Greg made a series of foolish decisions to preach a series of sermons that likely took things on a personal level. This resulted in church divisiveness and a loss of 20% of the congregation. Boyd claimed that the church should remain outside of politics and modernity; but oddly enough, he chose to give this sermon series right before the presidential election.

And Scott—my use of the word “apolitical” was to be inferred as “apolitical party”.

What I would like to bring up is the issue of the Secret Decoder Ring. It has often annoyed me a bit, although not in this case, when somebody brings up “the Greek.” Many of them act as though they have special “inside information” regarding God and the Bible, and are subsequently smarter than the rest of us plebians in the room. (Scott—you didn’t come across this way to me, for the record.) I often wonder what many of these arm-chair linguistic interpreters and theologians add to the common good.

I guess my point is that there seems to be a fine line between reading scripture, and then trying to interpret the scripture, often through circuitous means. The latter becomes an academic effort, which I can appreciate (as I am one), but also recognize that academic efforts are in their very nature flawed. They’re fun in so much as they are intellectual masturbation. Anything beyond that, I just wonder if it’s anything beyond speculation?

plink-plink

Dude... well, first of all, a minor nit:

As you may or may not know, the word "church" is the english word derived from the Greek word ekklesia.

Here's what I see in my dictionary, for "church":

[Middle English chirche, from Old English cirice, ultimately from Medieval Greek kūrikon, from Late Greek kūriakon (dōma), the Lord's (house), neuter of Greek kūriakos, of the lord, from kūrios, lord.]

So... from Greek, yes. From ekklesia, no. But whatever. (EDIT: Actually, come to think of it, this matches what you were talking about, since they wrote "lord" with a lowercase "l".)

Now... on to this.

So when Christ highjacks the language, He basically thumbs His nose at Ceasar and makes a definantly political point. No government will save humanity, only the Christ...

All this to say, stating that you believe in Christ as the Savior of humanity was seen and (I would argue) must continue to be seen as a political stand.

Wha-wha-WHA?!? How is "Politics is depraved because humans are depraved" a political statement? Just because it's "about politics" doesn't mean it's a political statement--at least the way I'm using the latter phrase.

Saying that Christ "makes a political point" seems (to me) to imply that Christ would have been happier with someone else in charge other than Caesar.

I think we may just be defining "taking a political stand" differently. I see it as taking a stand, to way over-simpify things, as to the left and right approaches to the issues, NOT as to whether or not politics as a whole (or politicians) can save us.

Maybe understanding a bit of Christian history will help clarify this situation. As you may or may not know, the word "church" is the english word derived from the Greek word ekklesia. Now if you look in your standard Greek-to-English dictionary, you're going to get a definition that reads something like this: "a church, the Church, assembly, congregation." Nice, clean and simple.

But when you do a little digging in your Roman history, you discover something far more interesting. The word ekklesia was actually coined by the Ceasars, and it was used to describe a town or a city that recognized Ceasar as "Lord" and as the "Son of God." So when when Christ decided to tell his follows to go to an ekklesia that recognizes Him as Lord and Savior, He is highjacking a term that is already in common usage.

Moreover, when you consider the climate of the times, this was a bold and definant move. To declare something other than Ceasar to be Lord was to bring upon yourself a death sentence. It was understood as an act that was not only against Ceasar, but against the Roman State as well. So when Christ highjacks the language, He basically thumbs His nose at Ceasar and makes a definantly political point. No government will save humanity, only the Christ.

All this to say, stating that you believe in Christ as the Savior of humanity was seen and (I would argue) must continue to be seen as a political stand. You are aligning yourself with someone who stands against the systems and practices of this world. You are making a choice to denounce worldly systems as false. In the end, I would argue that there is no such thing as an apolitical Christian, for our very identity is wrapped in terminology that stands as a point of opposition.