Letters from Lots, Lots of Letters

Sharing Options
Show Outline with Links

The MEMO

In regards to your delightfully understated post “A Dumpster Full of Grease Fire,” I could not help but do a little further reading. Thank you for the links to the “FISA Memo” as well as the commentary from the Federalist which were included in your post; anyone who did not take the time to read those links missed out on a lot of the explosive details. Having heard that a Democrat response was to be offered, I did a search, but the best l I could come up with was “Democratic Response to Nunes Memo ‘Leaked’ to NBC News.” That document, dated Feb. 3, 2018 and official looking but unsigned, is reported to have been authored by Representative Jerrold Nadler, to refute the “Nunes Memo” (AKA FISA Memo). In an attempt to be fair, I also waded through this Democratic Response. The response (AKA Final Draft), touted to quote case law establishing the validity of the FISA warrant in question, is for the most part a study in double talk (note that even the documents involved in this scandal have aliases). The “case law” cited is a prime example. I quote: “Second, there is already a well established body of law dealing with allegations that ‘material and relevant information was omitted’ from the application to the court and, in the case of Carter Page, that law appears to fall almost entirely on the side of the government. In Franks v. Delaware (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a court may only void a search warrant if the government ‘knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth,’ included false information or excluded true information that was or would have been critical to the court’s determination of probable cause. The Nunes memo alleges nothing that would even come close to meeting this standard. Indeed, we have every indication that the government made its application to the court in good faith.” Now, the statement that “The Nunes memo alleges nothing that would even come close to meeting this standard” is so far from the truth that one has to wonder if this is why Rep. Nadler did not attach his name to the document (if he is the author). In fact, if you read the FISA Memo, you might wonder if this particular FISA warrant should not be considered as a case study in why a search warrant should be voided based on that 1978 decision. The other reference to case law cited in the “Final Draft” (AKA Democratic Response to Nunes Memo [AKA FISA Memo]) is likewise nothing but double talk. Again, I quote: “The relevant legal standard for evaluating the FISA application is laid out in Franks v. Delaware.” “[T]here is, of course, a presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting the search warrant. 438 U.S. 154, 171.” That is just the point of the Nunes Memo (AKA FISA Memo). When the affidavit supporting the search warrant has been shown to lack validity, are the general populace presumed to be dumbed down enough to believe they need to still assume it is valid? To quote one of my favorite authors, “Are you guys serious?” Regards,

Lee, AKA St. Lee

Lee, correct. They have been caught with hand in the cookie jar, up to the elbow, and they are still trying to brazen it out. They’ve got their story, and they’re sticking to it.

The missing detail in this enjoyable rant is that Obama, Comey, McCabe et al. had VERY LEGITIMATE reasons to be concerned about Trump’s associates, since they started investigating most of them BEFORE THE CAMPAIGN. These guys were eventually involved in Trump’s campaign—that campaign ended up securing the nomination. You bet they got worried. This was less a Hillary-led hit job, and more an opportunist moment for Hillary to use what was a legitimate investigation for her own ends. Spoiler alert—it didn’t work anyway. But, those guys were all dirty, and it’s going to be way worse than Watergate when those details come out.
Aaron

Aaron, when you say this was “less a Hillary-led hit job,” the question that comes to my mind is all the evidence on the Hillary side that has been destroyed thus far. If the remainder has been sufficient to show her complicity, I wonder how convicting the data that has gone bye-bye would have been.

“They have no commitment whatever to any process that allows them to be defeated fair and square. Their faction losing is illegitimate, by definition. A non-starter. Legitimacy is defined as their faction on top. If fair elections result in losses for them, then they are unfair. If unfair elections result in positive outcomes for them, well, then, the people have spoken. They are hostile to the very concept of the rule of law.”

How then would you suggest we proceed? You can’t enter into any kind of deal, competition, or game with someone you know has no interesting in adhering to any of the terms of those arrangements. If the left cares nothing for the rules of the country, how is that qualitatively different from declaring war on the country? How can you continue to operate the nation as though it is one object instead of two, vying for dominance at any cost?

Justin

Justin, to be honest, as things now are, I don’t see any peaceful solution short of a massive reformation and revival. There is no political solution here. In our situation, politics is the disease, not the cure.

A Narnia Sabbatical

Not responding to any particular post here, but wanted to shoot this question at you. We are about to read the Narnia books to our young kids for the first time – I know there is some dispute about the “proper” reading order. I know of Lewis’ comments on the matter as wells as those of scholars who differ with him. Knowing that there may be no iron-clad standard here, what are your thoughts on the matter?
Matt

Matt, my two cents would be to read them in the order of their publication the first time. But since reading the Narnia stories ought to be a repeated activity, I would go with chronological order the second time, and then according to family votes after that.

You Tell Me That It’s Evolution

“In your last letters column, you interacted with BJ about the confusion of ‘those who argue for deep time in the biblical record.’ I just posted a new article on this topic on my blog that I think you and many of your readers would agree with and, I hope, find edifying. If you want to pass it along, it can be found at http://www.excellentthought.net/young-earth-or-old/

P.S. Now that you have ‘Call Me the Breeze’ under your belt, can we expect ‘Freebird’ in 2018?
Bill

Bill, we are working on Freebird now. We also did it a few years ago, and because at that time we were practicing in our basement, Nancy started calling it Longbird.

I don’t quite understand why people put the Bible and science/evolution against each other. I don’t deny evolution, but I also am not completely convinced, and at the end of the day I think it doesn’t matter that much. The Bible can be consistent with evolution, as Lewis and other brilliant theologians believe. And really science is constantly changing, we know 3% of the ocean, how would we know for sure what happened in the past, to any substantial degree of accuracy? But the Bible never changes. The problem is when you put the Bible against the cultural acceptance of evolution, which is the best but flawed science at the moment, you create a problem for many Christians. If kids are taught they have to choose the Bible or science then what happens when their teachers in high school and college convince them of evolution, or when they are convinced by friends or research? The Bible is consistent (or could conceivably be consistent) with evolution. Why would you die on this hill? It is so insignificant, I believe.

Malik, there are a couple reasons. The first is that evolution can be made consistent with a revered Bible on the shelf, but not with a Bible that is read, studied, exegeted, and treasured. A Bible that is read thoughtfully will collide with the teaching of evolution, whatever the Bible teachers may be saying. That’s the first reason. The second reason is that if evolution were God’s method of creating, that means that we have millions of years of agonistic death that God looked down on and pronounced “very good.” This leaves us with no answer on the premier objection to the Christian faith, which is the problem of natural evil. It is ironic that the Christians most eager to have us compromise with evolution are also the Christians most susceptible to the objection that natural evil means that we couldn’t worship “a God like that.”

Into Kids

Well here comes the letter tsunami. Enjoy :) “teach them to be into kids.” You can’t teach what you don’t know. Based on my own experience, I think the appreciation, enjoyment and “into-ness” of being a mom is a taste that God’s Spirit has to cultivate in our hearts. Years of being in classrooms, on a job, or in our me-culture can kind of drill it out of you. Prayer and lots of prayer is needed for God to open mom’s eyes to the FACT that nothing is better than kiddos.

Ginny

Ginny, amen.

Marriage is Hard

Here are a few random thoughts which may have a common thread somewhere. While at Westminster back in the 80’s John Bettler taught a Marriage and Family counseling course. He made a side comment which he didn’t expand upon, but it was something like we expect too much out of marriage in this modern age and put a burden on it that it wasn’t meant to bear. He followed it up with, ‘Ask your grandmother if your grandfather met her deep emotional needs.’ It made me ponder what would our third world brothers and sisters think of this? The cross-cultural sifter is a good way to sift our contemporary idols. I had another course with Dave Powlinson. I’ll try to describe the counseling rubric he shared. It was a picture of a sun and two trees. One tree thorny and barren. The other tree was lush and fruitful. The cross provided the transition from one to the other. When dealing with people the roots of their lives produces the fruit they live with. but we cannot ignore the sun either. These are the outside influences and they do produce an effect. While the Flip Wlison defense is a non-starter (and you’re old enough to get the allusion), there is a sort of PTSD from constantly being held in contempt or being unloved. Untangling this is quite a challenge for most people in my observation. This growth in grace for some comes in leaps and bounds. For others growth is fingernail length by fingernail length. There are things we aspire to and there is messy reality. Thanks for the post. It’s worth saving.

Jeff

Jeff, yes. In our therapeutic age we often demand quick cures for everything—and if the cure is not forthcoming, then we blame the counselors.

I look forward to more of these posts, if that is your plan. I am presently tasked with counseling various Christians experiencing intractable marital conflict, and after months and months of this, I confess to being exasperated with them. I even fear we may be approaching the first step in discipline. I’m eager for all the help I can get. Blessings

Gil

Gil, yes. And see the answer to the previous letter. A marriage counselor is not a relationship mechanic. The couple are free agents, and they can both obey and disobey the Word. One can obey and the other disobey the Word. To complicate things still further, they can disobey while pretending to obey. They can treat the obedience of the other as disobedience. Or they can take the word of Christ to heart.

A woman who clobbers her guests over the head with her educational credentials and her superior understanding of Wittgenstein while their needs go unmet, the dinner burns, and her kids run riot has a manners problem at the very least. “See how smart I am” is unattractive in anybody, especially someone with a captive audience. But wit is not necessarily opposed to sweet-temperedness, nor are the fruits of education necessarily opposed to a tender and feminine love for husband and children. Which is why I think counsel to women to be their feminine well-mannered best selves is perhaps preferable to any hint that they conceal their wit as if it were a disability. The problem with dumbing down to make people like you better, even for excellent motives, is that you have to keep on doing it; otherwise the people who bought your dumb blonde act feel they’ve been played for fools. No need to ask how I know this!

Jill

Jill, I take your point. And as that was a sermon outline, not the sermon itself, I trust I qualified the point sufficiently. It is not a matter of playing dumb, but rather a matter of following the lead of Scripture in playing up certain things.

Chromosomal Nuance

“And the duty of every human being is to look at those chromosomes, and then obey them.” It might be worth providing a little more nuance, if not here then somewhere. Intersex is a real condition (“some are born eunuchs”), and a lot of people want this fact to prove more than it perhaps does. For a lot of people the fluidity of sex (from an embryological perspective), seems to be a key piece of the argument for dissociating sex from gender. It’s true we “look at the chromosomes,” i.e. get karyotyping to aid a decision on sex determination, in cases of ambiguous genitalia in infants. Of course normally there’s no need for this; it’s phenotype that determines sex, and parents take a look and raise their kids accordingly. Phenotype generally corresponds to a standard 46, XX or 46, XY karyotype but often it does not. It turns out that sometimes there are 3 sex chromosomes in every cell. Sometimes there are 2 in some cells 3 in others. Sometimes the phenotype is female but all cells in the body are “male” (chromosomally XY). In some such cases (e.g. 46, XY with complete androgen insensitivity) androgens are present in utero but fail to masculinize the child, who is born and develops as a girl. These conditions are not that uncommon either, although it’s hard to know how prevalent exactly. To take the last case, some of these girls may display normal female development until puberty, when they seek medical attention for amenorrhea. A recent, and probably the first, serious attempt to assess prevalence finds 46, XY to occur in 6.4 per 100,000 live born females. Some of these children would have abnormalities early in childhood, but some not until puberty. Some engagement with this, or at least some acknowledgement that male and female do not perfectly correspond to XY and XX, may help biologically minded readers to follow the argument without shutting off at this point.

Matt

Matt, yes. Intersex is absolutely a thing. But the fact that it is pressed by the secularists into arguments about the fluidity of gender is as nonsensical as arguing from the existence of Downs (an indisputable fact) that there is no such thing as normal genetic formation.

Tough and Tender

Smooth Words Hard Heart . . . I was pleased to come across your essay this morning. It resonated as so true to my church today, and many others I am afraid. I really appreciate your calling the Word of God a jackhammer! I totally agree with this and I appreciate a great verse to back it up (Jer. 23:29). I also agree that all too often I have used words that dishonors God and ends up embittering the person I am addressing. I am asking God to soften my heart and teach me to speak to others in a way that turns away wrath and is gracious and seasoned with salt. I just wanted to say, Thank you, for your wise and timely words for me. Blessings,

Roger

Roger, thanks very much.

Trump from a Distance

I refer to your post “Already baked in.” Thank you for taking the time to write this piece. For a start I don’t live in the U.S. Thus the election of Trump is easily derided by me and so many others as your country “going crazy.” Thank you for pointing out the providential aspect of God’s work that I would have otherwise dismissed i.e. the third group you mentioned. In reality, many of us in other nations have experienced less than virtuous politicians ourselves, they come and they go. Trump, as a matter of fact, isn’t so new or special from the flamboyant “world leaders” you see from other countries. Christians, from my country and yours, will always find ourselves making difficult decisions at the ballot boxes. And your closing paragraph is what all of us must take heed at all times. Thanks,

Chee (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)

Chee, thanks.

That Winsome Tartness Again

“Twinkies in Tight Tops and the Regime Illogiqué.” Maybe your blog should be called Theology that Back Bites, with this self-aggrandizing author brandishing verbal swords to caricature and slay women, the sisters in Christ that he doesn’t deem smart enough to warrant dignity and avoid the fall of his caustic “wit.” What a shame that members of the Body can quote Scripture in one breath and find wry joy in tearing down a large majority of the church in the very next.

Rosy

Rosy, the central problem here is one that I have seen over and over again. To say something about some women who are disgracing their office is not the same thing as saying that all women are doing so, or even that most women are doing so. To translate a critique of some women into an attack on all is a basic SJW move.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
116 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
OKRickety
OKRickety
3 years ago

Not being familiar with the post that Rosy responded to, I found Twinkies in Tight Tops and the Regime Illogiqué. In reading through the comments there, I found this gem from kyriosity:

“I bet if we did a literary analysis of The Collected Works of Douglas Wilson, Unabridged, the list of insulting terms applied to various males of the species would dwarf his unflattering female-focused verbiage many times over. And then some whiny wench would wail that Wilson woefully underrepresents women in his writing.”

bethyada
bethyada
3 years ago
Reply to  OKRickety

The post amused me. Getting an A because you major in women’s studies.

kyriosity
kyriosity
3 years ago
Reply to  OKRickety

“Let another laugh at your jokes, and not your own mouth” (Prov. 24:2ish), but I must confess I amuse myself sometimes!

Malik
Malik
3 years ago

To everyone how thinks that the memo means that the world is ending.
The memo was literally bull crap. Even if it was true I would have a hard time viewing it as a big deal, but it wasn’t. It was just another political play to try to let Trump off the hook.
http://amp.nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/nunes-fine-the-fbi-didnt-lie-but-its-font-was-too-small.html?__twitter_impression=true
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/05/fbi-footnote-carter-page-warrant-390795
Republicans were just doing another hit job, playing to their base’s fears to get Trump off.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
3 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Your first link lied in the very first sentence.

“The central, and most damaging, accusation in the memo published Friday by House Republicans is that the FBI failed to disclose the bias of one of its sources when it applied to wiretap Carter Page.”

No. The most damaging accusation is that it used information it knew to be completely without evidence to ignore the 4th amendment to target someone for political reasons. That’s plenty damning even with full disclosure. I’m still unpacking these articles, but this is a rough start.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
3 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Ok. So I’ve read them. Let’s take this piece by piece. “The memo was literally bull crap. ” Your cited articles don’t establish this in any way. Please explain how they do, or provide another reasoning. The articles as presented only deal with the claim of lack of disclosure in the memo, hardly the only point it makes, and it doesn’t address this claim very convincingly. It is a correction that establishes that in the FISA application, the FBI technically included disclosure of the source of the Steele dossier, but whether or not technical disclosure amounts to honest disclosure is… Read more »

Malik
Malik
3 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

I’m not saying that my articles proved that point about it being bull crap, I find that self evident. Now first you say what the FBI did was as good as hiding the fact. Look, the people investigating their claims are smart, and are not excused from reading the footnotes. Just because the fact was at the bottom of the page doesn’t make it less there, it is not the FBIs job to baby sit people and make sure they read all of the assigned reading before the quiz. You say that the source was lying from the beginning saying… Read more »

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
3 years ago
Reply to  Malik

“I’m not saying that my articles proved that point about it being bull crap,” Then why did you link them? ” Now first you say what the FBI did was as good as hiding the fact.” No, I say depending on what the actual FISA application says, which we haven’t seen, that *might* be the case. ” the people investigating their claims are smart, and are not excused from reading the footnotes. Just because the fact was at the bottom of the page doesn’t make it less there, it is not the FBIs job to baby sit people and make… Read more »

Malik
Malik
3 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Okay yeah, bad phrasing I meant that the articles show it is untrue, but even if it was it’s bull crap in the sence that it’s pretty downright dumb. After all the hype when I read it I just laughed, it’s just kind of silly. Okay that’s fair, but you shouldn’t make a case about that then. In regard to you not saying the FBI deliberately hid it. Look, a judge can read a footnote, and would, this is dumb. What is the case for this “you have to put it in the real text or you are lying” like… Read more »

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
3 years ago
Reply to  Malik

” you shouldn’t make a case about that then. In regard to you not saying the FBI deliberately hid it. Look, a judge can read a footnote, and would, this is dumb. What is the case for this “you have to put it in the real text or you are lying”” Again, this really depends on what the FISA application actually says. There are a thousand ways to technically give someone the information while making it very misleading. If, off the top of my head, it says the dossier was compiled by Fusion GPS, and then 40 pages later it… Read more »

Malik
Malik
3 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

You took the part about me evaluating Republicans out of context. Come on. I said I don’t have to evaluate it because they said that that’s what they wanted. It’s not an evaluation, that’s what happened. Look all of this is BS, the memo doesn’t make much of a point, we are arguing in irrelevant circles. We both say that there isn’t enough information to make a judgement. You think that there needs to be more because your suspicions are aroused, I don’t. That’s a difference we can live with.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
3 years ago
Reply to  Malik

I took nothing out of context. You were directly attributing motive to the creation of the memo itself. A motivation that the memo itself contradicts. If they just invented this thing to end the Mueller probe, there’s no reason they would have specifically written how it doesn’t effect the Mueller probe. This is a contradiction in your premise for which you’ve yet to provide any explanation. That they call for the ending of the probe establishes nothing. They were calling for the end of the probe before the memo too. The entire purpose of talking about their motives is to… Read more »

Malik
Malik
3 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Fair.
Also about your point of the 4th amendment stuff, the guy was actually already being serveled before, this was just a renewal, so they had already had probable cause every 90 days since 2013. So them doing a bad job one of the times is…. Not a big deal?
I find the whole thing dumb, you should listen to the did of a memo episode of trumpcast, it’s interesting.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
3 years ago
Reply to  Malik

” So them doing a bad job one of the times is…. Not a big deal?”

Unless you have principles, and think that the FBI should avoid corruption all the time.

Edit: My apologies if this sounded gruff. I didn’t mean it to be. I’m pre-coffee after staying up all night with my vomiting 1-year old.

Malik
Malik
3 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

They should, of course, but I don’t think it is corrupt to after four years of renewing this form every month and a half to have one renewal that is not an iron clad case in and of itself. You realize that them still surveiling him means they have found lots of damning evidence right?
Lol, no problem on gruffness, I’m sure I sound that way as well, even though I’ve been up for hours and already had my caffeen

Malik
Malik
3 years ago
Reply to  Malik

By the way, there is also the issue that Núñez is compromising his recusal. So he is farther out of line that the FBI could theoretically be

OKRickety
OKRickety
3 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Malik,

I am more concerned that the world will end although we know neither the day nor the hour. In the meantime, the political “swamp” should be viewed suspiciously, whatever the political affiliation. We would be far better off without the vast majority of politicians and all associated (including the various government officials  and government employees). All I ask of you is to be evenhanded in your understanding of all politically related events. So far, I have my doubts that you are.

Malik
Malik
3 years ago
Reply to  OKRickety

You guys hate the government employees until you are the one in the ambulance, or needing the cops to come help you, or the FBI to go catch a killer who is after you. I have my hate for politicians but I also realize how much we need them.

OKRickety
OKRickety
3 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Malik,

“Hate” is not a good description for my stance. If you had read my comment well, you would see that I said the “vast majority”, which certainly leaves me some wiggle room. And, by the way, the ambulance service here is run by a private entity, not the government (but I will grant that it is pseudo-government).

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
3 years ago
Reply to  Malik

“You guys hate the government employees until you are the one in the ambulance, or needing the cops to come help you, or the FBI to go catch a killer who is after you. I have my hate for politicians but I also realize how much we need them.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum Believing that massive centralized governments with large degrees of power to manage everything are unwise and inefficient does not require that you think all forms of any public institution should be destroyed. You’re confusing, whether intentionally or unintentionally, a libertarian view with an anarchistic view of government. If you don’t… Read more »

Malik
Malik
3 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

I know the difference. It’s just weird that you like only the parts that benefit you personally. If you benefited from other parts I’m sure you would like them as well

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
3 years ago
Reply to  Malik

It’s just weird that you like only the parts [of government] that benefit you personally.

Malik, how much rap and hip-hop do you listen to?

Malik
Malik
3 years ago

Quite a bit, why?

JP Stewart
JP Stewart
3 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Some of us don’t believe it’s morally right to “benefit” from most gov’t programs (i.e., taxpayer dollars).

JohnM
JohnM
3 years ago
Reply to  JP Stewart

Funny thing is we got big G because you guys wanted it, a few generations ago.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
3 years ago
Reply to  JohnM

Who is “you guys” in that sentence? The natural interpretation “limited government conservatives” makes absolutely zero sense because wanting that makes you by definition not part of “you guys”.

Jane
Jane
3 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Besides the fact that it’s physically impossible for any of us to have wanted something a few generations ago.

paulm01
paulm01
3 years ago
Reply to  Jane

Jane – But they wish someone could/should.

JohnM
JohnM
3 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Read the history of the Gilded Age. As you read, note what kind of people were agitating for expansion of government role and scope, for a central bank and a Federal income tax, for government work programs, and government relief programs. See with which side, which class, you most identify. Take your present circumstances and standing in life and transpose that around one hundred twenty years back, then try to imagine where you would fit.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
3 years ago
Reply to  JohnM

“which side, which class”

“your present circumstances and standing in life and transpose that around one hundred twenty years back”

Ok, so you meant nothing meaningful, like actual ideas. Just labels we never had any control over, like race. Though how you’re tracking class in America over the course of more than a century, I have no idea. The average American isn’t within the same income bracket for even ten years within their own lifetime.

bethyada
bethyada
3 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

I read John as referring to what ideas you most agree with.

I think we should look to our ideological ancestors. Otherwise you refute an idea a hundred times over a millennium and each new generation gets to claim that this particular example is different.

Take the people that deny David and Solomon existed. How are they different to the men who denied Nineveh and Babylon? It is just a modern variant of unbelief.

JohnM
JohnM
3 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

At least one person reads John correctly. Maybe the others aren’t really trying?

JohnM
JohnM
3 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

Though I guess it really is social class ancestors more than ideological ancestors in this case. Either way, 1. The issues aren’t new. 2. The government people are objecting to here was not imposed top down.

OKRickety
OKRickety
3 years ago
Reply to  JohnM

JohnM, “The government people are objecting to here was not imposed top down.” My perception was that the US Federal government was designed by those who we today would call elite, and voters at the time had to be male landholders. I could be wrong on that. Today, even though we get to elect certain positions, I’m not very certain that we have much say in what is “imposed” on us in the name of government. I also could be wrong on this, but I wonder if the founding fathers would be appalled at the state of our government and… Read more »

JohnM
JohnM
3 years ago
Reply to  OKRickety

OKRickety,

No doubt some people here object to the government designed by 18th century elites , but I’m talking about modifications introduced in the early 20th century, in response to popular demand.

paulm01
paulm01
3 years ago
Reply to  OKRickety

OKR – ” also could be wrong on this, but I wonder if the founding fathers would be appalled at the state of our government and its reach.”

You are not wrong, historical record would suggest they’d clean house.

Jane
Jane
3 years ago
Reply to  JohnM

So our beliefs are determined by our class and situation? We’re not free to form our views based on a broader understanding of ethics, economics, etc.? The odd thing is that the “class’ I’m in is pretty clearly divided between the more statist-leaning and the more free market/conservative leaning types. Despite being part of a common economic and social class, we’re not all on the same page with regard to stuff. So why would that have been different had I been born 100 years earlier? Is there something magic about the 19th century that deprived people of the ability to… Read more »

JohnM
JohnM
3 years ago
Reply to  Jane

“So our beliefs are determined by our class and situation?”. Why no, what one perceives as self-interest just happens to coincide with what one just naturally knows is good and right in politics. ;-)

It doesn’t have to be the case that people of the same socioeconomic class were 100% politically lockstep in the 19th century for it to be the case that agitation for a bigger, more involved government came largely from the lower half. It wasn’t imposed on the unwilling common man by a tyrannical establishment.

paulm01
paulm01
3 years ago
Reply to  JP Stewart

JPS – “Some of us don’t believe it’s morally right to “benefit” from most gov’t programs (i.e., taxpayer dollars).”

So right, (actually it’s the majority who believe as you state). The Apostle Paul writes about this (1Thess2:9, 2Thess3:8). Unfortunately, far too many who refuse to admit the truth do believe handouts on the backs of those who work and pay taxes IS moral.

How to tell the immorality nature of any “program” (legal theft) is when any one of them is reduced or taken away, the recipients whine endlessly about the loss of the freebie, then call the doer evil.

Katecho
Katecho
3 years ago
Reply to  paulm01

paulm01 wrote:

Unfortunately, far too many who refuse to admit the truth do believe handouts on the backs of those who work and pay taxes IS moral.

At the federal level, at least, we have transcended any accusation of taking handouts on the backs of taxpayers. How? As the handouts increase, the taxpayers are simultaneously being given tax cuts! We are living inside a spiraling debt dream that is measured in trillions upon trillions. The only hope for the present culture is to pray that it never wakes up from it.

paulm01
paulm01
3 years ago
Reply to  Katecho

K- “We are living inside a spiraling debt dream that is measured in trillions upon trillions. ” Yeah, a vast majority of our national debt was racked up by the former administration, which was nothing more than entitled happy children in a candy store free-for-all…another ugly attempt to redistribute income in order to maintain their adoring voter base. Life isn’t a freebie vending machine, someone has to pay, and frankly, I’m tired of paying for 3,4, or 5 lazy bums who are a net negative on society. Maybe I misread your comment coupling rising national debt and tax cuts, but… Read more »

Malik
Malik
3 years ago
Reply to  JP Stewart

Well then move to an anarchy. As the far right likes to say, if you don’t like it, leave.
(I’m kidding about leaving, clearly thats not what a good citizen should do)
For real tho, the whole point of a government is to benefit the people, that’s why you pay taxes. One thing you benefit from is roads, is that immoral?

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
3 years ago
Reply to  Malik

You missed the word “most” and are just confusing libertarianism for anarchism again.

Malik
Malik
3 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Ah, thanks I didn’t see that.
I know the difference ????

bethyada
bethyada
3 years ago
Reply to  Malik

One thing you benefit from is roads, is that immoral?

No. But read Paulm01 more carefully.

paulm01
paulm01
3 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Malik – ” the whole point of a government is to benefit the people, that’s why you pay taxes.” Uh, no. The point of government is to maintain a country and the order within, and to keep its citizens safe. I pay taxes for infrastructure and security, not “stuff”, or in many cases massive regulation that stifles economic growth and freedom afforded under the Constitution. Government only benefits itself, or more accurately, those within it. The recent seditious activity of far too many who tried to defeat a Presidential candidate in an election showcases this in spades…and by all accounts… Read more »

Malik
Malik
3 years ago
Reply to  paulm01

Okay, that’s just arguing the definition of stuff. I include things like security under benefits, because I find isis not on my back porch a huge benefit

paulm01
paulm01
3 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Considering definitions are up for grabs lately – being whatever some think they should instead of what they are – maybe more defining is in order. {[:-)

mys
mys
3 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Malik-
Lol, obvious troll is obvious.
Right, the memo was no big deal. That’s why Democrats were all screaming to not release it. Because it was just nothing. It didn’t matter at all.

Malik
Malik
3 years ago
Reply to  mys

I don’t know why they were so worked up, but the right was pretty up in arms about it, and given that they won’t let the Democrats or FBI argue back it makes sense. Anyone can win any argument when the opponent is gaged.

OKRickety
OKRickety
3 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Malik,

“Anyone can win any argument when the opponent is gaged (sic).”

True, and that is one of the reasons for the complaints about the mainstream media, due to their almost complete support of liberal positions.

Malik
Malik
3 years ago
Reply to  OKRickety

It is true that there are few good conservative media companies. If you are smart enough to know Fox is crap, then the only other mainstream media you have would be maybe Washington examiner. However the right isn’t gaged in the way I’m talking about. If you’re smart you can find good sources such as world.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
3 years ago
Reply to  Malik

” given that they won’t let the Democrats or FBI argue back it makes sense. Anyone can win any argument when the opponent is gaged.”

The validity of this complaint depends a great deal on what the Democrat memo says. If the Democrat memo is a pile of lies, it makes perfect sense not to release it. This whole mess of taking one politician’s word for it over another is why from the beginning I was saying #releasetheactualFISAapplication

Malik
Malik
3 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

You can’t release the actual application. If you are actually concerned with that guys privacy then you wouldn’t want that.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
3 years ago
Reply to  Malik

You can redact the irrelevant personal data. They do it with official documents all the time.

Malik
Malik
3 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

True. But I don’t think you know what you talking about regarding classified information that the application would contain. Actually I know you don’t, neither do I.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
3 years ago
Reply to  Malik

I’m not sure what your com plaint is. 99% of the application is irrelevant to the argument They could literally just release all parts pertaining to the Steele dossier and cover the rest in black ink. Given that we already know the contents of the dossier and where it came from, there’s no imaginable way it could be a security risk. It’s already public information. We just need to know what precisely the report said about it. Was it the sole basis of the warrant, and how was the source of the dossier disclosed? None of that requires releasing new… Read more »

Malik
Malik
3 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Okay, maybe. Still neither of us know anything about it.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
3 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Yet you’re spouting conclusions as though you do.

Malik
Malik
3 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Actually I did more research and the application would actually contain quite a bit of information that would be dangerous to release.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
3 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Ok. What information would that be that couldn’t be redacted as we’ve already discussed? Also wouldn’t the sensible thing be to just tell me what that is at the outset, rather than declaring a conclusion without evidence?

adad0
3 years ago

Jill:
“No need to ask how I know this.”

????

????????????????????????????????????☺️

B Josiah Alldredge
B Josiah Alldredge
3 years ago

Ok what was the into kids comment from?

Ian Miller
Ian Miller
3 years ago

I like that advice on Narnia. I get really steamed up about “publication order”purists, but as a reader, I have to agree. I just don’t like the disparagement of people who disagree. Doug hits the real thing, though – you never go to Narnia just once (or even seven) times. :)

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

I can understand the inclination to mock the idea of reading in chronological order. To me, the series is so clearly and obviously written from the perspective that you’ve been following along in publication order, that to suggest a different order is like suggesting you read the books of the Bible in alphabetical order. It only makes sense from a perspective wholly unrelated to the content itself.

Ian Miller
Ian Miller
3 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

I think mockery of something like this is really a sign of a nature that delights in that which it ought not. Add to that there is a sense to the chronological method – I could make thematic arguments, narrative ones. You could make an argument for reading in any order, and chronological has no lesser reason to it than any other (except publication). But I want to emphasize – mockery of others for a preference in reading, unless that preference leads to sin, is wicked. And what’s wrong with reading the Bible in alphabetical order? There’s many, many “chronological”… Read more »

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

“I think mockery of something like this is really a sign of a nature that delights in that which it ought not.” That’s why I said understand, not endorse. “But I want to emphasize – mockery of others for a preference in reading, unless that preference leads to sin, is wicked.” Well I think it depends on a great deal of the nature of the interaction. My sister and I mock each other all the time over unimportant things and it’s all in a loving nature and in jest. “And what’s wrong with reading the Bible in alphabetical order? ”… Read more »

Ian Miller
Ian Miller
3 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Perhaps I’m a strange person, but I think that reading or watching a series out of order is not the worst thing in the world. Because 1) I think that rereading is an essential part of being a good reader, and 2) I think really good books and really good readers and work things out. I’ve read countless series out of order, and love most of them deeply. The trials of being a Lord Peter Wimsey fan without much spending money (and before Amazon became as big as it is now) meant that I read those books without any idea… Read more »

Daniel Fisher
Daniel Fisher
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

Strictly speaking… to read the books in chronological order, one would have to read Magicians Nephew, then the majority of Lion, stopping halfway through the last chapter, then read Horse and his boy, then return to Lion to finish the last chapter, before continuing on to Caspian and the rest.

I doubt this is what most people actually do, but you will pardon me if I find a strict chronological reading to be quite literally ridiculous.

Ian Miller
Ian Miller
3 years ago
Reply to  Daniel Fisher

I don’t think anyone advocates that. I don’t even advocate for reading in chronological order. I just really, really hate it when people put others down because they prefer chronological.

Jane
Jane
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

I don’t “mock” people for a chronological preference, but I do have a strong opinion as to why it is inferior. And the argument that chronological is to be preferred because it is “more logical” is a poor one — if that argument were a good one, then single movies and books that contain flashbacks, or showed events unfolding out of sequence in the limited view of specific characters, would have to be called inherently poorly written. If people want to read it that way I am not going to think less of them or deride them, but I am… Read more »

lndighost
lndighost
3 years ago
Reply to  Jane

Jane, would you mind expanding a little on this opinion? I have never given the Narnia reading order a moment’s thought, despite having visited dozens of times.

Ian Miller
Ian Miller
3 years ago
Reply to  Jane

See above regarding reading series out of order. I can also relate similar experiences with The Queen of Attolia series, Star Wars novels, the Redwall books, etc. I’ve read a really good essay about reading Fellowship of the Ring last of the trilogy because of what was available at the library/bookstore. I think the Narnia books, though they do form a larger narrative, are not serialized novels in the same way that Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones are. They are standalones, and as such, I think kids are perfectly capable of slotting them into the “correct” slots… Read more »

Jane
Jane
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

Right. Again, I’m not talking about harassing people who prefer reading in chronological order, or accusing them of lack of imagination. I’m simply explaining why I think a particular actual argument in favor of chronological is not a good one.

lndighost
lndighost
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

I agree that each Narnia story stands on its own as well as hangs together beautifully with the other stories. As long as they are being read and reread, I shouldn’t think the order matters; but I am interested to hear why others think it does.

Daniel Fisher
Daniel Fisher
3 years ago
Reply to  lndighost

Why order matters? Because, as Lewis was telling the story, he references things that he assumes his readers would already know, and reveals certain things that are expected to be surprises, and assumes his readers are ignorant of things that he had not up to that point revealed. For instance, there would be nothing “wrong” with a child today watching Star Wars series in numerical (chronological) order…. rather than the order that they were released…. but the huge surprise we would feel with Luke in episode v (empire strikes back) wouldn’t be a surprise at all if we’d already seen… Read more »

kyriosity
kyriosity
3 years ago
Reply to  Jane

You’re not stupid if you think that chronological is automatically better, but you just might need to broaden your imagination, not least by reading things like Narnia.

The antebedragoned Eustace would have insisted on chronological order.

bethyada
bethyada
3 years ago
Reply to  kyriosity

antebedragoned

What an awesome word!

paulm01
paulm01
3 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

Like “Farfegnugen”, only more smarter and without the German accent.

bethyada
bethyada
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

Well I did think that a potential order is to identify which planet is associated with each book, and which days those planets are associated with, then read them in the order of the days of the week.

Clearly that is the only chronological order that matters. The only question is whether we start on Sunday or Monday.

Ian Miller
Ian Miller
3 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

I’m going to assume this is trolling…though I know Doug thinks Planet Narnia is amazing, rather than the paranoid conspiracy theory I find it.

bethyada
bethyada
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

Well the comment was tongue in cheek. :)

But I think Ward’s thesis is sound. I am convinced that Lewis used imagery from the planets in his book. Ward has absolutely persuaded me.

lndighost
lndighost
3 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

He’s persuaded me too. I went in skeptical, but found his arguments compelling.

But I won’t suggest we start with the Silver Chair as representing Luna and then make our way upwards through the heavenly spheres ;-)

Ian Miller
Ian Miller
3 years ago
Reply to  lndighost

I think Lewis absolutely used planetary imagery from the medieval cosmology. What I don’t buy at all is that each book is solely the territory of one planet, or that it’s some kind of massive change to how we understand the books. Anyone who knows anything about medieval literature knows that Narnia is chock full of references and structures from that era. This one thread is important, sure, but it’s not the kind of game changer Ward is arguing, nor does it make such a rigid scheme for the books to fall into.

Jane
Jane
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

Whatever it is, it’s not a paranoid conspiracy theory, since it neither partakes of the fear in which paranoia is rooted, nor posits that a number of people are working together for a nefarious goal, which is what is required for a conspiracy. :-) Whether or not it’s a good analysis of Lewis’ structure and goals in writing the two series, I can’t say, as I haven’t read it.

bethyada
bethyada
3 years ago
Reply to  Jane

Do, it’s quite enjoyable. And may increase your appreciation for Narnia next time through. Start with the shorter book in case it’s not your cup of tea.

Ian Miller
Ian Miller
3 years ago
Reply to  Jane

You’re right it’s not paranoid. But it does read like a conspiracy theory – “nobody except me has ever noticed this thing that completely changes the meaning of Narnia!” And I think that you can indeed conspire with yourself! :)

bethyada
bethyada
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

nobody except me has ever noticed this thing that completely changes the meaning of …

Other than it not really changing the meaning, more giving it more depth, is that statement not true of every man who first discovers something new?

And while than kind of comment can come across as arrogant, Ward did not seem to ooze hubris.

Daniel Fisher
Daniel Fisher
3 years ago

For any of those apologists defending reading Narnia in chronological order, I want to ask if you would similarly recommend that Silmarillion should be read before reading the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings…..?

Ian Miller
Ian Miller
3 years ago
Reply to  Daniel Fisher

To be clear: I’m not defending the chronological order. As a literary critic, I see the arguments for publication order, and think they make sense. But as a person who wants to have a large pool of people who read and love Narnia and ANY books, I think that the way the publication order people treat the chronological order people is shameful. Because it really doesn’t matter – you should be rereading the books so many times you can’t remember the order you first read them in. As for your actual question: no, I don’t think Silmarillion should be read… Read more »

Jane
Jane
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

You must have run into a lot harsher people in this debate than I have. I have never seen anything I’d call “shameful treatment,” just a bit of friendly debate maybe *occasionally* verging into mild teasing among people already on friendly terms.

I am not saying what you describe doesn’t happen, but I suspect you might have run across some outliers.

Ian Miller
Ian Miller
3 years ago
Reply to  Jane

I am perhaps oversensitized right now, but I think that the way the publication order is treated like Holy Writ, rather than a sensible but ultimately not that important suggestion, is unhelpful and tends to build a sense of “good Narnia fans” and “bad Narnia fans.”

But it’s likely at least partly an overreaction on my part.

Daniel Fisher
Daniel Fisher
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

I think I get emotional about this relatively trivial matter for a similar reason you mention…. I find that, from the current publisher, the “chronological order” is treated as holy writ…. that I must put the books on my shelf in the order they dictate… or suffer the ignominy of a series of books on my shelf with nonsensically disordered numbers. Why can’t they just list the suggested order of the books on the inside cover and let me put them on the shelf in whatever order I wish?

Daniel Fisher
Daniel Fisher
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

Personally, I have no issue with someone wanting to read the books in chronological order…. I could see some enjoyment out of the different approach. What gets me heated about this personally is the way the publishing companies have forced their opinion on me…. with the big numbers on the side of the book to tell me the “right” answer to the question…. and me having to put the books on my shelf with the numbers looking stupidly ugly out of order (6, 1, 5, 2, 3, 4, 7). It was a long time before I finally found a nice… Read more »

Daniel Fisher
Daniel Fisher
3 years ago

Malik mentioned, “If kids are taught they have to choose the Bible or science then what happens when their teachers in high school and college convince them of evolution, or when they are convinced by friends or research?” I would humbly point out that, according to “scientists”, there are all manner of areas where our secular world tries to convince us, through “research”, that the Bible is wrong…. divorce, demonic origin of various conditions, history, archaeology, the legitimacy of same-sex marriage, abortion… this list goes on. I would caution us against any approach that suggests that “science” is the standard… Read more »

Jane
Jane
3 years ago
Reply to  Daniel Fisher

Also, it is inevitable that kids will be taught they have to choose the Bible or science. If they are not taught it by those who uphold the Bible, they will be taught it by those who dismiss it.

And both will be wrong, because it is not the Bible or science as such that causes the conflict, but science badly done and wrongly explained.

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
3 years ago
Reply to  Jane

it is inevitable that kids will be taught they have to choose the Bible or science.” I don’t get this Jane. Do you disagree that all truth is God’s truth? Has God written in two books, as Bacon believed? Is Calvin correct when he states “All truth is from God; and consequently, if wicked men have said anything that is true and just, we ought not to reject it; for it has come from God.”? Now certainly people can say that all sorts of things are shown by “science” just as people say all sorts of falsehoods are promoted or… Read more »

Malik
Malik
3 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

I agree with this. I personally think that the Bible and science compliment each other, one through general revelation and the other through special revelation. I think science is still very incomplete, few would argue this point I think, and therefore the Bible is more perfect in its claims. However I think there is no controdictions as of yet, but I also think it has not yet discovered a fraction of the natural world, and so as of yet has some untrue positions.

Jane
Jane
3 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

I am not saying it is true. I am saying that it is inevitable that at some point, they will be confronted with someone trying to get them to believe it.

As I said, real science doesn’t contradict the Bible. But it’s not only, and perhaps not even primarily, ill-informed Christians who try to get people to believe that science contradicts the Bible.

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
3 years ago
Reply to  Jane

“I am not saying it is true.” OK, the structure of your comment made it sound like some one has to teach kids that they must choose between the bible and science – so it had better be you, as a believer. I strongly disagree with that view of the world. Certainly there lots of people antagonistic toward Christianity who hold the Draper-White thesis; but it is a common view among Christians as well, in somewhat modified form. Answers in Genesis (and similar organizations) seems to believe that there is a mass coordinated conspiracy between basically every astronomer, biologist, geologist,… Read more »

bethyada
bethyada
3 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

It is a conspiracy, but not necessarily a conscious one. I think you are overreading creationists’ opinions on the matter.

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
3 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

Sure, i am overreading a bit, but there is a definite sense that the wicked scientists are working together to deceive Christians. Take this excerpt or a review on AIG of Dr. Mathison’s irenic short book on the reformed approach to science and scripture: “Almost all of the pioneers of deep time were antagonistic to biblical Christianity (Mortenson, 2004; 2006). The unbelievers of the 18th century may have been more understated and courteous than today’s militant atheists, but they still opposed God. They included atheists, deists, and heretics such as Buffon, Lamarck, Hutton, Playfair, Werner, Cuvier and Lyell. Their work… Read more »

bethyada
bethyada
3 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

Second, in this quote, and throughout the review there is a constant sense of the menace of scientists, they cannot uncover any truth because they are opposed to God. This is terrible epistemology and it is very much outside the historical Chrisian tradition. Really? Ignore the creationist question for the moment. You don’t think that an active opposition to God blinds men to the truth? All truth, not just scriptural truth? My position, which I think it eminently biblical, is that active opposition to God clouds a man’s ability to know the truth: to accept true premises, and to reason… Read more »

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
3 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

“You don’t think that an active opposition to God blinds men to the truth?” Not in a straightforward way. Many of histories greatest scientists and philosophers have been heathen. All things being equal a right understanding of God, man, and nature will make you a better, clearet thinker. However, all things are never equal. Many heathen are excellent observers of the world. It is long standing belief in the Christian tradition that the pagans, now and in the past, have muh to teach. The idea that we should discount scientific evidence because it comes from a deist is outside the… Read more »

bethyada
bethyada
3 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

I am not talking about pagans. I think a hatred towards God and towards goodness blinds men to the truth. I have stuff to learn from pagans like Orwell. I have much less to learn from an antitheist like Dawkins.

Men have the imago Dei. They are able to reason and perceive the truth. And particularly hard sciences like logic, maths and physics are harder to go errant on. But when men actively turn away from God they can very easily start believing nonsense, especially in subjects where there is less truthful feedback.

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
3 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

Bethyada, This is pretty far afield from the original context of the AIG quotes. None of the men listed (nor, obviously the many very prominent Christian geologists such as Buckland, Sedgwick, Agassiz, Conybeare, etc.) Were anti-theists in any sense, with the possible exception of Buffon. I am not very familiar with Dawkins work, but I would consider Hawking an anti-theist (but less loquacious than Dawkins) and Hawking radiation is still an amazing find. I am far from an expert on the topic, but I certainly wouldn’t question Hawkings work on the thermo-dynamics of black holes based on his rejection of… Read more »

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
3 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

I don’t think ad hominem or genetic arguments are appropriate here.

-BJ-
-BJ-
3 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

Answers in Genesis (and similar organizations) seems to believe that there is a mass coordinated conspiracy between basically every astronomer, biologist, geologist, physist, and chemist and that this conspiracy has extended for decades. This is simply false. You don’t have to like AiG, but this is not their position. EDIT: Here is a link that explains AiG’s view of the rise of deep time. https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/old-earth/deep-time-and-churchs-compromise-historical-background/ Notable quote: Philosophical assumptions drove the development of the old-earth theories in the early 1800s. Two key assumptions were: (1) everything in the physical universe can and indeed must be explained by time, chance, and… Read more »

Malik
Malik
3 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

While AiG doesn’t specifically state their conspiracy belief, organizations like ICR, and I would thing AiG is similar, usually give off that impression at their conferences. They definitely paint all people who believe evolution as evil. I do like ICR never the less, and I think their work is valuable, but also flawed in some ways.

bethyada
bethyada
3 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Inconsistent yes, evil no.

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
3 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

Well, I used the word seems to signal my hyperbole, but I don’t see another explanation for all of the field of physical science in completely different way converting on the same, allegedly wrong answer. Also, look at the quote provides below, “fundamentally deceptive.” Or look at how Mortenson describes the 19th century geologists (after leaving out or accusing the many devout christians who were geological luminaries): “Many of the other leading geologists of the 1820s and 1830s were likewise anti-Christian. These men were hardly unbiased, objective pursuers of truth, as they would have wanted their contemporaries to believe and… Read more »

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
3 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

That quote makes such a hash out of the actual history that it isn’t even recognizable. If you want a window into the actual development of modern geology and it’s philosophical priors, rather than a cartoon villain version, you should read one of the devout geologists as they are going through the transformation. Buckland is my personal favorite.

Jane
Jane
3 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

No, I meant someone WILL teach kids that they must choose between the Bible and science, so you had better address the question from a believing position. It doesn’t matter whether the “Bible vs. science” view is universal among unbelieving scientists; the point is that every literate person will encounter it sooner or later.

OKRickety
OKRickety
3 years ago
Reply to  Daniel Fisher

Daniel said: “Moreover, I would emphasize that evolution, no less than Kinsey’s “research” on sexual behavior, is hardly an unbiased, objective endeavor.” It has been many years since I have done a research paper, but, if I recall correctly, they always contain a hypothesis, that is, “a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.” While it is possible that a researcher could create a hypothesis that is counter to their own personal biases, my observation of human behavior suggests that this is quite unlikely. Since science builds on existing… Read more »

OKRickety
OKRickety
3 years ago

@Jill Smith ”OKR, would you say the same thing if ending the second marriage means committing injustice against a person who married you in good faith? I am thinking of a divorced Catholic who civilly (or in a Protestant church) marries a non-Catholic. She made vows to the second husband who had every reason to believe she had thought through the implications of her decision. When her conscience begins to trouble her down the road, does her desire for restored communion with the Catholic church justify her breaking that second set of vows? I think that if it were me… Read more »