Sam'l B's Blog

So What's The Problem?

2011-12-18T22:03:00.000-08:00

CNN News (http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/16/justice/stephen-glass/index.html?hpt=hp_c3) sez:

"Trust me, an infamous serial liar says."

It's no coincidence that most dialects of English pronounce the words "LAWYER" and "LIAR" identically.

Glass just got caught at it.

Then too, journalists huffing and puffing about truthfulness is risible in itself.

Mitt the Mormon

2011-10-09T12:53:00.000-07:00

Mormons ae generally nice people -- hard-working, energetic, and clean-cut. Romney is no exception, and seems to have done a good job of being Governor. Successive governors and legislators in Utah also seem to have done pretty well.

The religion is to giggle at, however -- a collection of every sort of early 19th Century silliness, plopped on top of a basically Presbyterian ethos. The Book of Mormon is the second most successful religious novel of the 19th Century -- after Ben Hur.

Meso-American archaeology in the 20th Century was largely supported by well-off Mormon businessmen, seeking validation of Joseph Smith's fairy-tales of an Iron-age culture in the Americas. What was found, instead, were numerous High Neolithic cultures. No iron, very little, if any, bronze, and lots of feathers.

As to Mormonism being a cult -- NAAHH, They are too mainstream, and unlike most cults (Jehovah's Witless, for example), they don't try to cut you off from your family -- they want you to recruit them -- both the live ones and the dead ones. :)

Mormons aren't Christian -- they fail the first test: "I believe in _ONE_ God . . ." -- they believe in innumerable gods, and every Mormon boy (not girls, mind you :) has a chance to become a god. Not being Christian doesn't make them a cult -- "Christian Science" is neither Christian nor science, but is perfectly respectable, if a bit dull. The same goes for Unitarianism.

What it all comes down to is that I'd be willing to vote for Romney for President, unless some REAL scandal appears, or the Democrats run someone more reasonable. Then, too, some of the FunDUHmentalists screaming about Romney look a lot more cultish than the LDS.

Norse Shooter Boggles Left

2011-07-25T19:50:00.000-07:00

I just read CNN's take on the Norwegian shooter's self-designation as a Christian Fundamentalist. I probably shouldn't be surprised at the superficiality and incomprehension of the comments, since CNN is noted for their liberalism and most of the commenters are academics -- generally fellow-travellers of cultural Marxism and "multiculturalism".

Europeans in general fall on a spectrum from non-religious to irreligious, and do not have the experience with religious zanies that we denizens of "Darkest USA" do. From a religious and rhetorical point of view, the Norse shooter falls right in line with the likes of Jim Jones, David Koresh, and the Oklahoma Bomber -- not to mention Fred Phelps and Jack Chick.

The feigned surprised that "true Christianity" can consist of anything but weak-tea sentimentalism and huggy fellowship betrays a lack of understanding of history -- religious and secular. It is lately Politically Correct to blame Christianity for anything and everything, while glorifying any non-European culture or religion.

Historically, Christianity has served as a focus in the defence of European cultures against Mohammedan and Tatar aggression. The 200-or-so-year-long war known as "the Crusades" was started and won by the Mohammedans. Not content with getting rich off Christian tourism to the Holy Land, the Caliph of the Faithful in Egypt decided to rape, loot, and murder them -- jihad in 1000 AD. After brief victories, the Crusades collapsed, and there was not a Christian country in the Middle East from 1300 until the establishment of Lebanon in 1946.

Having grown up Catholic in the 1950s, I can understand the shooter's angst about the disintegration of Western (mostly Christian) values and culture in the Culture Wars of the 60s and later. Not that I agree with his methods -- we will conquer Mohammedanism with the Internet, not the sword. The young people leading the revolutions in Libya and Egypt are the Internet Generation who have seen the benefits of 21st vs. 7th Century culture & technology -- and are reaching for them.

As for the shooter claiming he is a member of the "Knights Templar", the question is WHICH "Knights Templar"? There are dozens of groups by that name -- see Google -- mostly anti-clerical and anti-Roman. The "History" of the Templars since their 14th Century dissolution by the French Monarchy is all highly romantic (i.e. wildly fictional). I predict that the shooter's "Templars" will be found in his own head.

Political and Cultural Marxists just don't have any handle on American-style wackos.

SFnal Heresy

2011-01-07T23:31:00.000-08:00

I recently tried re-reading a few of Robert A. Heinlein's novels. I cut my teeth on them in my teens in the late 50s, and remember them with awe. Not so much, half a century later.

A few examples:

"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" still worked for me -- kept me turning pages.

"The Rolling Stones" has flip dialogue, but the plot carried it'

"Stranger in a Strange Land" (Author's 220,000 word version) had vast, weedy monologues -- often running to 3 or 4 pages -- that I found myself skipping.

"The Puppet Masters" -- When I found myself rooting for the brain slugs, wishing they'd shut the mouthy cardboard characters the hell up, I threw the book in the Out box.

I'm a cranky old man, I guess, and smart-mouth 30s/40s jive talk just sets my teeth on edge.

(Heinlein is still WAAAY better than A.E. van Vogt, however!)

Grump!

The Date of Easter

2010-10-22T20:56:00.000-07:00

My much-admired friend Michael Covington asks in this Post:

"Does anybody know more about this?"

Michael is a scientist, an astronomer, and a Protestant -- and is confused about the issues being addressed. They are complex, arcane, and have to do with the internal politics of Orthodoxy (as well as Western Catholicism).

I answered his question as follows:

The issue has nothing to do with the real date/time of the Equinox, nor, directly, with calendars, and everything to do with the innate conservatism of Orthodoxy.

There is a light bulb joke:

Q: How many Orthodox does it take to change a light bulb?

A: Change? CHANGE!?!?!
We will pray in the dark,
as the Apostles did!!!

The Byzantine and Oriental Orthodox churches in the East have been under relentless and savage attack, both physically and ideologically since the rise of Mohammedanism in the 7th Century AD. From the West also, since the 11th Century or so.

The cultural result has been an absolute intransigence, preferring martyrdom to accommodation -- which Mohammedans, Mongols, and Soviets have been more than happy to provide. Russian Orthodoxy has canonized Nicolas II as "The Tsar Martyr". despite (and sometimes because of) his total ineptitude as a ruler.

The first Ecumenical Council, held at Nicea in 325 AD, has enormous prestige, and is foundational to much of the Church's structure and belief -- both East and West. The Link:

http://www.usccb.org/seia/easter.shtml

. . . and their Link:

http://www.oikoumene.org/resources/documents/wcc-commissions/faith-and-order-commission/i-unity-the-church-and-its-mission/towards-a-common-date-for-easter/towards-a-common-date-for-easter.html

. . . are an attempt to open dialogue with the most intransigent of the iron-bound conservatives (often calling themselves "Old Calendarists", and more often than not located in the monastic communities on Mt. Athos).

The argument goes:

1) Look what Nicea was trying to do: Unify Paschal worship

2) Look how Nicea did it: using the best contemporary
tools of science.

3) Let us, therefore, follow in the footsteps of the
Fathers of Nicea in unifying the Paschal
dating, using contemporary tools in
the same way they did theirs.

=======================================================================

My personal take on the whole issue is to shrug, and just accept the date of Easter as calculated by the Orthodox (however bizarrely), on the grounds that changing the minds and habits of all of Western Christianity would be easier and quicker than changing anything in Orthodoxy.

+Sam'l Bassett
Geek Bishop

I Believe In What?

2010-09-08T15:09:00.000-07:00

The first three words of the Nicene Creed in English are: "I believe in..." Only one word in Greek -- "Pisteuo"; two in Latin: "Credo in..."

Not just "I believe" -- like "I believe 2 + 2 = 4" or "I believe the sun will rise in the East tomorrow" -- Greek would use "Theoristeo" or "Pestho" for mere intellectual belief.

Instead, we have the word for "visceral belief", "passionate belief" -- a belief that commits one to changing one's life and habits. The older (by 150 or so years) Apostles' Creed, which scholars think was an early 2nd Century Roman "Baptismal Symbolon" (Great & Holy Oath, sworn at Baptism) also begins "Credo in . . ." in Latin.

Rating Obama

2010-06-17T17:36:00.000-07:00

When the historians finally get access to the documents, and comb through Obama's record, they will find that, of his predecessors, he most closely resembles U.S.Grant. Both are persons of mild charisma and limited gifts, surrounded by venal ideologues and corrupt machine politicians.

Obama lacks Grant's passion for whiskey and cigars, however -- and shaves regularly.

How To Win In Afghanistan

2010-03-20T22:58:00.000-07:00

Both simple and cheap -- buy all the Opium produced by the Afghans. This keeps it out of the Taliban's hands.

Sell it to the Pharmaceutical Industry at 20% mark up -- this pays for the purchase.

Same strategy works for Columbia and cocaine.

Probably too simple and rational.

Scientific Illiteracy

2010-02-02T17:25:00.000-08:00

Educationally, I am a "Sputnik Baby" -- I entered High School in September of 1958, 11 months after the first artificial satellite was launched by the Soviets. This launch set off a great Hullabaloo & Cry about the state of Science teaching in U.S. schools -- Primary, Secondary, and College-level. Much mooney and effort was thrown at teachers, textbooks, and curricula.

I went to an exceptional High School, and was in the "bright brat" (level 4) program, which started out with Biology and Algebra in freshman year. Our teachers were very good, and I came away with what turned out to be and excellent grounding in science, and a thirst for knowledge, and a monumental reading habit.

While the lower-level classes were not as intensive as the ones I took, it was my impression that they got a good, if less detailed, grounding in science. The general US culture, too, in that era, was moving away from scorn for "pointy-headed int'lechuls" toward respect for scientists and engineers.

Come forward 50-odd (some very odd) years, and what do you see? The US educational "system" is gobbling mind-boggling amounts of money, and turning out functional illiterates. Enrolment in college-level science and engineering schools is largely going to non-US citizens. Chinese and Indian names are common in lists of high-tech CEOs.

CNN and Fox News publish "viewer opinions" -- and I presume that they are edited for at least minimal legibility and meaningfulness. As to their general content, H.L. Mencken's comment that: "Nobody ever went broke UNDERestimating the taste {or the intelligence -- Sam'l} of the American people." still holds true 75 or so years on.

And nobody seems to care.

*sigh*

Israel Arrests Vanunu -- Arabs Tremble

2009-12-29T19:04:00.000-08:00

In the news today: Israel Arrests Whistleblower.

It occurs to me that at this stage of the game, Mordechai Vanunu can't know any useful details about Israel's putative nuclear arsenal -- according to what has been published, he was some sort of low-level technician, not a weapons designer or military brass hat. It's been more than 10 years, IIRC, since he first surfaced, and weapons design -- if any -- would have long since made whatever he knew obsolete.

Does Israel have nuclear weapons? Probably -- but nobody knows for sure. Dimona may be nothing but a monstrously expensive underground barracks, where ShinBetniks lounge around and read Playboy. The IDEA, however, that it may be chock-full of awful things that can do horrendous damage to potential aggressors is worth every sheckel (and US$) spent on it -- to Israel.

But what about Vanunu? My devious Macchiavellian mind notes that whenever the Israelis need to put the wind up the local Mohammedan bandit regimes, all they need to do is very publicly arrest Vanunu, making sure that every news-critter in the Near East gets a personal invite. Vanunu himself can be depended upon to produce reams of colorful declamations about the nuclear nastiness supposedly stored in the Negev, and ready to dump on Terhan, Qom, or Riyadh.

The Press can also be depended on to generate tempests in teacups for a week or so, all of which does a good job of feeding the paranoia and raising the hackles of the various neighboring despotisms. Notice, also, that nobody in Israel is claiming Vanunu actually knows anything, or told anyone anything, just that he might tell somebody something. Great tradecraft.

Mazel Tov!!

Climategate

2009-12-02T23:53:00.000-08:00

I am rather unsurprised -- I had long suspected that:

Liberal Luddites Lie
. . . to further their agendas.

This, I ascribe to the following trends of the past 30-40 years:

1) Postmodernism -- "There really is no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong', 'truth' or 'falsehood' -- it's all a matter of opinion."

2) Marxist Anarchism -- "Everything that the U.S. and Western Civilization have done is evil, and ought to be destroyed'.

I am old enough to have grown up before this particular brand of venom became popular.

Kudos to the anonymous whistleblower.

Fair's Fair

2009-10-25T18:36:00.000-07:00

It occurs to me that the Anglicans should establish "Personal Prelatures" or some such, for "liberal", "Spirit of Vatican II" Romans interested in swimming the Channel to escape "traditionalists that ... refuse to come to terms with the modern world" and insist on theological and ecclesiological orthodoxy. That way, the could keep their unsingable hootenanny music, crude felt banners, individual interpretations of Scripture,and preserve their heritage, as they bravely transition to the blue-hair set in the 21st Century.

;-)

Anglican --> Roman Problems

2009-10-25T15:04:00.000-07:00

My great & good friend, Jeff Duntemann yesterday noted three issues which he feels will interfere with the success of the recently announced Anglican --> Roman Anschluss: Contraception; Divorce; and Married Bishops.

I beg to disagree.

First: Contraception.

Cradle Catholics overwhelmingly ignore Roman fulminations about contraception, The single most damaging mistake made by any pope in the last two Millennia was Paul VI's issuance of "Humanae Vitae" -- respect for the institution of the Papacy took a nosedive, from which it is only now beginning to recover.

Some Roman laity are very careful to observe its requirements, and equally vehement in defending it. I have no reason to think that Anglo-Catholics will be any different. I see the issue as a thorn in the paw, but not a deal-breaker.

Second: Divorce

As Jeff notes, Rome -- unlike the Orthodox -- is totally intransigent on the subject of divorce. I find it hard to imagine, however, that any but the most blue-nosed of Anglo-Catholic clergy would coldly excommunicate re-married couples and their families, even under blue-nosed Roman pressure.

Cradle Catholics have a "Yes, Father" reflex -- when the clergy go on a rant, they turn their ears off, and say "Yes, Father" every time he pauses for breath, and go on about their business. Traditionally, Anglicans had a similar reflex -- smiling vaguely, and letting their eyes go out of focus, so as to be polite to the Vicar.

It may be, too, that the Witness of the Anglican Rite Catholics to the Christian and loving way to treat the tragedy of divorce and the real leap of hope in remarriage may penetrate the testa dura intransigence of the Romans.

I see this as a larger thorn, but again, not a deal-breaker.

Third: Married Bishops

I feel this is the least troubling of the three issues. Rome can finess the whole issue with existing married bishops by creating/resuscitating intermediate ranks like Archimandrite, Arch-priest, or Dean to allow Tiber-swimming Anglican Bishops to continue their roles of guidance and overseeing of Anglican parishes and provinces while being seen sacramentally as priests, not bishops. Some of the language of the news reports of the Anschluss hint at this -- given the general incompetence of most reporters in dealing with Vatican pronouncements, however, I await the publication of the official text.

I expect that at the Conclave after next, one of the issues on the table for the Pope after Papa Ratzi's successor will be abolishing clerical celibacy (long overdue). I think that the Witness of the Anglo-Catholics taken in by Rome in this Anschluss may be a tipping point, to where the future Pope can assure his election by pointing and saying: "Fratelli mio -- Ecce -- married clergy works -- observe our Anglo-Catholics!"

In the meantime, there are the occasional unmarried Anglican priests, and Anglo-Catholic/Anglican Rite seminarians can make the choice -- as Orthodox and Roman seminarians do now.

We live in interesting times.

+Sam'l B.

Iconoclasm and Bibliolatry

2009-09-29T20:14:00.000-07:00

Two Heresies That Feed Off One Another

My great & good friend, Jeff Duntemann, recently wrote in his Contrapositive Diary:

Holy Faces

"The stations [of the Cross, in his parish church] are painted icons, deliberately lacking any suggestion of a third dimension (so that they cannot be mistaken for the biblically prohibited “graven images”)"

To which I replied:

Piffle, Poppycock, and Bibliolatry!

The Seventh and last Ecumenical Council [again in Nicea, 792 AD] was very direct about the fact that we do not worship images, but use them as an aid to remind us of whom they picture:

Seventh Ecumenical Council

The 1918 Catholic Encyclopedia says:

"But there is a difference not of principle but of practice between East and West, to which we have already alluded. Especially since Iconoclasm, the East dislikes solid statues. Perhaps they are too reminiscent of the old Greek gods. At all events, the Eastern icon (whether Orthodox, Nestorian or Monophysite) is always flat — a painting, mosaic, bas-relief. Some of the less intelligent Easterns even seem to see a question of principle in this and explain the difference between a holy icon, such as a Christian man should venerate, and a detestable idol, in the simplest and crudest way: "icons are flat, idols are solid." However, that is a view that has never been suggested by their Church officially, she has never made this a ground of complaint against Latins, but admits it to be (as of course it is) simply a difference of fashion or habit, and she recognizes that we are justified by the Second Council of Nicaea in the honor we pay to our statues just as she is in the far more elaborate reverence she pays to her flat icons."

Iconoclasm vs Veneration

The condemnation of images in church is yet one more Protestant heresy, perpetrated by blue-nosed wowsers who know nothing of Church history, and hate what they do not understand.

The Encyclopedia continues:

"Images then were in possession and received worship all over Christendom without question till the Protestant Reformers, true to their principle of falling back on the Bible only, and finding nothing about them in the New Testament, sought in the Old Law rules that were never meant for the New Church and discovered in the First Commandment (which they called the second) a command not even to make any graven image."

Thus Sola Scriptura Bibliolatry feeds Ignorant Iconoclasm, and vice-versa.

Harrumpf!

Imperium Romanum Mortuum Est -- Deo Gratias!

2009-08-30T20:59:00.000-07:00

"The Roman Empire Is Dead -- Thank God!"

The Bishop of Rome has had a thousand years' more practice pretending to be the Roman Emperor than the Patriarch of Constantinople does. (Imperial Rome fell about 450 A.D., and Constantinople fell in 1453.)

Both have the idea that they have the inalienable right to rule the whole of the Church -- each after its own pattern. The Western Pattern is more consciously Imperial -- in default of a Western Emperor, the Papacy was the only structure which the various polities could rally around to create at least an ideal unity; The Eastern pattern attempts to continue the relationship that the Eastern Churches had with the Eastern Emerors -- that of the Department of Religious Affairs of the Imperial Government structure.

Since about 600 A.D., the Papacy had been working to extend its political hegemony over the entire Church -- and the entire world. Until after the Council of Trent (1545-1563), this had been more theoretical than practical. The Papacy and the emerging nation-states of Western Europe jousted for influence, mostly equally. The Papacy did manage to gain political control over a collection of small Italian states, which lasted until 1870.

The various Western national Churches -- England, France, Spain, etc., were essentially self-governing (with frequent appeals to Rome to settle arguments) until after Trent. In particular, the French Church fiercely defended its independence from direct Roman rule until after the Revolution.

The Eastern Churches, on the other hand, identified themselves closely with the dominant political power -- originally the Eastern Roman Empire, later the Turkish Sultanate and the various national governments -- Serbian, Bulgarian, Russian, etc.

In keeping with the Acta of the 1st Council of Nicea, the East preserves the idea of the ecclesial independence of the individual bishop in his See, and of the larger ethnic and geographical groups -- autocephalous Patriarchates (again, Serbia and others) which have been allowed to grow up.

Each of these Patriarchates, however, welded itself as best it might to the local political establishment. The Mohammedan Turkish Sultanate used the Patriarchate of Constantinople to rule its Orthodox citizens, but identification with the Turk was not something easy to stomach!

The various Patriarchates in the East spent a great deal (entirely too much) of their time and energy fighting their political masters' battles, often with each other. They developed an ideology which said, in effect: "The way WE do things is the only authentic one, received unchanged from the Apostles". Which was (and is) not true, but useful as propaganda.

So here we had two different ecclesial systems, each striving for mundane political power. The results are interesting.

In the West, being the only Patriarchate (Carthage might have been another, but was destroyed by the Vandals in the 5th & 6th Century, then overrun by Mohammedans), Rome developed over time a unified structure of control. The various National Churches may have protested their independence, but were quite willing to copy Roman methods and Roman organization -- even Roman Liturgy.

The Roman ideal of governance was explicitly that of the Roman Empire -- an all-powerful central administration, controlling the chaotic and unbridled tendencies of an unenlightened mob. This view grew out of the political interactions between the Senatorial and Plebian classes in Republican Rome, and has persisted for about 2700 years now.

This lust for absolute power has colored both the political history of the Papacy and the pastoral practice of the Western Church -- including its stepchildren, the Protestants. And not in a good sense, either.

The idea of Papal supremacy impinged on the supremacy of the Bishop in his See, and the supremacy of the pastor in his parish, and extended itself down further, to the supremacy of the religious over the laity. It is a structure of control and command, with very little room for love and transcendance.

The mundane political results of this Roman idea of absolute control were horrifying. The Papal States before 1870 were ruled with an iron hand, secret police, and confiscatory taxation. To this day -- 106 years later -- the parts of Italy -- including Rome itself -- which were part of the Papal states are anti-clerical, and consistently vote Communist. The Roman Curia mismanaged and tyrannized their people, just as the Roman Senate and the Byzantine Emperors had.

I grew up under the perfection of this system in the 1950s. It was awe-inspiring and perfectly dreadful. Everything could be rigorously proven by Scholastic logic -- down to the individual level -- and one had only the most minuscule chance of obtaining heaven, and then only by observing every jot and tittle of the rules and obeying one's religious superiors. Rome had developed its own, home-grown version of Calvinism -- often called Jansenism.

Vatican II was called by Pope John of blessed memory, specifically to combat that cold, dead hand of Roman Imperial tyranny. It was to be a pastoral council -- calling the Church to a more open and loving approach to the People of God. No doctrinal changes -- nor any but the most superficial liturgical ones -- were contemplated. The Documents of the Council clearly reflect this,

It is interesting to see, however, how the Council has been interpreted. The entire structure of command and control, has been retained. Bishops and National Committees have more formal authority, and indeed often ignore Rome, but clerical elitism and superbia have not changed a whit.

Theology, the liturgy, and the artistic patrimony of the Western Church have been savaged, but Roman Imperial command and control has been preserved. It is this Imperial command -- and basic scorn for the People of God -- which led to the recent sexual scandals. At base, no one in the hierarchy cared -- as long as the pastors made their financial quotas, they could do as they liked with and to their people. Higher clerics were not immune from scandal -- just from exposure. The recently deposed bishop of Santa Rosa in California was not the only bishop carrying on homosexual relations with his clergy. (If is was with a WOMAN, for God's sake, great scandal would ensue -- but men? That's not really the same, after all.)

The results of the "Spirit of Vatican II" has been a clericus which, by and large, no longer believes what the Church has taught is the Christian religion, and cynically manipulates the laity. The laity are educated now, and not intimidated -- they have been voting with their feet -- and exercising the veto of the pocketbook. (A dollar a week in the basket, for a family of 3 or 4, making $50k+ a year).

=====================

There is a story told by the Orthodox in the US:

"How do you know two bishops are truly Orthodox?"

"Easy -- when they meet, they first kiss each others' shoulders, then they excommunicate each other."

Orthodox hierarchs spend more time bickering and exercising Eastern Roman Imperial pretensions than they should. Beautiful liturgies are one thing -- pomp and circumstance are quite another.

Another symptom of the Phyletism (Ethno-centrism) that afflicts the Orthodox is lack of ability to work together. Central authority and widespread missionary Orders in the West have allowed concentration of people and money resurces on a worldwide scale -- to the point where there are 5 Roman Catholics for every 1 Orthodox. The people of the various ethnic churches nowadays feel that they are all one Church, but the idea has not percolated up the hierarchy as yet.

===========================

The point of this whole Jeremiad is that the assumptions about power inherited from the Roman Empire simply do not work in this day and age. The verities of the Faith certainly work, and are as relevant now as they were in the 1st Century A.D., but the way we structure the Institutional Church, and the way we look at the People of God need to change.

The laity is increasingly well-educated, and unwilling to be dictated to. I have found it useful -- and a lot less work (tyranny is a hard job) -- to talk to peoples' good sense, to explain what the Church teaches, and invite them to join the hosts of the faithful and joyful worshippers, rather than try to herd or compel them.

Let us then resolve to give Imperial Roman ideas of religious tyranny the decent burial they so richly deserve.

If Jesus had kids, would they be half-God?

2009-08-30T20:57:00.000-07:00

Short answer: No.

Middlesized answer: God ain't in the genes (or jeans).

Longish answer: God is spirit, or more properly, the Ground of Being, that which sustains all of creation and the Universe. That is rather too large a concept to cram into the tightly-wound spirals of human DNA. They have a big enough job, just guiding and regulating the growth of the physical organism.

Even longer answer: Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ is both God and man. Fully God, and fully man. If you don't believe this, you're not a Christian.

What that means, from one perspective, is that Jesus is the conduit and connection between us, who are caught in time and space, and the infinite glory of God, who is beyond, before, and beneath all we perceive and imagine. If Jesus were not God, he would not be able to bridge that gap; equally, if he were not man, we would be up the proverbial creek, because what or who would there be to connect with?

In the Gospels, Jesus says a couple of times: "You who see me, see the Father" -- he unequivocably identifies himself with God. Yet he obviously and painfully suffers the uncertainties of human life, and also suffers a human death.

Yeshua ha-Nazri (Jesus the Nazarene) was fully man -- he had a real physical body, with all its component parts in working order, and ate and eliminated (no jokes about the Holy Outhouse, please, but he did use one when he was on earth) just like we do.

And if his mission had (which it did not) included being married and having children, they would have been quite ordinary Jews of their day. They would have had a really impressive and scary dad -- can you imagine somone who really knows exactly what you have been up to? (He would have been pretty outstandingly loving, too -- and minded to forgive and create interesting learning experiences for his kids. Come to think of it -- we ARE his kids. :)

Likewise, presuming the Shroud of Turin is the actual burial shroud of Jesus (It does not matter to the Faith either way -- but I will leave that discussion for later), say in 50 years or so, when science has gotten to the point of being able to clone a person from individual cells (the technology will probably get there, but whether we SHOULD do it or not is another story).

So they go at the Shroud of Turin, and find dried-out human cells with a full compliment of DNA that is not completely scrambled. They take them off, do mystic passes with their technology (all sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic), stuff the result in a Uterine Replicator (artificial womb), and 9-10 months later -- POOF! -- they have a kid.

So what have they got? Assuming that the DNA they found was actually from Jesus, and not from anyone who has handled the Shroud since, they have an entirely normal Jewish boy, who would have fit right in with any crowd of kids running the streets in 1st Century Judea.

Normal human child -- body & soul. Not god. No supernormal powers. No choirs of angels. No three kings of Orient.

You can bet that the apocalytpic wackos would be all over him, touting him as the "Second Coming of Christ", but there is no rational reason to think that. Christ came once, to save us, and there will be no doubt in anybody's itty-bitty head when He comes again.

Back to the original question -- which was prompted by reading "The Davinci Code". The "Code" is a re-write of the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" published in 1982. Rather better that the original, since it has a plot and some action, BTW.

There exists exactly NO evidence, from Apostolic times to 1982, that Jesus was married. And none since, either.

There exists exactly NO evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was anywhere on earth after 30 A.D.

The whole incident goes to illustrate that when people don't have anything real to believe in, they will believe absolutely anything -- no matter how far-fetched.

FunDUHmentalists Considered as Not Christians

2009-06-02T16:33:00.000-07:00

It occurred to me a while ago while I was musing that Fundies (the dumb end, at least), do not really believe that Jesus is God.

Sola Scriptura (Bible Only) has dragged them mumbling and gibbering out of Christianity and into the theological weeds planted by the Marcionites in the 1st & 2nd Centuries. The New Testament, after all, nowhere says explicitly -- in just those words -- "Jesus is God", nor does Jesus say "I am God" -- explicitly.

Doubting Thomas says "My Lord and my God" -- Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I AM" -- and the Jews understood exactly what he meant, and were going to stone him -- but that's not quite "I am God", as the various brands of Arians gleefully point out. The FunDUHmentalist then says:

"If'n it ain't in the Bah-bul, whur ah kin read an' un'erstan' it real plain, ah don' gotta bee-leev it!"

Sola Scriptura also presupposes not only Lowest Common Denominator (i.e. stupidest) sorts of interpretation, but also the individual chaos we see in Protestant theology -- as Martin Luther observed, "...every milkmaid will be interpreting scripture."

At best, Fundies seem to see Jesus as a good ol' boy:

"When ah git t' heaven (an' it's a shure thang, 'cause ah'm all-ready Saved"), me 'n' Jesus is gonna kick back and enjoy some brews."

At worst, they seem to consider Jesus as a Salvation Vending Machine -- you drop in your 4 spiritual quarters:

"Ah tayk Jheez-zay-yus (at least 3 syllables) Kee-rayhst as mah Low-urd an' Save-yur!"

. . . an Clink, Rumble, Thunk-a-thunk, Ker-CHUNK!, out comes a can of Salvation Brew. Pop the top, and chug it down:

"Ahhhh -- thet's gooood -- 'n' lasts fur-ever, too!"

(Except that it doesn't -- the next time he runs into a spell-binding wowser of a preacher, he'll be convinced that the last time really didn' take, and do it all over again -- like Fundy baptism.)

If Jesus isn't God, who and what is left? The God of the Old Testament, of course -- usually shorn of his fatherly and loving aspects -- a vast, thundering Presence, engaged in scaring the goo out of all & sundry, like every Bible-bashing preacher contaminated with Calvinism loves to do.

The other side of Sola Scriptura is Bible-Worship -- Bibliolatry. Once you give up worshipping Jesus, the only thing you have left is the Bible. Not only is the Bible itself (paper and ink) sacred, but every verse in it is separately sacred, and to be used to prove how sacred the Bible is. Can anyone say: "Circular reasoning"?).

Bibliolatry also resuscitates all 620+ Commandments of the Jewish Law. These no-longer-Christians have turned themselves into the very Judaizers who St. Paul contended with. They also set themselves above the Apostles, whom we see deciding in Acts 15 that Christians need not be bound by that Law. Makes one wonder just who this "Lord and Master" they invoke is!

The titles "Lord" and "Master", nowadays, are mostly used in BDSM (Bondage, Discipline, Sadism, and Masochism) games. Other than in Fundamentalism, they have only very tenuous meaning. The very tenuousness may indeed explain their attractiveness to Fundies -- the idea that you can get to heaven by repeating a short and meaningless phrase is awful tempting. When the Stupid Do Theology, Theology is Reduced to Bumper Stickers.

Calvinists bray about a "sovereign God". The intersection of the meanings of "sovereign". "lord", and "master" are all in _COMPULSION_ -- the right and ability to compel the obedience and agreement of the subject person, over-ruling and over-whelming their personal will.

Now, there is no question that Jesus _CAN_ over-ride individual will -- He is the one by whom and through whom all things came to be (who do you think throws the switch when the Father says: "Let there be light!"?) We see Him and His Father in both the Old and New Testaments, constantly _ASKING_ that we voluntarily turn to Him. From the cries of Jeremiah in the OT ("Turn, O Israel, from evil-doing..."), to the heroic opening of herself by the girl Mary ("Be it done to me according to Your will") -- we see that our free will is central to our salvation. Not Fear and Compulsion; Love and reaching out.

The point is that God wants us to turn willingly and lovingly to Him, as He reaches out lovingly and willingly to us. The cold and capricious sadist who is the Calvinist god is not the loving Father Jesus speaks of.

Fundies are quick to quote John 3:16 -- "God so loved the world, that He sent his beloved son into the world to save sinners."), but they seem to miss that little word, "love". It's as if Jesus is nothing but a Salvation Vending Machine -- put in your quarters, and get your can of Salvation -- and that's it.

The Nicene Creed says of Jesus: "...one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him all things were made." -- this from 1200 years before Protestantism was invented.

The Gospel of John begins: "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. [. . .] 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not."

These are much grander conceptions than a Salvation Vending Machine. He is the SON, the Second Person of the Trinity. It is He "By Whom, and Through Whom, and In Whom we live and move and have our being."

Bibliolators know Him not; the Babdist who said 'Creeds interfere in the relationship between the individual and God" knew Him not.

Bibliolatry substitutes "Bible" for "Jesus" -- and they seem to interpret John 1:1 as: "In the Beginning was the Bible, and the Bible was with God, and the Bible was God." (The Bible being the "Word of God" of course.) This goes right along with the dementia of the fringe crazies (KJV Only) who think that the only _REAL_ bible fell from heaven into King James' lap, all perfectly typeset and bound.

Another excrescence of bibliolatry is the idea that anyone who can quote the Bible is a Good Guy(tm) and a REAL CHRISTIAN (tm), despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Now Mohammedans (clearly not Christian), Jehovah's Witnesses (a mind-control cult who outright deny Jesus' divinity), and Seventh Day Adventists (who ignore Jesus in favor of Ellen G. White, and practice increasingly bizarre "prophecies") all quote the Bible -- and as the saying goes "The Devil can quote Scripture to his own ends."

Without any authority other than their own imaginations, and without the leaven of a critical education (or any at all), FunDUHmentalists are extremely reluctant to "judge" and confront even blatant blasphemy, much less subtle and debilitating heresy.

It is clear, then, that much of the non-Christian content of FunDUHmentalism is due to the lack of education in what the Church has and does teach. Whether this lack is genetic (i.e. those incapable of learning better fall into it), the result of human laziness, or there are darker forces (the Devil) behind them -- is not clear.

(An apology, by the way, to well-educated Fun_DA_mentalists who have learned -- and do -- the Work of the Lord, and who understand some of the depth of what the church means by "God of God, Light from Light, Very God from Very god" -- with them, I have no issues.)

De "N" Card Don Wuk No Mo

2008-11-17T09:19:00.000-08:00

WHITE GUILT IS DEAD

By Tom Adkins

Look at my fellow conservatives! There they go, glumly shuffling along, depressed by the election aftermath. Not me. I'm virtually euphoric. Don't get me wrong. I'm not thrilled with America 's flirtation with neo socialism.. But there's a massive silver lining in those magical clouds that lofted Barak Obama to the Presidency. For today, without a shred of intellectually legitimate opposition, I can loudly proclaim to America : The Era of White Guilt is over.

This seemingly impossible event occurred because the vast majority of white Americans didn't give a fluff about skin color, and enthusiastically pulled the voting lever for a black man. Not just any black man. A very liberal black man who spent his early career race-hustling banks, praying in a racist church for 20 years, and actively worked with America-hating domestic terrorists. Wow! Some resume! Yet they made Barak Obama their leader.. Therefore, as of Nov 4th, 2008, white guilt is dead.

For over a century, the millstone of white guilt hung around our necks, retribution for slave-owning predecessors. In the 60s, American liberals began yanking that millstone while sticking a fork in the eye of black Americans, exacerbating the racial divide to extort a socialist solution. But if a black man can become President, exactly what significant barrier is left? The election of Barak Obama absolutely destroys the entire validation of liberal white guilt. The dragon is hereby slain.

So today, I'm feeling a little uppity, if you will. From this day forward, my tolerance level for having my skin color hustled is now exactly ZERO.. And it's time to clean house. No more Reverend Wright's â€œGod Damn America , Al Sharpton's Church of Perpetual Victimization , or Jesse Jackson's rainbow racism. Cornell West? You're a fraud. Go home. All those black studies programs that taught kids to hate whitey? You must now thank Whitey. And I want that on the final.

Congressional Black Caucus? Irrelevant. Maxine Waters? Shut up. ACORN? Outlawed. Black Panthers? Go home and pet your kitty. Black separatists? Find another nation that offers better dreams. Go ahead. I'm waiting.

Gangsta rappers? Start praising America . Begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. And please no more ebonics. Speak English, and who knows where you might end up? Oh, yeah, ¦pull up your pants. Your underwear is showing. You look stupid.

To those Eurosnots who forged entire careers hating America ? I'm still waiting for the first black French President.

And let me offer an equal opportunity whupping. I've always despised lazy white people. Now, I can talk smack about lazy black people. You're poor because you quit school, did drugs, had three kids with three different fathers, and refuse to work. So when you plop your Colt 45-swilling, Oprah watching butt on the couch and complain Da Man is keeping me down, allow me to inform you: Da Man is now black. You have no excuses.

No more quotas. No more handouts. No more stealing my money because someone's great-great-great-great grandparents suffered actual pain and misery at the hands of people I have no relation to, and personally revile.

It's time to toss that massive, obsolete race-hustle machine upon the heap of the other stupid 60s ideas. Drag it over there, by wife swapping, next to dope-smoking. Plenty of room right between free love and cop-killing. Careful don't trip on streaking. There ya go, don't be gentle. Just dump it. Wash your hands. It's filthy.

In fact, Obama's ascension created a gargantuan irony. How can you sell class envy and American unfairness when you and your black wife went to Ivy League schools, got high-paying jobs, became millionaires, bought a mansion, and got elected President? How unfair is that??? Now, Like a delicious O'Henry tale, Obama's spread-the-wealth campaign rendered itself moot by it's own victory! America is officially a meritocracy. Obama's election has validated American conservatism!

So, listen carefully Wham!!!

That's the sound of my foot kicking the door shut on the era of white guilt. The rites have been muttered, the carcass lowered, dirt shoveled, and tombstone erected. White guilt is dead and buried.

However, despite my glee, there's apparently one small, rabid bastion of American racism remaining. Black Americans voted 96% for Barak Obama. Hmmm. In a color-blind world, shouldn't that be 50-50? Tonight, every black person should ask forgiveness for their apparent racism and prejudice towards white people. Maybe it's time to start spreading the guilt around.

Tom Adkins is the publisher of CommonConservative.com

610-888-7970

======================

What Tom said!

"Malefactors of Great Wealth"

2008-09-29T19:03:00.000-07:00

It has been just about a century since Teddy Roosevelt coined that phrase:

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=216341

. . . and they're at it again. This time they want thee & me & everybody else to cough up $2,300 or so each, to save their gold-plated behinds from the consequences of their own risky stupidity. As of today (29 Sep 2008), thee & me & everybody else has been telling their Congresscritters exactly what they think of that bit of highway robbery.

For once, Congress seems to be listening, and the House trashed the bill. If they take it up & pass it, it will just verify Mark Twain's cynical remark:

"The U.S. has the best Congress money can buy."

Keep on kickin' your Congressdonkey on the subject.

"I" vs. "We" Believe

2008-07-25T15:03:00.000-07:00

My friend +Jim Balija, says in his recent e-Newsletter

"As I presided at liturgy recently with the community at Holy Trinity I was reflected on how and what we did in reciting the Creed together. As a group I was struck by the fact that we seemed to 'race through it' rather than reflect on what it was we were confessing as our beliefs."

In a way, I can relate to that -- as text, the Nicene Creed is pretty dry. In my Liturgy http://am-cath.org/GregLit.html, I combat that with a few bits of stagecraft:

First, we say "_I_ Believe" -- making it personal -- and I punch the "I" in my delivery. And yes, all you "Spirit of Vatican II" types, I do know that "We" is in the Conciliar documents, but the whole Church, East and West, used "I" ("Credo" in Latin) in the Liturgy from about AD 1000 onwards. I still do.

My problem with "we" is that it allows language-lawyering about belief. "I believe this part about Jesus, Suzy over there believes the part about the Holy Spirit, and George, in the back, believes the part about the Church." (I.e. We don't necessarily agree about the rest.)

"We" is descriptive -- "I" is intimately prescriptive.

Second, some callisthenics in the middle of the Creed, to break up the otherwise dry recitation:

"...For us men, and for our salvation, he came down from heaven;

{Here, we kneel in reverence for the Lord's Incarnation}

By the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary; and Became Man. For our sake, He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, He suffered, died, and was buried.

{A moment's silence, then all rise}

And on the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures..."

The Roman Liturgy prescribes a bob-and-dip genuflection at "..and Became Man...", but I extended it in both directions for dramatic effect. I bow my head during the silence, count 5 or so heartbeats, then rise up and mime the Ascension by raising my arms to heaven.

Finally, I lead the recitation in a measured and formal tone and cadence -- I never allow it to become a rattle or a race to see how quickly "we" can finish. The Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed is the central statement of the Christian Faith -- enunciated as we came out of the Catacombs into the daylight of the Roman world, and repeated for emphasis regularly since. Who does not believe the Creed in its entirety is not Christian.

The Creed is also the high point -- the culmination -- of the Liturgy of the Word, where we announce out unity of belief before entering into the Sacred Sacrifice which is the true heart & glory of the Mass.

+Sam'l B.

Home To Rome?

2008-07-04T21:51:00.000-07:00

Old Catholic Union with Rome.

Necessary Steps from the Old Catholic Perspective.

When explaining to Roman Catholics about Old Catholicism. I frequently get the question: "Why don't you come home to Rome?", in one form or another. I reply that there are political reasons, rather than theological ones, and go on from there, as the questioner's interest and patience allow me.

My Great & Good Friend, Jeff Duntemann, keeps encouraging me to write on the subject (as I keep encouraging him to write about his expertise). I recently wrote a couple of pieces about excommunication and Roman Catholic Canon Law, so this subject seemed to follow on naturally.

The question of Old Catholic reunion with Rome involves a great deal of history (and no little politics), going back to Apostolic times. I will try to lay it out in as clear and sequential manner as I can.

All power and authority flow from Jesus Christ, of course, and in Matt 16:19, He said: “And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (Douay-Rheims English Translation, ca. 1585) In a slightly different context, he also gives them wide latitude: “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (John 20:23, D.-R.)

The Apostles obviously understood this grant of authority and power literally, since, in Acts 15 (describing what is sometimes called the First Council in Jerusalem) they absolve Gentile converts from the burden of observing all of the Jewish Law. Think about it – a bunch of low-class Galilean fishermen and their buddies, nullifying the Law and the Prophets. No wonder the Rabbinical schools were upset at them.

Looking at the process described in Acts 15, we see the pattern of Church legislation established: The Apostles (and/or their successors, the Bishops) meeting in groups, to discuss, pray about, and act on issuing legislation for the running of the Church. Soon after the Council in Jerusalem, we fell under the lash of Roman persecutions, and there were local synods in times when pressure let off, but no General Councils until after Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 A.D.

Starting with the First Ecumenical Council -- held in Nicea in 325 A.D. -- we see a clear pattern of Conciliar legislation, both in internal, procedural matters, and in matters of Faith and Morals. Nicea both condemns the Arian heresy, and gives instructions on how clergy are to behave in the world.

Six more Ecumenical Councils are recognized by both East and West, ending with 2nd Nicea, in 792 A.D. Since that time, the political and cultural differences between East and West have prevented the convening of a truly Ecumenical Council -- all "Councils" since then have been, essentially, local Synods.

The basic reason behind the schism between Rome and Utrecht (we Old Catholics are descended from the Archbishops of Utrecht, in the Netherlands) lies in Canon II of the Second Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople in 381 A.D.:

"CANON II.

THE bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nicea, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian (Asia Minor -- modern Turkey) Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic (area near the Black Sea) bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nicea. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers."

Notice especially: "... the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province...". and "... bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches..." Not to put too fine a point on it, no bishop, however grand, has the right or power to interfere in the affairs of another bishop's diocese.

All bishops were and are not entirely equal, however. Bishops were appointed for particular regions, which corresponded to the subdivisions of the Roman Empire called -- SURPRISE! -- dioceses! The bishop of the largest town in the vicinity, which would be the headquarters of the next larger imperial subdivision -- the Province -- would serve as the chairman of the bishops meeting in synod, and would generally oversee matters -- but not interfere directly. These "city bishops" or "Provincials" came to be called "Metropolitans" in the East, and "Archbishops" in the West.

Over and above the Metropolitan Sees, several historical Sees became important, both for their association with certain Apostles, and because of their political importance in the Empire. In order of foundation, they are: Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem.

Interestingly, St. Peter was first Bishop of Antioch before he went to Rome, and the Bishops of Antioch count their Apostolic Succession from him. Also interestingly, the first Bishop/Patriarch of Alexandria was St. Mark the Evangelist, who was Peter's secretary -- so Alexandria's Apostolic Succession is from Peter, too. Constantinople claims Andrew, Peter's brother, as the founder of the See, but some suspect it was founded out of Antioch. Jerusalem was definitely re-founded out of Antioch, when Jews and Christians were allowed back in after the Emperor Hadrian's destruction of the city in 135 AD.

The archbishops of these important Metropolitan Sees became known as Patriarchs, and influenced the organization and liturgy in the areas where they held sway. Note that 4 of the 5 historical Patriarchates are in the Greek-speaking East, and only 1 in the Latin-Speaking West.

There would have been another -- Carthage -- serving the grain-growing provinces in North Africa from Cyrene westward to the Gates of Hercules (Gibraltar), but it was successively destroyed by the Vandals (430 AD), the Byzantines (under Belisarius, 533 AD), and the Muslims (695 AD), and so did not develop into a Patriarchate.

Rome, among the Patriarchates, was (and still is) the "First among equals" -- first in honor and first in precedence, since both St. Peter and St. Paul were martyred there. But after the fall of Italy to the Ostrogoths in the 400s, Rome lost intimate contact with her 4 sisters in the East. They spoke Greek -- Rome, increasingly, no longer did. In the 400s, the Liturgy in the West came to be said in Latin, not the former Greek. St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) was a master of Latin oratory -- but had no Greek.

With the fall of the Western Empire, the Papacy and the Roman Curia became the only organized entity larger than a city-state, and the focus of Western Christians' hopes and dreams. Popes had enough clout & charisma to talk barbarian chieftains out of sacking Rome itself.

Philip Shaff, in "Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes. Volume
I. The History of Creeds.", records that:

"Gregory I., or the Great, the last of the Latin Fathers, and the first of the mediaeval Popes (590-604), stoutly protested against the assumption of the title Oecumenical or universal Bishop on the part of the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria, and denounced this whole title and claim as blasphemous, anti-Christian, and devilish, since Christ alone was the Head and Bishop of the Church universal, while Peter, Paul, Andrew, and John, were members under the same Head, and heads only of single portions of the whole. Gregory would rather call himself 'the servant of the servants of God,'"

Gregory's successors, however, alone in their dominant position in the West, and without the criticism and communion with other Patriarchs, continued to assert more and more thoroughly Imperial claims toward other churches, culminating with Pius IX's self-proclamation of Dogmatic Infallibility and Universal Jurisdiction.

In Chapter 3, Section 2 of the Documents of Vatican I, Pius IX declares:

"Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world."

In the 1983 Roman Code of Canon Law, it says:

"Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely."

And:

"Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff."

See a pattern?

THIS is what separates us Old Catholics from Rome -- as it separates the Orthodox.

And THIS is what will have to change before we consider re-uniting with Rome.

I am necessarily not holding my breath.

===================

What would I like to see, instead of iron imperial dominion?

Well, first of all, I am an American of the generation that grew up right after WWII, and got a strong dose of Constitutional theory in Civics classes. I was much impressed with the idea of separation of powers -- Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Despite cynical remarks about the U.S. having the Best Congress money can buy, it has worked out fairly well.

"Power corrupts, they say, 'and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Pius IX is a glaring example of this dictum.

I would like to see Popes (and the other Patriarchs) subject to the review of truly Ecumenical Councils (comprised of delegates from both East and West). I would like to see a formal structure of an independent Judiciary. I would like to see mandatory Civil Audits (according to professional standards of best practices) of Church finances and properties at all levels. I would like to see mandatory inclusion of the laity in decision-making about mundane affairs.

I would like to see Pastors (and Bishops; and Metropolitans; and Patriarchs; and Popes) be men of religion -- spending their time on Teaching and the Sacraments, not fund-raising and administrivia. Modern Generals are responsible for the operation of their units, but they have well-ordered Staffs to handle the details of implementation.

I would like to see the Bishop of Rome, the First Among Equals, speak TRULY infallibly, as the spokesman for the Whole Church, in Council Assembled.

+Samuel B. Bassett
Old Catholic Bishop
of Zzyzx in California
(Waving the Black Flag of Anarchy
under the Noses of the Roman Curia)

Rules for Being (and Staying) Roman

2008-06-03T22:08:00.000-07:00

. . . or

A Quick Outline of Canon Law and Excommunication – What & Why

There has recently been a widely-publicized case where the Roman Catholic Archbishop of St. Louis MO, USA made a public statement about 3 women having excommunicated themselves “laete sententiae” as the result of one of them “ordaining” the other two to the Catholic Priesthood. In his Edict:

http://www.archstl.org/images/stories/pdfs/03-12-08-delcaration_fresen-hudson-mcgrath.pdf

. . . Archbishop Burke also excommunicates them very specifically by his own authority. If you look closely at the text, you find lots of numbers, some with the word “canon” or “cann” attached – these are citations from the 1983 Roman Catholic Codex of Canon Law:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

Canon Law is a deep, dark mystery to most people – and Canon Lawyers want to keep it that way, to protect their incomes. But like any body of modern (19th Century and later) legislation, it is an attempt at providing a consistent framework for a large and diverse organization.

Pope John Paul II, in his letter promulgating the 1983 Roman Code of Canon Law said (among other things):

"As a matter of fact, the Code of Canon Law is extremely necessary for the Church. Since the Church is organized as a social and visible structure, it must also have norms: in order that its hierarchical and organic structure be visible; in order that the exercise of the functions divinely entrusted to it, especially that of sacred power and of the administration of the sacraments, may be adequately organized; in order that the mutual relations of the faithful may be regulated according to justice based upon charity, with the rights of individuals guaranteed and well-defined; in order, finally, that common initiatives undertaken to live a Christian life ever more perfectly may be sustained, strengthened and fostered by canonical norms."

Formalized procedures and laws are not as necessary for small groups, but as the Church grew from the 12 Apostles and some few hundred disciples at Pentecost into the millions in the succeeding centuries, there grew up a collection of rules and regulations, partly from the decisions of Ecumenical Councils, partly from decisions of Synods, and partly from the work of individual Patriarchs and Bishops.

Up until 1917, Roman Canon Law consisted of the opinions of Canon Lawyers, who drew from the entire 1900-odd year history of Church legislation to frame their briefs. In 1917, Pope Benedict XV promulgated a new, definitive collection of Canon Laws. In 1959, Pope John XXIII announced, on the same day that he convoked Vatican II, that a new version of Roman Canon Law would be formulated -- which is the Code promulgated by JP II in 1983 and in force today. Canon Lawyers still refer to the 1917 Code, and indeed to the writings of other Lawyers before that, when they are interpreting various parts if the 1983 Code, but where there is a conflict, the 1983 Code takes precedence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law_(Catholic_Church)

Beginning about 600 A.D., and especially after the election of Pius IX in 1846, Rome increasingly defined itself and the Pope as supreme over all the Church. For the extremely detailed list of what this means, see the 1983 Code of Canon Law: Book II, Part II, Section I, Chapter I, Article I: The Roman Pontiff, consisting of Canons 331 to 335:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P16.HTM

Translating again from the Vaticanese, it says: The Pope is the Boss, and what he says goes. The Code of Canon Law was issued on the sole authority of the Pope alone.

Note that I am _NOT_ saying that the 1983 Code was created whole hog & de novo by JP II -- but Canons 331 to 335 clearly say he _COULD_.

Put another way, you play by the Pope's rules, or you are simply not a Roman Catholic. Period. No wiggle, no "interpretation".

_OLD_ Catholics, however, along with the Orthodox, decline to accept this Imperial vision of the Papacy, adhering instead to the terms of Canon II of the Second Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople in 381 A.D.:

"CANON II.

THE bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nicea, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese (Asia Minor, modern Turkey) administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic (area near the Black Sea) bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops
go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nicea. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers."

It was upon this principle that the Archdiocese of Utrecht and the Netherlands became separated from the Roman Communion in the mid-1700s. Specifically, for political reasons (with Jesuits lurking in the wings), Rome wanted to impose a German bishop on the Netherlands. When Utrecht refused him, and the Dutch (Calvinist) Government (with loud laughter) refused to become involved, Rome abandoned the Netherlands until 1853, when they sent in Jesuits to establish NEW parishes and Dioceses, ignoring the _OLD_ Catholic church already there.

Other groups came out of Rome after 1870, over the issue of "Papal Infallibility", and joined with Utrecht to form the modern European Old Catholic Churches,

Utrecht followed the ancient practice of "Appealing to the Future Council" -- but Pius IX, on his own authority, closed that recourse, too, in the preparations for Vatican I. For various political reasons, then, Old Catholicism is _NOT_ part of the Roman Catholic Communion of Churches (better name than "Roman Catholic Church", or the arrogant "Catholic Church").

We are Catholic, but not Roman. We maintain the Deposit of Faith, the Sacraments, and the Apostolic succession -- which is the Catholic and Orthodox definition of a Church. Groups lacking one or more of these are, in the quaint wording of Vatican II: "quasi-ecclesial communities".

==========================

So what is "laete sententiae" excommunication?

Briefly: Doing something serious which is against Canon Law, and which effectively breaks obedience to and communion with Rome. It is automatic, and does not require formal pronouncements.

Even more briefly: "Da Pope said don't. You did. Yer out."

Dr Peters' article:

http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/03/abp-burkes-excommunication-of-women.html

. . . nicely summarizes how three women (Fresen, Hudson, & McGrath) have sundered themselves (laete sententiale) from Roman Catholicism by going contrary to Canon Law, as well as being explicitly excommunicated (ferendae sententiae) for denying an article of faith.

The Pope (in Canon Law) said don't. They did. They're out.

Ms Fresen reportedly said that they are still truly Roman Catholic, and protests against fusty old rules. Sorry, Lady, but by Rome's own rules -- which you have to accept to be truly Roman Catholic -- you aren't. Note that I say nothing about the _validity_ of what they did, but solely about its _legality_ within the Roman orbit.

==================================

Summarizing:

If you want to be a _ROMAN_ Catholic, you need to:

1) Accept the unconditional authority of the Pope.

2) Abide by his rules -- generally Canon Law.

If you can't stomach either or both of those, you're already out, you just haven't admitted it.

But then, I'm already out, so I don't have to agonize about it.

+S.B.Bassett
Old Catholic Bishop
of Zzyzx in California
(you can Google it)

The War on Drugs

2008-01-21T11:44:00.000-08:00

My great & good friend, Jeff Duntemann said today:

"We as a society spend an immense amount of money chasing people who make an immense amount of money selling chemicals for an immense amount of money to people who seem to think ingesting them is worth an immense amount of money—not to mention the risk of jail time . I've never been able to figure the payoff, however..."

The payoffs are specifically those immense amounts of money. All the Prohibition ever does is make gangsters rich, and corrupt cops. (Politicians are, by definition. already corrupt.)

Gangsters spend their ill-gotten gains bribing cops (and the DEA is the worst of that) and persuading legislators to _keep_ drugs illegal, so the price stays high. The actual cost of manufacture and distribution is peanuts -- literally. A gram of cocaine on the open market, without artificial price supports, would cost a few pennies.

Liquor (which we tried to Prohibit form 1919 to 1933) is reasonably priced -- despite about a 72% tax bite:
http://www.atr.org/special/taxbites/liquor.html

Cocaine, heroin, and pot would be similarly inexpensive, and the tax bite would solve budget shortfalls in the States as well as the Federal sphere. The money spent on boondoggles like the DEA and all the rest of the Narcotics Establishment could be spent on useful things -- like health care. Legalizing drugs would empty out prisons, which, in California spend $40,000+ per prisoner per year. Other states may get away with spending less.

"But what about crazies on drugs?" you ask. I reply: "We got plenty of crazies running around on alcohol." And what we do about them -- both -- is bag them for doing something stupid and dangerous, like Driving Under the Influence. If they commit a real crime -- holdup, assault & battery, etc., jug 'em for the real crime, not for being a pothead. To be consistent (and forswear hypocrisy) we would need to lock up alcoholics too -- and now doesn't that just strike a bit close to home, Bunky?

The experience of the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic over the past 35 or so years has been that between 2 and 4% of users develop serious problems requiring medical or psychological intervention. The remaining 96 to 98% of the user population gets along just fine. Counseling at $100 a session, 52 weeks a year is $5200 -- 13% if $40k -- at $200 a session, it is still only about 1/4 of $40k.

I know very well that I am blowing into the wind -- the Narco Establishment (gangsters, cops, legislators, and in California, the Prison Guards' Union) are too well intrenched, and too well funded, to listen to the voice of reason and cost-effective programs.

Water for Noah's Flood

2007-11-21T22:19:00.000-08:00

Them FunDUHmentalist literalists insist that the Bible says the Flood that Noah built an Ark to survive covered the whole world -- above every mountain there is. I got to thinking about that the other day.

Now, the Radius of the Earth = 6,370 km on average

Height of Mt Everest - 8.848 km

Allowing for about 152 meters steerage way under the keel, call the flooded Earth's radius = 6,379 km

Spherical Volume = (4 * pi/3) * radius^3

(3.14159 / 3 = 1.0471967) * 4 = 4.188767

6,370^3 = 2.584748e11

4.188767 * 2.584748e11 = 1.082696e12 km^3 (cubic kilometers) = Volume of Earth now (VolNow)

6,379^3 = 2.595719e11

4.188767 * 2.595719e11 = 1.087286e12 km^3 = Vol of Earth, water covering Everest (VolEvr)

VolEvr - VolNow = 1.087286e12 - 1.082696e12 = 4.59e9 km^3

4.59e9 = 4,590,000,000 = 4.59 Billion (Milliard to Europeans) Cubic Kilometers

According to http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1997-05/864391848.Es.r.html, the oceans'
total volume is 1.347e9 km^3.

4.59e9 km^3 / 1.347e9 km^3 = 3.41 times as much water as is in all the oceans to
flood the whole earth, to 152 meters above the top of Mt Everest.

Just where is God supposedly hiding all that extra water?

Bibliolatry and Pi

2007-09-01T23:52:00.000-07:00

Pi is an irrational number -- one that cannot be expressed as a ratio between two integers, Modern (since the 18th Century) mathematicians are comfortable with irrational and transcendental numbers. Not so the ancients -- Pythagoras is supposed to have been so opposed to them that he drowned one of his students who had the temerity to use the idea in a proof.

The Hebrews (or at least the author(s) of 1 Kings) seem to have had the same problem with irrational numbers; 1 Kings 7:23 says:

"Then he [Hiram of Tyre] made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference." [RSV]

This would seem to require that Pi = 3.0. Anyone who passed Basic Science in Grade School knows that Pi is approximately 3.141... -- NOT -- 3! Any honest and experienced workman, such as Hiram of Tyre certainly was, knew that a circle 10 cubits across had a circumference of 31 cubits plus a handspan (about 5 inches) and a half.

Why then, does 1 Kings 7:23 try to make it 3.0? 11th Century BC Political Correctness, as far as I can tell.

All God's handiwork must be perfect, and the circle is the expression of God's perfection -- surely no ugly irrational number like that can have anything to do with the circle! This is not really bad reasoning, given the state of formal mathematics at the time -- and for a millennium or so afterwards.

Come forward in time to September 1st, 2007. I just spent a couple of hours on IRC watching a bunch of blithering idiot innumerate Fun_DUH_mentalists justify that number 3.0 in 1 Kings. The dumbest arguments was "if you measure the angles of the diameter" D'oh -- ain't no angles in a diameter. It's a straight line. The next less dumb was "Well, 3 is close enough." Hiram of Tyre would not agree, especially when he was calculating how many bronze ingots he would need to melt to cast the thing. The arguments went on for most of 2 hours -- from dumb to dumber.

The reason these innumerate idjits were pulling laughable arguments out of . . . -- let's say "thin air" for politeness sake -- is that they worship the Bible, and are required by the tenets of that bibliolatry to consider each and every word in it as literal truth. Extreme Biblical literalism is one of the diagnostic heresies of extreme Fun_DUH_mentalism, and here it is in its most obvious form.

The educated Christian position is that Scriture tells no outright lies, and never leads the educated believer astray. Parts of the Bible (Song of Solomon, for instance) are poetry, parts are metaphor, parts are fairly sober history, parts are not. And parts reflect the political correctnesses of their times.

Pi is not ever 3.0 -- that is a singularly bad approximation, and not useful for any technical purpose. It is, however, a politically correct approximation, given the prejudices against irrationl numbers at the time.

Any engineer or scientist can give you numerous stories about Management demands for politically correct solutions that are simply incoherent and idiotic from a technical viewpoint. Politicians are even better than corporate management at that kind of exercise.

And so are mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, Bahbul-worshippin' Fun_DUH_mentalists.

1 Kings 7:23 is an example of the Bible being flat wrong.

That it is wrong in this one instance has no bearing on the believability or value of all the rest of the book. Unless you are a bilbiolator, of course. ;-)

Cranky Old Fart from the Fifties

2007-07-05T18:24:00.000-07:00

Me, of course -- I remember things like Truman running for President against Dewey in '48, the song "Shrimp Boats are A-Comin", 6" round TV screens with magnifying glasses, the Korean War, and all that stuff. My good friend Jeff Duntemann's July 4th meditations on the U.S. set me thinkin' about what it was like in them far-off and ancient days.

A lot of old crocks my age & older have this rabid case of nostalgia for the 50s, when the Mass was in Latin, people dressed nicely, and were polite to each other -- go watch some "Mayberry RFD" or Lassie re-reruns for some examples. Sex was dirty, and the streets were clean. The screaming, in-your-face punks that masquerade as political protesters now would have got thrown in the jug for disturbing the peace in the 50s.

I remember those times very clearly (roughly 1948 through 1965) -- and don't have quite the nostalgia that my contemporaries and elders seem to have. It _WAS_ a cleaner and politer time, without doubt. People were expected to act like grown-ups, and after political campaigns were over, we settled down to the business of America -- which was Business. I confess to still liking the music of the early 50s -- the tail end of the swing era -- better than the ear-busting noise popular nowadays. Nat King Cole's "Mona Lisa", anyone?

I also remember the downsides, too -- the US had the most booooring President in the world. When Dwight D. Eisenhower would give a speech, the sales of sleeping pills took a nosedive. JFK got elected because he was a young smart-mouth with a sense of humor, unlike Ike.

Yes, there was discrimination, and rednecks -- but whoopie-doo, we still got both, and loudmouths on both sides. We _were_ working on it in the 50s, though -- boring old Ike sent the National Guard to desegregate Little Rock High School in the mid-50s. Civil Rights did not suddenly appear as an issue in the 60s.

The worst thing about the 50s was the Cold War Hysteria -- fear of the Soviet Union and nuclear war led us down the road toward destroying the real Civil Rights of the Americn people. A screaming demand of absolute security has driven the US to emulate its one-time enemy (and the European Parlour Pinks) in locking down tighter and tighter control over everything we do.

Kids born in the late 60s and the 70s grew up with the certain knowledge that they were going to die in a nuclear war -- thanks to their parents and grandparents' 50s Cold War hysteria. They are in their 30s and 40s now, and I get the feeling sometimes that they don't quite know what to do with themselves. The Yuppie thing of "eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die" may be a consequence of that. Certainly the dark undercurrents in contemporary culture -- explicit violence in movies, computer games, and things like Columbine have their roots in the 50s Cold War paranoia.

The 50s were, objectively, the most law-abiding, peaceful, and serene era in U.S. history -- totally unlike the brash, contentious and uncultured 19th Century, the slightly stuffy early 20th, the craziness of the 20s and the grinding poverty of the 30s. The late 60s -- what we think of as "The Sixties" didn't start until about a year after JFK was assassinated -- and following decades have simply been examples of the U.S. returning to its riotous redneck roots.

I would like to see a higher standard of politeness and responsibility, as well as tolerance and good humor, spread across the U.S. -- and to be fair, there still is a lot of that, especially in the Midwest, which we bi-costal folks sometime have a bit of trouble imagining. I guess as a Senior (62), I'm just gonna have to set an example -- when I'm not busy cackling and complaining. ;-)

Contraception is not the problem

2007-01-04T05:29:00.001-08:00

I would like to thank my great and good friend Jeff Duntemann for crediting me with an idea he had, but I didn't go where he went with it. ;-) As far as I can tell, contraception (birth control) is NOT an issue that keeps young men out of the seminaries and the Roman Catholic priesthood.

For most Roman Catholics, it is not even an issue at all, but what we used to call a "Yes, Father" issue -- when the priest starts to rant, you say: "Yes, Father", and proceed to turn off your ears until the rant ends.

Most lay Catholics worldwide agree with Earl Butz, Sec'ty of Agriculture in the Ford Administration, who got into an enormous heap of trouble by opining in 1974 that: "He no play-a da game, he no make-a da rules." The Encyclical "Humanae Vitae" was, indeed responsible for the abrupt crash in lay respect for Roman authority, but the priest shortage predates it by about 5 years, and continues today, much after the ruckus about it has subsided.

In my experience, the Roman Catholics who rally around "Humanae Vitae" are those who use it as a touchstone of loyalty to the Magisterium of the Church -- all of them solid, middle-of the road people who would have populated Parish Councils, Holy Name Societies and Altar Guilds in the 1950s. They are devout, somewhat scrupulous, and the sort who scrimped for enough to build the Catholic School System, and then send their children there.

Roman Catholics today are that denomination who hate their bishops. That hate has been fomented by rabble-rousing reformers -- chiefly priests and nuns, with a sprinkling of lay ideologues -- who actively and vitriolically oppose nearly everything about traditional Catholicism. Capitalizing on the issue of birth control, they took (and still take) exception to almost everything the Church teaches. It is no accident that the devout, middle-of the road RCs identify themselves as "loyal to the Magisterium" (The Church hierarchy -- specifically the bishops and the Papacy).

For one who grew up in the comfortable certainties of the Faith of the 1950s Roman Catholic Church, and its cultural urbanity, solidity, and sense of almost 2 millenia of history, I find the screeching flame wars of the modern organization jarring, off-putting, and scandalous. I suspect that the layman in the pew, if he or she is not a participant in the billingsgate, is equally put off -- and thus less likely to send a son off to become the focus of the ire and angst in another parish.

This is not to say there were not real evils in the 50s RC Church -- there were and are -- mostly centered around the idea of Papal Supremacy and paternalism -- the idea that the Church as an institution has the right to control church members right down to the level of individual conscience. I, necessarily, as an Old Catholic, do not share that idea.

The laity need to have a voice in the Church -- at every level from the parish on up -- to provide expertise (finacial, for one) in areas the clergy lack them, and to counterbalance the clericalism and bureaucracy of the hierarchy. They do NOT need to vote on "what we are going to beleive this week" -- that is Congregationalism, not Catholicism, but they DO need to be aware of what is being done with the monies collected and disbursed, and have forceful input on the conduct and abilities of priests. This needs to percolate up to the Diocesan level, also.

As Jeff remarks, modern Churchgoers (leaving out Calvinists and other Fun_DUH_mentalists) are generally quite will-educated, and fiercely protective of their own consciences and free will. Attempts to drive Catholicism back into the Middle Ages, or worse yet, late Roman Antiquity, are bound to fail.

What RC lay people are NOT getting is good, well-prepared speakers in the pulpit, who explain and enliven the faith. RC homiletics has been a weak point for more than a century, and the acrimonies of modern Roman infighting have just made it worse.

So contraception is not a "real" reason for the RC priest shortage -- albeit there are fewer Catholic boys around to be candidates for the priesthood. The real real reason is that both RC boys and their parents do not see their local parish priest as a role model (when they see him at all), and do not see the priesthood as being a prestige job. It is a boring (judging from the sermons) side-line to real life.

St. Phillip Neri, where are you when we need you? Where are the Hounds of God (Domini Canes -- Dominicans -- Order of Preachers) when we need them?

(I can't claim that my preaching is all that good, but I keep it short, and notice a lack of eye-rolling and snoring, so I guess I am not doing too badly.)

Calvinism = Diabolism

2006-11-22T20:19:00.000-08:00

My great and good friend, Jeff Duntemann, said in his Contrapositive Diary that he had received an email message:

"Put as simply as possible, the Christian message is this: God hates me because of something I didn't do, and if I don't say the magic words, 'Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour,' God will torture me in Hell forever. How can you possibly believe in crap like that?"

In the first place, none of that is Christian.

The Christian God does not hate either sinners or the world.
(1 John 4:8 -- He who does not love does not know God; for God is love. )

The Manichean/Gnostic Light and Dark demi-urges (ultimately derived from the Zoroastrian Ahura Mazda and Ahriman) do hate the world, and sinners. Neither loves his people, just as the Mohammedan Allah has no sons or daughters, only slaves.

The first of the notorious 5 Points of Calvinism (TULIP) is "Total Depravity" -- which teaches self-hate. It also teaches hate of others, because _THEY_ are Totally Depraved, too. Ultimately, it leads to hate of God -- for God made me and them this way.

Calvinism also teaches -- "Perseverance of the saints", the "P" in TULIP -- that the Calvinist is predestined to Heaven or Hell, and that "Once Saved, Always Saved". What this comes down to is an extended argument that:

1) I have no free will.
2) It's not my fault -- God made me that way.
3) It doesn't matter what I do -- good or bad -- I'm predestined anyway.

No free will, no responsiblity, and no moral standards -- only hate.

And who is the only figure in Christian symbology that promotes hate of self, others, and God?

Yup -- Old Scratch himself.

Therefore Calvinism is Diabolism.

I am aware that Calvinists of tender conscience (there were and are a few) have wrestled with this conundrum, and tried to find a solution -- with indifferent success. The real solution is to accept God's love and grace -- become Christians, not Manichean diabolists.

The idea that the Spirit is the only Good, and that all Matter and Flesh are Evil is Gnostic duality, not either Jewish or Christian. Judaism, beside being monumentally Monotheist is equally monumentally Unitive.

In the first chapter of the book of Genesis there are eight repetitions of "And God saw that it was good. ", after every act of Creation. Everything made by God -- including dirt and bodies -- is in its original nature good. The use we put it to, whilst exercising our free will, can be good or evil.

God loves his creation -- every bit of it -- and hates nothing. (John 3:16 -- For God so loved the world . . .)

As for saying: "Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour" and being automatically saved, Jesus himself had a few words: (Mark 7:21 -- Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.)

Being a "mouth Christian" -- reciting a magic spell, and compelling God to save you -- just doesn't cut it.

I takes work (and "works") to be a Christian -- it takes a change of heart (metanoia) -- it takes a radical acceptance of God's love, and a pouring out of that love to others. The mouth Christians and Sola Fide sorts are going to face Jesus in the Judgement, and he will ask them: (Luke 6:46) "Why do you call me `Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?"

The very heart of the Christians message is: (Matt 22:37-40) "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets."

Tell me, O Calvinist, how you can love either God or your neighbor, when you hate yourself?

---------------------------------------------------------------

Jeff goes on to say:

"Nonetheless, great huge swaths of the Christian world do believe this, even though it's a pretty concise statement of the Great Heresy, Manichaeism, which Augustine of Hippo injected into Christian Tradition."

Beg to differ, Jeff -- it's a "tiny, noisy swath". The 2006 World Almanac & Book of Facts says:

52.5% of all Christians are Roman Catholic (or in Communion with Rome)
10.4% of all Christians are Orthodox (Rome + Orthodoxy = almost 63%)
21.3% of all Christians admit to being Protestant
19.8% of all Christians say they aren't Protestant. (I disagree)

The Calvinist Fulminating Fundmentalists make up perhaps 2%, but make more noise that all the rest of us together.

Don't let the Manicheans take high ground!
Fight their lies with the Truth -- GOD IS LOVE!!!

Rube Goldberg Lives!

2006-05-30T12:16:00.000-07:00

Honda made this commercial:

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/honda.php.

"There are no computer graphics or digital tricks in the film. Everything you see really happened in real time exactly as you see it. The film took 606 takes. On the first 605 takes, something, usually very minor, didn't work.

They would then have to set the whole thing up again. The crew spent weeks shooting night and day. By the time it was over, they were ready to change professions. The film cost six million dollars and took three months to complete including full engineering of the sequence.

In addition, it's two minutes long so every time Honda airs the film on British television, they're shelling out enough dough to keep any one of us in clover for a lifetime. However, it is fast becoming the most downloaded advertisement in Internet history. Honda executives figure the ad will soon pay for itself simply in "free viewings" (Honda isn't paying a dime to have you watch this commercial!) When the ad was pitched to senior executives, they signed off on it immediately without any hesitation - including the costs.

There are six, and only six, hand-made Accords in the world. To the horror of Honda engineers, the filmmakers disassembled two of them to make the film.

Everything you see in the film (aside from the walls, floor, ramp, and complete Honda Accord) are parts from those two cars. The voice-over is Garrison Keillor. When the ad was shown to Honda executives, they liked it and commented on how amazing computer graphics have gotten.

They fell off their chairs when they found out it was for real.

Oh. And about those funky windshield wipers . On the new Accords, the windshield wipers have water sensors and are designed to start doing their thing automatically as soon as they become wet. It looks a bit weird in the commercial. Make sure your sound is on."

Immigration Hilarity

2006-05-17T11:09:00.000-07:00

This item today on CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/05/16/mexico.immigration.ap/index.html

Had me rolling on the floor laughing.

Since when does the Mexican (or any other country's) government have any standing in U.S. Courts? They will get laughed out the door, and down the street.

One can just imagine the reverse situation -- likely the lawyer in Mexico would get beaten and thrown into prison for suing to enforce the rights of an illegal immigrant to Mexico from the U.S.

------------------------------------------------

The really sad thing about this whole circus is that we had a working cross-border labor program from 1942 through 1964:

The Bracero Program

It had its problems -- as all human arrangements do -- but it at least tried to be fair to the poor Mexicans who came to work in the U.S.

Immigration Hypocricy

2006-05-17T10:37:00.000-07:00

A couple of things that came to my mailbox:

LIMBAUGH LAWS

ON A RECENT LIMBAUGH SHOW HE SAID HE WOULD HAVE
THE FOLLOWING IMMIGRATION LAWS IF HE WERE
IN CHARGE OF THE COUNTRY:

1. If you immigrate here you must speak our language.

2. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special
ballots for elections, no government business will be conducted in your
native language.

3. Foreigners will not have the right to vote, I don't care how long you are
here, nor will you ever be allowed to hold political office.

4. You cannot burden taxpayers. You're not entitled to welfare, food
stamps or other government goodies.

5. You must be a professional or an investor. We won't take unskilled
workers. You will not be allowed.

6. You can come if you invest here. But it must be an amount equal
to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage. If you don't have that much you
CANNOT come and invest. You have to stay home. If you do come and you
want to buy land, okay, but you will not be allowed to buy waterfront
property. That will be reserved for citizens naturally born in this country. As a
foreigner, you must relinquish individual rights to property.

7. You don't have the right to protest when you come here. You're
allowed no demonstrations. You cannot wave a foreign flag, no political
organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies, or you get sent
home.
You're a foreigner. You shut your mouth or you get out. And if you come
here illegally, we're going to hunt you down 'til we find you and then you
go straight to jail.

............................

I can imagine many of you think that the Limbaugh Laws are pretty harsh.

WRONG! I LIED!

Every one of these laws is an actual law of MEXICO today. These are
MEXICO's immigration laws. This is how the MEXICAN government handles
immigrants to their country.

And:

The following from a director with SW BELL in Mexico City.
I spent five years working in

Mexico

.

I worked under a tourist visa for three months and could legally renew it
for three more months. After that you were working illegally. I was
technically illegal for three weeks waiting on the FM3 approval.

During that six months our Mexican and US Attorneys were working to
secure a permanent work visa called an FM3. It was in addition to my

passport that I had to show each time I entered and left the country.
Barbara's was the same except hers did not permit her to work.

To apply for the FM3 I needed to submit the following notarized originals
(not copies) of my:

1. Birth certificates for Barbara and me.

2. Marriage certificate.

3. High school transcripts and proof of graduation.

4. College transcripts for every college I attended and proof of
graduation.

5. Two letters of recommendation from supervisors I had worked for at
least one year.

6. A letter from The St Louis Chief of Police indicating I had no arrest
record in the

and no outstanding warrants and was "a citizen in good
standing."

7. Finally; I had to write a letter about myself that clearly stated why
there was no Mexican citizen with my skills and why my skills were
important to

Mexico

. We called it our "I am the greatest person on earth"
letter. It was fun to write.

All of the above were in English that had to be translated into Spanish
and be certified as legal translations and our signatures notarized It
produced a folder about 1.5 inches thick with English on the left side
and Spanish on the right.

Once they were completed Barbara and I spent about five hours accompanied
by a Mexican attorney touring Mexican government office locations and
being photographed and fingerprinted at least three times. At each
location (and we remember at least four locations) we were instructed on
Mexican tax, labor, housing, and criminal law and that we were required
to obey their laws or face the consequences. We could not protest any of
the government's actions or we would be committing a felony. We paid out
four thousand dollars in fees and bribes to complete the process. When
this was done we could legally bring in our household goods that were
held by US customs in Laredo Texas. This meant we rented furniture in

Mexico

while awaiting our goods. There were extensive fees involved
here that the company paid.

We could not buy a home and were required to rent at very high rates and
under contract and compliance with Mexican law.

We were required to get a Mexican drivers license. This was an amazing
process. The company arranged for the licensing agency to come to our
headquarters location with their photography and finger print equipment
and the laminating machine. We showed our

license, were photographed
and fingerprinted again and issued the license instantly after paying out
a six dollar fee. We did not take a written or driving test and never
received instructions on the rules of the road. Our only instruction was
never give a policeman your license if stopped and asked. We were
instructed to hold it against the inside window away from his grasp. If
he got his hands on it you would have to pay ransom to get it back.

We then had to pay and file Mexican income tax annually using the number
of our FM3 as our ID number. The companies Mexican accountants did this
for us and we just signed what they prepared I was about twenty legal
size pages annually.

The FM 3 was good for three years and renewable for two more after paying
more fees.

Leaving the country meant turning in the FM# and certifying we were
leaving no debts behind and no outstanding legal affairs (warrants,
tickets or liens) before our household goods were released to customs.

It was a real adventure and If any of our senators or congressmen went
through it once they would have a different attitude toward

Mexico

.

The Mexican Government uses its vast military and police forces to keep
its citizens intimidated and compliant. They never protest at their White
House or government offices but do protest daily in front of the United
States Embassy. The

embassy looks like a strongly reinforced fortress
and during most protests the Mexican Military surround the block with
their men standing shoulder to shoulder in full riot gear to protect the
Embassy.

These protests are never shown on

U.S.

or Mexican TV. There is a large
public park across the street where they do their protesting. Anything
can cause a protest such as proposed law changes in California or Texas.

--------------------------------------------------------

Now -- you were saying about the unfairness of U.S. Immigration laws?

Fair is Fair

2006-05-02T07:52:00.000-07:00

On IRC, the Evangelical Atheists are always going on about the Inquisition and the other religious persecutions managed by Christianity over the ages, and expecting Christians to take the blame.

I don't buy it.

First, if you go by number of people killed for ideological reasons, Mao Tse Tung (a couple hundred million) and Josef Stalin (about 100 Million) lead the pack -- good ideological Atheists, both. Next comes Hitler's Germany -- which they falsely accuse of being Christian -- with 6 million Jews and another 6 million Christians, Romany, and other miscellaneous victims -- including atheist intellectuals.

In fourth place (if you believe his numbers in "De Bello Gallico"), comes that exemplary Pagan, Julius Caesar with 5 million Gauls slaughtered.

In 5th place is Pol Pot -- yet another ideological atheist -- with 3 million Cambodian deaths.

The Spanish Inquisition, on the other hand, seems to have tried about 125,000 people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Death_tolls

. . . and executed 1200 -- 2500 over the period 1485 to 1808 -- between 3 and 8 a year, tops.

Numbers for other Inquisitions are similarly inflated, The Protestant "Fox's Martyrs" is grossly exaggerated, and Wiccan numbers for the "Burning Times" are simply ludicrous -- they take the worst fringe Protestant numbers and multiply by 100 or 1000.

So, my response to the Evangelical Atheists is:

"If you seriously expect us to take responsibility for executions in our far past, you need to take responsibility for your monstrously enormous executions in the near past." This really upsets them.

Get Secure Or Get A Ticket

2006-04-21T17:20:00.000-07:00

Westchester County, New York (just north of New York City) has passed a law requiring businesses that operate WiFi networks to secure them, and warn people that unprotected networks are not safe:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/04/21/wireless.security.ap/index.html

Bravo!

Merely changing the SSID from the manufacturer's default, and turning on the build-in (puny) encryption does not deter serious hackers, but like physical locks, which keep honest people honest, and tell your friends you are not home, they are better than the usual wide open net portal.

Theis law is aimed at businesses, but I'd like to see the law extended to everyone -- if you leave a portal open, get a ticket. Not a big ticket -- the first one is a "fixit" -- but something with moderately sharp teeth to wake people up.

"Gospel" of Judas? Naaahhh

2006-04-09T20:09:00.000-07:00

A "Gospel" -- literally "Good Tidings" in Anglo-Saxon, an excellent translation of the Greek "Evangelion" -- is a story of Salvation, realized in the historical person Jesus Christ. The four Canonical Gospels tell the story of Jesus' teachings, His suffering, His death, and His Resurrection.

There are Four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The first Church Historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, tells how these four, as well as the other books of the New Testament, were chosen by the Church to tell the story of the Faith. The criteria were very much what we would use today in Textual Criticism: 1) Dates of Citations -- who quoted from this work and when? 2) How widespread? I.e. how many copies of this work can we find, and how many individual churches use(d) it? 3) Does it teach what the Apostles taught? I.e. does it teach the same Faith we have received via oral Traditon from Apostolic times?

Various Apocryphal "Gospels" exist -- some name themselves "Evangelion" -- some are so-named by academics wanting to eke a few papers or a Doctoral dissertation out of an early minority sect. Many of these were known to the Patristic Writers (100-400 A.D.), and a few previously lost examples have shown up recently.

The so-called "Gospel of Thomas" -- which does not name itself a Gospel -- is well described in this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas

As noted, it does not tell a story -- it is simply a collection of disconnected quotes. It seems to share a source with the Canonical Gospels -- something like the "Q" Document -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document -- one or more collections of "Sayings of the Master", probably organized by subject.

The "Gospel" of Judas at least names itself as such, but still does not tell the story of Salvation we see in the Canonical Gospels. Like other Gnostic wiritings of the era, it is a "crib sheet", giving the inside scoop on how to get into heaven without going the long way around -- the ordinary Christian life of prayer and good works.

A "Gospel of Judas" was known to Irenaeus of Lyon, a mid-2nd Century crusader against Gnosticism, but whether the present document is the same as the one he condemned, we really do not know. What we do know is that it is equally Gnostic, and equally non-Christian.

The timing of its release is very PR-ish. Easter. The Christian High Holy Days, when the churches are telling the story of the Passion and Resurrection of Our Lord. What better time to send off rockets, and splash all over the front pages speculation about the historicity and veracity of the New Testament account?

As P.T. Barnum is supposed to have said (but didn't) -- "There's one born every minute." This whole "Judas" caper looks awfully Barnum-esque!

Those who don't really beleive anything, will happily believe almost any damn thing -- the more lurid and sensational the better.

Professor's overpopulation views stir debate

2006-04-04T10:27:00.000-07:00

The Gazette-Enterprise, of Seguin, Texas, quoted University of Texas biology professor Eric Pianka as saying disease "will control the scourge of humanity. We're looking forward to a huge collapse."

It said he weighed the killing power of various diseases such as bird flu and HIV but decided neither would yield the needed results.

"HIV is too slow. It's no good," he said.

If the guy is really serious about this, he shouldn't object to being a test subject for the airborne Ebola Virus that he advocates as a real, timely depopulation agent.

Hundreds killed in Iranian 5.7 Earthquake

2006-03-31T23:25:00.000-08:00

The reason so many people were killed, and there was so much devastation is that the houses in that part of Iran are made of mud brick, which crumbles when shocked. If the Iranian government had been serious about improving the conditions of its own citizens, insatead of spending oil revenues subsidizing international terrorism, those people sould have been living in hoses that would not collaps on them in light earthquakes.

In California, a 5.7 earthquake is noticed -- serious damage starts around 6.0, and that is mostly to things knocked off shelves. Strutural damage to weak and old houses begins at about 6.2. We have building codes, however, and not Sharia Law and Ayatollahs.

Windows Vista release delayed

2006-03-22T10:20:00.000-08:00

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/ptech/03/22/windows.vista.ap/index.html

As usual, Micro$not can't deliver working software on time.

I remember going to the Official M$ launches of Windows 1.0, Windows 2.0, and, IIRC, 3.0 -- none of which worked.

ROTFLMAO!

"Cooperating with Islam"

2006-03-17T00:20:00.000-08:00

Pope Benedict XVI on Thursday called on Christians and Jews to cooperate with Islam for "the good of humanity"

First of all, where does he get off telling Jews what to do? They will no doubt have a few words on that subject.

Second, I would feel a great deal better about the call, if he has seen fit to say it the other way around:

"Pope Benedict XVI calledd on Islam to cooperate with Christians and Jews 'for the good of humanity'."

Shooting Lawyers

2006-02-26T17:53:00.000-08:00

Y'know -- if it had been deliberate, we should've given Cheney a medal.

No man's life, liberty, or property are safe, so long as even one lawyer remains unhanged.

(Apologies to Mark Twain)

Death Penalty

2005-12-13T17:53:00.000-08:00

The recent execution of Tookie Williams set me to thinking about the utility and cost of the practice. It took 25 years to finally do away with him, at an estimated cost of $1 million/year. (It may be less in less lawyer-infested States than California -- probably goes faster, too).

It is claimed by the execution-minded that the death penalty is a deterrant to further crime. This might be true if the execution were to happen within a reasonable time of the crime -- if a murderer, for instance, could expect to hang within a month of being caught and tried. But 25 YEARS?

Tookie Williams had more entertainment and better treatment from the whole world in the last 26 years of his life, than he did in the first 26. I submit that punks with shotguns that think of Tookie's sentence are going to laugh and say: "Bring it on, man!"

The way courts operate nowadays, the deterrance value of capital punishment is nil, and the cost is exhorbitant.

On the other hand, life imprisonment without possibility of parole is a WORSE punishment than death by hanging/frying/injection. The aforementioned punk with shotgun, aged 19 or 25, might just stop and think about living behind bars and electric fences for 30, 40, 60 years.

It costs the State of California about $40,000 per year to lock up an inmate -- but that is $960,000 a year less than it costs to pay lawyers to ram through a capital punishment case. Offing murderers legally just ain't cost-effective.

There are other issues here, too -- those of Justice and Morality.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the criminal "justice" system in the United States is heavily and unjustly biased toward the police and prosecution. The recent spate of prisoners turned loose after 20 or 40 years behind bars for crimes they did not commit, and DNA evidence exculpating convicted "rapists" -- who didn't -- point up a real social problem.

It is very probable that we have executed not one, but several totally innocent people for crimes that they were framed for -- accused unjustly, and persecuted onto Death Row. American Jurisprudence is supposed to act on the principal of "Innocent until Proven Guilty" -- in actuality, it is more like "Guilty when accused, unless proven innocent by a high-priced lawyer." (By the way, it is no coincidence that most dialects of American English pronounce the words L*A*W*Y*E*R and L*I*A*R identically.)

Every year for the last 30 years, the FBI's statistical report on Crime in the US has shown that crime is _DE_creasing steadily. This is one of the judicially unintended consequences of Roe vs. Wade -- the young men who would be committing crimes in their late teens and 20s were simply never born.

The ideas of Nazi eugenics are alive and well -- in Planned Parenthood -- successfully this time. Given another half century, African-Americans will no longer be a measurable minority in the US.

Every year, for the past 30 years, the lawyers, the cops, the courts, and the media press their relentless campaign for MORE MONEY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT -- i.e. more tech toys to strip off what few civil liberties still exist. More money for more computers to collect data on every man, woman, and child. More money for the "War on Drugs".

It is fashionable now to hate, and to scream in public. Vengeance is mine, saith the persecuting attorney -- and the relatives of victims. The media encourages the screaming -- it makes good copy. Virtue and sobriety are boring.

It is immoral and depraved to rejoice at the death and suffering of another -- whatever the provocation.
Trumpeting over the execution of Tookie Williams is every bit the hyena's shreiking that marked the exaltation over the slaughter of David Pearl aired by al-Jazeerah. It is savagery and barbarism.

Catholic teaching supports capital punishment -- sort of. What it actually says is that it can be justified if no other way will serve to assure the safety of the public. In civilized countries (i.e. First World), one can be assured that a convicted criminal will serve his sentence, however long, and not simply be put back out in the street with an AK-47, as has been known to happen in some places. This leaves very little reason for any civilized country to continue with captial punishment.

The conscience of the Church -- notably led by the late Pope John Paul II -- is moving away from even the conditional approval which now prevails. It will move toward a complete opposition -- as it did towards slavery in the 19th Century.

So, there really remains no civilized, juridical, deterrent, or fiscal reason to continue the gruesome circus, where criminals are thrown to the ravening swine of the legal profession and the screaming jackals of the media, at taxpayer expense.

Enough, already!

"Churches" Closed On Christmas

2005-12-11T16:01:00.000-08:00

The recent news that several of the sorta-Protestant mega-churches have decided not to open on Christmas day, because "...it takes 800 volunteers to service..." just serves to reinforce my perception that they are not really Christian in any meaningful sense. What they are is a mass-marketing "feel-good" operation.

I suppose that, after about 4 generations (~100 years) of relentless commercialization, that the religious aspects of Christmas have all worn off, and the only thing left is the party. For the past 50 years that I can remember, every Holiday season, as regular as clockwork, there have been adjurations from the Pulpit to "Put Christ back in Christmas!" and pious deploring of the tendency to spell it "Xmas".

Perhaps we who believe in Christianity should simply give up, and celebrate the "Feast of the Incarnation" instead. The Orthodox -- and various sects of Protestant blue-nosed wowsers -- deplore the name "Easter" for the other major Christian Holy Day, and prefer "Pascha" -- the Hebrew/Greek/Latin term.

The Christams Feast is the celebration of the Incarnation -- the ineffable and transcendant God pouring himself into human form -- sharing our suffering and mortality. As the Nicene Creed says: "I believe...in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven. And was made flesh by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary and was made man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered, died, and was buried. And on the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and of His kingdom there shall be no end."

I don't know what kind of Gospel these mega-churches are preaching (if any), but obviously the concept of the Incaranation, and the clebration of it in communion with all the rest of Christendom is not a marketable concept. Which may help to explain the reported average stay in these churches by their target audience -- 18 months.

Crowd-pleasing whiz-bangs are amusing for about a year and a half,it seems, and then it's time to move on. And one has to admit that they are efficient machines for relieving their target audience from surplus cash -- if one credits the stories about senior "pastors" and 7-figure salaries, as well as their humongous edifices and high-tech audiovisual equipment.

I'm afraid I don't see Christ in these mega-money-machines -- only Elmer Gantry.

"Toxic Christianity"

2005-11-24T12:48:00.000-08:00

My great and good friend, Jeff Duntemann, used the phrase "Toxic Christianity" the other day, and it ocurred to me that it really ain't Christianity -- it's Calvinism, which is Manicheanism, with a bit of Satan-worship thrown in.

Manicheanism was an offshoot of Zoroastrianism, and shared its parent's dualistic ideas about the world -- that Good and Evil were evenly balanced in the world (equally real), and that Evil could win. This was a problem in the late 300s, and the 400s A.D., and got re-introduced into Western Christianity by Calvin. And elaborated and made more sadistic by Calvinists.

The 5 Points of Calvinism describe a god who is a capricious sadist, picking at random who will be saved or damned, despite whatever they may try to do. the first Point -- Total Depravity -- says that you're bad, you're doomed, and you deserve it. This is unalloyed Spiritual Sadism.

The fruit of this is hate of self, hate of others, and ultimately hate of God. So who wants us to hate God?

BINGO!!!

Thus my comment about a bit of Satan-worship.

What Jeff is describing as "Toxic Christiantiy" is Fun_DUH_mentalist literalism -- the halt and the blind, holding onto their Bah-buls as an anodyne to the pain of Future Shock. Technology and the culture are changing so fast that some people are developing PTS.

Geeks, of course, have the opposite problem: "Giddyap, Nellybelle! We gotta git movin!" But we are surfing down the leading edge of the technological Bell curve, hangin' ten over new ground.

They are falling backwards down the back edge, yelling for Jesus to save them from being totally useless. They are also the ones predicting the immanence of the Eschaton -- "The End Is Coming, And Soon!" Well, they are right about that, in a way -- _THEIR_ end is clearly in view. The world and humanity will go on.

There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and opinion polls.

Lately opinion polls have been showing that some moderately large (40+/-%) of Americans believe in some form or "Intelligent Design", and about the same declare themselves "Fundamentalists"

My reading of this is that most of them are very ordinary Christians, who believe what Christians have been believing all along, who are upset with the political and moral relativism, and outright violence and libertinism that have been glorified in the media and movies over the last 50 years. They want a little stability and safety -- but not at the cost of a vicious theocracy.

The tiny minority (2-3%) who DO want a theocracy are the ones I call Fun_DUH_mentalists -- usually with Calvinist theology -- who support Creationism and anti-scientific outloooks in general. They make more noise than all of the rest of Christianity put together, and give Evangelical Atheists a wonderful target to plink at.

They are excellent at guilt-tripping, and play upon the unease of the majority of conservative and buergerlich Christians, to push them into not actively opposing the craziness and sadistic paranoia that the lunatic Fundies espouse. Americans are used to feeling vaguely guilty -- these whackos make an art of stirring up acute guilt.

The proper response to these knuckle-draggin', Bah-bul worshippin' nutjobs, of course, is a horse-laugh. Whinny them back under their rocks with the other vermin.

"Ever-buddy's Owe-pin-yun . . .

2005-11-23T18:11:00.000-08:00

. . . is jus' as good as ever-buddy else's."

I have gotten this opinion from a wide variety of people, on a wide variety of subjects, from Evolution to Bible interpretation. It seems to be very common in the U.S. -- an expression of the ideal of universal equality that used to reign here. (Nowadays of course, there are several categories of people who are more equal than everybody else -- but I'll leave that discussion for another day).

Trouble is, it just ain't true.

Oh, if two people know most of what can be known about a subject, or know nothing at all about it, yeah, their opinions are one just as good as the other. In the latter case of course, their opinions are equally worthless.

The sort of uneducated Pithecanthropoid who maintains that "Evolution is just a theory" is the sort who comes up with with the "Ever-buddy..." argument -- and I recently ran into one of those. They show lack of knowledge about what science does and how it goes about it, as well as how one judges between opinions.

A scientific theory is a precise (or as precise as possible, given the data) description of how one corner of the Universe works, together with a set of testable propositions. The propositions are essentially questions that the scientist is asking of the Universe, and must be capable of being false. Propositions which are true under all circumstances are not useful for anything but elocution lessons ("The Rain in Spain Falls Mainly On The Plain")

The arguments I have seen on-line against Evolution all boil down to: "I don't think that's right, and my opinion is as good as yours." Factual arguments from this crowd are either risible or groaners -- "How can anybody be that dumb?!"

I admittedly do not read the peer-reviewed journals, so my opinion of the specific content of modern evolutionary models is less than stellar. I do read the general scientific press -- Science News, and occasional issue of Scientific American, and WWW.CNN.COM. Nothing I am seeing there contradicts the general idea of Evolution -- that living organisms on earth are the descendants of earlier organisms, and that one can validly reason that presently complicated (read: US) ones are descended from less complex ones in the past (Homo Faber, Homo Erectus, Pithecanthropus, Ramapithecus, etc.)

The philosophical roots of this idea lie in the science of geology in two ways:

1) The idea of Uniformitarianism -- that the geological processes we seen now are the same processes that prevailed in the past, and that the type of rocks and sediments being laid down now are the same as were laid down by the same processes in the past (e.g. the process of limnification, which lays down limestone in the bed of lakes .) We see some instances of catastrophic change in the geologic column, and continental drift has recycled much of the Earth's early crust through volcanoes, but in general, the processes are steady and continuous.

2) It is this very steadiness which gives us the means to assign relative or absolute dates to objects found entombed in various sorts of rock. Merely by noting layers, we can assign relative dates to two objects found at different depths in the column. With modern radionucleide analysis, we can often give approximate (within a reasonably well-understood margin of error) absolute dates, Cross-correlating dates given by different tests (Radiocarbon dating and dendro-chronology, for instance), we can be much surer of their accuracy. We ask Nature the same question in different ways, and look at what kind of answers we get.

Now, as to the Evolution of humans, we do not find evidence of anything that looks like us more than a half million years ago. We do find things that look a little like us, and a little like our cousins the chimpanzees (except that they stand upright). Between 50 and 100,000 years ago, we begin seeing evidence of organisms that look a lot like us (Homo Neanderthalensis, Homo Faber, some early Homo Sapiens). From about 20,000 years ago, we don't find any (even Neanderthal) cousins closer that the Chimpanzee, Gorilla, and Orangutang. We seem to have out-competed or killed off our hominid cousins.

Genetics, too, give us answers that accord with the idea of Evolution. Similar-looking organisms have similar genetic structures. Having recently decoded the human genome, as well as that of the chimpanzee, we are within a very few years of being able to specify exactly which genes control the aspects of our bodies that differentiate us from the chimps.

Similarly, well-informed estimates of the rate at which mutations occur allow us to estimate how long ago we diverged from our cousins the Great Apes -- the current figure is somewhere in the vicinity of 5 million years ago. I.e. the nearest common ancestor of humans and chimps lived about 5,000,000 years ago. At that point in the geological record, we do not find evidence of either modern humans or modern chimps, but of organisms that might be ancestral to both.

Scientifically, we have evidence of Uniformitarian processes -- things happening now, that were happening as far back as we can see. We have (admittedly spotty) evidence of a series of increasingly human-like organisms from several million years back. We have the evidence of genetics, which shows how closely related we are with, other living things, past and present.

All of which adds up to consistent evidence of the evolution of modern man.

None of the competing ideas (Creationism, "Intelligent Design") deal with the range and specificity of evidence which supports Evolution. None of them present data or hypotheses which can be tested, and none of them are falsifiable. They are simple, circular tautologies.

Science is a process of careful and methodical experimentation, theorizing, and presenting evidence for testing by one's peers. "Peers" are people who have studied the subject at least as deeply as the scientist presenting evidence has -- and their opinions of the matter are of value.

People who have _NOT_ studied a given subject do not have useful or valid opinions on it. PhD Geologists and astronomers are not allowed to make random comments about biological results, and vice-versa. Certain noted scientists need to be reminded of this occasionally -- people pontificating outside their own specialties are as silly as redneck semi-illiterates doing the same.

As between a competent scientist and a ranting redneck Creationist, there is no doubt which I will choose.

Geek Bishop

2005-10-19T17:23:00.000-07:00

Jeff Duntemann referred to me as "perhaps the world's only genuine geek bishop" in a post today -- and y'know, I think he's right. On IRC, I have a pop-up that I fire off whenever anyone expresses surprise that I work for a living:

"Since Old Catholic Parishes are small, and cannot support a priest, I work as a UNIX Tech Support Engineer to support my clerical habit."

This usually gets a grin. I take myself a good deal less than seriously -- although my mission as a clergyman I do take very, very seriously. Much to the confusion of the genuine "big-O" Orthodox who occasionally wander into the chat room I run on DALnet (#oldcatholic, natch), the Topic is:

"Geek Orthodox Chapel of St. Michael the Archangel, Destroyer of All Bugs"

I often have to explain: "No, not 'Greek', -- _GEEK_'!"

Explication of the rest is left as an exercise for the reader.

========================================

Spoiler: What follows is long and intricate -- you are hereby absolved from having to read it.

=========={Begin Long Explanation}===========

Old Catholicism is widespread in the US -- you can find one or more of us in most large towns and cities. It is a small movement -- it is said (with some justice) that the average Old Catholic cngregation consists of 3 bishops, two priests, and an altar boy who will be ordained a priest next Tuesday.

There are several large groups -- St. Matthew's in Orange, CA; Christ the King in Aurora, CA, St. Mark's in Louisville, KY; and Our Lady of Guadelupe (IIRC) in St. Petersburg FL; Holy Angels in Milwaukee, WI. The theological outlook of the various groups varies from very conservative to wildly liberal. I am conservative theologically and liturgically, but I have read and thought about the Documents of Vatican II, and I find a great deal of value there. (Anybody trying to sell you snake oil labeled "Spirit of Vatican II" is one of them flamin' liberals, who ignores what the Documents actually say.)

How do we relate to Rome? Distantly -- we exist because of a jusrisdictional -- political -- fight in the 1st quarter of the 18th Century between Rome and the See of Utrecht. For various political reasons, Rome wanted to impose their tame German Bishop on Utrecht, who had had the right to elect their bishop for about 1,000 years. The Dutch wouldn't have him. When the Dutch (Protestant) Government declined to become involved (they laughed), Rome went away mad, and ignored Holland for a century or so -- then sent in Jesuits to establish new parishes and dioceses without reference to the existing Church. Various efforts were made up until Vatican I to heal the breach -- but Rome was simply not interested.

We have managed to retain the Apostolic Succession as it is understood in both Rome and Constantinople, and Rome agrees about the validity of our Orders and Sacraments -- but views us as "illicit" (not under obedience to Rome) and "schismatic" (Not in Communion -- as the Orthodox are not).

The present-day Old Catholic See of Utrecht has been in Communion with the Anglican Church (Canterbury) since 1930, and has followed them in matters theological and ecclesiological -- including ordaining women. American Old Catholic bodies are _NOT_ in communion with Utrecht, due to a disagreement in 1910, and due to the attitude of the Polish National Catholic Church from 1930 to 1975. They took the attitude that THEY were the only real Old Catholics in the US, and blocked any other groups from entering into Communion.

The PNCC is no longer in communion with Utrecht, over the issue of ordaining women, but cannot rejoin Rome, because they have ex-Roman priests who married, whom they will not abandon, and Rome will not accept. The Utrecht Union has formally recognized the split, and voted the PNCC out when they weren't present to object.

Given the calamitous drop in religious membership in Europe, there are probably more Old Catholic bishops in the US than there are Old Catholic parishioners in The Netherlands.

=========={End Long Explanantion}==========

My ministry is very Geeky -- I talk to people on IRC, maintain several Web sites now & then, and a discussion list -- if you are interested in any of that, email me at BpSam@am-cath.org.

Federal judge declares Pledge unconstitutional

2005-09-14T13:55:00.000-07:00

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/14/pledge.ruling.ap/index.html

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

As may be obvious, I am less than pleased with this ruling. It is simply another attempt to impose by judicial fiat a coercive requirement to reject God.

The attempt is being made to establish Atheism as THE required religion of the United States, something not contemplated (indeed forbidden) by the Founders of the country. The documents of the people who wrote the Constitiution contain regular and repeated references to God -- admittedly mostly to the "absentee watchmaker" god of Deism, but God references nonetheless.

I can remember when "under God" was added to the Pledge -- I had to re-learn it -- and to some extent, I still think that the older version is "The Way It Outta Be(tm)". ;-)

Atheism is a religion, just as Christianity is -- in the sense of making unprovable metaphysical statements about the makeup of the Universe. Christianity affirms that there is a God, although non-material, and non-observable in a physical sense. There is no logical or rational proof of God's existence.

There is likewise no logical or rational proof of God's non-existence -- only a bald metaphysical denial.

The only defensible logical and rational position is agnosticism -- which observes that no logical proofs exist, own way or the other, and declines to make any metaphysical statement whatever.

Recent graduates of what I call "The Little Atheists' School" tend to prate about "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

Balderdash, for two reasons:

1) That is a very recent claim -- first uttered by Carl Sagan, I think.

2) Seen historically (the last 5,000 years or so, since the beginning of writing), atheism is the "Extraordinary Claim" -- theism of some sort has been (and for that matter, still is) the default position of most of humanity.

Absence of proof is in no way proof of absence. All that can be concluded is that no proof exists. And you cannot reason from that premise to anything useful.

I refuse to engage in "prove God" debates -- as a matter of fact, I have had Evangelical Atheists scream obscenites at me because i told them that I would not even begin to try to prove God, until they showed their willingness to prove the opposite. They consider that unfair tactics.

I consider using a rhetorical trick (which the "prove God" challenge is) unfair. The unstated premises behind the "prove God" trick are:

1) God needs to be proved logically.

2) God needs to be proved to the satisfaction of the Evangelical Atheist pulling the trick.

3) No possible answer will ever satisfy said E.A., because of.

4) The hidden (and denied, but obvious) metaphysical assertion in the background that no God exists.

Unfortunately, many Fun_DUH_mentalists do not grasp the falsity of Items 1 & 2, and the essential mendacity of Item 3, and froth on for hours, attempting to use Bible verses to bash the E.A.into aquiescence, the way they do others of their own ilk. Evangelical Atheists can derive hours of pleasure from thus torturing Fundies. For the record, it also amuses me, but I occasionally will take up rhetorical cudgels in defense of the simple-minded, and give E.A.s a bad time about their game.

So what is my solution for the Pledge Problem?

Simple -- let tham as object, say the Pledge in its original form, and keep silent during the "under God part. I.e. Be polite, and don't scream in other peoples' faces.

Is that too much to ask?

Why Katrina?

2005-09-03T13:22:00.000-07:00

Bill Leaming wrote:

I think that the devastation called "Hurricane Katrina"
fits in well with the concept of Pride and Humility. When we mutter "There,
but for the grace of God, go I." what are we *really* saying? Are we
exhibiting pride of humility? It has always seemed to me that such a
statement--just as when we hear a siren and pray that it not be our
family, home or friends for whom it sounds--that we are acting not in
humility toward Holy God, but in a form of true "pride". "Not me Lord,
not me" denotes that it should, then, be someone else.

Hurricane Katrina -- where is God?

From the time Hurricane Katrina took its deadly turn toward the Gulf
coast we may have found ourselves asking, "Where is God in all this?"
That question may be especially poignant now as our minds are full of
pictures of devastation, of struggling survivors, of the possibility
of thousands of deaths, and of the inability of the authorities to
do much to help.

What follows reflects on my own struggle to comprehend the devastation
that is before us in the context of my own faith. You are free to disagree
with my conclusions. As always, please feel free to post comments.

1. God does not send hurricanes. For some, it is easier to believe that
God sends hurricanes and the associated devastation than to believe that
God is not in control of all things. What they don't understand is that
God IS in control of all things, but that God gifted creation with free-will.
I believe that the interaction of Nature's freewill with humanity's freewill
is the base cause of such natural disasters. While I understand that impulse
to believe, I cannot agree with the concept that God is the cause of such
things. Not now. Nor do I agree that God was somehow angry with New Orleans
and Biloxi and smote them in anger. That's not the God I know or believe in.

2. God likewise does not prevent hurricanes and similar disasters. Natural
disasters - as opposed to those caused by us humans - are a part of the
created universe. Hurricanes are a part of the same sunlight and water
engine that makes all life possible to begin with.

3. At this point our human pain and disappointment enter the equation.
We expect a loving God to prevent the kind of human devastation we are
witnessing. Doesn't God care that so many have died, that so many are
suffering? Yes. But the clear evidence is that God does not prevent
such things a priori. That's just one of those things that we have to
accept as true, based on the evidence. It's at this point that some
will get off and stop believing in God.

4. Our human disappointment does not drive God's agenda. I believe that
God has an agenda, and that God's agenda is centered around the ultimate
redemption and restoration of all things. I believe that God's redemptive
and restoring purpose is already at work in our world. But that's a different
thing from believing that God's purpose is to prevent us from experiencing
hurt or disappointment or devastation.

5. In fact our own agenda is a part of the problem. I need to be careful
here, because I don't in any way want to say that Hurricane Katrina and
its aftermath were in any way the fault of its victims. What I want to
do instead is suggest that our own desires become a part of our picture
of God and our picture of God's purpose; and to further suggest that now
may be a good time to adjust that picture.

6. We too easily assume that we're entitled to comfort and security and
happiness. If we believe in God, then God may in our own minds become the
guarantor of this entitlement. Think for a moment about gasoline prices.
Ours here have just climbed to over $3.00/gallon (which is nowhere near
what the price is in other places, by the way). Why is God letting this
happen to us? Our lifestyle is built, so to speak, on the oil standard.
Likewise the increase in oil prices may lead to a recession, which will
hamper our lifestyle and make things financially difficult for most of us
and this will include the Church - voluntary giving simply dries up during
a recession. Difficult as it is to swallow our disappointment now may be
the time to reconsider our concept of happiness and security as well as
our ideas about what God's job is.

7. There's also the matter of our own control over our destiny. A disaster
of the scale of this one demonstrates that no matter how powerful or flush
with resources we are there are some things we can't handle. It will be
weeks or months before the situation west of us can be stabilized.
There is doubt in some quarters about whether New Orleans can in fact be
rebuilt, or whether it should be. We're watching the sheer number of refugees,
and those still alive but awaiting rescue, simply overwhelm every attempt
to meet the need. That hurts our pride - but it also puts us back in our
place. We are not, after all, omniscient, all-powerful. Accepting that
may help us adjust or renew our relationship with God.

8. Though Katrina and its aftermath is primarily a natural disaster it does
raise some justice issues. And justice issues are faith issues. The hardest
hit, and the least able to evacuate, were the poor of the Gulf Coast, including
Louisiana and Mississippi. The jump in oil prices will make some rich while
others suffer. In the midst of our dismay and devastation we get a sobering
look at who we are and what's important to us. And a chance to advocate for
justice in the tradition of the prophets and, most especially, of Jesus himself.

9. In God's world the best tonic for bitter disappointment and helplessness is
to do something helpful and useful. I'm not an advocate of the theology that
says that we are God's only hands and feet; it seems to me that that leaves too
little in God's hands. But I am clear that people of faith have an absolute
mandate to accomplish the Acts of Mercy, both Corporal and Spiritual. We will
not be able to meet every need or solve every problem that comes our way - far
from it. That's not even our job. Our job is to do those things that are at
hand, trusting finally in things that are beyond ourselves.

We're here for a moment in time and then we're gone. Why waste one second on
self-pity, frustration, irritation, and all the rest?

"The healthy do not know how the sick feel, nor the full how the hungry suffer.
But sick sympathize with sick, and hungry with hungry, the more closely the
more they are alike. For just as pure truth is seen only with a pure heart, so a
brother's misery is truly felt only with a miserable heart." St. Bernard of
Clavirvaux (1090-1153)

Bill

What Bill said . . .

A marvelously adult view of catastrophe and devastation.

The Orthodox do not subscribe to Augustine of Hippo's idea of Original Sin (a sin inherited from Adam), but see his sin as a breaking of the original unity between God and man. With Adam's sin, the perfection of God's Creation was sundered, and death and destruction entered into the world. God did not create evil and suffering -- we did. And it is our selfishness and illusions which maintain them.

God does, indeed, want all creation to return to him, to that primordial Unity and Glory -- and our job in this life is to work toward that, both within ourselves, and in the outside world. We need to see how oour own selfishness and comfort-seeking can and does harm others -- exporting pollution, among other things -- as well as working to help others in their time of need.

The Christian ideal is: "Not I, but Christ in me" -- which calls for a radical humility, but an ACTIVE one, not a passive one. We cannot simply tend to our own spirituality and faith -- crying "Lord, Lord" and expecting salvation for merely believing. We must be the ones who DO the will of the Father.

Good deeds do not automatically flow from "faith" -- but must be actively chosen and followed up on. There is no magic formula of a "Beleiver's Prayer" that will assure heaven -- we need to "labor in the sweat of our brow" to re-establish the harmony broken by Adam's (indeed each one of our's) sin.

Prayer and the sacraments are no less part of the work of repairing that Breach. They lifto us aout of our everyday, limited individual lives, and put us in direct contact with the Universal, the Timeless, the Transcendant. In prayer we reach out to God -- to know and feel His will for us and His Presence, His Glory.

In the Eucharist, God enters into us -- as He promised -- and fills us with His Grace. If we can but open ourselves -- relinquish our selfishness and egoism, that Grace can do marvellous things.

+Sam'l

Unintelligent Design

2005-08-31T18:04:00.000-07:00

Kansas is at it again.

*SIGH*

Creationists really _ARE_ evidence of Evolution -- how else would one know that Pithecanthropus Erectus had survived into modern times?

A nice antidote:

Church of the FSM

;-)

I remember 19 cent-a-gallon gas . . .

2005-08-23T11:35:00.000-07:00

. . . but that was almost 50 years ago, Since then, everybody has been bitching about how expensive gas is.

In the last couple of months (July and August 2005), the price of gas has gone over $3/gal. I'm making good money, so the price doesn't bother my budget, even if it does bother my German stinginess. I grant that it DOES hurt people who are living at the poverty level, and do need to get to work to earn the few bucks that keep them away from the manipulative nastiness of the Welfare system.

Gas costs over $6/gal. in Europe -- double what it does here -- and the costs of raw material and refining are pretty much the same. Love those European taxes!

Having executed the obligatory gripe about taxes and corproate greed (Stranded Oil & Friends are _NOT_ suffering!), I really want to talk about other sources of energy. Being a Science Fiction buff for about half a century now, one of the things that intrigues me is Fusion Power.

My memory (somewhat leaky around the edges) tells me that roughly every 5 years since 1960, the physics establishment has been saying that we would have on-line fusion power in about 10 years. Well, it didn't happen in 1970 (we could have used it htat year); nor in 1980; nor in 1990; nor in 2000 -- and not n 2005, that I can discover.

Wottinell happened to it? We dropped major change into building Tokamaks -- Russian designed magnetic confinement -- and gigabucks into Lasers -- American-designed inertial confinement. There aren't even any commercial pilot programs that I can discover, for making that Fusion energy that we have been promised faithfully for the last 45 years or so.

I am a little suspicious, in that I haven't heard anything in the last frew years -- have we abandoned it altogether? Are we going to continue to rely on a scarce natural resource that pollutes the air, warms up the planet, and funds terrorism?

A couple of years ago, somebody opined that gas would have to get over $4/gal before American driving habits would change appreciably. If that would get the government and the energy establishment (Stranded Oil...) off thier collective fundaments, maybe we should look forward to it.

Anything that would allow us to tell Hugo Chavez and the various oil magnates world-wide to take their greasy kid stuff and . . . eat it . . . would be a blessing for the whole world. So:

C'mon Fusion! (Hot or Cold :)

I got an email . . .

2005-08-22T13:41:00.000-07:00

I have a very simple solution to the entire Cindy Sheehan affair.

Let her meet with the President.

That's right. I've finally changed my tune.

Let her meet with the President who thwarted the United Nations Security Council and made the case for war.

Let her meet with the President who hindered the progress of United Nations weapons inspectors.

Let her meet with the President who lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction that they'd use on Americans.

Let her meet with the President who killed thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.

Let her meet with the President who came to office in a rigged election, and maintained his grip on power through rigged voting and militaristic patriotism.

Let her meet with the President who turned his country's media into a mouthpiece for his fascist and discriminatory policies.

Let her meet with the President who transformed his country into a single-party dictatorship, sowing fear and resentment against any who dared to oppose his iron-fisted rule.

Let her meet with the President who proved himself a coward by fleeing when his country was attacked.

Let her meet with the President who should be brought up on war crimes charges for his dastardly misdeeds.

Let her meet with the President who spent billions of dollars on weapons while social welfare programs went unfunded and the poor continue to suffer for it to this day.

Let her meet with the President who has a track record of invading Arab Muslim countries for oil.

Let her meet with the President who knew full well about the bloodthirsty torture and murderous horrors at Abu Ghraib.

That's right. Let her meet with Saddam Hussein. (Attributed to Laurence Simon)

R.I.P. Brother Roger of Taize

2005-08-17T10:53:00.000-07:00

The 90+ year-old founder of the Protestant monastic movement in Taize (a town near Lyon, France) was assassinated about 12 hours ago, reportedly by a knife-weilding Romanian woman, who is being held for questioning.

Taize and Brother Roger are of enormous significance in the religious world -- they are the re-discovery of monasticism, the total dedication of life to the Lord -- by Protestantism. Bypassing all of the clever slogans and liberal revisionism, as well as the Fun_DUH_mentalist oddities of the last century, the Taize folk returned to the wellspings of Christian piety -- and generated beautiful music while they were about it -- which sounds to my untutored ear uncommonly like Gregorian Chant.

Interestingly, as of 12 hours after the assassination, no mention is being made of it on the major news outlets -- CNN, Fox News, or Reuters -- on-line editions. Alone of the majors, the BBC has an article on it. I think this says a great deal about what contemporary journalism thinks is "news".

All three have top-to-mid-page headlines about the sentencing of the BTK killer -- who richly deserves to be ignored, and nothing about one of the towering religious figures of the last century. Hunter S. Thompson would have approved. Pfeh!

= = =

Let us then lift Brother Roger up onto our altars, and praise him as one of the heroes of our time for bringing a Christian ideal out of the dungeons of 500 years of Protestant rejection, and enlightening the lives of hundreds of thousands in the midst of a very dark century. Old Catholics have no formal bureacracy for examining and proclaiming saints, so we fall back on the ancient practice of the Church, still followed by Orthodoxy, of proclaiming and acclaiming worthy people.

Let us pray the Lord, that he take Brother Roger swiftly and gloriously into His Presence, and the presence of all the Saints in heaven.

Islamic Reformation?

2005-08-11T18:32:00.000-07:00

In today's news, Salmon Rushdie is quoted as saying:

"...the insistence within Islam" that the Quran "is the infallible, uncreated word of God renders analytical scholarly discourse all but impossible" and the rigidity "plays right into the hands of the literalist Islamofascists."

I certainly agree with him there.

"If, however, [the Quran] were seen as a historical document, then it would be legitimate to reinterpret it to suit the new conditions of successive new ages. Laws made in the 7th century could finally give way to the needs of the 21st. The Islamic Reformation has to begin here, with an acceptance that all ideas, even sacred ones, must adapt to altered realities."

I am not usre I agree with him about "must be adapted to altered (secular) realities", however.

We have seen this "adaptation" in the West, and the result is lack of any firm belief in anything, a religious relativism that fades into mere niceness and saccharine sentimentality. "Ecumenism" has come to mean "Let's see how little we can get away with believing."

What Islam needs is a commitment to the world, and to the individual -- to focus the fire of the faith on justice and compassion for each person -- for all of mankind, not just "My brother, my cousin, my tribe, my country, my religion." There is certainly enough positive content in the Quran, to justify a community of justice, education, and interllectual ferment -- as there is negativity to bind them into the satanic tribalism of what Rushdie calls the "Islamofascists" and I would call "Bandits".

Islamic civilization reached its apex in the Caliphate of Haroun al-Rashid in about 800 A.D. Science and literary endeavor reached hights as grand or grander than Classical antiquity. Politically, Haroun and Charlemagne played a game of "Bait the Byzantine Bear" -- when one would be threatened by Constantinople, the other would start trouble on his border, to that the bear could not concentrate its force on either.

Reading the life of Haroun himself, however, reveals that he was as much of a small-minded impulsive barbarian as Charlemagne's sons and grandsons proved to be. He slaugheterd family and courtiers right and left, in fits of adolescent pique. He also set the pattern for islamic despots to this day.

Shortly after Haroun's death, Islamic culture petrified -- the Islamic Universtity at Cairo announced in 932 A.D. that all possible interpretations of the Quran had been issued. Admittedly, Islam was still well ahead of Europe both technically and politically, and stayed that way for half a millennium.

In the years from 932 to the Battle of Lepanto, in 1571, the West developed the idea of allegiance and duty to entities larger than a family or tribe, and took advantage of the industrial and military force which that greater allegiance made possible. Despite individual heroics and occasional genius, Islaic armies have never stood against Western armies in the long run.

Places like the Barbary States lasted as long as they did, because European powers were busy fighting each other, and did not have the time or energy. The comparatively puny United States managed to break their power in the early 19th Century with a few frigates and several companies of Marines.

Islam is badly in need of a Calif -- a Commander of the Faithful -- who will lead them, not into the darkness of 7th-Century bedouin banditry (which is what bin Laden is seeking, after all), but toward the light of the stars -- the 21st and later Centuries. Western science and technology are at the point -- and $66/bbl oil today (11 Aug 2005) is one of the economic forces driving it -- of developing alternative energy sources. The higher the price of oil, the sooner that fusion (or whatever) will come on line.

So here is the dilemma that the 21st Century Mahdi faces: either bring his people joyfully and fruitfully into the 21st Century, or see them descend back into squalor, sitting on oil no one wants.

So what am I doing?

2005-08-03T22:35:00.000-07:00

Having delivered myself of some crankiness (warned ya), I figure I should let you-all know what I'm really up to.

I'm working on a book -- tentative title: "Your Metaphysics is Too Small"

The basic idea is that the metaphysics that Christianity has been using since the Year One is that of Aristotle (with a bit of Platonism here & there). It essentially describes the world as being 3-1/2 dimensional (up/down; left/right; in/out -- and one direction [forward] of time). This metaphysics also carries over into Science, and definitely into the Weltanschauung of the "rational humanists" (who are often devotees of Scientism).

Modern Physics talks about up to 11 spatial dimensions, in order to make things work. If we look carefully at the traditional language used to describe God, there are hints that He must be at least a 5-dimensional being, if not a 12-dimensional one. What I plan to do is to work out a metaphysics that describes the world in a manner that science will be comfortable with, and which has room for God -- even if it does not give a recipe for how to _become_ God.

As part of this effort, I am also going to be taking a close look at Aristotelian Logic -- specifically his "Law of the Excluded Mean." What that says is that a proposition may be true or false, but nothing in between. Or that something may be good or bad, but nothing in between.

This is intuitively and obviously false, to every adult person. Binary logic is easy to work with, and children of a certain age love it. It does not, however, adequately describe the real world.

The only propositions whose truth or falsity we can determine unambiguously are trivial ones. On even cursory analysis, every interesting or important proposition reveals itself as a congeries of smaller propositions, each with its own truth-value, or importance. Carried far enough, the analysis will reach simple (and trivial) propositions -- but not necessarily in a finite amount of time.

Having reached the uttermost levels of trivial truth/falsity, it is not obvious how to get back to the original proposition -- and make a useful decision. One of the ways proposed to handle this gaping hole in logic is "Fuzzy Logic" -- to give propositions a real number between 0 and 1 to indicate their truth values.

If one can calculate how "true" (or fast, or important) something we are interested in is, then we have a fighting chance to make a useful decision, without squeezing everything into an artificial duality. It also avoids the problem of being cornered into choosing between two equally unpleasant conclusions -- i.e. we get a "None Of The Above" choice, and can back it up with a consistent logic.

Another viewpoint is that of Buddhist Logic -- which says that, in addition to "True" and "False", there are two more possible truth values: "Neither True nor False" and "Both True and False" In the case of a flipped coin, we usually think that it has two states: Heads or Tails. Actually, it has 4: The two usual ones, which are far and away the most common; the case where the coin lands on its edge, without falling over -- which is equivalent to "Both True and False"; The case where a magpie (who like shiny things) flies by just as the coin goes in the air, grabs it and flies away -- equivalent to "Neither True nor False".

I will frankly admit that I am a conservative and traditionalist Old Catholic clergyman, and that what I am doing is trying to formulate a metaphysical possition that will make sense of God and mankind's relation to Him in language acceptable to modern people. History has shown that, by and large, Aristotelian metaphysics no longer enlightens or uplifts modern, educated people.

Whether I succeed, I will leave tot he judgment of the reader, when the thing gets published.

Emotional Blackmail

2005-08-01T19:35:00.000-07:00

I just got bit (in another forum) by a schtick that enrages me -- a snotty putdown intended to silence me, because something I said would offend someone (often the poster, equally often some other party). It is always delivered with a smug superiority, implying that I am some sort of crude barbarian for not paying sufficient heed to the feelings of someone else. Got news for everybody -- I _AM_ a crude barbarian when it comes to that sort of thing.

What this is, is a not-so-subtle form of emotional blackmail -- it is seen in full flower in 4 & 5 year olds: "Don' thay that - I don' wike it!" or "I won't like you if you do/say that." Over the last 25 or 30 years it has risen up the ranks to adults who should know better. It is not an argument with any sort of intellectual or logical sense behind it -- it is sheer, petulant emotion, and one can almost see the extruded lower lip.

If you want to argue with what I have to say -- cool -- let's go. If you want to try to whine me into submission to Politically Correct nonsense, expect to be insulted.

Getting started

2005-07-21T23:47:00.000-07:00

My friend Jeff Dunteman ( http://www.duntemann.com/Diary.htm ) asked me why I didn't have a blog
I replied that I was too lazy.
He said "Hmmmmm."

So I thought about it a bit, and here I am.

I won't claim to be regular about posting -- I may post a whole lot some weeks, and only a bit others. I hope to stay interesting.

Sam'l B.