Der Krieg gegen die Weihnachten (War on Christmas)

When I was younger, I was constantly told that my faith was attacked by being greeted with "Happy Holidays". Likewise, the lack of Christmas cups at Starbucks, or signs without specific wishes for Christmas were all signs of my persecution. Psalms 2:2 would come to mind: "The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the LORD and against his anointed..." These were all signs of the nearby return. How could they not be? 
Later, as I learned a bit more about Christianity, and saw my perspectives in context, I realized how anemic, pathetic and whiny my interpretation of Christianity was. 
People died, were tortured, raped and psychologically tormented, because of Christianity, while I only purchased an expensive coffee without my preference of greeting. How pathetic, weak, sensitive and delusional  American Christianity has become. We must realize that this is NOT persecution, and should repent for ever thinking it to be as such. We live in the most free nation in history, and cannot get over our bratty preference for certain cups, plays or greetings. Do you not realize that no one cares? And no one should! Some have even criticized millennials for their (our) sensitivities. Those complaints might be right, but one must keep in mind that this was taught from American Christianity.    
If you complain about these trivial things, you ought to be ashamed. Christ died on a cross, with humiliation, pain and compassion, but you, you self-righteous, spineless, entitled, spawn of effeminate perversion of Christianity,  cannot handle the luxury of spiced, sweet drinks that only lack in catering to your perverse understanding of what it is to be a Christian! Do you not realize that you are drinking something you already do not deserve? Appreciate that you have enough to waste on superfluities, rather than complain about how others "aren't supportive enough". Does Christianity, a religion so ancient that it has outlasted the most violent of empires, need a "safe space" at Starbucks. Does Christianity, whose earliest leaders died from violence, need to have its hand held by baristas? The answer is a hearty NO! Christianity needs neither that, nor us. We are called to be servants of Christ, and not to be served. 
-Steven C 

A Re-post

Once again, I felt that this is worth posting. Our nation, for reasons I suspect are inevitable, has problems with race and identity. This is on both sides, right and left. Jacobin magazine, a far left magazine, made this brilliant analysis of "New Atheism" and its racist tendencies, disguised in religious opposition. (Here is the link.)
This small piece of the read is worth posting, but the whole thing is engaging and worth reading:

The politics of the leading New Atheist thinkers are not uniform. Dawkins opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, while Hitchens was one of its leading apologists. Harris defends torture as an ethical necessity in the “war on terror” while Hitchens, who was voluntarily subjected to waterboarding, did not. Both Hitchens and Harris have been prone to bellicose outbursts of violent, almost bloodthirsty rhetoric, which cannot be said of Dawkins.Nevertheless, all are united by several common intellectual threads. Each espouses a binary worldview that pits a civilized, cosmopolitan, and progressive West against a barbaric, monistic, and reactionary East. Though varied in their political positions, Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins have all had very public dalliances with the Right, expressing either overt sympathy for, or enthusiastic endorsement of, some of its most vile and disreputable elements.Each is outwardly a cultural liberal who primarily addresses liberal audiences — “respectable” to blue-state metropolitans and their equivalents elsewhere in ways Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh never could be — while embracing positions and causes that are manifestly illiberal in the commonly understood sense of the term.Beneath its many layers of intellectual adornment — the typical New Atheist text is laden with maudlin references to Darwin, Newton, and Galileo — we find a worldview intimately familiar to anyone who has studied the language of empires past: culturally supremacist, essentializing and othering towards the foreign, equal parts patronizing and paternalistic, and legitimating of the violence committed for its own ends.In The End of Faith Harris suggests that nuclear-first strikes may be necessary if the ostensible conflict between “Islam” and “civilization” escalates: “What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry?…The only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own.”In an endorsement of one of the Iraq War’s key justifying logics, Harris described it as a noble and selfless crusade undertaken by the civilized West to defeat Islamic barbarism. In late 2004, he wrote in the Washington Post, “civilized human beings [Westerners] are now attempting, at considerable cost to themselves, to improve life for the Iraqi people.”

A Thought Provoking Post

This is from the Jesus Blog. Professor Anthony Le Donne makes a thought provoking post about Post-Trump political consciousness. I, too, have been cautious to make parallels to the rise of Hitler with Trump's rise, but this gives a clearer view in Christian participation. Please note that I don't think Trump is the new Hitler, but there is something extremely disturbing about Trump to me. I remember President Obama's first win, and I thought he was the anti-Christ (my biblical understanding was pathetic at best), but I don't think that way any more. I am, however, more concerned with Trump than I was with Obama. Though I don't consider myself in the "left", I agree with a lot of Professor Le Donne's sympathies. The post is here, but I posted the whole thing on this post.

Post-Trump Political Consciousness

I have been vocal about my opposition to Mr. (now President Elect) Trump. There are lists and lists of reasons why I believe he is unfit to be president. Some of these are directly related to the teachings of Jesus. I am committed to try to love my neighbor and even my enemies wherever it is possible. But my prime motivation for opposing Trump isn't directly related to Jesus. It is because I've spent the last two years studying the actions and inactions of Christians during the rise of Hitler.

Mr. Trump's rise to power is not similar to Hitler's rise to power in every respect. But the two have enough in common that I cannot deny the parallels. I realize that I break one of my own rules in saying so. I usually try to avoid bringing the Shoah or Hitler into any discussion that isn't primarily about the Shoah or Hitler. Still, if I am honest, comparisons to Hitler ran through my head as I canvassed and voted for Secretary Clinton last week.

I don't suppose that the following will be compelling to Trump supporters; I'm just explaining how and why I voted. My political consciousness connects historical moments, draws analogies, and see particular personality types. I think that one of my Jewish friends said it best when he told me, "It may not be appropriate to say that Trump is Hitler. But I am going to do my best to act like a righteous gentile living in 1933 Berlin."

Now let me point out a few key similarities and differences between 2015-16 America and 1930s Germany. Both settings manifest a perceived cultural crisis. Germany's crisis was exacerbated by the failure of the Weimar Republic and the great economic depression of the post-WWI period. People were hungry, felt trapped, and looked for a particular source of the problem and blamed a people who represented the "problem." Centuries of hatred toward Jewish people and (caricatures of) Jewish ideas were easily exploitable. Christians played a large part in this collective hatred. Nazi ideology was not Christian. But there was a concerted effort to manipulate the populace using theologically motivated hatred. In other words, the Nazis trafficked in the currency of hate minted by centuries of Christian anti-Judaism. Through various (sometime innovative) media strategies, National Socialism fanned a very old prejudice.

Apart from media manipulation, xenophobia, and Christian culpability, today's America and 1930's Germany are worlds apart. America might be experiencing economic stagnation, but our "crisis" looks altogether different than 1930s Germany. Another difference: Mr. Trump will not have the power to enact the domestic policies he has promised (at least not right away). But he will have all of the power afforded to the Commander-in-Chief when it comes to foreign policy. Hitler did not have nuclear capabilities, but President Trump will. So the parallels with Trump and Hitler are limited because of context.

What then is the American "crisis" that made a Trump candidacy viable? First, there is a key racial element that is unseen (I hope) by most Trump supporters. This article is very revealing and well worth a read if you are curious about the massive upturn in white voters from rural America. I would also recommend this book to understand how and why evangelicals contribute to racial fault lines in America. And this book if you want to understand why significant segments of the white populace fear a loss of culture.

Second, we have witnessed a steady but disturbing decline in political consciousness. I'm not certain about millennials and I don't want to put baby boomers on a pedestal, but us GenX folks have been egregiously uninvolved. I agree entirely with this assessment by Michael Rosenblum:

Donald Trump is going to be elected president. The American people voted for him a long time ago. They voted for him when The History Channel went from showing documentaries about the Second World War to “Pawn Stars” and “Swamp People.” They voted for him when The Discovery Channel went from showing “Lost Treasures of the Yangtze Valley” to “Naked and Afraid.” They voted for him when The Learning Channel moved from something you could learn from to “My 600-lb Life.” They voted for him when CBS went from airing “Harvest of Shame” to airing “Big Brother.” These networks didn’t make these programming changes by accident. They were responding to what the American people actually wanted. And what they wanted was “Naked and Afraid” and “Duck Dynasty.”

While the Tea Party and white nationalists were organizing, creating and disseminating false narratives, and rallying against any policy that Obama was for, most of America was sedating itself with heavy doses of American Idol and fantasy football. Don't underestimate the fact that Trump's road to the Whitehouse was paved through reality TV. I really cannot imagine a more different context between ours and 1930s Germany. Our national crisis wasn't widespread hunger, it was the widespread starvation of our collective political consciousness. Out of 231,556,622 eligible voters 46.9% didn't vote.

I have a colleague who escaped North Korea as a refugee as a child. He's seen a few things in his seven decades. He's seen dictators rise to power. He's seen seemingly good people rise to power and then become dictators. Yesterday he told me that "America is finally awake."

So now that we've stirred a bit from our Reality TV stupor, what sort of political consciousness will we embrace? I will suggest that we begin with a very old definition of politics.

In his Politics, Aristotle declares that the human, by nature, is a political animal (Pol. 1253a). By this he meant that the polis ("city," or "city-state") represents the most natural environment for the human being. People of a polis orbit it's cultural center by way of custom, law, commerce, etc. Moreover, he believed that nature (which does nothing in vain) targets this goal for the human. A network of villages—with a shared commerce and central governing body—is the natural outcome of language. Language leads to partnership, which leads to households, which leads to villages, which leads to larger networks. The opposite of this is what Homer called the “clanless, lawless, and hearthless man” who is essentially anti-social and a “lover of war” (Aristotle quotes Homer on this point). Aristotle is describing human nature by analyzing binary opposites: either one is social (and thus living according to nature) or anti-social (and thus living contrary to nature). I'm not generally keen on binary opposites. But let's start somewhere, shall we?

We need each other. Even more, according to Aristotle, we are meant to live in relationship with each other. But he also tells us that if we cease to be just, we will be not be oriented to our common good as nature intended. (I probably don't need to tell you that justice is also a biblical ideal.) This is important because politics has become a dirty word in America. Moreover, for us, "politicians" are thought to be unnatural creatures; we expect them to act unjustly, out of self-interest. This was not Aristotle's vision for governance the polis. In his view, there is nothing more natural than drawing together in a common community, culture, and commerce. Being "political" wasn't for elites or crooks. It was the natural inclination of every human.

This is why, although I am political, I try to avoid Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher. I enjoy a good jab at the competition. In fact, I love political humor. But most simply aren't funny enough to pull it off. I when I sense a steady stream of hatred for an ideological opponent, I think language ceases to be "political" in the way Aristotle defined the concept. We argue, we strategize against, we lose our cools, but in the end we govern together. After eight years of obstructionism in congress, I am convinced that Washington hasn't been nearly "political" enough. Though I am not a fan, I quite appreciated what Maher said a couple days ago:

I know liberals made a big mistake because we attacked your boy Bush like he was the end of the world. And he wasn't. And Mitt Romney we attacked that way. I gave Obama a million dollars because I was so afraid of Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney wouldn't have changed my life that much or yours. Or John McCain.  

They were honorable men who we disagreed with and we should have kept it that way. So we cried wolf and that was wrong. But this is real. This is going to be way different.

I have a different view of Bush and McCain because I tend to focus on foreign policy when I vote. But I do agree that Trump is a different sort of animal and far more dangerous. He is essentially apolitical. Trump is the “clanless, lawless, and hearthless man” that Homer warned us about, the "lover of war." Trump's vision for America is what Hobbes called the condition of war (the condition that often leads to literal warfare):

In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently no culture of the earth, no navigation nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and, which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

This is what Trump's insecure, erratic, and self-interested behavior is already creating. But we liberals must shoulder the burden of blame too. We left scorched earth behind in our relentless alienation of our republican neighbors.

Today I was emailing a conservative friend (who opposed Trump because of is unconstitutional statements about the first amendment) about the conservative/liberal divide in America. My friend wrote, "They're [Democrats] convinced that everyone on my side is evil. So fuck them, I guess they get Trump." Most would hear this as a political statement. I hear it as not nearly political enough.

Yes, we get Trump. We get Trump because we've failed to be political in the only way that makes sense: politics is about learning to live together and creating policies that promote our common good. Take a look at Garrison Keillor's Homegrown Democrat and you'll have a sense of what I mean by political consciousness.

So now to a most central problem. I think that Trump (in his intentions to commit warcrimes and praise ofwar criminals) is far too similar to Hitler for me to stay silent about it. At the same time, how do I say so without implying that my conservative neighbors are akin to Nazis? How do I stand up for the hundreds of people who have been targeted for hate speech and beaten in the name of Trump (complete with swastikas in some cases) and then sit down to fellowship with my neighbors who are exultant about Trump's rise to power?

It may well be impossible to maintain political ideals when an authoritarian is in power. But in four years we will get to try again. My hope is that we are willing to try again. In the meantime, let us fight for politics in Aristotle's sense of that concept.

I will leave you with a passage from Jeremiah that has been on my mind. I read it as a call to political consciousness. . . . one that doesn't end well.

"Thus says the Lord: 'Stand at the crossroads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way lies; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.' Also I raised up sentinels for you: 'Give heed to the sound of the trumpet!' But they said, 'We will not give heed.'" (6:16-17)

-anthony

On Beauty

     Presently, in a philosophy class, we're going over Plato's concept of "sensible particular" in The Republic. We, as it seems, are only able to have an opinion of something and deem it as beautiful or not. Because there are differing opinions, it seems to reflect something that is truly beautiful, possibly its form. Either way, he seems to be giving the basis of the cliche "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
     I've often thought about that cliche. Is that which I hold to be beautiful only truly beautiful to me, and possibly no one else? Is something elevated to me only so to me. Maybe it would be better stated: is beauty thus subjective that it would be no different than a delusion in favor of something or someone? In a world of fragmented beauties, it seems as though every instance of declared beauty would be a singular psychotic episode. To say that something, or someone, is beautiful is to say that one's perception of reality is like a thumbprint, unique, and is so in that things, or person's, favor. If two men were to agree that a woman is beautiful, she could likely not be so, rather it would likelier be that those two men were just having the same psychotic episode simultaneously.
     Of course, that's silly. I have found myself agreeing with others that person X (always a woman) is beautiful. Likewise, I have heard others agreeing about someone else. If I knew that person they thought to be beautiful and if they knew the person I thought beautiful, we'd likely agree. But why? Do we all share the same eyes? Or could beauty be something outside of the beholder? ...maybe on the beautiful person herself? Thus, a grape-filled vineyard ready for the press, a woman's lovely, large brown eyes, a lush garden, or a piece of Bach well played are all beautiful, and are so without my opinion.

 

Lesser of Two Evils...

I cringe when I hear that someone is choosing "the lesser of the two evils." It is, by default and admission, choosing evil. When one chooses to support one thing, because it is less evil, one still legitimizes it. "Sure, I'm against murder and sexual violence, but sexual violence isn't murder, so...". It seems absurd, because it is. I truly don't wish to go into politics, but I can't help but be appalled and sickened by my fellow Christians who see two despicable choices and justifies one, because of party sympathies. "Trump is a Republican, so he's better." Or "Hillary is Democrat, and they are for the workers, so...". They are BOTH vile! I think a bit of Chesterton would be appropriate here:

''My country, right or wrong,' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, 'My mother, drunk or sober.' No doubt if a decent man's mother took to drink he would share her troubles to the last; but to talk as if he would be in a state of gay indifference as to whether his mother took to drink or not is certainly not the language of men who know the great mystery."

It is thus with our system. We simply cannot choose, because of our sympathies towards a party. We cannot choose, because of fear of another candidate. To choose from fear is to lose faith. Our commitment, brothers, is to Christ and his kingdom, not our parties, or their leaders. I ask those who read this to carefully consider your reasoning behind your choice, and then consider why you choose Christianity. If these don't align, then choose according to that to which your soul belongs. The likes of Falwell, Dobson, Paula White and others are biting to access this world's power. We must hunger and thirst, instead, after righteousness. I've been told this repeatedly: "I fear Clinton, therefore I must act..." I've never once heard in regards to our political mess, "I trust in God, therefore, I must pray."

-Steven C.

Der Kaffee

Earlier this summer, I tried to give up on daily coffee consumption. Sometimes, throughout the semester, my drinking habits would become excessive. To curb that, I decided to let it go. That, however, failed. Some may think that my habits are too strong, and verge on addiction. That may be so, but I just simply love coffee: I love its smell, preparing it and, especially, its taste. So to celebrate coffee, I dedicate this ode, Bach's Kaffeekantate (well, because, Bach is the musical equivalent to coffee):

Also, here's what the best founding father, Thomas Jefferson, had to say of it:  "the favorite drink of the civilised world."

Ein Neuer Blog

I've created a new blog to organize my language studies. When you have a chance, give it a read.
http://altegeschichtedersprachen.blogspot.com/

Blog Recommendation

I just recently found a fun blog via Twitter. I bumped into a picture of cupcakes with Greek alphabets and followed the link (click bait for nerds). It led to "It's All Greek To Me", a pretty good blog. I find pastries with ancient scripts captivating, and this blog has that! The first pasty I've seen with ancient script were cookies with cuneiform:

After I seen that, I knew that the occasional peak into google images for these would be an occasional distraction from work. The new blog recommendation doesn't do cuneiform, but it has cupcakes with Greek, and what's funner than Greek? Very few things are.

Disagreements as Passive Violence?

After the heinous mass shootings in Orlando last week, there was a lot of commotion on whom to blame. Needless to say, it was the shooter's fault. Some on the left agree with the right: that Islam is inherently violent, and it might be so (I really don't know as its theology goes-I don't have an interest in studying it). Nevertheless, history of Christianity (and Judaism) will show the violence perpetrated. The OT had called for genocide, e.g., I Samuel 15, and later Roman Judea had terrorist, the Sicarii. Violence, it seems, is part of the grand narrative of horrible human nature, a consequence of sin. One can easily see this in reading Thucydides.  Yes, Pericles spoke great of Athens'  democracy and the finest qualities of its people, but after the plague, people had no limits in their debauchery. Now, I am not condoning violence; I am against it wholeheartedly. I pray that I have no need for it ever-(part of faith requires that we trust in God, especially when violence is an answer). What I wish to say is that violence is a part of reality. No one in their right mind wants to experience it. And those who do need to be kept away from society. I wish violence on no one, too, whether I disagree with someone completely. And this is my point: I, as a Christian, wish violence on no one, especially a heinous murder such as what happened in Orlando, even though traditional Christianity disagrees with the practice of homosexuality. I am still found, however, to be blamed for an act which I condemn.

https://twitter.com/Residente/status/742147412924506112

Here and there, one will find some who feel that we, as traditional Christians, are complicit in the attacks in Orlando. We are not. My beliefs are that which I find in ancient Christianity, as is the case for many Christians. Just as many Muslims disagree with the practice of homosexuality, they are also not guilty for the shootings, even though they are Muslims, as the Orlando shooter claimed to be. It is absurd to spread guilt on those who disagree with one on something for something someone else did. My lovely older (not quite elderly) traditional Mexican mom is not to blame, nor is her mother or father. Likewise, neither are those from older generations who are not even Christians to be blamed. It is the act of the shooter. This is not to say that he worked off of a clean slate, but whether his slate was clean (which it was not) or filled with self-loathing or hate, it simply cannot be blamed on every group that might share some similarities. To try to rid opposing views simply by blaming them for actions that weren't their own is lazy and irresponsible. Now, as a citizen, one's sexuality is one's own business. It would be equally wrong for me to attempt to rid homosexuality from our society, and the world. Nevertheless, as a Christian, I see sexuality as clearly placed in the scriptures and its practice clearly defined. Hence, the churches with which I affiliate see things differently than others, and it's okay. We can disagree.

Happy Fathers' Day

Happy Fathers' Day to all the good dads out there. Sadly, my dad has passed away a few years ago, but he left me with a good memory of what a man ought to be. I hope what I am becoming would be pleasing to him. Though I do not have my dad anymore, I still have good men from whom I learn. My brother, my pastor, and some of my professors (two in particular) have been great to me. I pray that I may be as impactful as they have been to me.

Jesus Bleibet Meine Freude

J.S. Bach's "Jesus Bleibet Meine Freude" is possibly my favorite song. The music is beautiful and the lyrics are too. Here are the lyrics and a translation (not my own because my German isn't that good yet -though it is decent- and it's an older form). Jesus ist meine Freude. Ich kann mir ein Leben ohne Jesus nicht vorstellen.
Wohl mir, daß ich Jesum habe,
o wie feste halt' ich ihn,
daß er mir mein Herze labe,
wenn ich krank und traurig bin.

Jesum hab' ich, der mich liebet
und sich mir zu eigen giebet,
ach drum laß' ich Jesum nicht,
wenn mir gleich mein Herze bricht.

Jesus bleibet meine Freude,
meines Herzens Trost und Saft,
Jesus wehret allem Leide,
er ist meines Lebens Kraft,

meiner Augen Lust und Sonne,
meiner Seele Schatz und Wonne;
darum laß' ich Jesum nicht
aus dem Herzen und Gesicht.

Well for me that I have Jesus,
O how strong I hold to him
that he might refresh my heart,
when sick and sad am I.

Jesus have I, who loves me
and gives to me his own,
ah, therefore I will not leave Jesus,
when I feel my heart is breaking.

Jesus remains my joy,
my heart's comfort and essence,
Jesus resists all suffering,
He is my life's strength,

my eye's desire and sun,
my soul's love and joy;
so will I not leave Jesus
out of heart and face

Dr. Karen King Responds

Professor King responded to The Atlantic's article by Ariel Sabar (click here for the brilliant investigation) about the, so called, Gospel of Jesus' Wife. She conceded and said that "It tips the balance toward forgery." Here's the report: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/karen-king-responds-to-the-unbelievable-tale-of-jesus-wife/487484/

Sadly, as a commentator said, it would be far worse for the credibility of an evangelical university if this were to be done there. Fraud is fraud and King knew what would it entail if she was wrong. It's a shame she could make fantastical statements and will likely be untouched. Well, she will be for future scholarship, at least with me.

Irony

The Orlando shooter has been discovered to likely be gay, a closet gay, however. The tragedy that he killed forty-nine people is painful, but it was his doing. Some were willing to blame him for his actions, before his sexuality was known. When he was a Muslim shooter, he was self-radicalized, at least to the left, but as he came to be better known, it was the fault of the religious right. I find it strange that he was responsible for his actions a few days ago, but, now, he is a product of "hateful homophobia", an obvious swipe to Christianity, though he was Muslim. It's strange that religion is protected to the left, as long as it's not Christian or against non-traditional sexual practice. He was to blame earlier, and now religion is at fault. What irony.

Old Wives' Tales...

Ariel Sabar did a fantastic piece of journalism regarding the background of the "Gospel of Jesus' Wife" papyrus. Here is the link and everyone who has any interest in it should read it. It is well written and curious. I applaud The Atlantic for supporting this piece.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/the-unbelievable-tale-of-jesus-wife/485573/

Amen, John Cleese!

Brilliant comedian, and former Monty Pythonite, John Cleese talked about PC culture. At first, I, of course, tried to be PC and polite, but it was tiresome and made me capitulate to those who are overly sensitive, and for some for whom I care little. There is, however, a difference between politically incorrect and vulgarity and crassness. I wish to become civil, but not stale. This is, in my estimation, the only useful thing Trump has brought to national conversation, a disregard of PC culture. Yes, I believe that black lives matter, but it is because I believe all lives matter. I, as a child of a Mexican immigrant, know firsthand that very few are dangerous. (I would place any immigration issue on NAFTA and Mexico's political culture of corruption.) But, do I find it offensive? No! It's silly, and my family's, and my own, work ethic disprove that. There must be a medium between (as Bill Maher put it) the PC police and the Baltimore Police. Has Trump appealed to some of the basest portions of our culture? Yes! Either way, his realization that being PC is silly is good for us, but he has confused it with being civil and respectable. Without saying anything else, enjoy!

Advice

Man muss immer lernen.

NC Boycott

The NC boycott has taken an interesting turn: pornographers have taken the "moral high ground". Sexual identity is something new to me, so I have little to nothing to say (at least in regards to public policy). As a Christian, I view gender as God-given, and not ambiguous, but that's for another discussion. Here, I see a strange reaction regarding the boycott in NC. Pornographers have boycotted the state. I can't see a better reaction! I have no respect for pornographers, so their opinion of morality is worthless. They are worse than Wall Street! Simply put, it's the pot calling the china black!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/11/xhamstercom-porn-site-blocks-north-carolina-users-/

Ehrman's New Book

Professor Ehrman is one of America's leading biblical scholars. He is brilliant, and writes well. He can be, at times, taken a being polemical. Recently, he spoke at our local community college, and I attended. The lecture wasn't too surprising, and many people had great questions. I was excited to see local Fresnans engaged in the New Testament. Also, I fanboyed a bit. Toward the end of his discussion, he mentioned about engaging into memory studies. I found this to be huge! I was interviewed by the school's newspaper and made that a point: memory studies is growing and the fact that Ehrman is taking this approach speaks volumes. My first introduction into memory studies was through The Jesus Blog. The contributors are some of the brightest scholars in Europe and US. (I am particularly a fan of Professor James Crossley.) The collectives discussion in memory studies seems to be some of the first to bright it into practice. These people are the frontiersmen (and women) of memory studies in New Testament, if you will. So, their voice (I feel) is to be regarded highly in reviewing Ehrman's book. Unfortunately, it doesn't look too well. The book wasn't released yet, and I have other reading to do before I get to his. (I recommend any of his books.) Here is a bit of the review of the introduction:
I was part of the early wave of Jesus historians and NT scholars who have turned to questions of memory—and especially social/collective memory—in order to recalibrate the study of Jesus and Christian origins. I care about this topic, and adding a name as big as Bart D. Ehrman to the list of historians recognizing the importance of memory in some way justified my own work.

At this point, I've only read Ehrman's Introduction (pp. 1–16), so I'm not yet ready to praise or critique the volume. But we can note how Ehrman approaches his subject, recurrent patterns in his discussion, and the expectations he establishes for the rest of the book.

Ehrman says early on that he spent "about two years" spending his free time "doing nothing but reading about memory" (2). He specifically mentions three areas of memory studies: cognitive psychology (the study of individual memories), sociology (the study of social memory), and cultural anthropology (the study of oral cultures and unwritten traditions). These are all very good and vibrant areas of research; NT scholars are vigorously engaging each of these fields (individually and in various combinations), so Ehrman's voice joins a chorus-in-progress.

And so I was surprised by his presentation of NT scholarship as a whole, which (as I've said) has increasingly engaged questions of memory over the last decade-plus.

The more I read [about memory], the more surprised I became that so many scholars of the New Testament—the vast bulk of them, so far as I can tell—have never explored this research, even though it is so fascinating and most immediately relevant. Even those New Testament specialists who have delved into such fields have in many instances limited themselves to just one, or possibly two, of them. But they are all important. (3)

In the Introduction, Ehrman does not refer to any "New Testament specialists who have delved into such fields," so I cannot evaluate his claim. Moreover, throughout this introduction he cites only one work of one memory theorist (Abraham Lincoln and the Forge of National Memory [University of Chicago Press, 2000], the first volume of sociologist Barry Schwartz's two-volume work on American memory of Lincoln). The Introduction, in other words, does not offer very much to substantiate either Ehrman's claim to have read broadly ("for about two years now") in memory studies or his claim about NT specialists. This is, however, only the Introduction, and I hold out hope that more meaningful and substantive engagements will come in the remaining chapters.

When Ehrman does acknowledge that "this book will not be the first to address such issues" (12), he links his work with Rudolf Bultmann and the form critics and never mentions contemporary scholarship on questions of media, memory, and testimony. He laments that "there is not a single book available on the topic for a general-reading audience, a book that explains the form-critics' views or delves into the issues they [!!] raised in an non-technical (and interesting!) way" (13; my italics and exclamation marks). If Ehrman were providing a nontechnical, interesting survey of contemporary NT scholarship on memory and media, I would cheer. I am disappointed, however, to find that he seems to intend to present the nearly century-old work of the form critics, with the subtle (but false) implication that he's the first to do by appealing to memory studies.

Read the rest! 

...sigh...

Admittedly, I'm not up to date with Biblical studies. I've been focusing on my undergrad work, which is classics. Either way, many people might be somewhat aware of Simcha Jacobvici and his sensationalist theories. Here's his latest bologna: finding Jesus in the DSS.
Here's a bit of a response:
"In his blog for The Times of Israel of March 25, 2016, journalist Simcha Jacobovici claims to have made a significant “discovery”. Jacobovici claims to have upset the current scholarly consensus that the community responsible for the Dead Sea scrolls was unconnected with the early followers of Jesus:

Now, I’ve made a discovery that may change all this. Put simply, I believe that one of the fragments called by scholars by the very unappealing name of “4Q541” explicitly refers to Jesus.

Jacobovici claims that the text in question, fragment 24 of 4Q541 (or “4QApocryphon of Levi”), mentions several items connected with Jesus: a “dove” (יונא), “crucifixion” (ותליא), a “nail” (וצצא), and the words “do not mourn for him” (אל תתאבל בה).

Jacobovici’s blog post goes on to claim that scholars have avoided what he has “discovered”. Jacobovici claims that Florentino García Martínez “must have been nervous about the original reference to ‘the nail’ [in Martínez’s earlier translation] and changed his translation”. In the Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Martínez (with Eibert Tigchelar) translates וצצא as “night-hawk” rather than “nail”, and omits any translation of ותליא. Jacobovici infers that scholars are avoiding finding Jesus in the Dead Sea scrolls: “Were scholars worried about finding Jesus in any ancient texts other than the New Testament?” Jacobovici examined 4Q541 to check that the word ותליא is there, and acknowledges that the ת is fragmentary and less than fully certain. But he believes that it is ת, so comments, “So now I became really suspicious.” When he checks the translation with Dead Sea scrolls translator Émile Puech, Jacobovici concludes that, in omitting the translation “dove”, “Puech purposely fudged the translation so that the reference to Jesus would be lost”.

There are several things wrong with Jacobovici’s article, in addition to its conspiracy-theorist tone.

First, Jacobovici’s claim that “now, I’ve made a discovery that may change all this” makes it sound as if he is the first to discover possible references to a crucifixion and related motifs in 4Q541. He is not. In fact, Émile Puech, with whom Jacobovici spoke, had proposed such a meaning in the official publication of the text, fifteen years ago, in 2001. Not only that, but Puech’s interpretation of the text has been largely followed by George Brooke, in his comparison of the Dead Sea scrolls and New Testament (Fortress Press, 2005). This is by no means, contrary to Jacobovici’s sensationalism, a “discovery”.

Second, Jacobovici is simply flat-out incorrect that 4Q541 “explicitly refers to Jesus”. For there to be an “explicit” reference, the reference must be, er, just that: explicit. Yet there is no mention of the name Jesus/Yeshu(a) in 4Q541. It doesn’t appear explicitly. Therefore, it is wrong to claim that there is an explicit reference to Jesus in the text.

Third, there is a very good reason for the hesitation of many scholars to translate the text with the words “crucifixion”, “nail”, or even “dove”. 4Q541 is a fragmentary text, and its meaning – as a result – is unavoidably uncertain. It is normally the case, in any reconstruction of fragmentary Dead Sea scrolls, that different scholars come up with quite different meanings. Nothing is unusual here, let alone worthy of conspiracy-theory sensationalism. In particular: the ו and ת in ותליא are unclear, which makes the translation “crucifixion”/”suspension” uncertain. In addition, the term צצא is rare, so we can’t be at all sure that the text refers to a “nail”. On top of all this, there are gaps in the fragment which make the context and meaning difficult to determine. This is not an instance of scholarly bias, despite Jacobovici’s attempt to portray it that way. It is, rather, an example of appropriate scholarly caution. We have a fragmentary text and we are uncertain about its meaning and significance.

Fourth: the text predates Jesus by a century or more. Let’s assume that the text does mention crucifixion and nails, mourning, and a dove. Would we then be compelled to conclude that it must refer to Jesus? Not at all. Palaeographical (handwriting) analysis of 4Q541 indicates that the text dates to the end of the second century BCE or about 100 BCE. Its style of handwriting matches that of other texts from this period (eg. 1QS, 1QIsaa, and 4Q175). Although Jacobovici does not mention it in his blog post, Puech himself dated the text some 100-150 years before Jesus. The obvious conclusion is that 4Q541 cannot refer to Jesus." 

Read the whole thing! 

5 ἐμφόβων  δὲ  γενομένων  αὐτῶν  καὶ  κλινουσῶν  τὰ  πρόσωπα  εἰς  τὴν  γῆν,  εἶπαν  πρὸς  αὐτάς  Τί  ζητεῖτε  τὸν  ζῶντα  μετὰ  τῶν  νεκρῶν;  6 οὐκ  ἔστιν  ὧδε,  ἀλλὰ  ἠγέρθη.
Having been afraid, they bowed their faces toward the ground, and they (the angels) said to them, "Why do you search for the living among the dead, he is not here, but has risen." Luke 24: 5-6a

From Chaplin

Chaplin is one of the most important figures of entertainment. He embodied the humanity of mid-early 20th century progress. Here is his speech from "The Great Dictator". It's a beautiful speech. I hope you'll enjoy. Please excuse the music and the extra cuts. I wasn't able to find a clip without background music, naturally for a more dramatic feel. Either way, it's moving.

Themistocles

From Plutarch: "...on one occasion, when Themistocles was serving as general, Simonides of Ceos asked him to stretch a point in his favor and Themistocles told him: 'You would be a poor poet if you sang out of tune, and I should be a poor magistrate if I did people favours contrary to the law.' Another time he made fun of Simonides by pointing out that it was nonsense for him to attack the Corinthians because they lived in a great and handsome city, while at the same time he had portraits made of a face as ugly as his own." Ah, those Greeks!

Education

What's so dangerous about a "free education"? We have it for our formative years, and a continuation of that shouldn't be bad. It makes no sense that people attack the idea of providing for a free college education. I understand it's "not free", but neither is our military. We spend an absurd amount of money on it, and much of it is superfluous. Here's a list of countries that provide education for Americans...for free. We, as a nation, have been failing our children and ourselves. We fight, and threaten to kill for our guns, but are silent about helping our children learn. We cannot continue to claim to be pro-family, if we continue to be against anything beneficial to them.

Quoting Croesus

"No one is fool enough to choose war instead of peace- in peace sons bury fathers, but in war fathers bury sons." He immediately followed: "It must have been heaven's will that this [his attack against Cyrus the Great] should happen." Sadly, it is our nation's god that wills us to war: money. War profits are milk from Satan's teet.
NOTE: This was quoted from Herodotus' Histories.