Up here in Vermont, we do something that I just don't understand.
We vote for some cabinet level positions. The last election there was a tight race for the position of "Auditor of Accounts". As I recall there was a recount, and in the recount the Democratic challenger defeated the Republican incumbent who was previously ahead by a couple of votes.
Auditor of Accounts?? How in the wide world of sports do I vote for auditor of accounts. How do I know which of the two folks running for this position is the best qualified for it. The fact is that I don't. I don't even know what an "Auditor of Accounts" does. I am not qualified to pick a person for "Auditor of Accounts".
Same thing for Attorney General, Secretary of State, and the other cabinet level positions that perplex me every second November. I leave these positions blank.
The older I grow, I am finding the less I know. This upcoming election is supposed to be about the economy. Now I did have an economics course in college, but thirty years later I must confess I have totally forgotten about it. The only thing I remember is some professor drawing these curves on the blackboard and saying they mean something. So how do I know which of the two folks who want to be my President is best at managing the economy? Guess what, I don't.
Same thing with global warming. Al Gore believes that it is real, that we did it, and we darned well better fix it soon or dire consequences will result. For all I know he is correct. Still there are some scientists who disagree (I don't think the disagreement is whether it is real or not, I think the disagreement is whether this is caused by humans and its severity). And I do remember in the 1960s reading similar dire consequences that would hit the planet in the 1990s over the population explosion. For that matter I remember reading about dire consequences that will happen to the earth and its computers when the year 2000 occurs. Come to think of it I remember watching Pat Robertson on TV in the 70s and being told that Christ will return in the 90s. So I also know that people exaggerate and get things wrong. So who knows. I don't, at least for sure.
The point is that in most of these issues, I may have my tendencies and beliefs, but I don't know for sure. Take Iraq for example. When the war started, I was sitting on the fence. So I decided I was going to watch this and learn. When we kicked butt the first month or so, knocked down the statue of Saddam, and declared that "mission was accomplished", I was all for it. But as we encountered problems mopping up the accomplished mission (and never did find the weapons of mass destruction), I found myself as an opponent to the war. But now that the surge is apparently working, I find myself changing again to "it probably was a mistake to begin with, but at this point it is best to finish the job and do it right than to leave it as a mess". Who knows how I will change again in the future.
However, I do think though that I am at least a fairly decent judge of character. And the older that I grow, the more important character becomes to me.
Which is why the prospect of Bill and Hillary 2.0 is alarming to me. I have been following this campaign at least a little (I do notice that the political adds on Vermont TV have stopped now that the NH primary is history). Watching the smear job and blatant lies that Bill and Hillary are applying to Obama (who at least seems to be a decent human being..even though he does support the deliberate killing of innocent human life) reminds me of everything that I hated during the Clinton era.
Which is why I find myself pulling for Obama in the Democratic primary (even though he is the tougher 'D' nominee IMHO). At least if he gets it, Bill and Hillary 2.0 are history. Now I will never vote for him myself, because of my little thing about killing babies, but I don't especially dislike him, and I don't see myself voting against him (meaning that if I don't care for the Republican either, I have no qualms about voting 3rd party). This is in contrast to his female opponent. If she is the one, no matter who the 'R' is and how much I may dislike him, I will press the 'R' level in November.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
The Earth Is Flat
I recently have come across an interesting blog post which views beliefs on evolution, creation, and Biblical literalism as a spectrum. Each position considers the positions to the its left as reading Scripture too literally. Each position considers the positions to its right as compromisers who cede the authority of the Bible to Godless science.
Surprisingly, the young earth creationist view (7 literal days about 10,000 years ago or less) was only position 3 on this spectrum. Position 2 was geocentrism (the universe revolves around the earth). Position 1 is a flat earth.
Well this got my curious mind to wondering whether this author was correct. In other words, if I were to adopt a literalistic interpretation of Scripture on this topic and be logically consistent in this perspective, would I have no other option but to conclude the earth is flat?
My conclusions after studying this matter is that this post is spot on. Biblically speaking the earth is flat. God said it, I believe it, and that settles it. Let God be found true though every man be found a liar.
Unfortunately I found only one web site that has not compromised on this issue. I will let the Scriptures produced by this web site speak for themselves.
To be fair, I also examined the other side (courtesy from the young earth creationist web sites) that believe the Bible literally teaches a spherical earth, and I found their case surprisingly weak. First of all they claim the phrase "circle of the earth" found in the Bible refutes the flat earth. However, I still remember my 11th grade geometry class, and as I recall a circle was two dimensional while a sphere was three dimensional. So these Scriptures still support a flat earth.
The only other Scripture I found that could support a Spherical earth was Luke 17:31-34, where Jesus used the phrases "In that day..In that night" in reference to His second coming. Since His second coming is a one time event, the only way this could be true would be in a spherical earth where night and day occur simultaneously.
But wait a minute. The Bible also teaches in Matthew 24:26 that not even God the Son knows the date and hour of the second coming. Given this Scripture, Jesus was obviously just covering His bases so to speak and allowing for both possibilities in respect to the second coming.
So the teaching of the Bible is clear. The Earth is flat. However, if one must compromise the plain teaching of the Bible in favor of Godless science, it would seem that the minimal compromises would be found in the geocentric position. Here I found an association of geocentrists with their own web page. And this little discussion also summarizes the clear Biblical support for geocentricism.
I also found that Catholic apologist Robert Sungesis is also a geocentrist through this link (which unfortunately is dead..I actually found this out through a web page that linked to his stuff.
Of course there is one other option that might be (probably is) grossly heretical, but I throw it out here simply as a possibility.
Perhaps God did not intend the Bible to be used as a science textbook. Perhaps he knew that us frail humans would eventually figure out the secrets to the universe by ourselves. Thus perhaps He allowed His word to humans who had incomplete and yes even faulty understanding in the fields of astrology, physics, and biology. And perhaps even this faulty understanding is indirectly reflected in the Bible in passages where God's intent is to convey Spiritual truth about Himself.
Nah..this is blatant heresy. The earth is obviously flat and we live in a geocentric universe.
Where are you on this scale of possibilities for origins. Glad you asked.
I can take each of these eight possibilities and assign them values in two categories: theological probability and scientific probability.
Theologically, if I assume the Bible was not written as a scientific textbook, I would rate 1-6 being equally possible theologically. If I want to believe the earth is flat, gosh-diddly-yarn I can't open my Bible and find a Scripture against. But neither am I convinced that theological evolution is wrong. Only when we get to points 7-8 (no Adam and Eve) do we have a problem because Jesus seemed to disagree with this.
Now if I were to go through the eight options and rate them scientifically (not being a scientist of course) only option 1 would I conclude as definitely impossible. Options 2-3 might be scientifically impossible, but I can't prove this so I will call them improbable with option 2 being more improbable than option 3.
Options 4-6 I feel confident are not scientifically impossible..and option 6 would be most probable scientifically, so that is where I lean. But this issue is not a great bone of contention for me. The only real problem I have here is when this issue is used as a great delimeter of heresy.
Surprisingly, the young earth creationist view (7 literal days about 10,000 years ago or less) was only position 3 on this spectrum. Position 2 was geocentrism (the universe revolves around the earth). Position 1 is a flat earth.
Well this got my curious mind to wondering whether this author was correct. In other words, if I were to adopt a literalistic interpretation of Scripture on this topic and be logically consistent in this perspective, would I have no other option but to conclude the earth is flat?
My conclusions after studying this matter is that this post is spot on. Biblically speaking the earth is flat. God said it, I believe it, and that settles it. Let God be found true though every man be found a liar.
Unfortunately I found only one web site that has not compromised on this issue. I will let the Scriptures produced by this web site speak for themselves.
To be fair, I also examined the other side (courtesy from the young earth creationist web sites) that believe the Bible literally teaches a spherical earth, and I found their case surprisingly weak. First of all they claim the phrase "circle of the earth" found in the Bible refutes the flat earth. However, I still remember my 11th grade geometry class, and as I recall a circle was two dimensional while a sphere was three dimensional. So these Scriptures still support a flat earth.
The only other Scripture I found that could support a Spherical earth was Luke 17:31-34, where Jesus used the phrases "In that day..In that night" in reference to His second coming. Since His second coming is a one time event, the only way this could be true would be in a spherical earth where night and day occur simultaneously.
But wait a minute. The Bible also teaches in Matthew 24:26 that not even God the Son knows the date and hour of the second coming. Given this Scripture, Jesus was obviously just covering His bases so to speak and allowing for both possibilities in respect to the second coming.
So the teaching of the Bible is clear. The Earth is flat. However, if one must compromise the plain teaching of the Bible in favor of Godless science, it would seem that the minimal compromises would be found in the geocentric position. Here I found an association of geocentrists with their own web page. And this little discussion also summarizes the clear Biblical support for geocentricism.
I also found that Catholic apologist Robert Sungesis is also a geocentrist through this link (which unfortunately is dead..I actually found this out through a web page that linked to his stuff.
Of course there is one other option that might be (probably is) grossly heretical, but I throw it out here simply as a possibility.
Perhaps God did not intend the Bible to be used as a science textbook. Perhaps he knew that us frail humans would eventually figure out the secrets to the universe by ourselves. Thus perhaps He allowed His word to humans who had incomplete and yes even faulty understanding in the fields of astrology, physics, and biology. And perhaps even this faulty understanding is indirectly reflected in the Bible in passages where God's intent is to convey Spiritual truth about Himself.
Nah..this is blatant heresy. The earth is obviously flat and we live in a geocentric universe.
Where are you on this scale of possibilities for origins. Glad you asked.
I can take each of these eight possibilities and assign them values in two categories: theological probability and scientific probability.
Theologically, if I assume the Bible was not written as a scientific textbook, I would rate 1-6 being equally possible theologically. If I want to believe the earth is flat, gosh-diddly-yarn I can't open my Bible and find a Scripture against. But neither am I convinced that theological evolution is wrong. Only when we get to points 7-8 (no Adam and Eve) do we have a problem because Jesus seemed to disagree with this.
Now if I were to go through the eight options and rate them scientifically (not being a scientist of course) only option 1 would I conclude as definitely impossible. Options 2-3 might be scientifically impossible, but I can't prove this so I will call them improbable with option 2 being more improbable than option 3.
Options 4-6 I feel confident are not scientifically impossible..and option 6 would be most probable scientifically, so that is where I lean. But this issue is not a great bone of contention for me. The only real problem I have here is when this issue is used as a great delimeter of heresy.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Cheap Skiing
Stupidity is travelling to Vermont and spending $79 per day per person for a lift ticket at Stowe Resort.
The absolute most that one should spend for skiing is $40 for a Vermont Resident pass at Jay peak.
Now I am ch.. er. frugal and over the years have studied how to ski cheaply in Vermont. These are some of the bargains I have taken advantage of.
When I was younger and skied every Saturday I would buy the family bash badges at Smuggs and then we would ski for half price which was between $25-$30 a pop. But even after this, I was always on the lookout for "really good deals". These are some of the good deals I have taken advantages of.
* At Smuggs my buddy Steve Dempsey used to arrange group passes for $15 a pop.
* Killington used to have Vermont ski free days for $20 a pop
* There used to be Refuse to Abuse days at the school where we got in for $15 at Killington and Sugarbush
* Bolton Valley has $10 lift tickets the week before Christmas
* At Sugarbush you can ski for $14 on February 14 and for $17 on March 17.
* Sugarbush had Warren Miller days where you could ski for $5.50 or something like that.
This year we are living off the 2 for one passes that you get for filling your tank at Mobil. Actually you only need three $16.00 fill-ups and you get a two for one pass. We have picked up a two for one pass at a rate of one per week, which is more than I ever will use.
Of course Stowe doesn't honor the two for one passes. They are too busy soaking the flatlanders for $79 per ticket. That is why I don't ski Stowe.
Anyway, yesterday I paid a little more than I like ($102 plus a couple bucks) and got three tickets at Jay Peak for myself, my son at Northeastern, and his girlfriend. We purchased 2 under the 2 for one for $62 and one more expensive Vermonters pass for $40.
I would grade the ski day a B+ for me personally. The weather was a little colder than what I prefer, but it was still not freeze your glutumus maximus off type of cold. There was a fresh 6" or so of powder on the slopes from overnight which made the skiing great for Stephen but unfortunately for me made skiing "The Jet" a little more difficult than I prefer.
Still there were no lift lines to speak of, and this old man skied 13 runs before tiring at about 2:00 in the afternoon. This was my third ski trip of the season..the first two being the $10 ski tickets at Bolton and a two-for-one deal at Sugarbush. My next ski trip (unless I go earlier with Stephen) I hope will be the $14 day at Sugarbush. However if the weather is really great I might go to Smuggs on a Friday and ski for 1/2 price.
Do not pay $79 for a lift ticket at Stowe.
The absolute most that one should spend for skiing is $40 for a Vermont Resident pass at Jay peak.
Now I am ch.. er. frugal and over the years have studied how to ski cheaply in Vermont. These are some of the bargains I have taken advantage of.
When I was younger and skied every Saturday I would buy the family bash badges at Smuggs and then we would ski for half price which was between $25-$30 a pop. But even after this, I was always on the lookout for "really good deals". These are some of the good deals I have taken advantages of.
* At Smuggs my buddy Steve Dempsey used to arrange group passes for $15 a pop.
* Killington used to have Vermont ski free days for $20 a pop
* There used to be Refuse to Abuse days at the school where we got in for $15 at Killington and Sugarbush
* Bolton Valley has $10 lift tickets the week before Christmas
* At Sugarbush you can ski for $14 on February 14 and for $17 on March 17.
* Sugarbush had Warren Miller days where you could ski for $5.50 or something like that.
This year we are living off the 2 for one passes that you get for filling your tank at Mobil. Actually you only need three $16.00 fill-ups and you get a two for one pass. We have picked up a two for one pass at a rate of one per week, which is more than I ever will use.
Of course Stowe doesn't honor the two for one passes. They are too busy soaking the flatlanders for $79 per ticket. That is why I don't ski Stowe.
Anyway, yesterday I paid a little more than I like ($102 plus a couple bucks) and got three tickets at Jay Peak for myself, my son at Northeastern, and his girlfriend. We purchased 2 under the 2 for one for $62 and one more expensive Vermonters pass for $40.
I would grade the ski day a B+ for me personally. The weather was a little colder than what I prefer, but it was still not freeze your glutumus maximus off type of cold. There was a fresh 6" or so of powder on the slopes from overnight which made the skiing great for Stephen but unfortunately for me made skiing "The Jet" a little more difficult than I prefer.
Still there were no lift lines to speak of, and this old man skied 13 runs before tiring at about 2:00 in the afternoon. This was my third ski trip of the season..the first two being the $10 ski tickets at Bolton and a two-for-one deal at Sugarbush. My next ski trip (unless I go earlier with Stephen) I hope will be the $14 day at Sugarbush. However if the weather is really great I might go to Smuggs on a Friday and ski for 1/2 price.
Do not pay $79 for a lift ticket at Stowe.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Amazing Grace
Now my taste in movies is not complex. Just off the bat, here is a list of some movies I have liked:
* The Simpson's Movie
* Napoleon Dynamite
* Mars Attacks
* The Stupids
* The Shawshank Redemption
* The Green Mile
* The Shining
* The Wizard of Oz
* Psycho (the original Alfred Hitchcock Version)
* North by Northwest
* The Birds
I guess I show a proclivity towards stupidly funny movies, Steven King movies, and Alfred Hitchcock. Nothing too serious please.
Last night I was a movie we rented called Amazing Grace. Now this movie was about the life of William Wilberforce, the man who was responsible for abolishing the slave trade in Great Britain (now I read disturbingly this morning that the bill did not abolish it entirely. For a while it continued illegally. If a slave ship were in danger of being caught, its cargo was just thrown overboard).
What fascinates me is how societies can be morally blind to the great evils of their time. Slavery was such an evil of the 1600s-1800s. If we go ahead in time we find state sanctioned racial discrimination. If we go back in time we would find the evils of witch hunts and inquisitions. As a Protestant believer I have long been aware of the the Spanish inquisition, but one historical detail that I have been unaware of is that our history is just as bad. I spent some time reading over the Internet about the anabaptist believers (the predecessors of the Mennonities) and how they were burned by the Catholics (and John Calvin) and drowned by the reformed (Zwingli). Luther was in no position to directly persecute the anabaptists, but he did support their persecution (he was also an anti-Semite..another moral evil..his writings were used by the Nazi Socialists to justify the holocaust).
Learning all of this was disconcerting to me. If the Protestant reformation was this great move of God that I was taught in Sunday School that it was, how come its leaders had such moral blindness in certain areas. I don't have an answer for that. But even in my life as a child, I have witnessed how Christian folks seemed to be the ones who were the most resistant to ending racial discrimination.
It does seem obvious to me that no society is exempt from its moral blind spots. Otherwise good people can be morally blind to the prevalent evils of their generation.
I can't help but think that somehow that future generations will look back at the present time and shake their heads in amazement and wonder just how come a society that claims to be humane and just sanctions the killing of innocent (unborn) human life.
* The Simpson's Movie
* Napoleon Dynamite
* Mars Attacks
* The Stupids
* The Shawshank Redemption
* The Green Mile
* The Shining
* The Wizard of Oz
* Psycho (the original Alfred Hitchcock Version)
* North by Northwest
* The Birds
I guess I show a proclivity towards stupidly funny movies, Steven King movies, and Alfred Hitchcock. Nothing too serious please.
Last night I was a movie we rented called Amazing Grace. Now this movie was about the life of William Wilberforce, the man who was responsible for abolishing the slave trade in Great Britain (now I read disturbingly this morning that the bill did not abolish it entirely. For a while it continued illegally. If a slave ship were in danger of being caught, its cargo was just thrown overboard).
What fascinates me is how societies can be morally blind to the great evils of their time. Slavery was such an evil of the 1600s-1800s. If we go ahead in time we find state sanctioned racial discrimination. If we go back in time we would find the evils of witch hunts and inquisitions. As a Protestant believer I have long been aware of the the Spanish inquisition, but one historical detail that I have been unaware of is that our history is just as bad. I spent some time reading over the Internet about the anabaptist believers (the predecessors of the Mennonities) and how they were burned by the Catholics (and John Calvin) and drowned by the reformed (Zwingli). Luther was in no position to directly persecute the anabaptists, but he did support their persecution (he was also an anti-Semite..another moral evil..his writings were used by the Nazi Socialists to justify the holocaust).
Learning all of this was disconcerting to me. If the Protestant reformation was this great move of God that I was taught in Sunday School that it was, how come its leaders had such moral blindness in certain areas. I don't have an answer for that. But even in my life as a child, I have witnessed how Christian folks seemed to be the ones who were the most resistant to ending racial discrimination.
It does seem obvious to me that no society is exempt from its moral blind spots. Otherwise good people can be morally blind to the prevalent evils of their generation.
I can't help but think that somehow that future generations will look back at the present time and shake their heads in amazement and wonder just how come a society that claims to be humane and just sanctions the killing of innocent (unborn) human life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)