1. Carl Trueman on Going Bald for the Glory of God:
Yet baldness is nonetheless a great gift from the Lord, in that it imposes a certain dignity on the ageing process by cutting off the various less dignified options (e.g., ponytails, which shouldn't be sported by anyone over 30; and mullets which, frankly, should not be sported by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Period.). Of course, there are those, even Christians, who fight against this divinely-imposed dignity. Dreadful toupees abound in the church, along with frightful transplants, and the ubiquitous 'comb-over' or 'sweep.' The latter seems predicated on the false notion that, if you have six hairs to stretch across the barren landscape of your otherwise shiny pate, nobody will notice that you have gone completely bald. Or perhaps there is a belief somewhere that, in the country of the bald, the one-haired man is king. Come on, gents, parade your baldness with pride and accept the dignity which your divinely-imposed hair loss brings with it.
Don’t let this humorous excerpt fool you into thinking this is a fluff piece. As Justin Taylor notes, the article "contains serious, insightful points about youth, culture, and the priorities of the ministry."
2.Newt Gingrich, Enviromentalist: "In the Hegelian model, it's not enough to be the antithesis party." (The ability to use a line like that--unironically and with a straight-face--is one of the things I love about Newt. He's the only intellectual-politician we have left in the GOP.)
3. John Piper on Co-ed Combat and Cultural Cowardice
If I were the last man on the planet to think so, I would want the honor of saying no woman should go before me into combat to defend my country. A man who endorses women in combat is not pro-woman; he’s a wimp. He should be ashamed. For most of history, in most cultures, he would have been utterly scorned as a coward to promote such an idea. Part of the meaning of manhood as God created us is the sense of responsibility for the safety and welfare of our women.
I'm with Dr. Piper on this one. Very few of the women (and even fewer of the men) I served with in the Marines believed that women should be exposed to combat.
4. Frank J. makes the Social Conservative Case for Rudy Giuliani
* Giuliani has never gay married.
* Despite people claiming he's hostile to social conservatives, Giuliani has never (directly) killed one.
* He's promised to appoint Supreme Court Justices like Roberts and Alito and to stop greedily rubbing his hands together and asking, "You wanna abort that baby?" every time he sees a pregnant woman.
5. James Poulos on Virtuosic Self-Referentiality:
In a nutshell, significant numbers of young people, mainly in Los Angeles and New York, have come up in a popular culture that refines the art of self-referentiality to a razor's edge. The leisure these people have on their hands results from a post-industrial work schedule and a post-modern disinterest in and freedom from politics. Part of virtuoso self-referentiality is an emphasis on the malleability and the performance of sexual identity. A habit of mass therapy has developed where everyone is each other's — and their own — therapist; publicizing intimacy and sharing what used to always be private is the rule.
(HT: Mere Orthodoxy)
6. Quote of the Week: " For many, tolerance does not result from the absence of moral convictions but from a positive religious teaching about human dignity." -- Michael Gerson in the Washington Post
7. Philosopher William F. Vallicella argues that All Legislation Legislates Morality
So the next time someone says, 'You can't legislate morality,' you say: 'All legislation is the legislation of morality; therefore, if you oppose the legislation of morality, then you oppose all legislation.' All legislation is the translation into positive law of certain moral judgments we make. The positive law is the law that is 'posited' by legislatures or is part of common law. The contrast is with natural law.
8. 150 Resources to Help You Write Better and Faster
9. Best Headline for a Misleading and Flawed Study: Over One-third Of Former American Football Players Had Sexual Relations With Men, Study Claims
A small study of former high-school American football players, who went on to become cheerleaders, has found that more than one-third said they had had sexual relations with other men.
10. Robert George on "The Moral Purposes of Law and Government" (as quoted by Rick Garnett of Mirror of Justice):
The obligations and justifying purposes of law and government are to protect public health, safety, and morals, and to advance the general welfare -- including, preeminently, protecting people's fundamental rights and basic liberties.
At first blush, this classic formulation . . . of the purposes and powers of government seems to accord public authority vast and sweeping powers. Yet, in truth, the general welfare (or common good) requires that government be limited. Although government's responsibility is primary in respect of defending the nation from attack and subversions, protecting people from physical assaults and various other forms of depredation, and maintaining public order, its role is otherwise subsidiary: to support the work of the families, religious communities, and other institutions of civil society that shoulder the primary burden of forming upright and decent citizens, caring for those in need, encouraging people to meet their responsibilities to one another, and discouraging them from harming themselves or others.
Governmental respect for individual freedom and the autonomy of nongovernmental spheres of authority is, then, a requirement of political morality.
The strict libertarian position . . . goes much too far in depriving government of even its subsidiary role. It underestimates the importance of maintaining a reasonably healthy moral ecology, especially for the rearing of children, and it fails to appreciate the legitimate, albeit once again limited, role of law and government in maintaining such an ecology.
This is a prime example of why George is my favorite living political philosopher.
11. Contrast Hillary Clinton's view of giving drivers licences to illegal aliens with the position Mike Huckabee took as governor of Arkansas:
Over two years before the controversy swirling over New York Governor Spitzer’s desire to allow illegal aliens to receive state documentation in the form of a state issued driver’s license, as Mike Huckabee’s floor leader, I sponsored and we passed legislation to stop illegals from getting licenses. Huckabee signed it into law.
Huckabee recognized this issue is about INTEGRITY. The integrity of the state to issue documents that are authentic and to avoid fraudulent attempts for people to receive state benefits they are not entitled too. Also this will cut down on voter fraud since a license cannot be issued to a non-resident (and state issued ID is typically produced at the polls to verify identity). But some of Huckabee’s detractors are still not happy with Huckabee’s immigration stances.
12. Alex Chediak examines the prediction that we'll be marrying robots by 2050
Why not, if your worldview has a low view of both human beings (as image-bearers of God) and marriage (as a spiritual union of two divine image-bearers, created equal and yet, in God's manifold wisdom, different)?
13. How to Educate Yourself Online
14. AIDS Came to the U.S. in 1969:
The AIDS virus invaded the United States in about 1969 from Haiti, carried most likely by a single infected immigrant who set the stage for it to sweep the world in a tragic epidemic, scientists said on Monday.
(HT: Holy Coast)
15. Top 100 Jazz CDs (HT: Open Culture)
16. A research paper on The Economic Value of Teeth. From the abstract:
Healthy teeth are a vital and visible component of general well-being, but there is little systematic evidence to demonstrate its effect on labor market outcomes. In this paper, we examine the nature and magnitude of the effect of oral health on labor market outcomes by exploiting variation in access to fluoridated water during childhood. The politics surrounding the adoption of water fluoridation by local water districts suggests exposure to fluoride during childhood is arguably exogenous to other factors affecting earnings. We find that children who grew up in communities with fluoridated water earn approximately 4% more as adults than children who did not. The effect is larger for women than men, and is almost exclusively concentrated amongst those from families of low socioeconomic status (SES). We find that occupational sorting and consumer discrimination explains the mean impact of oral health on earnings, but employer discrimination explains the impact for low SES individuals.
(HT: Marginal Revolution)
17. Image of the Week:
Found on The Shepherd's Scrapbook via Irish Calvinist.
18. Michael Brendan Dougherty on broadcast journalists:
…[The American Prospect article] assumes "broadcast journalists" could (or once did) serve an important function as journalists. I can't think of any major broadcast figure who was lauded for his reporting. Instead they are all hailed from on high for possessing a quality. Jennings was dignified. Williams is warm. Murrow was authoritative. Browkaw was chewing on taffy. We should admit to ourselves that the Sunday Talk Shows are less entertaining versions of Conan O'Brien for people convinced that television can edify them, or educate them about current events.
(HT: Ross Douthat)
19. Justin Hart on The Big Thaw: Why Mitt's Mormonism is less and less of a factor for Evangelicals
20. The Blog Readability Test: What level of education is required to understand your blog?
21. Light Humor In The Workplace Is A Good Thing, Review Shows
It is commonly believed that kidding around at work isn't a good thing. Well, it is, says a researcher, who has examined how workplace humor affects the working environment. Humor -- particularly joking around about things associated with the job -- actually has a positive impact in the workplace, according to the researcher. Occasional humor among colleagues, he said, enhances creativity, department cohesiveness and overall performance.
22. Some Christian pastors embrace Scientology
Some Christian congregations, particularly in lower income, urban areas, are turning to an unlikely source for help -- the Church of Scientology.
Scientologists do not worship God, much less Jesus Christ. The church has seen plenty of controversy and critics consider it a cult. So why are observant Christians embracing some of its teachings?
Two pastors who spoke recently with CNN explained that when it comes to religion, they still preach the core beliefs of Christianity. But when it comes to practicing what they preach in a modern world, borrowing from Scientology helps.
And I thought Christians embracing Joel Osteen was a bad idea…
23. 10 Tips To Make Your First Year Of Marriage Easier
24. Scientists Find Oldest Living Animal, Then Kill It
The team from Bangor University in Wales was dredging the waters north of Iceland as part of routine research when the unfortunate specimen, belonging to the clam species Arctica islandica, commonly known as the ocean quahog, was hauled up from waters 250 feet deep.
Only after researchers cut through its shell, which made it more of an ex-clam, and counted its growth rings did they realize how old it had been — between 405 and 410 years old.
(HT: The Presurfer)
25. LOLCat of the Week
moarfunny pictures
26. Timewaster of the Week: Curveball (HT: The Corner)
27. Executives who don't deserve their position work with incompetent employees to justify themselves
Research carried out jointly by the University of Granada and the University of Lovaina finds that qualified persons prefer to work in a competent surrounding in jobs that imply some responsibility. Executives who feel they're not the right person to hold the job they have been assigned try to work with less competent people.
28. The Top Online Education Resources
29. Even Harvard Finds The Media Biased
Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy — hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy — found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.
Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which "produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans."
(HT: Reformed Chicks Blabbing)
30. Heavy Machinery Acrobatics (HT: The Presurfer)
31. Holier Than Thou? Employees Who Believe They Are 'Ethical' Or 'Moral' Might Not Be
A moral identity motivates behavior but accurate, ethical judgments are needed to set that behavior in the right direction, according to researchers who study business ethics.
32. Study Reveals That 87% of Men and Women Surveyed Aspire to Be in a Monogamous Relationship
According to the survey of 1000 men and women ages 25-65, less than half of the respondents (37 percent) said monogamy is in style, yet 78 percent of the respondents said they were currently in a monogamous relationship. And they define monogamy as sexy! In fact, 92 percent of both men and women share the belief that monogamy is sexy and that the best kind of relationship is a monogamous one that is passionate and intense (83 percent).
(HT: The View From Her)
33. The Business of Death
(HT: BoingBoing)
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-trackback.cgi/4017
1
Reg #3
posted on 11.05.2007 5:30 AMOf for God's sake why doesnt that idiot just come out and say what he really means "Women should stay home and make babies...preferably male chiidren" This is what you get when you ve been raised on cults that essentially reduce women to the status of PROPERTY. "Our Women..." They re not ours,Jackass. Every thing that guy said about women in combat reeks of antiquated chauvinistic nonsense...so whats your solution,Bozo? throw those 155 000 women out of the military? or maybe keep them around as secretaries and cleaning service? Maybe he's never considered the possibility that those women who servce in combat would consider it an honor to lay down their lives for the country they love. I ll bet you've got an argument for that too dont you....goes like this maybe?...."If those women really loved this country,they d stay home to make babies...preferably male children"...pathetic.
2
Huckabee recognized this issue is about INTEGRITY. The integrity of the state to issue documents that are authentic and to avoid fraudulent attempts for people to receive state benefits they are not entitled too.
1. If the state decides to issue a document then it is by definition authentic. If NJ decided to lower the age it issues driver's licences by 1 year you may oppose it but its nonsense to say the issue is the 'integrity of the state to issue documents that are authentic'.
2. 'State benefits' is pure nonsense. What 'benefits' require a driver's license?
Also this will cut down on voter fraud since a license cannot be issued to a non-resident (and state issued ID is typically produced at the polls to verify identity).
Non-citizens are issued drivers licenses all the time. Those holding green cards or simply those who are visiting the US for an extended period of time are allowed to get drivers licenses so they don't drive around without a license. Amazingly they are not allowed to vote.
Joe might find this amazing but there's this concept called 'database' and this other concept called 'more than one'. It is quite possible in this modern age to have multiple database...for example a list of people who may drive, another list of who may vote, yet another for who gets a social security check each month and so on.
Marrying robots by 2050
Why not, if your worldview has a low view of both human beings (as image-bearers of God) and marriage (as a spiritual union of two divine image-bearers, created equal and yet, in God's manifold wisdom, different)?
What would the evangelical view be of robots that seem exactly like human beings? While it may be 'low' to entertain the idea of equality here....would it be moral to treat them as simple machines that could be used for any pleasure we want (see for example the movie AI) It would seem the later view is more likely to degrade human dignity.
posted on 11.05.2007 6:46 AM3
What would the evangelical view be of robots that seem exactly like human beings? While it may be 'low' to entertain the idea of equality here....would it be moral to treat them as simple machines that could be used for any pleasure we want (see for example the movie AI) It would seem the later view is more likely to degrade human dignity.
I may not respect myself in the morning, but I'm going to do it anyway: is there a serious question anywhere in the above statement?
posted on 11.05.2007 10:45 AM4
Serious yes, but very hypothetical. You could also apply the question to non-human intelligent life in the universe.
posted on 11.05.2007 11:31 AM5
And now for the 34th thing:
Joe, you are not as shameless as I am; but everyone ought to go over to the Weblog Awards and vote for Joe. And while you're at it - vote for me (Cabarrus Cheap Seats). I found out last night that I was in the silly thing...and now I'm obsessed with not coming in last!
Sorry, I will not be so crass and shameless in the future and I'll stick to telling you how many tabs were opened from the 33 things.
posted on 11.05.2007 12:18 PM6
Justin Taylor's blog is at 'theologICA' [no 'L' at the end]. You might want to correct that link.
posted on 11.05.2007 1:20 PM7
Something is seriously wrong with that blog readability test: it said my blog's reading level is "genius." Conversely, Bill Vallicella's blog has a high school reading level. That's just not right; Bill is one of the smartest bloggers I know.
posted on 11.05.2007 3:41 PM8
Christian Cynic - Conversely, Bill Vallicella's blog has a high school reading level. That's just not right; Bill is one of the smartest bloggers I know.
That might be the point.
Joe - 7 tabs out of 33; but it's the end of the day for me.
posted on 11.05.2007 4:49 PM9
Thanks for the links, Joe, but I've got to quibble with the Romney one. Justin Hart's article did not support in any way the idea that Evangelicals are supporting Romney. Hart's a Mormon campaigning for Romney who has a strong interest in promulgating this myth of Romney being an option for Evangelicals. Is anyone actually buying that? Aside from anecdotes, is there any numerical reason to think there's a "thaw" happening? If not, why link to Hart's piece?
posted on 11.05.2007 5:29 PM10
Justin, I don't follow you. If you're implying that Vallicella's blog might have a lower readability than mine because he (being the brighter of the two of us) is better about making his writings more accessible to a general public, then I don't think that's accurate at all because he tackles quite a few issues that really only appeal to the very philosophically inclined (and I doubt he would argue to the contrary). If you're implying that the whole thing is a joke and actually reverses the score...well, I would hope my blog wouldn't be that bad to deserve a "genius" rating. If you mean anything else, I can't for the life of me think what it is.
posted on 11.05.2007 5:37 PM11
Christian Cynic:
re: the readability scoring - without knowing what the function is scoring, it's hard to say how accurate it really is. I do think there's something to the idea that better writers/communicators may score lower level. Those who train in public or mass communications are encouraged to hone their ability to break complex subjects down accurately for the broadest possible audiences. That's not always as easy as it sounds.
posted on 11.05.2007 10:10 PM12
Not only does all legislation legislate morality, in enshrines our god (or gods) into law (and hence religion and law CANNOT be separated - unlike Church and Government).
Give me 5 minutes with anyone who professes atheism and I can name:
- Their god(s) - namely what they hold to be ultimate
- How those gods cannot possibly exist by the atheist's rules: namely that all ways they deny the existence of God holds EXACTLY true for their gods - metaphysical in the literal sense of the word and hence non existent according to their bible, materialism.
- How they live their lives in worship of those gods
- How the way they live their lives fundamentally contradicts their atheistic claims
If there be no god(s), then their can be no law.
If there be no law, then they can neither make any moral claims nor judge those who do.
Joe: Good look in the voting and enjoy GodBlogCon. I can't make it this year because I'm busy launching... a new blogging site for a specific demographic in need of a voice (irony abounds).
posted on 11.06.2007 12:01 AM13
OK Ludwig, let's go the other direction. Let's put the women out in the front lines, despite the fact that they are physically weaker, psychologically weaker, break down more quickly under torture, don't handle sleep deprivation as well, and more susceptible to rape. Forget about the fact that they get a monthly cycle no matter where they are or what they are doing. Unless they are pregnant. Like the women on that one navy ship, forgive me I have forgotten the name, when some astronomical percentage of the women came back pregnant. Then then can serve morning sick, and increasingly heavy and uncomfortable, not to mention the danger to the baby in the womb. Then they can get a bunch of medical leave (heck with the rest of the troops and their readiness) and then they can leave the kids in a day care center or what have you, and return to the fron. SOUNDS GREAT!
Men dying or at risk on the battlefield can radio in for female soldier to come rescue them. Of course their odds are not so great, as the women will not run as fast, can't carry as heavy of a load, and can't run as long. But what the heck, we are all pretending we are cookie cutters, with no unique gifts or liabilities, what's a lost war or a few thousand more deaths or injuries?
Get your head out of the sand.
posted on 11.06.2007 12:04 AM14
So...if i understand your position correctly "Marie", women are inferior to men in every way imaginable...unless they are pregnant,right?...i mean,we did cover everything...physically,psychologicaly,emotionally,spiritually,biologically,morally,financially...utterly useless unless they are serving the finction of sex toy and broodmare...well "Marie" i must say if you are a woman you have some very serious self loathing issues and if you re man,well i believe i know just what kind of man you are...the kind that doesnt deserve to be called a man...
posted on 11.06.2007 4:26 AM15
Alan McCann
posted on 11.06.2007 4:51 AMin other words,people who follow laws are defacto good christian cultists and people who dont are defacto atheistic degenerates...sounds about right? Oh i realise you didnt name the "god" you were refering to but i ve seen the sort of "argument" (being awfully generous here BTW) you presented and they invariably come from one of two groups...christians or muslims...and you dont strike me as the muslim type. Of course the fact that athiests account for less than 1% of the prison populations in the US,even though they make up 5-8% of the general population would suggest that they dont have much problem with following the laws of the land...but that little factoid probably doesnt interest you
16
Piper apparently never served in the military, and he was graduating near the peak of Vietnam. So I guess he had not only women but men too ahead of him in war.
posted on 11.06.2007 7:13 AM17
Give me 5 minutes with anyone who professes atheism and I can name:
- Their god(s) - namely what they hold to be ultimate
- How those gods cannot possibly exist by the atheist's rules: namely that all ways they deny the existence of God holds EXACTLY true for their gods - metaphysical in the literal sense of the word and hence non existent according to their bible, materialism.
- How they live their lives in worship of those gods
- How the way they live their lives fundamentally contradicts their atheistic claims
Well yea because on the back end you changed the meaning of god(s). A god is thought to be a beign, meaning something that exists, thinks, acts etc. Essentially a god is thought to be alive. You've redefined god to be "ultimate". Whatever that is, it sounds pretty sterile and dead. So perhaps by your definition the atheist thinks mathematical theorems are gods but the atheist would define a god in a much more realistic way.
posted on 11.06.2007 9:39 AM18
Ludwig,
To understand my post correctly, you need only hear that I think putting women into combat situations is:
1. immoral
2. stupid
3. a recipe for losing a war
I don't hate myself, my daughters, or you. I think the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, to coin a phrase. I think women can be smarter than men, more competent, and more creative. I don't think they can be stronger in a physical or psychological sense, with a few percent exception of unusually strong women pitted against unusually weak men.
It think it's reality. It does not involve hatred.
posted on 11.06.2007 1:01 PM19
Re: Vallicella's remarks:
The argument that he makes here is silly. All legislation does not in fact reflect moral judgments. For evidence, just look at some of the laws we have on the books. I submit that placing the speed limits at 70 mph for interstates is not a moral judgment ("And God said, "Go thou no faster than 60 mph, lest thou be made wretched in my sight""?), but a practical one. We would have been just as moral to have placed limits at 60 mph or at 75 mph, or (as in certain German states) not at all.
Likewise, *most* laws don't regulate moral judgments. There is a vast and beautiful code of corporate law that dictates how often companies need to give reports on earnings, who can hire which workers, how often certain substances can be imported into the country, etc. There is a tort law system that reflects which parties are open for suit in which cases. There are endless examples (making up the most part of our bodies of law) that, like speed limits, have nothing to do with moral judgments, and everything to do with simply running an orderly society. Most of the legal code could be some way other than the way it currently is, and no moral judgments would be adversely affected.
Just because Vallicella points at rape and murder laws as reflective of a certain morality (although, to be fair, a number of legal scholars have suggested that those laws too are less reflective of morality, and more reflective of a simple need to order society), doesn't mean the whole legal code must be so. In fact, perhaps the laws at which he points to prove his case simply *happen* to be aligned with his morality, and he confuses correlation with causation.
posted on 11.06.2007 8:21 PM20
Your post is totally awesome! by providing tons of information about important things related to Christianity,god and various things which are very important in every man's life and I like to read this type of posts.
posted on 11.07.2007 3:40 AM21
Your post is totally awesome! by providing tons of information about important things related to Christianity,god and various things which are very important in every man's life and I like to read this type of posts.
posted on 11.07.2007 3:42 AM22
Hi Ludwig:
Frankly, if atheists are underrepresented, then that does interest me.
I think you missed the point of my post - a true atheist has no ultimate end against which laws can be established. Ipso facto, most atheists (in fact all I know), really aren't atheists. They are against a certain type of god but have abused the language to make themselves appear to be what they are not. Unfortunately, most religious have let this logical problem pass without comment. A person's god(s) is/are implicit in their behavior and beliefs. Everyone has to have a metaphysic in order to judge anything.
Finally, my analysis relies not a wit on anything but logic and reason. This is not a "religious" argument by any means.
posted on 11.07.2007 1:31 PM23
Anna,
I submit that placing the speed limits at 70 mph for interstates is not a moral judgment ("And God said, "Go thou no faster than 60 mph, lest thou be made wretched in my sight""?), but a practical one.
Since when did divine command theory get conflated to represent all morality to the exclusion of any practical considerations? It seems to me that you are seriously misjudging what Vallicella is saying (which, by the way, I don't entirely buy, although I understand the argument). Not to mention that I can construct a simple moral argument for a speed limit:
1. Speeds over 70 mph greatly increase the probability that a collision occurring between two vehicles at such a speed would be fatal.
2. Unnecessary death is wrong, and we (as individuals and members of society) ought not to act such that the likelihood of unnecessary fatalities increases.
3. Therefore, we should enact a speed limit that penalizes those who disregard this moral obligation as a deterrent to prevent such fatalities.
This is a valid argument, although I concede that at least premise 1 may be questionable. Nevertheless, it is still a moral argument, and I would venture a guess that most of our laws - at least a solid core - can be expressed as moral injunctions from a discernable "natural law," which is precisely Vallicella's point.
posted on 11.08.2007 5:30 PM