Two creation stories? You wish.

How can any reasonable, intelligent person claim that there are two creation stories in Genesis? Here is what the UK's Times Online and some Catholics say about it. This theory has always amazed me as grasping at straws. We have an outline and then we have a more specific account of the specific creation of man, what is so complicated here?

When Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system.

Except what Galileo stated did not refute the Bible, just what many theologians (and virtually all natural scientists) believed. R.C. Sproul actually talked about this a couple days ago. If the Bible claimed that the earth was not stationary but revolved around the sun, virtually everyone would have rejected it because the scientific consensus for thousands of years was that the universe was geocentric. What Fools!!! you say, but be reasonable. The basic observational evidence was that the earth was stationary (do you feel any motion?!?). In fact, as historians have pointed out:

If Copernicus had any genuine fear of publication, it was the reaction of scientists, not clerics, that worried him. Other churchmen before him — Nicole Oresme (a French bishop) in the fourteenth century and Nicolaus Cusanus (a German cardinal) in the fifteenth — had freely discussed the possible motion of the earth, and there was no reason to suppose that the reappearance of this idea in the sixteenth century would cause a religious stir.

And since the Bible does not make claims either way, it is irrelevant. When it does mention the motions of celestial objects it obviously describes them in a way that we observe them (as we still today refer to the sun rising and the sun setting while also knowing that we only mean that it appears to rise and set), why would we expect the Bible to do otherwise? People always get this wrong when they try to cite geocentrism as proof that the Bible is inaccurate. It's not the Bible, it's the church.

They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways "appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries".

Wow, if that's not pandering, I don't know what is. The Bible claims to be true and it points out that most people hate the truth and love the darkness, therefore we shouldn't darken the truth in order to appeal to people. Embracing false doctrine won't save anyone.

The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: "We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters."

The Bible leaves no room for secular matters. Romans 1 points out that God reveals Himself through nature and that anyone who sees creation and studies nature sees the works of God and is without excuse for rejecting His lordship.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Of the notorious anti-Jewish curse in Matthew 27:25, "His blood be on us and on our children", a passage used to justify centuries of anti-Semitism, the bishops say these and other words must never be used again as a pretext to treat Jewish people with contempt. Describing this passage as an example of dramatic exaggeration, the bishops say they have had "tragic consequences" in encouraging hatred and persecution.

The Bible does not create false testimony in historical narrative for "dramatic" or any other effect. They actually said this. They, of course, had no idea that they were crucifying God and that people would hold them to their words for thousands of years. Of course we shouldn't use it as a pretext for antisemitism but they DID say it.

The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.

Someone point out when creation legend ends and historical narrative begins because God hasn't sent me a memo pointing it out. . . anyone? Bueller?

Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb.

The bishops say: "Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come."

The prophecies are true, we just don't know what the symbols are. Everything is completely true in that what it stands for will happen in the way described. They are emblematic. Technically it is not literal because it is apocalyptic writing just like the parables did not literally happen (but what they describe explains the objective reality that we live in), but the prophecies are true and the details are true. It is important to always remember that the Bible is always true (since it is inspired by an infinite-personal God who is omniscient, it cannot be un-true ever). It can be misunderstood as the Roman Church misunderstood it, but it cannot be false. It is also important to remember that the Bible, while it IS true truth, it is not exhaustive truth. God did not take the space or have the need to reveal all truth. The truth of the Bible is all the truth and knowledge necessary unto salvation and holy living. He didn't need to reveal to us why the protons in the nucleus of an atom are held together despite polar opposition (what would nuclear physicists have to do all day if He did?).

The new teaching has been issued as part of the 40th anniversary celebrations of Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council document explaining the place of Scripture in revelation. In the past 40 years, Catholics have learnt more than ever before to cherish the Bible. "We have rediscovered the Bible as a precious treasure, both ancient and ever new."

Wow, you're only 1900 years late boys, welcome to the party. . . pitiful.

"There are over 12 million children in the UK and only 756,000 of them go to church regularly."

All their parents must have stopped attending church because they were interpreting The Bible literally as we all know that that leads to unbelief and spiritual apathy. . .

I wouldn't care what these fools think if it wasn't showing up in the media where ignorant people will read it and think these fools know what they are talking about. God help us.

Open Letter to Ethanol

Dear Ethanol,

Thank you for making my latest gallon of 2% Milk cost over four dollars. And for robbing my car of precious miles/gallon.

Love,
Wood

Relevant to any student

This Town Hall article puts lyrics to the song that many educators, judges and journalists sing. Give it a read.

Now, the worst part is most American students don't even realize how horrible their public education is. Because they never learn the true and important lessons of civics, American history, economic and free market policy and so on, they have no choice between preferring or even believing one side over the other. They are only given one worldview.

This is most clearly demonstrated in my life in a lit theory class in college, in which the texts were written exclusively by female authors save for one which was written by a gay man whose subject was three women, specifically Virginia Woolf. Each text was an example from one school or set of critical theory, such as Romanticism, Marist criticism, Feminist criticism, Stream of consciousness, Realism, Naturalism et cetera, but each was always similar to the rest in that it was written by a female. The class was not a female authors class; it was a lit theory class that had been co-opted to show the brilliance of female authors without the mention that there were literally hundreds of male authors who had tackled the same subjects or methods of writing. In a word, it was absurd.

It should shock no one that college seniors at institutions across America fail tests on American civics. These are not dumb kids by any means. It is simply a matter of not being given the material, the teaching. You do not give a ten-year-old a pile of wood with some rivets and bolts and tell him to build a bridge. Therefore, it is not surprising that Americans who are never instructed on our history and triumphs of our free market system fail to appreciate those systems and consistently slide towards accepting increasing government control, beaurocracy and other socialist ideals. For further reading of this travesty, please read Cal Thomas' column. We can no longer rely on public education to give us a fair and complete tutorial on history, sociology or science. It is up to us.

Blaise Pascal

So, I heard a quote from him this morning that turns out to be this, paraphrased into modern and simple English:

"There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of every person, and it can never be filled by any created thing. It can only be filled by God, made known through Jesus Christ."

While he technically never said this in so many words, he certainly believed it and used much loftier words to express it. Either way, it is true and goes along with this quote I found and love:

"We would never travel on the sea if we had no hope of telling about it later... We lose our lives with joy provided people talk about it... Even philosophers wish for admirers."

This is the ca. 1650s, so travel was confined to sea travel, but the point is even more relevant today. Back then only the wealthy could afford to travel and be admired as "cultured," "worldly" and so on because of the things they have "seen" or "experienced". Today, most Americans can travel (if they have a high enough credit limit anyway) and the human heart has not changed. We go to Bermuda for a week so we can spend a lifetime telling people about it. I have been troubled by this for some time. True joy can only be found in God, and as Solomon concludes Ecclesiastes (12:13-14):

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:
Fear God and keep His commandments,
For this is man's all.
For God will bring every work into judgment,
Including every secret thing,
Whether good or evil.

Pascal was quite a prodigy, coming to the attention of the best French thinkers like Descartes by the age of 16 for mathematical proofs. He was also advanced in physics, philosophy, theology and literature. After converting to true Christianity, he put aside most of the math and science and focused on defending the faith and understanding God. No doubt, modern scientists curse the day that Pascal found God much the same as they do with Newton, who spent the majority of his life studying God instead of advancing science.

Sexual purity is for your own good

I never really thought about this before, but the left is insanely vehement against the suggestion that we should encourage teenagers to consider and practice sexual purity. They consider it a lost cause and conservatives as old maids who are spreading disease and pregnancy instead of condoms and complicit sexual advice.

It derives from a misunderstanding of God's commandments for sexual purity. Sexual restraint isn't for dedication and obedience to God, though it can be used for that. God created sex and He knew that if abused it could only cause dire and traumatic consequences, which are the reality of rape, pedophilia, homosexuality, group sex and adultery.

I've never heard of a couple who said, "I regret waiting for my husband/wife." It is only people who never tried who are convinced that it "could not happen, and I would be miserable if I only had one partner," and so on. On the other side, there are plenty of people who do say that they regret not waiting or regret taking part in some deviant sexuality. These are the people who have tried both sides and they always come out on the side of God. His side is the side of the human heart which He knew could not handle deviant sexual behavior. The only people who regret not having sex or deviant sexual behaviors, like threesomes and so on, are people who wanted to but could not because they could find no partners. In reality though, if you want it, you can have it at any age and in any condition.

2037: Remember the good ole' days of the 1980s?

In thirty years, we will look up from our piles of ash that we till endlessly praying for crops to spring forth from and we will think back on a time when the providence of God was with us because we prayed and worked earnestly to see that it was. Then we will think of the days when the providence of God slowly faded from American society in the name of universalism and equal protection under the law, and we will remember this (and we will weep bitterly):

“An illustrious day for all Americans and a memorable day for us.” So declared Rajan Zed, a Hindu priest from Nevada, after being invited to open the July 12, 2007 session of the United States Senate with a Hindu prayer ...

The architects of American civilization would be aghast. To give credence or credibility to pantheistic religion (“God” is inside the Earth, sky, etc.), that advocates belief in thousands of “gods” while rejecting the one true God of the Bible, would be unthinkable in 1776. It was equally unthinkable for most Americans up until the last 40-50 years ...

It was on June 28, 1787, in the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, that one of the least religious of the Founders, Benjamin Franklin, then in his 80s, rose to his feet and made the proposal that Congress open their sessions with prayer. Yet, on that occasion, the God, the religion, and the sacred Scriptures that Franklin had in mind were certainly not the gods, religion, and scripture of Hinduism.

Read Franklin's exact words (chock full of allusions to the one true God and the Bible) in the Apologetics Press article.

I'm sure some senators silently boycotted by not attending the July 12th sesion, but they would get slammed in the press if they said anything that wasn't politically correct or could get labeled as intolerant. I don't blame them. We need good men silently serving and voting the right way; I can speak the truth without fear of the press or losing to a "tolerant" democrat who will destroy our country -- maybe not the geographic features of a continent spanning nation, but certainly the foundation that enabled America to become the preeminent state in the world today.

For sure, the Founders of America desired religious freedom. Technically, by “religious freedom” they meant that all Protestant denominations should have the right to pursue their own interpretation of the Bible and to worship the God and Christ of the Bible according to their own consciences without governmental interference ...

Nevertheless, the Founders were perfectly willing to extend the right of religious freedom to those who did not share the Protestant brand of the Christian religion. They opposed all religious persecution for the simple reason that Christian people love their fellowman and do not mistreat others (Matthew 7:12).

But make no mistake: the Founders believed in the God of the Bible, and the vast majority of them believed in the validity of the Christian religion to the exclusion of all other gods and religions. They would not have countenanced giving non-Christian religions any sort of public endorsement or favorable encouragement.

This is evidenced very clearly in the article. The worst part today is how the democrats are co-opting other religions to tear down Christiantity. They think they can weaken Christian morals and dominance in America by creating an education system that tells children that all religions are equal; Since all are equal we can't listen to any of them because they differ in teaching and policy. The truth is they hate all religions and all morality but they will use the means of promoting cults and false world religions in order to pollute the minds of children, so eventually they can do away with all external moral authority in this country.

This is the morality and rule of law that we are heading for -- one with complete exclusion of external moral authority (article from Town Hall).

Mythbusters: Ethanol is better than oil

First off, read this article by John Stossel. He explains the myth of ethanol very well.

Now, after reading that and gaining a little perspective I think we can all agree that it would be better for everyone involved if farmers had to compete in the food business and stop cheating in the energy business with subsidies. Oil exists only to be consumed by humans. It has no other function, while soil can be used to grow other foods and other resources. That's what we should use soil for - not some pipedream of driving cars with corn.

Don't get me wrong - ethanol isn't completely useless. It's just not a lot better than oil. In fact, it may even be worse than oil because oil is free and basically one small, cheap step away from gasoline.

Ethanol gets less miles per gallon than gasoline on the order of about 70%. So if E85 costs $2.15/gallon, Super 90/10 blend can cost $3.07/gallon and be exactly the same price per mile. They don't brag about this of course because they want people to assume that a gallon is a gallon, but in practical terms, it is very different.

Proponents of ethanol want Americans to assume a lot of things that just aren't true. Americans are stupid and grew up in horrible schools that taught them that oil is bad and it's "going to run out," which just isn't true.

I don't have a problem with ethanol if it can compete fairly with oil, but it can't right now. If technology improves, that's a different story. It may be a viable alternative to gasoline with advancements which yield more energy from less corn more easily. This would, of course, consume less money and energy. Until this happens, the government should not subsidize research and development or production, which only hinder true ingenuity. We can use farmland to grow food that can feed hungry people. We can't feed hungry people oil (yet) so we should use that to fuel our cars.

The market chooses the fittest and the fittest is, indeed, oil.

July 7, 2007

Just another unique day to get married with the other 327,846 couples across the country. Just another day to see Barry Lamar Bonds go 0 for 2 at the plate and watch those lovable loser Cardinals squander another winnable game.

But who is to blame? Is it ownership's tight reins on the finances? Is it management's poor distribution of said finances (I am looking at you Walter Jockety and your signing of replacement level players for more than replacement level wages like Jim Edmonds, So Taguchi, Preston Wilson, and Aaron Miles)? Is it Anthony LaRussa's highly questionable defensive lineups which only complement the utterly anemic offensive abilities of the personnel?

No.

I submit to you that a series of unconnected, but mutually disabling, events coincided in the top of the 7th inning that ultimately led to the demise of the St. Louis Baseball Cardinals on 7/7/07. At the beginning of the inning, the game was tied. By the end, the Giants were up four runs. During the first at bat (Ben Molina AB), Section 132, in blatant and criminal disregard for baseball etiquette, began begging the surrounding sections to engage in The Wave. Yes, The Wave. By the time Rich Aurilia singled Molina to 2nd, The Wave was well on its way to making it fully around the stadium and its heinous effects were clearly visible and growing.

As an avid fan at Dodger Blues articulately fantasizes: "If only the drunk idiots in the bleachers would run back and forth down the aisle stabbing themselves, maybe that could catch on, and true baseball fans could be left to watch the game in peace."

At about this time, Bruce Bochy did all he could to help the Cardinals out by having his number 8 hitter (a professional baseball player, mind you, and 2-2 in the game off Braden Looper who, beyond all logic, was still in the game) sacrifice to advance the runners and bring Mark Patrick Sweeney and his stunning 79 OPS+ to the plate. What does Anthony LaRussa Jr. do at this point? Why he brings in his favorite LOOGy and WPA (Win Probability Added) nightmare, Randy Flores. As Erik at Gas House Graphs astutely points out, "La Russa continued to show his reckless trust in former LOOGy turned pumpkin Randy Flores and it nearly cost the team the game. Flores has an average leverage index of .95, good for third overall (on the team) and yet has a -0.83 (WPA) to show for it, and even worse, a -10.79 BRAA. His strand rate is a terrible 63.3%. Why La Russa continues to call on him during crunch time is beyond me, he needs to be reduced to the swingman role or DFA'd. His continual misguided reliance with him is reminiscent of Ray King, '06."

Yes, Randy Flores has been the worst reliever based on leveraged performance in the first half, but he consistently gets called in in close and late situations against left-handed hitters. Why? Because he is, in fact, left-handed, and this miraculous happenstance is enough to convince LaRussa the he will perform better in a situation than a right-hander who has proved himself otherwise based on actual performance.

I know there are people out there that want me to put at least some of the blame on Aaron Miles and his record-breaking defensive performance of three (3) errors in one (1) inning. I cannot, however, because again as Erik points out, "Getting back to Miles, they need leave him at 2nd if at all possible. His .768 zone rating is 3rd worst out of NL shortstops with 250 more innings. He hasn't been much better at 2nd, but at least he'd be less damaging at that position." Yes folks, placing a poor second baseman at a position that sees 25% more balls hit into its zone will, in fact, damage the defensive integrity of your team. Aaron Miles has DFA written all over him. He is no better than replacement level at hitting, fielding or running and yet Walt Jockety in his infinite wisdom saw fit to give him more money than a replacement level player (Brendan Ryan anyone?). Do not be fooled people, the Cardinals have one of the worst Farm Systems in Major League Baseball. The only reason Brendan Ryan and Ryan Ludwick (and Chris Duncan last year) look good at all is because of the bench players and starters (Edmonds, Eckstein, Molina and Rolen) that the Cardinals have displayed this year. Yes, indeed, only Pujols, Duncan and the hallowed Juan Enc have positive WPA or Batting Runs Above Average on the year out of the assumed starting 8.

In summation, thanks for the loss, Section 132. I hope you got some great pictures of your Wave and can tell all your friends how you duped thousands of strangers into a cult-like ritual all for your perverse pleasure.

Another genius quoted

From a Yahoo News story yesterday about actor Tom Sizemore getting 16 months in jail:

Sizemore was convicted in 2003 of domestic violence involving his ex-girlfriend, former Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss. He remained free pending an appeal.

In October 2004, he pleaded guilty to a felony count of possession of a controlled substance identified as methamphetamine and was placed on probation. The probation was revoked in 2005 when Sizemore was caught using a prosthetic device during a drug test.

His probation was later reinstated, but he tested positive for drug use last year and was given another three years' probation, authorities said.

Martin Sheen, who starred on TV's "The West Wing," attended the hearing in support of Sizemore.

"I don't think prison is appropriate for anyone who is in the grip of drug and alcohol abuse," he said outside court. Even so, Sheen said Sizemore could be successful in a prison drug rehab program.

Martin Sheen, television star and drug abuse recovery expert. When I want to know answers to the human condition, I turn to Martin Sheen (not God). Yet another socialist celebrity given the pulpit of American identity by the media. How does he arrive at such illuminated conclusions? Because drug abusers are victims, not criminals, in the secular-progressive worldview. Society should pity and not condemn victims.

Why do we even bother telling children not to do drugs? The drugs will probably be legal by the time they are old enough to try them.

Remembering why I detest John Edwards

For those of you who are not as actively obsessed with the future of our country, I submit to you John Edwards, savior and hero.

John Edwards likes to proclaim the existence of "Two Americas." In one section of his speech he will tell you how unfair America is and that those born poor will never be able to rise out of the cycle of poverty. Then in another section he will brag to you about how poor he was as a child and how his hard work has gotten him to where he is. He literally sees no contradiction in these two scenarios. Johnny is affectionately known as the "Breck Girl of politics" and for those of us under 40, this should demonstrate why.

His championing for the impoverished has led him to build a 28,200 square-foot home and spend $400 on hair cuts:

"The issue is back in the news because of revelations that Edwards got two $400 haircuts paid for by his campaign. (Edwards is reimbursing his campaign $800 to cover the cost of the cuts.) At the same time, we're talking about a $400 haircut, paid for by the campaign, for a candidate who champions himself as an advocate for America's poor."

While redistributing wealth and land in a pseudo-socialist manner from his mansion seems like a tall order in itself, I beg you to remember John Edwards' campaign promise to make the lame walk.

From a 2004 column by Charles Krauthammer, himself a paralytic, and worth reading in its entirety to get an "insider's" view on spinal cord research:

"This is John Edwards on Monday at a rally in Newton, Iowa: 'If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.'

In my 25 years in Washington, I have never seen a more loathsome display of demagoguery. Hope is good. False hope is bad. Deliberately, for personal gain, raising false hope in the catastrophically afflicted is despicable."

I myself do not doubt his ability to heal the lame since he has already channeled the spirits of dead children in order to win large settlements from obstetricians whose only crime was not endangering the lives of mothers through dangerous Caesarean sections:

"She speaks to you through me and I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."

Read the whole disgusting truth of how this "son of a mill worker" gained a net worth north of $50 million by pulling up his own bootstraps.

In summation, John Edwards may be the biggest slime ball in this election cycle and that is saying something in a field boasting such masters of megalomaniacal malfeasance as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but hey, he's come so far despite the disadvantages of poverty, he might just pull it off.