Thursday, October 19, 2017


I know that some folk have tried to rationalize Bill Clinton’s dalliance with Monica Lewinsky as being consensual, and therefore less problematic.  

I guess I’d say two things.

1.  If you read the US legal code definition of sexual harassment, there is no possible way to claim that Clinton didn’t engage in sexual harassment.

2.  Monica Lewinsky herself disagrees with you.  

But why would anyone listen to Monica?  Or anyone else the Clintons abused and discarded.

Tuesday, October 17, 2017


Just in case Dan (Mr. I rarely delete comments) decides to get picky about being off topic.  I offer this space for Hiram's question and whatever responses it my generate.

Would I be going too far if I imagine that Dan rejects divine inspiration of the Old Testament? I had that thought while reading this page---

~ Hiram


A while back Dan made the claim that "God created us in God's image.".   I was a little surprised to hear him so emphatically declare that God had created us.  So, I asked for clarification.  After some initial misunderstanding and confusion on his part, he finally responded with a statement of sorts about what he meant by using the word "create".   As part of the digression, there was a request that I "point" him in the direction of some resources on creation that might be more recent than his extensive reading from 2-3 decades ago.

I "pointed" him to a couple of options, which he responded to with a degree of derision.  Instead of continue down that road, I've decided to post a brief bibliography with some different views from a Christian perspective on the origins of life.

William Dembski- Mere Creation, The Design Inference, No Free Lunch, Signs of Intelligence, Uncommon Dissent,
Jonathan Wells- Icons of Evolution
Jaques Barzun- Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique if a Heritage
Phillip E. Johnson- Reason in the Balance
Michael Behe- Darwin’s Black Box
John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer- Darwinism, Design, and Public Education
Francis Beckwith- Law, Darwinism, and Public Education
Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen- The Mystery of Life’s Origin
Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards- The Privileged Planet
Rose and Rose- Alas Poor Darwin
Stephen C. Meyer- Darwin’s Doubt, Signature in the Cell
Guillermo Gonzalez- Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design
Alister McGrath-The Dawkins Delusion, Dawkins God
Charles Colson- How Now Shall We Live, Burden of Truth
Denyse O’Leary-By Design or By Chance
Lewis and Barnes- A Fortunate Universe

If Dan would like to avail himself of any of these resources, they are here for him.  What will not be allowed is any of the ad hom/broad brush/snobbish attacks on entire groups of people he's chosen at his blog.  Anything of that nature will quickly disappear and never be seen again.   Any, actual engagement with anything specifically mentioned in any of these resources, or any actual refutation will be welcomed.

Monday, October 16, 2017


Apparantly the Clinton Foundation thinks it’s appropriate to keep the money they got from Harvey Weinstein.

Really interesting piece.

Friday, October 13, 2017

A reference to the questions Dan said he'd answer after I answeder one of his questions. I've now answered him twice. So far nothing on these.

In an effort to be helpful as the comment thread gets longer, these are the questions you said you'd answer.  I thought this might be easier than scrolling through so many comments.

So, are you suggesting that Jesus explicit commandments need to be redefined, or modified, or clarified by filtering the explicit through some amorphous, undefined “way” that only you seem to understand?

Does that mean that you’re not going to clarify your opinions on “creation”?

Again, a clarification, when you said “ God IS NOT MAKING RULES. Period.End of discussion.”, we’re you planning to offer proof of this claim? Could we expect that proof when you explain your opinions on “creation”?

I suspect this might get deleted, so I'm going to post it here for posterity.


Of course "the best science" would argue (from a purely materialistic worldview), that altruism and love are simply convenient fictions designed to perpetuate the species.  Or they might say that it's just a random combination of genetic impulses.  Or that the appearance of altruism simply masks the selfish desire to make the world "less hellish" for personal gain.  Of course it's also observable that not everyone on the planet accepts this universal truth of love your fellow man.   Clearly, the Tsutsi's don't love the Hutu.  The Boers don't (didn't) love the Keffirs.  The Sunni don't love the Shia.  The Hindus don't love the Buddhists or the Muslims.  I don't think you can argue that the Chinese government/society has been particularly loving toward girl babies.  I don't think the FGM and honor killings that permeate an unknown segment of the Muslim community could be considered loving.

Maybe it's bot so universal.  Maybe not everyone is "craving moral order".    Or, at the very least, maybe by turning morality into simply the expression of the mores of a majority, any sense of morality has been diminished.

Maybe, just maybe, Dan is mistaken.

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Love, what Jesus and Paul had to say

But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.

 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’

 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

 “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,

 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”

 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.

 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

  “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”

Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word(teachings, commandments), and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me.

 but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Rise, let us go from here.

 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.

 This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.

 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.  These things I command you, so that you will love one another.

 or the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.

 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.  Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never ends.

I think we can draw some conclusions from the above.

1.  We are commanded to love, even those who we disagree with.
2.  If we don't keep Jesus/God's commandments, then we don't love Him.
3.  Love doesn't sound like this:
" bat shit crazy"
" bigoted, hateful, ignorant and distasteful"
" Ugly, racist, bigoted, hateful, oppressive, ignorant, anti-American, ugly, theocratic, bigoted, hateful, ignorant, distasteful; stupidity, ineptness, insanity; idiot, pervert."
" fucking regurgitated shit"
" I'm meeting vulgar with vulgar"
" dickweeds"
" I don't give a rat's ass what you think"
 "You are defending fucking liars"
 "Shame on you and get the fuck out of here, you pervert-defender. No more of your shit-mouthed defense of the indefensible."
" You're a dick."
" You don't know shit."
" shit-eating pervert-creep"
" oppressors and sexist, racist jackasses"
" you're a pig. A sexist pig who is probably just too damned stupid to know what a pig you are."

Now that's just me, but I don't think any of the above statements align with either Jesus' commandments or Paul's explanation of what love looks like.

One might ask, how do the above comments demonstrate the "Truth that humans should watch out for one another, especially the least of these. Doing otherwise only contributes to making the world (and thus, our own lives!) a hellish place. It's irrational to disagree with this Truth and I think it is a Universal Truth."

Or is "watch(ing) out for one another", just a manifestation of a Utilitarian philosophy, so as to not make the world a "hellish place"?  But isn't making the world a better place (for me) just self interest gussied up as love?

"And for those of us who believe in God and follow Jesus,"

Since Jesus was looking for people to love him and the way He says that we show our love is to follow His commandments, I struggle to understand how denying the existence of commandments is "following" Jesus.

Really, loosing such unloving language at those you disagree with is "following Jesus"?  

  " It's True because it's True,", "People just generally recognize this Truth."," It is at least nearly universally recognized as a good idea", " a good idea.", "Jesus' teachings are just helpful pointer"

So, which one is it?

" Jesus was teaching a Way, rather than a set of rules. A Way of Grace and Love."

I'm shocked that this "Way", includes the kind of statements above, I question how they demonstrate either "Grace" or "Love".

"God is NOT MAKING RULES. Period. End of discussion."

Technically God is issuing commandments, not making rules, but clearly this statement of fact should be proven. 

This is quite a lot for one post, but I thought that I'd summarize what Jesus said about loving others, and what Paul though love looks like.  Then I though it valuable to contrast that with what others might say.

Food for thought.