bLOGOS

The Homemaker Track at SWBTS

2007-08-25T21:07:00.000-07:00

The following is my conversation with Denny Burk over the Homemaker track at SWBTS (in response to his post):

My comment:

You said:

“Frankly, I don’t see what the big deal is. Universities and colleges have been offering courses in home economics for a very long time. My pastor’s wife, for instance, has a degree in home economics from the University of Texas.”

The description for the concentration says:

“Preparing women to model the characteristics of a Godly woman as outlined in Scripture. This is done through instruction in homemaking skills, developing insights into home and family while continuing to equip women to understand and engage the culture of today. It is unique in that we recognize the need to challenge women both intellectually and practically. It is our mission to equip a woman to impact women and families for Christ.” (see the whole thing here).

I said:

You, in your blog, are doing something that the College at Southwestern is not doing, namely, equating a Home Economics degree with that of the Homemaking Concentration. One teaches life skills, while the other teaches that the ‘biblical’ role of a woman is to be a ‘Homemaker.’ You don’t even have to be egalitarian to disagree with this belief.

I don’t see how in scripture ‘Homemaker’ and ‘the gender role of the woman’ are synonymous.

And, as a side note, one can see that the concentration does nothing to “equip women to understand and engage the culture of today” as it states. It teaches them to prepare food, recognize that their child is valuable (because apparently most Christian woman don’t), and turn their curtains into prom dresses. This is the role of a woman according to scripture? Give me a break…

Denny’s response:

You need to go read the description of the program. It only comprises about 20 or so hours of work for a four year degree (about 120 hours). All of these ladies still take Greek, Latin, and the rest of the Humanities core.

I have no problem with a Home Economics program taught from a biblical worldview, which of course would give heed to Titus 2:3-5: “Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips, nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 4 that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be dishonored.”

My response:

I understand that the women have to take the rest of the core humanities program… I was speaking to the claim of the concentration itself, not the whole of a humanities degree.

I don’t think that Titus 2:3-5 comprises the whole of a woman’s duty in the Kingdom. Titus is writing to the men, the women, and the bondslaves instructing them to act in such a way so that ‘the word of God would not be dishonored’(v5), so that others would have nothing ‘bad to say’ about them (v8), and so that others would ‘adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect’ (v10).

This concentration is causing such a commotion because the whole of a woman’s duty is being summarized by one, controversial, word: Homemaker.

Denny’s response:

Joel and Steve,

I saw a couple of things in common in your remarks. It looks like you both interpret this new program as saying that every woman should enroll in it. If you listen to the interview, it’s clear that is not SWBTS’s intention. Patterson affirms the freedom of female students to sign up for whatever program of study they choose.

I think there may be some confusion over what is included in the concentration. There are courses that are very similar to what you would take in HomeEc courses at secular undergraduate schools (textiles, interior design, cooking, etc.). Nothing new here. The difference is that there are also a couple of classes that teach a complementarian view of womanhood.

My response:

Laying aside the argument of whether this degree is useful, as long as SWBTS does not endorse that women, because they are women, ought to enroll in this program then I don’t care.

My problem, however, is that the description in the concentration does seem to imply this (whether or not it contradicts Dr. Patterson’s remarks on the radio):

“Preparing women to model the characteristics of a Godly woman as outlined in Scripture. This is done through instruction in homemaking skills, developing insights into home and family…” etc.

So, according to this, if a woman is going to ‘model the characteristics of a Godly woman, as outlined in scripture’ then she needs to learn homemaking skills, etc.

Now, should a woman have homemaking skills? Yes, she probably should (not to mention the fact that I need these skills too). However, is the whole of a woman’s duty as ‘outlined in scripture’ match the description of a ‘homemaker’? That is the question. When we read about women who were obedient to the Lord in scripture are we always reading a description of a ‘homemaker’?

Denny’s response:

I don’t know anyone who is arguing that “the whole of a woman’s duty” is homemaking. The Pattersons and SWBTS aren’t saying that. I’m not saying that. Complementarianism doesn’t teach that. Where are you getting that from?

My response:

Homemaker concentration: “Preparing women to model THE (unique/singular- see Russell’s Theory of Descriptions) characteristics of a Godly woman as outlined in Scripture…”

Tom Cruise, The Assassin Scientologist

2007-08-20T05:50:00.000-07:00

CNN reports that 11 people were injured during the making of Tom Cruise's latest film. In it, "Cruise plays Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, who fronted the failed attempt by a group of largely military conspirators to assassinate Adolf Hitler in July 1944."

This, to me, was the interesting part of the story: "Cruise has come under fire from politicians and the Stauffenberg family for his role in the movie due to his involvement with Scientology, which the German government views as a cult." (my emphasis)

For an interesting perspective from a former Scientologist on Cruise and his involvement in Scientology go here.

A Note On Honesty...

2007-08-19T10:56:00.000-07:00

I try to keep tabs on several blogs and as I peruse from entry to entry I often see note-worthy thoughts and interesting little articles regarding life or theology or philosophy or literature or whatever. And, on occasion, I see entries that look familiar or maybe even regurgitated word for word from somewhere else, yet I rarely see any kind of reference or footnote, giving credit to the person with whom the idea/thought/phrase originated.

This reminded me of Proverbs 3:27, “Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in the power of your hand to do so.”

My charge: give credit where it is due- if it is not your idea, catch phrase, or concept, or if you borrowed it in any way from another, give him/her the credit. Otherwise, you are taking something that doesn’t belong to you. It is dishonest.

Free Books...

2007-08-19T10:15:00.000-07:00

If anyone is interested in FREE BOOKS, Desiring God is offering about 30 books that can be read and downloaded online here.

More on Darfur

2007-06-05T10:05:00.000-07:00

I recently read more about Darfur on BBC. Here is a portion of the story that I thought was especially interesting:

"In the past three years India's trade with Sudan has increased 100%.

India and its economic might, and even its softer cultural pull, is becoming important here. This means that India's leverage for political diplomacy is also growing - a leverage that India has so far not exploited for the people of Darfur.

Trading with a country without any social responsibility, and turning a convenient blind eye to a conflict of gargantuan proportions, does not bode well for the emerging economic and political giants of China and India.

But, while there has recently been a chorus of international disappointment that China is not pulling its economic weight in Sudan, India too cannot be excluded, for its hands are very much in the honey pot."

Science

2007-05-31T21:29:00.001-07:00

When most people say the word science they are referring to “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation” (dictionary.com). Science is, by definition, empirical- it attests to those things as understood by the senses: touch, taste, sight, smell, and sound. If science is strictly empirical, then how could any number of lab experiments of any kind demonstrate any result that is anything other than empirical? They can't. Therefore, the metaphysical dualist is not going to turn to science to have his questions about reality, or metaphysics, answered by something that, by its nature, has no hope of answering his questions.

So, not only can science not be used to eliminate the existence of God, neither can it be used to prove the existence of God. Scientific evidence, at best, can lend to an already established belief, but cannot be the grounding for belief itself.

Some scientists have propagated the idea that only those things proven by science can be verified as being truthful (call this proposition P). However, the foundation for this belief, that P, is itself not verified by science, and is, therefore, self-referentially incoherent.

So, we have determined, then, that science cannot speak or give results to anything non-physical and science cannot be the standard for truth. If this is so, then what is the purpose of science? Simply, to help construct an understanding of how the world usually works. Well, then, does science do a good job of this? Many times it does. A lot of incredible medical (and other) advances and discoveries have been made through scientific experimentation. However, even in the area science can speak to, my doubts remain.

In logic there is what is called the fallacy of composition. This basically asserts that it is a fallacy to know something about a part and then attribute it to the whole. For instance, my dog is black, therefore, all dogs are black. Right? Of course not. In a similar fashion, science is required to do the same thing. There is absolutely no way that the whole of the scientific community can test all of the natural world at once in order to come to a conclusion. Essentially, they test a small part over and over and over again and if the results maintain, it becomes fact. But aren't they just committing the fallacy of composition? Yes, in many ways they are.

So, I am pretty much immediately skeptical when someone says “its a scientific fact” and I always dismiss any statement made about God when the means to the conclusion are scientific.

Your thoughts?

The Rational Response Squad (RRS)

2007-05-31T17:05:00.000-07:00

I recently heard of the rational response squad (RRS) and their blasphemy challenge from a friend and decided to look into it. Frankly, I don't care much about the whole thing. It is the same debate that has been going on for centuries and will continue to go on for centuries. There will always be people who believe in God and people who don't. And, as for this specific segment of the debate goes, it seems fairly childish.

It seems as though many of the arguments (on both sides) are being made from empirical data and scientific 'proofs'. However, as far as I understand my faith, the presuppositions of Christianity are not scientifically or empirically based. Rather, they are faith-based or 'revelation-based'.

Moreover, I don't put much stock in science or many of its presuppositions anyway. Things like: the world is orderly, this order can be discovered and tested, my senses are reliable, etc., etc. So, to test our arguments against the modern canon of science is itself a flaw.

The RRS have a good mode of operation by putting the burden of 'proof' on Christians so that they have to come up with an irrefutable case for theism. Whether or not such a case exists is the topic of another blog. I would submit, though, that even if such a case does/did exist, guys like the RRS would not be dissuaded of their current position. Why? Because information alone does not cause action or decision, emotion does.

In Donald Miller's book, Blue Like Jazz, he says, “I don't believe I will ever walk away from God for intellectual reasons. Who knows anything anyway? If I walk away from Him, and please pray that I never do, I will walk away for social reasons, identity reasons, deep emotional reasons, the same reasons that any of us do anything” (103). I agree with his assessment.

Apparently, though, it is more about Christianity than theism. The blasphemy challenge is directly associated with belief in Christ, which itself shows that there is some sort of emotionally charged bias to attack Christianity and not solely theism. This rational response, then, seems more closely associated with emotion than with rationality.

Do I think that Christianity is rational? Absolutely. People like Alvin Plantinga have continually demonstrated that belief in God is rational. My concern is for those who hold more firmly to atheism because of bad arguments or because of the lack of some magical proof that provides a kind of Cartesian certainty.

The bottom line is that when the atheist has the burden of proof placed upon him, he can't come up with any more of a scientific or rationally justifiable reason to abandon the faith than the Christian can to prove the certainty of God. It is about faith.

So what is the Christian Response Squad ( that is, all believers) supposed to do when they are pushed in a corner and fail to apologetically karate chop the atheist with a Ray Comfort scientific fact? First, Christians should have good reasons for the faith they hold but second, and more importantly, they should be quick to love those who are attacking the faith. I call this emotional evangelism. Help them change, not just the way they think about theists/Christians/God, but the way they feel as well.

So, What Is All This Darfur Stuff Anyway?

2007-05-31T10:48:00.000-07:00

You have probably been hearing a lot about 'saving Darfur' and may have wondered what all the buzz is about. Well, I found the website www.savedarfur.org when I was checking out Emily McGowen's blog and found a great overview. Please read:

"Darfur has been embroiled in a deadly conflict for over three years. At least 400,000 people have been killed; more than 2 million innocent civilians have been forced to flee their homes and now live in displaced-persons camps in Sudan or in refugee camps in neighboring Chad; and more than 3.5 million men, women, and children are completely reliant on international aid for survival. Not since the Rwandan genocide of 1994 has the world seen such a calculated campaign of displacement, starvation, rape, and mass slaughter.

Since early 2003, Sudanese armed forces and Sudanese government-backed militia known as “Janjaweed” have been fighting two rebel groups in Darfur, the Sudanese Liberation Army/Movement (SLA/SLM) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). The stated political aim of the rebels has been to compel the government of Sudan to address underdevelopment and the political marginalization of the region. In response, the Sudanese government’s regular armed forces and the Janjaweed – largely composed of fighters of nomadic background – have targeted civilian populations and ethnic groups from which the rebels primarily draw their support – the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa.

The Bush Administration has recognized these atrocities – carried out against civilians primarily by the government of Sudan and its allied Janjaweed militias – as genocide. António Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, has described the situation in Sudan and Chad as “the largest and most complex humanitarian problem on the globe.” The Sudanese government and the Janjaweed militias are responsible for the burning and destruction of hundreds of rural villages, the killing of tens of thousands of people and rape and assault of thousands of women and girls.

With much international pressure, the Darfur Peace Agreement was brokered in May 2006 between the government of Sudan and one faction of Darfur rebels. However, deadlines have been ignored and the violence has escalated, with in-fighting among the various rebel groups and factions dramatically increasing and adding a new layer of complexity to the conflict. This violence has made it dangerous, if not impossible, for most of the millions of displaced persons to return to their homes. Humanitarian aid agencies face growing obstacles to bringing widespread relief. In August 2006, the UN's top humanitarian official Jan Egeland stated that the situation in Darfur is "going from real bad to catastrophic." Indeed, the violence in Darfur rages on with government-backed militias still attacking civilian populations with impunity.

On July 30, 2004, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1556 demanding that the government of Sudan disarm the Janjaweed. This same demand is also an important part of the Darfur Peace Agreement signed in May of 2006. On August 31, 2006, the Security Council took the further step of authorizing a strong UN peacekeeping force for Darfur by passing resolution 1706. Despite these actions, the Janjaweed are still active and free to commit the same genocidal crimes against civilians in Darfur with the aid of the Sudanese government.

International experts agree that the United Nations Security Council must deploy a peacekeeping force with a mandate to protect civilians immediately. Until it arrives, the under-funded and overwhelmed African Union monitoring mission must be bolstered. And governments and international institutions must provide and ensure access to sufficient humanitarian aid for those in need."

If you are interested in taking some kind of action, you can sign a petition and have a letter sent to the appropriate authorities. Just go here and fill out the appropriate information (it only takes a second).

John Piper Quoting Dr. W. A. Criswell In 1980

2006-09-15T07:59:00.000-07:00

July 13, 1980 (Morning)
Bethlehem Baptist Church
John Piper, Pastor

THE WISDOM OF MEN AND THE POWER OF GOD (1 Corinthians 2:1-5)

In coming to you brothers and sisters, I come proclaiming to you the testimony of God not according to excellence of word or of wisdom. For I decided not to know anything among you but Jesus Christ and this one crucified. I come to you in weakness and in much fear and trembling. My word and proclamation are not in persuasive words of human wisdom but by the demonstration of the Spirit and power, so that your faith might not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God!

I would consider my life well spent if I could preach and live and die like the apostle Paul, who wrote these words in 1 Corinthians 2:1-5. If you would open a Bible to this passage in the New Testament I think we could get a glimpse of what a preacher should aim at in his work and how he and his people can be sure to hit this target.

W.A. Criswell, the pastor of that giant church in Dallas, was asked one time by a man who had a business across the street: "Dr. Criswell, I thought you were the pastor of a Baptist church. How come all your people carry prayer books to church on Sunday?" Criswell smiled and said, "Sir, we are Baptists and those are Bibles not prayer books."

Baptists the world over have a reputation of urging every man and woman to read the Bible for themselves. And I want to preserve that great tradition. If I could choose a symbolic sound that Bethlehem Baptist Church would come to be known for, you know what it would be? The swish of the pages of 500 Bibles turning simultaneously...

My heart aches for the pastor who increases his own burden by trying to come up with ideas to preach to his people. As for me I have nothing of abiding worth to say to you. But God does. And of that word I hope and pray that I never tire of speaking. The life of the church depends on it.

Dr. Criswell gives an admonition to pastors which I think is right on the money and I take it as a great challenge. He says:

When a man goes to church he often hears a preacher in the pulpit rehash everything that he has read in the editorials, the newspapers, and the magazines. On the TV commentaries he hears that same stuff over again, yawns, and goes out and plays golf on Sunday. When a man comes to church, actually what he is saying to you is this, 'Preacher, I know what the TV commentator has to say; I hear him every day. I know what the editorial writer has to say; I read it every day. I know what the magazines have to say; I read them every week. Preacher, what I want to know is, does God have anything to say? If God has anything to say, tell us what it is.'

The Breath of Life

2006-08-02T15:44:00.000-07:00

I was recently thinking about how interesting it is that we, as humans, often try to save people’s lives through CPR and the similarity that exists between that and God breathing the breath of life into Adam. God started Adams life by breathing the breath of life into him and we frequently attempt to prevent death by breathing our life into others.

What do you think?

Language and Meaning Rethought

2006-05-26T06:53:00.000-07:00

This is my new perspective of language, some overlaps what was said below and much stands in opposition to was written below. tell me what you think:

Within the subject of language many naïve people often see the word “meaning” as denoting nothing more than the word “definition,” which is basically a set of words or terms that are always associated with a certain individual word or term in an attempt to bring clarity to the word being defined. On the contrary, however, this couldn’t be further from the truth. “Meaning” has more to do with how a word or term can be about anything other than a word or term. If there is no more to a word than its definition, and “meaning” and “definition” are synonymous, then one falls into an infinite regress of defining a word with other words and defining each word in the definition with more words, all the while never connecting the words to anything outside of themselves.

Due to the bounds of language, it is difficult to not immediately beg the question by simply attributing a definition to the word “meaning.” If “meaning” is more than a string of character laid linearly across a white background for the purpose of pointing to more characters, then what is it? The problem of language is three-fold: (1) How do words obtain a meaning? (2) How is language meaningful (i.e. how does this concrete pattern of characters and symbols find its way to being about something significant to persons)? And (3) How is it that communication can take place?

Obtaining a meaning
Beginning with the first of the three problems: If a word has an inherent meaning (i.e. what the word is about, or the ascribed “definition-like properties,” are the essence of the word/term) then that word’s meaning must never change. In fact, it is more than that: the meaning itself must have been innately associated with the grouping of characters from it’s inception, since to make a distinction between the beginning of meaning and the creation of the word is to show that the term really has no innate property. Otherwise, the essential property, or essence of the word, changes: what makes it what it is is no longer what it was –it has shifted and no permanent meaning takes residence with the language symbol/word/term. Therefore, words have no inherent meaning.[1]

If, on the other hand, words did have innate properties that provided an intrinsic meaning, the meaning of all words would be self-evident to all readers. For this innateness must, necessarily, be plain to all and not just those composing dictionaries. If this were the case, it would eliminate all arguments concerning the meaning of a phrase or term. In fact, the need for dictionaries would be obsolete since the possibility of ambiguity is non-existent and the meaning is evident.

However, if words have no inherent meaning and the language symbols, or “letters,” used are conventional, then individual terms cannot have meaning in and of themselves. Simply put, words have no innate property, only what is assigned to them. At what point, then, do words obtain a meaning? Take the word “run” for example. Is the word, as it stands alone, meaningful? Yes: when read, the word is recognized and understood as meaning something. What, however, is this particular term referring to? Perhaps it is referring to the action that takes place during a marathon, or possibly what an engine does after being turned on, or maybe even the action of one’s nose during allergy season? The point is that the term, as it stands alone, is ambiguous, if not vague, at best.

It seems plain that in order to draw clarity from this vagueness one must qualify this singular term with more words. For instance, if the statement read: “He will run” or “when I turn the key, it will run” or “The pollen is causing my nose to run” then it is easy to see that there is a meaning, but what are these words acting as or doing in order for a meaning to be drawn from this term? The answer is that the other words create a context. Context is the setting that provides needed information in order to derive a meaning. Context, whether it be social, textual or other, is that which sifts through the vagueness of a single term to bring about a specific meaning. The more context that is available, the more distinct and precise the meaning can be.

Reference
Knowing that words have a specific meaning due to being couched within a context helps, but only answers the first of the three problems. It is still a mystery as to (2) how a word can be meaningful (i.e. how the word “run” with no context was still meaningful to the reader) and (3) how communication can take place between persons.

As for (2), the typical, and fairly naïve, response is that words refer to things. The sign, symbol or characters used to refer to these many different things is conventional, but are nonetheless nothing more than signifiers pointing to some sort of referent. Therefore, “tree” points to a tree and “light bulb” points to our spherical, pair shaped item that emits light when plugged into the appropriate socket. Prima fascia this looks adequate, but what about words that refer to things that don’t exist, or worse yet, words that don’t refer to anything at all? What do words like “Santa Clause” refer to? Surely when children write letters to Santa Clause they don’t intend for their mail to be sent to a man in the mall, but rather a fictional character who lives in the North Poll. But this Santa Clause doesn’t exist. Further, what is to say of words like “oh!” or “new” or “compassion” that have no referent? Are these exceptions to the rules, or are they simply meaningless? Obviously, since these words are used and understood (in this writing for example) they are, therefore, meaningful, but how? Many explanations have been given in an attempt to keep this theory from dying all together,[2] but this simplistic answer to a complex question plainly doesn’t work.

Language Game
Many other concrete responses have been given and have treated language as a material tool of mechanic stimuli and response. For the naturalist, language has no metaphysical “meaning” but is summed up by a complex series of animalistic reactions to animalistic assertions, all with the purpose of a sought and acquired desire. Similarly, when a dog, for instance, wants to detract his guest, he barks vehemently (stimuli) until the visitor leaves (desired response). Or, when a dog wants food or to be played with, or even for someone to just rub his belly, he yelps (stimuli) until he eats, has a ball thrown, or gets scratched (desired response). Humans, in a comparable but far more complex way, act accordingly as well. For instance, when a man wants a drink of water he states, “Will you give me a drink of water?” (stimuli) and as a result, the man’s waiter, for example, brings him a glass of water (desired response). Ludwig Wittgenstein calls this a ‘Language Game’ and attributes all exchange of communication to be analogous to a chess game. It is meaningless and complex yet has purpose through interaction and a sought end. Admittedly, some interaction between persons is simply behaviorism,[3] but behaviorism can’t encapsulate or explain all that is contained within language. Wittgenstein’s Language Game sets the question of meaning aside and instead first seeks to understand humans as functioning robots with desire. Through this naturalistic grid Wittgenstein views human language as no more than complex bird chirping and dog barking, undercutting the function of consciousness and altogether side-stepping the question of meaning. By turning language into a mechanical formula Wittgenstein allows his presupposition to direct his belief in such a way that meaning is nothing more than use (hence a use-theory of language).

It is impossible, however, for a Use-Theory/behaviorism to be the ‘end all’ explanation of language and meaning. The Language Game does not reach the root of the problem of language: how can words be meaningful? Wittgenstein answers by simply saying that words are not meaningful. Further, Wittgenstein leaves the question of negative existentials alone. The problem remains unanswered.

Now What?
If words don’t simply refer to things and language can’t simply be explained away through a closed system of naturalistic stimuli and response then what can be said for this function of language? If man is more than animal then language is more than bird chirping and dog barking, but why? What makes human language distinct from non-human communication?

The distinction is consciousness.[4] Consciousness is that “mechanism of awareness” regarding the immaterial reality. Since language is not the result of concrete and tangible tools, but of a mind, and was spoken before written, it is expressed in texts, [5] but language is a phenomenological happening that is understood through the vehicle of consciousness. In other words, language is no less than text,[6] but meaning is so much more.

In the continual attempt to answer (2) one discovers that any theory approaching an answer to the problem of language, using language as a concrete tool, has failed. This takes place when one uses text as the model of language to explain its phenomenon, when in reality it is subservient to the spoken word, which is intangible and immaterial.

Analogy
When one examines the use of language it is clear that it is highly analogical. A particular word or term can be used in a maximum number of ways. To apply the previous example: “I will run”; “the car will run”; “he is run down”; “she was given the run around”; “my nose will run”; “run an errand”; “run rings around”; “a run of 20 (in billiards)”; “he will run the play”; “the mayor decided to run again”; “to run short of”; “run-about” or any other use of “run.” Countless other examples could be used to make the same point: meaning is understanding a complex set of interrelated relationships through an analogical/metaphorical process. All terms are vague until given a context and with increasingly more context come further distinction and understanding.

Analogy solves the problem that the referentialist runs into when attempting to refer to “things” that are non-existent, such as “not” and “nothing.” It is not that one can now, through the process of analogy, understand the negative existentials like “not,” but that one can understand what absence is and through a means of understanding “likeness”/similitude (via consciousness) one can analogically understand words like “nothing.”

In fact, “everyday phrases” illustrate this point: S/he is: “bright”; “Soft spoken”; “Hard headed”; “absent minded”; “ill witted”; “nutty”; etc. such common statements raise the question of whether or not it is it possible for someone to literally be absent of a mind or bright or to have a ‘soft’ voice? Of course, literally and rigidly, it is impossible, but these phrases are used, understood and meaningful because of the analogous use of “soft,” “absent” and “bright.”

Analogy also shows how it is possible to manipulate language in the use of a pun.[7] The referential model of language has no explanation for such a use of dual meaning or play on words. The referentialist would have to say that the word is referring, or pointing, to two referents simultaneously, which is inconceivable.

Therefore, the way in which something is meaningful to persons is through an analogical use of language. However, one is still inadequate, and always will be, in reporting the way in which such an analagoy relates to one’s consciousness. An attempt to use a text in order to explain the phenomenological experience seems apparently absurd..

Communication
If “meaning” is the enigma to philologers and non-language-philosophers alike, then communication is his bedfellow. The answer to the problem of meaning is inextricably linked to how communication takes place. With the conclusions of (1): that a meaning is found in context, and (2): that analogical use of language solves the enigma of meaning, the answer to the problem of communication should be more visible by synthesizing the information of (1) and (2).

If it is true that a meaning is not inherent within words, then it must also be true that it is inconceivable for anyone to communicate a message univocally. To guarantee communicating precisely one’s intention there would have to be a single possible meaning for each word. There is usually more than one meaning per word; however, communication rarely takes place one word at a time, but in phrases, sentences, paragraphs and even monologues. Therefore, most communication given is wed to context, making the possible meaning(s) significantly narrower.

Narrowness, however, does not guarantee preciseness and is even further disconnected from certainty. This problem is partially due to the phenomenological aspect of language. If language is a function of consciousness then it is impossible (with certainty) to transfer one’s perception/understanding/concepts to another.

Therefore, one’s only available option is to assume/infer the meaning of every phrase being communicated. The more context one has to work with the more likely the intended meaning will be accurately communicated. This leaves a gap. Since one cannot univocally communicate a particular message, s/he can never know if that message was understood as intended, because the best the receiver of the message can do is repeat it back to the sender of the message, but then in turn also never know if his/her understanding was also accurately communicated, creating a downward spiral of doubt.

Conclusion
With the conclusion of the problem of communication one is left with doubt. The best one can do in dialogue is infer the intended meaning, hoping to arrive at a meeting place of understanding. However, while analyzing language and it’s different functions one shouldn’t lose sight of the purpose of language. Things can be discovered about language, and whatever is discoverable and knowable is beneficial, but what is knowable isn’t necessarily primary. The purpose of language should be the focus, not the mechanism itself. The purpose of a car is not to study the car, but to travel from one place to another. It is important to know the car well, and the better it is known the better it can be used properly. But the car’s purpose is not to be studied, but to be used. Similarly, the purpose of language is not that it should be studied, but to know and be known by God. So, instead of doubt, one should trust the creator of language, knowing that he is the only one who can effectively, and with certainty, communicate to us.

[1] What is meant by the term “word” is a particular grouping of characters that form a symbol used as language.

[2] A few attempts to justify the referential model of language and their inadequacy: William Lycan, in Philosophy of Language: a contemporary introduction, raises several problems

[3] To use one common example: Often when passing a companion at work or school one will gesture with “How are you?” and in turn the companion may respond “Fine, and you?” all the while neither individual being concerned with the emotional, psychological or physical well being of the other, but each is actually casually carrying out an appropriate gesture for the social milieu the individuals were reared within. The proof that such interaction is behaviorism and not true “meaningful” communication is found in the lack of a response to the second question. If the companion at work/school was truly interested in a response when he said “Fine, and you?” he would have been offended when none was given. However, since the man was simply playing a game according to the rules of the culture, he knew (without thinking about it) that a response was unnecessary.

[4] A possible function or byproduct of the Imago Dei

[5] Genesis 1:1: In the beginning God said…

[6] Text is the least common denominator of a language, and while at times may seem more complex, it works much harder to communicate the complete context of conversations that even a young child can have through the spoken word.

[7] A play on words, sometimes on different senses of the same word and sometimes on the similar sense or sound of different words: http://www.dictionary.com/

Entry 27: Entry 25 Missing in Action

2006-02-09T07:04:00.000-08:00

As many of you know, I posted the article from The Dallas Morning News concerning Scott Camp’s departure from Criswell. Shortly thereafter I received an explosion of comments that left wreckage and debris everywhere. Other people’s adamant person opinions were expressed under the guise of “anonymous” and the like. The arguments were heated, yet childish- many were unwise with their knowledge/information and its inappropriate disclosure to anyone with a computer. Such comments coupled with Ad Hominems caused me to delete the post in its entirety. I could not allow my webspace to be the platform for “shadow punching” and “ghost writers” who felt the freedom under such disguises to slander others.

Many of the comments that were made did not honor Jesus and, in fact, did just opposite.

Entry 26: Criswell College Follow up

2006-02-07T06:48:00.000-08:00

In my reading I came across these verses this morning: 1 Timothy 2:1-7

Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle--I am speaking the truth *in Christ and not lying--a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

I was reminded that:

1. God is in control
2. There is a “Mediator between God and Men”
3. Thus, man has access to the one in control through the Mediator- “the Man Christ Jesus”
4. Therefore, one’s supplications, prayers and intercessions should be made to the one who has the power to make change.

I don’t say this in opposition to anyone who wants to speak his or her mind. Everyone has a right to point to what they believe to be injustice; however, if you are not petitioning God for real change then you are merely blowing smoke and most likely doing so with a sinful attitude and heart problem.

Entry 24: Language- meaning

2006-01-05T10:01:00.000-08:00

I recently heard a pastor preaching on modernism vs. postmodernism and one characteristic he ascribed to postmodernism was that they claim that there is no inherent meaning for words. Well, my question is: is there? Is there an inherent meaning imbedded in each language symbol? If so, how?

If a word has an inherent meaning (the definition is the essence of the word) then that word’s meaning must never change. Otherwise, the essential property or essence of that word changes: what makes it what it is is no longer what it was –it has shifted and no permanent meaning takes residence with the language symbol. Hence, words have no inherent meaning.

It occurred to me that just because the sign itself is subjective does not mean that the reference is. Let me explain, Chomsky, a philologer believed that we all speak/think something of the same “mind language” (my words) we just, depending on the people group, give this same object that comes to everyone’s mind, a tree for example, a different language-symbol to identify it. So, what Americans may call a “Tree” someone else will call an “Arbre” “Baum” “Árvore” “Дерево” “Árbol” “Boom” “Albero” –or any number of other things. All of these different signs (words) refer to the same thing (or have the same reference). This “thing” or reference, never changes despite what you call or label it.

Therefore, there is an objective reality, but because of our time/space limitation (I am assuming that if we were all omniscient we would all have the same words) and culture we assign subjective symbols to an objective reality.

What does this mean?

Well, what it doesn’t mean is that one can start ascribing any of our typical language symbols, such as “ice-cream”, to any reference that they want. For instance, “I fixed the handle on the ice-cream today” or “the plumbing on your ice-cream was all backed up, it took me hours to fix it” or “he pushed me first so turned around and hit him right in his ice-cream.”

This doesn’t work. Just because language is fluid doesn’t mean that it is any more fluid than a slug. When one begins to arbitrarily change the meaning of a word it will cause confusion and chaos. My example’s were with changing one word and replacing it with “ice-cream” so that the reader could more or less use context clues to understand what was going on. But had I decided to arbitrarily change 90 or 95% of the words with the intent to communicate the same message it wouldn’t work.

Example: “the pony-tail on your ice-cream was all Niagara-up it took tree clouds to inflate it.” This sentence in no way communicates, “the plumbing on your toilet was all backed up, it took me hours to fix it.”

It also doesn’t mean that words are meaningless. Words have meaning; it’s just that some word’s meaning change. I would like to say that words have a “fixed-temporary meaning.” Not fixed as in permanent and not temporary as in rapid change, but a definition that remains for a long period of time that will eventually shift for some reason or the other.

Conclusion: a words meaning is what the society determines is its reference and we should not be quick to attempt to change that reference.

Entry 23: A Song by Sara Groves

2005-12-16T10:18:00.000-08:00

To the Moon

It was there in the bulletin
We're leaving soon
After the bake sale to raise funds for fuel
The rocket is ready and we're going to
Take our church to the moon

There'll be no one there to tell us we're odd
No one to change our opinions of God
Just lots of rocks and this dusty sod
Here at our church on the moon

We know our liberties we know our rights
We know how to fight a very good fight
Just get that last bag there and turn out the light
We're taking our church to the moon
We're taking our church to the moon
We'll be leaving soon

Entry 22: "O' God (and everyone else) Hear My Prayer"

2005-12-09T08:12:00.000-08:00

As I peruse the spider-web of blogs from link to link I often find a common thread throughout: postings of eloquent prayers and dyer requests to the Lord for whatever situation one may be going through.

At first glance I think it is a nice spiritual thing to do. Then, at second glance, it looks as if this prayer or supplication is pretty intimate, yet, at the same time really generic. It seems as though the prayers are recorded in such a way so that people can read this intimate, romantic communication with God, but not in such a way that the reader can actually know what is going on.

It almost seems like a type of boasting in ones spiritual self or, as the Pharisees would do, letting everyone know that through their torn garments and disfigured faces that they were performing a spiritual act.

It reminds me of these verses: 5 "And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 6 But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you *openly. 7 And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.

Is praying with your door shut, yet typing it up and posting it on the internet, what Jesus was talking about?

Entry 21: Music

2005-11-14T11:41:00.000-08:00

I think that there is something inherently spiritual about music. It seems as though music (even non-Christian music) can stir the immaterial of man in way that other things can’t.

My old roommate Brandon Harris once said that he had a theory: that the things of this world are somehow an echo of the eternal. If that is so, I wonder what that means for music?

Entry 20: Language

2005-11-04T12:59:00.000-08:00

My friend, Brandon Harris (rf2r2), has a GREAT post on why ‘dirty’ language is NOT inherently evil. This was my response, but I think I agree with his argument.

“I am under the impression that words (or terms rather- I guess either works) have no existence (or relevance for that matter) outside of a relationship with persons. Therefore, if a words beginning is with a person, then couldn’t it be argued that with the conception of the word there is something (a definition or descriptor) that is inherent about that word? If there is, and that descriptor is something evil, then could it be said to have an inherently evil or ‘dirty’ meaning? At least originally? I believe language is fluid (about as fluid as a slug, but fluid nonetheless).

Or if we go with Plato who believed in the forms and that we communicate through words that people understand because of their common a priori knowledge of the forms then their could be a form for the dirty words making it inherently bad (if the forms aren’t only specific to physical objects).

Or Chomsky believed that all people have the same ‘thought-language’ we just translate this thought-language differently by giving the thought-language different signs and symbols creating different languages. What if we all have the same ‘thought-language’ for ‘dirty’ words and just slap those inherently dirty thought-words with different labels? Could certain words be inherently dirty then?

Some people like Wittgenstein say that we should move away from the meaning of words and look to the usage of words. This would make language very subjective, but, even so, if meaning is usage then there is a possibility of inherently (at least for the moment) ‘dirty’ words.

I’m not necessarily ascribing to any of these positions, just some thoughts. For my postmodern world class I had to research the history of the philosophy of language so this stuff is fresh on my mind.”

What do you think?

Entry 19: Why not?

2005-11-04T11:18:00.000-08:00

So here’s what I’m thinking: get together 20 or so people with my wife and me and move over seas. Live in a community with one another and impact a large region with the gospel while living, working and being apart of that culture- missions basically.

Entry 18: Edwards

2005-10-13T10:32:00.000-07:00

Johnathan Edwards' 15th resolution: Resolved, never to suffer the least motions of anger towards irrational beings.

-I second this resolution.

Entry 17: aldsfjl aldskjf

2005-10-05T13:04:00.000-07:00

A is not non-A.
For language-symbols too?

Contradiction is nonsensical.
How can this be true?

You're reading, understanding
and comprehending what this says.

For Post Moderns this experience
contradicts the contents of your heads.

Words have meaning-
See what I mean:

"Tree pop window now
in these five seen."

-This communicates nothing
it's self-evidentially true.

You can mix and match these words
and deconstruct this too,

but then and only then
you show us something more:

You reveal your moral bankruptcy
and treat reason like a whore.

Entry 16: Dont call me that!

2005-09-26T07:27:00.000-07:00

It really bothers me that people don’t take the time to think through what they are saying as they are speaking or writing. More specifically, that when speaking, people randomly use generic words or generalities instead of using (or intending to use) specific words to convey and communicate a specific, distinct message.

One such example: those struck by hurricane Katrina fled from Louisiana to Texas and other surrounding areas for food and shelter. As the media spoke of (dare I say) “refugees” and their current circumstances, a number of people spoke out against the usage of the word “refugee” as if it is a degrading, demoralizing or offensive term. Therefore, the politically correct word is “evacuee.”

Now, it seems as though, when speaking or writing, the news media is pretty specific and intentional about their wordage (whether to manipulate or convey the truth is beside the point). So, the word “refugee” wasn’t an accident- it was an instance where someone was actually attempting to accurately communicate and label a group of people (not a race of people).

Let’s look at the definition of the word: Refugee- an exile who flees for safety. Now, as a prof of mine did, lets look at the obvious root of the word: Refuge- Protection or shelter, as from danger or hardship. Now let’s put one plus one together and see what we get: those from LA were seeking protection and shelter. They were also seeking shelter because they were fleeing from danger and to safety. What does this make them? You guessed it: a refugee.

Now, just for fun, the definition of the politically correct word: Evacuee- a person evacuated from a dangerous area.

Question: does this word not seem even more unfitting considering the fact that they are “refugees” because they didn’t comply with being “evacuated” from the dangerous area? They would be evacuees had they evacuated when the evacuation warning was issued. They are, therefore, now, refugees.

Entry 15: The B.I.B.L.E is that the book for me?

2005-09-14T13:13:00.000-07:00

In a resent post on truth (which had about as many rabbit trails as it did comments) a number of viewpoints were raised and shared. Slowly the conversation shifted to the topic of truth/revelation/a conglomerate of opinions.

The conversation wasn’t useless however. Accordingly, we honed the definition of truth as follows: Truth is what is is- an accurate description of reality. The Bible is true because it is the only infallible description of reality.

With this understood, a few more questions arise:

1. Is there truth ABOUT GOD that is not revealed in scripture (or necessarily inferred from scripture) that we can know?

2. Is the Bible EVER just a book with words on pages similar to any other piece of literature (for the atheist or agnostic or ‘backslidden-believer’ or whoever)?

3. Does the Bible “do God justice” (for context read the end of Entry 13 on “truth”)?

Please make it clear which question(s) you are responding to in your comments.

Entry 14: Brussel Sprouts

2005-08-23T14:17:00.000-07:00

This post is more of an empirical post. Though, not the usual, this is something I have been thinking about. However, I have not looked into any sort of answer from an empirical source (science or otherwise), speculation alone…

Why is it that one person can dislike a certain food and another like and enjoy the same food? Let us assume a perfect world where everyone’s mouth and tongue operates in right order and is un-afflicted in any way.

Any answers?

Entry 13: Truth

2005-08-03T15:32:00.000-07:00

A question that seems to plague our culture and society, as a whole is one regarding ‘truth.’ Does such a thing exist? Does this word carry any meaning whatsoever?

Aristotle said, “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false; while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.”

Jesus said that to know the truth is to be free. And in another place: I am… the truth.

So, with Pontius Pilate, I ask the question, “What is truth?”

Entry 12: Beauty

2005-07-18T14:39:00.000-07:00

I believe that the statement "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is false.

What do you think?

Entry 11: Science and Metaphysics?

2005-07-07T08:26:00.000-07:00

Alan Boyle has a blog on MSNBC’s website: Cosmic Log. I read an entry about the mysteries of science and responded to it. To my surprise, he replied:

My email:

In your most resent post you responded to a readers question by saying "Can the soul be studied scientifically? I doubt it, but it's certainly humbling to consider that we may perceive only three or four of as many as 11 dimensions in the universe." This answer causes me to wonder: why do you assume we have a soul? Not that I don't think that we have a soul, but in order to believe such a thing you must assert (1) you can, in some sense, study the immaterial and therefore know we have a soul, (2) believe in some sort of higher propositional truth- and are taking its word for it, or (3) perceive that some sort of immaterial exists in your own being. Is this true? If so, which is true for you?

Also, why, again if we can’t study the immaterial nature of things, would you say that there may be as many as 11 dimensions as oppose to 23 or 16.5 or even 147?

Finally, my last question arises from the many answers you gave various people in this post: do you believe that one, let us say, variable, exists causing all things to consist and cohere? Thanks for your time! This was my first time to read your blog and I enjoyed it. Joel Patrick

His response:

True, there could be 23 dimensions or 147 (trying to visualize half a dimension here)… but it takes 11 dimensions (10 spatial dimensions plus time) to have the equations uniting gravity and the other fundamental forces work out correctly, so that’s why the number 11 sticks in my brain. The realm of the soul (as opposed to some level of “consciousness,” which alone is a tricky enough concept) is beyond the realm of science (yes, I believe that there are some things in the universe that science cannot plumb, that there are some aspects of reality that are missed by Occam’s razor … but the topic merits too much to be fully addressed in a short e-mail). I’m not clear on the “one variable” you’re referring to, whether this is something related to coherent forces, an ineffable aether, or something else. It’s at the end of a long day so maybe I’m not as sharp as I need to be to address what you’re getting at. Thanks for tuning in, and I’m glad you’re enjoying the blog. Best, Alan

What do you think about his response?

Entry 10: Jesus is Real!

2005-07-06T07:07:00.000-07:00

I woke up this morning and realized that Jesus is not a portrait or a stained glass window or hymns or all the tradition that surround us.

And I thought it would be hard to believe in, but it’s not hard at all, to believe I’ve sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

And he’s not asking me to change in my joy for martyrdom, he’s asking to take my place; to stand in the gap that I have formed with his real and his sweet and his real amazing grace.

And it’s not just a sign or a sacrament… it’s not just a metaphor for love… The blood is real and is not just a symbol of… its not sign or a sacrament. It’s not just a metaphor for love. The blood is real its not just a symbol of… it is real its not just a symbol of… His blood is real its not just a symbol of your faith.

So leave out “thee” and “thou” and speak now…

-Sara Groves

What do you think?

Entry 9: Imputation

2005-06-06T07:13:00.000-07:00

I recently noticed an interesting question on Adam King's Blog. So, I decided to post my response on here and see what you think...

His question is later stated in the response. You'll catch on.

My response:

Well, I don’t know if it is possible to leave philosophy behind for this question. The nature of the question requires one to look to scripture and make a necessary inference.

In Revelation 13:8 it says, “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of THE LAMB SLAIN FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.” so, accordingly, if those who are elect are elect in Christ by virtue of His atonement then speaking eternally, those who are elect have, since “the foundation of the world,” been secure in Christ.

Ephesians 1:4-5 further illustrates this point: just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will…

However, even if our salvation has been eternally locked into place from the foundation of the world, we are not eternal (everlasting, maybe. Eternal, no). We are temporal and, therefore, must experience the working of our salvation in a temporal way. There was a point in time when we were pulled from the muck and the mire and set on solid rock. There was a point in time when Christ was crucified, yet had been slain from the foundation of the world.

Speaking eternally, all things are immediate and in an eternal present (this is why Jesus can say “before Abraham was I AM”). Speaking temporally things must be worked out one-by-one on a time-line.

This leads to eternal security but doesn’t necessarily answer your question: Can I biblically say that just as prior to our existence it was imputed upon us the guilt of Adam, likewise prior to our existence it was imputed upon us the justification of Christ?

It looks as if, according the the verses above we have been chosen for the imputation of righteousness before the foundation of the world, but the word “impute” itself is a temporal word. Therefore, I would have to say that it was determined before the foundation of the world that Christ’s blood would atone for the sin of the elect and therefore there would be a moment in time when Christ’s righteousness would be imputed to individual believers. The christian has been eternally secure since the foundation of the world, but christ’s righteousness was imputed to the individual during a moment in time.

Because of the nature of the word “impute” I would also have to say (to fully answer your question) that sin was not imputed to all but was required of all living things upon their conception. One can say that the fate of all humanity (even before their existence) is that they would be sinners, but the sinfulness for these people also happens in a moment in time.

Therefore, I would have to say that neither sin nor righteousness was “imputed” before the existence of the individual, even if the determination of God had all things set in place to cause it to be such one moment in time.

Entry 8: Compartmentalization

2005-04-27T06:54:00.000-07:00

What is with blogs? I’m obviously not opposed to blogs and I think many times they are used for positive purposes. One can express their opinion openly, it urges people to write and it encourages communication. I see a problem though, our community (if I can call it that), maybe I should say our society, pushes the idea of individualism and blogging without doubt does the same. My concern is that our society is becoming too ‘individualistic.’ So much so that people isolate themselves and when they want to say something they run to their computer, practice and backspace and reherse the most perfect way to make their point or express their emotion in hopes that someone will see it and think a certain thing/way about the author.

Blogging begs for compartmentalization among people. Even now, in my short experience with blogs, I see people that are one way in public or school or wherever and a totally different person in their blog. It’s as if your online corkboard of free thought encourages you to stay in the shell you live in until you are sitting in front of your computer screen.

Well, that’s my opinion… What do you think?

Entry 7: Our New Holy Pappy...

2005-04-19T14:08:00.000-07:00

Does anyone else think the process for choosing the pope is a little odd considering the fact that the pope is voted in? Apparently, after several disagreements of who should be pope a vote eventually elects one of the candidates. This electoral process causes the new pope to be the mouthpiece of God (that is, of course, when he sits on a certain chair). So tell me, was God confused as to who should be the pope initially? Why are so many meetings required to choose the new leader of the Catholic Church? Further, who instituted the process of choosing the pope? If Jesus (God) chose Peter to be the “first pope” then who gets to act as God to choose the 2nd, 3rd or 265th pope?

Ratzinger, the new ‘holy father’ said: "Dear brothers and sisters, after our great pope, John Paul II, the cardinals have elected me, a simple, humble worker in God's vineyard…I am consoled by the fact that the Lord knows how to work (apparently after several attempts) and how to act, even with INSUFFICIENT TOOLS, and I especially trust in your prayers.”

Hmmm...?

Entry 6: Undeserved

2005-04-15T14:28:00.000-07:00

A rose
still has a thorn
A fetus
still has pain unborn

Man
is still in need
Sin
is guaranteed to bleed

God
infinite in love
Drawing
in the image of a dove

Acceptable
The Son’s sacrifice has made
Saved!
The price has been paid

Entry 5: "I do" April 2, 2005 6:24pm

2005-04-12T13:40:00.000-07:00

Well, I did it. I got married. Its weird you know… it was quite an epiphany to be sitting on the couch with my new bride, watching a movie and thinking: I’m an adult, I support myself and I’m married…how in the world did that happen?

There is no experience like waiting for your bride and seeing the doors in the back of the church swing open as this beautiful picture of the body of Christ floats toward you with a spotless, white, radiance encompassing her presence.

I love it. She calms me down. She is a great “help-mate” in the truest sense of the word.

Marriage is a real adjustment. This statement shouldn’t be read with a negative connotation, it’s just different, I guess. For instance, I apparently like to leave the cabinets open and walk off when I get something out of them. It doesn’t go over too well with Gabby, so now I try to shut them. I try to “adjust.”

I don’t think, however, this would have been (or would be) an enjoyable experience if the Lord had not blessed our union.

It seems like everyone is in such a rush to get married, and I understand the feeling, I was there less than a month ago, but God’s action within time is impeccable. If your reason for marriage isn’t to glorify God and enjoy him through one another then slow down. Seek FIRST the kingdom of God and His righteousness- this is how joy in marriage, marriage preparation and life is attained. Any other reason that stands on its own is vanity.

Entry 4: The Pope Vs. Schiavo

2005-03-30T12:46:00.000-08:00

"To improve his (The Pope's) calorific intake and promote an efficient recovery of his strength, nutrition via the positioning of a nasal-gastric tube has begun," Joaquin Navarro-Valls said in a statement released Wednesday (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/30/pope.monday/index.html).

Who would argue that this man’s “feeding tube” (as the headline read) should be removed? Is the Pope’s life more valuable than another’s?

At what point in the functionality of a human being does a person cease to be human? Is it at a certain level of brain damage? Is it the incapability to express one’s self coherently?

If the Pope must be assisted in his living (which is undeniably happening) does this give him the right to choose to die? Does this give us the right to choose for him?

Is the answer that you give for the Pope the same answer you give for Terri Schiavo? It should be…

Entry 3: Random

2005-03-23T12:26:00.000-08:00

Riddle Me This: is it inherent within persons who own VW’s to also love Apple Computers and Great Britain? What's with that?

Entry 2: Terri Schiavo

2005-03-23T08:50:00.000-08:00

Removing the feeding tube from Terri Schiavo’s mouth is murder. Euthanasia is always wrong. One may say that since it is artificial life it is therefore morally acceptable. but where is the line drawn? I understand that an extreme position can be taken pro or con, but there must be a healthy balance. In the words of another: when life is an option, it should always be chosen over death.

An unhealthy and dangerous precedent will result in choosing death for Schiavo. With one 'justified death' comes many more. To justify killing simply because life support is necessary is absurd when carried to its logical end.

An unborn baby is on life support. In fact, the baby could not live if it was not on the life support of its mother. Is this justification for abortion or murder? does this make the infants life less alive?

Further, there are those who are elderly and reside in assisted living homes. These individuals can’t feed themselves and are technically having their life supported by being fed by another. Is this situation any different than Terri’s? Would our Judicial system allow us to arbitrarily deny these people food? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

What is taking place with Schiavo is murder. Her body is naturally fighting for life, yet being denied the sustenance it needs.

Entry 1

2005-03-22T07:41:00.000-08:00

what to say? This is my first blog. I guess I will start with explaining why I chose the name that I did. "joelblogos" for all of the bible thumpers out there it is just a dumb play on words. joel + blog + logos = joelblogos.