Saturday, March 31, 2012

Featured Sci-Fi Short Film: Chameleon [Video]

This is really good
A hostile race of aliens has invaded Earth and the government fears that the aliens are modifying their DNA to pose as humans. When a military officer abducted months ago mysteriously reappears, his wife is called in to ask him questions only she would know to find out who or what he really is. Starring James C. Burns (Call of Duty: Black Ops). Based on a story by science fiction author Colin Harvey.





Featured Sci-Fi Short Film: Chameleon [Video]

More Info On The Trayvon Case

I came across two articles that shed more light on the Trayvon case. Here are some of what I think should be highlighted and links to the full article.

Trayvon Martin may not have done the textbook best job at protecting himself from harm. And whether he was a “child” or not may be open to debate since government agencies and websites differ on how somebody age 17 should be categorized.  But considering the circumstances — rainy, getting dark, stranger following him with a gun — his actions were reasonable and well within his rights.  They certainly didn’t warrant his death.
To summarize Zimmerman’s own defense, Zimmerman initiated a confrontation by chasing a youth, the youth defended himself, and Zimmerman shot him dead.  Looks like grounds for an arrest.  And if you ask me, it’s grounds for a conviction, too.

With a Stranger Stalking, What Were Trayvon Martin's Options?

What is the relationship between Zimmerman and the one eyewitness who allegedly corroborated his account? An eyewitness who has only been identified in media reports as John claims that he saw Zimmerman getting pounded by Trayvon Martin. A Florida Fox News affiliate interviewed the witness, but he refused to show his face on camera. It’s unclear where John was standing during the incident and whether he saw how it began, but he says that after he noticed it, he ran upstairs in his apartment to call 911 and heard a gun shot while he was running. Who is this witness on whom it appears Wolfinger hinged his belief in Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense? Is he a friend of Zimmerman’s?

Top 5 Unanswered Questions In the Trayvon Martin Case

The Evolution of Makeup [infographic] | Daily Infographic



The Evolution of Makeup [infographic] | Daily Infographic

Walter Martin's last TBN Appearance - YouTube

Introduction to Playlist

Walter Martin defending the faith, circa 1985, on TBN with host Doug Clark. Neither the host nor the guest were ever invited back and the program was not reaired the following Monday as it was scheduled.




Walter Martin's last TBN Appearance - YouTube

Friday, March 30, 2012

Rick Santorum Calls Obama A "Government N*gga" - It Never Stops

I can't believe it. When it rains it seems to pour.

Santorum was speaking at a rally in Janesville, Wisconsin, still locked in the ferocious nomination battle with Mitt Romney and still desperate to become the true conservative standard-bearer of the Republican party.
"We know the candidate Barack Obama, what he was like – the anti-war government nig …" he seems to say, then suddenly stopping, and changing tack to add: "America was a source for division around the world, that what we were doing was wrong."

 It seem incredible and yet enough wiggle room that people can believe it didn't happen. Did Rick Santorum really refer to the first Black President of the United States by such an ugly and racist word? As a black man raised in the United States, I can't say I'd be surprised - not shock but a more of an attitude of having my own suspicions proved correct.  Personally, I think that most of President Obama's critics and political opponents frequently refer to him this way in private.

People are divided on whether or not its true or not. I admit that I don't know Santorum's heart and I can't read his mind, but I don't see how this is not a Freudian slip.



I’ve watched this video 14.5 times.  I’ve meditated on it, prayed over it, laid hands on it, and sent it to my mama.   I had to take a moment to thank God that Rick Santorum, in his conservative brilliance, has finally released videotaped evidence of the kind of smoking gun that many millions of us can use to prove that he is every bit as racist as we’ve always known him to be. -  Dr Boyce Watkins Source


Not everyone agrees, but sees other possibility.

It is hard to think of exactly what word Santorum was about to use. What word beginning with "nig-" comes naturally after government? It has been suggested he was trying to say "-nik", as in peacenik or beatnik. That is possible. Or perhaps, it was some non-specific verbal tic: a random vowel-consonent flub. - Paul Harris Source

Okay. I don't buy it. But Okay. Here is the offending part of the speech.





Here are three articles on this.
Rick Santorum: another slip of the tongue but was it the 'N-word'?
Did Rick Santorum almost say the n-word during speech?
Rick Santorum Calls Obama A "Government N*gga" | News One

Intelligence of Tweeters [Pic]

Intelligence of Tweeters [Pic]

Disgrasian: Where The Killing Of A Fictional Black Child Exposes How We Feel About The Killing Of A Real Black Child | K Tempest Tumbles

I recently posted a short blog article that basically argues that the killing of Trayvon Martin and the controversy of black characters in the movie/book series Hunger Games are both parts of the same poisonous tree of American racism. How little things really change. I came across a very insightful article on Tumblr in which an article discusses how society feels about the killing of fictional black youths correlate to how it feels about killing real people. I think the point is true.

What I’ve been stewing over for the last few weeks is exactly that, that there’s a sickening bottom line in this country, and it is simply that certain people’s lives are valued less than others. I don’t know how we continue on as a society knowing this. Because a society where mothers of black boys have to worry that when their children run out for candy, they might never come back–that society is broken. A society where the Muslim mother of five children could be beaten to death in her own bed where her killer left a note that reads “go back to your country, you terrorist” is a society that demands to be fixed. Every piece of legislation that criminalizes a person’s skin color–whether with regard to immigration or homeland security or law enforcement–needs to be challenged. Every cultural message that says one race is “less than” another needs to be checked. Is it a movie we’re watching about a dystopia that doesn’t give a shit about its disenfranchised or are we living it? The line for me has become increasingly blurred.

 I should point out that this point really isn't new. For years there has been discussion of how black characters in movies and television have been treated as fodder. Y'know the trope: The token black guy always dies by the end of the movie. I can think of very few example where black supporting characters (male or female) does not get killed.  We all know that stories have more resonance when a character you care about dies, but why is seemingly always the black friend of the white main character? It's become cliche. You know the black guy/girls screen time is numbered the moment they are introduced. Perhaps this has carried through to real life in how some people think about black people. I was horrified to hear that people card less about one of the characters in Hunger Games when they realized she was a black girl. Sad. Really sad.

Disgrasian: Where The Killing Of A Fictional Black Child Exposes How We Feel About The Killing Of A Real Black Child | K Tempest Tumbles

Watch The Snob Discuss the Trayvon Martin Case on BBC World "Have Your Say" - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob

I have found that Danielle Belton's blog really useful for news and insightful commentary. She has been posting some articles on the Trayvon Martin case and she recently appeared on a BBC show discussing the case.




Watch The Snob Discuss the Trayvon Martin Case on BBC World "Have Your Say" - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Webcomic Reimagines Shooting Victim Trayvon Martin As Spider-Man

I just read a real good summary of the Trayvon Martin case.

One of the most ridiculous details from the tragic shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin is that his George Zimmerman – who shot Martin in what he claims was self-defense — felt threatened because Martin was wearing a hoodie. The youth didn’t appear to have a weapon or to be acting in a threatening manner, and yet Zimmerman racially profiled him all the same.

A recent web comic strip spotlight how silly it is to judge a person by solely their outward appearance. We all do it, unfortunately. Maybe Trayvon Martin might still be alive had Zimmerman not done that.


Tor.com noticed this strip from webcomic Let’s Be Friends Again, which draws on half-black, half-Latino Spider-Man Miles Morales to drive home the point that you never know what kind of person is beneath a hoodie.
And it could very well be that more often the stranger is a good guy instead of a threat.



Webcomic Reimagines Shooting Victim Trayvon Martin As Spider-Man

Calvinistic Cartoons: The Rest of the Story

Calvinistic Cartoons: The Rest of the Story

A History of Western Typefaces [infographic] | Daily Infographic



A History of Western Typefaces [infographic] | Daily Infographic

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

What Physics Students Do [Pic]

 I'm dating myself but when I was a university physics student, I couldn't just "Google" anything. We "yahooed"

What Physics Students Do [Pic]

Desposyni: The Mighty Mathematician You’ve Never Heard Of

I had never heard of Amalie Noether but it turns out that we all owe her.

She invented a theorem that united with magisterial concision two conceptual pillars of physics: symmetry in nature and the universal laws of conservation. Some consider Noether’s theorem, as it is now called, as important as Einstein’s theory of relativity; it undergirds much of today’s vanguard research in physics, including the hunt for the almighty Higgs boson

I really liked this article. Really important information. 

Desposyni: The Mighty Mathematician You’ve Never Heard Of

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

I'm Sexy And I Know It

I think You may have noticed a meme going around" Parodies of the song "I'm Sexy, And I Know it" Some of the are hilarious. Here are a couple that just are real funny! Fill in the Blank


I'm Pregnant, And I know It

I'm Nerdy and I know It

Enhanced by Zemanta

Racism Is Still Here In 2012

I find it amazing that there still so much racism in 2012. In the past week it's like a blanket has been pulled back and we can see how ugly some people's hearts truly are.

1. This past weekend I heard about the murder of Trayvon Martin. The young man was only seventeen years-old and he was murdered for wearing a hoodie killed because he was dressed in a way that made him seem suspicious to George Zimmerman. To make it worse there are people trying to excuse Zimmerman by finding something Trayvon did that lead to him being shot.







2. I also heard about a black man and a black woman killed in Chicago by cop and there does not seem to be any good reason for this.
3. I admit I have not yet seen "Hunger Games" or read the books, but apparently some people who were fans of the series have made shocking and racist remarks against a young black kids that was cast as one of their beloved characters. I guess these people have really bad reading comprehension skill because the characters were described as black in the books. These idiots claim that this revelation has detracted from their enjoyment of the franchise. Here is a picture of one of the young people being insulted for no other reason than the color of her skin.
'Hunger Games' Cast Subjected to Racist Attacks in Shocking Tweets

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Elephant Works A Smartphone Better than Most of Us





The Daily WTF: This Elephant Is Scarily Good At Using A Smartphone

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Answering Muslims: Islamic Bookstore Sells out of Violently Misogynistic "A Gift for the Muslim Couple"

David Wood posted an article about a book describing how Muslim marriages should run.  He not on;y points out a passage from the Qur'an many Muslims use to tell them that they should beat their wives and wives should allow themselves to be beaten. I realize some people might read this and not follow the link so here is the Qur'anic passage:

Qur'an 4:34—Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

The book the article that David writes about attempts to explain how would someone live this out:

Page 45 contains the rights of the husband, which include his wife’s inability to leave “his house without his permission,” and that his wife must “fulfil his desires” and “not allow herself to be untidy ... but should beautify herself for him ... ”

In terms of physical punishment, the book advises that a husband may scold her, “beat by hand or stick,” withhold money from her or “pull (her) by the ears,” but should “refrain from beating her excessively.”

Yup, Marital bliss alright. The truth is that not all Muslims would agree with that. But like David Wood observeed:

I hate to break this to everyone, but if Tarek Fatah rejects what this book says about beating women, he's not a "moderate" Muslim. He's not a Muslim at all, because he accepts Western values as a higher source of morality than the Qur'an.

Answering Muslims: Islamic Bookstore Sells out of Violently Misogynistic "A Gift for the Muslim Couple"

ID.Plus: Insight into Fundamentalist Atheism

Dr Peter S Williams posted the following video on his blog and I agree that it does show one of the ugly sides of fundamentalism: refusal of discussion. Religious people are not the only ones guilty of doing this. It is unfortunate that people can be so busy throwing accusation at people that they don't see their own blindness. I also found it interesting that many the atheist running the so-called "Reason Rally" only want to interact with the caricature of Christianity embodied by the Westboro Baptist Church. It's like they don't want to reason - just pontificate.




ID.Plus: Insight into Fundamentalist Atheism

Common Runner Injuries [infographic] | Daily Infographic

[via]

Common Runner Injuries [infographic] | Daily Infographic

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Why do some Bibles omit portions of Daniel and Esther? Akin Says: Luther

James Swan has posted a really great response to Jimmy Akin who was answering the question of why most Protestant Bibles don't have the longer versions of Daniel and Esther. Swan also explodes the myth that Martin Luther tried to get rid of those parts of Daniel and Esther. This is a great article. The video being responded to is below.





Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Why do some Bibles omit portions of Daniel and Esther? Akin Says: Luther

Friday, March 23, 2012

Internal Evidence for the Gospels by Timothy McGrew Audio and Video - Apologetics 315

Here is the third part in Dr Timothy McGrew's series of lectures in which he explains some of the evidence we have for accepting the validity of the Gospels. In this lecture, he focuses on "undesigned coincidences". They are times when the one Gospel gives details that another Gospel omits. There are several examples and none of them can be explained by one author copying another. The series just keeps getting better and better. Can't wait for part 4.




Internal Evidence for the Gospels by Timothy McGrew Audio and Video - Apologetics 315

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Doomsday Predictions Debunked [infographic]

Personally, I believe the Bible tells us the right way it will all end.

Doomsday Predictions Debunked [infographic]

External Evidence for the Gospels by Timothy McGrew Audio and Video - Apologetics 315

Here is a really good lecture that Dr Timothy McGrew gave last month relying on historical evidences from non Christian witnesses and culture and history to show consistently accurate the Biblical Gospels and Acts are. Of course, it does not prove that they are true by themselves but it is good evidence that they are true. If the Bible authors had gotten so many easily checked things wrong, it would be enough to throw them out as true. I'be got to ask why doesn't the fact that they get these things right not evidence that the books are true? It truly is a sad, double-minded, and inconsistent methodology for determining if something is true.



External Evidence for the Gospels by Timothy McGrew Audio and Video - Apologetics 315

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

How Many Devices Can You Replace With An iPad?

[]

No More Shuffling

Kirk Cameron Claims He Loves Everyone, Even If They're Going To Hell

Recently, Kirk Cameron has been heavily condemned for sticking to Biblical Christianity. I was amazed but not surprised about this article. It never fails. The minute you stand on what the Bible says, while speaking English, all of a sudden you are like speaking an entirely different language. For example this article says that Kirk said:

So today Kirk Cameron went on The Today Show to explain what he really meant by what he said. And all he really explained was that he’s still a homophobic asshole who can’t understand why people are mad that he thinks gay people are the worst. 

He never said that. It's like what he said went through a filter and out comes something unrecognizable. I think that some people will hear what a Christian says and then run it through a filter and their minds twist it into something else. For example Kirk is quoted in the article:

“Absolutely not, of course not. I love all people, I hate no one and, you know, when you take a subject and you reduce it to something like a four-second sound bite and a check mark on a ballot, I think that that’s inappropriate and insensitive…Nobody should mistreat anybody—homosexuals should not be mistreated, heterosexuals should not be mistreated, bisexuals should not be mistreated. All of us who really think deeply about social issues like gay marriage and abortion and homosexuality have convictions on issues, and and we all have our convictions formed by different things, and mine are formed by my faith, they’re informed by the word of God, and I found that to be an anchor for me, a compass and a guide for me."

The article's author seems to be fine and understands exactly what was said. But then Cameron is quoted:

“I was surprised, frankly, that people were surprised by the things I said. I have been consistent for 15 years as a Christian. I’m a Bible-believing Christian. What I would have thought was more newsworthy is if I had said something that contradicted the word of God, if I had contradicted my faith.” 

I see nothing wrong with this statement. It is consistent and clear. But the author of the article feels the need to re-contextualize and re-state the comment in their own words. Not surprisingly, it's completely different than what Kirk Cameron said and wrote:


Let’s translate that real fast to non-PR lingo:
“Guys, remember that time God called me and told me being gay was unnatural and sinful and dirty? Yeah that was years ago and I told ya’ll years ago. So I don’t get why you’re all acting surprised that I still think they’re ‘unnatural’ and gross. Wouldn’t it be weirder if I came on this show and said ‘Gays are awesome, rainbow flags for everyone!’ I’m not saying you should like stone them, but I am saying you should stay away so you don’t get dragged to hell with them. Okay?”
So yeah, Kirk Cameron still sucks. It’s a shame, you know? The Seavers seemed like such good parents!

This is completely not what he said. And I think that it should be remembered that as a Christian, Kirk Cameron believes, and as he has stated in the past, that all people are sinners and without Jesus' sacrifice and Resurrection we would all be going to hell no matter if your gay or not.

View the Video

Kirk Cameron Claims He Loves Everyone, Even If They're Going To Hell

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

40 Arabic Words




40 Arabic Words

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: The Major Reason Why I Am a Skeptic

John Loftus has posted some thought about his interaction with David Marshall and the difference about which they view the world

 David Marshall continually says I must read up on world religions and the history of religions. But why? It's because he thinks it will help me to believe. So David, I'll grant that you have read more world literature than I have and that you have the benefit of world travel. But I think the brain is such that if I had your experiences and read only the works you have, I would agree with you and think like you. Our brains are like that. So in order to think like you I must be more like you (which also includes IQ, gender, race, sexuality, place and time of birth, and so forth--do you know that sociologists can identify different ideas held by people born in America during the 20's vs the 30's vs the 40's vs the 50's and so on?). BUT I AM NOT YOU! Nor can I ever be. The same thing goes in reverse for you. If you had my experiences and read only the works I have, you would agree with me and think like me. That is probably the major reason why I am a skeptic, because of this propensity of ours to believe and defend a host of ideas just because we were exposed to them, which is as obvious of an empirical fact as we can get. It's overwhelming that our respective cultures influence us, since that's what we're talking about. Just take four babies and raise one in China the other in Saudi Arabia the third in Kentucky and the fourth in Russia and you will see clearly how cultures influence us all. And it’s never more pronounced than when it comes to religion. Knowing this I must reject faith based reasoning of any kind. Knowing this I am skeptical of ideas that do not have sufficient evidence for them. Knowing this I try as best as I possibly can to only accept science based reasoning. Science is the only hope out of this epistemological morass. How can you possibly counter this? How can any believer counter this? Believers can only do so out of ignorance, pure ignorance, willful ignorance, a head-in-the-sand type of fear based ignorance.

Loftus admits the following:

So David, I'll grant that you have read more world literature than I have and that you have the benefit of world travel.

But he also asserts:

Believers can only do so out of ignorance, pure ignorance, willful ignorance, a head-in-the-sand type of fear based ignorance.

Rather inconsistent.  Loftus admits that in reference to Marshall, he is ignorant about a lot of things that Marshall is knowledgeable about. Given that Marshall is a Believer, it would mean that many, if not all, of Loftus' assumptions and premises are flawed, leading to his flawed conclusion.

Debunking Christianity: The Major Reason Why I Am a Skeptic

Answering Muslims: More Hypocrisy/Sharia Compliance from the New York Times

David Wood asks and answers a really great question in a recent post: Why is it okay for the New York Times to publish the following ad:



But not okay to publish this one:




David writes:

 Not surprisingly, the New York Times refused to publish the ad (at the moment, anyway), claiming that “the fallout from running this ad now could put U.S. troops and/or civilians in the [Afghan] region in danger.”

In other words, the New York Times will run an ad against Catholicism because Catholics won't go on a killing spree. But the Times won't run an ad critical of Islam because Muslims will go on a killing spree.

Answering Muslims: More Hypocrisy/Sharia Compliance from the New York Times

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Bill Honsberger - Why not burn witches? - YouTube

Mariano has posted a few great lectures by Bill Honsberger. This one is about Witchcraft and the historical evidence for the charge against Christianity that it is responsible for the execution of 9 million witches. This particular video is full of good information


Bill Honsberger - Why not burn witches? - YouTube

Thinking about Suffering and Death, Part 1 | Reflections

I have seen a really interesting article about Theodicy from Dr Ken Samples. He wrote



People often ask why a good God would allow human beings to suffer. In fact, the problem of pain and suffering (theodicy) is arguably the greatest challenge to the truth of Christian theism. But if suffering is the only way or perhaps the best way to move people toward ultimate truth and virtue, then God’s goodness is compatible with pain and suffering (this is known as the “greater good” response to theodicy).



Obviously, people can still ask why certain folks suffer when they don’t appear to be the direct beneficiary of the good that can come from sorrow. Or people can ask why there is so much suffering in the world. From a Christian apologetics standpoint there is no one response that explains, let alone solves, all of the problems connected to suffering. But the Christian response that God has dealt decisively with the problem of human suffering and evil through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ appears to be a far greater explanation than other worldviews offer.



The Gospel offers humankind hope and purpose because the Lord Jesus Christ suffered with us and for us. The historic Christian claim to the believer is that the suffering one endures in this life cannot compare with the glory that will be revealed in the next life.


Read the whole thing at:



Thinking about Suffering and Death, Part 1 | Reflections



Given what I've just gone through watching my sister waste away and finally succumbed to the suffering she courageously endured  from the cancer that attacked her body, this post carried with it a different feel than when I usually think of theodicy. Dr Samples' article is indeed true. My sister lived it and I witnessed it - God is indeed enough.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, March 12, 2012

The People Behind the Way We Live [Infographic]

The People Behind The Way We Live
From: Best Colleges Online

The People Behind the Way We Live [Infographic]
Enhanced by Zemanta

FacePlant of the Day - Mis-Defining Faith

Epic Faceplant Pictures, Images and Photos Yesterday, John Loftus posted a few article attempting to attack what Christians mean by "faith". He issues the following challenge:

Christian theists make two claims about faith: 1) That atheists define the concept of faith wrong, and 2) That atheists have faith just like Christian theists do. So here's my challenge: Define faith in such a way that it fulfills both requirements!

An Open Challenge to Christians About Faith
I think that John Loftus has no idea how Christians understand faith. His first premise is easy to prove, but the second is silly. The Christian argument is not that atheists have the same kind of faith that Christians do because atheists don't know how to understand what Biblical faith is. Loftus has written several times akin to the following mis-definition of Biblical faith.

I've been writing about faith lately, claiming it is an irrational leap over the probabilities. Faith is Irrational
In short, Loftus keeps arguing that if something is improbable then there isn't any reason to believe it. This is flawed for many reasons but two of the major ones are just because something is improbable does not mean it is also false. And no where in the Bible is believing something that is not true condoned or commanded. The ancients were commended for believing things that were improbable and impossible on the basis of what God said to them and on the evidence of their relationship with God. Not wishful thinking or a shot in the dark. The second premise is flawed because Christians are not arguing that Atheists operate on blind faith but on evidence of past experience and inferences that seem reasonable to them although they may not be able to empirically prove those assumptions and conclusions correct. This is not the definition of Biblical faith.but it is faith such as the world has come to define it. The premiss fail and so does Loftus' arguments.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, March 11, 2012

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day by Kayt Sukel

John Loftus posted the following quote:
Technology and science have now advanced to the point that disciplines like biology, genetics, epidemiology, evolutionary science, psychology, philosophy, computer science, and medicine have converged into the catchall field of neuroscience. More and more, neuroscientists are demonstrating that the brain is behavior—the two simply cannot be teased apart.

Sukel is author of Dirty Minds: How Our Brains Influence Love, Sex, and Relationships. This reminds me of Helen Fisher's TED talk on Why We Love and Cheat, as well as Jesse Bering on the Klüver-Bucy Syndrome and Nymphomania. I think the days of faith talk, sin talk, and final divine judgment talk are over.
Here is the problem: Loftus and Sukel are arguing that people are hard-wired to cheat on people they love. In other words, sinning isn't something everyone has control over. In other words people are held captive by their own passions and lust. Some people even go as far as arguing that one can't be held accountable for such things beyond their control. John Loftus seems to think that this means that Christian theism is undermined. This isn't true in the slightest. If anything it confirms what the Bible says about sin:


 21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. - Romans 3:21-26

And

 13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
 14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
 15Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. - James 1:13-15


So in effect Sukel and Loftus are agreeing with the Bible, bringing up the question: Does one have to be enslaved to your own lusts and desires even if they are bad for you? No, you don't. That is why Jesus came and died in your place and raised for your justification. 

23 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. - Romans 4:23-25


Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day by Kayt Sukel

The Day we Stopped Dreaming About Tomorrow [Video]

I agree with Dr Tyson: We should not allow scientific curiosity to die out in the coming generations. We need their sharp minds and curiosity to increase scientific knowledge and drive the frontiers of science further and further. We can't stop. We can't just give up.




The Day we Stopped Dreaming About Tomorrow [Video]

Calvinistic Cartoons: It Could Happen...

Check out the rest of Eddie Eddings' strips at Calvinistic Cartoons!!!

Calvinistic Cartoons: It Could Happen...

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Memorial Brochure for Chauming


Chauming Memorial Program Final_revised

Friday, March 9, 2012

Debunking Christianity: What Would a Secular Translation of the Bible Look Like?

John Loftus has provided a quote from and link to a very interesting article on Bible translations. As follows.

What if one were to translate the Bible according to the same principles as we translate Homer, Aristotle, and Freud? What if we were to translate the Bible regardless of the faith of its potential readership, regardless of any investment in the question of whether the texts are right or wrong, and regardless of how the texts might be used to address contemporary faith? Link

I find the article written by  Zeba Crook of Carleton University, Ottawa very good. I think the author is not correct in everything but at least it's clearly written. I wonder if Loftus' definition of "Secular" matches what the author of the article defines as secular. I agree with the author's definition so let's use it:

A secular translation, in contrast, might be backward-looking: it might seek to bring modern readers back in time into the world of these ancient stories and characters. Let me not, at this point, say more than that. Let the rest of this paper be an exploration into what a secular translation might do, and how it might differ (if at all) from a theological translation. Let me say at the outset: there are no easy or obvious answers to the question of what might distinguish a theological from a secular translation.

I would argue that all the good translations attempt to give you what the original text says without bias, but none of them does this perfectly. This is why it's important to consult many translations. The majority of the article attempts to raise examples of how theological concerns  trumps good translation in today's main English translations.

1) The perfect example of a translation governed by theological interests relates to Zechariah 11:13 in Christian Bibles, which is often forced to corroborate Matthew’s fourteenth fulfillment formula. Matthew 27:3-10 relates the story of Judas trying to return the money he took for betraying the location of Jesus. After Judas hangs himself, the priests take the money and buy “the potter’s field” as a place to bury foreigners. All this happened, according to Matthew’s fourteenth Fulfillment Formula, because “Jeremiah” foretold it: “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one on whom a price had been set, on whom some of the people of Israel had set a price, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded.”
This is one of the more challenging of Matthew’s Fulfillment Formulae. We search in vain in Jeremiah for the prophesied details to this story: in Jeremiah 32:8-10 we find a field being purchased, and some silver pieces (though 17, not 30); in Jeremiah 18:1-3 we find a potter working at his wheel. Perhaps, some have surmised, Matthew had Zechariah in mind despite naming Jeremiah, and indeed at Zechariah 11:12-13 we find thirty pieces of silver, a price being set on someone, and the money being thrown somewhere. The where, in this instance, is the crux of the problem. Matthew claims that the where is “the potter’s field.”
The key term in Zechariah is yotzer. The noun derives from the Hebrew verb yatzar, the most common meaning of which refers to the act of shaping something, often clay, and metaphorically to God’s identity as Creator (or “shaper”). Another metaphorical usage is the process of melting metal in a foundry (which also involves creating something by shaping it). And finally, the analogical use of yotzer reaches its most extreme limit when it comes to refer to the treasury, as the place where “shaped” coins are kept. The latter is clearly its meaning in Zech 11:13. As Mitchell, Smith, and Brewer say so forcefully, “there is no discoverable reason why the money should be thrown to the potter in the temple or elsewhere.”3 They argue, quite logically, that the command refers to the temple treasury in this passage.
There is only one explanation then, for why some English translations go with “potter” when translating Zech 11:13: to make it confirm Matthew’s fulfillment formula. Matthew claims that it has been prophesied that money would go to a potter, and though it is found in Zechariah, not Jeremiah, something no translator can change, translators can salvage Matthew’s claim by translating Zechariah in a way that makes no sense in Zechariah, but in a way that supports Matthew’s claim.
There are a number of modern mainstream translations that translate Zechariah so that it corroborates Matthew’s claim (with “potter” for yotzer): American and New American Standard Bible, English Standard Version, King James Version, New English Translation, and New International Version, and Today’s New International Version. I draw your attention to the fact that these are not “fringe” Bibles: they are mainstream Bibles. So in this instance, a “secular” translation would go with “treasury” because it makes the most sense in its literary context and because a secular translation cannot be concerned with corroborating Matthew’s fulfillment formula. In other words, the secular translator cannot be concerned with upholding the “truth” of some religious idea.
I would not agree with this point. A secular translation should agree with thoughts and ideas that the original readers would have understood it. From this context, the problem disappears.  

"While commenting on what happened to Judas Iscariot and his blood money, Matthew introduces a reference to the prophets as part of his favorite theme of the fulfillment of Scripture. He clearly cites Jeremiah as the prophet who gave the saying, but the saying itself is from Zechariah 11:12–3. Did Matthew make a mistake?
The quotation is not entirely a quotation of Zechariah. The majority of the quotation does come from Zechariah 11:13, but there is a change from the first person singular (“” to the third plural (“hey”. Furthermore, there is no field mentioned in Zechariah (in fact, in Matthew the NSRV follows the Syriac translation and has “he treasury”instead of “he potter”because Matthew clearly is not quoting Zechariah about the location). Finally, Zechariah does not include the phrase “s the Lord commanded me.”
Second, Jeremiah is also involved with potters (Jer 17:1–1; 19:1–3—n this second passage he purchases something from a potter). Furthermore, Jeremiah purchases a field (Jer 32:6–5), although the price is seventeen pieces of silver rather than thirty. Finally, Jeremiah 13:5 has the phrase “s the Lord commanded me”(RSV) (which also has to do with a purchase).
In the first century the Old Testament did not come as a bound volume with chapters and verses. Instead, the work was a series of scrolls. Shorter books were often put together on a single scroll. For example, Zechariah would be part of “he Book of the Twelve,”a single scroll containing all twelve minor prophets. There were paragraph divisions, but they were not numbered. It would be after a.d. 1500 before chapter and verse divisions and numbering were introduced. That means that Jesus in Matthew would have cited an Old Testament passage simply by the name of the author.
When it came to interpreting the Old Testament, it was common to bring passages together based on words they had in common (this is the second of Hillel the Elder’ seven rules of interpretation). In this case, it is clear that Jeremiah and Zechariah have several words in common, especially potter and shekel. Probably potter is the key term. As even the English reader might suspect from the information above, the quotation in Matthew is really Zechariah mixed with several phrases taken from Jeremiah. Again, we need to remember that while this may not be an acceptable way of citing Scripture today (although it is still done by accident!), it was a perfectly acceptable technique in the Palestine of Matthew’ day. (Matthew was probably written in Syria or northern Palestine; he is certainly focused on the Jewish community. Thus he reflects the usage of Scripture in such communities.)
What we have, then, is Matthew pulling together at least two texts in Jeremiah with one text in Zechariah to show that there was a type of biblical prefiguring of Judas’ actions, down to the amount of blood money and the fact that it was given to a potter and was used for the purchase of a field. While the logic of this type of exegesis is strange to the modern Western way of thinking, it would have been viewed as quite normal in Matthew’ time. Likewise it was normal for Matthew to cite the more important prophet, Jeremiah, despite the fact that most of his material came from Zechariah. Thus judged by first-century standards, Matthew is quite accurate and acceptable in what he does. [Hard Sayings of the Bible]


The article then brings up Isaiah 7:14 as a further example.

Precisely the same thing occurs in Isaiah 7:14, which is too well known to detain us for long: Matthew’s first fulfillment formula (1:22-23) relies on the Greek Septuagint version of Isaiah 7:14, which has parthenos, which means unambiguously “virgin,” whereas the Hebrew of Isaiah has almah, which unambiguously means “young woman.” Of course, in this culture, one hoped that a young woman was a virgin (which possibly explains the Septuagint translator’s decision), but there was a Hebrew word for virgin (betulah) that was not used by Isaiah here, which presumably he would have done if that was what he meant to say. At any rate, my point is not to argue about what Isaiah meant, but to point out that many translations of Isaiah 7:14, like the translations of Zech 11:13, do so in a way that confirms Matthew’s Septuagint-derived fulfillment formula. They go with the Septuagint’s and Matthew’s “virgin” when translating Isaiah 7:14 rather than with “young woman” as it is in the Hebrew original (again, these include mainstream bibles like American Standard Version, New American Bible, New American Standard, and New International Version).

No Dice. The Greek Version of the Isaiah found in the Septuagint was translated by Jewish Rabbis couple centuries before Jesus Christ who had no interest in trying to show that Jesus was born of a virgin but that the Messiah would be. Further, look at the Hebrew for Isaiah 7:14. The word translated "sign" denotes a miraculous quality - something out of the ordinary thereby leading to a conclusion that "virgin" is an acceptable translation not based on theology. 

2) Another example of a clearly theologized translation is the universal tendency to translate charis as “grace,” especially when it occurs in an “of God” phrase. Charis is an extremely common word in ancient Greek; its lexical context is ancient Mediterranean patronage and reciprocity, sometimes referring to patronage and reciprocity between humans and sometimes between humans and their gods. The context of patronage and reciprocity accounts for two of the most common uses of charis: to refer to the thing that is given (benefaction or favor), and to refer to the response of the recipient (gratitude). Thus the two most common ways of translating charis ought to be “benefaction” and “gratitude.” Frederick Danker calls charis “a t.t. [technical term] in the reciprocity-oriented world dominated by Hellenic influence.”4
In other words, there is nothing unclear about the meaning of this term in its original context: it has to do with ancient patronage.5 But modern translations are more interested in the theological weight of the term and less in its original usage. And here, the theological context is a post-Lutheran understanding of God’s grace, and the central position it comes to have (which came to affect Catholic theology as well). And what is at stake is not just the word one has chosen: the contemporary theological (post-Lutheran) understanding of Grace is that it comes to people from God free of charge, without merit, and with no strings attached. But this could not be further from the Greek meaning and context of charis.
In terms of ancient patronage and reciprocity, a benefaction could be earned, could be sought out. It might have at times been unearned, spontaneous, but that quality is not part of what makes it a charis. What makes it a charis (whether it comes from a god or from a human) is that it comes at all, and that the recipient could not have attained it alone. And benefactions do come with strings attached: the recipient is expected to honor and praise the benefactor or patron loudly and publicly. Anything less would be construed as ingratitude: ranked, by Seneca, among the most egregious social diseases.6
Here then, a secular translation would not allow the translation of the ancient Greek term charis to be colored by a post-Lutheran theology of grace.

I wonder why the article does not give an example of scripture where an understanding of reciprocity between God and man is shown to better explain what the New Testament says. I can't think of a single Bible text that can be spin this way. The reformers did not make this up. Luther got this teaching from the Bible not the other way around.

3) Another modern translation challenge has to do with gender inclusivity. As a rule, translating for gender inclusivity recognizes the very high likelihood that men and women were present in certain situations. So a translation of adelphoi (which means, literally, “brothers”) that has “brethren” or “brothers and sisters” when a large group is being addressed is entirely fair: since surely there were men and women present. This is surely the case in most of Paul’s uses of adelphoi to address the people hearing his letters. We know there were women in his communities; it is inconceivable that Paul did not think he was addressing them too. This was Schussler-Fiorenza’s seminal point, and I think it is unassailable.
  
Agreed.
 
On the other hand, the point of translating for gender inclusivity and neutrality is rarely solely for historical accuracy. For example, the NRSV does not consistently translate adelphoi as “brothers and sisters.” Several times in Galatians, the NRSV uses “friends” for adelphoi. Is this because they felt it was unclear whether Paul wrote adelphoi because that is what he meant? If so, then the translators have not felt comfortable adding “sisters,” but have nonetheless avoided the patriarchalism of the text. One example can suffice: in 1 Cor 11:9, Paul claims that when he was among them in need, he was not a burden because his needs had been met by the adelphoi from Macedonia. Perhaps Paul uses adelphoi because he means adelphoi. It is certainly not as clear here as in other places that Paul would have in mind both men and women. And yet the committee still avoids making Paul look dated and irrelevant by avoiding the androcentric language Paul uses by translating adelphoi as “friends” there.

We know that historically women helped to support Churches by service and finances.  I see no reason to think that Women are not included in 1 Cor 11:9.  And just because some translations translate it differently doesn't mean that they have some kind of theological ax to grind or trying to play up or hide patriarchalism.

Thus, gender inclusive and gender neutral translation is also useful, theologically, because it hides the strong patriarchalism and androcentricity of the New Testament writers. I think it is a fair guess that the goal of gender inclusive and neutral translations is theological, and not historical: it is to avoid making Christian women feel alienated from their scriptures.

I think it's hard to argue that the New Testament is strongly patriachialistic and man centered given that the New Testament upholds the ontological equality of men and women.

So, how might a “secular critical” translation respond to this? On the one hand, gender inclusive translation makes the text more historically accurate, for it recognizes the almost certain presence of women. On the other hand, it also makes the text less historically accurate, for it hides the androcentricity and patriarchalism of the biblical world. In this way, the motivation of gender inclusive translation is almost certainly theological. Perhaps a secular critical translation ought to have as a modus operandi retention of cultural realism. For example, gender inclusive language, even where the concern is historical, still operates in the service of modern liberal concerns, not ancient ones. If we “correct” the ancient text on issues of sexism, then we would be obligated to correct it as well on issues of factual inaccuracy (such as Mark naming Abiathar as High Priest in 2:26). Modern concerns, whether theological or social, cannot be the concern a secular translator.8

While the ancient world was patriarchal in the culture of the first Christians, you can't really argue that this is the attitude to be picked up from the Bible. Instead of trying to "correct" the ancient text, we should try to "correct:" our attitudes and presuppositions on the text.  As an aside, Mark 2:26 was cited by Dr Bart Ehrman as the first text the lead him to doubt the reliability of the Bible because he thought Mark made a mistake, as if in 2000 years no one had ever thought there was a problem and people just threw up their hands and there was no solution. Read Did Jesus make a crucial historical blunder in the Gospel of Mark?

4) My final example pertains to the issue of sexuality, and it revolves around to terms found in 1 Cor 6:9: malakos and arsenokoites. It is the issue I find most challenging to address. It is by far the norm for translation to relate these terms to homosexuality or homosexual behavior in one way or another. Sometimes, translations conflate the two terms, as the old Geneva Bible does colorfully with “buggers.” In addition, the 1985 RSV does so with “sexual perverts”; 1992 Good News with “homosexual perverts”; 1995 God’s Word with “homosexuals”; 2001 English Standard Version with “nor men who practice homosexuality”; 2011 NIV with “men who have sex with men.” As a rule, however, most translations distinguish between the two terms by referring to active and passive homosexual roles: 2004 New Living Translation and 2005 Today’s New International Version with “male prostitutes, or those who practice homosexuality”; 2005 New English Translation with “passive homosexual partners and practicing homosexuals.” The 1989 NRSV has “male prostitutes and sodomites.”

I think this is an example of how translations can become biased. In this section, the article discusses how homosexuality in the Bible. I think that the problem is that people go to extremes. Either to demonize homosexuality as if it is the worst possible thing you could ever do or try to excuse it as just another lifestyle or way living your life. Both are wrong. Even the article's author agrees, reluctantly.

How to translate these terms, the extent to which these translations are theological, and how a secular translation would differ are each complex questions. On the one hand, concerning the first two questions, I would say only this (necessarily briefly): malakos refers to softness. While “softness” includes the act of being penetrated, it is a much broader term than that, including any male who lives extravagantly (Xen, Hiero 1.23; Plutarch Moralia 831B, 136B), who cannot handle hard work (Xen, Memorabilia 1.2.2), who reads too much (Dio Chrysostom Orations 66.25), who has sex with women too much or who seduces other men’s wives or who dresses up in order to attract women (Plautus, Truculentus; Chariton; Pseudo-Aristotle; P. Hibeh 54.11). In other words, most of the things malakos refers to are not in the slightest bit “homosexual.”
The problems with how to translate arsenokoites are well-known, owing to the fact that it is a neologism, containing the words for “male” and for “sleeping”: apparently “sleeping together” is a euphemism in many languages in addition to English! It is also clear that many translations of these terms seek to be polite, but perhaps they over-sanitize the language. The possibility should not be overlooked that Paul had no desire to be polite here. Donald Harman Akenson has argued that Paul intended this neologism arsenokoites to carry all the rhetorical force of “butt-fuckers.”9
So here is the difficulty I am faced with. On the one hand, people are correct to object to the claim that malakos refers solely to men penetrating men, and people are right to point out that arsenokoites is a neologism, and thus its exact meaning is difficult to know. But some translators and scholars make these points in order to avoid having Paul condemn modern homosexuality. It is a theological agenda meant to disarm Paul, meant to disarm homophobes who use the Bible to justify acts of hatred, prejudice, and violence against homosexuals. It is hard to disapprove of such an agenda, but it misses one very important point: I think it is beyond debate that Paul would have found homosexual behavior extremely objectionable and immoral. Paul was not a 20th century liberal, open-minded metrosexual. Translations that work too hard to hide or deny Paul’s objection to homosexual behavior risk anachronism. For example, I think Dale Martin’s contention that arsenokoites refers not to homosexuality per se but to male homosexual extortion has many historical-critical merits, but I wonder if its intention is to make Paul more pleasing, less alarming, and less alienating to a diverse and modern Christian readership.10

 I doubt that the author would agree that Paul and the rest of the New Testament is factually correct and should be used as a guide for living, but at least the author seems willing to let text speak for itself without bias. That is a goal I can get behind.


Debunking Christianity: What Would a Secular Translation of the Bible Look Like?