Monday, July 12, 2004

Galileo again

Joe Carter has a post up about Galileo, going over the history which I've covered before. The comments on his posts have degenerated into name-calling right now, but before they did, someone did bring up the question of what all this history proves. That the church wasn't quite so narrow-minded as they were thought to be? They still punished him for his heresy.

I think what it proves is that, as in any story, we have a tendency to find both heroes and villains, and we tend to simplify the story until the villains are truly villainous and the heroes are truly heroic, ignoring the inconvenient contradictions. Heh, I'm sounding like a post-modernist. The Church did not handle Galileo well, but they did not mishandle his case as badly as they are accused. By simplifying the story into a myth, we do a disservice both to the Church and to Galileo. The Galileo story is used to turn the religion into a villain and science into a hero, fueling contempt for religion by turning science into something it's not: a clear truth that is obvious to anyone with an open mind. Science is never obvious--it is difficult and murky and a lot of hard work separating the wheat from the chaff. We scientists are done a disservice by those who want to turn science into a quick and easy answer. Society as a whole is done a disservice when science is no longer considered debatable, where all ethical considerations are swept aside in the breakneck race for scientific progress. Laying the Galileo myth to rest would do a lot to curb this attitude.

Sunday, July 11, 2004

And now for today's comedy

If you've read Lileks's column that I mentioned below, you may remember this part:
[Moore:]For too long now we have abandoned our flag to those who see it as a symbol of war and dominance, as a way to crush dissent at home. Flags are flying from the back of SUVs, rising high above car dealerships, plastering the windows of businesses and adorning paper bags from fast-food restaurants. But these flags are intended to send a message: "You're either with us or you're against us," "Bring it on!" or "Watch what you say, watch what you do."

[Lileks:]I knew a paranoid schizophrenic once. He believed that the New York Times was sending him personal messages through its front-page headlines. He might also have believed that car-dealership flags were telling him to watch what he said.

If flying the flag is intended to crush dissent at home (as opposed to abroad) it’s not doing a very good job, is it? Personally, I fly my flag on holidays because I love this country. If you asked for secondary reasons, I’d say it’s to show support for the troops and their mission. I gave my daughter a flag to wave on the Fourth as part of a long careful education in what sets the American experiment apart from the general nature of human history. (Details to follow.)

Now Dean Esmay has a very funny post illustrating the Mooreish attitude:
Haha! I showed you an American flag! You know what that means! You cannot dissent anymore, that's what it means! See how the flag is stopping you frrrom dissentinnng?? You can no longer dissent! I have crrrushed your dissent with my fingers and with the flag!

Okay, it's funnier when you read the whole thing, with the pictures.

Meanwhile, Dave Barry's column (free registration required) covers dying pets. It's funny, mainly because it's about the sort of impersonal, short-lived pets no one gets too attached to:
I say all this to explain why I recently bought fish for my 4-year-old daughter, Sophie. My wife and I realized how badly she wanted an animal when she found a beetle on the patio and declared that it was a pet, named Marvin. She put Marvin into a Tupperware container, where, under Sophie's loving care and feeding, he thrived for maybe nine seconds before expiring like a little six-legged parking meter. Fortunately, we have a beetle-intensive patio, so, unbeknownst to Sophie, we were able to replace Marvin with a parade of stand-ins of various sizes (''Look! Marvin has grown bigger!'' ``Wow! Today Marvin has grown smaller!''). But it gets to be tedious, going out early every morning to wrangle patio beetles. So we decided to go with fish.

I think even Dave Barry would have a hard time writing a funny column about dead cats or dogs.

A Phoenix in Darkness Update

I've just been working on Part II of A Phoenix in Darkness. It should go up this Saturday as scheduled, despite complications in my life. Meanwhile, you can find Part I here.

Week in Review

It's been a fun week. Here's what I've been talking about:

How I almost became a computer game designer -- I recount a fun job interview, and the reasons why the job didn't work out.

Should I be moving? -- Dean Esmay is strongly encouraging people to move off of Blogspot, and the trouble it's been giving me has made the concept tempting. What will I be doing? Stay tuned.

John Kerry on Abortion -- Kerry still hasn't figured out what separation of Church and State is all about.

The Supreme Court and Saddam Hussein -- Will the Supreme Court move to free Saddam Hussein? Does it even have jurisdiction in this matter? Saddam's lawyer hopes so.

Farscape is back! -- Farscape is returning to the SciFi channel. I suppose caring about that makes me a geek, but if I were a true geek I would have found out about it back in April.

Saturday, July 10, 2004

Weekly Webcomic Update

It was a pretty cool week, if a bit of a denouement after last week's excitement.

Sluggy Freelance -- Uh-oh, Horribus has finally learned that Torg's in the Dimension of Lame, and he's on the hunt. The gang goes into the sewers to escape. Curiously, it looks like the magic sword is in its gold rather than its silver state. I hope that means its partially charged. And a new filler pushes the full-color Sunday to Thursday.

Day by Day -- There's a plug for Eat what you want and die like a man, the usual mockery of Moore, Kerry, and the UN, and a correction on Thursday. A correction, of a comic strip. Yikes, it's a sad day when a comic strip has more integrity than the New York Times editorial page.

It's Walky! -- Danny meets a killer car. Wow, we don't see much of Danny these days, do we? And to think that he was the main character back when it was Roomies.

College Roomies from Hell!!! -- Hey, Marsha's wings are real! Now it looks like Dave just might make it out alive, and Roger and Mike are escaping as well. Now, is Mike permanently stuck in semi-nice mode?

General Protection Fault -- The GPFers throws Fooker a welcome back party, and they end up with Trish as a visitor. Only, is this the real Trish or the imposter Trish? It'd be helpful if they knew that there was an imposter.

Schlock Mercenary -- Well, now that they've taken care of the pet shop, it's time to track down the distributor. And Schlock needs some cold weather gear.

Wow, is it really that late?

It's past 3 am, and I'm feeling a bit worn out. I've been working on some rather major changes to my blog, to be revealed some time next week. I've also been working on my résumé and CV, getting them not only up-to-date, but into distributable formats. PDF is easy--HTML is another story. Oh, I can put them in HTML easily enough, but getting them into HTML and looking how I want them to--argh, it's not easy. In any case, drop by next week to see the fruits of my labor.

Friday, July 09, 2004

Farscape is back!

While watching Stargate SG-1's season premiere on the SciFi channel, I saw an advertisement for a new season of Farscape starting in October. It looks like we're going to get a resolution to that cliffhanger series finale.

I just hope I have a job in October so I can afford cable.

Update: The announcement is on the SciFi channel website. Apparently it's old news from April. Geez, I never hear these things right away.

The Supreme Court and Saddam Hussein

US lawyer Curtis Doebbler, the only American on Saddam's legal team, has filed a petition with the US Supreme Court to declare Saddam's detention unconstitutional. Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over Saddam Hussein? They might have, before he was turned over to the Iraqis, although since he was declared a POW it's not clear what the court would have to say. From the CNN article:
In paperwork at the high court, Doebbler said the detention of the 67-year-old violates multiple international laws and his constitutional Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of "life, liberty or property without due process." He also said the war crimes tribunal planned in Iraq was neither independent nor impartial.

Let's be very clear about one thing: Saddam Hussein is not a US citizen. He does not have rights under the US Constitution. He may have rights under the Iraq Constitution, once it exists. As for international law--as Saddam was held as a prisoner of war, and treated as such, his detainment was fully in line with the Geneva convention.

The whole thing is silly, as is clear from the article:
The Supreme Court will review those arguments only if it grants permission for the filing.

"I doubt the Supreme Court will even get that far," said Fordham Law School professor Thomas Lee, a former clerk at the court.

Doebbler had filed a brief in the Supreme Court this year encouraging it to rule in favor of legal rights of foreign terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Last week, justices decided the nearly 600 men from 42 countries held at the U.S. prison in Cuba may use American courts to challenge their detentions.

In a dissent to that opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia warned that federal courts will now have to deal with lawsuits from "around the world, challenging actions and events far away."

You know, if I didn't know better, I'd think this was an article by a right-leaning news organization, as it seems to be saying that Scalia was right.

Michael Muqtada al-Moore

Steven den Beste has a lengthy post on how al-Sadr was defeated in Iraq. He thinks that the lunatic Left is making a mistake similar to the Mehdi's in embracing Michael Moore:
He's become the rallying point. He's raised the flag, and the most motivated LL's are flocking to support him. He's become their poster boy, their public face. He provides a focal point; he's a magnet around which they can gather and organize.

He has chosen the ground they will defend – and it is dreadful ground indeed.
...
Moore's stuff sells very well in Europe. It is comforting for the many Europeans who fear and hate America. They've found an "honest" American who bravely and forthrightly tells "the truth" about America: that the vast majority of us are stupid, venal, unsophisticated, uneducated, provincial, oblivious, and self-absorbed.

Moore's stuff sells in Europe precisely because it seems to justify and reaffirm the prejudices many there have about Americans. It is unlikely that Moore is actually changing any minds, however. The Europeans who buy and read his books and pay to watch his films are the ones who already agree with him. They consume his material so they can laugh as he makes fun of us, and nod sagely as he explains how Big Oil and Corrupt Businesses are actually behind it all. (And the Jews. And the Saudis.)

His primary audience here in the US is exactly the same. He's preaching to the converted. Non-LL's who have gone to see his movie have concluded that it was a total crock.

If one accepts the cynical evaluation of Moore, then it would be clear that he doesn't care. If someone watches his film and finds it shoddy and totally unconvincing, he still gets a piece of their ticket price, and laughs all the way to the bank.

Nonetheless, as D'Ancona says, the LL's have rallied to his flag. They've moved to his holy city. They've adopted positions on the terrain he's chosen for the battle. And they're using the arguments and evidence he provides as ammunition.

In the short term, it may seem as if the LL's are mobilized and fighting hard. But it also leaves them concentrated and vulnerable. And they are fighting on just about the worst ground they could have chosen.
...
Moore may or may not believe that, but a lot of the LL's who have rallied to his flag do believe it. However, will it really be the case that he nurtures that delusion? Or merely bring together those who already suffered from it? Will his flag inspire LL's to loudly proclaim that which they already believed, thus ultimately making their paranoid delusion blatantly clear to the broader electorate?

Will the LL's rallying to Moore's flag be able to inspire the broader electorate to join them? Or will they end up isolated, discredited, and ultimately disillusioned, to slink away quietly when the uprising doesn't materialize?

As usual, den Beste provides intriguing analysis, if you have the patience to get all the way through his essays. I wouldn't have drawn the same parallel with al-Sadr, but I do agree that the more the Democrats embrace Moore and his ilk, the more it's liable to hurt them. The problem is that the mainstream media seems more than willing to run interference for Moore and Gore, burying their wilder statements, giving them positive coverage which plays up how respected they are. It might work for Al Gore, but it's harder to do with Michael Moore, since anyone can simply go to see the movie or read his books.

Thursday, July 08, 2004

Michael Moore: Punching bag

Dean Esmay has a deep-seated, burning hatred not just for Michael Moore, but for everyone who supports him:
I thought about it and: no way. He's a scumbag, and furthermore, if you like him, even a little bit, you're a scumbag too. You're an embarassment to liberals, an embarassment to Democrats, and an embarassment to your country. I would sooner eat dog poop than share the same room with you.

I wouldn't go that far. I don't think you need to be a "scumbag" to think that Moore has a point. Ignorant, gullibly accepting of every meme from the hysterical wing of this country's Left, sure, but scumbag is reserved for those who know he's lying and use those lies to attack the US just because they feel the US needs attacking. I wouldn't accept as fact anything coming from Michael Moore, and I'd refuse to allow such facts into any debate I was taking part in without support from another, more reliable source, but I won't call anyone who cites him a scumbag unless they know the fact they're citing is a lie and they use it anyway.

Lileks, by the way, has a thorough fisking of a column by Michael Moore in the LA Times. He's equally hard on Michael Moore. A small sample:
[Moore:]If you are one of those who love what President Bush has done for this country and believe you must blindly follow the president to deserve to fly the flag,

[Lileks:]Stop. This is a perfect example of prose from someone who either does not understand his opposition, or chooses not to grant that they have a legitimate basis for opposition. Or, it’s just bad sophomoric writing. If you are one of those who love what President Bush has done for this country and believe you must blindly follow the president to deserve to fly the flag. Yes, that’s me. Me deserve fly flag! Me blindly follow! Hulk smash!

As you can see, Lileks calls Moore a scumbag too.

Wednesday, July 07, 2004

John Kerry on Abortion

Old Post: My last post on John Kerry's misunderstanding of the separation of Church and State is here. It looks like he hasn't learned a thing.

The Washington Post reports that Kerry has this to say about abortion:
A Catholic who supports abortion rights and has taken heat from some in the church hierarchy for his stance, Kerry told the paper, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

Spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said that although Kerry has often said abortion should be "safe, legal and rare," and that his religion shapes that view, she could not recall him ever publicly discussing when life begins.

"I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist," he continued in the interview. "We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."

I've been wanting to comment on this, but I couldn't find the words to express just how fallacious and dangerous Kerry's argument is. In my previous post, I pointed out that this attitude is actually a threat to freedom of religion. Kerry is arguing that you can believe whatever you want, as long as it doesn't affect how you live. Ironically, it's not too different from what the Romans believed. Of course, Christians were notoriously problematic as they let their religion affect their actions, even going so far as to refuse to perform an obeisance to the emperor, a minor religious observance to prove their patriotism. And let's not even talk about how they treated slaves--so many slaves became Christians that Christianity was considered a slave religion.

Christianity grew up as an oppressed belief by a small minority. The Romans would have been quite happy to let it stay that way. Instead it started growing, it started to change Rome, and the Romans tried to stop it. Miraculously, the Christians won. Because Christians, in whatever position they held, whether slaves, citizens, and rulers, lived out their faith and engaged the world with it. Freedom of religion is the freedom to engage the world with your faith, to try to change it. What Kerry is advocating is freedom from religion, that it have no influence on anyone but the practitioner. For the Christian that is impossible. If Kerry's view had been the dominant one throughout the history of this country, there would have been no anti-slavery movement, no social gospel, no civil rights movement.

If religion cannot shape the fundamental beliefs about right and wrong which guide your actions, including which laws and policies you pursue, what can?

The Queen of All Evil points to an article in the Boston Globe where principled abortion rights supporter, Eileen McNamara, has this to say:
I, and I suspect many others who support legal abortion, had mistakenly assumed that, on this very personal issue, Kerry's conscience was at odds with the teaching of his church. His consistent record in favor of abortion rights, family planning, and reproductive freedom was, I thought, a courageous reflection of an independent mind.

Now, I don't know what to think. I cannot respectfully disagree with him as I do with an abortion opponent whose conscience prompts her to work to unseat lawmakers like Kerry. I understand her. She is acting on principle, lobbying to change laws antithetical to her conscience. I don't understand him, voting consistently in opposition to what he now tells us is one of his core beliefs.

Just so. In the end, Kerry is consistent in that he always tries to have it both ways on all issues.

Christian Carnival XXV

The twenty-fifth Christian Carnival is up at Messy Christian. There are a lot of submissions this time, including mine on Science, Reason, and Faith. Check out what other Christian bloggers are thinking about.

Tuesday, July 06, 2004

Should I be moving?

Dean Esmay is begging people to move off of Blogspot to another service. I'm always reluctant to change websites, but after the trouble Blogspot has been giving me over the last couple of days--you may have had trouble just getting to this page--I'm tempted. The cost is minimal, but that's quite different from my current cost, which is free. I have another reason to move now as well. Since I'll be leaving U of R soon, I'll be needing to change my homepage, and Powerblog's hosting and 75 MB storage space may be useful. I just checked, and my homepage only takes up 5 MB, so I wouldn't even need the more expensive options.

A Phoenix in Darkness has begun

In case you missed the original announcement this weekend, the first part of the story A Phoenix in Darkness has now been posted. It is available here.

Template change

I made a small template change that should fix the problem of my sidebar being bumped to the bottom of the screen on lower screen resolutions. Sorry about that--operation at 1400x1050 resolution makes it easy for me to forget these things.

Monday, July 05, 2004

Home today

I was going to go into work today, but I hadn't realized just how seriously people took this federal holiday. The building I work in was locked down tight. I found that curious, as I was able to find an open door yesterday, July 4th and a Sunday. Since I don't have a key to the outer door, and I was unable to reach anyone who did, I wasn't able to get in. It looks like I'm being forced to take the day off whether I like it or not. Kind of annoying, isn't it?

How I almost became a computer game designer

Old Post: I first mentioned that I might share this story in my post on Spiderman 2.

In late 2001, shortly after 9/11, I was pondering what to do with my life. I was nearing the end of my Ph.D. career, expecting to finish by August of 2002. What was more, I had recently rediscovered how much I enjoyed writing, to the degree that I had taken an Undergrad creative writing course. It was time to start looking for a job, and while the obvious thing to do would be a Postdoc or a national lab, I was wondering if I could find a job which utilized my writing talents. Around that time, I dropped by Bioware's website. Bioware is the software company behind Baldur's Gate II, Neverwinter Nights, and Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic, a top tier company when it comes to computer role-playing games, and I think I was looking for information on Neverwinter Nights. While there, I noticed an advertisement saying they were looking for a writer for computer games. I checked out the advertisement, amused at the coincidence, and looked at the job requirements. Surprisingly enough, I met the requirements, which were pretty vague, so I sent in my resume and a writing sample (what is now "A Stranger in the Library"). I'm not sure who was more surprised, the HR manager at getting a resume from a Ph.D. candidate, or myself, when they actually called to see if I was serious. I said I was, which was true enough. I hadn't decided I wanted to leave my field, but I was entertaining the possibility.

To apply, I had to take a series of tests. The first was a writing test, which I took in the comfort of my own home. I had to write a sample dialogue tree for a character in Neverwinter Nights. (For those who played the game, the character was Sharwyn, the bard, and the piece of dialogue was a description of a couple of quests, including one for her mother's cure. It wasn't exactly the same as in the game, and I didn't have enough information on the character to know she was a bard and a mercenary NPC, but I'm glad to say that I got her personality pretty close.) A dialogue tree, if you're unfamiliar with it, gives the player multiple things he can say, and the person he's talking to says different things depending on what the player says. In this case, since it was an RPG, the dialogue was more complicated, with the choices available depending on the player character's attributes (certain options were only available to smarter player characters, for example). To make it even more complicated, I had to write it in Word, using hyperlinks to connect the player's dialogue choices to what the Sharwyn would say in response. I had 8 hours to complete the test, which was administered by e-mail. I sent them 11 pages of dialogue, about 4000 words long.

Shortly afterwards, they flew me to Edmonton for an interview, where I talked to game designers, programmers, and the company owners--plus I went to see Spiderman with them. The next day, I took more tests, programming tests. First, I looked at a C-type script in Neverwinter Nights' scripting language and tried to spot the three bugs. I found four. Second, they had me try my hand with the scripting language, taking a basic map and adding objects and NPCs and building some events. They had a minimum set of required tasks I was supposed to do, then some optional tasks if I got those done. I got through all of them in five hours or so and was kind of drumming my fingers at the end. I considered adding a few flourishes, but the last thing I wanted to do was mess up the work I had already done. After this test, I talked to the head designer about what I could expect to be working on. Then I went home while they considered.

In case you're curious, I did sign a non-disclosure agreement. I'm pretty sure none of this violates the agreement, and by now it's dated anyway--the scripting language is one of the game features, and anyone who's played with it knows as much about Neverwinter Nights as I learned in my two days there.

I returned home, and I think it was a couple of weeks later that I got a call offering me the job. As you probably guessed by the title of the post, I turned them down. The least important part of the reason was that the position had evolved, so that the job I was being offered would be a level designing position rather than a writing position. More significant, I'm sad to say, was money. The amount they were offering was well below what a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering could expect to make, and that was before you factored in the exchange rate--the job was in Canada, remember. But the most important reason was timing. By that point it had become clear that I wouldn't be finishing my Ph.D. in August--as it turned out, the most significant data in my thesis, the data which is central to my recently published paper, wasn't taken until that August. Since I didn't know how much longer it would be before I finished my Ph.D., I felt that I couldn't take the position. While I may occasionally regret not taking the job, I would have regretted not finishing my Ph.D. more.

Sunday, July 04, 2004

Week in Review

I was a bit more productive in the posting this week, so there're a few more posts to highlight than last.

Turnover early -- The US turned over power to the Iraqis earlier than expected. It's not a scoop, but I have a few thoughts in this and the follow-up post.

They may look like wimps, but... -- I sing the praises of Torg, Dave, and Jason, my favorite characters in Sluggy Freelance, College Roomies from Hell!!!, and It's Walky! respectively.

Some bad news -- It looks like my time as a Post-doc will be coming to an end earlier than expected. While disappointing, I'm not too worried yet.

Science, reason, and faith -- I comment on posts at Evangelical Outpost and Letters from Babylon discussing the conflict between science and philosophy and that between faith and reason.

A Phoenix in Darkness begins -- I've at last begun to publish this story. The first part is free.

Spiderman 2 review -- My thoughts on the new Spiderman movie, with a few spoilers.

Saturday, July 03, 2004

Weekly Webcomic Update

This was a really cool week in a number of webcomics.

Sluggy Freelance -- The evil magic sword's fully charged again and Torg is killing demons left and right, and looking very cool while doing it, with a little help from the magic-wielding Alt-Gwynn.

Day by Day -- Michael Moore and ACT, the Washington Post and the Academic Elite, are all getting an earful, but the most fun comes from Sam and Zed being Sam and Zed.

It's Walky! -- Daisy kills Beef. Jason kills Penny and finally confesses his love for Sal. It's about time!

College Roomies from Hell!!! -- Dave breaks free of Jay's headlock, lasers him, then saves his life before kicking him into submission while shouting "Blue is MINE!" And, yeah, Marsha has, um, wings. I don't know what's up with that either.

General Protection Fault -- Geek eye for the luddite guy! Okay, there's just a few too many "Queer Eye" parodies these days.

Schlock Mercenary -- Knocking over the petshop goes smoothly, with significant property damage but zero casualties. Schlock's bound to be disappointed.

Spiderman 2 review

I don't usually go to see movies by myself. In fact, just about the only time I'll go to a movie theater is when I'm going with a group, and in that case, I rarely give much input on what movie I want to see. However, inspired by the positive reviews from both Howard Taylor and Donald Sensing, I decided to go see Spiderman 2. It was a Saturday matinee, and it was certainly worth the mere $5 it cost.

I saw the first Spiderman when I was in Edmonton for an interview with Bioware (it occurs to me that this would be a pretty interesting blog post in itself--look for "How I almost became a computer game designer" later), where the entire company went to see the movie. It was a lot of fun watching it with a bunch of geeks who knew their comic books inside and out. My favorite part of the movie then, which remains my favorite part now when I watch it on DVD, was the very beginning, when Peter had first gained his new abilities and was just learning to use them. I highly doubted that the second movie could recapture that excitement.

It turns out I was wrong. I'm trying to avoid details--the fewer spoilers the better, but you can't write a review without some--but if you've seen the commercials, you already know that Peter Parker walks away from being Spiderman. The reasons why are manifold, and you can guess at most of them just from the first movie: always broke, unable to hold a regular job, hated by most of the city, never able to keep his commitments and thus always letting his friends down. MJ, the girl he loves and who loves him, has just about given up on their friendship altogether. His best friend, Harry Osbourne, can't forgive him for protecting Spiderman, who killed Harry's father. It surprised me how long it took to build up to Peter giving up on being Spiderman. The one detail that didn't make the commercials was how the stress in his life was affecting his abilities, which made his willingness to quit more believable. Once he quits, his abilities desert him completely, reducing his ability and thus temptation to be a hero. As you might expect, he has several opportunities to do so, and he doesn't go back to his Spiderman habits the first time he encounters someone who needs help. This makes his return all the more remarkable, and his comeback has the same sense of discovery as when he first gained his abilities. (Of course he comes back--don't tell me you consider that a spoiler.) This sort of thing is a cliche anyway (Do you have any idea how many computer game sequels use some variation of this to prevent the hero from being overpowered at the start of the new game?), and now that it's been done once it can't be believably used in a third movie, but it still worked well this time.

Aside from the sympathetic hero, Spiderman 2 also gives us a sympathetic villain. Sure, Osbourne from the first Spiderman was somewhat sympathetic, but you felt more pity than hope for him. He was ruthless even before he became the Green Goblin. Dr. Octavius was fundamentally decent before he became Doc Ock, and you find yourself hoping that he can find redemption.

The central story is not about Doc Ock, or Harry, or even MJ. It's about Peter, and whether he's willing to make the sacrifices needed to help others. Donald Sensing draws parallels with the US experience, but I'll just keep to the movie.

I won't tell you the ending, but you know the questions. Does Peter reconcile with Harry? Does Doc Ock find redemption? Can MJ and Peter be together, or at least remain friends? Who of his friends and enemies will discover his other identity? I will tell you that the answers are not all happy ones, but I did find the ending of this one more upbeat than the ending to the first, and more satisfying.

Overall, a very good movie, and worth seeing.

New Post: My post on "How I almost became a computer game designer" is now here.

A Phoenix in Darkness begins

As you may have noticed from from the image at the top of my sidebar, I've finally posted the first part of A Phoenix in Darkness. Due to a technical glitch, namely my staying up until 3 AM last night working on it, the link originally led to an older version of the story which I had used as a placeholder. The proper version is there now.

Here's how I'm describing the story:
For centuries, the Ordo Dominorum has protected humanity against threats beyond its comprehension, but the Order’s secretive ways and strange powers has earned the Domini only fear and hatred from those they seek to protect. Aulus and Nathan, two young Domini, believe that the Order’s success in hunting down and destroying magical threats has now made it possible to reform the Order and make it a part of the world. Will the murder of a fellow Dominus by a peasant woman be the impetus to begin this change… or proof that the Order has not been as successful as they believed?

A Phoenix in Darkness is part of the backstory for The War of the Elementals, taking place a few years after “A Stranger in the Library.” Both of these stories can be found here.

A Phoenix in Darkness will be published in five parts. While the first part is free, the four remaining parts will cost $1 each, payable through Amazon’s Honor System.

You may wonder why I'm trying to sell this story. While I'd love to make some cash, for obvious reasons, I'm not so naive as to believe I can support myself selling stories over the Internet. I figure I might reasonably expect to sell 10 copies of each part, which, after giving Amazon its cut, should be enough for dinner and a movie for myself and a date. Assuming my date pays her own way. I'll be ecstatic if I sell 100, but I'd need to sell a thousand to make this a serious career possibility. Which is what brings me to the why. I'm doing this to see if I can. I want to see whether I can make money this way. I don't expect to make a lot, but I'd like to see how much interest there is in what I write, and how seriously I should take my writing hobby. We'll see...

Friday, July 02, 2004

Evangelicals and Civic Responsibility

View from the Pew has a nice, long post on evangelicals and civic engagement, based on a position paper under consideration by the National Association of Evangelicals. He's quite happy with the document, and has some good thoughts on it.

Underblogs?

Do you know of any blogs which are under-rated? LivingRoom is having a contest to highlight blogs which deserve more recognition. Go give your recommendation. (Being no stranger to self-promotion, I've already recommended myself as well as a few others.)

One thing I noticed is that some people have odd definitions of under-rated. One Hand Clapping, Captain's Quarters, and The Belmont Club are all very good blogs, but they receive from 100 to 300 times the traffic I do, so it's hard for me to call them underblogs.

Thursday, July 01, 2004

Science, reason, and faith

Letters from Babylon has a couple of posts on faith and reason, while the Evangelical Outpost has an interesting post on philosophy and science. These are related but not identical topics, and I thought I'd say a little about how they connect.

First off, there is a tendency today to conflate reason and science, which is one of Joe Carter's main beefs in his article on philosophy and science. Science is quite effective when it comes to falsifiable theories, which can be tested by scientific experiments. There are quite a few realms of inquiry which do not benefit from such experiment, such as ethics. Those who conflate science and reason say that if it cannot be experimentally confirmed or falsified it is by nature irrational. It is no surprise that this leads to the quasi-postmodern worldview which seems to be dominate in the Western world. This view holds that if a premise has been scientifically vouched for, it's true, but if it cannot be, then it is for all practical purposes neither true nor false--the absolute truth of the premise is irrelevant. Since its truth cannot be tested, it has no effect on anything, and believe it or not as a matter of opinion but don't try to convince me either way. This is not a reasonable approach to life, and even the most scientifically-rigorous skeptic believes in a myriad of facts that cannot be scientifically tested, including the premises that underly scientific inquiry, simply because it is impossible to go through life any other way.

I believe that people who take this approach are more irrational than those who do not, which helps to explain some of the bizarre worldviews among certain prominent scientists. Once you decide that there is only one way of knowing things, and that everything which does not fit into that investigative technique is beyond argumentation, you are a lot less open to debate. Either you adapt a "You go your way and I'll go mine" attitude, or, what seems to be more common, "I believe this because it is self-evident, and no fact or argument will have any impact on my beliefs. For you to believe differently means that either you are lying or stupid." There's also the attempt to frame all debates in terms of the one "proper way" of knowing things, but usually when scientists do that it's merely a variation on "It's self-evident and you're too stupid to see it." They often do this by stating their speculation and opinions on the subject as fact, and daring anyone to call the "expert" on it. (This, by the way, is my biggest pet peeve.)

This brings us to the posts at Letters from Babylon on whether faith and reason are compatible. Science, in itself, has very little to say about the existence of God. Almost every time someone applies science to examine some religious claim, the full extent of the scientific inquiry is to examine whether you really need a miracle to explain the event in question, or whether there's a naturalistic explanation. Since Christians are quite willing to accept that God often works through subtle, natural means, the only thing science can do in these cases is show whether there is a naturalistic explanation or not. The believer generally isn't affected one way or the other. The skeptic may be moved to re-examine his worldview due to the evidence pointing away from his, but more often he'll say "We don't know, but I'm sure we'll find out someday," or "And that proves that it never could have happened and is thus a lie."

Reason, on the other hand, has quite a bit to say about the existence of God. There are quite a few logical arguments for God's existence, some good, strong arguments, and others very weak. There are also arguments against the existence of God, mostly rather weak. (Admittedly, as a believer, my view is somewhat biased, but from what I've read, there really are very few good arguments against the existence of God.) Letters from Babylon discusses the insufficiency of reason to bring someone to saving faith, and I'm not going to argue the point. I will say, however, that there are many people for whom reason provided a push in the right direction. I don't think you can reach God by reasoning about him, but you can reach the point where you begin to seek him.

Some bad news

I work for two professors, who divide my funding evenly between them. On Tuesday, one of the professors told me he would not be able to support me past the next few months. Today, the other professor let me know that he would not be able to take over full funding of my position. What that boils down to is that I will be out of a job in a few months.

It's not entirely unexpected. There have been funding difficulties for a while now, and while Postdocs usually last for a couple of years, they have to end when the funding does. It's better to let me go than any of the Grad students, since it should be easier for me to find another job, and I'm more expensive to support anyway.

So while I'm disappointed, I'm not bitter. I am of course somewhat worried, but I'm not panicking yet (I tend not to panic until it's too late to do any good).

In any case, if you know of any positions that could use a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering, let me know.

Wednesday, June 30, 2004

Christian Carnival XXIV

The Christian Carnival is up at Parableman. Be sure to see what other Christian bloggers are saying.

My post on being born again is included. Jeremy Pierce wonders when I'm going to get around to explaining what this has to do with the difference between evangelicalism and fundamentalism. I thought I had explained that, although a second look shows that I just breezed through it at the end of the second, extraordinarily long post--partly a result of my own exhaustion after having written it. I'll try to explain it in more detail later.

They may look like wimps, but...

Today Torg and Dave, my favorite characters in their respective webcomics (Sluggy Freelance and College Roomies from Hell!!!), demonstrate once again why it is very dangerous to underestimate them. I'm sure I could draw some political analogies or talk about mythic archetypes or infer both good and bad theological lessons, but right now, it's just a lot of fun to watch. As usual, I recommend reading the comics from the beginning--the links are in the sidebar--but if you don't want to do that, the current storylines start here for Sluggy and here for CRFH. (The CRFH storyline is a lot longer, having started in August of last year.)

Update: I neglected to mention Jason from It's Walky!, who also proved quite dangerous today. Of course, Jason doesn't seem to be a wimp as much as Torg and Dave--except in comparison to all the superpowered freaks he works with. The storyline started here.

Tuesday, June 29, 2004

Fahrenheit 911

I really have no intention of seeing this movie. I haven't gotten around to seeing the movies I might actually enjoy, much less one that'll just leave me angry and frustrated (my standard response when I want to argue about something but don't have anyone to argue with). But I did read Christopher Hitchens' review, which everybody is recommending. An excerpt:
It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.

I agree, this review is worth reading.

Monday, June 28, 2004

More info on the turnover

Old Post: I first mentioned the early turnover of Iraqi sovereignty below.

Robert Alt has a good article on the early turnover at National Review. Robert Alt has more to say on how the US has been slowly turning more and more power over to the Iraqis for the last couple of months:
In the days and weeks leading up to the transition, many in the United States criticized the June 30 transition date as too soon — while some, such as Sen. John Kerry, were critical of the decision to set a firm deadline for the transfer of power at all. Even so, the transition began much earlier than anyone anticipated. On March 28, 2004, the Ministry of Health became the first of Iraq's 26 ministries to shift to Iraqi control, thus beginning the transition process that was completed last week, when the last of the ministries came under Iraqi authority. Today's ceremony was in many ways just that — ceremonial — representing a change in authority that had effectively already occurred.

Despite some claims to the contrary, the autonomy enjoyed by the agencies is substantive rather than merely symbolic. For example, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Electricity, and the Ministry of Communication will retain only a small handful of Coalition consultants, who will have no operational authority, but will simply provide technical assistance as requested by the respective Iraqi ministers. Other ministries, like the Ministry of Education — whose 300,000 employees make it the largest of the 26 — will have no Coalition consultants at all.

All in all, a good day for Iraq.

When did that happen?

Parablemania has apparently changed its name to Parableman. I'm not quite sure when that happened--I wouldn't have noticed without the e-mail sent out about the Christian Carnival. Parableman is a long time nickname for Jeremy Pierce, and an inspiration for his blog's name, at least according to a post that I can no longer find, so it's not too surprising he'd return to the original name, but I still can't find any post announcing the change. Parablemania or Parableman, it's still a good blog. Check it out.

Turnover early

Now this is good news. Demonstrating once again Bush's love for surprises, the CPA has turned over authority to the Iraqis early. Most bloggers shouldn't be too surprised by this. People like Captain Ed had noticed that the CPA had already turned quite a bit of authority to the Iraqis, but it's nice to see the official turnover done ahead of schedule. It won't stop the violence, of course. Those prisoners currently in the hands of the terrorists are still unlikely to survive. It does do a lot to take the wind out of their sails, and ruins any plans they might have had to target the turnover itself.

Anyway, it now looks as though the new Iraq and I share the same birthday.

New Post: More above.

Today marks three decades since...

The day I was born. Not to make a big deal of it or anything, but I'm thirty today. I think I have to consider myself a grown-up now.

Sunday, June 27, 2004

Week in Review

Once again a rather slow week, with few posts. Of course, if you exchange quantity of posts for quantity of words, due to two very lengthy posts, it's not too bad.

Honesty and the sitcom mentality -- I discuss how most sitcoms get their humor from the lies their characters tell, and wonder whether this is a new development.

C2 Review -- Coke has a new half-calorie drink, and I give my thoughts on it.

Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism: Born Again I -- I return to my discussion of the differences between fundamentalism and evangelicalism in a discussion on what it means to be born again.

I'm a brownshirt? -- It may not be original, but I join in the fun in mocking Al Gore.

Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism: Born Again II -- The second and even longer post on being born again, and how one becomes so.

Saturday, June 26, 2004

Weekly Webcomic Review

Nothing clever to say this week. Just read the summaries, okay?

Sluggy Freelance -- So the magic talking sword is a little bit evil--it's still cool. And now we have a mystery magic woman. I think it's obviously Alt-Gwynn, but others are saying Alt-Oasis or Alt-Sasha.

Day by Day -- It's a hodge-podge of mockery this week--the media, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, the Ruckus Society, and more.

It's Walky! -- Jason and Sal attack, but neither are having much success against their targets.

College Roomies from Hell!!! -- Mike and Roger are captured, Dave's being held at gunpoint, and Marsha's suicidal. Overall, not a good week for the Roomies.

General Protection Fault -- Fooker finally manages to leave the UGA--meaning that he has now returned to GPF!

Schlock Mercenary -- There's a new mercenary contract for Tagon's crew--knocking over a pet shop.

Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism: Born again II

Old Post: Part I, where I offer a bit of context about what it means to be born again, can be found here.

In the tradition in which I was raised, you would be born-again by sincerely praying the Sinner's Prayer, of which there are several versions. This is one:
Lord Jesus, I want to know You personally. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and receive You as my Savior and Lord. Thank You for forgiving me of my sins and giving me eternal life. Take control of the throne of my life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be.

(From Campus Crusade for Christ's website)

I do not wish to mock the Sinner's Prayer, as I think it is an elegant compilation of what the Bible says that a life with Christ looks like. However, the key word here is "compilation." The Sinner's Prayer does not appear in the Bible. It is a relatively new development, and while I think you can commit your life to Christ by praying this prayer, I don't think it's the only way.

What it comes down to is the least common denominator. If the Sinner's Prayer is how one becomes a Christian, then what happens if you get the words wrong? For that matter, there are numerous formulations of the Sinner's Prayer. Which one is right? The general belief is that the words themselves are unimportant, as long as you pray with sincerity. Even if the exact words don't matter, do you still have to hit all the correct points: Repentance of sin, submission to God, asking to be remade? And what about understanding? You need to understand what you're praying in order to be sincere about it, right? That would disqualify the large number of young children who say this prayer before they fully understand it. And there's something disconcerting about the fact that the vast majority of those who have called themselves Christians throughout history have never heard this prayer, much less said it.

What does the Bible say about what it takes to be born again? Jesus never really explained it to Nicodemus, but he was asked about how to have eternal life on numerous occasions by plenty of people. To the rich ruler, Jesus said "You know the commandments, 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor your father and mother.'" When the ruler answered that he had done all these things, Jesus contined, "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." (Luke 18:17-30, NAS) To the lawyer, he said, "What does the law say?" The lawyer responded, "To love God with all my heart, soul, mind, and might, and to love my neighbor as I love myself." Jesus explained, "Do this and you will be saved." (Luke 10:25-28, paraphrase) When the thief on the cross said, "We deserve the punishment we receive, but this man [Jesus] has done nothing. Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom," Jesus replied, "Today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:39-43, paraphrase) At Pentecost, when the Jews asked, "What must we do?", Peter said, "Repent and be baptized, all of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38, NAS) In one of his letters, Paul told the Romans, "If you confess with your mouth 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, and you will be saved."(Romans 10:9, paraphrase)

This last one is often quoted in response to the "How do I become born-again?" question, so I'll add a little context:
But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes in him will not be disappointed." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved."

(Romans 10:8-13, NAS)

This is part of the Roman road to salvation, a collection of verses which spell out how one becomes saved. The full collection is:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Rom 5:88 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Rom 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

(KJV)

This is useful, and it does cover all the components in the Sinner's Prayer above. However, I'm always a bit suspicious of seemingly random collections of verses being given as a clear step-by-step process to anything. It wasn't so clear to Paul's readers, as Paul didn't put them together in a nice compact package, as has been done here.

So looking at this huge variety of answers, what do I think it takes to be saved? What the Sinner's Prayer does is compile the elements from all these answers, to give a nice, clear prayer that should cover it all. However, no one in the Bible was ever called to pray exactly these things. In fact, a straightforward reading of the scripture might lead one to believe that if you did any of the things mentioned above, you would be saved. At the least, if you were that person in that situation and you were told to do this by Jesus or one of his apostles, then that is what you would have had to do to be saved. Does that tell us what we, or for that matter, I have to do, in order to be saved?

Let's return to Paul's answer, as it was simple and the most general, addressed to a diverse audience most of whom Paul had never met. (It was written before Paul got to Rome.) "If you confess with your mouth 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Saying the Sinner's Prayer covers that right? In fact, pretty much anybody who's gone to church has at some point said, "Jesus is Lord," (it's in creeds, songs, prayers--you name it). Granted, not everyone who goes to church believes that Jesus rose from the dead, but I'd say that even in these post-modern times, most who regularly attend church do. Ah, but do they mean the "Jesus is Lord" part? The word after all is confess, which is a pretty accurate translation of the Greek word (homologeseis -- to agree with (I apologize in advance for the poor transliteration)). It doesn't count unless you mean "Jesus is Lord" when you say it. But what should you mean by that? In the general sense, that he really is the Son of God and has all the rights and priveleges thereof? Or in the personal sense, that he's the Lord of your life--the whole submission part of the Sinner's Prayer? But how much do we really submit, even when we mean it? It's easier said than done, which may be the reason that Paul calls on us to confess, or even admit, that "Jesus is Lord." It is not so we can mouth the words without meaning them, but by saying the words, and meaning them to the full extent that we are able, they slowly become more true in our lives.

In this sense, maybe Romans 10:9 is not so much about the sinner who, in one moment of belief and repentance, finally comes to Christ, but the imperfect Christian, who despite doubt and reluctance, day after day says "Jesus is Lord," praying that it might be truer and truer in his life. And this is where I think evangelicalism departs from fundamentalism. Not every evangelical will agree with this assessment, but many will. While there is no denying the dramatic, instantaneous salvation experience, which is attested to in both the Bible and in experience, many Christians--arguably including the Apostles themselves and definitely including all who have grown up in the Church--have experienced a growing faith and commitment where it is hard to pin down a starting point and a completion point. Most evangelicals accept the legitimacy of this salvation experience, while fundamentalists will insist on pointing to a particular moment where the Christian was born again, saying the Sinner's Prayer and having a conversion experience, in order to accept him as a true Christian.

In my own life, where I was raised in the tradition of instantaneous salvation, I would be hard pressed to point to one place where I became a Christian. Or rather, I could point to a half-dozen times while growing up where I prayed a form of the Sinner's Prayer with various degrees of understanding and sincerity. While I'd have a hard time pointing to the one and only place where I said it and meant it, I do know the point where I had fully come to mean it. If you'd like to read about it, it's in my autobiographical webpage here.

Friday, June 25, 2004

I'm a brownshirt?

You'd think we'd have stopped paying attention to Gore. Or you'd at least think that the Democrats would find some way to shut him up. Everytime he speaks conservatives have a field day, because everytime he speaks he says something like this:
The [Bush] administration works closely with a network of "rapid response" digital brownshirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for "undermining support for our troops." [Former Enron adviser] Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist, was one of the first journalists to regularly expose the President's consistent distortions of the facts. Krugman writes, "Let's not overlook the role of intimidation. After 9/11, if you were thinking of saying anything negative of the President . . . you had to expect right-wing pundits and publications to do all they could to ruin your reputation."

If I were a liberal, I'd be crying "crushing of dissent" right now. Fortunately, it's a lot easier to laugh at Gore than to get angry at him. You've got to figure that he doesn't know the Internet he invented all that well if he doesn't realize he just invoked Godwin's Law.

(Hat tip to too many to count, but I liked Best of the Web's write up.)

Thursday, June 24, 2004

Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism: Born again I

Old Post: Way back when I was first writing this series, I told you I'd get back to this topic. The last substantive post was on the inerrancy of Scripture. So it took a couple of months. Let's begin.

The phrase "born again" appears twice in the Bible. The first time is in Jesus's conversation with Nicodemus, in John 3:1-8:
There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, "Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him."

Jesus answered and said unto him, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Nicodemus saith unto him, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?"

Jesus answered, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

The second time is in 1 Peter 1:13-23:
Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."

Although Paul never uses the phrase, you can see its association with his talk about Christians being new creatures (2 Corinthians 5:17; also Galatians 6:15,Ephesians 4:24, Colossions 3:10):
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

From these, you can see that Christians are born-again by definition. What does it mean? Well, it means that you have a new beginning, the old sins and alienation are washed away (2 Corinthians 5:17), you are adopted into the family of God, in a sense born into his family, so now you may be called a son of God (John 1:12). Finally, you have eternal life that begins with your new birth (1 Peter 1:23) and the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit.

So, this is what it means to be born again. The question is how do you become born again. When fundamentalists and evangelicals talk about being born again, they're usually referring not to this "new creature" understanding, but to the moment when someone becomes a Christian. This is also called being saved or coming to Christ.

I'll talk about a couple of different views on this in the next post on this topic.

New Post: This discussion is continued above.

Wednesday, June 23, 2004

Publishing Errors

I've had some difficulties publishing this blog today. I'd like to use this as an excuse for my non-existant blogging these last couple of days, but I'd be lying. Now if this post doesn't go up by Thursday, then it becomes a good excuse.

C2 Review

This is not a normal topic for this blog, but what the heck, I haven't been blogging much anyway. Work is such that I haven't been able to keep up with the news recently. To the best of my knowledge, the world hasn't changed much since the last time I commented on it, and it certainly hasn't missed my commentary. So on to something trivial about which I have something to say.

If you're not aware, C2 is the new low-calorie Coke. Rather than trying to get rid of all calories, it settles for half-calories, using both sugar and an artificial sweetener. The idea is that it tastes better than Diet Coke, but has less calories than regular Coke. As someone who can't stand diet sodas, but likes regular soda (and depends on them for my caffeine intake, since I also detest coffee), I thought I'd give it a try.

My judgement: 3.5/5. The thing is not devoid of the aftertaste that makes diet sodas so undrinkable to me, but it's much weaker, and after drinking through most of an eight-pack this week, I've decided it doesn't bother me. It's not as sweet as regular Coke, but since I sometimes find regular Coke too sweet, this isn't a problem. Given the choice between regular and C2 Coke, I'll take the regular if calories aren't an issue. If calories are an issue, then I'll take C2 rather than sacrifice something else.

As a side note, I'd add that if you aren't wedded to cola, you might want to try Diet Snapple. Despite the fact that I've never liked Iced Tea, I like Snapple's flavored Diet Iced Teas. I think making tea diet does less damage than doing the same to colas. Unfortunately, the Snapple is more expensive, and hard to find a decent variety thereof. I like the peach, and I think the lemon's okay. They also make diet versions of some of their fruit drinks. I'm not a fan of the pink lemonade, but if I could find a store that carried 12-packs of their diet Kiwi-Strawberry, I'd be very happy.

Monday, June 21, 2004

The 9/11 commission, the media, and the truth

Captain Ed has a lot of information on the 9/11 commission's report, starting with this post, which describes how the commission has been surprised to learn about the lieutenant colonel of Saddam's Fedayeen who was at one of the 9/11 planning meeting. Considering that this story was reported in the Wall Street Journal weeks ago, and I had seen it reported on various blogs, I want to know how the Commission failed to hear about it. They're treating it as if it were classified information they didn't have access to rather than a news story in the public domain. Then the Captain gives his take on William Safire's suggestions to fix the 9/11 Commission. Captain Ed thinks this is impossible to do, although I would like to see the Commission actually give a nonpartisan, accurate, and informative report with useful suggestions. I don't think it's likely, but I don't think it's impossible either. And finally, Captain Ed finds that at least one newspaper is retracting its absurd statments about the Commission's staff report last week. It's good when a newspaper realizes its mistakes, but as Captain Ed says, "Either all of these people simply take marching orders from the NY Times or they don't bother to read their source material very carefully, and likely the problem is a combination of both." All in all, good material from Captain Ed today. Read it all.

Sunday, June 20, 2004

Honesty and the sitcom mentality

This subject came up at my Bible study on Tuesday: Do sitcoms today glamorize dishonesty? Does this affect the honesty of people who grow up watching them?

The question may be a bit too simplistic. Overall, I think I'd blame moral relativism as the source, and sitcoms as just a vehicle by which popular media helps to disseminate a really bad idea. But it is hard to deny that sitcoms seem to glorify that kind of behavior. The sitcoms I grew up with were shows like Family Ties, The Cosby Show, and Full House. These shows generally featured the cute kid, the rambunctious teenager, and the responsible adult, and numerous variations thereof. Humor more often came from the kids' cuteness and naivete than anything else. When there was lying involved, it was always the kids, they would always be found out, and always learn that lying was wrong. Important life lessons were a staple of the genre.

In edgy modern sitcoms, the humor comes more from misunderstanding and deceit than anything else. Hiding a romantic (meaning sexual) relationship, and the lies that entails, or faking a British accent to get a job, are certainly funny to watch, but if the lying does finally catch up to the culprit in these shows, and that's a huge if, it's generally swept under the rug and trivialized--no criminal charges, barely any hurt feelings, at most some embarrassment. Not exactly life lessons here.

This is of course a massive generalization. There have always been adult sitcoms and family sitcoms on television. Am I just comparing the family sitcoms I used to watch with the adult sitcoms I watch now? Or are adult sitcoms just more common now? Has the adult humor and mindset gradually edged into even the family sitcoms? Any thoughts?

Week in Review

Here are the things I was talking about over this past week. Fortunately, I had more to say this week than last. As usual, this post is timestamped to put it in the correct place in the archive.

Free Will and Eternal Security -- And the debate over whether free will and eternal security are internally inconsistent continues. Check Letters from Babylon for more.

Why I blog -- I answer La Shawn Barber's question and explain why I blog.

Of tigers and hamsters -- While everyone else is making fun of John Kerry's new nickname, "caged hamster," I take the New York Times to task for such a poor choice of words.

9/11 Commission reports no cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda on attacks -- I'm not sure which is worse, the Commission's vague deference to the conventional wisdom, or the media's misrepresentation of their admittedly vague position.

Mark Steyn misses the great communicator -- Yes, sometimes even we Bush supporters wish he were more like Reagan.

Saturday, June 19, 2004

Weekly Webcomic Update

Once again this is late. Once again I've changed the timestamp to put it in the right place.

Sluggy Freelance -- Despite two days of filler, this was a very good week for Sluggy. So what if alt-Bert is dead, the DoP demons have captured alt-Riff, and alt-Zoe is now terrified of Torg, Torg's got a talking magic sword!

Day by Day -- It's the media this week. Even Fox News isn't immune.

It's Walky! -- It's a week for revelations. Beef is working for the bad guys willingly. But so is Mrs. Walkerton!

College Roomies from Hell!!! -- Roger meets the dragon while Diana figures out the truth about Roger.

General Protection Fault -- A tearful reunion of Fooker and Sharon. It's about time!

Schlock Mercenary -- Kevyn comes up with a way to ger Breya's ship running at slightly below optimal capacity.

Doc Rampage blogs

I've been remiss not to point out some excellent articles by Doc Rampage. Be sure to read the following:

fisking David Greenberg
-- Doc takes Mr. Greenberg to task for his partisan attempt to sound reasonable. A brief example:
[Greenberg]
Myth No. 3: Reagan was an incorrigible optimist. Or, as we've been hearing, his sunny disposition made him impossible to dislike. This is more a half-truth than a whole lie. Certainly, Reagan charmed political antagonists like Tip O'Neill. His morning-in-America campaign tapped into a public sense of hope. And he could deploy humor brilliantly. But Reagan also possessed an ugly mean streak. It was evident back when, as California governor, he warned student protesters, "If there has to be a bloodbath, then let's get it over with." Anyone who has watched the replays of Reagan saying, "I paid for this microphone, Mr. Green," or "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," can see the manifest ferocity that was as crucial to Reagan's persona as his self-effacing grin.


I don't know if Greenberg is deliberately slandering Reagan here or he really is incapable of distinguishing between "an ugly mean streak" and courage. His second two quotes suggest the latter. The fact that he thinks his readers will interpret those two quotes as "an ugly mean streak" suggests that Greenberg is just morally stupid and can't see the difference.

As to the first quote, Greenberg obviously hasn't seen enough westerns. When the good guy points a gun at the bad guy, he has to make the bad guy understand that he means to use it. That's the only way to avoid using it. By making the students believe there really would be a blood bath, Reagan was trying to avoid a bloodbath. This should be blatantly obvious to everyone, including the students at the time. And if Reagan really was willing to have a blood bath? Well, the alternative was anarchy. The willingness to do what needs to be done is not a mean streak, it's courage. Get a dictionary, Mr. Greenberg.

The UN's sex-for-food scandal -- Doc thinks the sex-for-food scandal is overblown:
At the risk of being viewed as callous, I'd like to point out that prostitution is a nearly universal accompaniment of troops. The phrase "camp followers" sometimes specifically refers to prostitutes (and almost always includes them). These UN soldiers are acting no differently than any other soldiers in history, including American soldiers.

If there is a real horror here, (and I emphasize "if") it is that these girls are being so poorly fed at the refugee camp that they are forced into prostitution for a banana or other small bit of food. But I'm skeptical of even that. From the article, it seems that these girls are all former victims of sexual slavery. That is, it seems that they were all kept prisoner and raped repeatedly, by many men, over a long period of time before they got to the camps. And they came to the camps with babies conceived by those rapes.

on whether Bush is a conservative -- Doc takes on Andrew Sullivan in his attempt to paint Bush as... well, I guess I'm not really certain what Andrew's trying to do. He lists a bunch of Bush's conservative positions and then says they prove that Bush isn't really a conservative. Anyway, this appears to have been Doc's impression as well: "Now, anyone who reads my blog knows I'm not a Bush fan. I didn't vote for him, and if the Democrats had put up any kind of reasonable candidate, I would likely have voted against him this year. But really, this list of complaints is so off-the-wall that someone has to respond to them..."

All in all, it's good reading. You may not agree with all of it (I don't), but I highly recommend taking the time to read it.

Thursday, June 17, 2004

Mark Steyn misses the Great Communicator

Although he likes Bush, Mark Steyn wishes he were as well-spoken as Reagan:
I feel a bit like a guy who’s been dating a pleasant lady in the office for a couple of years and suddenly bumps into the gal he always adored in high school. As readers will know, I’m very supportive of George W. Bush, especially on the foreign policy front. But it was unfortunate that a week of 24/7 Ronald Reagan greatest hits on the cable networks should have had to stop once or twice a day to cross to a blinking, groggy Dubya at some G8 press conference with a duplicitous pseudo-ally going round in circles on Iraq for the umpteenth time. Bush is a great and remarkable president and, between Normandy and G8 and the UN, he actually had a very good week. But gosh, it’s hard not to miss the Gipper...
....
Bush has set himself a similar challenge — to remake the Middle East. I think he can do it. He’s played a shrewd hand with both fractious Iraqi politicians and devious UN diplomats and he’s seen off Chirac, but at home there’s undeniably a rhetorical shortfall, as there was in his Reagan eulogy. He could use some Reaganesque clarity and toughness, plus a little more lyricism in the patriotic uplift. But one of the problems with the Bush Administration is that they think they’re so good at walking the walk they don’t have to bother talking the talk. Wrong. Last week conservatives were reminded of everything they’ve missed these last ten years. Never glad confident ‘Morning In America’ again? Your call, Dubya.

It's hard to disagree with Steyn. On the whole, I agree with what Bush is doing and what he's trying to do. I think that too often he refuses to make the strong arguments he needs to make, preferring to let his actions speak for themselves. If the media were the bastion of truth and objectivity it makes itself out to be, that might work. But it's not. Even without the transparent liberal bias, all too often its quest for sensationalism and bad news would keep it from reporting on what's really going on. I'm just glad blogs are taking up some of the slack.

9/11 Commission reports no cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda on attacks

But do we believe them? The 9/11 Commission has severely damaged its own credibility already, so when they make a statement like this, we wonder:
Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.

First, note that the commission doesn't deny links, just that these links included actual co-planning of attacks (something that no one's ever made a strong claim for, although there are tantalizing bits of evidence). Andrew McCarthy puts this in perspective:
That doesn't appear to be what it is saying at all. This is clear — if anything in this regard can be said to be "clear" — from the staff's murky but carefully phrased summation sentence, which is worth parsing since it is already being gleefully misreported: "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." (Italics mine. [McCarthy's]) That is, the staff is not saying al Qaeda and Iraq did cooperate — far from it. The staff seems to be saying: "they appear to have cooperated but we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that they worked in tandem on a specific terrorist attack, such as 9/11, the U.S.S. Cole bombing, or the embassy bombings."

The same might, of course, be said about the deposed Taliban government in Afghanistan. Before anyone gets unhinged, I am not suggesting that bin Laden's ties to Iraq were as extensive as his connections to Afghanistan. But as is the case with Iraq, no one has yet tied the Taliban to a direct attack on the United States, although no one doubts for a moment that deposing the Taliban post-9/11 was absolutely the right thing to do.

I would point out, moreover, that al Qaeda is a full-time terrorist organization — it does not have the same pretensions as, say, Sinn Fein or Hamas, to be a part-time political party. Al Qaeda's time is fully devoted to conducting terrorist attacks and planning terrorist attacks. Thus, if a country cooperates with al Qaeda, it is cooperating in (or facilitating, abetting, promoting — you choose the euphemism) terrorism. What difference should it make that no one can find an actual bomb that was once in Saddam's closet and ended up at the Cole's hull? If al Qaeda and Iraq were cooperating, they had to be cooperating on terrorism, and as al Qaeda made no secret that it existed for the narrow purpose of inflicting terrorism on the United States, exactly what should we suppose Saddam was hoping to achieve by cooperating with bin Laden?

Frankly, the commission report hasn't added anything new, merely restated the evidence for cooperation (while leaving out some significant, and what McCarthy would call inconvenient, evidence) and rehashed the conventional wisdom. I'm not impressed, but then, I'm not too surprised. Read all of McCarthy's article.

Torg rules

This is the best Sluggy Freelance in a long time. Not only is Torg cool when he runs to rescue the girl, he takes along a sentient magic sword--which no one knew was magic until now (although I have speculated about that being the case). All right, enough of me crowing about Sluggy Freelance. This is one webcomic which you really need to read from the beginning.

Wednesday, June 16, 2004

Christian Carnival XXIII

The Christian Carnival is up at Belief Seeking Understanding. Douglas Bass has divided the carnival into two parts, the first one here and second here.

Amazon Associate

As you may have noticed, there's a new button on my sidebar that takes you to Amazon. I've recently become an Amazon Associate, which basically means that if I link to a book on their website, I'll get a commission if someone follows the link and buys it. I also get a commission if someone follows the general link in my sidebar and buys something. I figured it wasn't a bad idea, as I tend to link to their website anyway whenever I'm discussing a book. I've been in the program for almost two weeks now, and I've only made the link once, so it's pretty clear that I'm not abusing it. But, if you intend to visit Amazon anyway, you may want to follow the link in my sidebar. (That's the one at the bottom: there's another button to Amazon's Honor System, but that's only for direct donations, and it doesn't say Amazon on it.)

Tuesday, June 15, 2004

Of tigers and hamsters

This sort of thing would usually slip beneath my radar, although Tim Blair is having a lot of fun with it. From the New York Times, of all places:
Like a caged hamster, Senator John Kerry is restless on the road. He pokes at the perimeter of the campaign bubble that envelops him, constantly trying to break out for a walk around the block, a restaurant dinner, the latest movie.

Congrats to the VRWC operative who managed to slip that one into the paper of record. I don't even want to know who he bribed to make it happen.

Seriously, you'd think any newspaper editor who wants to make a good faith effort not to belittle a candidate (something I think they should do regardless of political bias) could come up with a better choice of words. For a counterexample, I have a tendency to pace when I'm thinking. When I'm in my own home, this doesn't bother anyone but me. If I do this while at work, however, it can annoy my co-workers. If they ask me to stop, I do, embarrassed that I'd fallen into the habit again. Just a month or so ago one co-worker said I was distracting her by pacing around like a caged tiger. So I stopped, embarrassed again, but being called a caged tiger did a lot to assuage my pride. If my co-worker, who is not a native English speaker, has enough tact to boost my ego while asking me to stop being so annoying, you'd think that the New York Times ought to be able to manage it for the man they want to be president. I realize Democrats, with their victim cult belief system, may have difficulty understanding why most men would rather be considered tigers than hamsters, but surely they realize that the dumb masses out there would rather have a tiger than a hamster as president during a time of war.

Why I blog

La Shawn Barber wants to know why we blog and why we read blogs. For me, the second part is easier to answer than the first part. I started reading blogs during the Iraq War in 2003. I tried to follow the war in the usual news outlets--CNN, MSNBC, ABC. It became clear very fast that I wasn't getting the whole story. The doom and gloom that they were preaching just didn't match up with what any idiot with a map could see. I found a bit of insight on MSNBC in the form of glennreynolds.com, where I could find links to other places with more accurate information on the war. This in turn brought me to Glenn's "other" blog, Instapundit. From Instapundit, of course, I discovered all sorts of other blogs, and soon I was reading them daily.

As for why I started to blog myself: the first reason was just one of productivity. I felt that with all the blogs I was reading, I just wasn't producing a whole lot, and I wanted to be writing something. And part of it was that I'd occasionally feel I had something to contribute to the debate, and commenting on the blogs of other people just wasn't a very good way to make my contribution.

Monday, June 14, 2004

Have a Christian blog post you want to share?

If you want to submit a post to the Christian Carnival, send an e-mail to Douglass Bass of Belief Seeking Understanding. The post should be of a Christian nature, although it can also cover other issues from a Christian point of view. Please include the following information:

Title of your Blog
URL of your Blog
Title of your post
URL linking to that post
Description of the post

The deadline is 11:59:59 PM Tuesday.

Sunday, June 13, 2004

Free Will and Eternal Security

Old Post: My last post on this was here.

Joshua Davey at Letters from Babylon argues that free will and eternal security are inconsistent:
If this is true, then I believe the Arminian who holds to eternal security puts himself in a very difficult position indeed. For if he believes that humans exercise genuine free will in the choice whether or not to accept the salvation that Christ offers, but at the same time believes that the believer cannot lose his salvation, he is essentially saying that the believer, in accepting Christ, forfeits at least an element of his free will—he cannot “un-choose” salvation. Thus, the Arminian who holds to eternal security seems to be saying that (1) part of what it means to be made in the image of God is to have genuine free will, (2) humans exercise this genuine free will in their choice whether or not to accept the salvation offered by Christ (3) once humans have accepted Christ, they cannot exercise their free will to un-choose salvation. To me, what seems to follow from this is that the Arminian who holds to eternal security must also believe that in making the choice to accept salvation, humans surrender their free will as to that most important decision, which in essence means they surrender part of the imago dei. And because I do not believe that humans can surrender part of the imago dei, I believe that holding to both Arminian free will and Calvinist eternal security is incoherent.

I'll admit that I do not find this argument very compelling. As surrender to God is in fact a large part of what it means to accept His grace, giving up a portion of your free will does not seem incompatible with the view that it is initially your will to give. He likens making the choice to accept God to crossing a street--sure you can cross it, but you can also walk back. I tend to think of our relationship with God in more binding terms, such as a contract or, more fittingly, a marriage. A marriage cannot be easily undone, at least not as Jesus saw it (Matthew 5:31-32), where, sure, you can have a divorce, but that's just a legal fiction, not really an end to the marriage. Admittedly, even from Jesus's view, a marriage could be undone (by adultery), but it still wasn't as easily unmade as made.

Of course, I have some peculiar views on God's relationship to time and thus his relationship with us linear creatures, so I tend to view these things in a different light entirely.