how are some more certain of everything than i am of anything?….

renewed commitment to fast

Posted by richard on February 24th, 2012

late night potatoes and cheese. remember the feeling afterwards. aversion therapy, self taught.

2 locksets to mount. seeds and potatoes to plant.

i wrote:

everything i needed to learn today, i learned from reading ken ham’s fb page.
well, not really, but he has supplied me with several interesting biologos clips.
yesterday-on certainty
today on-falling upwards

i learn more about people from reading the comments on his fb than almost anything else i routinely read.

some tidbits:
-maybe God has sent them a strong delusion
-founded Biologos and this organization (with grants from the Templeton Foundation) is aggressively trying to infiltrate churches and Christian Colleges

there are 2 really big issues i see there, the first is this certainty that they are right, that the Bible clearly teaches a young earth(mantra-million year compromise). the second is this pervading fear that the world is slipping downwards.

i wonder if there is a connection between these 2 ideas?
there has been an argument of late, that there is a basic psychology difference between conservatives and liberals. conservatives motivated more by fear, liberal by seeking novelty. conservatives facing backwards towards golden age, liberal forwards in time towards a parousia of some type. most of these are pop-psych nonsense, but i wonder if they do capture some essential idea.

anyhow, read KH’s FB page, it opens an interesting window. the question is into what exactly are you peering into?


back to reading.

why i prefer biology over physics

i read this earlier but it bears repeating

one of the curious things to me is how similar the arguments are between flat earthers/geocentrics towards YEC and YEC towards old earthers. the parallels are fascinating, essentially you can simply remove the appropriate nouns and poof, the same argument of compromise with the dominant scientific culture. on the scale: flat earthers->geocentrics->YEC, the compromise is certainly down a slippery slope. the question is what exactly is being compromised? KH proposes that it is the authority of the Scriptures when someone thinks the world is billions, not thousands of years old. but the FT’s and GC’s are certainly closer to the ancient worldview of Gen 1-3 than is KH in this regard.

so what really is being compromised? not just in the mind of KH and his minion followers, but in reading Scripture informed by modern science? what is really changed if we don’t share a young flat geocentric astronomy with the writers of Genesis?

how about if i don’t believe demons cause disease but lack of proper handwashing does?

how about if i disbelieve in a hierarchical society based on male privilege,  slaves at the bottom, women pregnant as much as possible and a great chain of being from bottom to God with everyone in their proper place?

is it really the authority of Scripture that is being challenged? or the role the ancient writer’s worldview plays in transmitting the important messages of God to us? is the Bible more or less than the entire worldview of it’s writers? is everything in the Bible binding on all subsequent believers as being taught? or are there things by necessity being used but not taught there?

must i like Robert Dabney believe that slavery is a required part of my faith in the Creator? if i leave it out have i compromised with the world and diminished my commitment to the God of Issac, Jacob, and Abraham?

if i disbelieve in the demon caused world and look to medicine have i denied Jesus? for he certainly healed by casting out demons. should i expect this? have i compromised the NT faith by looking to medicine to solve my health issues?

it’s a really slippery slope.


the military is an excellent example of a command economy.

families, both nuclear and extended, some networks of friends, some groups like mormons are an example of another non-market way of organizing work. it’s not a market with money and highest priority to exchange relationships. it’s currency is something like love or duty/obligation. i imagine the Chinese guanxi to be such a currency as well.

because the market is so dominant we forget that much of the work we do, much of the history of how our species has in the past and may in the future organize itself to achieve ends, it not-market. there are options, more than we can imagine.



on syria

i do not understand how bad things must be for people to risk everything to be free.
perhaps we do need a revolution every generation to teach us how important the really big things are, and how unimportant the things are that dominant our consciousnesses.
it’s a shame that these revolutions appear to fall so short of their lofty goals. perhaps that too is in the nature of revolutions.


wow—3 hours of reading and i haven’t even opened google reader yet!

more on wasps


music is meant to short circuit the critical mind. we don’t need more emotional appeals to be happy, we need more thought about what it means to be happy and how to get there. pep rallies are often manipulations and frauds designed to get something else. like your money when you’re jumping up and clapping your hands, they’re picking your pockets.

probably so. i remember john frame defending hymns by pointing out that they are teaching tools. but too much modern worship is dominated by feel good love songs. at the expense of good thoughtful sermons you can ruminate about all week.

one big difference between YECist interpretation and something like biologos is their perceived distance from the text.

biologos talks about my interpretation, my understanding. ken ham talks as if he is simply reading the text outloud and into his mind pops God’s very own thoughts. no perception of interpretation-hermeneutics-cloud of witnesses, nothing but me and my Bible as if they are synonyms.

it’s a curious phenomena, i’ve had problems on mcgrath’s blog even getting YECists to admit the word interpretation, they cling so securely to the idea that a plain simple man-in-the-pew reading is not an interpretive principle itself.

It’s a happy reality that should make any open-minded conservative acknowledge that dogmatic adherence to abstract principles usually ends badly. –article on romney above

i wonder if my dad worked on these?

i found carl a kelstrom middle name, birthday and naturalization papers!

ate a reasonable lunch and dinner. not hungry.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.