I started this summer with a goal. Even though my class doesn't start until 2:15 in the afternoons, I wanted to wake up around eight to start the day off well - coffee, bagels, Bible - the usual Christian college kid gig.
This plan was derailed by day one by the internet and a roommate who has a near-obsession with internet memes. Seriously, for a while he carried around pictures of his favorite lolcats. So one night a few weeks ago, when he found a lolcat-related blog called Graph Jam, he showed me. And given my love of The Princess Bride and music, the site was an instant hit. I stayed up for two more hours going through the archives. And saving pictures.
I've got...ten, I think.
Here are the first two. Disclaimer: I don't own these images. GraphJam does. Please don't sue.
Mandela's ANC party has been on the list for longer than I've been alive, being put on it during the Reagan administration, a decade before apartheid officially ended.
I can think of no reason that the US ever should have labeled the ANC, militant though it was, as a terrorist organization at the same time we were supporting the Iraqi Ba'ath regime and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.
...why we're leveling sanctions against Iran as we lift sanctions against North Korea.
Yes, Iran has nuclear ambitions. Yes, Iran sponsors terrorist groups. No, Iran is not our ally.
But North Korea claims to have detonated nuclear weapons. The Kim regime has been engaged in a reign of terror since it took power. And North Korea is still at war with one of our allies.
I know, I know - North Korea is taking great steps towards ending its nuclear program. Just like they've done in the past.
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad North Korea is dismantling its nuclear program. But should a regime that has kidnapped and murdered people, both in North Korea and elsewhere, really be taken off of the terrorism blacklist?
Today, I listened to Richard Dawkins on NPR during an episode of To the Best of our Knowledge entitled "Atheism & Its Critics". Linkage!
The program opened with a discussion on faith. See my thoughts here.
One of the fundamental allegations Richard Dawkins levels against Christianity is that we (we being believers) pick and choose what we will accept as true from the Bible - Cafeteria Chrisitans, to borrow an old term. But I disagree with him on this. There is a fundamental difference between interpreting what you read and choosing what you read. Yes, some Christians avoid the more troubling part of the Bible. But many of the most sincere Christians are the same ones who take what they read and truly struggle with it. Yes, it bothers me to read about the mass killings committed in the Old Testament. But I have not rejected these stories. Instead, I have taken them as how the ancient Israelites saw God - as a god who loves his people and wants to protect them. Which is one of the recurring themes of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. On the other hand, if an atheist is to go through and reject the teachings of love in the Bible - to say that these are present in all cultures and therefore not relevant to the Bible - and focus purely on the violent stories of the Tanakh, then that might just qualify as "picking and choosing".
Of course, Dawkins also has a fundamental misunderstanding of the sacrifice of Christ, claiming the crucifixion is a bloody sacrifice of an innocent man to satisfy God for the sins of Adam, a man who never existed. To this, I say he's half - no, a quarter - of the way there. Yes, the crucifixion was a bloody sacrifice of an innocent man. But it was also a self-sacrifice - God himself dying for our sins. And that's the point we should take - the love inherent in the self-sacrifice, not the gruesomeness of the act. Secondly, and one of the largest misunderstandings Dawkisn makes is to assume that the crucifixion was about Original Sin. And while this may be up to debate among theologians*, by no means should it be taken as the belief of all Christians. It is my belief that Christ died for the sins of all people, not for Original Sin.
"I am in favor of goodness," says Dawkins. He claims that he stands against the claim that you don't need religion to be good. To this, I say, define "good". If "good" is doing good things - feeding the hungry, helping the poor, and such - then yes, you can be good without religion. If "good" means never doing bad, if it means living a perfect utilitarian lifestyle - always causing more utility than harm - then we're in trouble. Because nobody can ever be good in this sense.
Oh, and if you get a chance, read what Brad Hirschfield has to say - "faith without fanaticism."
Rock on.
*Though I can't think of any groups that hold this belief. Perhaps someone can provide an example.
"Metal bottom makes taking of offering NOISY! Listen to the change rattle in the pot and watch the giving momentum grow!"
I found this in a Christian resource magazine. A modern Christian resource magazine. And I very nearly died laughing.
Of course, this is not a new phenomenon. It's been happening for quite some time. A few examples:
The first is the reason we are all Roman Catholic. During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, a Christian could give money to the Roman church and either earn a few years off of their own stay in Purgatory or free a deceased relative from the same. For those unfamiliar with European High Medieval/Renaissance history, this was the practice of selling Indulgences. It was based off of the theory that "the merits" of Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the saints were stored up and that the papacy had the authority to distribute them. For a generous donation, that is. One German monk, of the Augustinian order, took issue with this unfounded practice. He wrote on it and ended up changing the world. Forever. He challenged the pope, asking, if this unfounded teaching is true, why are the "merits" not given freely to all? His name was Martin Luther, and if you want to more, I would encourage you to watch the movie Luther. It's not the most accurate depiction in the world, but it does a great job of discussing the issue of indulgences.
But don't take my word for it...
Ok. Moving on after a delightful little flashback.
Another prime example comes from the Christ, and you probably already know where I'm going with this. In one of the stories mentioned in all four Gospels, Jesus goes into the Temple and drives out the money changers and those selling animals to be sacrificed - in other words, those trying to make money off of God. And it's not like when he drove out demons, where Christ simply commanded it and it happened. No, it's significantly more dramatic than that. Making a whip out of reeds and turning over tables - this is the stuff Indiana Jones was made for. As Jesus said, the Temple had been made "a den of thieves".
And today we have much the same thing going on. First and foremost, I think of the massive market of Christian books. And here I must be careful, because there are a lot of authors that I respect and admire. But at the same time, there are people selling "special editions" of books and Bibles, trying to come up with any reason for a new volume. The Five Languages of Love...for Young Men Between the Ages of 20 and 30 Who Enjoy Watching Men's Double Tennis During the British Open. Today's New International Version for Housewives Who Just Sent Their Fourth Child to Kindergarten for the First Day - Study Edition. Don't get me wrong. I understand books aimed at special audiences. But when you get tot he point of having five or more editions of the same book, something's gone horribly awry. CS Lewis, arguably one of the best Christian authors of the twentieth century, did not have Mere Christianity - For Singles. And yet Lee Strobel feels that if he doesn't publish seperate copies of The Case for... series for both teens and kids - well, I don't really know what will happen. Will the kids not understand the deep thoughts of the teen version? Will the younger half of a generation not fully love God? Will they be converted to atheism before the age of thirteen, never to go to church again?
And then there are the bullet point books. Joel Osteen guarantees that if you read his book, he can give you seven principles to being blessed by God. I'll hold my criticism of prosperity preachers for another day and focus more on the flawed idea of preaching that bullet points can change your life. First, I'll let Donald Miller explain it. Second, I'll continue Luther's challenge. If the secret to living a better life is seven simple steps, why are these not given out freely? If everything can be reduced to a point-by-point list, why does it have to be bound and sold for $22 ($15 on Amazon)? Why not publish it on a website? Now, I know that this same argument applies to all books, and CDs, and movies, but how much more, then, does it apply to lists?
Yes, yes, I know it all comes down to money. I know that money drives people, even Christians.
But I also know one thing: God is not for sale.
We cannot sale religion. We cannot sale salvation. We cannot sale a better relationship with God.
And Christianity is not the only religion with this problem.
I'm currently in "Introduction to Religion in Native American Cultures". And the first thing we talked about in this class was the New Age attempt to mix Eastern and Native American religious traditions and sell them. Which is why you have wealthy fifty year old white men smoking "peace pipes" and going on "vision quests" and teaching that we are all one with Mother Earth and the Great Spirit*. This abduction of culture has driven some Native Americans to "declare war" on the perpetrators, boycotting bookstores and New Age shops.
Which makes me wonder.
If native people are offended by cultural/religious theft and are willing to protest the offenders, why are Christians so willing to let our faith be packaged and sold for twenty dollars per mountaintop experience? Why do we stand by as "Christian" toys (BibleMan would pwn Psalty in a cage match), "Christian" financial guides, and, among the more troubling, "Christian" patriotic clothing, continue to commercialize Christianity?
And even more important, once we've had enough, what do we do about it?
Rock on.
*The "peace pipe" comes from various traditions of the Sacred Pipe. Vision quests are not practiced by all cultures. Mother Earth is a Greek concept. And the Great Spirit is a translation of an Oglala Lakota (think Black Elk) belief used to make monotheistic Westerners more comfortable with polytheistic native beliefs.
Post Script: The title is Johann Tetzel's famous rhyme. Translated , it means "As soon as the gold in the pan rings, the soul in [to] Heaven jumps," or more commonly translated, "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul to Heaven springs." Or, depending on the source, it could be "Die Seel aus dem Fegefeuer springt", which is, "the soul from Purgatory springs." There are a few other variations, but I won't go into them.
...you no longer belong to evil, but to good. It is your soul that I buy from you; I withdraw it from black thoughts and the spirit of perdition, and I give it to God."
So spoke Bishoph Myriel to Jean Valijean, and this after Jean had robbed the bishop.
Likewise, Kinetic Church in North Carolina was robbed. And by robbed, I don't mean a thief made off with the church silverware. They lost almost everything. And their response? They tried to get the thief's attention with billboards and then released a video on YouTube offering the thief a chance to go get lunch with the pastor.
Really. You can watch the video.
I...am in awe. I see this video and I see Christ, on the cross, saying, "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do." I see this video and I see Christ saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I see this video, and above all else, I see Christ. I see his Church. I see what true belief really looks like.
And I pray that if I ever find myself in such a situation, that through the grace of God alone, I am able to put forth a response such as this.
About a week ago, I was driving from Athens to Atlanta down 316. I don't like driving. I don't like 316. I don't like Atlanta. I always feel guilty about the drive - it's well over 100 miles round-trip. And though my little Toyota Echo is very fuel efficient, rising gas prices make the trip pricey. Not to mention that the horizon around Atlanta has a very sickly brown color. It's just not a good experience.
This trip, though, was made better by NPR. I like NPR, even if they are viewed by some to be nothing more than a bunch of hippies/liberals/communists/feminists/etc. Even if they present a skewed view (which, to be honest, is not as true as other sources of media), they can at least be polite about the hole thing. I've been listening to NPR since I was a child, and not once have I heard the hosts get into shouting matches with their guests, which is more than can be said for cable news programs. But I digress. NPR was broadcasting The Commonwealth Club, a California organization that invites speakers to present their views on varying topics. This particular speech was given by the CEO of GM, G. Richard Wagoner. And what he had to say surprised me - he dedicated the better part of the speech to the development of more fuel efficient vehicles and alternative forms of energy.
It doesn't matter if you believe in global warming or not. It doesn't matter if you think recent high gas prices will go down or not. All that matters is that the current world economy is dependent on transportation, which is dependent on a finite resource. At some point in the near future, we will run out of fuel. Before that time, we need to find a new source and adapt the infrastructure to fit the source. And better sooner than later.
So, with this in mind, here's a quick view of the common alternatives.
Bio-Diesel and Griesel/Straight Vegetable Oil (SVO) First, watch this interview with Aaron Weiss of mewithoutYou. Great band, great guy, and interesting bus. I have long supported the use of SVO. You can run a traditional diesel motor with it (at the cost of fuel efficiency). And in warmer climates, it works pretty well. But the problem is that the restaurants don't use oil to sustain a large economy. So instead, we end up using "virgin" SVO, which is slightly wasteful. The main advantage of SVO is that it recycles this oil that we don't need. And, as addressed in the video, cooler temperatures can cause problems for running a griesel engine. Bio-diesel runs into a similar problem. Diesel ignites at a higher temperature than gasoline*.
Of course, we should not be too hasty in ruling out bio-diesel and griesel entirely. UGA runs their bus system off of used grease from the dinning halls (I may be mistaken, but I believe we use a B20 mixture, meaning that it is 20% bio-diesel). Diesel has long been used to run heavier vehicles, namely farm equipment and eighteen wheelers. Diesel engines were developed so that farmers could dedicate crops to fuel production.
Ethanol My friends and I joke about cars that run on Everclear and Golden Grain. Mostly because we're college students. But the use of ethyl alcohol (ethanol) is rather promising. Corn and soybeans produce large amounts of ethanol, which burns cooler, reducing the size of the cooling unit needed. So while ethanol is not as efficient as regular gasoline, the resulting reduction in vehicle weight makes up some ground.
Ethanol has some special sources, as well. Last April, I attended a symposium hosted by the UGA chapter of the Roosevelt Institute, a national student think tank. One policy proposal was the development of cellulose-based ethanol. In short, with the development of a certain enzyme, pulp derived from recycled paper products can be converted into ethanol. The two flaws in this plan: 1. The enzyme has yet to be found. 2. Diverting paper products from regular recycling to fuel development requires more trees to be cut down. Careful attention would have to be used in deciding which paper products are used to make recycled paper and which are used to make fuels.
The other source is hemp. While certain types of cannabis plants are used as drugs, hemp does not contain sufficient amounts of THC to produce a "high". Hemp produces, among many things, to include durable fabrics and robes (the oldest piece of fabric ever found is made of hemp), paper (it contains longer strains and is lighter in shade, meaning it can be recycled more and does not need to be bleached), food (hemp is high in fiber and other proteins, and to consume enough hemp to get a moderate buzz is the equivalent of taking two or three high fiber laxatives), and ethanol. Because hemp can be grown closer together, it produces more ethanol per acre than soy or corn, and more paper per acre than any type of tree. Hemp is grown in nearly every part of the world, except for the US, where legal regulations on every variety of cannabis makes production cost-prohibitive.
The downside of ethanol is that while it may burn cleaner than fossil fuels, there is question on how clean.
The Problem of Food Prices The largest argument against non-celluslosic based ethanol is that it is driving food prices up. Which might be true. But it doesn't have to be. Because corn and soy are so heavily subsidized sold at such a low cost, farmers do not meet their full potential for production. Crops are either left to rot, burned, or not planted - it's just not worth it. The problem isn't that we can't produce enough crops to feed the world and produce fuel, it's that we don't get the food to where it needs to go. To compound this, Americans are affluent. We throwout food that is only a day past the sell-by date. If we were to take only what we planned on eating, and not what "might be nice to have at some point next week", we wouldn't have as much of a problem. We buy in bulk, eat about half of it, and throw the rest out. I'm not saying that, by changing our shopping habits and subsidies, we can completely alleviate world hunger, but we can take steps in the right direction WITHOUT getting rid of biofuels.
Electric Engines Electric engines are great. They have been in development for a while, so they are getting to the point where they can actually compete with traditional internal-combustion-based vehicles. The problem is that the electricity has to come from somewhere. Which means that fossil-fuels are indirectly used to power many electric cars. The advantage is that when the energy market as a whole changes formats (from coal or oil based to hydro, wind, or geothermal based), the electric car will still be able to operate. The other problem is battery power - the technology for the batteries has a long way to go.
Hydrogen The hydrogen fuel cell is an electric car that runs on hydrogen. I'm not smart enough to explain how it gets electricity from hydrogen, but it does. And it's exhaust? Water.
There are a few problems, though. Cost is a big part of it. Another part is compression - hydrogen has severe limitations in how much can be stored in a fuel cell. But the biggest problem is efficiency. It takes a lot of energy to produce the hydrogen to produce the electricity. Take a look at this chart. It would be much more effective to use a traditional battery.
Conclusion One of the great things that Mr. Wagoner said is that alternative fuels have to fit the area in which they are used. The alternative fuel for the US doesn't have to be the same as the alternative fuel for Europe. Which is why Brazil's FlexCar is such a great technology.
Someday.
Rock on.
*Anecdote time! When I was in high school, my JROTC Ranger team trained in fire suppression. We trained using diesel fires contained in pans. In order to ignite, the diesel had to be mixed with gasoline. The gasoline was lit, and as it burned, it, in turn, ignited the diesel.
Update (22 June 2008) - About two weeks ago, GM announced that they would be reevaluating several of their lines, to include the Hummer and other SUVs. Granted, this doesn't mean that they will discontinue the Hummer, but even making it a few miles to the gallon more efficient is a step in the right direction.
I have previously written on proponents of fundamental atheism who argue that religion is inherently a bad thing. Part of their argument depends on faith: If we can will ourselves to have faith in a god that cannot be proven, this faith can be used and/or manipulated to drive us to commit horrible atrocities.
To this, I say that their basic premise is correct: Faith in the divine can be manipulated, and it has been in the past.
But does this mean that the problem is the faith or the manipulator? And what does the manipulator have faith in?
The Crusades are a dark, dark period in the history of the Church. Especially for Catholics. And they were fought over faith - faith in Christianity and the Church, faith in the Pope, faith in God. Many of the soldiers had faith that they were doing the right thing - delivering the Holy Land from Muslim conquerors. But what did the leaders have faith in? I would suggest they had faith in the money they could earn by capturing artifacts and royalty, faith in the ransom they would be paid, faith in the power they could gain by controlling the land, faith in themselves. This same theme pops up in many acts of religious violence: the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the sale of Indulgences, the wars of the Reformation, the White Power movement, the Wahhabi extremist movement, the Lord's Resistance Army, and many more.
Likewise, let's look at the Khmer Rouge, the perpetrators of the Cambodian genocide. What did the soldiers have faith in? I would imagine that they had faith in the world they were fighting for, faith in the Revolution and the liberation of the workers, faith in Pol Pot. This faith in a cause, leader, and higher power - the same faith held by the Crusaders, though placed in a different cause - Communism, not Christianity - a different leader - Pol Pot, not the Pope - and a different higher power - the Government, not God - manifest itself in the same way. That is to say, it lead to violence and genocide, to the loss of life, and the murder of the innocent. And why did it reach this level? Because Pol Pot had faith as well. Faith that he would be rewarded for his trouble, faith that he could take power, faith in himself. And like the violence committed by those who have faith in God, those who have faith in humans and ideas have the same theme: the purges of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Kim Il-Sung, the genocide in Nazi Germany, the race-fueled violence in the Sudan, Rwanda, and South Africa, the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, and many more.
Faith can be dangerous. It must be taken with a grain of salt. Faith in most things can be manipulated. Believers in both God and Freedom must take into consideration what they are being told. They must think about the end results; they must think about whether or not their leader has faith in the cause or faith in the power delivered by the cause.
But faith can also offer hope of a better world. It can offer more than skepticism and rationality ever will. Faith has brought freedom, charity, love. Faith has brought peace. Faith has brought as much good as it has bad. And it is not worth abandoning.
I just read an article on Christian Hedonism by John Piper. And I must admit, I think he's lost it.
He argues against Christian morality as a deontological theory. And to that degree, he's right. We shouldn't follow Christ because it is the right thing to do.
But should we really be following Christ because we want to get into Heaven?
By no means!
Hedonism, whether addressed from a secular or religious standpoint, is a self-centered point of view. Even if we take John Stuart Mill's defense* of hedonism and admit, as I am willing to, that true happiness is found neither in immediate returns or physical (lower) pleasures, hedonism still reduces the right thing to do down to what's best for the actor.
Piper argues that many places in the Bible address the rewards offered to the faithful in Heaven. And to be sure, Christians should look forward to the eternal Kingdom of God. But Piper's main flaw in the logical conclusion of this train of thought (which he conveniently avoids). By hedonistic reasoning, if we should do good deeds because God will reward us, than we earn our rewards and negate the need for Christ as Saviour. Sure, we can keep him as our Teacher and Lord, but his crucifixion becomes meaningless.
Why should Christians do what they do? Well, in all honesty, some, perhaps even most, Christians start their journeys because they want to get into Heaven, to avoid Hell, or because they were taught that "It's the right thing to do." A sign of true oneness with God, however, is acting the way God acts - acting out of Love. It's not something taught in ethics classes and the classical ethicists have not written about it. But it's why Christ did what he did. And we are called to follow him.
Rock on.
*For more on this defense, see Mill's Utilitarianism.
