Why Ancient Christians Were Killed

“Let us not forget why the Christians were killed. They were not killed because they worshiped Jesus…Nobody cared who worshipped whom so long as the worshipper did not disrupt the unity of the state, centered in the formal worship of Caesar. The reason the Christians were killed was because they were rebels…We may express the nature of their rebellion in two ways, both of which are true. First, we can say that they worshipped Jesus as God and they worshipped the infinite-personal God only. The Caesars would not tolerate this worshipping of the one God only. It was counted as treason…If they had worshipped Jesus and Caesar, they would have gone unharmed, but they rejected all forms of syncretism…[Second], no totalitarian authority [or] state can tolerate those who have an absolute by which to judge that state and its actions.”

Francis Schaeffer, “How Should We Then Live” (1976 A.D.)   

The Creation of Middle Earth

This is the creation story from Tolkien's Lord of the Rings prequel The Silmarillion. Just for explanation: "Iluvatar" is the name for God, and the 'Ainur' are something like high-ranking angels. Anyone familiar with the Bible will be able to tell that the Catholic Tolkien has crafted his creation story to mirror the teaching of Scripture.

"And many other things Iluvatar spoke to the Ainur at that time, and because of their memory of his words, and the knowledge that each has of the music that he himself made, the Ainur know much of what was, and is, and is to come, and few things are unseen by them. Yet some things there are that they cannot see, neither alone nor taking counsel together; for to none but himself has Iluvatar revealed all that he has in store, and in every age there come forth things that are new, and have no foretelling, for they do not proceed from the past. And so it was that as this vision of the World was played before them, the Ainur saw that it contained things which they had not thought. And they saw with amazement the coming of the children of Iluvatar, and the habitation that was prepared for them; and they perceived that they themselves in the labor of their music had been busy with the preparation of this dwelling, and yet knew not that it had any purpose beyond its own beauty. For the children of Iluvatar are conceived by him alone; and they came with the third theme, and were not in the theme which Iluvatar propounded at the beginning, and none of the Ainur had part in their making. Therefore when they beheld them, the more did they love them, being things other than themselves, strange and free, wherein they saw the mind of Iluvatar reflected anew, and learned yet a little more of his wisdom, which otherwise would have been hidden even from the Ainur."

–J.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion

Mitt Romney, Evangelicals, and Mormonism

Dr. Al Mohler, the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, was asked by CNN to give some unsolicited advice to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney on his upcoming address to the evangelical college Liberty University. He speaks with his usual good sense to political and cultural issues. Here was his council:

At Liberty University, Romney faces the opportunity to introduce himself to American evangelicals in a whole new way. He is speaking as the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, and this represents a crucial moment for his campaign.

As he addresses evangelicals, Romney’s most important goal must be to speak as himself. He should speak of his faith and his convictions. He should identify himself as a Mormon whose worldview is shaped by his faith.

He should draw clear lines from his faith to his political principles, speaking of his concern for the culture, marriage, the family and the future of our nation. He should speak without hesitation, explaining how he arrived at his most important political and moral convictions.

He should not try to bridge the theological gulf that separates Mormons from evangelical Christians, but he should point directly to common concerns and shared convictions about the crucial issues facing our nation. He should acknowledge the fact that he is a Mormon and that he has taken his faith seriously as it informs his worldview. Evangelicals respect an honest statement of theological difference, for we take theology seriously.

He should remind the audience at Liberty University that he is not running to be their preacher but to be their president. He should speak to shared political and policy concerns, making clear the fact that his policies emerge from a deep reservoir of commitment.

The governor will serve himself and his campaign well by telling evangelicals his story, understanding that it is very different from their story. Like most Americans, evangelicals would choose, if possible, to elect one of their own.

Nevertheless, evangelicals have demonstrated a readiness to vote for serious candidates who represent very different theological understandings but share a common set of concerns for the nation, rooted in an overlapping of worldviews.

If Romney seizes the moment at Liberty University, he will make history for himself, for his campaign and for the nation.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/11/unsolicited-advice-what-should-mitt-romney-say-at-liberty-university/?iref=allsearch

 This morning on his daily news podcast "The Briefing," Dr. Mohler reflected on how Mr. Romney's speech compared to his counsel. In the process, he said this (which I was intrigued to hear since it was almost verbatim of counsel I gave someone in an email).

"I think one of the most dangerous things that can happen here from a Christian perspective is that in the context of this political issue, we can minimize the theological differences between orthodox Christianity and Mormonism, or on the other hand we can act as if those differences existing--that necessarily means that we cannot vote for a Mormon. Those are two very different things..."

Listen to the rest of the Podcast for further explanation and commentary on Mr. Romney's address to Liberty University. In fact, I would encourage listening to it daily--it's only about 12 minutes long. Evangelicals would do well to learn from Dr. Mohler's content and tone on political matters.

http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/05/14/the-briefing-05-14-12/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AlbertMohlerTheBriefing+%28AlbertMohler.com+%E2%80%93+The+Briefing%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

  

Who Said Economics was Dismal?

Saw this on a friend's Facebook wall and got a laugh. It's an economics joke. The man on the right appears to be the Austrian economist Ludwig Von Mises, who was a dire opponent of John Maynard Keynes, hence his jibe and laughter.

All Religious Beliefs are Equal

Socrates: "So you believe that each man's opinion is as good as anyone else's?

Protagoras: "That's correct."

Socrates: "How do you make a living?"

Protagoras: "I am a teacher."

Socrates: "I find this very puzzling. You admit you earn money teaching, but I cannot imagine what you could possibly teach anyone. After all, you admit that each person's opinion is as good as anyone else's. This means that what your students believe is as good as anything you could possibly teach them. Once they learn that each person is the measure of all things, what possible reason would they have to pay you for any further lessons? How can you possibly teach them anything once they learn that their opinions are as good as yours?" 

--Plato's Theaetetus

"One of my freshman students was unable to go home for the weekend, so he stayed in town and attended a city church on Sunday morning. As the student reported the event, the pastor's thesis was that 'All religious beliefs are true.' Not wishing to provoke a confrontation with the pastor, the student attempted to slip out of the church; he failed. The pastor insisted that the student share one of his religious beliefs so the pastor could demonstrate his open-minded tolerance. Finally the student sighed, surrendered to the pastor's demands, and said: "Since you won't let me leave until I tell you what I believe, here it is. Sir, with all due respect, one of my religious beliefs is that you are going to hell." Angered by the student's remark, the ministerial defender of religious relativism replied, "Well, I guess I made a mistake. All religious beliefs are true except yours.""

--Ronald Nash, Life's Ultimate Questions 

 

 

 

 

 

Test-Scores: Insufficient and Necessary

“Incentive structures can have problems in themselves, aside from outside competition. The mere process of formalizing what is to be rewarded presents many complexities and pitfalls. Most problems, decisions, and performances are multidimensional, but somehow the results have to be reduced to a few key indicators which are to be institutionally rewarded or penalized: attendance records, test scores, output per unit of time, seniority, etc. The need to reduce the indicators to a manageable few is based not only on the need to conserve the time (and sanity) of those who assign rewards and penalties, but also to provide those subject to these incentives with some objective indication of what their performance is expected to be and how it will be judged. But, almost by definition, key indicators can never tell the whole story.” 

--Thomas Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions 

Killing the Death Penalty and Losing Our Moral Nerve

"When a murder occurs, the community is obliged, regardless how unpleasant, to clear its throat as it were and declare a communal response. Yale professor of computer science David Gelernter, who was letter-bombed in June 1993 and nearly lost his life, has put the matter clearly. We execute convicted murderers in order to make a communal proclamation: namely, that murder, an evil so terrible and so utterly defiling to a community, is intolerable. An execution forces the community “to assume forever the burden of moral certainty; it is a form of absolute speech that allows no waffling or equivocation. Deliberate murder, the community announces, is absolutely evil and absolutely intolerable, period.”

But there is a fundamental problem here—a problem that eclipses the deep and contentious philosophical debates surrounding the death penalty. The problem is our culture’s unwillingness to pass moral judgments. Morally speaking, we have grown accustomed to equivocating, and in so doing we have cut ourselves off at the knees. American society’s moral evasiveness begins with its indifference to the moral marker “Thou shalt not murder.” The Torah, it must be remembered, does not forbid taking the life of a human being; rather, it forbids murder. Indeed, Jewish and Christian moral traditions concur in acknowledging justifiable forms of homicide, such as self-defense, civilian protection, resisting insurrection, and just war. In a morally courageous society, this list would be extended to include executing those who commit the ultimate in human crime.

Harry Weller, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney for the state of Connecticut, who represented the state’s interests in the appeal of Connecticut’s first death sentence in 30 years, argues that “when society convicts someone of murder it cannot ‘turn away its eyes’ but must impose the sentence required by law.” In this regard he cites the contemporary relevance of the eleventh-century Jewish commentator Rashi, who warns that one cannot act in a cowardly manner by transforming the victimizer into a victim. For Rashi and for Weller, it is morally inexcusable for society to say, “One citizen is already dead. Why should we take the life of another?”Despite the potential for error and the complexities surrounding capital punishment, the state has not only the right but a duty to deter and punish violent criminals while protecting its law-abiding citizenry. Any potential victim of a murderer deserves nothing short of the highest protection, which only the existence of the death penalty offers."

--J. Daryl Charles, Capital Crime and Punishment: Reflections on Violating Human Sanctity