Test jesus under plastic

One of easiest ways to stress myself out is spin myself into a materialistic web of anxious theological book shopping.  The Logos/Libronix software is my downfall on this. When I first hit seminary, I realized a Bible software program could be really helpful.  Though my professors tend to use Bibleworks in class, I looked at the options and chose Logos for two reasons:  it seemed better suited for a well-rounded collection with commentaries, etc.  And it's interface design was significantly better than Bibleworks (which has toolbars that look as if a programmer mashed them together using tinkertoys).

I had sticker shock when I first looked at the base-packages—they range from $150 to $1379.95—whoa! Because my degree was going to be more theological in nature and wasn't going to allow me to do any original language work, I chose the Bible Study Library package. It really didn't have everything I wanted, but I couldn't justify jumping to the Scholars library, which had lots of resources I'd just never use (I really think they ought to have a better "between" package there... but maybe more on that another time).

So now I've slowly been buying additional resources to add to my library, which is fun but really expensive.

Until Nov 10th, Logos has a sale again for North Park students (they do this every semester), so I'm back to wanting more stuff.

Here's the possibilities:

1. Interlinear LXX (Septuagint) - $109.  Greek version of the Old Testament.  Almost essential to word studies, etc.
   
2. BDAG/HALOT - $275.  The most authoritative academic standard lexicons (dictionaries) for Greek and Hebrew.
   
3. IVP Reference Dictionaries.  $120 Includes Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, and like eight others.
   
4. Anchor Bible Dictionary.- $250  More comprehensive, scholarly, and liberal than the IVP stuff, but will it be too redundant?
5. The TDNT (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, aka. "Kittel") - $199.  Massive standard comprehensive theological dictionary.
   
6. The Word Biblical Commentary Series.  $700  Pretty much all my Bible professors (including McKnight and Snodgrass) say that you shouldn't purchase one particular series of commentaries--each book tends to have it's best author, and it can be published in any one of the major series.  But the upside to buying an entire series at once is PRICE... Word Biblical Commentaries tend to be $35-$40 each.  Buy all 60-ish volumes at once?   $12 each!

Argh!  I can't afford all that!  I can't afford even smaller portions of that.  I'm not sure who these prices are made for, but not for seminary students living off part-time ministry financial support and student loans.  But to take advantage of the student discount I can get (which helps cut these prices a little, but not enough), I should buy now, while I'm in school.  Plus, I can USE them while in school.  I've gotta think about this as long-term investments, I think.

Decisions, decisions...  the sale ends Nov 10.

I've never posted on abortion, once I'm finished here, I still won't have. The issue itself is remarkably painful and deserves compassionate, biblical, and thoughtful care.

This post is about Christian political reasoning.

As much as some pro-life voters want to say it's not, nuance matters on the issue of legal abortion as well as US political office.  I think for me to say this is not to cave or be weak, it is to think carefully.  I say it again:  all-or-nothing arguments are not accurate when it comes to these issues.

Recently, I was forwarded a blog post by a Christian friend who is voting on the abortion issue. The post he cited is by Randy Alcorn, and it began helpfully concerning Alcorn's interest in Obama as a pro-racial-equality, pro-environment candidate.  And the end of the day Mr. Alcorn says he will not vote for Obama because of the abortion issue.  While I definitely respect his position, I can't agree with all his rhetoric. Here's some comments:

Then the sad day came. I checked out Obama's actual position on abortion and I was demoralized. I found that in every single vote related to the issue he's favored abortion, its legality and even the killing of children who survive abortion.

Obama is definitely "pro-choice." This is the Democratic party platform and he's supported it. I can't agree with him (or the party) on this issue.

But some facts should be clarified here. The most atrocious: that Barack Obama would allow a baby just born of a failed abortion to die (actually, Randy is stronger and says "kill"). If this is true, Obama is a monster!

Over-strong claims should be questioned from either side, and this one is awfully untrue. It defies common sense that it's repeated.

Obama did vote "present" (not "no") on the Born Alive Infants Protection act in the Illinois Senate. It's also true that he was the only senator to speak against the bill on the floor. Opponents want to frame this to make him look almost evil, or without a conscience. But better put: he was the only senator to take the time to explain his vote. And if you read his explanation on the floor, his concerns aren't anti-life. They are that he was pretty sure the way the current bill was worded, it would be ruled unconstitutional by the 7th Circuit Court.

We forget that Obama was a constitutional law professor. He has some useful opinions on these things.

In one of many later interviews on the section, Obama further explains that the law was redundant. The current Illinois State law, and explicitly federal law finally signed into law in 2002 already require doctors to give life-saving treatment to babies born viable of botched abortions. Not to mention the hippocratic oath of the Illinois Medical Association. The statue was more a political move than a real piece of legislation.

I'll stop my argument and agree that I think Obama could have voted better here.  But baby-killing kind of insinuations are powerful images that stick even when they're more the result of bright paint than underlying substance.  In short:  it's unfair to demonize this too much.

But Obama is savvy. He wants to attract young voters, including young evangelical Christians who are sort-of-prolife. He knows to say that he favors reducing or limiting abortions.

Can we point out that this is loaded language? By that to mean, the real argument of the sentences lies "under" the actual statement. "He knows to say" implies strong that Barack Obama is lying.

If this is the charge (and this is rather serious), this one must be supported instead of insinuated.

Which is like limiting rather than criminalizing murder and rape and kidnapping and slavery. A candidate could say “I’m personally opposed to rape,” while he has a 100% voting record favoring the legality of rape. And he could say he favors limiting or reducing the number of rapes. But if he actually supports the legality of the hideous crime of rape, discerning people would see through his rhetoric of rape-reduction.

This argument is a logical fallacy. Abortion cannot be = to rape, kidnapping, slavery, etc, because there is no wide-spread controversy on any of these issues. Therefore they must be approached differently. I believe abortion is morally wrong (as with rape of course), but over 50% of the country doesn't.

Please read me carefully. I'm not saying actual morality is really determined by majority opinion. God only determines (and reveals) the beautiful and awful in his Creation. What I'm saying that it's a fatally flawed analogy for democratically elected politicians in a pluralistic society.

John McCain wasn’t my first choice for president. But at least McCain's a hero, he suffered for his country and fellow soldiers. And at least he thinks innocent children shouldn’t be slaughtered, and has consistently voted that way.

The hero language just doesn't relate. :-7 I agree McCain's a Vietnam hero. I also am not sure it relates to being a Christian and voting for Obama when it comes to abortion.

McCain has voted consistently pro-life in the Sentate.

Too bad Presidents don't vote on legislation.

In fact, the President has little or no direct control on abortion in the United States. About the only thing they can directly control whether abortions on military bases overseas are federally funded. More on this in a second.

I am deeply concerned about the one, two or possibly three Supreme Court justices to be appointed in the next presidential term

The best link here would to any site showing George W. Bush as the presidential candidate in the 2000 election that was pro-life, would probably have to pick several judges, and if elected, would overturn Roe v Wade (like a debate transcript).

Let me say more directly: we've had a pro-life President for eight years. Has appointed two supreme court justices, one of them (wait for it…) … the Chief Justice!  But has the legality of abortion changed?

My implication is this: the President of the United States doesn't have the power to end abortion in America. My conclusion is this: this is not what the thinking Christian votes on as a primary issue (an issue? Yes. The issue? Contradicts both logical sense and real life experience).  (Maybe this Doonsbury says it better than I am...)

Again, I'm not saying abortion is not a serious moral issue. I'm suggesting that a political vote for federal executive isn't the key way to affect it.

If you listen to the candidates, it's obvious that McCain/Palin would make a concerted effort to choose justices likely to reverse Roe v. Wade and it is equally obvious that Obama/Biden would choose justices most likely to uphold Roe v. Wade.

Here's where it gets real hard to keep a straight face. McCain in 2000 ran in the presidential race on a platform where he would not seek to overturn Roe v Wade. (example: Guardian article 15 Feb 2000) It's why National Right to Life was running radio ads against him.  Do we forget quickly? Mr. Alcorn worries that the younger evangelicals might be vulnerable to smooth talk, but I'm not sure if he's the one being a little hoodwinked. This is Donald Miller's concern. I agree with him.

Again, I don't need to disagree with Mr. Alcorn on the moral issue of abortion… just questioning his clarity on the politics of it.

ps - Don doesn't think Obama is the Messiah.  Neither do I.  Check out him poking fun of his campaign e-mails.

I'm already long, so I won't go further into the ways that Obama has pledged to work towards the reduction of the number of abortions, or even his thoughts on variety of other essential life-issues that I believe Christians should care about like poverty and war.

My final disagreement isn't on the topic of abortion. It's the insinuation that those who vote for Obama are trying to be "cool" or be in the majority crowd. Maybe that's the case for some. For me, I'm voting for Obama because of his fundamentally intelligent approach to a wide variety of complicated issues both at home and abroad. Especially abroad, because the President's role has the most direct impact over military and diplomatic issues off our shores.  And I follow church planter Alan Hirsch when he mentions that the world opinion is quite toward Obama, and this really does mean something.

Well, I reach the end of one of my longest posts hoping I've been gracious, thoughtful, accurate, and loving.  We'll see (I'm hope my friends will point out where I haven't).  But this is honest to my thoughts right now.  I'm a Christian, I believe abortion is part of the moral despair of our society, yet I believe I can consistently vote for Barack Obama.

I love it.  So, some nerdy, politically motivated programmers have now created a Space Invaders aracade game based on lies told by the Obama and McCain campaigns!  Based on PolitiFact's ratings (which is a great site, although I more often use Factcheck.org), the site lets you choose a statement you think is a lie, and attack it until it reveals the truth about the matter.

Hee hee.  Go play Truth Invaders (btw - it seems like you've gotta use Internet Explorer, Firefox didn't work for me)

Dr. Jim Bruckner, Dr. Bob Hubbard, Dr. Klyne Snodgrass, and Dr. Stephen Chester.

In order. :-)


via my Treo 700p

On Saturday, I finally made it out with the camera for a few shots. It only took a few minutes to realize I had waited too long. Lots of the bright reds had darkened, and the yellows had brown edges. Just two days prior it was better! Still got a few nice ones, though.

Before I recently wrote a review of Kasey Chamber's newest album Rattlin' Bones, I didn't know a lot about her, except of her few more popular songs in the US.  The country singer is a down-home Australian (really) whose pop-country is enough off the mainstream to like her.  I can't post my review cause it hasn't been published yet, but I've gotta note her video of her 2004 single Pony, which I can't stop watching.  Chambers bats happy, expressive eyes to be simultaneously five years old and all grown up.  The video makes the song.



There's something about Kasey here that makes me think "little sister"—which makes me think of my fake little sister Heidi (something about her facial expressions) and my real little sister Erika (who is hardly a country fan, but I think will like this anyway).

The prophet Jeremiah...

You will be in the right, O Lord,
when I lay charges against you;
but let me put my case to you...
Jeremiah 12:1

This is another of those human voices that holds both trust and doubt in necessary tension... that faith that God really does do what is right, but the need to fight it out anyway.

Iowa on 11 Oct:

Before McCain spoke, a Christian pastor offered a prayer that seemed to ask for divine intervention on his behalf. "There are millions of people around this world praying to their God -- whether it's Hindu, Buddha, Allah -- that [McCain's] opponent wins for a variety of reasons," Pastor Arnold Conrad said. "And, Lord, I pray that you would guard your own reputation, because they're going to think that their god is bigger than you, if that happens."

The McCain campaign said it did not condone the prayer.

What subtle moral code exists that allows thing to slide if they're only "misleading" or "partial truths?"   I'm so tired of both political campaigns sporting flat out lies.  I desperately want a debate moderator to cut in mid-sentence and say "that's a flat out lie."  Please.  It's not okay.

John McCain... everyone Everyone knows that William Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground in the late 60s and 70s.  They set bombs.  But everyone also knows that William Ayres is an English professor who lectures nationally (including Harvard), has written 15 books, was given a "citizen of the year" award for the city of Chicago, and sits on a number of charity boards because of his work with at-risk youth.

Please stop lying (fear-mongering) by all that you're leaving out.  It's okay with me if you tell the story.  But tell the whole story.  It's so far off, it's a flat out lie.

Barack Obama... stop pretending 13 minute campaign ads are "documentaries" when they have so many partial facts.  We know John McCain was involved with the Keating Savings & Loan conspiracy in the early 1990s.  He clearly shouldn't have put pressure on regulators.  But please mention that he was never charged with a crime.  That he was reprimanded by the ethics committee, but was considered the least involved of the five senators.  And still McCain has called the incident "the worst mistake of my life."

Please stop lying by all that you're leaving out.  It's okay with me if you tell the story.  But tell the whole story.  Add the idea that the Keating de-regulation have lead to today's financial crisis, and we've got an insinuation so misleading (McCain caused the financial crisis), it's a flat out lie.

What makes it worse from both campaigns is that it's not like the facts are murkey.  Fact-checking is becoming big again (a plus for all of us).  We know you've heard the press reports, the documentary evidence.  And yet to quote www.factcheck.org, you do it "again"

There's a moral component to language.  Stop lying.

• Send an email. You can scroll down for some talking points, but feel free to add your personal touch.
• Breaking the ice can be hard. Start by asking if they saw the debate on Tuesday and what they thought about it.
• Have some information handy. We have one-page summaries of Barack's positions on various issues. Look for the issues you know are important to your family.
• Share Barack's speech from the Democratic National Convention or Meet Barack, a video about who Barack Obama is, where he comes from, and what his values are.

-----------------------------

So I'm getting daily e-mails from both campaigns.  I guess it makes sense.  I don't see TV ads cause I don't have a TV, so this is another way to make sure that I can barely come up for air.  I'm a political junkie, and even I want a break now.

I have some strong thoughts on some of the accusations being thrown around recently ("new kind of politics" is like a funny joke that is sorta sad when you realize you had actually hoped for it).

But for now, I found this e-mail from the Obama campaign worth a smile.  It could be taken as maniputalive, but it doesn't bother me too much, because it's so dead-on.  Obama has a massive lead with 20-somethings who tend to have politically conservative parent.  Like me, for instance. :-)  Anyway, at the website, you can even watch encouraging videos from other people who had the talk, and are still alive to tell (which is a little odd because at least one of the girls featured is 13 and has braces).

To make the comparison to training in Christian evangelism should be pretty obvious, but I'll mention it just in case...

Pope Benedict XVI began a week-long Bible-reading marathon on Italian television - appropriately with "In the beginning".

The marathon will feature more than 1,200 people reading the Old and New Testament in over seven days and six nights.
...

All 73 books of the Catholic edition of the Bible will be read. Each speaker will read for about five to eight minutes.

Giulio Andreotti, a former Italian prime minister, former presidents Francesco Cossiga, Oscar Luigi Scalfaro and Carlo Azeglio Ciampi and several ministers in the centre-right government of Silvio Berlusconi will also be among the readers.
...

Addressing faithful gathered in St Peter's Square, Benedict noted the televised marathon would run parallel to a worldwide meeting of bishops on the relevance of the Bible for contemporary Catholics.

The Bible marathon will end with Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican's number two official, reading the last chapter of the Apocalypse.
-----------

A little bit funny. A little bit apt.
I wonder if you can sponsor the Pope. $2 per chapter read. Proceeds go to schools or something.

update 00:29am

:-(

------------------
Scrappy Mike Fontenot is starting tonight for the Cubs must-win chance tonight to stay alive.

His official stats say 5'8". I'm guessing it's even a bit shorter. He and I might even look eye to eye. :-)

It's hard to keep your hopes up.

Go Cubs!

Many people know I don't own any DVDs.  Except, well... all seven seasons of The West Wing.  Though I know he mostly lives in writer-genius Aaron Sorkin's head—the favorite President of my lifetime is none other than Jed Bartlett, the firey but compassionate economist (there's part of the appeal) that Martin Sheen sometimes gets mistaken for on the street.

 So imagine my grin when Barack Obama meets him.