I just read a really good article over at ReligionDispatches.org: Here is a couple of quotes:

The word “abomination” is found, of course, in the King James translation of Leviticus 18:22, a translation which reads, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.” Yet this is a thoroughly misleading rendition of the word toevah, which, while we may not know exactly what it means, definitely does not mean “abomination.” An “abomination” conjures up images of things which should not exist on the face of the earth: three-legged babies, oceans choked with oil, or Cheez-Whiz. And indeed, this is how many religious people regard gays and lesbians. It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Homosexuality is unnatural, a perversion, a disease, an abomination.

Yet a close reading of the term toevah suggests an entirely different meaning: something permitted to one group, and forbidden to another. Though there is (probably) no etymological relationship, toevah means taboo.

The term toevah (and its plural, toevot) occurs 103 times in the Hebrew Bible, and almost always has the connotation of a non-Israelite cultic practice. In the Torah, the primary toevah is avodah zara, foreign forms of worship, and most other toevot flow from it. The Israelites are instructed not to commit toevah because other nations do so. Deuteronomy 18:9-12 makes this quite clear:

It reminds me of the many obsolete terms in the King James Bible. Here is a list I put together several years ago.

Obsolete King James Bible Words

The following is a select listing of obsolete terms and their meanings in current terminology. A more complete list may be found in The Interpreter's Dictionary of The Bible published by Abingdon Press. The number of obsolete words is well over 1000, many of the words though obsolete in common language are still used in enough circles that their meaning is still easily enough understood. This list will only deal with words that are more likely to be misunderstood. For those who find themselves sucked into the King James only debate I would encourage you to read "The King James Only Controversy Can You Trust the Modern Translations?" by James R. White published by Bethany House.
 

Addicted	1 Cor. 16:15	Devoted
Advise thyself	1 Chr. 21:12	Decide
Affinity	1 Kings 3:1	Alliance
Allege	Acts 17:3	Prove
Anon	Matt. 13:20	Immediately
Armholes	Jer. 38:12	Armpits
Assuaged	Gen. 8:1	Subsided
Barbarian	1 Cor. 14:11	Foreigner
Botch	Deut. 28:27	Boils
Bowels	Phil. 1:8	Affection
Bruit	Jer. 10:22	Rumor
Carriage	1 Sam. 17:22	Baggage
Cast about	Jer. 41:14	Turn around
Chambering	Rom. 13:13	Debauchery
Chapman	2 Chr.9:14	Trader
Cieled	Ezek. 41: 16	Paneled
Clouted	Josh. 9:5	Patched
Clouts	Jer. 38:11	Rags
Compass	Josh. 6:3	March around
Compass, fetch a	Acts 28:13	Make a circuit
Concupiscence	1 Thess. 4:5	Lust
Confection	Exod. 30:35	Incense blended
Confectionaries	1 Sam. 8:13	Perfumers
Curious	Acts 19:19	Magical
Curiously	Ps. 139:15	Intricately
Darling	Ps. 22:20	My life
Daysman	Job 9:33	Umpire
Degree	1 Tim. 3:13	Standing
Degrees	2 Kings 20:9	Steps
Delicacies	Rev. 18:3	Wantonness, luxury
Descry	Judg. 1:23	Spy out
Doctor	Luke 2:46	Teacher
Draught	Matt. 15:17	Sewer, latrine, privy
Draught house	2 Kings 10:27	Latrine
Dure	Matt. 13:21	Endure
Ear	1 Sam. 8:12	Plow
Eared	Deut. 21:4	Plowed
Emulation	Gal. 5:20	Jealousy
Enlargement	Esth. 4:14	Relief
Ensue	1 Pet. 3:11	Pursue
Exchanger	Matt 25:27	Banker
Fat	Joel 2:24	Vat
Fining pot	Prov. 17:3	Crucible
Flagons	Song of S. 2:5	Raisins
Flood	Josh. 24:3	River
Flux	Acts 28:8	Dysentery
Fray	Deut. 28:26	Frighten
Froward	Deut. 32:20	Perverse
Furniture	Gen. 31:34	Saddle
Gainsay	Luke 21:15	Contradict
Gender	Gal. 4:24	Bear children
Heavily	Ps. 35:14	In mourning
Heavy	1 Kings 20:43	Resentful
Herb	Gen. 1:29	Plant
Hough	Josh. 11:6	Hamstring
Imagination	Deut. 29:19	Stubbornness
Implead	Acts 19:38	Accuse
Impotent	Acts 14:8	Crippled
Jangling	1 Tim. 1:6	Vain discussion
Leasing	Ps. 5:6	Lies
Let	Isa. 43:13	Hinder
Light bread	Num. 21:5	Worthless food
In good liking	Job 39:4	Strong
worse liking	Dan. 1:10	In poorer condition
Lucre	1 Tim. 3:3	Gain
Lunatick	Matt. 4:24	Epileptic
Mansion	John 14:2	Room
Mar	1 Sam. 6:5	Ravage
Meat	Gen. 1:29	Food
Murrian	Exod. 9:3	Plague
Neesing	Job 41:8	Sneezing
Nephew	Judg. 12:14	Grandson
Noisome	Ps. 91:3	Deadly
Pap	Luke 11:27	Breast
Pastor	Jer. 23:1	Shepherd
A peculiar people	1 Pet. 2:9	God's own people
Peradventure	Gen. 24:5	Perhaps
Persecute	Ps. 71:11	Pursue
Pitiful	Jas. 5:11	Compassionate
Prick	Acts 26:14	Goad
Profane	Ezek.22:26	Common, ordinary
Publican	Mark 2:15	Tax collector
Pulse	Dan. 1:12	Vegetables
Purge	John 15:2	Prune
Purtenance	Exod. 12:9	Inner parts
Reins	Jer. 12:2	Heart
Reprobate	Jer. 6:30	Refuse
Rid	Gen. 37:22	Rescue
Ringstraked	Gen. 30:35	Striped
Road	1 Sam. 27:10	Raid
Scall	Lev. 13:30	Itch
Scrip	Matt. 10:10	Bag
Settle	Ezek. 43:14	Ledge
Shambles	1 Cor. 10:25	Meat market
Shamefacedness	1 Tim. 2:9	Modesty
Simplicity	Rom. 12:8	Liberality
Sleight	Eph. 4:14	Cunning
Slime	Gen. 11:3	Bitumen
Sod	Gen. 25:29	Boiled
Sodden	Exod. 12:9	Boiled
Sop	John 13:26	Morsel
Sore	Gen. 19:9	Hard
Sore	Ps. 38:11	Plague
Sottish	Jer. 4:22	Stupid
Sped	Judg. 5:30	Succeeded
Speed	Gen. 24:12	Success
Strait	Job 36:16	Distress
Strait	Matt. 7:13	Narrow
Straitness	Jer. 19:9	Distress
Streak	Gen.30:37	Streak
To supple	Ezek. 16:4	To cleanse
Surfeiting	Luke 1:63	Dissipation
Swellings	2 Cor. 12:20	Conceit
Taber upon	Nah. 2:7	Beat
Table	Luke 1:68	Tablet
Tale	1 Sam. 18:27	Number
Target	1 Sam. 17:6	Javelin
Tell	Gen. 15:5	Number
Tire	2 Kings 9:30	Adorn
Tire	Exek. 24:17	Turban
Translate	2 Sam 3:10	Transfer
Turtle	Song of S. 2:12	Turtledove
Twain	1 Sam. 18:21	A second time
Unction	1 John 2:20	Anointing
Witty inventions	Prov. 8:12	Discretion
Compiled by Ron Corson 1999

Chaplain forced to resign for non religious officating at relatives gay marriage

Spectrum has an interesting article here:

"On November 26, the Chesapeake Conference issued a press release stating that Highland View Academy had placed Hadley on administrative leave for an unspecified length of time “because Chaplain Hadley participated in a same-sex ceremony, signed the marriage license as the officiant, and misrepresented his role when asked about it—calling into question his ability to serve as the spiritual leader of our school.”

In an email of clarification, a spokesperson for the conference stated that while Hadley admitted participating in a dinner, he denied attending a wedding ceremony or officiating one.

I think that second line was put in to make people think that the Chaplain lied to the conference. Though  it would seem to me if you did not do a religious ceremony, you are not really officiating. Signing the marriage license as  a government authorized signatory does not strike me as officiating. Certainly not when discussing with church officials. I would think if he was officiating as an SDA Pastor he would be expected to have counseled and put in some form of religion into the ceremony.

That is really the only thing that possibly bothers me and might give the conference some credibility for their action. But it seems too much of a gray area to support the conference actions. I can't imagine what kind of negative publicity this kind of action against a man's actions at his gay step-daughters wedding will be. Obviously I think it will be negative and I am helping to publicize the inappropriate actions of the conference.

There seems to be an extreme authoritarianism going on in the SDA church and it is not a very pretty picture for the church.

According to Washington State law here are the following requirements to solemize the marriage, notice officiating is not necessary per the law.

RCW 26.04.050 Who may solemnize.

The following named officers and persons, active or retired, are hereby authorized to solemnize marriages, to wit: Justices of the supreme court, judges of the court of appeals, judges of the superior courts, supreme court commissioners, court of appeals commissioners, superior court commissioners, any regularly licensed or ordained minister or any priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any religious organization, and judges of courts of limited jurisdiction as defined in RCW 3.02.010.

[2012 c 3 § 4 (Referendum Measure No. 74, approved November 6, 2012); 2007 c 29 § 1; 1987 c 291 § 1; 1984 c 258 § 95; 1983 c 186 § 1; 1971 c 81 § 69; 1913 c 35 § 1; 1890 p 98 § 1; 1883 p 43 § 1; Code 1881 § 2382; 1866 p 82 § 4; 1854 p 404 § 4; RRS § 8441.]

Notes:

     Notice -- 2012 c 3: See note following RCW 26.04.010.     Court Improvement Act of 1984 -- Effective dates -- Severability -- Short title -- 1984 c 258: See notes following RCW 3.30.010.

As through a mirror darkly

I never really thought of this before but a recent comment on one of my blog articles set me thinking. The reference is to this text:
  For now we see through a glass, darkly 1 Corinthians 13:12
 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, [even] as by the Spirit of the Lord. 2 Corinthians 3:18

Due to the invention later about 100 AD by the Romans we think of these verses as talking about glass some kind of clear glass but not of course cloudy in the case of 1 Cor 13:12. But we have been wrong all this time in that assumption...or at least I have been wrong and I can't imagine why if others knew the correct meaning I was never told in all those years, so I think it is a pretty wide misunderstanding.

First here is what the comment on my blog article said:

"...all "see darkly, as in a glass". The apostle Paul was referring to the volcanic glass mirrors of his time that rendered an image in some places perfectly but in others flawed and distorted due to the uneven cooling of the liquid volcanic rock..."

This is probably not what Paul was referring too. As one website writes of Obsidian:

Other Uses of Obsidian Freshly broken pieces of obsidian have a very high luster. Ancient people noticed that they could see a reflection in obsidian and used it as a mirror. Later, pieces of obsidian were ground flat and highly polished to improve their reflective abilities.

 From the pictures of Obsidian mirrors you can see the image is indeed quite dark. Paul was likely not referencing obsidian mirrors but it is pretty sure he was referencing mirrors. Obsidian is a pretty delicate glass and to achieve the kind of polish necessary to be a good mirror would be difficult and probably not very long lasting.Still obsidian is very likely the first man made mirror, and certainly more convenient then a pool of water.

Most sources I have recently looked at think that Paul is referring to the mirrors of his day. Which were bronze mirrors. As a good article on 1 Cor. 13 says:

A good example is the phrase through a glass darkly, which centuries of English speakers have interpreted as peering through a clouded windowpane. But when the King James translation was made, a glass was the standard word for a mirror, since the new mirrors of that time were like ours, with a silvered coating applied to the back of a sheet of glass. The original Greek text has dia spektrou, or by means of a mirror, but Greek mirrors were made of highly polished brass which have a weak and imperfect mirror-image, so the figure has an entirely different thrust. Now you see yourself as if you were looking in your brass mirror, but THEN you will have a perfect mirror-image of yourself, you will see yourself as you really are. Of course there is an error in this too, since mirrors reverse right and left, but in the mirror of Heaven you will come fact to face with your real self, see yourself truly as you really are. It is singularly difficult to translate this passage from the Greek, since modern mirrors do give the impression of perfect reflection, and the original meaning is lost.

The oldest such mirrors appear to be bronze, Some have noted that Corinth was famous for the production of brass mirrors which make it the most likely mirror that Paul is referring to. Silver would have been another good choice but probably too expensive for most people as well as copper. If you were well to do you probably had a mirror. As you can tell by the pictures of ancient mirrors they are going to tarnish.So they required polishing to be used and if they were tarnished and in need of polish which would probably be often then they could be said to see darkly the reflection.

As this site says:

...The mirrors of the ancients were of polished metal, in many cases they were of brass and they required constant polishing, so that a sponge with pounded pumice-stone was generally attached to it. And it was  the apostle Paul who wrote this famous passage from the Bible in a letter to a church in Corinth, which was famous for the manufacture of these kinds of mirrors. The images reflected in these brass mirrors were indistinct in comparison to our modern mirrors. They were seen Darkly Which, literally translated from the original Greek language in which he wrote, means, “in a riddle or enigma…that the revelation appears indistinctly, imperfectly.”

 

Be sure and read the rest of the article found here and referenced above for some other interesting things about what may have been different by Paul's meaning then we normally think of today.

Ted Wilson on the 3 Angels Messages

Normally I like to reference as close to possible the actual words of someone but since I can't find a copy of Ted Wilson's NAD Year-End Meeting sermon I will reference the report from Spectrum. For quite a while I have told people that when Adventists use the term Three angels messages or thrid angel's message they are using the phrases as code words for the primary beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church (SDA). It is hard to find any Adventist leaders who will come right out and say that, but it does appear that Ted Wilson came pretty close in his sermon recently.

"Wilson argued that a correct theological understanding would drive a correct approach to mission. "Seventh-day Adventist theology and mission are inseparable," he said. He added his contention that the three angels' messages are the most important messages Adventists have to share. "They are our theology and our mission," he said, "and the reason for God's wonderful Remnant Church."

Most of us know that the three angels messages are found in the book of Revelation and have been messages given since the second century. So we now have a pretty good reference that Adventists see themselves as the embodiment of the three angels messages. 

"Wilson sprinkled the message with what have become familiar talking points during his tenure as president. The first came around seven minutes into his sermon when Wilson asserted that the first angel's message that the hour of God's judgment has come includes a call to recognize God as creator: "The one who created this earth recently, in six literal days," capped off by the seventh day Sabbath, Wilson intoned. "That literal seven-day cycle has never been broken since the creation of this world," he said."

Revelation does not say anything about 6 literal days, or the Sabbath, those are read into the text so that Adventist theology can be shown to be the three angels messages.

Revelation 14:6

And I saw another angel flying through the sky, carrying the eternal Good News to proclaim to the people who belong to this world—to every nation, tribe, language, and people. ⁷ “Fear God,” he shouted. “Give glory to him. For the time has come when he will sit as judge. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all the springs of water.” NIV

There was once a time in the Adventist church where the judgment was the big issue with this text. Now it appears to be a pretext for a recent literal 6 day creation. I still prefer the good news about God as our judge, that we are not simply left here on our own, but that is just me.

"Next, Wilson focused on the Sabbath-Sunday divide that Wilson argued would separate God's people from the others. "During the time of trouble that is coming, and immediately preceding the Second Coming, the seventh-day Sabbath will be the central issue of the Great Controversy," Wilson said. He went on to add that in addition to keeping the Sabbath, worshiping God as creator also requires "willingness to reject false theories about the origin of life, such as evolution or theistic evolution." Here, Wilson pivoted to focus on another recurring theme that has marked his presidential agenda. "It is impossible to believe in evolution or theistic evolution and say that God is creator of heaven and earth and all the life they contain," he announced. "The two concepts simply do not mix." Wilson then stated his view that evolution is not a science, but "a false form of religion - not only a religion, but also a part of spiritualism, which will play a major, negative role in the final events."

When someone such as Wilson tells people it is impossible to believe in evolution or theistic evolution and yet believe in God as creator, it does not so much prove his contention as prove he knows little about other peoples beliefs. Which is not really something that you want in a religious leader in my opinion. If the two concepts do not mix then we have to pretend that there is no such thing as evolution. But scientifically we know that all kinds of organisms change and that evolution is an integral part of science. Things that have had huge successes in increased knowledge such as genetics use evolution as one of their key components.

As the TTC Guidebook on Understanding Genetics says:
 Three major ideas tie biological science together.

a. Mechanism. Many societies have believed, and many people continue to believe, that the rules thatgovern life are different from the inanimate universe. They propose a“vital force”to explain this.Examples of this are the chi of Chinese philosophy and traditional medicine. Biological science rejects this idea, proposing instead that the same rules of physics and chemistry that govern the lifeless world (e.g., rocks, the air) govern life. 

 

b.Cell theory. Since the microscope was first used to visualize living things, biologists have agreedthat cells are the building blocks of life (just as atoms are the building blocks of chemistry). All living things are made up of cells, and all cells come from other cells. 

 

c. Evolution. Organisms are related by common ancestry, and there has been and continues to be change through time, or descent with modification. In 1859, Charles Darwin proposed natural selection as a way to explain how organisms with different characteristics change through many generations

When a religious leader simply denies evolution he is denying the science of most of the biological sciences. History has shown us pretty well that when religion butts head with science the science will win. Usually by religion realizing that it's presuppositions were not based upon reality but upon tradition. Tradition though it may last for quite a while seems to also lose in areas of the world with significant educational systems.

"Discussing the second of the three angels' messages, Wilson stated that Babylon as described in Revelation refers to all those churches that did not heed the warning message first given in 1844, and that teach the theological errors passed down through the church of the Middle Ages. Intense anger and fierce opposition will result from exposing Babylon, Wilson predicted."

 Babylon in the book of Revelation had nothing to say about the churches after 1844. The idea that Babylon had no meaning until church rejected the incorrect end of the world prediction of William Miller is quite a leap in logic and interpretation. You can see why in his sermon he had to rely heavily on Ellen White to make it even seem like he had a case to make.

As Wilson continues to the third angel we see that again it is just to produce Adventist theology into the messages:

"The message of the third angel, Wilson said, is based on the prophecy of the preceding chapter, Revelation 13. The beast, Wilson said, represents the Apostate Church, which will negatively affect Adventists' religious liberty. He was referring to Adventists' ability to worship freely on Saturday, and predicted that, in accordance with Bible prophecy, that ability will be diminished. This will happen because religious entities will take control of governmental powers, and the Apostate Church will have free reign, he said. Wilson referenced several statements in The Great Controversy to bolster his assertions.

"The Mark of the Beast, which is the observance of any day other than the seventh-day Sabbath is an institution that clearly sets forth the authority of the Beast because the Sabbath is God's mark of his authority," Wilson said.

"One church boldly boasts that she has changed the seventh-day Sabbath, instituted at creation, from Saturday to Sunday," Wilson said, making a reference to the Catholic Church."

Does the Roman Catholic Church boldly declare they changed the Sabbath. There are some rare printed statements to that effect but that is not the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. So it can't really be boldly if they don't even do it. See the National Catholic Register:

You sometimes encounter the charge that the Catholic Church wrongly "changed the sabbath" from Saturday to Sunday. This claim is often made by Seventh-Day Adventists, for example. But even if one isn't accusing the Church of wrongdoing, the question can still arise: Why do Catholics worship on Sunday rather than Saturday? Here's the story . . .

 What Day the Sabbath Is
First, let's clear away a potential source of confusion. While it's true that people sometimes speak of Sunday as "the Christian sabbath," this is a loose way of speaking. Strictly speaking, the sabbath is the day it always was--Saturday--though it should be noted that traditionally Jewish people have celebrated the sabbath from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. Sunday is a distinct day, which follows the sabbath. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ.

In any case when one looks at the Early Church Fathers it becomes clear that their desire to celebrate the day of Jesus resurrection well predated the actual Roman Catholic church. The whole concept of the Sabbath representing God's authority could also be used for Sunday observance. Since that was the day that Jesus showed His power over death. It is a pity that people like Ted Wilson cannot let everyman be convinced in his own mind, but again the purpose in Ted Wilson's sermon is not to spend time on interpreting and reasoning from scriptures but to assert that Adventist theology is the fulfillment of the three angels messages.

 

If you want a sermon that puts Adventism into the Bible rather then reading what the Bible is trying to say to you, then this is the kind of sermon you will like. 

Lessons in the art of survey manipulation

I am going to try a new tack on this blog I often read comments and articles that I would like to comment on but really practically no one reads the comments sections so I thought I would use them as short blog articles.

So here is the first one from Spectrum a comment writer says:

"conservative Christians are the only ones who read the bible seriously"
That's funny because the only data based study I've ever seen on the subject suggests that liberals are far more likely to read their bible. The thing is many regressive Christians are very good at memorizing a verse here and a verse their to support their pre-established suppositions, where as most progressives actually read and understand."

Here is a section from the likely source of the above thinking. An article from Christianity Today, Survey: Frequent Bible Reading Can Turn You LiberalWhat a surprising survey says about how reading the Bible frequently can turn you liberal (in some ways):  

 Frequent Bible reading has some predictable effects on the reader. It increases opposition to abortion     as    well as homosexual marriage and unions. It boosts a belief that science helps reveal God's glory. It diminishes hopes that science will eventually solve humanity's problems. But unlike some other religious practices, reading the Bible more often has some liberalizing effects—or at least makes the reader more prone to agree with liberals on certain issues. This is true even when accounting for factors such as political beliefs, education level, income level, gender, race, and religious measures (like which religious tradition one affiliates with, and one's views of biblical literalism).

In 2007, the Baylor Religion Survey asked Americans how often they read the Bible on their own. (It was a five-point scale in this study, ranging from "never" to "several times a week.") It also asked whether the federal government should expand its authority to fight terrorism—a reference to the Patriot Act. For each increased level of Bible-reading frequency, support for the Patriot Act decreased by about 13 percent.

Frequent Bible reading also influences views on criminal justice. As might be expected, respondents who were more politically liberal were prone to disagree with the statement, "The government should punish criminals more harshly." Unexpectedly (at least given the conservative stereotype), the more frequently people read the Bible, the more they too are prone to disagree with the statement. This is not an anomalous finding: Support for abolishing the death penalty increased by about 45 percent for each increase on the five-point scale measuring Bible-reading frequency.

Reading the Bible affects attitudes toward science as well. If you just ask people about biblical literalism, you don't find statistically significant differences in views of whether science and religion are compatible. But the more someone reads the Bible, the more likely he or she is to believe science and religion are compatible. (For each increase on the five-point scale, the odds that they see religion and science as incompatible decrease by 22 percent.)

Some of the most interesting findings relate to moral attitudes. "How important is it," the survey asked, "to actively seek social and economic justice in order to be a good person?" Again, as would be expected, those with more liberal political leanings were more likely to say it's very or somewhat important. And those who read the Bible more often were more likely to agree. Indeed, they were almost 35 percent more likely to agree at each point on Baylor's five-point scale. That may be bad news for Glenn Beck, who last year told believers to leave their churches if they hear "social justice" language being used. Likewise, contrary to liberal media stereotypes, those who are most engaged in their faith (by directly and frequently reading its source material) are those who are most supportive of social and economic justice. A reading, politically conservative literalist is only slightly less supportive than a non-reading, politically liberal non-literalist.

Now just so you don't get the idea that there is not a liberal agenda in Christianity Today consider the last part about Glenn Beck. Beck was specific about what "Social Justice" he was referring too. See: Glenn Beck: What is Social Justice?

"What is that? It seems like such an innocuous phrase. It paints a picture of fairness — many churches use the term as a substitute for "outreach to the poor." Who could possibly be against that? Well, if you’ve read the news lately: I am. In fact, I even learned from TIME magazine recently that I hate Jesus.

I’m just full of hate and I want to stop justice!

I’m glad to see Time suddenly cares about God… or am I? The other "news" from The New York Times was that I recommended leaving church if those churches help the poor. And I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn’t for those pesky, meddling "journalists"!

I’m not sure why I would expect the media to start searching for the truth now, when they’ve never let it get in the way before. The truth is this: The term "social justice" has been completely perverted and hijacked by progressives. It doesn’t mean simply "help the poor" to them. It does to some people, but not to radical progressives.

And now, just for The New York Times and everyone else who thinks I hate poor people — I know your attention span is about 20 or 30 seconds, but try and pay attention — we’ll set the record straight for you here on social justice. The kind I am talking about vs. the kind that they are talking about.

Ready?

Here’s my definition of social justice: Forced redistribution of wealth with a hostility toward individual property rights, under the guise of charity and/or justice.

On my radio program, I said if your church is promoting Jeremiah Wright-type "social or economic justice," you should run from it or at least get educated on what progressives mean by this.

You might wonder if the summary from Christianity Today's writer is applicable. In particular since the summary of the poll does not mention the correlations that the writer does namely: In 2007, the Baylor Religion Survey asked Americans how often they read the Bible on their own. (It was a five-point scale in this study, ranging from "never" to "several times a week.") It also asked whether the federal government should expand its authority to fight terrorism—a reference to the Patriot Act. For each increased level of Bible-reading frequency, support for the Patriot Act decreased by about 13 percent.

The survey codebook is found here.

56) Q16. Outside of attending religious services, about how often do you read the Bible, Koran, Torah, or other sacred book? (SACREDBK)

	TOTAL	%
0) Never	444	27.3
1) Less than once a year	232	14.3
2) Once or twice a year	180	11.1
3) Several times a year	164	10.1
4) Once a month	49	3
5) 2-3 times a month	98	6
6) About weekly	92	5.7
7) Weekly	115	7.1
8) Several times a week or more often	254	15.6
Missing	20
TOTAL	1628	100.0

172) Q37h. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the federal government should expand its authority to fight terrorism? (FIGHTTER)

	TOTAL	%
1) Strongly disagree	141	8.8
2) Disagree	388	24.3
3) Agree	555	34.7
4) Strongly agree	395	24.7
8) Undecided	121	7.6
Missing	48
TOTAL	1600	100.0

If you look at the analyze section of question 172 You actually see that there is no statistics related to Bible reading. It correlates Age, Education, Gender, Religion, Region and Church attendance.

It is interesting to see how one article with really questionable correlations can affect those that want to believe something.

Reza Aslan and the lack of critical media

For the past couple of years I have become fascinated how people are influenced by the media. It is such a powerful force and is so ever present in our society. It is a constant buzzing in our ears yet we seldom swat at the offensive nature of much of what it produces. I am going to relay an example that to me is very telling of the sheep like attitude the media produces in people.

In the Sept. 13 2013 issue of Entertainment Weekly in the winners and losers section we read this:

Winners:

→ ZEALOT, BY REZA ASLAN When Fox News correspondent Lauren Green and scholar-writer Aslan jousted during a train wreck of an interview, Aslan clearly came out ahead. The televised scuffle pushed Zealot, a biagroaphy of Jesus Christ, to the top of the charts. Page 19

This view is how by a lot of media outlets. Just google Reza Aslan and Lauren Green. You can see the interview and see loads of liberal media sites bashing her and Fox News.

What you do see in this interview which the liberal media sites don't tell you is that Reza Aslan was lying about his credititials. He made a very big thing about his qualifications

As FirstThings

In fact, it is Aslan who immediately turns the interview into a cage match by reacting very defensively to Green’s first question. And here is where the misrepresentations begin. For roughly the first half of the interview Aslan dominates the exchange with assertions about himself that seem intended to delay the substance of the discussion:

I am a scholar of religions with four degrees including one in the New Testament . . . I am an expert with a Ph.D. in the history of religions . . . I am a professor of religions, including the New Testament–that’s what I do for a living, actually . . . To be clear, I want to emphasize one more time, I am a historian, I am a Ph.D. in the history of religions.

Later he complains that they are “debating the right of the scholar to write” the book rather than discussing the book. But the conversation took that turn thanks to Aslan, not Green! By the final minute he is saying of himself (and who really talks this way!?) that “I’m actually quite a prominent Muslim thinker in the United States.”
Aslan does have four degrees, as Joe Carter has noted: a 1995 B.A. in religion from Santa Clara University, where he was Phi Beta Kappa and wrote his senior thesis on “The Messianic Secret in the Gospel of Mark”; a 1999 Master of Theological Studies from Harvard; a 2002 Master of Fine Arts in Fiction from the University of Iowa; and a 2009 Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California, Santa Barbara.

None of these degrees is in history, so Aslan’s repeated claims that he has “a Ph.D. in the history of religions” and that he is “a historian” are false.  Nor is “professor of religions” what he does “for a living.” He is an associate professor in the Creative Writing program at the University of California, Riverside, where his terminal MFA in fiction from Iowa is his relevant academic credential. It appears he has taught some courses on Islam in the past, and he may do so now, moonlighting from his creative writing duties at Riverside. Aslan has been a busy popular writer, and he is certainly a tireless self-promoter, but he is nowhere known in the academic world as a scholar of the history of religion. And a scholarly historian of early Christianity? Nope.

Any thinking media person should have become interested enough to question the Aslan's creditionals and after this interview came out and even after people like Glenn Beck (see Glenn Beck's expose here) pointed out Aslans' false creditionals you would think that that should have some relevance or at least mention...but not in the liberal media...it has no relevance.

Aslan has a Wikipedia site as well and notice this example of how the Wikipedia can be gently nudged.

Aslan holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in religions from Santa Clara University, a Master of Theological Studies degree from Harvard Divinity School, and a Master of Fine Arts degree from the University of Iowa's Writers' Workshop, where he was named the Truman Capote Fellow in Fiction. Aslan also received a Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology, focusing in the history of religion, from the University of California, Santa Barbara.[7][8][9] His dissertation was titled "Global Jihadism as a Transnational Social Movement: A Theoretical Framework".[10]

So it looks like Under the Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology there is a focus in history of religion. However you look at the UC at Santa Barbara Sociology Graduate degree program you see that there is no such focus. What they have are:

The department offers rigorous training in theory and a variety of sociological methodologies. Additionally, sociology graduate students specialize in one of the following research areas: Conversation Analysis; Culture; Global Studies; Feminist Studies; Justice, Law and Inequality; Race, Ethnicity, and Nation; and Social Movements, Revolutions & Social Change. UCSB’s sociology graduate students have gone on to top jobs at other universities as well as into numerous research, policy, and activist professions.

They do have a Department of Religious Studies however, but it is not the Sociology Department. What it does appear is that Aslan is in fact an activist, see the Glenn Beck video for more on that.

When you actually realize just how much of a free pass is given to certain kinds of thought in the media you can begin to see how their goals and their activism are being implemented into society. If you reject their goals and their view of reality there are abundant other forms of media out there to attack and criticize and distort the facts to make their opposition out to be something horrible. Racist, sexist, homophobes, Islamophobe or the ever popular fear monger. The facts seem to take an distant second place to the goals of the activist.

How nice it would be if the journalist asked the hard questions or actually took the time to investigate the credentials of the people they talk to. Lauren Green may not have known that Aslan did not have the credentials he claimed but because she questioned him we have him on record lying about them. And that should carry some weight

Aslan's book gets to the top of the book list even though it has nothing really new As the Christian Post writes:

"Aslan has offered nothing new under the sun when it comes to offering a critique of the historical Jesus," William Lane Craig, a philosopher of religion and a Christian apologist, has said. "In fact, he is attempting to revert scholarship back to the early 1900s by echoing Albert Schweitzer's book, The Quest for the Historical Jesus. Like Schweitzer, Aslan claims that Jesus is historically unknowable and we can never get back to the real Jesus."

American Conservative writer and Baylor University professor Alan Jacobs argues that Aslan's work follows closely along the lines of Biblical scholar John Dominic Cross's 1994 title Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography.

"Aslan makes no new discoveries, and makes no arguments that haven't already been made — in some cases very long ago," writes Jacobs, suggesting that this is partly the case because "Reza Aslan is not a New Testament scholar."

It is interesting to note in regard to lying about credentials just how another member of the media was treated when it was discovered that she lied about her PhD. See the article here,

Acer Aspire One model ZG5 Bios fix

I am going to post this because after searching and searching the web for information on the problem with the Acer Aspire One not restarting from sleep/hibernation my Acer would not restart even if you held the power button down. There was all kinds of advice on computer forums most of it worthless. Then one guy gave me the right information and sent me to the following Acer page where you can update the bios even though you computer won't even start. Here is there instructions and the link to the page. I hope this helps people.

How do I update the BIOS on my Acer Aspire One AOA110 or AOA150 netbook?

How do I update the BIOS on my Acer Aspire One AOA110 or AOA150 netbook?

Note: These instructions are only for the Acer Aspire One AOA110 and the AOA150 netbook series and should not be performed on any other model Acer Aspire One.
Updating the BIOS will require a USB flash drive to store the BIOS information on during the update. To perform the update to the BIOS:

1. From the drivers home page, click Netbook and select your series and product.
2. Click on the BIOS tab and download and extract the latest BIOS for the netbook.
3. The files required will be in the Dos_Flash subdirectory.
4. Rename the BIOS file from 3310.fd to zg5ia32.fd.
5. Copy zg5ia32.fd and Flashit.exe to the USB flash drive
6. Ensure that the AC adapter is plugged in.
7. Insert the USB flash drive into a USB port.
8. Press and hold down the Fn and the Esc keys together and press the power button.
9. When the netbook's power light comes on, wait a few seconds and release the Fn and Esc keys.
10. After the keys have been released the power light will start to blink.
11. During the BIOS update process the display will be blank.
12. Let the unit run and after approximately 1 to 7 minutes, the unit should reboot and the BIOS will be updated.

If the unit fails to reboot, or the BIOS was not updated successfully, try the steps again. If the problem persists, contact Acer support.

For the AOA150 here is the download bios web page http://global-download.acer.com/GDFiles/BIOS/BIOS/BIOS_Acer_3310_A_AOA110%20&%20AOA150.zip?acerid=633850493862245097&Step1=NETBOOK,%20CHROMEBOOK&Step2=ASPIRE%20ONE&Step3=AOA150&OS=ALL&LC=en&BC=ACER&SC=PA_6