He murdered 77 “out of good, not evil”

Few people do bad things out of a desire to do something evil.  Rather, they convince themselves that what they are doing is “good.”  And the spirit of self-righteousness, ironically, can lead to the most horrible of sins.  An example is the testimony of the Norwegian mass-murderer, of whose 77 victims, 69 were young people at a youth camp:

The Norwegian far-right activist who killed 77 people last year has told a court that he was fighting a battle against multi-culturalism and acted out of “goodness, not evil”.

Reading from a 13-page document that he wrote in custody, Anders Behring Breivik defended his massacre and called it the most “spectacular attack by a nationalist militant since World War Two”.

He said he would repeat his actions again, if he could.

“Yes, I would do it again,” he said, adding that life in prison or dying for “his people” would be “the biggest honour”.

The 33-year-old lashed out at the Norwegian and other European governments for embracing immigration and multi-culturalism and claimed he was a “second-rate citizen”.

He said the aim of the killings was for “racial purity” and to “change the direction of multi-cultural drift to avoid greater confrontation and civil war”.

He claimed the only way he could “protect the white native Norwegian” was through violence. . . .

Journalist Trygve Sorvaag, who is tweeting inside the court for Sky News, said: “For many people, it was very surprising to hear how soft, almost nasal, his voice was. He didn’t appear dangerous in any way.

“It was very hard to see that this softly spoken man is actually the person who murdered 77 people.”

via Norway Killer: Trial Of Anders Behring Breivik – Far-Right Utoya Island Shootings And Oslo Explosion | World News | Sky News.

Can you think of other cases in which “goodness” becomes a cover for “evil”?

In the beginning was the Voice

There is yet another Bible translation.  It’s called The Voice.  The publisher is Thomas Nelson, who also publishes its polar opposite, the King James version.  Here is a story about The Voice from USA Today

The name Jesus Christ doesn’t appear in The Voice, a new translation of the Bible.

The Voice translation is aimed at people who haven’t read the Bible much before and aren’t familiar with church jargon.

Nor do words such as angel or apostle. Instead, angel is rendered as messenger and apostle as emissary. Jesus Christ is Jesus the Anointed One or the liberating king.

That’s a more accurate translation for modern American readers, says David Capes, lead scholar for The Voice, a complete edition released this month by publishing company Thomas Nelson. Capes says that many people, even those who’ve gone to church for years, don’t realize that the word “Christ” is a title.

“They think that Jesus is his first name and Christ is his last name,” says Capes, who teaches the New Testament at Houston Baptist University in Texas.

Seven years in the making, The Voice is the latest entry into the crowded field of English Bible translations.

Unlike the updated New International Version and the Common English Bible — both released last year — much of The Voice is formatted like a screenplay or novel. Translators cut out the “he said” and “they said” and focused on dialogue.

So in Matthew 15, when Jesus walks on the water, scaring his followers, their reaction is immediate:

Disciple: “It’s a ghost!”

Another Disciple: “A ghost? What will we do?”

Jesus: “Be still. It is I; you have nothing to fear.”

“I hope we get people to see the Bible — not as an ancient text that’s worn out — but as a story that they participate in and find their lives in,” Capes says.

The title for The Voice came from the New Testament book of John and from the Greek word logos. It’s usually translated as “word” in verses such as John 1:1, which reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” in the New International Version, one of the most popular English translations.

In The Voice, that passage reads: “Before time itself was measured, the Voice was speaking. The Voice was and is God.” Frank Couch, the executive editor and publisher of The Voice, says that translation better captures what logos means.

via New Bible translation focuses on dialogue, giving the Word a ‘Voice’ – USATODAY.com.

Does it really?  Not in the Greek that I learned.

I don’t think this translation is deliberately unorthodox, but the desire to avoid or recast theological language–thus eliminating concepts such as God’s “Word” and even “Christ”–suggest a brand of Christianity that recognizes no history, no continuity with the past, no Church as a corporate entity that transcends an individual’s personal piety.  And yet I’m pretty sure some of the people involved in this project aren’t that way.  Go to the  website, compare translations, and try to arrive at a fair assessment.

The third party candidates

Here is a  site that lists everyone who is running for president.  In addition to the Republican and Democratic candidates and a long list of independent candidates, here are the various people running in other parties that have ballot representation in at least one state.  (Are any of you supporting any of these folks and can say why they should be president?):

AMERICANS ELECT:

AMERICA’S PARTY:

Tom Hoefling J.D. Ellis

CONSTITUTION PARTY:

GREEN PARTY:

 

JUSTICE PARTY:

Rocky Anderson VP Not Yet Named

 

LIBERTARIAN PARTY:

 

PARTY OF SOCIALISM AND LIBERATION (PSL):

Peta Lindsay Yari Osorio
NOTE: THE PSL MAY ALSO USE SURROGATE PSL NOMINEES IN SOME STATES, WHERE NEEDED FOR BALLOT ACCESS PURPOSES, AS LINDSAY (AGE 27) AND OSORIO (AGE 26 & FOREIGN BORN) ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY QUALIFIED TO SERVE IF ELECTED.

PROHIBITION PARTY:

Jack Fellure Rev. Toby Davis

REFORM PARTY:

 

SOCIALIST PARTY USA (SP-USA):

Stewart Alexander Alex Mendoza

 

SOCIALIST EQUALITY PARTY:

Jerry White Phyllis Scherrer

 

SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY (SWP):

No Candidates Identified To Date

Squirrel and deer potty training

I don’t know whether this is gross or sublime.  Actually, I think it is both gross and sublime.  Mostly sublime:

Baby squirrels must be taught to defecate. This fascinating bit of information came from Don Moore , associate director of animal care sciences at the National Zoo. Earlier in his career, Don worked in Syracuse, N.Y., rehabilitating baby squirrels.

Squirrels are among species — deer are another — where the mother uses her mouth to carry her offspring’s poo and pee away from the nest. This is to protect her litter from predators.

“Evolutionarily, that’s a great strategy,” Don said. “The mother’s removing the only thing that can give [the baby] a scent: the pee and poo.” With no scent to follow, predators can’t find the defenseless baby.

The mother’s selfless act is so hard-wired in a squirrel’s very being that babies can urinate and defecate only after being stimulated by the mother licking around . . . down there.

Orphaned squirrels raised by humans risk becoming constipated and bloated. “The gut stops moving,” Don said. “You don’t want that to happen, so you stimulate them. In fact, you have to start stimulating them just to get them to feed.”

Squirrel moms provide stimulation with their tongues. “We don’t recommend that,” Don said. “We would use a warm, damp washcloth.”

Baby squirrels must have their nether regions stimulated at every feeding from birth to about five weeks of age, when their eyes are open and their fur is coming in.

“It’s a wonderful day when they start doing it themselves,” Don said.

via Answer Man gives the scoop on squirrel poop, other readers’ questions – The Washington Post.

“If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven”

Our Scripture reading in church yesterday included this passage from John 20:

19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews,[c] Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

via John 20 ESV – The Resurrection – Now on the first day – Bible Gateway.

(1)  We Lutherans believe that this passage teaches that Christ gives the Holy Spirit to the Church, which includes the authority to forgive sins.  This is exercised in vocation–that is, God acting through human beings–when the called pastor gives absolution during individual or corporate confession (the latter of which is part of every worship service).   After the individual or congregation admits their sins, the pastor says that as a called and ordained servant of the Lord, “I forgive you your sins.”

(2)  But that authority is not just given to pastors, but to the whole congregation, which has called the pastor to exercise this gift on its behalf.  But laypeople too can forgive sins and absolve those who confess their sins to them.  Again, it is Christ who forgives, but He applies that forgiveness through individual Christians.  (Isn’t that right?  Perhaps someone can explain the parameters.)

(3)  So when we forgive someone, according to this Scripture, that affects not only our feelings about the person who has wronged us.  Rather, that actually does something to the person that is recognized in Heaven.  (Right, Lutheran pastors?)

(4)  I know this sounds outlandish to you non-Lutherans.  But how else can you account for these verses (especially John 20:23)?  Do you think that only the Disciples were given this power?  Or what?

The founders’ individual mandates

It is unconstitutional to force individuals to buy health insurance, according to critics of Obamacare.  Not so, says Einer Elhauge of The New Republic, who points out that the founders who wrote the Constitution were not above passing individual mandates forcing citizens to buy things:

The founding fathers, it turns out, passed several mandates of their own. In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate.

That’s not all. In 1792, a Congress with 17 framers passed another statute that required all able-bodied men to buy firearms. Yes, we used to have not only a right to bear arms, but a federal duty to buy them. Four framers voted against this bill, but the others did not, and it was also signed by Washington. Some tried to repeal this gun purchase mandate on the grounds it was too onerous, but only one framer voted to repeal it.

Six years later, in 1798, Congress addressed the problem that the employer mandate to buy medical insurance for seamen covered drugs and physician services but not hospital stays. And you know what this Congress, with five framers serving in it, did? It enacted a federal law requiring the seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. That’s right, Congress enacted an individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance. And this act was signed by another founder, President John Adams.

Not only did most framers support these federal mandates to buy firearms and health insurance, but there is no evidence that any of the few framers who voted against these mandates ever objected on constitutional grounds. Presumably one would have done so if there was some unstated original understanding that such federal mandates were unconstitutional. Moreover, no one thought these past purchase mandates were problematic enough to challenge legally.

via Einer Elhauge: If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did The Founding Fathers Back Them? | The New Republic.

Wait a minute:  A mandate for everyone to possess firearms?  What does that  do to the liberal argument that the Second Amendment only allows for collective gun ownership in militias rather than personal possession?

I’m also curious about the status of these old laws.  Were they ever repealed?  Why, how, and when?  Would conservatives accept the insurance mandate in return for  Congress  re-instating the firearms mandate?

Anyway, back on topic, that the Washington and Adams administrations passed commerce mandates in no way proves they are Constitutional.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X