I join Macht in asking Type 2 Calvinists to please, please please stop.
Can't wait to read part 2 of Ryan Bolger's, Dreams for My School. This guy really thinks outta dah box. Granting a seminary degree to a community, now that's original.
For you political theorist types, go read Back to Federalism by Gelertner.
Is secular humanism dead? Veith thinks it might be.
Veith also unpacks the scandal of the Duke lacrosse team in The Duke boys. To my amazement, not one Dawn Treader reader has given me grief over this scandal -- not one. As a graduate of Duke University (Fuqua class '90), I expected to get a little grief. It seems I am getting one email a day (along with every other Duke alum) from Duke president Richard H. Brodhead. This scandal has shaken the very foundations of this institution which acts as the poster child for postmodernist, liberal, progressive thought. To say Brodhead is sweating bullets about now is the understatement of the year. He has formed more committees to investigate every inch of this thing than you can shake a stick at. I guarantee you there is one place he is not looking -- at worldviews. Isn't it amazing how unlivable subjective ethics are in the real world? Just ask Brodhead.
Finally, to top it off. Looks like "teach the controversy" may be happening anyway, Dover decision or not. Don't you like how the L.A. Times portrays the students as gap toothed idiots and the teacher as noble? Gotta love those Inherit The Wind stereotypes ;)
I have been giving my pastor, who is a Duke alumni enough grief. But, since you are asking for it, here it is.
G. od
R. emains
I. n
E. very
F. ace
I know, it sounds unusual, but it helps when you are on the mission field and loosing focus. You remember that God is everywhere, working in everyone in some way or another.
Posted by: Carl Holmes | April 07, 2006 at 10:19
1. LaCrosse is fairly obscure.
2. Giving you grief about your team choking (or even cheating) is one thing. But rape is simply not a laughing matter. Since I try to keep the ribbing on the friendly side, that's not the sort of thing I'd give you grief about.
Posted by: tgirsch | April 10, 2006 at 17:51
And why nothing on the Gospel of Judas?
Posted by: tgirsch | April 10, 2006 at 18:48
"And why nothing on the Gospel of Judas?"
Not sure why I should get excited about more gnostic reading ... or do you disagree?
Posted by: Mr. Dawn Treader | April 10, 2006 at 20:46
I didn't expect you to get excited about it necessarily, but given all the attention it's getting, I thought you'd want to address the gist of it. Especially since that in a way, the idea that Judas was instructed to betray Jesus makes a certain amount of sense.
Posted by: tgirsch | April 11, 2006 at 00:14
Has anyone brought up the point that perhaps Judas betrayed Jesus not because he was instructed to but rather because of zealot motivations and a desire to see Jesus act (forcing Jesus' hand)?
Judas was from a zealot town (Cariot) and probably had some zealot tendencies. Perhaps his betrayal of Jesus was merely his attempt to get Jesus to fight and overthrow the Romans. Just a thought.
Posted by: B.A. | April 12, 2006 at 06:30
Saw an interesting special yesterday on National Geographic Channel (actually TiVoed from a few weeks ago) on the arrest of Jesus. They talked to various historians and religious scholars who essentially agreed that the Romans would have known who Jesus was -- especially after the incident with the money-changing tables -- and wouldn't have needed Judas to ID him.
Their speculation was that Jesus was arrested outside the city so as not to create a scene (which would have been bad for both Caiaphas and Pilate). And that based on Jesus' words to Judas in the Gospel of John, Jesus chose Judas to betray him, perhaps to prevent the disciples from being arrested and executed along with Jesus.
The consensus seemed to be that Jesus knew that he was going to be executed (duh) and that he took actions to carefully plan and control the terms of his capture and execution. Religious scholars have long said this, but what was interesting is that independent archaeological and historical evidence seems to confirm this.
Posted by: tgirsch | April 14, 2006 at 12:18