Justice Souter to Retire
by Motte Brown on 05/02/2009 at 1:23 AM
Justice Souter has announced he will retire from the U.S. Supreme Court this summer. He was appointed by President George H. W. Bush in 1990 in part because his chief of staff, John Sununu, assured him that Souter would be a "home run" for conservatives. But he proved to be a foul ball on our nation's highest court, voting in 1992 to uphold Roe v. Wade and the ban on school prayer.
From AP on Souter's retirement:
Conservatives worried that in his praise for the liberal lion he succeeded, Justice William Brennan, Souter was charting a much more moderate course than they would have liked or expected from a Republican nominee.
Eighteen years later, Souter was firmly among the court's liberals....
Of the justices who occupied the high court's middle ground, Souter was the one most likely to challenge, in exchanges of written opinions, the aggressively conservative views of Justice Antonin Scalia.
Essentially though, the Democrats won the battle when they rejected Robert Bork in 1987. It's widely thought that the elder Bush acquiesced on Souter to prevent another confirmation battle in the Senate. And as expected, he was confirmed without controversy by a vote of 90-9.
All this makes me wonder if it's possible for President Obama to appoint a sheep in wolf's clothing, so to speak. Someone who appears moderate, maybe even gives lip-service for "choice," but moves to the right once they're on the court, particularly on the issue of abortion.
Probably not, I know. But still, one can hope ...
1. Catherine said the following at 8:01 AM on May 2:
a hate to ruin your fantasy- but with a 60 vote fight-proof majority the chances are slim to none... if you don't have to face any challenge from the opposition over the nomination there is no incentive to choose someone who passes the "moderate" test. ginsburg will retire very soon, probably followed by stevens.. all with 60-proof voting majorities for replacement. i think you should pray that none of the conservatives retire or die in the next 8 years and forget about souter.
2. farmer Tom said the following at 8:29 AM on May 2:
I think a better option would be to pray for the genuine born-again life changing salvation of a liberal than a desire for duplicitous behavior of a "sheep in a wolf's clothing".
Of course the problem with my scenario is that in modern day America, being born-again no longer means turning away from sin and becoming a new creature in Christ. It no longer means forsaking sinful thinking and behavior of the past, and putting on the new man. It no longer means "and such were some of you" found in I Corinthians 6.
Nope, nowadays you can claim to be a "born-again" Christian and support baby killing in the womb or vote for a man as President who has no problem with killing babies outside of the womb, you can be a "born-again" sodomite, a "born-again" feminist, a "born-again" socialist, a "born-again" communist,
why you can be just like the unGodly world, a sinner by choice, and do what ever you want, baby, cause we have so degraded what being a "born-again" Christian means, that it no longer means anything.
So I guess you were right Motte, be can hope for a sheep in wolf's clothing.
Genuine born-again life changing salvation is no longer possible.
3. dana111 said the following at 9:02 AM on May 2:
"Genuine born-again life changing salvation is no longer possible."
You are kidding, right??
4. Brian Ramsey said the following at 10:33 AM on May 2:
To farmer Tom (#2)
In all respect, there is a vast difference between being called "born again" and actually being "born again". I don't think you intended it to sound as though there is no such thing as truly born again these days (or maybe you did), but I assure you God is alive and well and capable of causing the most drastic transformation process in a person.
I agree that we must be careful of so-called "born again" believers whose lives look exactly like non-believers. Those people need to genuinely encounter Christ. However, we have a powerful God, and there are many people who have absolutely been changed by the blood of Christ and a renewed spirit of loving God and His Word.
A good example, I'd say, is Mark Driscoll.
5. JB said the following at 10:38 AM on May 2:
It's interesting that Anthony Kennedy, while hardly a liberal, is still farther to the left than one would have expected from a Reagan appointment. Are there any recent SC justices that have moved to the right instead?
6. BDB said the following at 12:55 PM on May 2:
When he was first nominated, I remember some Republican saying he "wished he were a family man," and quickly apologizing. It seems that Souter proposed to someone after college, she said no, and he didn't try again.
Just throwing that out there before anyone asks why this is relevant to Boundless' mission. :D
7. Keith said the following at 1:12 PM on May 2:
I hope and pray that the newest Supreme Court justice is neither a liberal nor a conservative. I pray they are not committed to any man made ideology, but instead are committed to having their minds shaped and influenced by the truth of God's word. Not every conservative is good, and not everything liberal is bad. But we know that everything from God’s Word is truth. My only prayer is that whoever gets the job is a daily reader of the scriptures, and is committed to applying Biblical truth to a legal institution that is increasing forgetting its Biblical foundation. I pray they would have a bright mind, a humble spirit, a love for God and humanity, and a willingness to change and be corrected.
8. Dr. Ransom said the following at 2:06 PM on May 2:
Echoed from my Facebook update yesterday -- and I must first remind all of you that I intend this in the spirit of gentle correction, or if that is ignored, at least gentle ribbing:
This status update is dedicated to all my Christ-follower friends who, in a burst of “enlightened” anti-conservative rebellion last year, saw fit to vote for the “moderate” Barack Obama™: Now here's where we see exactly how he handles the new Supreme Court vacancy — $1,000 says he tosses in there the most left-wing, pro-abortion, “separation of church and state” fallacy-pushing candidate he can find. ...
9. Jethro said the following at 3:41 PM on May 2:
Where are the chorus of people saying "it's the President's choice, he was elected, he should be allowed to choose" like there was when Alito and Roberts were nominated?
10. JB said the following at 6:27 PM on May 2:
Jethro,
It will be very interesting to see how committed Republicans stay to their "up or down vote" talking point . . .
11. Chris said the following at 6:57 PM on May 2:
Jethro writes:
Where are the chorus of people saying "it's the President's choice, he was elected, he should be allowed to choose" like there was when Alito and Roberts were nominated?
They're the same ones who pointed out the super large margin that Bush got in 2004 but then point out Obama only got 53% of the vote in 2008. Bush obviously had a mandate.
The fact that the margin in 2008, by number and per cent and electoral votes, was much larger doesn't count. Anything Obama does is obviously an abuse of his power and a betrayal of why he was elected.
Jon Stewart was right about the taco.
12. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:11 PM on May 2:
The GOP didn't resort to the vile character assassinations that the Dems resorted to with Bork and Thomas. In fact, they were far too soft on Clinton's appointment ACLU feminazi Ginsberg.
Obamov especially has no ground to expect full cooperation, since he opposed his predecessors' appointments.
It should not be a question of "liberal" v "conservative", but whether the judge will follow the Constitution as written or read his own political preferences into it. And given the tendency for the latter, entailing judges becoming politicians, naturally politicians will try to appoint judges who (they hope) will share their ideas. See Justice Antonin Scalia explain why he believes the Constitution “is not living, but dead”, and why the originalists have lost so much ground to the devotees of a “living Constitution”.
Thomas Sowell pointed out in his book Knowledge and Decisions that even SCOTUS judges have incentives. In a summary article, he explains in Injudicious Misnomers: We don't want liberals and conservatives on the bench:
‘Although Supreme Court justices have lifetime tenure, precisely in order to give them independence, nothing can give anyone the backbone and character to stand up to criticism or to resist the blandishments of flattery and lionizing.
‘All the pressures are to move to the left, in accordance with the views of the liberal media and the liberal professors who dominate the law schools.
‘Judges who stick to the Constitution as it was written and resist the pressures to enact the agenda of the left from the bench will be depicted as narrow, dull, perhaps even stupid or morally lacking. But those who drift with the leftward tide can count on being portrayed as compassionate, brilliant or even profound.
…
‘The susceptibility of judges to such journalistic influence in general was dubbed “the Greenhouse effect,” for Linda Greenhouse, in this column 15 years ago but Jan Crawford Greenburg attributes it to Judge Silberman.’
13. Jethro said the following at 8:34 PM on May 2:
Dr Sarfati (#12),
You do remember having this exact same conversation in an earlier post?
There is no one method of legal interpretation and that won't change no matter how loudly you shout otherwise.
14. farmer Tom said the following at 8:38 PM on May 2:
3. dana111
4. Brian Ramsey,
Sorry should have put some sarcasm quotes around my first post.
My point was that we no longer hear preachers preach or see people proclaim, the life changing power of salvation through Jesus Christ.
Paul said, "and such were some of you" because they had been born-again to a new life in Christ, they no longer lived as sinful, unGodly men and women, they now walk in the Spirit, forsaking the things of the past .
Yet in today's "christian" circles we see every form of unGodly, unBiblical behavior accepted as normal, as though the transforming power of God's salvation no longer works. Men and women continue to live in sin, even after being "saved". Paul asked, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" Romans 6:1 then verse 2 GOD FORBID! But today the response is more along the lines of, "Do what makes you feel good, cause Jesus loves you."
15. farmer Tom said the following at 9:17 PM on May 2:
13. Jethro,
I assume that you also consider Scripture to mean whatever you want it to mean, right?
If you're going to be consistent, you must also believe that when it comes to Scriptural interpretation, "Hath God really said?" is answered with a resounding, who cares? It means what I want it to mean.
16. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 10:29 PM on May 2:
Jethro (#13): it was still worth pointed out how a leading defender of originalism defended its worth, and explained why the iniquitous “living constitution” has become popular. In short, judges have an incentive to adopt this approach, since it gives them a rationalization for molding society in their chosen direction, and a "heady sense of power". And lefties in general love it, because it allows them to get their way without having to persuade their fellow man via the ballot box.
17. BDB said the following at 12:23 AM on May 3:
Because social "science" relies so heavily on quantitative analysis, the Supreme Court, like the Presidency, is not studied nearly as much as Congress.
I once read an analysis that compared "Landmark" cases to public polling. It found that the Supreme Court tended to decide in favor of where the majority of public opinion was.
American public opinion tends to fracture into thirds - a third on the left, a third on the right, a third in the middle.
The squishy middle usually wants to be left alone to live their lives, but the don't want to be mean people, either. To give a current example, they don't want to lose their job to an illegal alien, nor do they want to deport someone's grandmother home to Mexico if the rest of the family are upstanding Americans.
What does make the Supreme Court so interesting is that it is a written legal tradition, where everyone puts their name on it. They have lots of discussions out of the public eye where they try to form a majority. They always have the option of writing their own opinion, which is more work. Those who feel extremely strongly about an issue will.
Let's face it - a lot of the things that end up at the Court get there because the laws are a mess. Laws are often a mess because there is no clear, compelling majority on an issue. There are factions, and none of the factions is strong enough to command a large majority on very many issues.
As important to who is chosen for the Court are persuading people that a position is right. If you want to get something through the political system, you need about 60% support from the public. If you don't have that much, go talk to the people who disagree and find out what they disagree with.
Remember, the Boy Scouts won at the Supreme Court. The United Way, which the Boy Scouts helped found, then started de-funding them. In turn, I don't support the United Way.
I did talk to the local United Way president, and learned that the local Scounting office didn't bother to submit the paperwork to show how they measure results. Well, that's not discrimination, that's sloppy management. Now I work with organizations to help them be less sloppy. We'll fix that first, and THEN, if people stand in the way, we'll start talking about discrimination.
18. Simon from Texas said the following at 2:24 AM on May 3:
Farmer Tom (14):
Could you please list some of the things you see in today's "'Christian' circles"? I'm curious as to what you see.
19. P&P said the following at 11:04 AM on May 3:
Motte, has it ever occurred to you that part of the reason why conservative appointees move left is because they see that the right is wrong? That perhaps women and men are both entitled to a right to privacy?
It isn't just abortion, it's also whether the US should allow corporations to run rampant without regulation (and we see how well that's worked out), whether we have any civil rights left and if we ALL have a right to free speech.
Oh, and Dr Sarfati, could you please not use the "femina**" term? It really is misogynistic. I disagreed on every point of the previous administration, but I did my best not to resort to name-calling.
20. Jethro said the following at 4:32 PM on May 3:
Farmer Tom (#15),
There are clearly alot of people with different opinions on matters of Biblical interpretation. Even within so called 'orthodox Christianity' there are substantial differences in the way believers interpret different verses. This says to me that there isn't always a clear and simple answer.
In any event, you are creating a false dichotomy here. Who says the same rule must apply to Scriptural interpretation as to statutory interpretation? No legal reasoning theory I've heard of is predicated upon how one should read the Bible.
For what it's worth, you are a bit misguided in implying that someone who doesn't hold to a strictly literal method of legal reasoning vis-a-vis the constitution is just twisting it to 'mean whatever they want it to mean'. That's another false dichotomy.
21. Kate (who is going to law school!) said the following at 6:20 PM on May 3:
Ok, I know I haven't been around for awhile (work, saying goodbyes before I move for school, etc) but can we be a little more respectful of our country's highest court.
Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.- The term feminazi is way out of line. One of my biggest pet peeves with our culture is our willingness to throw the term nazi around to describe things we don't like. It's especially insulting to refer to a Jewish woman with such a term.
As for nominations, worrying isn't going to do anything. History has shown over and over again that Supreme Court nominees get the nod, give a bit of lip service at the hearing, and than make their own independent decisions based on their interpretation of the Constitution. It's a bit of crap shoot, but with generally qualified candidates.
Justice Souter is off to a quiet life in the country, full of books and solitude. And hopefully less muggings. The next nominee in is for a heck of a job.
Let's be graceful and calm about the nominations and if we feel we can't- give it up to God.
In closing- I leave you with two fun facts about Justice Souter.
1. While serving on the court he ate the same thing for lunch every day-an apple (seeds and core included) and yogurt. This was served to him on fine china in the Justices' dining room.
2. He wrote in fountain pen.
PS-Justices Scalia and Ginsberg actually get along very well. They go to the opera together sometimes.
22. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:23 PM on May 3:
Farmer Tom (#15), you're right that Christians should treat Scripture as it was originally written, not impose their own ideas. And the same should apply to judges and the Constitution.
NB: Jethro has made it clear that he rejects Christianity. He even uses what Ted Slater and I have here on Boundless as an excuse. The WFJs don't realize that it's a tacit admission that what we say really IS an attempt to be true to Christianity.
23. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 9:19 PM on May 3:
Kate (#21): I am ethnically Jewish too. So don't give me your self-righteous carping.
P&P (#19): nothing misogynistic about it (after all, I have a wife and daughter I love dearly). Rather, the modern feminist movement has harmed women by making men out to be the enemy, spitting on chivalry and marriage that have historically protected women, and promoting abortion that has resulted in millions more girl babies being aborted than boys (see Abortion: an indispensable right or violence against women? by Lita Cosner.)
And as for the use of "Nazi", people are already forgetting its fundamental flaw. As the saying goes, ‘Those who cannot learn from history are condemned to have George Santayana quoted at them.’ ;)
As Dr Leo Alexander wrote not long after WW2 (Medical science under dictatorship, New England Journal of Medicine 241(2):39–47, 1949):
“[The Holocaust started with the attitude] that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived.
“… Gradually the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged
“… it is important to realize that the infinitely small wedged-in lever … was the attitude toward the non-rehabilitable sick.”
Now this class of “life not worthy to be lived” is the unborn, and in the case of Peter Singer and Hussein Obama, even some babies outside the womb.
24. Texas Craig said the following at 9:30 PM on May 3:
I am a bit amused by those who make it sound like it is a simple matter to understand and interpret scipture. On many things, that is true. But, on many other things, that is not.
For example, Mark 16:16 says "whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved." So, is baptism essential for salvation? I would say no, based upon other scriptures. But, I have to *intepret* scripture, based upon the whole, in order to come to that conclusion.
Similarly, the Bible says that God desires all men to be saved and that whosoever believes will be saved. But, elsewhere it also supports the idea that He predestined His children to be saved. Which is it?
Similarly, the Bible says that women should remain silent in church and should have their head covered. But, very few people follow that today. Farmer Tom, does your wife? Just curious.
There are many things in scripture where we are given two (or more) thoughts which can appear inconsistent. The only way to try to understand is to *interpret* in light of the Bible on the whole and the context at the time (i.e., to understand the "original intent" as some say).
So, it is a bit disengenuous for some to imply that interpreting scripture is somehow a nefarious exercise. We are required to do that. Certainly, there are interpretations that strain logical reasoning in light of the whole of scripture. But, the issue is not that one must intepret scripture, but whether a particular interpretation is reasonable. That is what we need to focus on and, to do so, we need to be prepared to defend our arguments with scripture. Too few people do that . . . but like to make disparaging remarks about others supposedly "non-biblical" views.
Some of the posts on here criticizing different views remind me of Monty Python and the Holy Grail when they are trying to decide whether a woman was a witch. If you have not seen it, check it out. Quite amusing. And, the lack of rational argument and reasoning at times on here is not too dissimilar from that scene in the movie.
Peace and grace!
25. JB said the following at 11:02 PM on May 3:
Farmer Tom,
There are some problems in common to both the interpretation of scripture and law, but legal theory needs to confront some unique difficulties as well. When interpreting any text, we are faced with discerning the author's intent with a view to her/his cultural context, particular motivations, and other communications. If the text in question is a translation, things are more difficult still. The fact that communication between people is even possible at all is a sticky and unsolved problem.
Legal theory has to deal with this, of course, but that's hardly it. For example, suppose that back in 1710 your town's council passed an ordinance which read, "Vehicles shall be prohibited in the town park." You're a judge faced with two people who were arrested yesterday, one who was driving an SUV in the park and another who was riding his bike on the bike path. The text of the law, in this case, isn't particularly helpful. Should you try to envision what the authors in 1710 would have thought about SUVs and bicycles? Should you instead look to other case law concerning "vehicles?" Should you consider the pattern of the town council's park and vehicle ordinances over the interceding 300 years? It's not obvious which way to go and well-intentioned legal scholars can differ on the appropriate way to decide the case. Regardless, though, one's answer to how the judge ought to think about legislation does not determine how they interpret received revelation from God.
26. Jethro said the following at 1:57 AM on May 4:
Dr Sarfati (#22),
What does WFJ stand for?
What does this sentence mean "He even uses what Ted Slater and I have here on Boundless as an excuse"?
Is it missing a word or something, because I am genuinely confused as to what you and Ted 'have here' on Boundless...
27. Jo said the following at 6:38 AM on May 4:
Jonathan #22 on your 'NB' about Jethro:
Firstly, it's up to him, not you, to tell people where he stands. Just because he's stated his position once on another post, when asked directly, doesn't mean it's your place to repeat it somewhere else.
Secondly, to say that he's 'made it clear that he rejects Christianity' and used you as an 'excuse' is a bit of a mischaracterisation; another reason why perhaps you should leave it to him to tell people what he believes, since he's the only one of us who really knows.
And thirdly (to you and farmer Tom), why should the same rules be applied to the American constitution as the Bible, anyway? Is the constitution inspired by God? Is it infallible? What is the correlation between the constitution and the Bible that means they should be approached in the same way?
28. Jo said the following at 9:20 AM on May 4:
#23
"nothing misogynistic about it (after all, I have a wife and daughter I love dearly)"
I don't think you're a misogynist, but that sentence sounded so much like the classic, "How can I be racist, one of my best friends is black!" that I just had to laugh.
*pulls self together and resumes...*
29. Ian said the following at 9:33 AM on May 4:
#22: Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.
"Jethro has made it clear that he rejects Christianity."
This has not been made clear. Jethro disputes your vocalizations of what you suppose to be "the" Christian position. You are not the mouthpiece of Christianity. And I thank God for that!
#24: Texas Craig
"So, it is a bit disengenuous for some to imply that interpreting scripture is somehow a nefarious exercise. We are required to do that."
Exactly. Everything is interpreted. Nothing is immidiate, "given" or intuited; everything is mediated, perceived and "seen as." Even our relation with the Father is but through the Son.
30. Mike Theemling said the following at 9:34 AM on May 4:
It's won't be surprising that Obama will pick someone who is in (apparent) line with his philosophy. That's been the nature of all SCOTUS picks.
What is unfortunate is that the SCOTUS has turned into a type of political and cultural battleground for which in my opinion, was not its original intention. By that I mean that the SCOTUS has turned into a "shortcut" regarding public policy bypassing the proper legislative process of law creation. Don't like the current policy regarding affirmative action? Bring it before the Supreme Court. Your letters to Congress not causing change fast enough? Bring a lawsuit that will hopefully make it to the Supreme Court. It's sad how many cases are either appealed or settled out of court simply so that a case is or is not heard by the highest court in the land.
It's why the confirmation process has morphed from a mere formality to an outright "Where do you stand on...?" checklist. Of course the nominees will answer so as not to reveal their positions on certain issues, but I'm certain that they have them and know how they would vote if presented with a certain issue. Even in Souter's own words, he was saddened at how Bush vs. Gore was so tranparently revealed each justices' political slant. He said he almost considered resigning just because of that case (I agree with the speculation that had the situations been reversed in the 2000 election that each candidate would pretty much do what the other did then).
It's also unfortunate because this focus tends to polarize the nation. Both political ends of the spectrum say that "the stakes are high" regarding Presidental elections because of his/her power to appoint judges. The problem is also exasperated because the judges are there for life. That means any vacancy filled will be held for a very long time and thus even a change in office may not guarentee a SCOTUS justice slot opening up.
For now, it appears that the new justice will keep the status quo. 4 justices on the conservative end, 4 on the liberal end, and Justice Kennedy as the moderate "swing" justice. I'm sure he's not planning on retiring anytime soon.
31. Louise from Chicago said the following at 9:46 AM on May 4:
Comment 23, "Don't give me your self-righteous carping".
Seems to me the person to whom you addressed the above sentence has as much right to comment on this blog as you do.
And as for "self-righteous"...well it takes one to know one!
32. Evito F. said the following at 10:10 AM on May 4:
Jethro (#26) WFJ stands for "wimps for Jesus", Jonathan used that phrase a lot back when he posted at Theologyweb.
33. Jeremy said the following at 10:47 AM on May 4:
"The GOP didn't resort to the vile character assassinations that the Dems resorted to with Bork and Thomas. In fact, they were far too soft on Clinton's appointment ACLU feminazi Ginsberg.
Obamov especially ..."
I can only hope this was intended to be self-parodyingly ironic.
"I don't think you're a misogynist, but that sentence sounded so much like the classic, "How can I be racist, one of my best friends is black!" that I just had to laugh."
I completely agree (actually I was thinking of the line "How can I hate women? My mum's one."). I also found the "I have a Jew in my famiy so I can throw around the term 'Nazi' whenever I want" sentence comical in the same vein.
34. Adam said the following at 10:55 AM on May 4:
I think it is possible that Obama would appoint a sheep in wolf's clothing.
Supreme Court justices are tricky positions though. They are called to disregard their personal beliefs. They are called to determine cases based on the constitution. There is a certain bit of philosophy involved - such as whether the constitution is a living or dead document. But at the end of the day, they are called to decide cases based on the legal and constitutional merits - not based on their personal views of an issue.
I think that a justice could be a Christian, be very anti-abortion, and yet uphold Roe v Wade based on their responsibilities under the law. Perhaps they will do evil (rejecting their legal responsibility) that good may result (Roe v Wade overturned). That doesn't make it right though.
35. farmer Tom said the following at 11:03 AM on May 4:
In response to these two comments,
"It's won't be surprising that Obama will pick someone who is in (apparent) line with his philosophy. That's been the nature of all SCOTUS picks."
"Where are the chorus of people saying 'it's the President's choice, he was elected, he should be allowed to choose' like there was when Alito and Roberts were nominated?"
Well, since I wanted men with a true understanding of truth and law, like Judge Roy Moore, Judge Andrew Napalitano ? or Judge Robert Bork, I can't say as I care what the President thinks. I was unhappy with Jorge the Younger Shrubs choices because I thought they were to middle of the road, squishy lawyer types, rather than men of principle and conviction.
I'm sure though, that the Obama will find a lesbian of minority descent, who has had at least two abortions, has some kids with her "partner" by IVF, has at least one disability, (blindness, amputee, overweight, or something similar), on anti-depressants, and once lived in the ghetto. Or he could just appoint Hillary instead.
Either way, I'm sure that their judicial philosophy will be similar to this,
BHO on the Constitution
I'm sure the future Justice of the Supreme Court will hold a similar view of the Constitution.
36. Motte Brown said the following at 11:56 AM on May 4:
I think this quote from Justin Taylor of Between Two Worlds is accurate:
37. BDB said the following at 12:17 PM on May 4:
Jo (#27) - you'd be surprised by the number of Americans who believe that the U.S. Constitution was, in fact, inspired by God!
It gets into the "Problem of Founding." If you want to found something that lasts, then future generations need to have reverence for the thing founded. But you also have the problem that the current generation needs to believe they have the authority and capability to in fact do this new thing - without future generations thinking they can just do whatever the want.
38. BDB said the following at 1:05 PM on May 4:
There are definitely similarities in interpreting scripture and the U.S. Constitution. This is particularly true when the Constitution relies on Biblical commands.
Article I, Section 8, #4 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to create a Uniform Rule of Naturalization for aliens to become American citizens. There are a number of relevant verses.
A strict constructionist might look at these Bible verses and determine that those who advocate a harsh immigration policy are in direct conflict with God's commands, which are repeated over and over again.
The first is Exodus 12:49
49 One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you.”
One verse is Exodus 22:21-22
21 “You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. 22 “You shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child.
And Exodus 23:9
9 “Also you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the heart of a stranger, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Another applicable verse is Deuteronomy 24:14-15:
14 “You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether one of your brethren or one of the aliens who is in your land within your gates. 15 Each day you shall give him his wages, and not let the sun go down on it, for he is poor and has set his heart on it; lest he cry out against you to the LORD, and it be sin to you.
Or Zechariah 7:9-11:
9 “Thus says the LORD of hosts:
‘ Execute true justice,
Show mercy and compassion
Everyone to his brother.
10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless,
The alien or the poor.
Let none of you plan evil in his heart
Against his brother.’
11 “But they refused to heed, shrugged their shoulders, and stopped their ears so that they could not hear.
And Leviticus 19:10
10 And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather every grape of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger: I am the LORD your God.
And Leviticus 19:33-34
33 ‘And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. 34 The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
And Deuteronomy 10:17-19:
17 For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe. 18 He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. 19 Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
And finally Luke 10:27
27 So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’[a] and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’”
39. BDB said the following at 3:59 PM on May 4:
I have an idea!
If the President wants a woman who understands the challenges that face regular Americans, and not someone who will be tripped up by legal footnotes...
...he should nominate Gov. Sarah Palin!
40. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 7:01 PM on May 4:
Prof. Craig (#24): the basic doctrines of Christianity as expressed in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds have remained unchanged for over 1500 years. A science textbook over 5 years old can be out of date.
Most of Scripture is crystal clear. So why pick a debatable verse like Mark 16:16, then proceed to apply faulty logic called denying the antecedent. See Is baptism necessary for salvation?.
The Bible is propositional revelation, and God wrote it so we might understand it and be corrected and instructed by it (2 Tim. 3:15–17). And the proper way is the grammatical-historical interpretation, akin to originalism (see The Bible and hermeneutics).
Jethro, WFJ = Wimp For Jesus.
Jo (#28), many women reject feminism as actually harmful to women (see for example Women Who Make the World Worse by Kate O’Beirne, and interview with Kathryn Jean Lopez). Conversely, I encourage my daughter to gain the highest uni qualification she can (already studying for her MA).
Similarly, my favourite political/economics/social commentator is Dr Thomas Sowell, himself black and born an orphan in poverty in 1930, and who rejects "affirmative action" and black victimhood.
41. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 7:07 PM on May 4:
Adam (#34): that's the whole point: judges should be interpreting the Constitution, not reading their own personal preferences into it. But Obamov is on record as claiming that the Constitution is defective because it didn't allow government wealth redistribution, and he explicitly wants judges who show "empathy" (i.e. with leftist-decreed "victim" groups).
It would be perfectly in order for SCOTUS to overturn Roe v Wade as bad law (which even many pro-abort legal scholars admit). After all, they repealed the Dred Scott decision that defined slaves as non-persons, so why not a law that pretends that the unborn are non-persons.
42. beatrice81 said the following at 8:04 PM on May 4:
Two words to the guy who keeps flinging around the term "Nazi" in relation to people who are not Nazis: Godwin's law. Google it and you'll see how quickly you command the losing argument each time.
43. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:51 PM on May 4:
Here is an important biblical verse describing good judges: i.e. no favoritism for either rich or poor:
“You shall not commit a perversion of justice; you shall not favor the poor and you shall not honor the great; with righteousness shall you judge your fellow.” (Leviticus 19:15).
Yet Obama wants judges who show “empathy”, and a “heart” for the downtrodden (but not for the most downtrodden of all: babies in their mothers' wombs).
But it's ironic that the very sort of judges that the Left love are those who practised the reverse Robin Hood decision of Kelo v. City of New London. I.e. they took from the poor to give to the rich. The City forced poorer residents to sell their land, at depressed prices, to give to a richer corporation who would supposedly pay more taxes, so it was allegedly a "public good". It was the originalist judges along with O'Connor who opposed this abuse of eminent domain and supported protection of property rights from the collusion of big business and big government. The promised economic benefits have not materialized anyway!
44. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 2:29 AM on May 5:
It's a shame that Jo (#27,28) isn't more like one of her country's greatest leaders, Margaret Thatcher, rather than like one its worst, Neville Chamberlain.
Thatcher came into Britain that was had the life strangled out of it by unions and inefficient nationalized industries and a top tax rate of 98%. Yet she almost single-handedly broke the power of union thuggery, slashed tax rates, privatized industries, enabled many dwellers of council housing to buy their homes, and promoted economic freedom. And when Argentina's military dictators invaded the Falkland Islands, she wasn't like GWB desperately seeking "world opinion"; she just went and took them back despite the bleatings of the UN despotocracy.
Conversely, Chamberlain thought that appeasing the enemy, by throwing Czechoslovakia to Hitler, would bring peace. Far too many Christians make the same mistake of conceding ground to atheists; and throwing their apologists to the wolves, desperately trying to impress atheopaths that they are more enlightened, tolerant and Christlike.
Naturally P&P (#19) and Beatrice (#42) don't whinge about a genuinely disgraceful misuse of the Nazi epithet: MSNBC fake journalist, Keith Olbermann, called Miss California Carrie Prejean a "Nazi" for daring to say that marriage was for a man and a woman. And that Perez Hilton became a leftist hero for calling her what he called her and worse, instead of immediately being sacked as a judge. They would have hated the fact that Carrie attends San Diego Christian college (to work with special needs children), but christophobia is the one bigotry allowed by the PC brigade.
45. Jethro said the following at 3:24 AM on May 5:
Dr Sarfati,
You are a master at conflating issues. You are a master at reducing complex issues to simple (false) dichotomies. You are a master at turning simple issues into convoluted arguments. None of this really speaks too well of your style of argumentation. It may work on unsophisticated audiences or those who are already singing from your hymn sheet (ie readers of Creation Magazine) but it alienates those who possess the abilities to think logically and independently.
Example: There is no logical connection between Judges 'perverting justice' and Judges showing empathy. Justice is not devoid of empathy. In fact, Justice fundamentally requires empathy. Think of the way a prisoner is sentenced. The Court takes account of all of the circumstances of the offense. An individual who steals a loaf of bread to feed his family is sentenced differently to an individual who steals for profit or pleasure. Perhaps you are more familiar with the phrase 'Justice tempered with mercy'?
For your consideration, since you mentioned slavery, if our western laws were based so heavily on the Bible, we would in fact still have chattel slavery. I assume you think that would be j ust fine? I mean, imagine enacting such an unBiblical law as the abolition of slavery!
Oh, and while we are on the subject of law. Simply because a decision is over-turned or modified by a subsequent decision, does not make it 'bad law'. Again, you perhaps don't understand the common law quite as well as you claim.
And once more for old times sake, there is no necessary logical connection between how one reads the Bible and how one interprets statutes. It is also not the subject of any legal reasoning theory I am aware of. You may wish there was some train of legal thought to that effect, but that is a personal preference, not an argument from logic or evidence.
46. farmer Tom said the following at 5:44 AM on May 5:
18. Simon from Texas,
I guess I don't understand your question.
I thought I had pointed out the absurdity of those who claim the name of Christ while continuing to engage in the same sinful activities they did prior to being "born-again".
I'm asking where are the people who are radically changes at salvation. People who repent from their sin "and sin no more", like Jesus told the woman caught in adultery?
47. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 9:34 AM on May 5:
Jethro, while I am trained in formal logic, you sing from the typical Anointed handbook of dismissing contrary arguments without logical argument. No wonder your ilk tries to get its way via activist courts rather than the persuasion of the ballot box.
Empathy is not the same as legally extenuating circumstances. But softness towards the wolves can be cruelty to the sheep.
The problem with the "empathy" of Obama and the leftist Anointed is: "empathy for whom?" It would violate the 14th Amendment, which guarantees "equal protection of the laws" for all Americans, and overruled Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), a ruling you seem to approve of. See also today's article ‘Empathy’ versus law by Dr Thomas Sowell
And like most bigoted atheopaths, you attack the Bible for slavery, whereas in reality slavery was a ubiquitous blot on humanity that was finally overturned by Bible-believers like wilberforce. It was your christophobic ilk who supported slavery by telling Wilberforce and all to leave his religion out of politics!
48. Jo said the following at 10:53 AM on May 5:
Jonathan #44:
I swear I barely reply to anyone else on here any more. It annoys me as much as I'm sure it does you, but you just keep saying things that really rile me! It probably looks like I have some kind of a personal vendetta, but oh well.
Anyway, you can't blame me for responding to this one...
"It's a shame that Jo (#27,28) isn't more like one of her country's greatest leaders, Margaret Thatcher, rather than like one its worst, Neville Chamberlain."
Honestly, that made me laugh (with a slightly confused expression). Flattered as I am at being compared to British prime ministers, I gotta say, I'm really fine just being Jo.
It's a weird little quirk I have that when I see a non-Christian being treated unfairly (in my opinion of course) by a Christian, I immediately side with the non-Christian. I get this urge to redress the balance and undo the damage that I think is being caused; to make it clear that not all Christians are like that. I know not everyone shares that particular quirk of mine, and I don't know quite why it is that I feel a responsibility to do that. But just as you seem to be on a mission to single-handedly revive Jesus' time honoured 'challenge-riposte' method , I find myself constantly drawn to defend people who seem to be being alienated by other Christians. And it's not because I think they can't defend themselves; it's because I don't want them to walk away with only part of the picture.
I think that before you can talk to a person about God, you have to engage with them where they are. You have to acknowledge their issues with Christianity, their anger at God, their frustration with Christians. You have to prove that you care about more than just their eternal soul, because that means nothing to most people. You have to show you care about the real live person in the here and now, and that you're willing to listen to them, and you're not afraid of what their doubt or unbelief or worldly ideas might do to you.
So yeah, that's where I'm coming from. I know everyone approaches these things differently and perhaps we're just opposite sides of the same coin or something, but the bottom line is I'm pretty sure God made me this way intentionally, and I'm pretty sure He's not going to turn me into a Margaret Thatcher any time soon. :)
And incidentally, this post is more 'real Jo' than anything I've ever posted here...
49. JB said the following at 4:20 PM on May 5:
BDB,
Can you imagine the confirmation hearings?
"Governor, which law school did you attend?"
"...All of them..."
50. Jethro said the following at 6:48 PM on May 5:
Dr Sarfati (#47),
Quote "And like most bigoted atheopaths, you attack the Bible for slavery, whereas in reality slavery was a ubiquitous blot on humanity that was finally overturned by Bible-believers like wilberforce.
This is historical revisionism of the worst kind. Do you really want me to go chapter and verse through the Bible pointing out to you all of the places in which it endorses slavery? Sure Wilberforce helped overturn slavery. He did it in spite of its Biblical endorsement though.
To clarify, one might indeed say that slavery was a ubiquitous reality, but it was specifcally endorsed in the Bible. Do you really say otherwise?
Again you go the for the character attackapproach 'bigoted atheopath' rather than addressing the true issues. For a man with formal training in logic you apparently struggle to apply it in practice.
51. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 7:51 PM on May 5:
I'm sure that Jethro (#50) could parrot nonsense from gutter atheopathic sites. But those who are not bigoted against Christianity as he is should understand: what biblical “slavery” means, the clear support for the worst forms of slavery from his beloved Endarkenment heroes, the long opposition of the Church to it, how the Bible explicitly prohibited the kidnapping used to obtain the African slaves, the ending of the slave trade by what would be called the "religious right" today, the opposition from slavers who told them to leave their religion out of politics, and the British navy "imposing its morality" on other nations by intercepting slave-carrying ships. All this is explained in my article (expanded from Creation magazine) Anti-slavery activist William Wilberforce: Christian hero.
52. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:12 PM on May 5:
Well Jo (#44), how else can I get Jethro to show his true Christophobic Bible-despising colours so that even Blind Freddie's deaf guide dog could discern them? ;)
Also, I note that some people are more concerned that I call Obama a prenatal baby-butcher than with his actual prenatal baby-butchery. Really, it's like being more concerned with calling Hitler a genocidal Jew-hater than with his actual genocide against the Jews.
53. Evito F. said the following at 8:24 PM on May 5:
Jonathan, why do refer to Jethro in the first person?
54. JB said the following at 8:38 PM on May 5:
Dr. Sarfati,
I can't speak to how pro- and anti- slavery forces in the UK influenced the political parties of today, but in the United States it's clear that large factions of the "religious right" were on the wrong side of the slavery issue. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention was formed in 1845 by Baptists in slave-holding states in response to increasing pressure to renounce the institution of slavery. As late as 1968, only 11% of Southern Baptist churches admitted African American members. Now, of course, the SBC has rejected its historical connection to slavery and racism, but it's an objective fact that this large and influential part of the religious right was in the past strongly pro-slavery.
The conclusion that I would draw from this is that being Christian does not insulate one from being profoundly wrong. Seeing that so many intelligent and sincere Christians were mislead by their cultural or economic interests should inspire a good deal of humility in all of us.
55. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 9:40 PM on May 5:
JB: the problem was that far too many in the Church often did exactly what your ilk demand that Christians do with the current establishment fad evolution: twist the Bible to make it fit the prevailing fashion. Some Christians unfortunately did the same with the the then established condition of American slavery — which was universally supported by non-Christendom. But they did so against both Scripture and long church tradition against slavery.
Now some churchians are pretending that prenatal baby-butchery is OK, because that is the new fashion of the Leftintelligentsia. Similarly, the evolution-believing churches supported the "progressive" American eugenics programs in the early 20th century [Edwin Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race, Four Walls Eight Windows, New York/London, 2003], while the evolution-rejecting churches were accused of denying science in their opposition to eugenics. [Christine Rosen, Preaching Genetics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement, Oxford University Press, New York, 2004.]
In America, racism didn't cause slavery; slavery caused racism. And once again, some churchians, following exactly the same mentality as theistic evolutionary compromisers today, tried to read skin colour into the Bible, e.g. imagining that blackness was the result a "curse on Ham", whereas neither blackness nor a curse on Ham are even in the Bible!
The real lesson is that we should judge our cultures by Scripture, not read our cultural mores into Scripture.
56. Jethro said the following at 11:35 PM on May 5:
Dr Sarfati,
Now you're self-referencing. You know that's the very definition of circular logic right? Again, for a man with 'formal logic training' you're making into some really elementary errors.
Anyway, the real issue we were talking about here (having been sidetracked from the main issue re Justice Souter of course) is slavery. Just so I can clarify one more time here: are you really saying that the Bible is anti-slavery? That the Bible condemns slavery? That those who engaged in the practice of owning slaves could find no Scriptural justification for that position?
If that is the case, just say so and I will be happy to show you countervailing evidence.
57. Lukas said the following at 12:54 AM on May 6:
Dr. Sarfati:
Do you not see the irony in the fact that you consider your role in Jethro's drift away from Christianity to be evidence that you are doing a good job as Christ's ambassador on earth?
58. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 1:50 AM on May 6:
Jethro (#56) is being as intellectually honest as most leftist atheopaths, which is not at all! Of course, my Wilberforce article is thoroughly documented (which breaks the logical circle of course). If he can't be bothered addressing the points, I refuse to spoonfeed him.
59. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 1:50 AM on May 6:
See "Empathy" Versus Law: Part II by Dr Thomas Sowell. He points out that Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. would not have been nominated by Obama. Holmes often decides against those with whom he felt "empathy", if that's what the written law said:
“… Holmes understood that a Supreme Court justice was not there to favor some people or even to prescribe what was best for society. He had a very clear sense of what the role of a judge was — and wasn't.
“Justice Holmes saw his job to be "to see that the game is played according to the rules whether I like them or not."
“That was because the law existed for the citizens, not for lawyers or judges, and the citizen had to know what the rules were, in order to obey them.
“He said: "Men should know the rules by which the game is played. Doubt as to the value of some of those rules is no sufficient reason why they should not be followed by the courts."
“Legislators existed to change the law.
“After a lunch with Judge Learned Hand, as Holmes was departing in a carriage to return to work, Judge Hand said to him: "Do justice, sir. Do justice."
“Holmes had the carriage stopped. "That is not my job," he said. "My job is to apply the law." ”
60. Jo said the following at 4:00 AM on May 6:
Jethro,
I'm not an expert on this topic by any means but my understanding is that slavery in the OT was fundamentally different to the modern notion of slavery. In Israel slavery was voluntary and strictly regulated, and slaves were set free after 7 years under the Jubilee laws.
I know you'll want evidence for that but I don't have time to research it in depth (perhaps someone else can) - from a quick google search though this article gives an overview of the main differences:
Slavery in the OT
61. IMO said the following at 9:30 AM on May 6:
Lukas,
What you said reminds me that darkness does not like light.
I'm responding to your general idea that Christians drive away non-Christians...
John 3:19
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
And also that the truth can repell those who hate the truth.
Just saying, not every situation is one where a Christian person is driving away a Non-Christian. It is the truth that drives that non-Christian away.
John 3:20
Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
62. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 10:33 AM on May 6:
Lukas (#57), like most evolutionary compromisers, you miss the point.
First, what IMO said (#61); I didn't say that I really was driving him away, only that Jethro used it as an excuse for his rejection of biblical truth. Second, it is a grudging admission from Jethro's viewpoint that I really am defending biblical truth, otherwise his whole excuse makes no sense.
Clearly the WFJs who claim to be more Christ-like aren't exactly moving Jethro away for his contempt for Scripture.
63. Lukas said the following at 1:15 PM on May 6:
Dr. Sarfati (and to a lesser extent IMO):
I do not discount the fact that "darkness does not like the light" and that those consumed by sin may reject light because they like where they are at. Let us not however presume to know the state of Jethro's (and others) hearts and minds. Is it not possible though, that he has been driven away by your manner of discourse? By the unrelenting dogmatism on non-essential issues? The name calling, the "Obamov's" and the "feminazi's"? The ad hominem attacks, and the complete lack of humility on issues that are honestly debated by sincere Bible-believing Christians?
Believe it or not, I usually appreciate the content of what you have to say, I would just urge you to conduct these conversations with a little more grace.
64. Jethro said the following at 4:21 PM on May 6:
Dr Sarfati (#58),
Well, if you're going to make me prove my point. Your article basically says that the Bible condemns slavery because men and women are created equal (Gen 1:26) but then glosses over passages like:
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)";
and
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11)"
in favour of the argument that the meaning of the word translated as 'slave' in the OT is not universally agreed upon by scholars. Curiously, when Theologians raise questions about the translation and meanings of words regarding homosexual behavior however, they are shouted down by you and your ilk.
This is your idea of a literal 'originalist' meaning is it? What ever happened to your love of a plain reading of the text?
65. Jethro said the following at 4:28 PM on May 6:
Dr Sarfati (#62),
I don't need an excuse for believing anything. My beliefs have come about through careful thought, study and logical reasoning. Unlike you I am willing to follow the evidence where it leads (for one example, a an earth more than 6000 years old). I cannot suspend rationality for the sake of dogma. You can.
In any case, I hate to break it to you, but your influence is not so great that you can turn me away from anything. Although I do find your positions to often be illogical, untenable and contradictory, at the end of the day it is my own rational assessment of them that determines whether I adopt them or not.
66. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 5:37 PM on May 6:
OK Lukas (#63), points noted. Note that Rush has done well with "feminazi", and "homonazi" describes the vindictive persecutors of Carrie Prejean. And you'll find that my book Refuting Compromise logically defends the streightforward Creation account and shows why Christian disagreement is fallacious.
Jethro said what he said and maintains his delusion that atheoleftism is "rational" (#64). Good grief, they can't even defend the idea of rationality under an evolutionary worldview, where "thought" is just an epiphenomenon of atoms in the brain obeying the fixed laws of chemistry.
67. Jethro said the following at 10:02 PM on May 6:
Dr Sarfati
In response to your 'epiphenomenon' argument I would make a few points.
First, your footnote reference is an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. Moreover, it is your own opinion, so we are back to self-referential circular logic. Not very convincing.
Second, that certain chemical reactions in the brain may produce what we know as 'thought' does not necessarily mean that certain chemical reactions will produce certain specific thoughts. You are saying that 'materialism' necessitates that they do. No, it doesn't.
Third, thought can be both a result of a neuro-chemical reaction and non-determinative. You are back to your old trick of creating false dichotomies 'either man has free will delivered from God, or mans every action is pre-determined by chemical reactions'. Umm... says who? There are, of course, numerous other possibilities which you have, typically, failed to consider.
Fourth, to seize upon your own statement "This immaterial aspect of man means that he is more than matter, so his thoughts are likewise not bound by the makeup of his brain". You seem to be saying that the brain is material, thought itself is not, therefore thoughts are not determined by the makeup of the brain. They are of course. Can you show me a person who thinks without experiencing a chemical reaction in the brain? PET and fMRI studies would seem to disagree with you. Ask yourself, can a person with a brain injury think in the same way after that injury as before? Has anything without a brain ever had a thought? To establish this you would in fact have to show that a 'thought' can exist without originating from a brain. I wish you luck.
68. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:14 AM on May 7:
Of course, Jethro's brain presumable works according to the same laws of chemistry as mine. Yet his vain atheistic philosophy can't justify how his brain would be selected for logic as opposed to survival advantage.
For those not as wedded to atheopathic dogma, see:
Is evolution compatible with religion and free will? What does a recent survey of evolutionary scientists teach us?
Brain chemistry and the fate of the personality after death
69. Jethro said the following at 4:22 PM on May 7:
Dr Sarfati (#68),
I'm not quite sure how to take those articles - are you kidding? I genuinely cannot be bothered to deconstruct all that is wrong with them, so I will just address the real point.
You say that my "vain atheistic philosophy can't justify how his brain would be selected for logic as opposed to survival advantage".
Again, this is a false dichotomy. Seriously, you must stop doing this. It is no way to have a grown up discussion. I mean that, you clearly consider yourself to be a man of intellect - put it to use. On top of that, the 'articles' you have cited are tangential at best and do not address the real issues under discussion.
Now, tell me, why is it necessary that logic and survival advantage are mutually exclusive? As the one asserting they are, you bear the onus of proving that point. It seems to me like logic and survival advantage go hand in hand. Let's consider a very simple scenario. You have two early humans, one is logical, one is not:
1. The logical one sees his brother eat a certain berry, then, several days later fall ill and die. He uses logic to determine that the berry is poisonous to the human body and does not eat them himself.
2. The other is illogical. He sees his brother eat a certain berry, then several days later fall ill and die. He believes because, he has been told, that his brother has been cursed by God for his immoral lifestyle and that is why he became ill and died. This chap, considering himself a moral fellow and in tune with God eats some berries himself. He dies.
It's not too hard to see the survival advantage of logic there, is it.
70. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 5:18 PM on May 7:
Jethro (#69), it should be obvious how to take those articles. But your dogmatic materialism won't allow it. Why would anyone be silly enough to take your word that there are things wrong with them?
All you have attempted is to show that sometimes logic is a survival advantage, although apparently all you're interested in is contrasting "logic" and belief in God. BTW, the "logical" one has committed the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc from the information in the scenario.
Also, your atheistic idols like Dawkins claim that theistic religion, which your ilk claim is illogical, arose for survival advantage. You can't have it both ways.
71. Jethro said the following at 6:41 PM on May 7:
Dr Sarfati,
In brief. What's wrong with the articles? Seriously, it's difficult to know where to start. I will quickly address the second one because it is the most ridiculous.
Basically the article takes, as its starting point, that the personality must exist after death. It then reasons to that conclusion. You understand the problem with that approach right? The train of thought (if I can call it that) in the article can be equally well adapted to any supernatural being. Replace the word God with Flying Spaghetti Monster and see if it alters the argument at all. It doesn't. The article is 100% speculation.
The real issue is this: the onus is on the one who asserts to prove. You cannot prove to me that there are not invisible fairies circling my head at all times. If I told you there were however, then in the absence of me proving their existence to you, I would not expect you to believe it. Conversely, that article says 'well let us assume there is a spiritual realm and let us assume it accords exactly with the Bible' and then go from there. Despite the author arguing that the onus of proof rests on the other side, it does not.
Oh, and the post hoc fallacy you cite is in fact not a fallacy if it is true - which in the example it was.
And, Dawkins is not my idol. He does tend to reason from logic though - unlike certain others.
And and and, there is, again, no inherent contradiction between religion being illogical and religion having a survival advantage. You see, you're conflating the issues. The development of religion itself may be logical from the perspective of conferring a survival advantage, but that does not necessarily mean that every dogmatic belief within that religion is itself logical. Understand?
Again, by the way, you have failed to address the substantive points. I take it this means you cannot?
72. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:42 PM on May 7:
Back to the topic:
“That President Obama has made ‘empathy’ with certain groups one of his criteria for choosing a Supreme Court nominee is a dangerous sign of how much further the Supreme Court may be pushed away from the rule of law and toward even more arbitrary judicial edicts to advance the agenda of the left and set it in legal concrete, immune from the democratic process. Would you want to go into court to appear before a judge with ‘empathy’ for groups A, B and C, if you were a member of groups X, Y or Z? Nothing could be further from the rule of law.” — Hoover Institution economist Thomas Sowell
“Mr. Obama will make Supreme Court history, all right. He will become the first president in American history to make lawlessness an explicit standard for Supreme Court justices. … He has boldly proclaimed that he intends to make sure his nominees to the Supreme Court don’t harbor any crusty fealty to the written Constitution, or the millenniums of Western law that undergird its principles, or to the timeless truths that underlie our Declaration of Independence.” — Judicial Confirmation Network counsel Wendy E. Long
“There is a reason that Lady Justice wears a blindfold. Justice is supposed to be blind to the race, gender, finances, politics — and every other ‘empathy’-eliciting — characteristic of those who seek it in good faith.” — columnist Carol Platt Liebau
73. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 9:35 PM on May 7:
Jethro (#71): you're the one who dogmatically rejects survival after death. You're not one to let the overwhelming historical evidence that Jesus did just that undermine your blind materialistic faith.
Clearly you don't even understand the most basic logic, since you confuse validity and truth. A valid argument is one where it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, i.e. the conclusion follows from the premises. Note that validity does not depend on the truth of the premises, but on the form of the argument. An argument can be logically valid with false premises and conclusions, and logically fallacious with true premises and true conclusion (see my article Logic and Creation for a detailed explanation).
But your confusion of basic logic terms explains why you think that such a bigoted atheopath like Dawkins “reasons from logic”, despite his many logical and factual flaws that even embarrass some of your fellow atheists like Michael Ruse.
74. Jethro said the following at 11:01 PM on May 7:
Dr Sarfati (#73),
If that constitutes 'overwhelming' proof in your eyes then I struggle to understand why you don't accept evolution or believe in aliens. The answer of course is that you believe in the resurrection of Jesus on the basis of faith alone. That's alright, really there is probably nothing wrong with that. I would just ask that you be intellectually honest enough to admit as such.
As for Dawkins being 'bigoted', I ask you, what makes him any more bigoted than you?
In any case, I'd like to point out that, once again, you have failed to address most of the substantive points and have instead referred to more of your pre-packaged, tangential, opinion pieces. Please stop doing that, it is singularly unimpressive.
75. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 12:51 AM on May 8:
Jethro (#74): It's the reverse: I believe in the Resurrection of Jesus because of the overwhelming historical evidence. There are at least 17 reasons why Christianity could not have survived in the ancient world unless it had indisputable evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. Conversely, your belief in evolution is a deduction from your materialistic faith. I don't know where your belief in aliens comes from though.
When you actually have a logical argument, as opposed to leftist fact-free sneering against Christianity, please let us know.
76. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 2:06 AM on May 8:
“Many law professors, and others who hold contempt for our Constitution, preach that the Constitution is a living document. Saying that the Constitution is a living document is the same as saying we don't have a Constitution. For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed. How many people would like to play me poker and have the rules be ‘living’? Depending on ‘evolving standards’, maybe my two pair could beat your flush.” — Economics professor Dr Walter Williams.
77. Jethro said the following at 12:21 AM on May 9:
Dr Sarfati (#75),
You do realize that you just linked to exactly the same site as in comment #73. Are your running out of material or something?
You also realize that you again failed to address the real issues raised? For a man with so many answers you have given so few.
Ah, and as for this statement, quote "Conversely, your belief in evolution is a deduction from your materialistic faith"
You are again wrong. We've spoken before about your failure as an effective mind reader. If you want to know where I get my beliefs from, please do ask.
Once again, you also misunderstand the key distinction between us: I am willing to change my beliefs if presented with sufficient evidence. You are not.
78. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 4:16 AM on May 9:
Jethro: why not link to the same thing if it's true? And don't try that self-aggrandizing profession of open-mindedness on us here: the dogmatism of misotheistic materialists like you is admitted by the likes of Lewontin here. Conversely, my first article posted on Boundless showed the evidence that DID change my mind towards biblical creation.
79. Jethro said the following at 4:42 PM on May 9:
Dr Sarfati (#78),
Attributing the statements of one person who believes in materialism to all is as valid as attributing the statements of one Christian to all. I don't sit here and try to put the words of Fred Phelps or Pat Robertson into your mouth - I expect you to show me the same level of respect. Yet again, if you are unsure, ask!
What can I say in response to your article other than that if it were really that straightforward we would all be creationists. The reason we're not however is that there is a whole other side to the debate that you haven't presented and you have (as is customary) admitted none of the weaknesses in your position. So you will just have to forgive me if I remain unconvinced. Perhaps you're more easily satisfied than I?
80. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:38 PM on May 9:
Jethro (#79): it is straightforward. Why not all are creationists is explained in Romans 1: people "wilfully reject" the truth and so are "without excuse".
81. Texas Craig said the following at 10:51 PM on May 9:
Jethro:
I won't try to persuade you of the rational truth of Christianity nor of the logic of creationism, etc. Further, I cannot defend the actions of many Christians over the years. But, I can tell you that so many who have called themselves Christians have lived lives vastly different from the life modeled by Jesus Christ.
I can say from personal experience that following Jesus truly is the best way to live. If you ever get to a point in your life where you are wrestling with the direction of your life or if life's burdens are weighing you down and you lack peace and/or joy, then try following Jesus and see if it doesn't prove to be the best possible way to live.
The Bible says that God is love. The Bible also says that "love is patient, love is kind, it does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud, it is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."
Jesus truly has the words of life. I don't know whether the earth was created in 6 days or not. I don't know if it is 6,000 years old or not. To be honest, I don't really care. Because, having tasted and seen that God is good, like Peter I can honestly say "where else would I turn? Who else has the words of life?" I am completely and utterly convinced that following Jesus is the BEST way to live. Serving others, taking no offense at wrongs, caring for the poor and the oppressed, seeking justice, loving mercy, and dying to myself have brought me the fullness of life that Jesus promised when He said "I came that they might have life, and have it to the fullest."
I don't care whether others believe what I believe. But, I do desire for them to have the same confidence, peace and joy that I have. That is honestly what I want you to have. Perhaps you already do. But, whether you have it or not is entirely your choice, and I do not care to browbeat you or anyone into some belief system. Rather, I want you to know that you are loved. Beyond what you could ever imagine, you are loved by God.
Peace and grace!
82. Jethro said the following at 10:57 PM on May 9:
Dr Sarfati,
Again, a brilliant job of avoiding the actual question.
You have avoided so many questions and so many issues now that it's become pointless even attempting to discuss them with you.
I attempted in good faith to address the points you raised with me. I am sorry you could not do the same.
83. Evito F. said the following at 11:55 AM on May 10:
Jonathan, why do you alternate between talking Jethro directly and indirectly?
84. Jethro said the following at 4:04 PM on May 11:
Texas Craig,
Thank you for your response. It was heartfelt and genuine, and I appreciate that.
I really don't want to nitpick or take anything away from it. I will just say that from the perspective of an outsider looking in, I can imagine a Muslim or Buddhist saying much the same thing. I guess however we must all accept, me especially, that we will probably never know for certain in this life.
For what it's worth, you have done more to show the positive aspects of Christianity than Dr Sarfati has in all of his various postings.