lenin impoverished and murdered his people

Posted on July 16, 2013 by christopher fisher

From Paul Johnson, in his book Modern Times:

We have to assume that what drove Lenin on to do what he did was a burning humanitarianism, akin to the love of the saints for God, for he had none of the customary blemishes of the politically ambitious: no vanity, no self-consciousness, no obvious relish for the exercise of authority. But his humanitarianism was a very abstract passion. It embraced humanity in general but he seems to have had little love for, or even interest in, humanity in particular. He saw the people with whom he dealt, his comrades, not as individuals but as receptacles for his ideas. On that basis, and on no other, they were judged. So he had no hierarchy of friendships; no friendships in fact, merely ideological alliances. He judged men not by their moral qualities but by their views, or rather the degree to which they accepted his. He bore no grudges. A man like Trotsky, whom he fought bitterly in the years before the Great War, and with whom he exchanged the vilest insults, was welcomed back with bland cordiality once he accepted Lenin’s viewpoint. Equally, no colleague, however close, could bank the smallest capital in Lenin’s heart…

While the last Tsars had executed an average of seventeen a year (for all crimes), by 1918-19 the Cheka was averaging 1,000 executions a month for political offences alone…

Many years later, Alexander Solzhenitsyn listed just a few of the groups who thus found themselves condemned to destruction as ‘insects’. They included ‘former zemstvo members, people in the Cooper movements, homeowners, high-school teachers, parish councils and choirs, priests, monks and nuns, Tolstoyan pacifists, officials of trade unions’ – soon all to be classified as ‘former people’…

Once Lenin had abolished the idea of personal guilt, and had started to ‘exterminate’ (a word he frequently employed) whole classes, merely on account of occupation or parentage, there was no limit to which this deadly principle might be carried…

On his return, Bernard Baruch asked him what Lenin’s Russia was like, and Steffens replied, ‘I have been over into the future – and it works! ‘ This was one of the earliest comments by a western liberal on the new kind of totalitarianism, and it set the pattern for much that was to come. What on earth can Steffens have seen? The whole object of Lenin’s ‘vanguard élite’ revolution was to speed up the industrialization of the country and thus the victory of the proletariat. Yet once Lenin took over the reverse happened. Before the war, Russian industrial production was increasing very fast: 62 per cent between 1900 and 1913. Until the end of 1916 at any rate it continued to expand in some directions. But once the peasants refused to hand over their 1917 harvest (to Lenin’s delight and profit) and food ceased to flow into the towns, the industrial workers, many of them born peasants, began to drift back to their native villages. Lenin’s revolution turned the drift into a stampede. Beginning in the winter of 1917-18, the population of Petrograd fell from 2.4 to 1.5 million; by 1920 it was a ghost town, having lost 71.5 per cent of its population; Moscow lost 44.5 per cent. The year Steffens ‘went over into the future’, the Russian industrial labour force had fallen to 76 per cent of its 1917 total, and the wastage was greatest among skilled workers. Production of iron ore and cast iron fell to only 1.6 and 2.4 per cent of their 1913 totals, and total output of manufactured goods, by 1920, was a mere 12.9 per cent of pre-war.

Posted in Economics, Goverment, History | 2 Comments

misquoted verses – the potter and the clay

Posted on July 16, 2013 by christopher fisher

The potter and clay imagery is found several places in the Bible.

Isa 29:16 Surely you have things turned around! Shall the potter be esteemed as the clay; For shall the thing made say of him who made it, “He did not make me”? Or shall the thing formed say of him who formed it, “He has no understanding”?

Isa 41:25 “I have raised up one from the north, And he shall come; From the rising of the sun he shall call on My name; And he shall come against princes as though mortar, As the potter treads clay.

Isa 64:8 But now, O LORD, You are our Father; We are the clay, and You our potter; And all we are the work of Your hand.

Jer 18:6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the LORD. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel!

Lam 4:2 The precious sons of Zion, Valuable as fine gold, How they are regarded as clay pots, The work of the hands of the potter!

Rom 9:21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

The imagery of a potter and clay suggest someone who molds and someone who is molded. There is an implicit subservient relationship implied throughout these verses. In Isaiah 29 the imagery tries to indicate the clay does not have recourse to question the intelligence of the potter. In Romans, Calvinists try to use a similar idea to claim that God chooses some for eternal salvation and some for eternal damnation, and people have no choice and cannot complain (contrast this to Abimelech).

But this is the wrong understanding of the imagery. Although the clay is subservient to the potter, the clay is not arbitrarily molded. The reference in Jeremiah gives the Bible reader the clearest picture of what is being communicated:

Jer 18:1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying:
Jer 18:2 “Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause you to hear My words.”
Jer 18:3 Then I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something at the wheel.
Jer 18:4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.
Jer 18:5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying:
Jer 18:6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the LORD. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel!

In verse 6, God explains that he is the potter and Israel is the clay. The story starts by the potter (God) attempting to create something nice, but the clay was “marred”. In the start of this illustration, the potter (God) does not complete his original task. Something went wrong. Instead he takes the marred clay and builds and entirely different object. This object is distinct from the original object he was trying to complete.

Calvinists have a hard time with this. To a Calvinist, God controls all things. So was God thwarting himself? Does God start projects and not complete them? Why did he begin a task he would never complete? Jeremiah goes on to explain the illustration:

Jer 18:7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
Jer 18:8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
Jer 18:9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
Jer 18:10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

The first part of the explanation is that God will literally change his actions based on the actions of the clay (Israel). He will do the entire opposite of what he “thought to do”, if the actions of a nation changes. If God pronounces judgment, he will repent if the people repent. In fact, this happens in the book of Jonah to the evil city of Nineveh:

Jon 3:9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
Jon 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

God also explains that he will repent of good if a nation becomes evil. This is the precise meaning in Romans 9. Romans 9 is not about individual salvation, but about rejecting a nation!

Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
Rom 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

Rom 10:19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.

Romans is all about God rejecting a national covenant with Israel and instead moving to the Gentiles. The illustration of the potter and the clay, does not illustrate God arbitrarily choosing some for heaven and some for hell. Instead, the potter and clay imagery illustrates that God rejected Israel based on their rejection of him. God literally changed his plan and branched out to the gentiles to make the Jews “jealous”. God’s actions, although he molds the clay, are based on the state of the clay.

God might raise up Pharaoh (Exo 9:16) to destroy him. But if that Pharaoh repents and turns to God, God tells us that he would spare that nation. God responds to his creation. God blesses and curses based on the actions of individuals. That is the meaning of the potter and the clay.

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, Figures of Speech, God, Misquoted Verses, Open Theism, Theology | 8 Comments

rabble rousers in the Bible

Posted on July 16, 2013 by christopher fisher

There is a scene in Acts in which the disciples began healing people en masse and the Sadducees imprison the disciples. The disciples miraculously escape and begin preaching again. The elders of Israel are called together, and one individual argues that they should not kill these disciples. His argument is that the Romans crush false rebellions, and so if this one was from God, the Romans will crush it. In essence, he is saying to let the Romans do their work for them. As an example, he cites two rabble rousers who the Romans have already crushed:

Act 5:35 And he said to them: “Men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do regarding these men.
Act 5:36 For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody. A number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was slain, and all who obeyed him were scattered and came to nothing.
Act 5:37 After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all who obeyed him were dispersed.
Act 5:38 And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing;

Theudas is an interesting person. Josephus names another individual named Theudas who likewise led a Jewish rebellion and was slaughtered in Antiquities of the Jews::

1. NOW it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus’s government.

Josephus puts this individual in the time of Fadus 44-46 AD. Acts puts the dialogue about Theudas well before Paul’s conversion circa 30-32 AD. Some have suggested Josephus erred. Some have suggested two individuals named Theudas. Some have suggested alternative naming of Theudas (Simon or Matthias). Nonetheless, Theudas drew about four hundred followers and was slain by the Romans.

Josephus also tells us about Judas of Galilee in his Antiquities of the Jews:

Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity. They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same; so men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains;

Judas was engaged in a tax revolt. Notice that Jesus is asked about taxes during his ministry (Mat_22:17). People were testing to see if Jesus was going to start a tax revolt just as Judas before him.

One illusive figure mentioned by reference in Acts, is an unnamed Egyptian. Paul is arrested in Jerusalem after rioters try to kill him. The commander of the garrison asks Paul:

Act 21:38 Are you not the Egyptian who some time ago stirred up a rebellion and led the four thousand assassins out into the wilderness?”

Josephus tells us about this Egyptian in his Antiquities of the Jews:

Moreover, there came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem one that said he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of five furlongs. He said further, that he would show them from hence how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down; and he promised them that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those walls, when they were fallen down. Now when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He also slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive. But the Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more.

And again in War of the Jews:

5. But there was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives, and was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place; and if he could but once conquer the Roman garrison and the people, he intended to domineer over them by the assistance of those guards of his that were to break into the city with him. But Felix prevented his attempt, and met him with his Roman soldiers, while all the people assisted him in his attack upon them, insomuch that when it came to a battle, the Egyptian ran away, with a few others, while the greatest part of those that were with him were either destroyed or taken alive; but the rest of the multitude were dispersed every one to their own homes, and there concealed themselves.

Four thousand (cited in Acts) seems more accurate than 30 thousand. Nevertheless, the Egyptian was crushed and Paul was mistaken for him.

Another popular rabble rouser, one not mentioned by Josephus, was Simon Magus:

Act 8:9 But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:

Simon Magus did not seem to have been crushed by the Romans, or even mentioned in their histories. This was a local leader, one with a tenuous conversion to Christianity. In fact, of all the ramble rousers, Simon Magus developed the most mythology surrounding him. He was cited as the father of all heresies and sometimes used as a symbol of Paul’s ministry (being contrasted to Peter’s).

A few other rabble rousers around the time of Jesus but not mentioned in the Bible include: Menahem ben Judah, Simon of Peraea, and Athronges. Needless to say, the Romans did not have a good time governing the Jews.

Posted in Bible, Church History, History | 2 Comments

God is not omnipresent

Posted on July 14, 2013 by christopher fisher

A few weeks ago, my 3 year old daughter asked me “where is God?” Before I could respond one of my 5 year old boys interjected with the Christian cliché “God is everywhere.” I looked straight at him and asked: “is God in the toilet?” Both my boys with their trademark grins and a flash of light in their eyes both laughed and said simultaneously: “Nooooo”.

To suggest God is everywhere is to suggest he is in the hearts of rapists. It suggests he is in the AIDs virus that infects an innocent child. It is to suggest he is forever forced to be present during every horrible sin. Of course God is not forced to be present during every sin. God makes this clear in Genesis 18:

Gen 18:20 And the LORD said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave,
Gen 18:21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”

The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were filled with rapist homosexuals. God makes it clear that his knowledge of this is through the “outcry” (bad reputation) against Sodom and Gomorrah, and furthermore God wishes to go investigate. He then states he will “go down” (figuratively meaning that he is sending his delegates). Why would God “go down” or send delegates if he is already present? Should he not already know the state of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Abraham then engages in a negotiation with God to spare Sodom and Gomorrah based on the number of righteous people found in those cities. Does God not already know the exact amount? Does Abraham think God already knows the exact amount? If so, why doesn’t he ask God how many people there are instead of negotiating down?

God ends his discussion with Abraham by “going his way”:

Gen 18:33 So the LORD went His way as soon as He had finished speaking with Abraham

In 1 Kings, the text mentions a few more places in which God is not present:

1Ki 19:11 Then He said, “Go out, and stand on the mountain before the LORD.” And behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind tore into the mountains and broke the rocks in pieces before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake;
1Ki 19:12 and after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice.

This could be talking about “God did not cause the wind, earthquake and fire”, but the text indicates that all were the direct result of him passing by the mountain. It might also mean “God was not heard in the wind, earthquake and fire”, which is a possibility. But the most direct reading is that Elijah was waiting for God to be present in order to ask him questions, but God did not arrive until after the fire. Notice that God “passed by” the mountain.

Omnipresence (notice that it is a Latin term) is not found in the Bible. Instead it is found in the heart of Platonic theology. Here is Plotinus:

The authentic and primal Kosmos is the Being of the Intellectual Principle and of the Veritable Existent. This contains within itself no spatial distinction, and has none of the feebleness of division, and even its parts bring no incompleteness… every part that it gives forth is a whole; all its content is its very own, for there is here no separation of thing from thing, no part standing in isolated existence estranged from the rest, and therefore nowhere is there any wronging of any other, any opposition. Everywhere one and complete, it is at rest throughout and shows difference at no point; it does not make over any of its content into any new form; there can be no reason for changing what is everywhere perfect.

The pagans believed god (the One) was omnipresent because they believed god was also Immutable. To change location was to change. And any change would make a perfect being now imperfect. This paganism infected the early church fathers, as I have documented before.

Contrast the omnipotence of the pagans to the God of the Bible:

In Genesis 1 God hovers over the waters:

Gen 1:2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

In Genesis 3 we find God walking in the garden. Adam and Eve hide from his presence:

Gen 3:8 And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.

In Genesis 4 Cain leaves the presence of the Lord, and moves to another land:

Gen 4:16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden.

In Job, Satan approaches God and God asks him where he has been. Suggesting God was located in heaven and not tracking Satan:

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.
Job 1:7 And the LORD said to Satan, “From where do you come?” So Satan answered the LORD and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.”

In Exodus 24 God tells Moses to come up to him. God’s presence then burns the top of the mountain:

Exo 24:12 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Come up to Me on the mountain and be there; and I will give you tablets of stone, and the law and commandments which I have written, that you may teach them.”…
Exo 24:16 Now the glory of the LORD rested on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days. And on the seventh day He called to Moses out of the midst of the cloud.
Exo 24:17 The sight of the glory of the LORD was like a consuming fire on the top of the mountain in the eyes of the children of Israel.

In Exodus 33, God passes by Moses (covering him with God’s hand) and then lets Moses see his back:

Exo 33:22 So it shall be, while My glory passes by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock, and will cover you with My hand while I pass by.
Exo 33:23 Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen.”

The entire Bible is replete with references talking about God being temporal. In fact, it is just assumed into God’s dealings with man that this is his normal character. In order to come to the conclusion that God is omnipresent, hundreds of verses have to be ignored in favor of a few vague statements.

One such statement, the strongest evidence in favor of Omnipresence in the Bible, is Jeremiah 23:24. Putting it in context:

Jer 23:19 Behold, a whirlwind of the LORD has gone forth in fury— A violent whirlwind! It will fall violently on the head of the wicked.
Jer 23:20 The anger of the LORD will not turn back Until He has executed and performed the thoughts of His heart. In the latter days you will understand it perfectly.
Jer 23:21 “I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran. I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied.
Jer 23:22 But if they had stood in My counsel, And had caused My people to hear My words, Then they would have turned them from their evil way And from the evil of their doings.
Jer 23:23 “Am I a God near at hand,” says the LORD, “And not a God afar off?
Jer 23:24 Can anyone hide himself in secret places, So I shall not see him?” says the LORD; “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” says the LORD.

In Jeremiah 23, God is proclaiming a coming judgment of the wicked. God then emphasizes the judgment is real and that no one can hide. Then there is a statement that God “fills” heaven and earth. The laymen Calvinist will look at this and say that God is declaring no one can hide, apparently because God is so big he literally fills the universe. Note that the scholar Calvinist take a differing view of Omnipresence which states that God is literally outside the realm of temporal location (this is more attuned to the Platonists). Instead of everywhere, God is nowhere. They take this verse figuratively.

A better reading of these verses is that God is proclaiming a coming judgment, states that no one can hide, and states that this is because he can find people anywhere (not that he is so big he is forced to see everywhere). Compare this with other verses used to support Omnipresence:

Pro 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, Keeping watch on the evil and the good.

Job 34:21 “For His eyes are on the ways of man, And He sees all his steps.
Job 34:22 There is no darkness nor shadow of death Where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves.

Can God see everything? It seems to be the case. Can he choose not to see something he does not want to, other verses suggest so. Neither of these verses have anything to do with God’s location, but instead his knowledge of current events.

Those who adhere to Platonism like to cite verses that have nothing to do with the thing they are trying to prove. If they want to prove God controls all things, they point to verses that say he is mighty. When they want to prove God is outside of time, they point to verses that say God is everlasting. When this tactic is used, it should be apparent their evidence is slim and they are desperate for proof texts. Can God see everything but not be omnipresent? I can watch a live golf match on TV, I do not have to be present. How many more resources does God have? And note, as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, God can choose not to know something.

To see other examples of dishonest verse quoting, all one has to do is find websites that argue for Omnipresense. link link link

Posted in Calvinism, God, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Omniscience, Open Theism, People, Plato, Plotinus, Theology | 20 Comments

vaccination boulderdash

Posted on July 12, 2013 by christopher fisher

Reason.com just announced 45 enemies of freedom. Making the list at number 28 is Jenny McCarthy:

28. Jenny McCarthy

A second-string actress who has managed to stay in the limelight by promoting the bogus theory that vaccines cause autism, McCarthy traffics in pseudoscience and fear. Partly as a result of her widely publicized yet scientifically ignorant pronouncements, hundreds of thousands of fearful parents have needlessly endangered the health and lives of their children.

So, assuming she has caused hundreds of thousands (really?) of fearful parents to not vaccinate their children, how much has she endangered the health of children? We could determine the risk of vaccination at a superficial level by figuring out the percentage of children that are unvaccinated, determining the nominal number living in the US, figuring out how many die of diseases that vaccines cover, converting that to a percentage number, and then comparing that to the percent of vaccinated children who die of that disease. My prediction has always been the risk is trivial to zero.

This does not mean that vaccines are not useful. No serious person doubts that vaccines have eradicated various diseases:

But the question is not “what have vaccines done in the past?” but “is giving my children a vaccination worth the risk today, right now?”. It could be the case that because most other people in the US are vaccinated that the likelihood of getting infected by an outbreak is slim, in turn, decreasing the harms of not being vaccinated. To quote Malcolm in the Middle on car insurance: “If everyone else has car insurance, why do I need it?”. Because vaccines can be given at any point in life, maybe it is worth waiting until a child is 5 years old or 20 years old or about to embark on an international trip before giving them a vaccination. This could be the case. So, does the potential harms of not vaccinating outweigh the risks of vaccination today?

For these statistics, you will not find good sources. Try to find good numbers on the number of unvaccinated children in the US. When sporadic websites point to stories of unvaccinated children dying, it would be helpful to know the relative number. Is it 1 out of 100? Is it 1 out of 10,000? Is it 1 out of 1,000,000? The numbers matter. After all, vaccinated children die too. The NNii points out vaccines have an effective rate of about 98% (measles). Without relative harms, the pro-vaccine advocates are just banking on emotional appeal. It would be like someone trying to convince you not to drive because one of their friends died in a car accident (something much more likely than dying of diseases for which there are vaccines).

Here is another sample of the dishonesty of the pro-vaccine crowd:

Last year, California had more than 2,100 whooping cough cases, and 10 infants died. Only one had received a first dose of vaccine.

Only one of the 10 or only one of the 2,100? The statement is ambiguous. Trying to find more information it turns out the 9 who died were regular babies but just too young to have the vaccine:

Nine were younger than 8 weeks old, which means they were too young to have been vaccinated against this highly contagious bacterial disease.

Note that the Richard Dawkins webpage is quoting 2013 and the previous link is quoting 2010. But the evidence is clear (also note that this is another case where Richard Dawkins does not know what he is talking about):

So this is not a case of “the anti-vaccine crowd causes death” story, but a “normal vaccinating parents have their newborns die before they get vaccines” story. And this is panned by the pro-vaccine crowd as a reason to vaccinate? Is the dishonesty more blatant? This is not to say that the anti-vaccine crowd does not use the same statistical fallacies, it is just that the side who calls the other side “unscientific” should be called out more harshly.

My wife asked me my opinion on the vaccine controversy. I think the vaccine advocates vastly overestimate the harms of not being vaccinated and the anti-vaccine advocates vastly overestimate the harms of being vaccinated. With that being said: if you are traveling out of the country, my advice is to vaccinate.

Posted in Science, Statistics | 1 Comment

misquoted verses – head coverings

Posted on July 11, 2013 by christopher fisher

1Co 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.
1Co 11:5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.

In Corinthians Paul speaks about men prophesying with their head covered and women prophesying with their head uncovered. Some people interpret these “coverings” as hats. Men cannot wear a hat in church and women must always being wearing a hat.

But that is not the point that Paul seems to be trying to make. Instead the focus is on hair. In verse 5 he talks about being “shaved”. In the following verses he references haircuts even more:

1Co 11:6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.

He contrasts “shorn” and “shaven” with “covered”. They seem to be opposites. He goes on a few verses later:

1Co 11:10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels…
1Co 11:13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
1Co 11:14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
1Co 11:15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.

In verse 13 Paul talks about having a head uncovered. In verse 14 he contrasts this to men having long hair. Then in verse 15 he points out that hair is “covering”. The hair is woman’s “glory” (compare this to verse 10).

So in 1 Corinthians, Paul does not seem to be talking about hats and veils, but long and short hair. Men should not have long hair (God does not like it and thus when long haired men try to talk to God or for God, they dishonor themselves). Woman should not have short hair, it is just as if they were bald.

Posted in Bible, Figures of Speech, Misquoted Verses | 3 Comments

price controls topple regime

Posted on July 10, 2013 by christopher fisher

There is a major story that all Mainstream Media seems to have missed. While the MSM report on the riots in Egypt and the overthrow of the Morsi regime, they miss the real cause. Here is Michael Amerhom Youssef:

More than 40 percent of Egyptian citizens currently must survive on about $2 per day. Lines to purchase gasoline stretch on for hours. The lines for a tank of propane—needed for cooking and other necessities of life—extend for up to nine hours. Electricity is cut off from 2-3 hours per night.

And here is Dan Gainor:

Fuel shortages are common and half the population is living on less than $2 a day.

Here is CNN (as usual, not knowing what they are talking about):

A diesel and gasoline shortage has caused the price of fuel to rise dramatically. Then-President Mohamed Morsy blamed the fuel shortage on a black market, but some critics alleged that the fuel crisis was a political tactic of the Morsy administration.

Back in May I wrote:

In a hilarious article, it is being reported that Venezuela is going to import 50M rolls of toilet paper. When one sees headlines like this, the first thought that should run through their head is “price controls”. 10 out of 10 times they will be correct. The sure fire signs of price controls are lines and shortages.

When you see lines, you can bet on price controls (or other government meddling). So when seeing that Morsi had been disposed due to the economic hardships of gas shortages, I instantly knew he brought it upon himself due to economic ignorance. He instituted price controls. Sure enough:

Today there are long gas lines all over Egypt. That is one of the reasons why millions of Egyptians went into the streets to protest against the Morsi government. And it is not just diesel fuel to power cars, truck, buses, and cruise boats that is in short supply, but also LNG cylinders used in many households, along with natural gas delivered on the state grid, for home heating and cooking. These other fuels are also subject to strict price controls…

In touring the Valley of Kings, Abu Simbel, and other ancient wonders in Upper Egypt in February of 2012 — a year after the revolution that toppled the government of Hosni Mubarak — I saw lines of idled cars and trucks around gas stations stretching for three or four miles. I was not surprised.

So the biggest story of the year is that a socialist tried to control prices and an entire government was disposed! This is major news that we do not even hear about.

For laughs, here is an Egyptian economist in 2010 calling for price controls:

“The government already has a set pricing policy for pharmaceutical and petroleum products,” he said. “This should be extended to cover other products as well in order to protect consumers.”

The Spectator article says it best when it quotes Milton Friedman:

Economists may not know much. But we know one thing very well: How to produce surpluses or shortages. Do you want a surplus? Have the government legislate a minimum price that is above the price that would otherwise prevail. Do you want a shortage? Have the government legislate a maximum price that is below the price that would otherwise prevail.

Posted in Econ 101, Economics, Goverment, Leftists, Price Controls | 3 Comments

statistics – the death penalty and deterrence

Posted on July 9, 2013 by christopher fisher

A lot of ink has been spilt over whether the Death Penalty deters criminals or not. Those against the Death Penalty cite Texas, and claim that although Texas executes more people than any other state, they still have a lot of murder (even higher than states without the death penalty).

Ignoring the fact that the demographics of Texas is not close to any of these no-Death Penalty states, the statistics are being used falsely. The nominal number of executions is being cited, when to be a deterrent, the percentage rate should be the issue. Let us pretend that I tell my son and my daughter they can’t eat any cookies without permission. My son steals ten cookies per day, making 70 stolen cookies in a week. I catch him every time and punish him only 5 of those times. Let us also pretend my daughter steals two cookies. I catch her both times and punish her both times. Even though my son was punished more than my daughter, should anyone claim that my given punishment will deter my son?

Out of 70 cookies, he was punished 5 times. When he thinks about stealing a cookie, he knows he only has a 1 out of 14 chance in getting punished. Those odds are in his favor. My daughter knows that she is punished every time she steals a cookie. Her odds of being punished are 1 out of 1 (100%!). Although my son is punished nominally more than my daughter, he still has very little chance of being punished.

The same goes for the death penalty. In the US, between 1976 and 2011 there were 689,475 murders. In that same time (through 2013) there has been 1338 executions. There is much less than a 1% chance of being executed. In fact there is 19% of 1% chance (0.19%) of being executed for a murder. This is one out of 515! Granted there are double homicides and sometimes double perpetrators. Sometimes those being executed did not commit murder. This is a rough estimate.

In Death Penalty Texas, between 1976 and 2011 there were 63,801 murders. In the same time there has been 496 executions. Even in Death Penalty Texas there is less than a 1% chance of being executed for murder. In fact there is 74% of 1% chance (0.77%) of being executed for a murder. This is one out of 135!

This is all not to mention that the average time on Death Row is 15 years.

So when people say the Death Penalty is not a deterrent, they mean “a one in 515 chance of being executed 15 years later while having a chance at blanket pardon” is not a deterrent. I tend to agree.

Posted in Death Penalty, Goverment, Statistics | 1 Comment

Jesus quote not found in the gospels

Posted on July 9, 2013 by christopher fisher

In Acts 20, Paul is preaching to the elders of Ephesus. He states:

Act 20:35 I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ ”

This quote is not found in any of the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Either Paul was quoting oral tradition, quoting a disciple who knew Jesus, or quoting from his own appearances (visions) with Jesus. Alternatively, some have suggested a “Sayings Gospel” being circulated in the early church. I don’t think there is evidence to support that belief.

Posted in Bible, Jesus, People | Leave a comment

the gospel in the septuagint

Posted on July 9, 2013 by christopher fisher

Literally the Greek word for “gospel” means “good news”. In the ancient world in Christ’s time, it had royal connotations. But when the Greek Septuagint was written (probably started to be written circa 300 BC), the word was used with its default meaning. Remember, the New Testament quotes the Septuagint, so we can’t just dismiss it.

We find the word Gospel in several verses:

2Sa 4:10 when someone told me, saying, ‘Look, Saul is dead,’ thinking to have brought good news, I arrested him and had him executed in Ziklag—the one who thought I would give him a reward for his news.

2Sa 18:20 And Joab said to him, “You shall not take the news this day, for you shall take the news another day. But today you shall take no news, because the king’s son is dead.”

2Sa 18:22 And Ahimaaz the son of Zadok said again to Joab, “But whatever happens, please let me also run after the Cushite.” So Joab said, “Why will you run, my son, since you have no news ready?”

2Sa 18:25 Then the watchman cried out and told the king. And the king said, “If he is alone, there is news in his mouth.” And he came rapidly and drew near.

2Sa 18:27 So the watchman said, “I think the running of the first is like the running of Ahimaaz the son of Zadok.” And the king said, “He is a good man, and comes with good news.”

2Ki 7:9 Then they said to one another, “We are not doing right. This day is a day of good news, and we remain silent. If we wait until morning light, some punishment will come upon us. Now therefore, come, let us go and tell the king’s household.”

When Christians insist heavily to make “gospel” a proper noun with one defined meaning, the burden of proof is on them to show it is scriptural.

Posted in Bible, Dispensationalism, Textual Criticism, Theology | 1 Comment