warning inflation

Posted on June 26, 2013 by christopher fisher

Inflation is the term generally used when there are increases in the money supply and prices go up. Inflation, then, is the devaluation of goods when units of value become too plentiful. This principle applies to other areas of life: rules can be inflated, classifications of diseases or disabilities can be inflated, relationships can be inflated and warnings can be inflated. David Henderson points out that the government puts out so many warnings, the warnings have become worse than useless. They have become dangerous:

In Carmel, California, a few miles from where I live, is Monastery Beach, sometimes referred to by the locals as “Mortuary Beach.” At that beach, the undertow is particularly severe. Many people have drowned there. I remember one time reading in the local paper that all the members of a visiting family had drowned.

Notice the word “visiting.” Almost all the people who drown there are tourists. Why is that relevant?

The locals tend to know about the undertow. Outsiders do not. On the beach, for well over 15 years, has been a big sign warning of the undertow. I think many tourists simply think the sign is typical government overstatement. They think the government is crying wolf. Then, even when the risk is real, they discount it heavily. And that causes some people to die.

If health activists cry that every food is unhealthy, people will start ignoring them and eating the worst food along with moderately unhealthy food. If disability advocates start labeling everything as a disability, people with real hardships will be marginalized and ignored. If the government makes too many rules, people will lose respect for the law and violate real crimes. When the government cries wolf, people die.

Posted in Economics, Goverment, Human Nature, Inflation | 1 Comment

name calling

Posted on June 25, 2013 by christopher fisher

In my years, I have been called every name in the book: nazi, heretic, communist, ‘hyperdispensationalist” (to name a few). It has become clear to me, in the proportion I become immune to name calling, that those who often call others names are falling prey to projection.

Those who call me a Nazi, march lock-step with the Nazi political platform. Those who call me a heretic, discard the Bible in favor of the ideas of Plato. Those who call me a communist literally endorse expropriation of private property. Those who call me a hyperdispensationalist usually force strange readings on the Bible to make their theology work.

When Jesus called names, he usually backed them up with facts. When he calls the Pharisees “vipers” he explains that they kill the prophets. When he calls people hypocrites, he backs it up with an explanation (sometimes definitional). Here Jesus is in Matthew:

Mat 7:4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye?
Mat 7:5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

A few things of note: the fact that “hypocrites are judging” is not what is wrong. It is the fact that they do the same thing that they judge. The remedy is not “not judging”, but clearing out your own problems and then judging others. Projection is a form of hypocrisy.

The same individuals who call names using projection are usually the ones attempting the take “the moral high ground”. Noted by referencing to how humble they are, or how much they hate pride, or how much they want to help the poor. Hypocrites are dangerous, because they attempt to manipulate their hearer’s raw emotion rather than using reason.

It is best not to fall prey to their own fallacies. For the most part I try not to use names. Names, if used, should be used to stun the person. Recently I used Facebook to inform a group of hippies that they were fascist thugs. They had probably never been called that before, and it threw them for a loop. If names are used, Jesus should be the example. Defend why the name is fitting. Use names against those who would be deeply offended. And make sure it is public. There is no record that those who are called names by Jesus ever came to repentance. Jesus’ concern was for the hearers, those who still had an open mind.

Also see Nicer than God.

Posted in Hypocrisy, Jesus, Morality, People, Theology | 1 Comment

evidence that moral law is not now required

Posted on June 25, 2013 by christopher fisher

The book of Romans is Paul’s magnum opus. He is writing to a Church he did not found, and one that is heavily works based. He lays out a systematic way to understand his ministry and methods of righteousness. In Romans 2 he talks both about Gentiles that have never heard of Christ and Jews that are under the law. We read:

Rom 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
Rom 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

In verses 9 and 10, we see Paul is not talking about symbolic law of the Old Testament (like clothes and food), but instead is talking about moral law. Verses 12 and 13 expand on 9 and 10, showing that the law (which he is talking about) is the same as the evil and good in the previous verses. In Romans 2:13 he says that the “doers of the law shall be justified”.

A short while later Paul begins talking about his new dispensation.

Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
Rom 3:22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference;

Here Paul is again talking about the “law”. We see from Romans 2 that the “law” is the moral law (people doing evil and people working good). Paul says there is a righteousness “apart from this law” “on all who believe”. He then points out, although works once justified, no one was able to attain that justification (a reiteration of the first verses of chapter 3):

Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Rom 3:25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,
Rom 3:26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

God has “forbearance” and “passes over” previous sins. This is the moral code, and this moral code was once required for justification. Paul is specifically stating that although works were once required for righteousness, now a Christian only needs faith apart from the moral code.

When Christians claim that faith alone always made individuals righteous, or that Paul only taught against symbolic law, they are mistaken.

Posted in Dispensationalism, Morality, Theology | 2 Comments

art carden being blunt on economic ignorance

Posted on June 21, 2013 by christopher fisher

On Forbes:

If you’re advocating price controls and don’t understand what the laws of supply and demand have to say about your proposal, you aren’t courageous or compassionate. You’re dangerous.

On EconLog:

Perhaps you will be asked “what does it say about us as a society that we don’t permit people to be paid substandard wages or to be gouged after natural disasters?” I answer “it says we’re willing to watch people suffer in order to flatter ourselves,” but that’s beside the point.

Posted in Economics, Price Controls | Leave a comment

regulations make you $277,000 poorer

Posted on June 21, 2013 by christopher fisher

From reason.com:

The growth of federal regulations over the past six decades has cut U.S. economic growth by an average of 2 percentage points per year, according to a new study in the Journal of Economic Growth. As a result, the average American household receives about $277,000 less annually than it would have gotten in the absence of six decades of accumulated regulations—a median household income of $330,000 instead of the $53,000 we get now.

I have long told people that government has retarded the growth of the economy, which has a compiling effect over time. But numbers are hard to estimate. To one individual who said we need more “financial regulations”, I pointed out that we had tens of thousands of pages of “financial regulations” to which he replied “well, they need to be written better”. Tens of thousands of rules! Here is a snapshot of new regulations per year (this is not “total”):

Posted in Economics, Goverment | Leave a comment

the kingdom of heaven is the kingdom of God

Posted on June 21, 2013 by christopher fisher

The “Kingdom of Heaven” is a phrase only found in the gospel of Matthew. Matthew, possibly originally written in Hebrew, is a very Jewish orientated gospel. The writer, Matthew, had a few idiosyncrasies. One of which is that he used the term “Kingdom of Heaven” and “Kingdom of God”, interchangeably:

Mat 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Here, both terms are used to illustrate the same point. Elsewhere, the terms are used interchangeably in gospel harmonies:

Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mar 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Those who try to differentiate between the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God, are making mountains out of molehills. Or my favorite interpretation quote:

We tend also to attach an undue importance to phrases which occur in such writers; few, if any, writers write with the precision of a legal document, and the inverted pyramids which have been built upon chance phrases of Clement or Justin are monuments of caution which we shall do well to keep before our eyes.

Posted in Bible, Figures of Speech | Leave a comment

does galatians 2 7 indicate two gospels

Posted on June 21, 2013 by christopher fisher

Gal 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter

Galatians 2:7 was written by Paul to distinguish his ministry from that of the apostles. To those who are covenant theologians or Acts 2 dispensationalists, they see this verse as distinguishing the audiences of both Peter and Paul. They say the same gospel is preached, but Peter brought it to the circumcision and Paul to the Gentiles. I assume they believe the word usage is generalized, because Paul definitely taught to Jews (before he consulted the Gentiles).

Here is Greek scholar C.R. Hume in Reading through Galatians:

The statement that Paul had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised and Peter with that to the circumcised is not a rigid demarcation but a recognition of their separate core responsibilities.

To an Acts 9 dispensationalist, who teaches that Paul’s gospel (salvation by faith alone) was different than that of the apostles (the Kingdom gospel), they seem to take Galatians 2:7 as indicating that there are two gospels (one of circumcision and one of uncircumcision).

The original Greek helps very little here. The meaning of the Genitive case (“gospel of circumcision”, “gospel of uncircumcision”), is always determined by context as noted in The Big Difference Between the Two Gospels, by Bob Hill:

Moulton states that the interpretation of this genitive is entirely a matter of exegesis and not of grammar. The immediate context and general usage must be called to decide the point.

So what does the context suggest? CR Hume (not an Acts 9 dispensationalist) points out that verses 6 through 10 are all one large sentence in the Greek:

In the original, the whole of the above passage is, syntactically speaking, one sentence. The omissions, sudden changes of direction, the condensed arguments, the interruptions and asides make it difficult to follow.

To understand the immediate context of the verse, the entire sentence should be read as a whole:

Gal 2:6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.
Gal 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter
Gal 2:8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles),
Gal 2:9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Paul had consulted James, Cephas, and John about his ministry. It is clear that James, Cephas, and John are the same people as “those of reputation”. They “added nothing” to him. CR Hume translates this literally as “added no further requirements” or added no “burden”. The phrase “added nothing to me” is Paul stating that his gospel remained unchanged. This is directly after saying Titus was not compelled to be circumcised.

And it is directly after this that Paul uses the phrases “gospel of the circumcision” and “gospel of the uncircumcision”. (As a disclaimer: the Greek word for Gospel is only used once, it is implied the second time. CR Hume translates the sentence as follows: “seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel of non-circumcision as Peter was with the one of circumcision.”)

So Titus is not compelled by the apostles to be circumcised, no further burdens are added to Paul, and then Paul talks about Peter’s gospel of circumcision. This seems like amazing contextual evidence that Galatians 2:7 is speaking of two separate gospels. Paul is shown resisting circumcision, the apostles are shown as encouraging circumcision, and then the statement is made that there is a “gospel of the circumcision” and a “gospel of the uncircumcision”. Both groups not only have different target groups, but are teaching different ministries.

Posted in Bible, Dispensationalism, Textual Criticism, Theology | 6 Comments

rental laws destroy more lives

Posted on June 20, 2013 by christopher fisher

The Huffington Post reports on two landlords in San Francisco that harassed and tormented their tenants over the course of 8 years. Already the story smells fishy. Why would landlords want to harass their tenants? Tenants pay rent, and landlords usually like being paid. Harassing customers is business suicide. For example, if Wal-Mart harassed everyone who walked into their store, their competitors (e.g.Target) would soon see a nice increase in customers even if their prices were higher.

Also, why would tenants put up with 8 years of harassment? If you walked into Wal-Mart and store employees followed you around berating you, you probably would not go back.

When normal market behavior does not occur, one can bet that government is involved. Of course, Huffington Post does not post the real story behind this one. Even a whiff of economic literacy is bound to have comments censored on their forums. The real culprit is government protections for tenants.

When governments pass regulations on businesses, this practice increases the costs of doing business. Landlords, when the cost to themselves is artificially increased, adapt to this by reducing the amount of product that they supply or increasing the price. San Francisco, with lavish protections on tenants (see here and here), has seen the effects of this. They rank number 3 in major cities for the percent of income that citizens pay for housing. On top of this, the government has imposed rent control.

With the government enforced “protections”, it is no wonder why landlords must badger and harass tenants to evict them from the properties. With the government created housing shortage, it is no wonder why tenants fight to stay in the rentals. There are not many options for relocation, and the price would be predictably higher.

From a rather well informed article in the New York Times:

The City by the Bay is going through one of its worst housing shortages in memory… The citywide median rental price for a one-bedroom is $2,764 a month, but jumps to $3,500 in trendy areas.

One reason for the shortage? Me.

I’ve recently joined the ranks of San Francisco landlords who have decided that it’s better to keep an apartment empty than to lease it to tenants…

Well, the clerk explained, because of the city’s troublesome rental laws, a tenant-free property is much more valuable.

A check of comparable recent sales in our neighborhood, in fact, shows that empty buildings are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars more than those with tenants, and with the current housing-price boom, that profit margin (on paper, anyway) increases each month.

That’s why we’ve joined the ranks of thousands of other small-time landlords here who will never rent again, adding to the city’s housing shortage.

Notice that government regulations have made rentals so burdensome that people are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars just to not deal with renters! Maybe one day the Huffington Post will grow up and learn basic economics. I won’t hold my breath.

Posted in Economics, Goverment, Leftists, Price Controls, Trade | Leave a comment

neglected verses Isa 14 9

Posted on June 20, 2013 by christopher fisher

Taking an idea from the old Bob Enyart show, I want to start a series of posts on verses that no one will ever see on a daily devotional. Modern Christians enjoy neglecting the parts of the Bible to which they do not agree or they do not feel sounds “nice”. It is important, as Christians, to take the whole Bible (in context, of course).

Isa 14:9 “Hell from beneath is excited about you, To meet you at your coming; It stirs up the dead for you, All the chief ones of the earth; It has raised up from their thrones All the kings of the nations.

Posted in Bible, Neglected Verses | Leave a comment

understanding satan

Posted on June 20, 2013 by christopher fisher

If a modern Christian is asked to draw a picture of who Satan is, Christians will probably draw a horned half-goat creature sitting in a throne in the pit of hell. This image is deeply imbedded into the American psyche. The origin of this image is not the Bible, but Greek mythology. Although the devil is called the dragon, and other creature names, he appears as an “angel of light” and he is often referenced as beautiful.

Satan is also depicted by modern Christians as the source of all evil. Satan is depicted as the polar opposite of God. Whenever evil is found on earth, people blame Satan, as if he is not a temporal being but instead some sort of mystical force that produces evil. This is a pagan concept: that of Manichaeism. Mani, like Platonists before him, taught dualism. That there were forces of good and evil, and those forces continually strove together. This is not a concept from the Bible. The Bible teaches that there is no evil force other than individuals who choose to do wrong (James 1:14). Satan might want us to sin and persuade us to do so, but only to extent that it serves his personal goals (domination of heaven).

In Ezekiel, there appears to be an allusion to Satan:

Eze 28:12 …”You were the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
Eze 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering…
Eze 28:14 “You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.
Eze 28:15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, Till iniquity was found in you.
Eze 28:16 “By the abundance of your trading You became filled with violence within, And you sinned; Therefore I cast you as a profane thing Out of the mountain of God; And I destroyed you, O covering cherub, From the midst of the fiery stones.
Eze 28:17 “Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor; I cast you to the ground, I laid you before kings, That they might gaze at you.
Eze 28:18 “You defiled your sanctuaries By the multitude of your iniquities, By the iniquity of your trading; Therefore I brought fire from your midst; It devoured you, And I turned you to ashes upon the earth In the sight of all who saw you.
Eze 28:19 All who knew you among the peoples are astonished at you; You have become a horror, And shall be no more forever.” ‘ “

Some key elements to be noted:
– this individual was in Eden.
– this individual was anointed and established by God
– this individual was perfect
– this individual was in the “mountain of God”
– this individual was prideful
– this individual was destroyed by God

Take this in relation to Isaiah:

Isa 14:12 “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!
Isa 14:13 For you have said in your heart: ‘I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north;
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.’
Isa 14:15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, To the lowest depths of the Pit.

Some key elements to be noted:
– this individual fell from heaven.
– this individual attempted to rule “the stars of God”
– this individual attempted to supplant God
– this individual will be sent to hell

While the greater context of the Isaiah passage is in reference to the King of Babylon, the Old Testament often makes allusions to other subjects without explicitly stating it (see Eze 28, above, or Exe 31). It is not unreasonable to think Lucifer (Latin word for Morning Star) is indeed Satan. He is elsewhere described as a star (Rev 9:1) and also other angels are described as stars (Rev 12:3-9).

If Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 refer to Satan, we can see who Satan is on a personal level. Satan was a beautiful arch-angel. He was perfect and adored by God. But he became prideful. He began to think he could overpower God, or at least resist God’s authority. He attempted to lead an angelic rebellion against God, but he failed. He was then thrown out of heaven.

From this picture we can build a better picture of reality:

-Satan was once good. This means that he is not the eternal prince of evil. There is no overriding force of evil.
-Satan attempted to overthrow God. This means that he, along with one third of all the angels, believed he has a chance at winning. Might God, if rejected by all his creation, leave us to our own devices?
-Satan’s punishment is hell. Satan is not the ruler of hell, nor does he want to go to hell. See Revelations 20:10.
-Satan is not all-seeing, but is a temporal being. He can be cast down, he walks the earth (Job 1:7), and he can be cast into hell. If a Christian claims the devil is tempting him, and not saying it in a figurative way, a proper response might be to say “with 7 billion people on earth, the Devil doesn’t have time for you.”

Posted in Bible, God, Morality, Theology | 5 Comments