11 Temmuz 2012 Çarşamba
Obamacare or Not, Progressives Vow Fight for 'Medicare for All' | Common Dreams
[Ljava.lang.String;@45371297
One percent couple demos their house while 100s of 1000s jobless or underemployed
[Ljava.lang.String;@53deef01
10 Temmuz 2012 Salı
On “the assent of faith” and on locating “Mary’s Immaculate Foot” in Gen 3:15
.lang.String;@28eacd7d
9 Temmuz 2012 Pazartesi
Neo-Nazi? No. Anti-choice? Wait, what?
To contact us Click HERE
Apparently we have arrived.
The Daily Kos, a fairly well-known clearinghouse for the Left, has taken note of our efforts and "operations", and found us of sufficient interest that they decided to raise the question today whether our distinctive symbol evokes the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel.
(Source of image: Daily Kos. Originally found here.)
(Source of image: Daily Kos. Originally found here.)
While I have a bit of sympathy for someone's spotting a seeming similarity between our chosen visual aid and the Wolfsangel, or even a swastika, I am glad to take this opportunity to state in no uncertain terms that we officially and unofficially, categorically detest all the distinctives of Nazism, including but not limited to racism, anti-Semitism, inclination toward mass murder, and megalomaniacal lust for power.We are servants of the Lord Jesus Christ and are comprised of people of all ethnicities, languages, and skin color. Many of us have adopted children of a different ethnicity and skin color and children of "mixed" ethnicity, and we love them all.We have a bustling Facebook community with numerous admins and, while it is impossible to police every single comment thread, we have often taken the initiative to block unruly professing Christians when their tone has become too harsh, their invective too vitriolic, and their argumentation too personal and too lacking in real substance. The (thankfully few) times posters have posted racist or just plain awful rhetoric, we have swiftly banned them. The reason for this is simple: It is easy for many pro-choice people to see a post on our page from someone who claims to be pro-life and jump to the unwarranted but common conclusion that we endorse what they said and how they said it. Such is not necessarily the case, and we do our best to clean up after the messes less thoughtful pro-lifers and anti-abortion people make.
To his credit, OllieGarkey, the author of this Kos post, took at least some time to peruse our website to find out whether we do host any neo-Nazi sympathies. He of course found no evidence of such. He even links to a discussion of what our symbol means and its purpose and inspiration. I also credit him with not jumping to a bad conclusion in his article. He says:
So no, we don't particularly fear an impending destruction of the "Caucasian race". Far nearer is the abortion-driven destruction of African-Americans, with a solid assist from Planned Parenthood, one of the Daily Kos' favorite NGOs.
Let's pause to consider how twisted up this whole scenario is. Two babies are murdered every minute in this country, and this Daily Kos blogger wants to ramble about how our symbol kind of, a little bit, sorta looks like some obscure pagan symbol that has been co-opted by a group that has a big name but virtually never does anything? Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood is targeting minorities for extermination. No big deal.
What's that? You think pro-choice arguments have some merit? Sorry, we haven't yet found one that does.
Even if we did have neo-Nazi sympathies, what would that matter? The fundamental issue at hand is that babies are being murdered, the future of our country is being eroded, and our country is spitting in God's face every minute that we allow this gross violation of human rights and the image of God in humanity. Where is the Daily Kos' independent thought now? OllieGarkey is merely one in a long line of drones who have bought the leftist lies and embraced the apathy. Hey, they're not his kin; why should he care about their future and their voice?
Just look at the way he ignores, sidesteps the original poster's argument, in favor of calling attention to the symbol. You know, we make the posters for several reasons, and one of them is to show that abortion is evil and must be considered such by reasonable people. He could have spilled his ink interacting with our argumentation in a rational manner...but no. Instead, it's neo-Nazi Wolfsangel and foolish mockery, using words (like "crypto-fascist") he probably doesn't understand and which most certainly have no application to us.
OllieGarkey continues:
Finally, he accuses us of being "anti-choice".One wonders whether he would say the same thing to an abolitionist of human slavery, that he would not grant that there really exists a plantation owner's right to own Negroes to work his cotton fields?It’s always self-defeating to impose your own morals on others by telling them not to impose their own morals on others. The thing is, the state “denies” our "choice" to do or not do all sorts of things, such as:--not rape, even if someone really really wants to--drive at or under the speed limit--refrain from firebombing legal places of business--pay taxesetc.Unless OllieGarkey is a consistent and total anarchist, he doesn't have a problem with being "anti-choice" in some cases. The question is not whether morality will be imposed, but which morality will be imposed. He would do well to argue for his views that his moral view is better, not merely dismiss them.
The Daily Kos, a fairly well-known clearinghouse for the Left, has taken note of our efforts and "operations", and found us of sufficient interest that they decided to raise the question today whether our distinctive symbol evokes the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel.
(Source of image: Daily Kos. Originally found here.)
(Source of image: Daily Kos. Originally found here.)While I have a bit of sympathy for someone's spotting a seeming similarity between our chosen visual aid and the Wolfsangel, or even a swastika, I am glad to take this opportunity to state in no uncertain terms that we officially and unofficially, categorically detest all the distinctives of Nazism, including but not limited to racism, anti-Semitism, inclination toward mass murder, and megalomaniacal lust for power.We are servants of the Lord Jesus Christ and are comprised of people of all ethnicities, languages, and skin color. Many of us have adopted children of a different ethnicity and skin color and children of "mixed" ethnicity, and we love them all.We have a bustling Facebook community with numerous admins and, while it is impossible to police every single comment thread, we have often taken the initiative to block unruly professing Christians when their tone has become too harsh, their invective too vitriolic, and their argumentation too personal and too lacking in real substance. The (thankfully few) times posters have posted racist or just plain awful rhetoric, we have swiftly banned them. The reason for this is simple: It is easy for many pro-choice people to see a post on our page from someone who claims to be pro-life and jump to the unwarranted but common conclusion that we endorse what they said and how they said it. Such is not necessarily the case, and we do our best to clean up after the messes less thoughtful pro-lifers and anti-abortion people make.
To his credit, OllieGarkey, the author of this Kos post, took at least some time to peruse our website to find out whether we do host any neo-Nazi sympathies. He of course found no evidence of such. He even links to a discussion of what our symbol means and its purpose and inspiration. I also credit him with not jumping to a bad conclusion in his article. He says:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that it's not intentional, but as a history buff I nearly sprayed tea all over my screen this morning when I saw an anti-abortion poster which contained a German Wolfsangel. It's a symbol in wide use by neo-nazis today (emphasis mine, not original).He is correct - it is not at all intentional. It is intentionally striking and unique, however, as noted in our article. I don't know about "fawning over ourselves", but no reasonable person ever accused Daily Kos bloggers of immaculate objectivity.A few more notes about his article:
I doubt, I very seriously doubt, that there is more to this than the fact that conservatives really suck at history.Interestingly, the majority of our approach and motivation is derived from history, both 1st-century Middle Eastern and southeastern European history and also 18th- and 19th-century British and American history. Here is just one example. The director of the Society and the designer of the AHA symbol has forgotten more about the history of abolition than OllieGarkey knows. His contempt is a joke.
In no way would we ever make such a statement. It is difficult to deny, however, that the flipside of this view is very plausible, with a great deal of historical support.Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, is rightly well-known for her desire to reduce the "Negro" population through abortion. This practice and aim continue to this day and leftists like The Daily Kos continue to stick their fingers in their ears and ignore the obvious and explicit.That's a kind of cryptofascist lie you might find if you went to read white nationalist literature from American Renaissance or Stormfront: The conspiracy theory is that abortion and homosexuality were invented as a way to decrease white births, and thus help destroy "the Caucasian race."
So no, we don't particularly fear an impending destruction of the "Caucasian race". Far nearer is the abortion-driven destruction of African-Americans, with a solid assist from Planned Parenthood, one of the Daily Kos' favorite NGOs.
Let's pause to consider how twisted up this whole scenario is. Two babies are murdered every minute in this country, and this Daily Kos blogger wants to ramble about how our symbol kind of, a little bit, sorta looks like some obscure pagan symbol that has been co-opted by a group that has a big name but virtually never does anything? Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood is targeting minorities for extermination. No big deal.
What's that? You think pro-choice arguments have some merit? Sorry, we haven't yet found one that does.
Even if we did have neo-Nazi sympathies, what would that matter? The fundamental issue at hand is that babies are being murdered, the future of our country is being eroded, and our country is spitting in God's face every minute that we allow this gross violation of human rights and the image of God in humanity. Where is the Daily Kos' independent thought now? OllieGarkey is merely one in a long line of drones who have bought the leftist lies and embraced the apathy. Hey, they're not his kin; why should he care about their future and their voice?
Just look at the way he ignores, sidesteps the original poster's argument, in favor of calling attention to the symbol. You know, we make the posters for several reasons, and one of them is to show that abortion is evil and must be considered such by reasonable people. He could have spilled his ink interacting with our argumentation in a rational manner...but no. Instead, it's neo-Nazi Wolfsangel and foolish mockery, using words (like "crypto-fascist") he probably doesn't understand and which most certainly have no application to us.
OllieGarkey continues:
I don't see anything overtly racist in what they're writing other than the idea that women having access to birth control is just as bad as slavery (emphasis original).Now wait just a minute.Does OllieGarkey really mean to contend that abortion is morally equivalent to birth control? Is he familiar with the difference between contragestion and contraception?Where has he engaged the extensive argumentation in favor of the abolitionist position that human life begins at conception? Is he unfamiliar with the explicit abolitionist position that God is the One Who has the prerogative to give and take life, and that only under very particular circumstances has He delegated that to humans? And that dismembering tiny babies or attacking them with chemical and pharmaceutical weaponry isn't one of those circumstances? As a matter of fact, we have made the argument very clearly that, while women having access to birth control is certainly not equivalent to slavery, society allowing the powerful to oppress and kill the weakest and most voiceless through abortion is very similar to society's having allowed the powerful to oppress and abuse the weakest and most voiceless through slavery. The distinction may not be clear to someone seeking fodder for a hatchet job, but we believe it is available for the reasonable reader.
Finally, he accuses us of being "anti-choice".One wonders whether he would say the same thing to an abolitionist of human slavery, that he would not grant that there really exists a plantation owner's right to own Negroes to work his cotton fields?It’s always self-defeating to impose your own morals on others by telling them not to impose their own morals on others. The thing is, the state “denies” our "choice" to do or not do all sorts of things, such as:--not rape, even if someone really really wants to--drive at or under the speed limit--refrain from firebombing legal places of business--pay taxesetc.Unless OllieGarkey is a consistent and total anarchist, he doesn't have a problem with being "anti-choice" in some cases. The question is not whether morality will be imposed, but which morality will be imposed. He would do well to argue for his views that his moral view is better, not merely dismiss them.
I'm probably wrong. I hope I'm wrong (emphasis original).He is not wrong where he thought. Sadly, he is wrong in most of the other important spots.
When Will Romney Reach 1,144?
To contact us Click HERE
Yeah, yeah, I know, I didn't post all week. I'll tell you what--full refund.
But let's be serious--the 2012 Republican Primary has lost its luster. It has grown uncompetitive. The mainstream media has finally caught up to what this blog has been saying for a while--Mitt Romney is the nominee of the Republican Party. Recent endorsements from Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and former president George HW Bush tell us as much. This aura of inevitability puts us in no mans land. The GOP Primary is over, but it's not quite the general election yet, either. Thus, my week off (with more days off to come).
Yet, even with the nomination all but settled, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul forge on, each hoping that their combined delegates will ultimately keep Romney from the requisite 1,144 needed to go into the convention without a deadlocked first ballot. Their pluck, though admirable, will be fruitless. Romney will get there in plenty of time.
When exactly? I'm glad you asked. As of this posting, according to Real Clear Politics, Romney has 565 delegates, meaning he needs to win 579 more. (To estimate exactly when that will be, read this post while referring to the Republican Primary Schedule.)
This Tuesday has three contests--Wisconsin, Maryland, and Washington DC. Romney has always been expected to win Maryland and DC rather easily, and their winner-take-all rules will earn a great delegate haul for him. Santorum was thought to have a shot at Wisconsin, but Romney has stormed into and extended a lead in Wisconsin polls. Of the day's 93 delegates, Romney will take around 75 to get up to about 640.
Then there's an 18-day break until Missouri (again). Santorum might be able to hang on to his favorability there, but with Romney surely considered inevitable after sweeping on April 3, perhaps Santorum will even lose his stranglehold on the Midwest. Let's say the candidates earn a split of the state's 52 delegates. Romney has now tacked on 100 April delegates to bring his total to 665.
Three days later is the sizeable primary day of New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware, the amalgam of which awards 231 delegates. Santorum should win his home state, but get demolished in the other four. Romney easily clears 150 delegates. 815.
Then we turn to May. May 8 has three Santorum states in North Carolina, West Virginia, and Indiana, which combine for 132 delegates. But with Romney surging and Santorum falling apart (if he's even still in the race) Romney probably finds a way to win all three states. Let's give him, for the sake of round numbers, 85 more delegates, bringing him to 900.
May 15 and May 22 have two states each--Nebraska/Oregon and Kentucky/Arkansas, respectively. The four of them combine for 153 delegates, and Romney can expect to continue to consolidate the party, even if three states are in Santorum's former wheelhouse. That's 100 more for 1,000 total.
The May 29 Texas Primary is worth a weighty 155. It doesn't seem Romney will quite reach 1,144 with it, barring a drop outs from his rivals. He'll close in on 1,100, though.
Only six primaries left. Five of them are on June 5--New Jersey, South Dakota, Montana, New Mexico, and the Big One--California. That's 279 delegates combined--172 from California alone--which will, without question, put Romney over the top. (The final primary will then be in Utah on June 26.)
So, when will Romney reach 1,144? Either May 29 in Texas or June 5 in California. Book it.
The more interesting question is: When will Santorum drop out? You'll just have to check back for that one.
But let's be serious--the 2012 Republican Primary has lost its luster. It has grown uncompetitive. The mainstream media has finally caught up to what this blog has been saying for a while--Mitt Romney is the nominee of the Republican Party. Recent endorsements from Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and former president George HW Bush tell us as much. This aura of inevitability puts us in no mans land. The GOP Primary is over, but it's not quite the general election yet, either. Thus, my week off (with more days off to come).
Yet, even with the nomination all but settled, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul forge on, each hoping that their combined delegates will ultimately keep Romney from the requisite 1,144 needed to go into the convention without a deadlocked first ballot. Their pluck, though admirable, will be fruitless. Romney will get there in plenty of time.
When exactly? I'm glad you asked. As of this posting, according to Real Clear Politics, Romney has 565 delegates, meaning he needs to win 579 more. (To estimate exactly when that will be, read this post while referring to the Republican Primary Schedule.)
This Tuesday has three contests--Wisconsin, Maryland, and Washington DC. Romney has always been expected to win Maryland and DC rather easily, and their winner-take-all rules will earn a great delegate haul for him. Santorum was thought to have a shot at Wisconsin, but Romney has stormed into and extended a lead in Wisconsin polls. Of the day's 93 delegates, Romney will take around 75 to get up to about 640.
Then there's an 18-day break until Missouri (again). Santorum might be able to hang on to his favorability there, but with Romney surely considered inevitable after sweeping on April 3, perhaps Santorum will even lose his stranglehold on the Midwest. Let's say the candidates earn a split of the state's 52 delegates. Romney has now tacked on 100 April delegates to bring his total to 665.
Three days later is the sizeable primary day of New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware, the amalgam of which awards 231 delegates. Santorum should win his home state, but get demolished in the other four. Romney easily clears 150 delegates. 815.
Then we turn to May. May 8 has three Santorum states in North Carolina, West Virginia, and Indiana, which combine for 132 delegates. But with Romney surging and Santorum falling apart (if he's even still in the race) Romney probably finds a way to win all three states. Let's give him, for the sake of round numbers, 85 more delegates, bringing him to 900.
May 15 and May 22 have two states each--Nebraska/Oregon and Kentucky/Arkansas, respectively. The four of them combine for 153 delegates, and Romney can expect to continue to consolidate the party, even if three states are in Santorum's former wheelhouse. That's 100 more for 1,000 total.
The May 29 Texas Primary is worth a weighty 155. It doesn't seem Romney will quite reach 1,144 with it, barring a drop outs from his rivals. He'll close in on 1,100, though.
Only six primaries left. Five of them are on June 5--New Jersey, South Dakota, Montana, New Mexico, and the Big One--California. That's 279 delegates combined--172 from California alone--which will, without question, put Romney over the top. (The final primary will then be in Utah on June 26.)
So, when will Romney reach 1,144? Either May 29 in Texas or June 5 in California. Book it.
The more interesting question is: When will Santorum drop out? You'll just have to check back for that one.
Wisconsin, Maryland, Washington DC Preview
To contact us Click HERE
Worst blog post title ever? I think so. Moving on as quickly as possible...
Today are three boring contests. There's little analysis left in the 2012 Republican Primary. If you read my posts this weekend, you saw when we can expect Mitt Romney to reach 1,144 delegates, and when we can expect Rick Santorum to drop out. Still, like I said over at Construction yesterday: Mitt Romney is going to be the nominee of the Republican Party. This aura of inevitability, unfortunately, puts us in “no man’s land.” The GOP Primary is over, but it’s not quite the general election yet, either.
Here we are, then, watching another night of primaries, though, we'll do so with only one eye. Here's a brief preview of each primary tonight.
District of Columbia Primary (16 bound + 3 RNC = 19 delegates)
We'll start with Washington DC as it's not only the easiest to predict, but its delegate rules are also the easiest to understand. Simply, DC's 16 bound delegates are winner-take-all. Additionally, Rick Santorum isn't even on the ballot. Expect a romp by Romney--including an immediate call by the networks when DC's polls close) and 16 more delegates added to his commanding lead. (Gingrich and Paul will continue to be non-factors.)
Maryland Primary (34 bound + 3 RNC = 37 delegates)
The rules get a bit trickier here, but are still straight-forward. Ten of the 34 delegates are awarded to the statewide winner. The remaining 24 are determined by the 8 congressional districts--3 delegates each--and each district itself is winner-take all. In other words, if a candidate wins the state with 40 percent of the vote, and wins each of the districts with 40 percent of the vote, that candidate would clear all 34 bound delegates, even if the runner-up finished with 39 percent of the vote in the state and each district.
This will be a good test as to how much the Republican Party has rallied to Mitt Romney. Can he win 50 percent or more in every district? Rick Santorum has always had strength away from the urban areas, but since Maryland never gets too rural, can Santorum find a way to steal any one of the eight?
I doubt it. I see 34 more delegates for Romney (and another immediate network projection when Maryland polls close). I'm most interested to see if he can clear 50 percent statewide and in each district against all three competitors (he surely will in the District of Columbia without Santorum on the ballot). Look for him to hover right above that number, with Santorum in the mid-to-high 20s, Gingrich in the low teens, and Ron Paul happy if he reaches double-digits.
Wisconsin Primary (42 bound delegates)
Long thought to be Rick Santorum's best chance at an April 3 win, Wisconsin now looks to be the third piece of a Mitt Romney sweep. The last handful of Wisconsin polls reveal Romney with a solid, consistent lead of five to ten points. The primary rules for Wisconsin are identical to Maryland, only with Wisconsin being a bit weightier. Of the 42 bound delegates, 18 go to the winner of the state's popular vote, then three per district (there are 8) make up the other 24.
Here we can finally expect Santorum to pick up some delegates, but not many. By winning the state, Romney will win the 18 at-large delegates. Of the eight districts, however, Santorum can probably win two or three. Therefore, Romney will come away with 33 to 36 Wisconsin delegates, while Santorum will win 6 to 9. (At least we won't have three contests immediately called by the news networks. I'd say we might get an hour out of Wisconsin.)
As CNN covers the contests tonight, they will of course break down the Wisconsin exit polls. What we can expect to see is that the number one issue on the voters' minds is Republican unity/defeating President Obama. Santorum's run nears its end.
In total (98 delegates):
Romney wins around 90
Santorum wins 6-9. (12 with some luck.)
Gingrich--0
Paul--0
And some people say this isn't over yet? Please.
Today are three boring contests. There's little analysis left in the 2012 Republican Primary. If you read my posts this weekend, you saw when we can expect Mitt Romney to reach 1,144 delegates, and when we can expect Rick Santorum to drop out. Still, like I said over at Construction yesterday: Mitt Romney is going to be the nominee of the Republican Party. This aura of inevitability, unfortunately, puts us in “no man’s land.” The GOP Primary is over, but it’s not quite the general election yet, either.
Here we are, then, watching another night of primaries, though, we'll do so with only one eye. Here's a brief preview of each primary tonight.
District of Columbia Primary (16 bound + 3 RNC = 19 delegates)
We'll start with Washington DC as it's not only the easiest to predict, but its delegate rules are also the easiest to understand. Simply, DC's 16 bound delegates are winner-take-all. Additionally, Rick Santorum isn't even on the ballot. Expect a romp by Romney--including an immediate call by the networks when DC's polls close) and 16 more delegates added to his commanding lead. (Gingrich and Paul will continue to be non-factors.)
Maryland Primary (34 bound + 3 RNC = 37 delegates)
The rules get a bit trickier here, but are still straight-forward. Ten of the 34 delegates are awarded to the statewide winner. The remaining 24 are determined by the 8 congressional districts--3 delegates each--and each district itself is winner-take all. In other words, if a candidate wins the state with 40 percent of the vote, and wins each of the districts with 40 percent of the vote, that candidate would clear all 34 bound delegates, even if the runner-up finished with 39 percent of the vote in the state and each district.
This will be a good test as to how much the Republican Party has rallied to Mitt Romney. Can he win 50 percent or more in every district? Rick Santorum has always had strength away from the urban areas, but since Maryland never gets too rural, can Santorum find a way to steal any one of the eight?
I doubt it. I see 34 more delegates for Romney (and another immediate network projection when Maryland polls close). I'm most interested to see if he can clear 50 percent statewide and in each district against all three competitors (he surely will in the District of Columbia without Santorum on the ballot). Look for him to hover right above that number, with Santorum in the mid-to-high 20s, Gingrich in the low teens, and Ron Paul happy if he reaches double-digits.
Wisconsin Primary (42 bound delegates)
Long thought to be Rick Santorum's best chance at an April 3 win, Wisconsin now looks to be the third piece of a Mitt Romney sweep. The last handful of Wisconsin polls reveal Romney with a solid, consistent lead of five to ten points. The primary rules for Wisconsin are identical to Maryland, only with Wisconsin being a bit weightier. Of the 42 bound delegates, 18 go to the winner of the state's popular vote, then three per district (there are 8) make up the other 24.
Here we can finally expect Santorum to pick up some delegates, but not many. By winning the state, Romney will win the 18 at-large delegates. Of the eight districts, however, Santorum can probably win two or three. Therefore, Romney will come away with 33 to 36 Wisconsin delegates, while Santorum will win 6 to 9. (At least we won't have three contests immediately called by the news networks. I'd say we might get an hour out of Wisconsin.)
As CNN covers the contests tonight, they will of course break down the Wisconsin exit polls. What we can expect to see is that the number one issue on the voters' minds is Republican unity/defeating President Obama. Santorum's run nears its end.
In total (98 delegates):
Romney wins around 90
Santorum wins 6-9. (12 with some luck.)
Gingrich--0
Paul--0
And some people say this isn't over yet? Please.
Updated Primary Standings, 4/4
To contact us Click HERE
Here are the latest Republican Primary standings, now factoring in Mitt Romney's sweep last night, though all of the evening's delegates are not yet allocated. I'll update these standings as those websites update theirs.
As you probably know, none of the results last night were a surprise to this blog, with the predicted percentages remarkably close.
Nominating rules for GOP Primary
Total Delegates: 2,286 (Pledged: 1,871; Unpledged: 415)
Number needed to earn nomination: 1,144 (50% + 1)
Republican Delegate Estimates (as of April 4)
CNN Standings
1. Romney--659
2. Santorum-275
3. Gingrich--140
4. Paul--71
Delegates projected: 1145
Remaining delegates: 1141
Remaining delegates Romney needs for nomination: 485
Percentage of remaining delegates Romney needs: 42.5
Real Clear Politics Standings
1. Romney--655
2. Santorum--272
3. Gingrich--14
4. Paul--67
Delegates projected: 1128
Remaining delegates: 1158
Remaining delegates Romney needs for nomination: 492
Percentage of remaining delegates Romney needs: 42.5
Official (or "hard count")**
1. Romney--536
2. Santorum--202
3. Gingrich--132
4. Paul--26
Hard delegates allocated: 896
Remaining delegates: 1390
Remaining delegates Romney needs for nomination: 608
Percentage of remaining delegates Romney needs: 43.6
** From TheGreenPapers.com. It counts only pledged, bound delegates; does not count RNC members, superdelegates, or unbound delegates from caucuses like Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota, Maine, and Washington.
When will Romney reach 1,144?: Read this.
As you probably know, none of the results last night were a surprise to this blog, with the predicted percentages remarkably close.
Nominating rules for GOP Primary
Total Delegates: 2,286 (Pledged: 1,871; Unpledged: 415)
Number needed to earn nomination: 1,144 (50% + 1)
Republican Delegate Estimates (as of April 4)
CNN Standings
1. Romney--659
2. Santorum-275
3. Gingrich--140
4. Paul--71
Delegates projected: 1145
Remaining delegates: 1141
Remaining delegates Romney needs for nomination: 485
Percentage of remaining delegates Romney needs: 42.5
Real Clear Politics Standings
1. Romney--655
2. Santorum--272
3. Gingrich--14
4. Paul--67
Delegates projected: 1128
Remaining delegates: 1158
Remaining delegates Romney needs for nomination: 492
Percentage of remaining delegates Romney needs: 42.5
Official (or "hard count")**
1. Romney--536
2. Santorum--202
3. Gingrich--132
4. Paul--26
Hard delegates allocated: 896
Remaining delegates: 1390
Remaining delegates Romney needs for nomination: 608
Percentage of remaining delegates Romney needs: 43.6
** From TheGreenPapers.com. It counts only pledged, bound delegates; does not count RNC members, superdelegates, or unbound delegates from caucuses like Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota, Maine, and Washington.
When will Romney reach 1,144?: Read this.
PPFA Suspended
To contact us Click HERE
Readership has plummeted as the Republican Primary has cooled. There comes a point where one no longer has interest in talking to an empty room. Moreover, I can't think of anything interesting to say anymore, and I certainly never found a way to discuss boring things in an interesting way. (Granted, whether I ever had anything interesting to say in the first place is itself a matter of debate.) Therefore, using the language of campaigns, Presidential Politics for America is suspended.
I do hope to continue to my weekly Monday column for Construction Lit Mag, though I recommend the website's superior writers if you want more engaging, consistent election updates. Thanks for reading.
-IC
I do hope to continue to my weekly Monday column for Construction Lit Mag, though I recommend the website's superior writers if you want more engaging, consistent election updates. Thanks for reading.
-IC
8 Temmuz 2012 Pazar
The Force was with him
To contact us Click HERE
In his autobiography (Blessings in Disguise, 34-35), Alex Guinness claims he had a premonition of James Dean’s demise. There used to be a snippet of an interview on YouTube in which he recounted the same story.
And here’s another anecdote:
Arthur Koestler, “Anecdotal Cases,” Alister Hardy, Robert Harvie, & Arthur Koestler, The Challenge of Chance (Random House 1974), 184-86.
In his autobiography (Blessings in Disguise, 34-35), Alex Guinness claims he had a premonition of James Dean’s demise. There used to be a snippet of an interview on YouTube in which he recounted the same story.
And here’s another anecdote:
The next story is also one of a disaster averted–in less dramatic and more tortuous ways. It was told by Sir Alec Guinness during a luncheon with mutual friends; he then kindly put it down in writing at my request:
Saturday July 3rd 1971 was, for me, a quiet day of rehearsals ending with dinner with a friend and going to bed at 11:30 PM. Before going to bed I set my two alarm clocks to wake me at 7:20 AM. When working in London at a weekend it has been my habit to get up at 7:20 on the Sunday morning and leave my flat at 7:45 for the short walk to Westminster Cathedral for Mass at 8:00. (I have been a Catholic, of a sort, for about sixteen years.) On returning from Mass I would have a quick light breakfast and catch the 9:50 Portsmouth train, from Waterloo, to my home near Petersfield. On this particular night I remember I didn’t sleep a great deal as I constantly woke up–perhaps each hour–with a tremendous sense of well-being and happiness, for no reason that I can put my finger one.
By habit and instinct I am a very punctual riser in the morning, and usually wake up two or three minutes before the alarm clock rings. On this particular morning I woke, glanced in the half light at the clock and thought “My God, I’ve overslept!” It appeared to me the clock said 7:40 (I didn’t refer to the second clock). I rushed through washing and so on and hurried to the Cathedral. Very unexpectedly–in fact it had never happened before–I found a taxi at that early hour, so I thought I was at the Cathedral at 7:55. With time to spare I went to confession. When Mass started I thought the attendance was considerably larger than usual for eight o’clock. It was only when what was obviously going to be a rather tedious sermon was underway that I glanced at my watch and realized I was at the 9:00 Mass instead of the 8:00. I went home as usual, saw that both my alarm clocks were correct and decided to catch the 10:50 train instead of the 9:50. (My wife was away in Ireland so it made no difference what train I caught.) When I arrived at Waterloo at 10:30 there was an announcement that all trains on the Portsmouth line were delayed for an unspecified amount of time. An enquiry gave me the information that the 9:50 train had been derailed a few miles outside London. Subsequently I found out that it was the front coach of the train which had toppled on its side and that, although no one was killed, or even grievously injured, the occupants of the coach had been badly bruised and taken to hospital. My habit, when catching the 9:50 on a Sunday morning, had been to sit in the front compartment of the front coach because, when in Waterloo station, that coach was in the open air, away from the roofing of Waterloo and consequently with more light for reading and less likelihood of being crowded.
In my reply to his letter I pointed out that he had not only overslept (by an hour and twenty minutes!) but had also misread the clock by an hour; had he not done so, he might have decided to skip mass and catch the ill-fated 9:50 train after all.
He wrote back that he also thought that his misreading the clock was the oddest thing about the story–“particularly as there were two clocks, almost side-by-side.”
Arthur Koestler, “Anecdotal Cases,” Alister Hardy, Robert Harvie, & Arthur Koestler, The Challenge of Chance (Random House 1974), 184-86.
Monersynergism
To contact us Click HERE
On the one hand:
rogereolson says:July 6, 2012 at 12:57 pm
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/07/evangelical-calvinism/comment-page-1/#comment-31767
On the other hand:
rogereolson says:July 6, 2012 at 12:25 pm
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/07/needed-a-renewal-of-christian-humanism/comment-page-1/#comment-31754
rogereolson says:July 6, 2012 at 12:57 pm
I think you’re right. And I am uncomfortable with any attempt to combine monergism and synergism. They just don’t mix.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/07/evangelical-calvinism/comment-page-1/#comment-31767
On the other hand:
rogereolson says:July 6, 2012 at 12:25 pm
We’ve been over this time and time again. I have explained carefully and patiently the nature of prevenient grace as a partial regeneration of the will–sufficient to overcome the bondage of the will to sin and to make possible a decision for God and the gospel of Jesus Christ with repentance and faith.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/07/needed-a-renewal-of-christian-humanism/comment-page-1/#comment-31754
Are the uninsured freeloaders?
To contact us Click HERE
A common trope among Obamacare defenders is the oft-asserted claim that the uninsured are “freeloaders.” What makes them freeloaders, so goes the claim, is that when they get sick they go to the ER, then let someone else pick up the tab.
Do those who spout this popular objection bother to think through the logic of the objection?
i) Why assume that when the uninsured get sick, they must go to the ER? If you’re uninsured, you come down with the flu, and you want a prescription, can’t you schedule an appointment at a medical clinic, then pay on the spot?
ii) But suppose you go to the ER? Won’t you be billed? Hospitals are businesses. They charge for their services.
Are Obamacare defenders claiming that the uninsured never pay their medical bills?
iii) Suppose you don’t pay. (a) either you’re able, but unwilling to pay, (b) or else you’re willing, but unable to pay.
In case of (a), how is that different from any other unpaid bill? That’s what collection agencies are for.
If case of (b), if the uninsured are too poor to pay their medical bills, how can they afford mandated health insurance?
And if their mandated health insurance is subsidized, aren’t they “freeloaders”?
Am I missing something?
Do those who spout this popular objection bother to think through the logic of the objection?
i) Why assume that when the uninsured get sick, they must go to the ER? If you’re uninsured, you come down with the flu, and you want a prescription, can’t you schedule an appointment at a medical clinic, then pay on the spot?
ii) But suppose you go to the ER? Won’t you be billed? Hospitals are businesses. They charge for their services.
Are Obamacare defenders claiming that the uninsured never pay their medical bills?
iii) Suppose you don’t pay. (a) either you’re able, but unwilling to pay, (b) or else you’re willing, but unable to pay.
In case of (a), how is that different from any other unpaid bill? That’s what collection agencies are for.
If case of (b), if the uninsured are too poor to pay their medical bills, how can they afford mandated health insurance?
And if their mandated health insurance is subsidized, aren’t they “freeloaders”?
Am I missing something?
‘Who knows?’
To contact us Click HERE
Michael Liccione won’t talk historical facts with me because I don’t have an “interpretive paradigm” that meets his standard.
In his most recent comment to me, he says:
Here is what he means by his “interpretive paradigm” (“IP”) thesis:
It may be “logically possible” that God would “validate some clearly identifiable authority whose interpretation is divinely protected from error under certain conditions”.
But whether he has ever done so is open to question.
He had plenty of opportunity to do it – in the Old Testament, when he was dealing with one single nation, Israel, he did not do it. This concept (see comment #425) of “some clearly identifiable authority whose interpretation of the relevant data is divinely protected from error under certain conditions” does not come from Scripture, and in striving to provide some kind of certainty like this, you, humanly, work to outdo the Old Testament God and the God of the prophets.
Look at a couple of Old Testament examples of how God “identifies the formal, proximate object of faith in four different instances.
In his first sermon at Pentecost, Peter cites Joel 28:32:
This is part of a longer sermon from Joel, who first prophesies about “the day of the Lord”, saying “The Lord thunders at the head of his army; his forces are beyond number, and mighty is the army that obeys his command. The day of the Lord is great; it is dreadful. Who can endure it?”
The earlier part of this prophecy is filled with darkness and gloom and blackness; a mighty arming coming; before them fire devours; behind them a flame blazes; nothing escapes them.
In the midst of this, the prophet offers this opportunity that the Lord may relent:
Dealing with The LORD in the Old Testament was not a matter of certainty – even a recognized prophet here, while “declaring the word of the LORD”, could not and did not offer certainty on the “formal proximate object of faith” that was right in front of his audience. He said “do what’s right”, and “who knows? The Lord may relent”.
The Old Testament is full of other incidents, where not even the prophets who write the Scriptures offer the correct interpretation. They must leave “the formal proximate object of faith” in the hands of the Lord, and say they simply don’t know.
In the book of Jonah, the prophet promises destruction for the land of Nineveh.
The king of Nineveh, greatly distressed that a prophet of the Lord would say this, “rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust”. And he said:
The passage continues, “When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.”
Similarly Mordecai speaking to Esther said: “Do not think that because you are in the king’s house you alone of all the Jews will escape. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father’s family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to your royal position for such a time as this?”
Even King David, when the child of Bathsheba was going to die (a prophecy he received from the lips of the prophet Nathan), in spite of this prophecy, proposed for belief by the lips of the prophet, even after the Lord had struck the child with illness, “and he became ill”, “David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them”.
Then the child dies. Note what happened next:
Even when specific prophecies came up in the Old Testament, with the LORD declaring that he would do something in the immediate future, there was no “infallible interpretation” of these prophesies.
It is said, “a book cannot guide you”. But when we deal with the word of the Lord, we are dealing directly with the Lord – a Lord who spoke, who promised destruction, and then who did or who didn’t keep that promise, according to the counsel of his own will.
God, whose character is immutable, does not feel bound by the human need to have a mouthpiece – any mouthpiece – Old Testament Prophets or New Testament church – that is “divinely protected from error”. That is just not how God rolls.
Even C.S. Lewis noted, “Aslan is not a tame lion”.
For you Roman Catholics who want to hide behind “some clearly identifiable authority whose interpretation of the relevant data is divinely protected from error under certain conditions”, well, you may just be setting yourself up for a big surprise.
In his most recent comment to me, he says:
The reason I decline to delve into the details with you–even though the details are amply provided by some Catholic and Anglican scholars–is that you are relying on your interpretive paradigm to sift the data, when the real question at issue is the prior philosophical question which IP is best suited to yielding propositions calling for the assent of faith as distinct from opinion. You cannot evade that question by continuing to march on the spot and criticize me for refusing to march with you.
Here is what he means by his “interpretive paradigm” (“IP”) thesis:
In many comments on this site as well as old posts on my own blog, I have argued that there is an irreconcilable difference between the respective “hermeneutical paradigms” of Catholicism and Protestantism, meaning conservative Protestantism.
But according to the Catholic IP, [the protestant “IP” that he described is] a methodology [that] is insufficient for reliably identifying the formal, proximate object of faith as distinct from human opinion. Though necessary, studying the early written sources and making inferences from them can only yield human interpretive opinions, unless validated by some clearly identifiable authority whose interpretation of the relevant data is divinely protected from error under certain conditions — a gift which, all sides would agree, is at least logically possible, given what and who God is.
It may be “logically possible” that God would “validate some clearly identifiable authority whose interpretation is divinely protected from error under certain conditions”.
But whether he has ever done so is open to question.
He had plenty of opportunity to do it – in the Old Testament, when he was dealing with one single nation, Israel, he did not do it. This concept (see comment #425) of “some clearly identifiable authority whose interpretation of the relevant data is divinely protected from error under certain conditions” does not come from Scripture, and in striving to provide some kind of certainty like this, you, humanly, work to outdo the Old Testament God and the God of the prophets.
Look at a couple of Old Testament examples of how God “identifies the formal, proximate object of faith in four different instances.
In his first sermon at Pentecost, Peter cites Joel 28:32:
“‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
…
And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.
This is part of a longer sermon from Joel, who first prophesies about “the day of the Lord”, saying “The Lord thunders at the head of his army; his forces are beyond number, and mighty is the army that obeys his command. The day of the Lord is great; it is dreadful. Who can endure it?”
The earlier part of this prophecy is filled with darkness and gloom and blackness; a mighty arming coming; before them fire devours; behind them a flame blazes; nothing escapes them.
In the midst of this, the prophet offers this opportunity that the Lord may relent:
“Even now,” declares the Lord,
“return to me with all your heart,
with fasting and weeping and mourning.”
Rend your heart
and not your garments.
Return to the Lord your God,
for he is gracious and compassionate,
slow to anger and abounding in love,
and he relents from sending calamity.
Who knows? He may turn and relent
and leave behind a blessing—
Dealing with The LORD in the Old Testament was not a matter of certainty – even a recognized prophet here, while “declaring the word of the LORD”, could not and did not offer certainty on the “formal proximate object of faith” that was right in front of his audience. He said “do what’s right”, and “who knows? The Lord may relent”.
The Old Testament is full of other incidents, where not even the prophets who write the Scriptures offer the correct interpretation. They must leave “the formal proximate object of faith” in the hands of the Lord, and say they simply don’t know.
In the book of Jonah, the prophet promises destruction for the land of Nineveh.
The word of the Lord came to Jonah son of Amittai: “Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me. … Jonah began by going a day’s journey into the city, proclaiming, “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown.”
The king of Nineveh, greatly distressed that a prophet of the Lord would say this, “rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust”. And he said:
Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.”
The passage continues, “When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.”
Similarly Mordecai speaking to Esther said: “Do not think that because you are in the king’s house you alone of all the Jews will escape. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father’s family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to your royal position for such a time as this?”
Even King David, when the child of Bathsheba was going to die (a prophecy he received from the lips of the prophet Nathan), in spite of this prophecy, proposed for belief by the lips of the prophet, even after the Lord had struck the child with illness, “and he became ill”, “David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them”.
Then the child dies. Note what happened next:
His attendants asked him, “Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!”
He answered, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, ‘Who knows? The Lord may be gracious to me and let the child live.’ But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”
Even when specific prophecies came up in the Old Testament, with the LORD declaring that he would do something in the immediate future, there was no “infallible interpretation” of these prophesies.
It is said, “a book cannot guide you”. But when we deal with the word of the Lord, we are dealing directly with the Lord – a Lord who spoke, who promised destruction, and then who did or who didn’t keep that promise, according to the counsel of his own will.
God, whose character is immutable, does not feel bound by the human need to have a mouthpiece – any mouthpiece – Old Testament Prophets or New Testament church – that is “divinely protected from error”. That is just not how God rolls.
Even C.S. Lewis noted, “Aslan is not a tame lion”.
For you Roman Catholics who want to hide behind “some clearly identifiable authority whose interpretation of the relevant data is divinely protected from error under certain conditions”, well, you may just be setting yourself up for a big surprise.
“Seek and you will find; … the one who seeks finds…. If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him”
To contact us Click HERE
Michael Liccione (#432)
And you are holding this concept above the Scriptures themselves. It is just special pleading. Scripture doesn’t say what you need it to say, so you impose a lens that gives you (and Rome) the answer that’s required. You are looking for (and Rome is illicitly providing) a kind of certainty that God does not offer.
The paradigm that I hold is that God is powerful enough to have created human beings in such a way that he can communicate what he needs and intends to communicate directly through His word.
There is nothing in Scripture that says that anything else is up to the task of “interpreting Scripture”. Scripture, in fact, portrays itself as “the interpretation” of the “acts”, so to speak, of God in history.
The character of God in the Old Testament (or in the New) gives no hint that He is insufficient in this way. Nor does the Scripture relate anywhere that God’s word is lacking in any property (including the ability to be sufficient in itself). Again, as I said above, God speaks and the world comes into existence. That is how God’s word works. For you to be claiming what you are claiming is to deny God the power that he has – in this case, the power to communicate.
The difference is “the due use of ordinary means”, or the pleading of some kind of special supernaturalism that is imposed that “always makes Roman doctrine correct, even when we perceive some kind of inconsistency”. If you are genuinely seeking the Lord, it is better to trust your own mind, -- and like-minded teachers (see WCF 31, and teachers who ministerially settle controversies), than the infallible Roman paradigm which denies God's ability to communicate with His people.
And here’s a challenge for you: when is the first time in history that some kind of need for an “interpretive paradigm” occurred? When did Christians (of any kind) first decide that they could not trust their eyes or their own reason to understand what God was saying? Somewhere between Loyola and his Spiritual Exercises, and Newman. Bossuet (“semper eadem”) was not aware of any such thing.
No, using the OT is a way to establish both the character of God and how He works. There is plenty more from the NT. The “Catholic IP” is rigged after-the-fact. And the way to see this is to work to understand church history from the beginning – “what they knew, and when they knew it”.
Consider Luke 1:
Consider Peter in Acts 2:
Consider Paul’s response to “leadership” (and this is one of his earliest letters, c. 50 A.D – if anyone had a first-hand view of “the Church that Christ Founded™, it would be Paul). Consider Paul’s “obedience of faith” in these two instances:
Please don’t bring up the old canard about Peter not being “infallible” in matters not of the faith. Note the attitude toward any supposed “authority”. This is “Peter” the supposed “rock”, with “divine authority”.
I could go on and on with this sort of thing.
This again is special pleading. Note Paul’s response to Peter. Paul was in possession of “complete” revelation.
This again is special pleading. Note Paul’s response to Peter. Paul was in possession of “complete” revelation.
The Jews had only “provisional opinions”, and yet, Jesus as he lived and breathed had no qualms about holding them accountable for something more definite: “not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven”.
This is just your opinion, and it in no way reflects the direction that conservative Protestant biblical scholarship is headed. The Bible has, over the last 200 years, undergone a far more strenuous rectal exam than anything that I’ve been saying about Roman Catholicism here; and yet, the work that conservative scholars is producing is shedding an incredible amount of light on that world and those times. Such things as Hurtado’s “Lord Jesus Christ” and Kruger’s “Canon Revisited” are shedding new light on the earliest church – the real, historical “church that Christ founded” – their beliefs and practices, the courses of their lives, the world they lived in. This is the most incredible time to be alive – seeing the first century world being brought to life.
Some of the folks here have glommed onto the NPP and N.T. Wright. That’s foolish. Here is what Wright says about Roman Catholicism:
Meanwhile, Carson, O’Brien, and Siefrid, with their “Justification and Variegated Nomism” series, used Sanders’s method to go far beyond what he tried to do, and in doing so, they put him into perspective. Meanwhile, Dunn and Wright have both made key concessions (see Dunn’s comments in the “Justification: Five Views” volume.
What you are essentially saying here is that God does not, cannot, reveal himself adequately in Scripture. Lots of people have lots of views. But there is a substantially correct view, and those who prayerfully seek the face of the Lord in the Scriptures are promised that they will find Him.
Michael Liccione (#432)
You're still missing the point. As I've often said before, both on this site and elsewhere, it belongs to the very concept of an interpretive paradigm that no IP can be secured simply on the basis of that which is to be interpreted.
And you are holding this concept above the Scriptures themselves. It is just special pleading. Scripture doesn’t say what you need it to say, so you impose a lens that gives you (and Rome) the answer that’s required. You are looking for (and Rome is illicitly providing) a kind of certainty that God does not offer.
An IP is something one brings to what's interpreted, rather than something one derives from it.
The paradigm that I hold is that God is powerful enough to have created human beings in such a way that he can communicate what he needs and intends to communicate directly through His word.
There is nothing in Scripture which can demonstrate, as a matter of rational necessity, that Scripture alone suffices to interpret Scripture.
There is nothing in Scripture that says that anything else is up to the task of “interpreting Scripture”. Scripture, in fact, portrays itself as “the interpretation” of the “acts”, so to speak, of God in history.
The character of God in the Old Testament (or in the New) gives no hint that He is insufficient in this way. Nor does the Scripture relate anywhere that God’s word is lacking in any property (including the ability to be sufficient in itself). Again, as I said above, God speaks and the world comes into existence. That is how God’s word works. For you to be claiming what you are claiming is to deny God the power that he has – in this case, the power to communicate.
Because such a thing is in fact impossible, nobody does it--not even you. Otherwise there would be no need for historical, linguistic, and other studies as aids to exegesis. You strive to conduct and use such means, and rightly so. It's necessary, albeit not sufficient, for identifying those doctrines which express divine revelation, and for understanding them to the extent that is given to us. The question is not whether we are to use extra-scriptural means for studying Scripture, but which ensemble of means are best suited for carrying out the ultimate purpose of studying Scripture.
The difference is “the due use of ordinary means”, or the pleading of some kind of special supernaturalism that is imposed that “always makes Roman doctrine correct, even when we perceive some kind of inconsistency”. If you are genuinely seeking the Lord, it is better to trust your own mind, -- and like-minded teachers (see WCF 31, and teachers who ministerially settle controversies), than the infallible Roman paradigm which denies God's ability to communicate with His people.
And here’s a challenge for you: when is the first time in history that some kind of need for an “interpretive paradigm” occurred? When did Christians (of any kind) first decide that they could not trust their eyes or their own reason to understand what God was saying? Somewhere between Loyola and his Spiritual Exercises, and Newman. Bossuet (“semper eadem”) was not aware of any such thing.
Nonetheless, I find it noteworthy that all your counter-examples to the Catholic IP are drawn from the Old Testament. That is just a thoroughly question-begging way of applying your own IP, rather than an apposite attempt to engage the Catholic IP.
No, using the OT is a way to establish both the character of God and how He works. There is plenty more from the NT. The “Catholic IP” is rigged after-the-fact. And the way to see this is to work to understand church history from the beginning – “what they knew, and when they knew it”.
Consider Luke 1:
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled [acts of God in history] among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses [of the acts of God in history] and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught [i.e., the acts of God in history, and their significance].
Consider Peter in Acts 2:
God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.
Consider Paul’s response to “leadership” (and this is one of his earliest letters, c. 50 A.D – if anyone had a first-hand view of “the Church that Christ Founded™, it would be Paul). Consider Paul’s “obedience of faith” in these two instances:
As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,just as Peter had been to the circumcised….
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned….
Please don’t bring up the old canard about Peter not being “infallible” in matters not of the faith. Note the attitude toward any supposed “authority”. This is “Peter” the supposed “rock”, with “divine authority”.
I could go on and on with this sort of thing.
Yet, as I indicated a few years ago in my lengthy exchange with Prof. R. F. White, I agree that no OT authorities interpreted Scripture infallibly. The only infallibility exercised in the Old Testament was that secured by virtue of divine inspiration to write the Scriptures themselves. That's because divine revelation was not yet complete; it unfolded gradually, so that it was easy even for the most pious Jews to misinterpret the ultimate meaning of their Scriptures, which was their fulfillment in Jesus Christ.
This again is special pleading. Note Paul’s response to Peter. Paul was in possession of “complete” revelation.
And that's why most Jewish scholars in Jesus' day didn't seem him as that fulfillment. Nobody could interpret the deposit of faith infallibly, even in principle, until it was given in its entirety through the "Christ-event."
This again is special pleading. Note Paul’s response to Peter. Paul was in possession of “complete” revelation.
That said, if there is still no living, visible authority on earth that Christ authorized to interpret said deposit infallibly in his name, then the question what belongs in the Bible, and how to interpret it, can only be answered with provisional opinions.
The Jews had only “provisional opinions”, and yet, Jesus as he lived and breathed had no qualms about holding them accountable for something more definite: “not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven”.
If you're content with that result, then all I can say is what I said in my article: your brand of conservative Protestantism is just "liberal Protestantism waiting to happen all over again."
This is just your opinion, and it in no way reflects the direction that conservative Protestant biblical scholarship is headed. The Bible has, over the last 200 years, undergone a far more strenuous rectal exam than anything that I’ve been saying about Roman Catholicism here; and yet, the work that conservative scholars is producing is shedding an incredible amount of light on that world and those times. Such things as Hurtado’s “Lord Jesus Christ” and Kruger’s “Canon Revisited” are shedding new light on the earliest church – the real, historical “church that Christ founded” – their beliefs and practices, the courses of their lives, the world they lived in. This is the most incredible time to be alive – seeing the first century world being brought to life.
Some of the folks here have glommed onto the NPP and N.T. Wright. That’s foolish. Here is what Wright says about Roman Catholicism:
In particular, Trent gave the wrong answer, at a deep level, to the nature/grace question, which is what’s at the root of the Marian dogmas and devotions which, despite contrary claims, are in my view neither sacramental, transformational, communal nor eschatological. Nor biblical.
Meanwhile, Carson, O’Brien, and Siefrid, with their “Justification and Variegated Nomism” series, used Sanders’s method to go far beyond what he tried to do, and in doing so, they put him into perspective. Meanwhile, Dunn and Wright have both made key concessions (see Dunn’s comments in the “Justification: Five Views” volume.
Thus, when you say things like "....when we deal with the word of the Lord, we are dealing directly with the Lord," that God's "character" is "immutable," and that "God rolls" as you describe, you are in no position to explain why such assertions represent anything more than one set of opinions among the many others that circulate. I studied many of those others in college, and of course they've proliferated since.
What you are essentially saying here is that God does not, cannot, reveal himself adequately in Scripture. Lots of people have lots of views. But there is a substantially correct view, and those who prayerfully seek the face of the Lord in the Scriptures are promised that they will find Him.
7 Temmuz 2012 Cumartesi
It's a GOP Race of Two and a Half Candidates
To contact us Click HERE
It's a GOP Race of Two and a Half Candidates
Shouldn't it be obvious by now? This is a race of two and a half candidates. Much as former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum would like it to be a two-candidate competition for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, it is not. And while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich believes that it is a three person race, it is not that either.
Scroll down - Santorum threat to Romney ahead with Etch-a-Sketch gaffe & Romney flip-lops -See flip-flop video links
Gingrich --besides the Alabama and Mississippi races, has been stuck in the seven to 15 percentage zone. His returns in all the other recent primaries bear that out:
14.4 percent in Kansas
10.9 percent in Hawaii
8.0 percent in Illinois
(Remember that Gingrich did not even have the organization for getting into the Missouri contest; and Puerto Rico saw Gingrich getting an even weaker return, two percent.)
The former Confederate states provide the exception to the rule of Gingrich mired below 15 percent in the primaries or caucuses. The Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi contests were in the to 23.9 to 31.2 percent range. So, with Gingrich's 15.9 percent share of the vote in yesterday's Louisiana primary, this was a precipitous defeat.
Crushing defeat for Romney
Furthermore, the Louisiana results were terrific for Santorum and terrible for Romney. Santorum took the entire state, save for one county, Orleans County, the one with the state's largest city, New Orleans. With Santorum's win of 49.0 percent of the vote, the Louisiana win was his third greatest victory yet since the Missouri contests with 55.2 percent of the vote. and Kansas with 51.2 percent. Romney was over 20 percentage points behind Santorum in Louisiana with 27.0 percent.
References:
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c
http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-republican-primary-schedule/
With either reference click on the state contests on the 2012 table for the links to the addresses for the 2012 primary returns.
THESE WILL BE SANTORUM'S NEXT VICTORIES & HOW WILL VOTERS REACT TO MITT'S FLIP-FLOPS?:
One cannot help but think that longtime Romney campaign advisor Eric Fehrnstrom's Wednesday March 21 gaffe that Romney will switch his positions in the general election campaign with President Obama like Etch-a--Sketch will play poorly with authentic conservative voters.
The quote:
4/24, a Tuesday: Pennsylvania, aside from the northeastern (Delaware, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island) primaries losses to Romney
(And Romney's victories in New York, Connecticut and Delaware will not be that total. For upstate New York is much like the conservative regions of Pennsylvania and unlike any area in New England. See maps of these results from 2002 or 2004; and Connecticut is the state in which Republicans ion 2010 chose flaky World Wrestling Entertainment entrepreneur Linda McMahon for their Senatorial nominee, and Delaware is the state that gave us even flakier not ready for prime time Christine O'Donnell as its 2010 Senatorial nominee. So there will be big percentages for Santorum in those states. With the proportional distribution of delegates in these states the Romney victories will not mean a thorough sweep of the delegates, for Santorum will take his fair share with the proportionality rules.
This statement, combined with Romney's record of flip-flops in transitioning from Massachusetts to the national stage, will further caste doubt on his real plans for governing. See this set of videos of Romney's public statements on issues ranging from abortion to Contract for America, gay marriage and gun control. Youtube video of Romney speaking in support of Massachusetts' gun control laws. Youtube compilation of Romney flip-flops, "Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush." "That's what we did in Massachusetts. That is, we put together an [health care insurance] exchange. The president's copying that idea. I'm glad to hear that." On global warming: "I believe that the world is getting warmer. I believe that humans are contribute to that.")
5/8, a Tuesday: Indiana, West Virginia primaries
5/15, a Tuesday: Nebraska primary
*Multiple choice exam on Mitt Romney positions on social and economic issues:
http://massresistance.org/romney/quiz/MittRomney20.pdf
5/22, a Tuesday: Arkansas, Kentucky primaries
Shouldn't it be obvious by now? This is a race of two and a half candidates. Much as former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum would like it to be a two-candidate competition for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, it is not. And while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich believes that it is a three person race, it is not that either.
Scroll down - Santorum threat to Romney ahead with Etch-a-Sketch gaffe & Romney flip-lops -See flip-flop video links
Gingrich --besides the Alabama and Mississippi races, has been stuck in the seven to 15 percentage zone. His returns in all the other recent primaries bear that out:
14.4 percent in Kansas
10.9 percent in Hawaii
8.0 percent in Illinois
(Remember that Gingrich did not even have the organization for getting into the Missouri contest; and Puerto Rico saw Gingrich getting an even weaker return, two percent.)
The former Confederate states provide the exception to the rule of Gingrich mired below 15 percent in the primaries or caucuses. The Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi contests were in the to 23.9 to 31.2 percent range. So, with Gingrich's 15.9 percent share of the vote in yesterday's Louisiana primary, this was a precipitous defeat.
Crushing defeat for Romney
Furthermore, the Louisiana results were terrific for Santorum and terrible for Romney. Santorum took the entire state, save for one county, Orleans County, the one with the state's largest city, New Orleans. With Santorum's win of 49.0 percent of the vote, the Louisiana win was his third greatest victory yet since the Missouri contests with 55.2 percent of the vote. and Kansas with 51.2 percent. Romney was over 20 percentage points behind Santorum in Louisiana with 27.0 percent.
References:
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c
http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-republican-primary-schedule/
With either reference click on the state contests on the 2012 table for the links to the addresses for the 2012 primary returns.
THESE WILL BE SANTORUM'S NEXT VICTORIES & HOW WILL VOTERS REACT TO MITT'S FLIP-FLOPS?:
One cannot help but think that longtime Romney campaign advisor Eric Fehrnstrom's Wednesday March 21 gaffe that Romney will switch his positions in the general election campaign with President Obama like Etch-a--Sketch will play poorly with authentic conservative voters.
The quote:
“Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.”4/3, a Tuesday: Wisconsin primary
4/24, a Tuesday: Pennsylvania, aside from the northeastern (Delaware, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island) primaries losses to Romney
(And Romney's victories in New York, Connecticut and Delaware will not be that total. For upstate New York is much like the conservative regions of Pennsylvania and unlike any area in New England. See maps of these results from 2002 or 2004; and Connecticut is the state in which Republicans ion 2010 chose flaky World Wrestling Entertainment entrepreneur Linda McMahon for their Senatorial nominee, and Delaware is the state that gave us even flakier not ready for prime time Christine O'Donnell as its 2010 Senatorial nominee. So there will be big percentages for Santorum in those states. With the proportional distribution of delegates in these states the Romney victories will not mean a thorough sweep of the delegates, for Santorum will take his fair share with the proportionality rules.
This statement, combined with Romney's record of flip-flops in transitioning from Massachusetts to the national stage, will further caste doubt on his real plans for governing. See this set of videos of Romney's public statements on issues ranging from abortion to Contract for America, gay marriage and gun control. Youtube video of Romney speaking in support of Massachusetts' gun control laws. Youtube compilation of Romney flip-flops, "Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush." "That's what we did in Massachusetts. That is, we put together an [health care insurance] exchange. The president's copying that idea. I'm glad to hear that." On global warming: "I believe that the world is getting warmer. I believe that humans are contribute to that.")
5/8, a Tuesday: Indiana, West Virginia primaries
5/15, a Tuesday: Nebraska primary
*Multiple choice exam on Mitt Romney positions on social and economic issues:
http://massresistance.org/romney/quiz/MittRomney20.pdf
5/22, a Tuesday: Arkansas, Kentucky primaries
Spain's general strike shows first signs of rebellion against austerity
To contact us Click HERE
Spain's general strike shows first signs of rebellion against austerity
Austerity measures look set to become far more dramatic on Friday, when prime minister Mariano Rajoy delivers one of harshest budgets ever seen in Europe
Giles Tremlett, in The Guardian, March 29, 2012
With near-empty railway stations, shut factories, mass marches and occasional outbreaks of violence during a general strike on Thursday, Spaniards showed the first signs of rebellion against the reformist, austerity-preaching conservative government they voted in four months ago.
Police and pickets clashed in a handful of places, but it was a largely peaceful general strike in a country whose sinking economy, with 23% unemployment, has become the focus of worry about the future of the whole eurozone area.
Thousands of police officers remained on duty around the country on Thursday night as tens of thousands of flag-waving demonstrators flooded into city centres for protest marches against labour reform and austerity measures introduced by prime minister Mariano Rajoy's conservative People's party [PP].
Demonstrators brought the centres of Madrid, Barcelona and other cities to a standstill as trade unions claimed the strike was more widely supported than previous nationwide stoppages in 2010 and 2002. Rajoy's officials claimed, however, that the 2010 strike against a socialist government had received greater support.
Electricity consumption fell by 17%, suggesting the strike was impacting on major industries – though most shops appeared to be open in Madrid.
Street fires were set in both Madrid and Barcelona, where roads into the city were blocked, but there were few reports of serious violence.
The strike was most successful where Spain's big two unions, the General Workers Union and the Workers Commissions, are strongest – in large factories, the civil service and transport.
General Workers leader Cándido Méndez put average participation at midday at 77% but said that it was 97%in industry and construction.
"This strike has been an unquestionable success," he said.
Civilized protest looked unlikely to alter the determination of the government to drive on with reforms and austerity.
Rajoy has pledged not to backtrack on reform that has made it easier for employers to sack workers. And the austerity measures which strikers also demonstrated against looked set to become far more dramatic on Friday, when Rajoy is set to deliver one of the harshest budgets ever seen in Europe.
The general strike came on Rajoy's 100th day in power and at the end of a week that marks a watershed in political support for his party.
At the weekend he had seen support slip away in Spain's largest region, southern Andalucia, where the PP's share of the vote fell in a regional election from 46% to 41%.
The party also did badly in the northern region of Asturias, where it finished in third place in a Sunday vote.
Regional governments, which provide most welfare services and jointly failed to reduce their deficits at all last year, are seen as one of Spain's main problems.
The strike came amid growing concern about Spain in Brussels and the financial markets, which have put pressure on bond yields in recent weeks – though the Spanish government has had no trouble borrowing money to finance itself.
Yields remain below the levels at which bailed-out eurozone countries like Greece, Ireland and neighbouring Portugal were forced to seek help. Spain's national debt remains lower than in most eurozone countries.
Portugal's central bank cut its economic outlook on Thursday, warning the economy would be flat next year, where it had previously forecast a mild rebound of 0.3%. This year it expects a contraction of 3.4%.
With an economy that is twice the size of Greece, Portugal and Ireland put together, however, problems in Spain would have far-reaching consequences.
Rajoy held the budget back until Friday in order to avoid alienating voters in Andalucia, a strategy that has annoyed some commentators who believe he has wasted valuable time.
The European Union has set Spain a target of cutting its deficit from 8.5% of GDP to 5.3% this year, a net cut of some €34bn (£28.3bn).
As Spain falls back into a double-dip recession, however, economists say austerity measures will sharpen the fall. The government already predicts a 1.7% fall in GDP this year, with unemployment rising to 24%.
And with Spain entering a spiral of falling tax income, higher unemployment and recession, the real size of the cuts or tax hikes needed to meet the deficit target are much higher.
Economists have put the total adjustment needed to meet this year's target at between €52bn and €64bn – or well over €1,000 per Spaniard. The government has already covered €15bn of that with emergency measures announced in December.
Government sources said they were aware that Spain's credibility with the markets was on the line if it failed to meet the target, though some economists consider this impossible.
But Juan José Toribio, of Spain's IESE business school, said the country could no longer afford the welfare state built up during boom years and fuelled by a giant housing bubble that has since burst.
"We cannot sustain the current model of the welfare state," he said. "I am not saying we cannot have welfare, but we must seek a less expensive model."
Kathleen Brooks, research director at Forex.com, warned that the sight of protesters on the streets of several Spanish cities will prompts fears that the government might relax its fiscal plans, making sovereign debt a less attractive purchase.
Austerity measures look set to become far more dramatic on Friday, when prime minister Mariano Rajoy delivers one of harshest budgets ever seen in Europe
Giles Tremlett, in The Guardian, March 29, 2012
With near-empty railway stations, shut factories, mass marches and occasional outbreaks of violence during a general strike on Thursday, Spaniards showed the first signs of rebellion against the reformist, austerity-preaching conservative government they voted in four months ago.
Police and pickets clashed in a handful of places, but it was a largely peaceful general strike in a country whose sinking economy, with 23% unemployment, has become the focus of worry about the future of the whole eurozone area.
Thousands of police officers remained on duty around the country on Thursday night as tens of thousands of flag-waving demonstrators flooded into city centres for protest marches against labour reform and austerity measures introduced by prime minister Mariano Rajoy's conservative People's party [PP].
Demonstrators brought the centres of Madrid, Barcelona and other cities to a standstill as trade unions claimed the strike was more widely supported than previous nationwide stoppages in 2010 and 2002. Rajoy's officials claimed, however, that the 2010 strike against a socialist government had received greater support.
Electricity consumption fell by 17%, suggesting the strike was impacting on major industries – though most shops appeared to be open in Madrid.
Street fires were set in both Madrid and Barcelona, where roads into the city were blocked, but there were few reports of serious violence.
The strike was most successful where Spain's big two unions, the General Workers Union and the Workers Commissions, are strongest – in large factories, the civil service and transport.
General Workers leader Cándido Méndez put average participation at midday at 77% but said that it was 97%in industry and construction.
"This strike has been an unquestionable success," he said.
Civilized protest looked unlikely to alter the determination of the government to drive on with reforms and austerity.
Rajoy has pledged not to backtrack on reform that has made it easier for employers to sack workers. And the austerity measures which strikers also demonstrated against looked set to become far more dramatic on Friday, when Rajoy is set to deliver one of the harshest budgets ever seen in Europe.
The general strike came on Rajoy's 100th day in power and at the end of a week that marks a watershed in political support for his party.
At the weekend he had seen support slip away in Spain's largest region, southern Andalucia, where the PP's share of the vote fell in a regional election from 46% to 41%.
The party also did badly in the northern region of Asturias, where it finished in third place in a Sunday vote.
Regional governments, which provide most welfare services and jointly failed to reduce their deficits at all last year, are seen as one of Spain's main problems.
The strike came amid growing concern about Spain in Brussels and the financial markets, which have put pressure on bond yields in recent weeks – though the Spanish government has had no trouble borrowing money to finance itself.
Yields remain below the levels at which bailed-out eurozone countries like Greece, Ireland and neighbouring Portugal were forced to seek help. Spain's national debt remains lower than in most eurozone countries.
Portugal's central bank cut its economic outlook on Thursday, warning the economy would be flat next year, where it had previously forecast a mild rebound of 0.3%. This year it expects a contraction of 3.4%.
With an economy that is twice the size of Greece, Portugal and Ireland put together, however, problems in Spain would have far-reaching consequences.
Rajoy held the budget back until Friday in order to avoid alienating voters in Andalucia, a strategy that has annoyed some commentators who believe he has wasted valuable time.
The European Union has set Spain a target of cutting its deficit from 8.5% of GDP to 5.3% this year, a net cut of some €34bn (£28.3bn).
As Spain falls back into a double-dip recession, however, economists say austerity measures will sharpen the fall. The government already predicts a 1.7% fall in GDP this year, with unemployment rising to 24%.
And with Spain entering a spiral of falling tax income, higher unemployment and recession, the real size of the cuts or tax hikes needed to meet the deficit target are much higher.
Economists have put the total adjustment needed to meet this year's target at between €52bn and €64bn – or well over €1,000 per Spaniard. The government has already covered €15bn of that with emergency measures announced in December.
Government sources said they were aware that Spain's credibility with the markets was on the line if it failed to meet the target, though some economists consider this impossible.
But Juan José Toribio, of Spain's IESE business school, said the country could no longer afford the welfare state built up during boom years and fuelled by a giant housing bubble that has since burst.
"We cannot sustain the current model of the welfare state," he said. "I am not saying we cannot have welfare, but we must seek a less expensive model."
Kathleen Brooks, research director at Forex.com, warned that the sight of protesters on the streets of several Spanish cities will prompts fears that the government might relax its fiscal plans, making sovereign debt a less attractive purchase.
How Will Greek and Other Under the Debt Gun Voters React?
To contact us Click HERE
BREAKING NEWS UPDATE:
GREECE TO DISSOLVE PARLIAMENT TODAY; TO HOLD SNAP PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION, SUNDAY, MAY 6
Details in this Reuters story from Tuesday night, April 10. Parliament has been summoned to meet Wednesday, April 11, at 2 PM, GMT.
(Alexis Tsipras, the next #2 leader of a coalition government? Tsipras is a civil engineer, and is the leader of Synaspismos political party, which is a leading party of the coalition of left parties, Coalition of the Radical Left [SYRIZA].)
(Scroll to the bottom for other austerity-strained countries' elections, this year and next.)
Europe is have a sovereign debt crisis.
Greece, most hardest it with austerity in this crisis, is having its parliamentary elections in April of 2012 (Sunday, April 29 or May 6, according to wikipedia). Already, polls are indicating that Greek voters are already set to vote in in increasing percentages for the Communist or other left parties.
Traditionally, either of the two largest political parties, New Democracy (the conservative party) or PASOK (the socialist party), had governed with a majority or a large plurality of 40 or more percent. In this era of the European sovereign debt crisis, it appears that Greece is heading to a party system with no party winning more than one-third of the vote. We are looking to a situation in which a government will be formed from a collection of eight or so parties. And it looks as though left of Socialist parties will pick up a larger percentage of the vote.
Ekathimerini.com reports with an April 1 dateline that the conservative New Democrats are anticipated to receive 22.5 percent. PASOK is polling at 15.5 percent. The Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA) is polling at 12.5 percent, the Democratic Left at 12 percent and the Communists at 12 percent. A new Independent Greeks party of New Democracy defectors is polling at 8.5 percent in opinion polls of voters.
Another ekathimerini.com posting, from March 21, 2012, also addresses the new political system and the great spread of support across different parties.
World Socialist Web Site claims that the various left parties are cozying up to the PASOK party [Socialist], with their eyes on PASOK to form a governing coalition.
Skip over its Trotskyist bias with the slanted adjectives and verbs:
The last the New York Times addressed the party situation was "Greece’s Socialist Party Changes Leaders," March 19, 2012.
Other Countries Under the Debt Gun --with elections this year include:
France, presidential election, April 22, May 6, 2012; legislative election rounds, June 10, 17, 2012. The Socialist candidate, Francois Hollande, is trailing right behind incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy. The Christian Science Monitor news site has portraits of the top five presidential candidates. From far left, to center, to far right.
Ireland, referendum on EU debt compact, or fiscal treaty, May 31, 2012. So far, the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom have voted against signing the debt compact. Ireland is the only nation that holds a referendum on the treaty.
Iceland, presidential election, June 30, 2012 (a beauty contest for a largely ceremonial position)
Lithuania, October, 2012.
Mexico, with a more stable debt situation than the above countries, is having its presidential election this year, July 1, 2012. Its leading left party is Party of the Democratic Revolution, whose strengths are restricted to the center and the south. It has cooperated in the Broad Progressive Front with the Labor Party and the Citizens' Movement. Its Congressional election are the same day. It will elect a mixture of first-past-the-post (winner take all) seats and list proportional representation seats. Follow the news at La Jornada.
(Other news: Croatians voted in a referendum, January 22, to join the European Union.)
Elections, next year, 2013: Bulgaria, Iceland, Italy)
How Will Their Voters React?
GREECE TO DISSOLVE PARLIAMENT TODAY; TO HOLD SNAP PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION, SUNDAY, MAY 6
Details in this Reuters story from Tuesday night, April 10. Parliament has been summoned to meet Wednesday, April 11, at 2 PM, GMT.
(Alexis Tsipras, the next #2 leader of a coalition government? Tsipras is a civil engineer, and is the leader of Synaspismos political party, which is a leading party of the coalition of left parties, Coalition of the Radical Left [SYRIZA].)(Scroll to the bottom for other austerity-strained countries' elections, this year and next.)
Europe is have a sovereign debt crisis.
Greece, most hardest it with austerity in this crisis, is having its parliamentary elections in April of 2012 (Sunday, April 29 or May 6, according to wikipedia). Already, polls are indicating that Greek voters are already set to vote in in increasing percentages for the Communist or other left parties.
Traditionally, either of the two largest political parties, New Democracy (the conservative party) or PASOK (the socialist party), had governed with a majority or a large plurality of 40 or more percent. In this era of the European sovereign debt crisis, it appears that Greece is heading to a party system with no party winning more than one-third of the vote. We are looking to a situation in which a government will be formed from a collection of eight or so parties. And it looks as though left of Socialist parties will pick up a larger percentage of the vote.
Ekathimerini.com reports with an April 1 dateline that the conservative New Democrats are anticipated to receive 22.5 percent. PASOK is polling at 15.5 percent. The Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA) is polling at 12.5 percent, the Democratic Left at 12 percent and the Communists at 12 percent. A new Independent Greeks party of New Democracy defectors is polling at 8.5 percent in opinion polls of voters.
Another ekathimerini.com posting, from March 21, 2012, also addresses the new political system and the great spread of support across different parties.
World Socialist Web Site claims that the various left parties are cozying up to the PASOK party [Socialist], with their eyes on PASOK to form a governing coalition.
Skip over its Trotskyist bias with the slanted adjectives and verbs:
Following a relentless series of attacks on their living standards and social gains, millions of Greeks are angrily turning their backs on the established political parties. According to recent polls, support for the social democratic PASOK party has slipped from 44 percent in 2009 to between 8 and 15 percent. Under these conditions, a number of pseudo-left parties are working to stabilize the situation and prepare the ground for a new government capable of enforcing additional social cuts.
The driving force behind a government of “leftist” parties is the Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA). It has repeatedly called upon the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) and the Democratic Left (DIMAR) to cooperate in such a project, but so far both organisations have turned down the offer.
The last the New York Times addressed the party situation was "Greece’s Socialist Party Changes Leaders," March 19, 2012.
Other Countries Under the Debt Gun --with elections this year include:
France, presidential election, April 22, May 6, 2012; legislative election rounds, June 10, 17, 2012. The Socialist candidate, Francois Hollande, is trailing right behind incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy. The Christian Science Monitor news site has portraits of the top five presidential candidates. From far left, to center, to far right.
Ireland, referendum on EU debt compact, or fiscal treaty, May 31, 2012. So far, the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom have voted against signing the debt compact. Ireland is the only nation that holds a referendum on the treaty.
Iceland, presidential election, June 30, 2012 (a beauty contest for a largely ceremonial position)
Lithuania, October, 2012.
Mexico, with a more stable debt situation than the above countries, is having its presidential election this year, July 1, 2012. Its leading left party is Party of the Democratic Revolution, whose strengths are restricted to the center and the south. It has cooperated in the Broad Progressive Front with the Labor Party and the Citizens' Movement. Its Congressional election are the same day. It will elect a mixture of first-past-the-post (winner take all) seats and list proportional representation seats. Follow the news at La Jornada.
(Other news: Croatians voted in a referendum, January 22, to join the European Union.)
Elections, next year, 2013: Bulgaria, Iceland, Italy)
How Will Their Voters React?
Don't Write Off Gingrich, Santorum Delegate Effect After April 10
To contact us Click HERE
Yes, Rick Santorum has given up his 2012 presidential nomination bid.
But do you really think that his delegates are going to shift entirely over to Mitt Romney's camp?
At this point most of the Santorum delegates are going to go to Newt Gingrich.
With all the mainstream media pronouncing clear sailing for Romney, with the suspension of the Santorum campaign, you would wonder, have they looked at the primary and convention schedule for the next few weeks?
HOW THE HEADLINES WILL LOOK, APPROACHING APRIL 24, NEXT BIG PRIMARY DAY
The headlines over the next few weeks are going to most likely tell the story of Santorum delegates staying in the anti-Romney camp. The anti-Romney voters probably have not forgotten Romney's aide Eric Fehrnstrom's March 21 comment about Etch-a-Sketch of Romney's positions in September and October.
In the next few weeks we have various district, county and state level conventions. These are important meetings. As GreenPapers, one of the better sites on the primary elections tell us, these are dates at which convention attendees will vote on whom delegates will be, heading toward the August 27 Tampa convention.
So, on these dates, anticipate the affirmation of the anti-Romney position, and a shift of support, and endorsement of sorts, from Santorum to Gingrich:
April 13, Colorado district conventions, April 14, Colorado state convention and April 21, Minnesota's district convention.
Wyoming's convention, April 14, could go a number of ways. Out of the March 10 county delegate selection announcement, Romney won 10 delegates, Santorum 8, Ron Paul 6 and Newt Gingrich 2. If the Santorum delegates all go to Gingrich, then Gingrich would be tied with Romney.
Friendly primaries and delegate assignment meetings in the next few weeks also would more likely go Gingrich's way than Romney's:
Kansas (4/24), Louisiana (4/28), Minnesota (5/5), Indiana (5/8), West Virginia (5/8), Nebraska (5/15), Arkansas (5/22), Kentucky (5/22), Texas (5/29). And much of New York and Pennsylvania consists of red counties, so watch for Gingrich to pick up many delegates in those states on April 22.
So, the Newt Gingrich juggernaut will certainly not die out during April or May.
But do you really think that his delegates are going to shift entirely over to Mitt Romney's camp?
At this point most of the Santorum delegates are going to go to Newt Gingrich.
With all the mainstream media pronouncing clear sailing for Romney, with the suspension of the Santorum campaign, you would wonder, have they looked at the primary and convention schedule for the next few weeks?
HOW THE HEADLINES WILL LOOK, APPROACHING APRIL 24, NEXT BIG PRIMARY DAY
The headlines over the next few weeks are going to most likely tell the story of Santorum delegates staying in the anti-Romney camp. The anti-Romney voters probably have not forgotten Romney's aide Eric Fehrnstrom's March 21 comment about Etch-a-Sketch of Romney's positions in September and October.
In the next few weeks we have various district, county and state level conventions. These are important meetings. As GreenPapers, one of the better sites on the primary elections tell us, these are dates at which convention attendees will vote on whom delegates will be, heading toward the August 27 Tampa convention.
So, on these dates, anticipate the affirmation of the anti-Romney position, and a shift of support, and endorsement of sorts, from Santorum to Gingrich:
April 13, Colorado district conventions, April 14, Colorado state convention and April 21, Minnesota's district convention.
Wyoming's convention, April 14, could go a number of ways. Out of the March 10 county delegate selection announcement, Romney won 10 delegates, Santorum 8, Ron Paul 6 and Newt Gingrich 2. If the Santorum delegates all go to Gingrich, then Gingrich would be tied with Romney.
Friendly primaries and delegate assignment meetings in the next few weeks also would more likely go Gingrich's way than Romney's:
Kansas (4/24), Louisiana (4/28), Minnesota (5/5), Indiana (5/8), West Virginia (5/8), Nebraska (5/15), Arkansas (5/22), Kentucky (5/22), Texas (5/29). And much of New York and Pennsylvania consists of red counties, so watch for Gingrich to pick up many delegates in those states on April 22.
So, the Newt Gingrich juggernaut will certainly not die out during April or May.
Obamacare or Not, Progressives Vow Fight for 'Medicare for All' | Common Dreams
To contact us Click HERE
Obamacare or Not, Progressives Vow Fight for 'Medicare for All' | Common Dreams
Published on Thursday, June 28, 2012 by Common Dreams
"It's easy to see it's a good idea," Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told the Huffington Post on Wednesday, the day before the court's decision. "It's the cheapest way to cover everybody."
Asked by the HuffPo's Jennifer Bendery why progressives in Congress think a single-payer option could advance this time around, Ellison said if the court strikes down some or all of the existing health care law, it will show that the individual mandate was a failed approach. "We've tried it the right-wing way. Let's try it the right way," he said.
In Vermont, where Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin has championed a state-level single-payer system which would cover all Vermonters under a GreenMountainCare plan, efforts may be impacted by the SCOTUS decision, but they will not be derailed.
Talking to Vermont Public Radio, Shumlin said that the court's decision, regardless of outcome, would not thwart his state's quest for a single payer model. "Vermont is going to continue to pursue the smartest, universal single payer health care system in America that spends less money on health care contains the rate of growth," said Shumlin. "So that we can have our companies and middle class Vermonters invest in other things like their kids education, groceries, sneakers for the kids, hiring new employees."
Citing other countries with more socialized health care models that cover all citizens and spend "two to three hundred percent less" than the US per capita, Shumlin argued against any further entanglements with the private insurance industry. "Forget the Supreme Court," he said.
Oliver Hall, an attorney who filed an amicus brief with the court on behalf of single payer advocacy groups argues that the US already has examples of such systems in the US and says they work great.
“Those are Medicare and the Veterans Administration,” Hall told the website Single Payer Action. “Single payer is possible. It’s already happening in the United States. And that rebuts the primary tenet of the government’s contention in this case – which is that it cannot successfully regulate the health care market unless it has the power to require every American to buy private insurance. That is simply not the case. And Medicare and the Veterans Administration prove it.”
Published on Thursday, June 28, 2012 by Common Dreams
Obamacare or Not, Progressives Vow Fight for 'Medicare for All'
Members of congress and citizens groups will not let Supreme Court interupt fight for 'real solution' to health care crisis
- Common Dreams staff Both inside and outside of the US Congress, advocates of a single payer 'Medicare for All' approach to health care see the Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, as an opportunity to voice their continued support for the only solution they say will work to cover all Americans while also bringing down costs. Regardless of what the high court announces on Thursday, they vow to continue their fight despite the political roadblocks in their path."It's easy to see it's a good idea," Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told the Huffington Post on Wednesday, the day before the court's decision. "It's the cheapest way to cover everybody."
Asked by the HuffPo's Jennifer Bendery why progressives in Congress think a single-payer option could advance this time around, Ellison said if the court strikes down some or all of the existing health care law, it will show that the individual mandate was a failed approach. "We've tried it the right-wing way. Let's try it the right way," he said.
In Vermont, where Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin has championed a state-level single-payer system which would cover all Vermonters under a GreenMountainCare plan, efforts may be impacted by the SCOTUS decision, but they will not be derailed.
Talking to Vermont Public Radio, Shumlin said that the court's decision, regardless of outcome, would not thwart his state's quest for a single payer model. "Vermont is going to continue to pursue the smartest, universal single payer health care system in America that spends less money on health care contains the rate of growth," said Shumlin. "So that we can have our companies and middle class Vermonters invest in other things like their kids education, groceries, sneakers for the kids, hiring new employees."
Citing other countries with more socialized health care models that cover all citizens and spend "two to three hundred percent less" than the US per capita, Shumlin argued against any further entanglements with the private insurance industry. "Forget the Supreme Court," he said.
Oliver Hall, an attorney who filed an amicus brief with the court on behalf of single payer advocacy groups argues that the US already has examples of such systems in the US and says they work great.
“Those are Medicare and the Veterans Administration,” Hall told the website Single Payer Action. “Single payer is possible. It’s already happening in the United States. And that rebuts the primary tenet of the government’s contention in this case – which is that it cannot successfully regulate the health care market unless it has the power to require every American to buy private insurance. That is simply not the case. And Medicare and the Veterans Administration prove it.”
5 Temmuz 2012 Perşembe
Obamacare or Not, Progressives Vow Fight for 'Medicare for All' | Common Dreams
To contact us Click HERE
Obamacare or Not, Progressives Vow Fight for 'Medicare for All' | Common Dreams
Published on Thursday, June 28, 2012 by Common Dreams
"It's easy to see it's a good idea," Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told the Huffington Post on Wednesday, the day before the court's decision. "It's the cheapest way to cover everybody."
Asked by the HuffPo's Jennifer Bendery why progressives in Congress think a single-payer option could advance this time around, Ellison said if the court strikes down some or all of the existing health care law, it will show that the individual mandate was a failed approach. "We've tried it the right-wing way. Let's try it the right way," he said.
In Vermont, where Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin has championed a state-level single-payer system which would cover all Vermonters under a GreenMountainCare plan, efforts may be impacted by the SCOTUS decision, but they will not be derailed.
Talking to Vermont Public Radio, Shumlin said that the court's decision, regardless of outcome, would not thwart his state's quest for a single payer model. "Vermont is going to continue to pursue the smartest, universal single payer health care system in America that spends less money on health care contains the rate of growth," said Shumlin. "So that we can have our companies and middle class Vermonters invest in other things like their kids education, groceries, sneakers for the kids, hiring new employees."
Citing other countries with more socialized health care models that cover all citizens and spend "two to three hundred percent less" than the US per capita, Shumlin argued against any further entanglements with the private insurance industry. "Forget the Supreme Court," he said.
Oliver Hall, an attorney who filed an amicus brief with the court on behalf of single payer advocacy groups argues that the US already has examples of such systems in the US and says they work great.
“Those are Medicare and the Veterans Administration,” Hall told the website Single Payer Action. “Single payer is possible. It’s already happening in the United States. And that rebuts the primary tenet of the government’s contention in this case – which is that it cannot successfully regulate the health care market unless it has the power to require every American to buy private insurance. That is simply not the case. And Medicare and the Veterans Administration prove it.”
Published on Thursday, June 28, 2012 by Common Dreams
Obamacare or Not, Progressives Vow Fight for 'Medicare for All'
Members of congress and citizens groups will not let Supreme Court interupt fight for 'real solution' to health care crisis
- Common Dreams staff Both inside and outside of the US Congress, advocates of a single payer 'Medicare for All' approach to health care see the Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, as an opportunity to voice their continued support for the only solution they say will work to cover all Americans while also bringing down costs. Regardless of what the high court announces on Thursday, they vow to continue their fight despite the political roadblocks in their path."It's easy to see it's a good idea," Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told the Huffington Post on Wednesday, the day before the court's decision. "It's the cheapest way to cover everybody."
Asked by the HuffPo's Jennifer Bendery why progressives in Congress think a single-payer option could advance this time around, Ellison said if the court strikes down some or all of the existing health care law, it will show that the individual mandate was a failed approach. "We've tried it the right-wing way. Let's try it the right way," he said.
In Vermont, where Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin has championed a state-level single-payer system which would cover all Vermonters under a GreenMountainCare plan, efforts may be impacted by the SCOTUS decision, but they will not be derailed.
Talking to Vermont Public Radio, Shumlin said that the court's decision, regardless of outcome, would not thwart his state's quest for a single payer model. "Vermont is going to continue to pursue the smartest, universal single payer health care system in America that spends less money on health care contains the rate of growth," said Shumlin. "So that we can have our companies and middle class Vermonters invest in other things like their kids education, groceries, sneakers for the kids, hiring new employees."
Citing other countries with more socialized health care models that cover all citizens and spend "two to three hundred percent less" than the US per capita, Shumlin argued against any further entanglements with the private insurance industry. "Forget the Supreme Court," he said.
Oliver Hall, an attorney who filed an amicus brief with the court on behalf of single payer advocacy groups argues that the US already has examples of such systems in the US and says they work great.
“Those are Medicare and the Veterans Administration,” Hall told the website Single Payer Action. “Single payer is possible. It’s already happening in the United States. And that rebuts the primary tenet of the government’s contention in this case – which is that it cannot successfully regulate the health care market unless it has the power to require every American to buy private insurance. That is simply not the case. And Medicare and the Veterans Administration prove it.”
White men can't jump
To contact us Click HERE
I’m going to briefly discuss Drake Shelton’s rationalization for white supremacy. Why should I waste my time on a fruitloop like Drake? Because he’s a noisy Clarkian Scripturalist.
BTW, I wonder what fellow Clarkian Scripturalists like Vincent Cheung and Daniel Chew make of his position on race.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/uncreated-white.html?showComment=1341356158179#c2172337199966675438
i) A basic internal problem with Drake’s Confederate eisegesis is that Gen 10 identifies Egyptians, Babylonians, and Assyrians as Hamites. For more background:
www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jtvi/wiseman_genesis-10.pdf
faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/...Genesis/.../Ross-TableNations-BSac.pdf
If (arguendo) we combine this with Drake’s claim that blacks are Hamites, that would mean blacks founded the great urban civilizations of the ANE. Hence his argument self-destructs.
So Drake has backed himself into a dilemma. If, on the one hand, he identifies blacks with Hamites, he must admit that blacks were the founders of ancient Near Eastern civilization. If, on the other hand, he denies the identification to avoid that implication, then he can’t invoke the curse of Ham over blacks.
ii) The Table of Nations (Gen 10) doesn’t attempt to address race or ethnicity in general. Rather, the scope of the document is confined to Israel’s neighbors. To the known world, taking the ANE as the frame of reference. That’s why it doesn’t cover East Indians, Chinese, sub-Saharan Africans, &c.
iii) Drake doesn’t bother to explain why physical differences between one race and another can’t be climatic adaptations.
iv) Races don’t invent anything. Gifted individuals are inventors.
v) Likewise, some “white” nations have made far greater contributions to the arts and sciences than other “white” nations. So it’s hard to make race the differential factor.
vi) The Bible is indifferent to interracial marriage, per se. Interracial marriage is only a Biblical issue when that coincides with interfaith marriage.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/uncreated-white.html?showComment=1341356195748#c8165450015526933239
That’s simply heretical. One’s moral character is the result of common grace, special grace, and sin–not race or ethnicity.
BTW, I wonder what fellow Clarkian Scripturalists like Vincent Cheung and Daniel Chew make of his position on race.
Now to the white supremacy thing. It depends what one means.
I do believe their is one human genus but three primary races: That of Shem, that of Japheth and that of Ham. God sovereignly had these three men born with their disticnt ethnic characteristics. The black Hamites with their clear physical superiority. The white Japhethites and Shemites with their clear mental superiorities. Each with their own distinct beauty, strengths and weaknesses. How these could have come about by climate change I will leave to the dark places of your mind Steve. The blacks have never built an empire or advanced civilization and if one simply looks at an anthology of black writers vs. white writers, the comparison is alarming. Clearly the white Japhethites have built the greatest civilizations and invented all of the fundamental parts of modern civilization. The blacks were selected by the early African slave traders to do be slaves specifically because they were the only group of people that could withstand all of the physical hardships of slavery and not fall into despair (See William O. Blake, Slavery and the Slave Trade, Ancient and Modern pages 95-96). So the idea that the differences between the races is only the color of their skin is ignorant Neoplatonic, monadic, rubbish
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/uncreated-white.html?showComment=1341356158179#c2172337199966675438
i) A basic internal problem with Drake’s Confederate eisegesis is that Gen 10 identifies Egyptians, Babylonians, and Assyrians as Hamites. For more background:
www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jtvi/wiseman_genesis-10.pdf
faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/...Genesis/.../Ross-TableNations-BSac.pdf
If (arguendo) we combine this with Drake’s claim that blacks are Hamites, that would mean blacks founded the great urban civilizations of the ANE. Hence his argument self-destructs.
So Drake has backed himself into a dilemma. If, on the one hand, he identifies blacks with Hamites, he must admit that blacks were the founders of ancient Near Eastern civilization. If, on the other hand, he denies the identification to avoid that implication, then he can’t invoke the curse of Ham over blacks.
ii) The Table of Nations (Gen 10) doesn’t attempt to address race or ethnicity in general. Rather, the scope of the document is confined to Israel’s neighbors. To the known world, taking the ANE as the frame of reference. That’s why it doesn’t cover East Indians, Chinese, sub-Saharan Africans, &c.
iii) Drake doesn’t bother to explain why physical differences between one race and another can’t be climatic adaptations.
iv) Races don’t invent anything. Gifted individuals are inventors.
v) Likewise, some “white” nations have made far greater contributions to the arts and sciences than other “white” nations. So it’s hard to make race the differential factor.
vi) The Bible is indifferent to interracial marriage, per se. Interracial marriage is only a Biblical issue when that coincides with interfaith marriage.
I believe that the most evil men in the world are white and the most righteous men in the world are white.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/uncreated-white.html?showComment=1341356195748#c8165450015526933239
That’s simply heretical. One’s moral character is the result of common grace, special grace, and sin–not race or ethnicity.
Are crime rates higher in red states?
To contact us Click HERE
One popular atheist trope is to claim that crime rates are higher in red states and lower in blue states, which further correlates (so goes the argument) with higher or lower rates of religious adherence.
One problem with this comparison is the way it usually sakes over racial and socioeconomic demographics. But another problem is the question of how reliable crime stats are. For instance:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/nyregion/new-york-police-department-manipulates-crime-reports-study-finds.html?_r=2&ref=nyregion&pagewanted=print
One problem with this comparison is the way it usually sakes over racial and socioeconomic demographics. But another problem is the question of how reliable crime stats are. For instance:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/nyregion/new-york-police-department-manipulates-crime-reports-study-finds.html?_r=2&ref=nyregion&pagewanted=print
Irenaeus confirms Michael Kruger on the "canonical core" of Scripture
To contact us Click HERE
I'm continuing to interact with the folks at Called to Communion.
Irenaeus is offered up as “direct evidence”. I question that evidence up above, especially his reporting of history, but citing Darrell Bock, who said that Irenaeus was a faithful reporter of the Gnostic heresies against which he was discoursing, I allowed that it may also be possible to allow that Irenaeus was a faithful reporter of what the church believed at the time.
In this vein, it is interesting that immediately before Irenaeus says anything about either “succession” or “Rome”, he talks about the Scriptures, and echoes these warnings from Matthew: the notion that the Apostles had a totally new message, that this message itself was the bearer of its own power, and that those who did not keep it properly were subject to “the worst calamity”:
Not the leftover teaching of the Jews. Per Cullmann, this is Paul’s paradosis “from the Lord” (1 Cor 11:23 etc).
So here, in the words of Irenaeus, before there is a promise of an “unbroken succession”, we have the Apostles carrying the message, and the message being written down, and what is written, to Irenaeus, is “the foundation and pillar of our faith”.
He continues:
That is, the apostles had “perfect knowledge” which they preached and set down. This speaks to Irenaeus’s understanding of “development”, too, as some [Gnostics] venture to say,
They had the message and it was written down. It is the written records that are “by God’s will transmitted to us”. Not “the succession”. Here, Irenaeus describes what Kruger called “the canonical core”. This, too, before any mention of “succession”:
Note, this is in contrast to the process that Joseph Ratzinger outlined in his work “Primacy, Episcopacy, and Successio Apostolica” (which I’ve cited above):
This notion is reproduced in CCC 83:
Note that Irenaeus here contrasts with both Ratzinger and the CCC at this point. Irenaeus provides us “direct evidence”, in K. Doran’s usage, that what the Apostles preached, and then what they “put down” was, actually, “the Scriptures” which “would be the foundation and pillar of our faith”.
Cullmann’s whole premise is to say that there is a sharp disjunction between the “oral transmission” of the message, and the need to write it down in a fixed, canonical form.
Irenaeus has said all of that before he talks about Rome. At this point, too, there is an echo of the warnings of Matthew 23:
What we have in Matthew 23 is echoed here in Irenaeus. It is not the promise of some future “unbroken succession, but as evidence that a faithful transmission has occurred to this point. It is a warning against “improving upon” the message (rather, the need to keep it faithfully” and also that warning (in the light of the destruction of the temple) that those, in the “succession”, “if they failed it would be the greatest calamity”.
This is not a promise for the future, but an echo of Matthew’s warning of destruction to church leadership that was not faithful.
Irenaeus is offered up as “direct evidence”. I question that evidence up above, especially his reporting of history, but citing Darrell Bock, who said that Irenaeus was a faithful reporter of the Gnostic heresies against which he was discoursing, I allowed that it may also be possible to allow that Irenaeus was a faithful reporter of what the church believed at the time.
In this vein, it is interesting that immediately before Irenaeus says anything about either “succession” or “Rome”, he talks about the Scriptures, and echoes these warnings from Matthew: the notion that the Apostles had a totally new message, that this message itself was the bearer of its own power, and that those who did not keep it properly were subject to “the worst calamity”:
The Lord of all gave his apostles the power of the Gospel, and by them we have known the truth, that is, the teaching of the Son of God.
Not the leftover teaching of the Jews. Per Cullmann, this is Paul’s paradosis “from the Lord” (1 Cor 11:23 etc).
To [the Apostles], the Lord said, “He who hears you hears me, and he who despises you despises Him who sent me”. For we have known the “economy” for our salvation only through those through whom the Gospel came to us [only through the Apostles]; and what they first preached they later, by God’s will transmitted to us in the Scriptures so that would be the foundation and pillar of our faith (“Against Heresies, 3 Pr.).”
So here, in the words of Irenaeus, before there is a promise of an “unbroken succession”, we have the Apostles carrying the message, and the message being written down, and what is written, to Irenaeus, is “the foundation and pillar of our faith”.
He continues:
It is not right to say that they preached before they had perfect knowledge …
That is, the apostles had “perfect knowledge” which they preached and set down. This speaks to Irenaeus’s understanding of “development”, too, as some [Gnostics] venture to say,
boasting that they are correctors of the apostles. For after our Lord arose from the dead and they were clad with power from on high by the coming of the Holy Spirit, they were filled concerning everything and had perfect knowledge. They went forth to the ends of the earth proclaiming the news [the message] of the good gifts to us from God and announcing heavenly peace to men. Collectively and individually they had the Gospel of God.
They had the message and it was written down. It is the written records that are “by God’s will transmitted to us”. Not “the succession”. Here, Irenaeus describes what Kruger called “the canonical core”. This, too, before any mention of “succession”:
Thus Matthew published among the Hebrews a gospel written in their language, at the time when Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and founding the church there. After their death Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself delivered to us in writing what had been announced [the message] by Peter. Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel preached by him. Later John the Lord’s disciple, who reclined on his bosom, himself published a Gospel while staying at Ephesus in Asia.
Note, this is in contrast to the process that Joseph Ratzinger outlined in his work “Primacy, Episcopacy, and Successio Apostolica” (which I’ve cited above):
“The concept of [apostolic] succession was clearly formulated, as von Campenhausen has impressively demonstrated, in the anti-Gnostic polemics of the second century; [and not in the first century] its purpose was to contrast the true apostolic tradition of the Church with the pseudo-apostolic tradition of Gnosis” (pgs 22-23).
The idea of a “New Testament” as “Scripture” is still quite inconceivable at this point—even when “office”, as the form of the paradosis, is already clearly taking shape” (Ratzinger 25).
We should not deceive ourselves: the existence of New Testament writings, recognized as being “apostolic”, does not yet imply the existence of a “New Testament” as “Scripture”—there is a long way from the writings to Scripture. It is well known, and should not be overlooked, that the New Testament does not anywhere understand itself as “Scripture”; “Scripture” is, for the New Testament, simply the Old Testament, while the message about Christ is precisely “spirit”, which teaches us how to understand Scripture.” The idea of a “New Testament” as “Scripture” is still quite inconceivable at this point—even when “office”, as the form of the paradosis, is already clearly taking shape” (Ratzinger, 25).
This open situation of the existence of recognized New Testament writings without the existence of any New Testament principle of Scripture or any clear notion of the canon lasted until well in the second century—right into the middle of the period of the conflict with Gnosticism. Before the idea of a “canon” of New Testament Scripture had been formulated, the Church had already developed a different concept of what was canonical; she had as her Scripture the Old Testament but this Scripture needed a canon of New Testament interpretation, which the Church saw as existing in the traditio guaranteed by the successio (Ratzinger, 25-26).
This notion is reproduced in CCC 83:
83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Note that Irenaeus here contrasts with both Ratzinger and the CCC at this point. Irenaeus provides us “direct evidence”, in K. Doran’s usage, that what the Apostles preached, and then what they “put down” was, actually, “the Scriptures” which “would be the foundation and pillar of our faith”.
Cullmann’s whole premise is to say that there is a sharp disjunction between the “oral transmission” of the message, and the need to write it down in a fixed, canonical form.
Irenaeus has said all of that before he talks about Rome. At this point, too, there is an echo of the warnings of Matthew 23:
Thus the tradition of the apostles [now written down as “Scriptures”] manifest in the whole world, is present in every church to be perceived by all who wish to see the truth. We can enumerate those who were appointed by the apostles as bishops in the churches as their successors even to our time, men who taught or knew nothing of the sort that [the Gnostics] madly imagine. If however the apostles had known secret mysteries that they would have taught secretly to the “perfect,” [as the Gnostics were teaching – those who could somehow improve on the Apostles’ message, perhaps through some process of “development”], they would certainly have transmitted them especially to those to whom they entrusted the churches. For they wanted those whom they left as successors, and to whom they transmitted their own position of teaching, to be perfect and blameless in every respect [1 Tim 3:2). If these men acted rightly it would be a great benefit, while if they failed it would be the greatest calamity.
What we have in Matthew 23 is echoed here in Irenaeus. It is not the promise of some future “unbroken succession, but as evidence that a faithful transmission has occurred to this point. It is a warning against “improving upon” the message (rather, the need to keep it faithfully” and also that warning (in the light of the destruction of the temple) that those, in the “succession”, “if they failed it would be the greatest calamity”.
This is not a promise for the future, but an echo of Matthew’s warning of destruction to church leadership that was not faithful.
Kaydol:
Yorumlar (Atom)