Archive for the ‘Modern Culture’ Category
The Islamic radical kills merely for the sake of killing and is accordingly nothing more than a vile murderer. This Grandpa, on the other hand, shot and killed to defend his granddaughter as these inhuman beasts were attempting to rape her.
A grandfather shot back and is believed to have killed a suspect in a home-invasion and attempted rape of his teen granddaughter on Monday night, Robeson County Sheriff’s officials said. The grandfather was also shot – but he also managed to shoot the 2 other suspects in the home-invasion and attempted rape, said Maj. Anthony Thompson with the Robeson County Sheriff’s Office. The incident started around 10 pm at a house on Yedda Road in Lumberton on Monday night when someone knocked on the home of the grandfather, his wife and their 19-year-old granddaughter, according to the sheriff’s office. Two of three men – all wearing black clothes, ski masks and gloves — stormed into the house and demanded money, officials said. The grandfather and his wife ended up in the back of the house and were directed at gunpoint to open a safe. The three men were all armed and tried to rape the teen girl, officials said. The 67-year-old grandfather managed to grab a gun and shot all three of the suspects. The suspects fired back and the grandfather was hit several times, deputies said. After that, all three wounded suspects fled in the grandfather’s gold Cadillac.
One murdered out of a miserable sense of perverted faith and the other killed to defend a life. Two are dead. One unjustly, the other justifiably. All killing isn’t murder but all murder is evil.
First, a very fine essay on science and theology.. And second, that essay happens to be his inaugural lecture for Oxford University. Give it a careful read.
Le 16 octobre dernier s’est déroulée la Journée mondiale de l’alimentation. Regard sur un problème de société : l’obésité des adolescents. Sûr de lui, Antonin, 7 ans, reconnaît la viennoiserie dessinée sur la pancarte et lance : « Un croissant ! J’en mange un, mais une fois par semaine. » À Asnières-sur-Seine (Hauts-de-Seine), lors de cette activité parascolaire baptisée « Santé Citoyenneté », les élèves apprennent à reconnaître les aliments et à les classer selon des familles de produits. « Nous sommes dans une démarche de prévention, explique Dominique Deghelt, infirmière et intervenante scolaire. Il s’agit de comprendre ce qu’il y a dans le croissant, dans une crème chocolatée ou dans un yaourt. » Pour Diane Barthet, chargée de mission Santé-prévention : « La chance dans cette commune est d’avoir des infirmières municipales qui proposent des activités dans les classes. Nous invitons aussi les parents à bouger lors de randonnées urbaines de 5 kilomètres. »
Etc. This is something the Church needs to be concerned about. It hasn’t yet, but it must.
Take a look.
Originally posted on New at LacusCurtius & Livius:
A new episode in our series “the suicide of the humanities”: a dedication to the emperor Hadrian from Jerusalem. Read more about it here. Nice photos.
However, as a comment, “this is an extraordinary find” would have been enough. It’s a nice find indeed, but it adds little to what we already know. Adding that it is “of enormous historical importance” is precisely the kind of boast that we do not need, because people recognize that it is exaggerated.
In the western world, about one third of the population has a higher education. If only scholars and scientists would explain themselves on that level. Explain method. Don’t exaggerate.
With good reason. In both cases.
From his fb page
For those of you interested in the Westminster controversy: Last week we raised questions about Peter Lillback’s description of Chris Fantuzzo’s forced departure from the Westminster faculty. The letter I quoted from Chris raises serious doubts about Lillback’s description and questions about the appropriateness of the President of Westminster’s actions. I sent personal copies to Lillback, Dunahoo, Trueman, and Jue (as I will this one). I did receive an acknowledgement and even a thank you for sending it from President Lillback, but no attempt to defend his interpretation over against Chris Fantuzzo’s.
We now turn our attention to President Lillback’s interpretation of the Green departure.
Let’s remember that Doug Green has served in the Old Testament department with great distinction for about two decades. Also, the board fully affirmed Doug’s compliance with the Seminary’s theological position in relationship to the Westminster Standards (and even the narrow interpretive lens provided by the Affirmations and Denials) in 2009. But now Doug is deemed by Lillback as taking “exceptions to the Seminary’s views.”
This matter is of great importance. My posts are already too long, so consider this the first post on this subject.
The following is the entirety of what President Lillback wrote me about Doug (Lillback gave me permission to cite him publicly; the whole email to me on all the subjects he chose to address may be found in an earlier posting or I will send it to those who write me at email@example.com):
“Although you profoundly disagree, it is my desire to treat Doug Green with utmost respect. He was and continues to be a valued person and professor. He is still teaching Aramaic with us. Although he could not in good conscience support the commitments of Westminster’s faculty and board and thus chose early retirement instead of entering a process of theological review or taking the route of a reconsideration of his exceptions to the Seminary’s views, we endeavored to honor him in several ways. The first was by allowing him to co-write the announcement of his retirement, supported by clarifying FAQ’s that he approved. We honored him by posting his Psalm 23 paper at his request, a paper that had never been judged by the board or faculty. We have provided him a fully negotiated and thoughtful severance contract drafted and reviewed by his own legal counsel that honors him and protects his family. We are pleased that he has secured a new position in his homeland of Australia. In fact, members of our faculty that you have criticized in your posts helped him secure this position. And so we will steadfastly continue to honor him by keeping our mutual legally binding agreement with him. Theology, of course, deeply matters to us. We will continue to teach, declare and defend our historic biblical and theological beliefs in many positive ways in the days ahead.”
President Lillback tells us that Doug’s Psalm 23 article was never judged by the Board or faculty. And yet Doug was told that he would need to “revise and republish” that article as a necessary step to keeping his job.
Does President Lillback not see the problem his statement creates for seminary?
He must answer this question: if neither the faculty nor the Board made any ruling on the Psalm 23 article, why and by what authority was Doug told that he needed to revise it? A man’s livelihood was a stake, and it sounds like someone at Westminster was making up the rules without the authority to do so.
President Lillback’s statement also makes the public debate over the Psalm 23 article completely irrelevant. The faculty and Board have never ruled it to be out of confessional bounds. This raises the question: if the Psalm 23 article wasn’t a problem, exactly what was it that Doug wrote that the faculty and Board did find to be out of bounds?
The answer must be contained in the original announcement: “Dr. Green’s  response to section IV of the ‘Affirmations and Denials’ is no longer acceptable.” Unfortunately, that does not clarify matters since that section is entitled “Special Areas of Interest” and covers a variety of topics.
However, new Westminster Board member, Rev. Richard Phillips, has publicly admitted that “the basic document of record on the christotelic debate is Dan McCartney’s 2003 ETS paper (http://www.bible-researcher.com/mccartney1.html), ‘Should we employ the hermeneutics of the New Testament Writers'” (http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2014/09/26/an-answer-to-dr-bill-evans/#comment-122702). So, Doug’s Psalm 23 article isn’t the problem according to Board member Phillips, but McCartney’s paper is. The question now becomes: what is the link between McCartney’s article and Doug’s now unacceptable statement to the Board?
Will Dr. Lillback or the board chose to answer these questions? So far we have met only silence both in our private and public criticisms.
I have other questions about President Lillback’s statements and I intend to ask Doug to comment on them. I intend to post again in about one week.