The Latest Facebook Attack on Conservative Values

By now you should all be aware of the ways facebook is undermining society with their recommendations of bands I don't like and their ads with pictures of girls with structurally unsound shirts. This is their latest:



I know absolutely no one else in the world is bothered by this. But I continue to carry the socially conservative fiscally liberal banner. For the children.

Emmy Rossum is totally pretty so shut up

There's something about Special Knowledge that makes people feel cool. You know something that other people don't- that makes you special, unique, different. It makes you chosen. You can exploit this knowledge to your advantage- you are powerful. I'd like to examine three variations on this theme, two of which I will rail against with the snarky invective that all the kids are doing these days, one of which I engage in myself.

1. Emmy Rossum is totally pretty so shut up.

This is actually a reference to an old movie review I read for the movie The Phantom of The Opera. The reviewer said that they recommended the movie because they really liked the actress (Emmy Rossum) who played Christine. Unlike those other actresses like Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan who are vain, conceited, self-indulgent, and as ugly on the inside as they are "conventionally beautiful" on the outside, Ms. Rossum has an inner beauty that shines through the prism of her unconventional (yet striking) outer beauty.

Just shut up! Emmy Rossum is so conventionally beautiful that I don't know where to begin. I guess with a picture?



There is another story here about how people accept narratives about people they've never met. Emmy Rossum is maybe very nice. Maybe she's mean. I don't know! But I'm more interested in this kind of Special Knowledge. The reviewer thought he (she?) had special knowledge of Emmy Rossum's beauty. No one else thinks she is beautiful, but I have a secret: I think she's gorgeous.

2. Poker is gambling. Poker is gambling. Poker is gambling.

Last week, I spoke with someone about the World Series of Poker, which is probably the biggest poker tournament in the world. They show it on ESPN all the time. There is a mysterious guy with long hair, sunglasses, and a cowboy hat who throws cards really hard at bananas. There is an Everyman named Chris Moneymaker (!!!) who had a normal white-collar job as an accountant before he entered the WSOP and won the whole thing.

So the guy I was talking to said, "when you think about it, if you really know how to play poker, it's not really gambling. If you know the odds and how to read people, you can control the game, win the game, you can't lose."

Whaaaaaat? There are perhaps a few dozen people in the world who are truly 'professional' poker players. There are thousands who consider themselves good enough to be professional. But even with the odds in your favor, it's still a big risk. No matter how good you are at calculating strategy or reading your opponent, you can't win if you don't get good cards.

In contrast to the Emmy Rossum scenario, I think this kind of Special Knowledge exists, or is true. It is true that some people employ better betting strategies, or can predict how another player will act. But my interest is in how over-emphasized this knowledge is. People may possess it but overestimate its impact.

3. SABR! It began with a bloody 'S'!

SABR is the Society for American Baseball Research. Using well-known baseball statistics like batting average as well as new statistics of their own construction, SABR-metricians, as they are called, seek to explain and investigate the game of baseball using scientific (ish) methods.

And the knowledge that they generate is powerful! Other General Managers of baseball teams don't think that this player is very good, but we know that he's very good. We will get him on our team and have great success, great power. The Oakland Athletics made the playoffs regularly despite having a low payroll because they had this Special Knowledge. They haven't made the playoffs anymore because the beans were spilled, the cat was out of the bag, the Special Knowledge became Common.

I enjoy SABR-metrics because I like that story, and I like answering questions in trustworthy ways. But my fantasy baseball team was very mediocre. Again, perhaps this knowledge is true, but people who have it overestimate its worth.

These are thoughts without conclusions. I'm not exploring how Special Knowledge is good or bad, or the differences between these three cases. I'm just expounding on a subject I've been thinking about lately. But if I had to give any summary, I'd say it's important to know the limits and usefulness of your knowledge.

The Time Has Come to Push the Button

Remember in The Dark Knight where they have two ships rigged with explosives, one full of criminals, the other full of non-felony Gothamites, and provide each of them with buttons that will explode the other ship, sparing themselves? If neither ship presses the button, they both get Blow'd Up after 30 minutes.

I thought that that was the weakest ethical dilemma involving death and buttons that cinema could produce. Until The Box. In The Box, there is a Big Red Button (on top of a box), where if you press it, you get a million dollars. But there's a catch: someone somewhere in the world dies that you don't know. I don't think it's supposed to be a big ethical teaser (so Andrew, please do not disparage me for my weak thesis, ungrounded assumptions, or errors in logic; I am against random murder, Raskolnikov), but it does show a disturbing and growing fascination in America with death and buttons. Or maybe it's just me. The movie is based on a book titled Button, Button. It's from the same guy who wrote I Am Legend. Say it with me: "Well, you know someone else was involved in that movie who in some ways is as famous as Leonardo Di Caprio. And his name is William Shakespeare. And some great movies have been made based on his plays: Hamlet, West Side Story, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Waterworld, Gladiator, Chocolat... "

Anyway, the best out-of-context sentence from the review for The Box:

He poses a lot more questions than he answers, and among the hypotheses you're left with are that Steward was bought back to life by aliens after NASA programs unwittingly alerted them to the humanity's[sic] presence and The Box is their way of testing our mettle before invading us.

I always enjoyed the sci-fi trope that aliens would use advanced technology to test us. I remember a Star Trek: Deep Space Nine book where Jake played a video game that demonstrated wisdom, compassion, and logic to prove to another alien race that humans were ok. Except it wasn't a game- it was real! It was Ender's Game meets Button, Button meets War Games (the only way to win was not to play). Man, if I could have told this story just 60 years ago, I'd be the most famous writer on the planet. And then it would be made into a movie!

Imagine this pithy one-liner from the alien: "Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found..." [quick-cut to face] [quick-cut to alien] [quck-cut to face] [quck-cut back to alien] "...wanting." BLAMMMMMMOOOOOOOO.

UPDATE
A poll on facebook asks, "Would you push The Box's red button?". The split is currently 56-44 in favor of not murdering a person for a million dollars.

Romans 4

I've put this off for a looooong time! For that, I apologize. Romans is so big, so important, and so unpackable that it's become a little daunting. I want to cover everything, explain every reference, learn about every illustration, allusion, or point, and I end up doing nothing because there's always more to do. But it's silly to feel like that! If I miss stuff, I can always go back. It's a blog, not a final exam. Shipping is a feature!

I'm encouraged to go ahead with this by three things: a book I checked out intended to be a Bible-study of Romans, a commentary given to me by a friend, and an after-church Bible study I've been attending on Sundays. I'm in different places in Romans in each of these, so if I seem a little scatterbrained or connection-heavy, you'll understand why.

Let's get moving.

Abraham Justified by Faith

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
"Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never count against him."

Paul uses two figures from the Old Testament (Abraham and King David) to further emphasize that we are saved through faith, not through our works. Aside from this fundamental point, this section also strengthens the idea that the Old Testament is tied to the New. Christ came not to found a brand new religion, but to serve as the Head and fulfillment of one that had existed since it was first promised to Satan in front of Adam and Eve that one of their offspring "will crush [Satan's] head, and you will strike his heel".

The picture that we are given in this section is one of an accounting book, or ledger, with assets and liabilities. God 'credits' the good things that Christ did into Abraham's account through Abraham's belief in Christ. Abraham's belief in Christ will be discussed a few chapters from now. David also says that God will not count a person's sins against them- they have been covered. We get rid of our liabilities and put them on Christ.

How do we get the right to do this? How do we switch these assets and liabilities? Some people were believing that we somehow earn this righteousness. Paul points out that the Bible doesn't say, "Abraham's belief earned him righteousness". It says "Abraham's belief was credited to him as righteousness".

From my Bible-study book:
1. Why was Abraham's faith not a work that earned the wage of righteousness?

This is a very important question! Sometimes we may think of faith itself as a good work, somewhat akin to helping old ladies cross the street. However, Paul also wrote in Ephesians that "it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God". Abraham's faith was a gift of God, not a work on Abraham's part.

2. In Psalm 32:1-2, David describes what God does when He credits righteousness to a person. How does David describe what God does?

An easy question: he says that God covers a person's sins and doesn't hold them against him. Jesus told this parable in Matthew 18: "the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

'The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.'"

******************************************

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

This argument might be a little hard to understand if we don't know more details of the life of Abraham. The scripture that Paul was quoting in the section before was from Genesis 15. In it, God promises to give Abraham offspring and land. It's not until two chapters (and 14 years) later in Genesis 17 that he is circumcised. It's not until hundreds of years later that Abraham's descendant Moses will receive the Ten Commandments and the rest of the law. Therefore, Abraham wasn't righteous due to his observation of the law or circumcision- they hadn't been given yet. Instead, Abraham is credited with righteousness through his believing the promises of God: the promises of land, offspring, and a certain member of those offspring named Jesus, the Messiah.

3. Remember the Jews' beliefs about circumcision. Why was it important that God declared Abraham righteous before he was circumcised?

This is important because it meant that salvation is for all people, both circumcised Jews and uncircumcised Gentiles.

4. Circumcision was a sign (pointer) and a seal (outward ratification and guarantee) of the righteousness Abraham had by faith. What are the signs and seals of a Christian's righteousness by faith?

I think the signs can include the fruit of the Spirit spoken of in Galatians 5: "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.". These are outer things that are visible that serve of evidence of faith.

The seals of a Christian's righteousness by faith include the sacraments of baptism and holy communion. In a way, Christ's resurrection and ascension are also seals: they show that the sacrifice given by Jesus did the job.

5. Abraham is the physical forefather of all who are physically Jews. Of whom is he the spiritual forefather?

This is another easy question. Abraham is the spiritual forefather of people who share his belief in God's promises.

**********************
This is 13 verses out of 25. I'll do the remaining half within this blog post, too.

When Marketing Insults

Facebook makes its advertisements change depending on what is in your profile. So if you say you like Sufjan Stevens in your Music section, there will be an ad that says, "This new band sounds just like Sufjan Stevens!" even though the band sounds nothing like Sufjan Stevens.

But if you put in your facebook profile that you are single, you had better be prepared to be reminded of that fact pretty much constantly. Now, I think I've written on here before about the irony involved in an ad that had a woman with a surgically enhanced chest and only the hint of a shirt with a banner reading, "Looking for a Christian girl?", but I would like to take this opportunity to point out another ad for a facebook application called "Zoosk".

This ad involves an attractive woman who definitely is not wearing a shirt, but she is in the process of passing a basketball, so it's kinda PG-13 rated. Are marketing executives so openly disdainful of men 18-25 that they will simply combine two Things Guys Love (naked chicks and sports) and call it a day? Were the lesbians wrestling in beer unavailable? Was it Megan Fox who was going to cost too much money, or was it the Abrams Tank she was going to be driving?

And what is the female equivalent? Surely Zoosk has to market towards women- it's a dating site. Are there men without shirts reading poetry? Men without shirts in a tub filled with gold? Maybe more Vampire stuff? Sexy Vampires playing the piano?

Anyway, I will not be tricked so easily, Zoosk. I am frankly insulted by your ad and will never buy your product. Now if you'll excuse me, the Cubs are on TV and Megan Fox is singing the 7th inning stretch.

Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Peace, peace," and there is no peace!

Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Cross, cross," and there is no cross!


TO MICHAEL DRESSEL

Augustinian Prior in Neustadt, whom Luther deposed because he could not keep the peace with the brethren.

June 22, 1516.

Salvation and peace! But not such peace as is manifest to the natural man, but that which lies beneath the cross, viz. the peace which passeth all understanding. Thou art longing for peace, but in the wrong way; for thou seekest it as the world gives it, and not as Christ does. Dost thou know, dear father, that in this matter God deals in a wondrous manner with His people, having placed His peace in the midst of dispeace, nay, in the very thick of temptation and dissensions. “Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.” Therefore it is not he whom no one disturbs who has peace — that is the world’s peace, but he who is troubled on every side, and bears all quietly and joyfully. Thou sayest with Israel, “Peace, peace, and there is no peace.” Cry rather with Christ, “Cross, cross!” And yet there is no cross. For, as soon as thou canst joyfully say, “Blessed cross, of all kinds of wood there is none like unto thee.” Then, in that moment, the cross has ceased to be a cross. See, then, how graciously the Lord is leading thee to true peace in surrounding thee with so much of the cross. For he who seeks peace will find it. And the best way to seek it is, when affliction overtakes you, to receive it with joy, as a sacred relic, and cease searching vainly for a peace which commends itself to your lower nature. For God considers any such peace far inferior to His peace, which is inseparable from the cross and the troubles of this life. Farewell, and pray for me, dear father. May the Lord reign in you.

MARTIN LUTHER, Vicar.

Wittenberg.

This should not be this hard

This week, the CIA released the Inspector General Report from 2004, dealing with the enhanced interrogation techniques used on detainees. It's got the Internet tubes ablaze, I tell ya! There are very serious and strident views on both sides. Commentators the world over are asking questions, the biggest of which is:

Is torture justified if it results in the saving of lives?

This question is apparently hard. I think it's a rather slam-dunk "no"- torture is a violation of human rights, and two wrongs don't make a right. Getting a straight Biblical answer is a little difficult as the Bible doesn't explicitly deal with when it's ok to torture people. But it does say that "[the condemnation of those who say] 'Let us do evil that good may result' is deserved." Also, Christians are told to love their enemies, pray for those who persecute them, to turn the other cheek, and to treat their neighbor as themselves.

A pastor from my synod gave an answer here, and while they rightly point out that there is not (nor should there be) an Official Doctrinal Position, they also point out that if dropping the Atomic bomb was justified, torture is justified. So. There's that.

But even if we are uncertain about this question, I think there are a few relevant points that it assumes away. We can argue about what to do if we know that a terrorist has information about a bomb in New York. But what if we don't know what they know? What if we don't know that this person is a terrorist? Are there other techniques we can employ to get this information that don't involve torture? All of this is swept under the rug.

But I watched FOX News Sunday this morning, and people were very pro-torture. Juan Williams was doing very well making the case against torture: it's illegal, there are other ways to get information, the information we do get with it is unreliable because people just want the torture to stop, and it hurts America's image abroad hurting national security.

Chris Wallace would have none of it. Right before ending the show, he very snidely said, "And I suppose the fact that we haven't been attacked since September 11th is just a coincidence." I yelled loudly at my television.

Bill Kristol then points out that Abu Zubaida was interrogated using pussy techniques for a month before the men got to work, used their enhanced interrogation techniques, and got him to spill the beans. But according to this Washington Post article, Zubaida's post-torture information was not all that critical. High (always anonymous) CIA sources speak on both sides. One says the information was really important and useful, another says it wasn't.

How do we know who's telling the truth? Dick Cheney isn't an anonymous source, and he says that torture provided good intelligence that saved lives. But I don't really believe him because he has a vested interest in making the program important and effective. Also, his credibility is damaged from all of the things he said about Iraq.

Maybe there should be an investigation into this so we get some better answers. Attorney General Eric Holder has said that he's starting an inquiry. Unfortunately, it will not investigate the efficacy of torture or other techniques. It will not investigate who authorized torture to be used. But it will investigate if CIA operatives overstepped their authorization in some cases. So if you were authorized to torture someone, you're fine. If you exceeded that authorization and tortured them harder than you should have, you're in trouble.

But even this weak attempt at fact-finding and accountability is being met with hostility. Another talking head on Fox News Sunday, Mara Liasson, said that it would be better for the White House if Holder's investigation were allowed to proceed, but hoped that it would not find enough evidence to do anything. Suuuuper. Another member of the panel, Bill Sammon, thought that the investigation was damaging to the national security of the United States, and that Holder is Obama's little puppet. Maybe he's too used to the Attorney General doing whatever the President says from when George W. Bush was President.

So, in conclusion, the view that torturing people should not be done and that investigations into torture are warranted and should cover administration officials who authorized torture as well as the operatives who carried it out, makes me a crazy liberal.