WWJD about North Korea and the Sony Hack

WWJD (What would Jesus do) about the U.S. deciding to retaliate against North Korea for its alleged hacking of Sony? While the "just war" tradition is helpful, there's a quicker way to get to the point.

Here's a deductive syllogism from the Bible.

A) Jesus believed that the Torah was authoritative (The Torah is the Five Books of the Bible), per Matthew 5:17-19.

B) The Torah says "thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." (Exodus 20:16)

C) The U.S. government manufactured evidence of North Korean culpability.

D) Manufacturing evidence is bearing false witness (false testimony) against your neighbor.

E) Conclusion: Jesus would not have supported retaliation against North Korea.

This syllogism avoids questions of "what kind of force is appropriate," "are sanctions appropriate," as the very premises of the government's arguments are undermined.  "Who would Jesus bomb" is irrelevant here.

Why?

The accused are not guilty.

Jesus' coming in judgment (Part 1)

In "Is Jesus Coming Soon," Gary Demar writes:

How is it possible that Jesus "came in A.D. 70? We must allow Scripture to interpret Scripture and evaluate what "coming" means in parallel passages.  Throughout the Old Testament, God "came" in judgment (Gen 11:5; Ex. 3:8; 19:9; 34:5, Psalm 18:6-17; 72:6; 104:3; Isa. 19:1-4; 31:4; Micah 1:3-5: Mal. 3:5).

As anyone can see Demar is not short on scriptural support. But he continues:

In addition, the New Testament speaks of Jesus' coming in judgment (Matt 10:23; 16:27-28; 26:27-28; 26:64; Mark 14:61-62). Notice how many times Jesus threatens to judge the churches of Asia Minor by His coming (Rev. 2:5, 16; 3:3).

At that point I had to write "good point" in the margin of my copy. But here is why:

 It makes no sense if the coming referred to in these verses is a distant coming. The threatened comings are local and particular to a certain period of time and place.

Sean Hannity interviews Muslim Imam, calls him "Evil S.O.B."

Sean Hannity, who claims to be a brother in the faith, calls a Muslim an "evil S.O.B" -- because burning bridges through the arson of insults is precisely how to "win the Mooslems over to Jesus."

Both sides make good points. The Muslim understands that law -- Sharia or not -- and ultimately authority are inescapable. It's either your law, or our law, but there will be a law.

Hannity does a good job of teasing out this Muslim's worldview, although there were many cringeworthy moments.

The 27 Books I read in 2014

The Challenge of a Changing World

"God's Word does not change.  God's world, however, changes in every generation. These changes, in addition to new findings by scholars and a new variety of challenges to the gospel message, call for the church in each generation to interpret and apply God's Word for God's people." The Editors of The New American Commentary: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs

Similar things are said in N.T. Wright's foreword to "The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited." 

Wright says that "[p]art of the genius of genuine Christianity is that each generation has to think it through afresh. Precisely because (so Christians believe) God wants every single Christian to grow up in understanding as well as trust, the Christian faith has never been something that one generation can sort out in such a way as to leave their successors with no work to do."

He continued: "Like a young man inheriting a vast fortune, such a legacy could just make you lazy. All you'd have to do would be to look up things in the book, or to remember how it was when your favourite pastor used to do it, and that would be it. No room for character. No room for full human maturity--never mind full Christian maturity."

Lupe Fiasco Lists his Top Lyricists in 2014

In June, Lupe Fiasco appeared on Hot 97 to discuss WeAreOnAMission.org. But when asked who he thought were the best lyricists in the rap world, he listed 5 MCs.

1. MF Doom

2. King Los

3. Logic (over Kendrick)

4. Cassidy

5. Hollow Da Don

He also mentioned that he was feeling Young Thug and Big K.R.I.T.

The Reason I Voted Third Party in 2008 and Independent in 2012

The reason I voted third party for president in 2008, and voted independent for president in 2012 was I expected another grueling recession--a recession that doesn't have to end. For example, Japan was in a recession for 20 years and is now in a recession again.

I repeat, it doesn't have to end, in the same way that police violence doesn't have to end if nothing changes.

Deleterious, recession-exacerbating policies aren't automatically obliterated once a new president has been sworn in; and hardly are they repealed by that president. 

In fact, the next guy--in the name of saving the economy--can implement something worse and keep us down for many years.

For those reasons I couldn't vote for Obama, Romney, or McCain. Where were the differences in terms of economics and foreign policy? Civil liberties? The differences were marginal.

Libertarian economists long have believed that the worst has yet to come.

But we need the right person to alleviate the worst that has yet to come and to implement policies that will actually engender recovery -- versus someone like Obama who merely provided the illusion of saving the economy and bringing about a real recovery.

Senator Rand Paul might be that guy, and by definition he would be on the big ticket if he became the GOP nominee, so there would be less of a need to vote third party, if any. But he needs to tweak a few things; he's not as an easy pick for President as his father was. 

But that is a later post.

So is the reason why I expected "another grueling recession." But that can be summed up in a few words: "raising interest rates."

Greg Bahnsen Lectures (MP3s)

My X-mas list:

1. Critical Thinking Course $28.50
2. The Philosophy of Christianity $34.50 
3. Evangelize or Fossilize (Parts 1-4) $1.50 each
4. Is Evolution Scientific (Parts 1-2) $1.50 each
5. The Place of Evidence in Apologetics (Parts 1-3) $1.50 each
6. Michael Martin Under the Microscope $18.00
7. The Place of Logic and Emotion (Part 1-2) $1.50 each
8. The Problem of Evil (Parts 1-3) $1.50 each

Michael Jordan is a Reformed Calvinist

I typed that headline jokingly. I don't know what he believes in. But he is quoted as saying the following in "How To Be Like Mike" by Pat Williams:

""I don't believe in 'if,'" Jordan said. "I think there has always been a plan for my life and that I don't have any control over it. Everything that happens was determined in advance.

...I read the Bible a lot. I see that whatever happens, happens for a reason."

Fyodor Dostoevsky on men who believe their own lies

"A man who lies to himself and believes his own lies becomes unable to recognize truth, either in himself or anyone else, and he ends up losing respect for himself and others. When he has no respect for anyone, he can no longer love, and in order to divert himself, having no love in him, he yields to his impulses, indulging in the lowest form of pleasure, and behaves, in the end, like an animal, in satisfying his vices. It all comes from lying ... lying to others and lying to yourself."

~Fyodor Dostoevsky, "The Brothers Karamazov"

Benjamin Netanyahu Going Overboard by destroying terrorist homes

While a non-interventionist, I don't believe the attack in Jerusalem yesterday had anything to do with (foreign policy-related) blowback.  I do, however, think it might have been a revenge killing, which is also unjustified.

However, rightly shooting the two terrorists on the spot was a "harsh" enough response. 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is going overboard, as he vowed a "harsh response," according to the BBC, and ordered the homes of the terrorists to be destroyed.

Why?

They received the justice they were due. Why does the state have to poke its chest out and destroy property? Why can't someone else live in it?

Let's put it this way: Why can't the state be a little more creative and turn the place where these thugs breathed and dreamt hate and turn it to something good? Unless you think someone just as hateful will occupy that residence next, then I don't see any justification for destroying it (and even then, I don't see justification for destroying property). But that's a pressumption I'm not ready to make.

Or maybe the most fiscally responsible thing to do is leave their houses alone, except for maybe a possible investigation of the premises.

Bombing potential evidence seems to be careless.