Captain's Blog

The Summer

2008-05-13T05:41:02Z

So summer vacation has started, basically. (It'll be a lot more official when my Daoism professor reports my freaking grade!) I talked to my boss at work today and I think I'm going to try to start working full-time hours over the summer--I need to make some more money to be able to fully pay for summer school!

Tonight I started the Couch-to-5K running plan. Not that I particularly care to start running 5Ks, but I certainly wouldn't mind being able to run a mile. This is what I learned: I'm freaking out of shape! The first workout of the first week felt like it was going to kill me. No good! Hopefully I'll feel better doing it this Wednesday.

The moon was beautiful tonight. When I got back in I grabbed my camera and went back out, but by the time I got to the top of the hill (where the picture would have been good), the moon had been hidden by some clouds. Oh well!

I'm going to try to head out to the gym tomorrow and lift some weights. If nothing else, I know I can be good at that. I'm not half-bad as far as strength training goes.

Whew. After I cool down a bit more, I think I'm going to try to head to bed.

Maybe tomorrow I'll have some time to work on some fiction, too! School's out for a few weeks; it's time to be productive!

Heh.

2008-05-08T06:46:14Z

Heh

2008-05-06T19:11:53Z

"The Tudors was pretty lame. They rush past all the interesting political stuff and cleverness so that they can skip to Henry ****ing random sluts. " - TVJ

Exam tomorrow

2008-05-05T04:06:59Z

Luckily, we got to see our essay question ahead of time.

Unfortunately, the question involves the deconstruction of post-colonial counter-discourse.

I may have mentioned before that i hate post-colonialism. The counter-discourse involved is the one thing that I really didn't pay much attention to.

Woo! Comeuppance, I have been given.

Jeez

2008-04-30T14:14:55Z

I cannot focus worth anything at the moment.

Jeesh.

Oh, come on!

2008-04-27T12:25:41Z

As I mentioned in a previous post, the more I learn about the various different Greek and Hebrew manuscripts upon which our English Bibles are translated from, the more I think the concept of Biblical Inerrancy is one founded primarily on ignorance. Biblical Infallibility (or "limited inerrancy") is a bit more palatable, but I don't think I could logically uphold the latter dogma while being so vehemently opposed to the former.

For those who don't know: Inerrancy is the doctrine that states that all matters referred to in the Bible are factually true. The world was created in seven days. Rabbits used to chew cud. The sun stood still in the sky, as opposed to the earth standing still in its movement around the sun. (Though I'll admit that you don't hear this one argued much anymore. This is one of the times that even people who argue for inerrancy will say, "That was how it looked from their point of view." The difference between heresy and common sense is completely dependent upon what you personally think, apparently.) Infallibility, on the other hand, simply holds that the Bible is factually correct on all spiritual matters. This helps a bit to explain those pesky problems that inerrancy generates, where rabbits apparently chew cud (Deut 14:7), or where the Bible declares pi to be exactly 3 (1 Kings 7:23).

Anyway, I know that I am very young, as far as my Biblical scholarship goes. There are many who know much more than I, and many of those people hold to the doctrine of inerrancy. They hold to this doctrine while knowing that there are more than five thousand extant Greek manuscripts that contain part of the New Testament, while knowing that almost none of these manuscripts are exactly the same. How do you hold this belief concurrently with this knowledge? What logic do you use to support this?

The answer, apparently, is completely insane logic.

I stumbled upon this argument between a KJV-only adherent and an opponent. The KJV-only guy maintains that the King James Version is the only version of the Bible that can be considered Inerrant. He holds that it is superior not only to the later translations, but to the earlier Greek and Hebrew texts. He says that God guided the translation of the KJV, and thus it is superior to any other. It is superior to later translations because God did not guide those translations. It is superior to earlier Greek and Hebrew texts because of the fact that many different texts are extant in those languages. Since there is only one "real" KJV, it is obviously the only possibility of truth.

Please note that there are five different versions of the KJV. Apparently the "real" one is the second one that was made. It's not even the first KJV that he's defending!

His opponent is arguing, in return, that the Greek is superior. Because the New Testament was revealed by God in the Greek. And thus, when God "keeps his Bible alive," he does so in the Greek. So the Greek is inerrant. Since there are so many different manuscripts, then, they must be carefully analyzed and then, by using a process of textual criticism, the "original" can be found. But wouldn't this introduce a margin of error? No! Since the Greek is protected by God himself, then as long as only faithful Christians perform this reconstruction, then the "original" which is found will be factually inerrant.

Even more troubling is the upside-down moon-logic that the two seem to agree on. The KJV-only adherent says, to support the KJV, that "It tends to translate things in a God glorifying manner, supporting Trinity, divinity of Christ, [by faith alone], etc." His opponent simply replies that there are better translations that also do this.

What!? Ok. I can buy someone's belief that Scripture must always be the final word in all things. I don't necessarily agree (in fact, I definitely don't agree), but I can see where they're coming from. Statements like the one above, however, do really weird things to the "Scripture is the final word" dogma. In fact, the whole concept of Scripture is redefined. Scripture is the final word, but the only Scripture that I will accept as the final word is one that conforms to what I already believe.

This is what most religions do, honestly. (Scripture is the final word. What is Scripture? The thing that my parents told me was Scripture.) At least it's not this obvious, in most cases, though. If Scripture is only Scripture when it conforms to what I believe, and Scripture is the final word on all things, then logically, my personal belief is the defining force of the universe.

Let's say that I was at an archaeological dig and miraculously found a preserved Genesis scroll from 2000 BCE, far older than any other extant text. Would it be accepted as Biblical? That depends entirely upon whether or not the scroll conformed to the standards of Christianity that were established a few thousand years later.

Similarly. what if I found hand-written letters from Jesus himself. Would these be accepted as authoritative? Only if they didn't argue with the things that Paul wrote. Heck, they'd be dismissed even if they just disagreed with the book of Hebrews, which few serious scholars have thought was actually written by Paul since the second century! Who wrote it? Some guy! And some other guys used it for Christian sermons! And a couple hundred years later, some other guys decided it should be in the Bible! This rigorous method of authorization is the sole principle that people base their entire universe and salvation on?

I don't want to imply that the "some other guys" I mention above were just random people who paid no attention to what they were doing. Nor do I want to imply that they were not intelligent, or that they did not work on the Bible as hard as they could. The point that I'm trying to drive home is this: if you believe in Biblical Inerrancy, then you must also believe in the inerrancy of those individuals. You must also believe in the inerrancy of people like Martin Luther, who, if you are Protestant, wildly influenced the way in which you interpret the books that are in the Bible.

(It bears mention here that Martin Luther, in defense of his belief in justification by faith alone, argued forcibly that the Epistle of James should be completely removed from the Bible. Why? Because James specifically says that one cannot be justified by faith alone. "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone . . . for just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead" (James 2:24, 26). Like the opponents arguing over the primary authority of either the KJV or the Greek texts, Luther will only accept as Scripture those texts which agree with what he already believes.)

Honestly, I can't say that I entirely disagree with that method. I've argued before that any connection with God through the Self must be infinitely more true than a connection with God formed primarily through a book. I have argued many times that the things that I know to be true are more true than any "truth" described to me through any text. Text can reveal to me a truth, yes. I can read a thing and realize, "Wow. That's exactly right." However, if my Self and my soul disagree entirely with the doctrine put forth in the text, the text must always lose. So I am not arguing that the people cited above are wrong for doing this.

I am arguing that they are wrong for doing this while maintaining that they look to Scripture only. By hiding behind the veil of, "Scripture Alone," they defend themselves entirely from any dissenting point of view. They never have to really listen to another argument, because they know they are right. They know it because "Scripture" told them. If they were forced to admit that they only accept Scripture (or Scriptural interpretation) that agrees with the precepts they personally hold, then they would suddenly have to defend themselves! There would be no more magic wall of Scripture to hide behind, because they would have to defend their choice of Scripture. They could no longer say things like, "Hey, it's not my fault that homosexuality is a sin. God said so, right here in Scripture!" They would have to defend why they accepted that Scripture as authoritative.

And trust me, "Well, I accept it because 1700 years ago, the Bishop Athanasius listed that Scripture as one that should be considered canon," is not a good answer.

It's even more of an insane answer if you're one of those Protestants who think that Catholics were always evil. Pst! The Catholic church is the one that decided what Scripture you read!

Edit: I'll probably edit this later (it turned into a bit of a rant) and post it to my Religious blog.

From: Declarations of the Perfected

2008-04-14T06:50:35Z

Now it can be said that we have achieved our dearest ambitions. Our true feelings are already one. We are about to

Yoke our team together in the gemmy Void
To Travel together in the dark mysteries.
We will together pluck scarlet fruit in the groves of jade;
Together pick cinnabar blossoms in Wildwind Garden;
Share with each other the waters of Vermilion Stream
Side-by-side bathe on the banks of the Cyan River.
Clothed in feather capes and purple flowers,
You in solar cap, I in Lotus crown,
We will roam carefree the Heaven of Highest Clarity.
Together joining in audience the Three Primes.
The eight effulgent-spirits of our bodies will then emerge,
Bearing us through phoenix portals and cloudy gates.
We will raise our heads to sup marrow of gold,
Then sing songs of jade mystery.
Floating in the emptiness, we'll sleep and feast,
And meet on high the grand dawn.
As the music of the spheres issues all around,
The incense-mother will present us with pleasing vapors.
Side-by-side, we will observe all as one,
Taking each other's sashes in our hands, binding together our skirts--

Will this not be the highest joy? Will this not be the fulfillment of our aspirations?

I'm fairly confused now.

2008-04-13T04:55:36Z

I replied to another blog, and I was replied to. I typed up what I thought was a very good response, and LiveJournal told me that I didn't have permission to reply, because it was screened. So now I'm just confused. I guess I shouldn't try to disagree with someone on matters such as this.

Anyway, I liked what I wrote. So to avoid it going to complete waste, I'm going to post it here. =Þ

There is definitely scripture in the Quran that would support killing someone for converting to Christianity. (As there is scripture in the Bible to support killing people for all KINDS of stuff we don't kill people for.)

I fully admit that recently, there has been a terrifying fundamentalist fervor erupting in a great deal of Islamic centers. I won't hesitate to say that's wrong.

Let me say this once: CAUSING PAIN IS WRONG. It's EXACTLY as wrong for a Muslim to say "Kill all the Christians!" as it is for a Christian to say "Kill all the Muslims!" There is NO difference. The fact that both sides are pretending that GOD is commanding it just makes both sides more despicable. (By "both sides," I specifically mean the people who are calling for death.)

When people can rationalize the horrors of parts of the Old Testament and say that it's actually good, be sure that other people can rationalize the horrors of parts of the Quran and say that it's actually good, as well.

Different Muslim leaders have had different policies towards the "Peoples of the Book," (Christians and Jews). Though the Quran states that they are to be protected, there are passages that imply we should be killed as well. It depends on interpretation, and some leaders have interpreted much more harshly than others. A good analogy is how the Christian church treated the Jews during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. At first, they were hated by Christians almost more than anyone. After Christians came into unassailable political power, 50-100 years after Constantine, the Jews became known as a protected race, of sorts. The Church's official doctrine was that no Jew could be killed or forcibly converted (though of course one should always try to convert them peacefully). Eventually, however, things turned against the Jews, and Church officials started authorizing forced conversions (whatever that means) and torture under the Inquisition. (Interesting example: When the Muslims took Spain, the Jews stayed there, along with many Christians. It wasn't until the Christians re-took all of Spain that the Jews were expelled, "converted," or killed.)

Regardless of all of this, it was still mostly a localized thing. Even when the Church encouraged the Inquisition of all Jews, there were places were Jews were well-liked and those orders weren't carried out. Similarly, even when the Church mandated that Jews be protected, there were places where Jews were hated, and the Jews were persecuted.

You can always point to the worst example of a religion's authority and say "Look how bad those people are!" Of course, you can also always point to the best example of a religion's authority, and say "Look how good those people are!"

You can say that Joshua was GOOD for genocide, because God told him to. Fundamentalist genocidal Muslims will say that they're GOOD for hoping to commit genocide, because God told them to. Unfortunately, this argument inevitably comes down to one side saying, "Nuh uh!" and the other side replying, "Yah huh!" How can you prove someone wrong who believes God has shown them the way? Scripture won't work; you think their Bible is a corruption, and they think your Bible is incomplete.

So what will work? I have no idea. It would help if everyone would stop killing each other, but how the hell do we get that to happen? If they stopped killing people on our side, would we stop killing people on their side? Or would we continue on, saying that it was the only way to make sure?

Hebrew Bible

2008-04-11T04:14:06Z

The Hebrew Bible, in Hebrew, is incredibly poetic. I'm surprised at how much I prefer the Hebrew to the English translations I see.

For example, take 2 Samuel 7: 8.

New International Version: "Now then, tell my servant David, 'This is what the LORD Almighty says: I took you from the pasture and from following the flock to be ruler over my people Israel."

King James Version: Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel.

Word for word Hebrew translation: And now, thus you will say to my servant, to David, Thus says The Lord of Armies[1], I took you from the meadow, from behind the sheep, to be the prince[2] over all my people, over Israel.

[1] Or possibly "God of War."
[2] Literally "the one in front."

As you can see from the above, only the KJV comes close to retaining some of the poetic structure, the parallelism and repetition, of the original. However, it also seems to place its own poetry above that of the original. This isn't bad, necessarily, but in other places of the Bible, such emphasis strains translation quite a bit. Also, without context, I doubt many people today would have any idea what a sheepcote was. (And I think that sheepcote implies a pen, anyway, something much smaller than a meadow or a pasture.)

Edit: I removed the term "original Hebrew" because I realized how silly it is. The Masoretic text that my copy is made from (the Lenigrad Codex) comes from the early 11th century. Some of the scrolls it was based on seem to pre-date the texts used to make the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Torah that is quoted in the New Testament), and others seem to be versions from after the Septuagint's formation. Unfortunately, all of the scrolls have a pesky habit of being slightly different. The other big extant source, the Aleppo Codex, also has a few differences. The Aleppo Codex is a few decades older (from the 900's), but the Lenigrad Codex's superiority comes from the fact that we have an entire copy of it. Still, however, "original" isn't quite a valid term.

That reminds me of something. I enjoy the way that notations are used in the Hebrew. I can't understand most of them yet, but many have to do with mistranslations or misspellings. A good analogy would be if you were tasked with copying the Gospel of John, and the only scroll you had that held a surviving John 3:16 said:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting lies."

When a situation like this happened with the ancient scrolls being copied into the Masoretic texts, the scribes copied everything exactly as it was written. The words are holy, and so are the letters, and there will be no risk of sin by changing what has been written! However, they did add notations that say things like, "This should say life instead of lies."

The situation I've noticed more often than others involves the Hebrew word "lo". There are two silent letters in the Hebrew alphabet, and "Lo" can be spelled with either of them. "Lo" spelled one way means "no." "Lo" spelled the other way means "to him" or "his." Needless to say, this can cause some fairly bizarre translations unless one notices the notation. This has caused problems in my class, so it's funny to see that it caused problems over a thousand years ago, among trained scribes, as well.

Judaism

2008-04-09T00:44:47Z

So, in my Judiasm class today we watched The Great Dictator.

That was fairly embarrassing at places; I felt a bit racist what with the German girl in the class.

However, the movie was hilarious. Have you all seen the episode of Futurama with Zoidberg's grandfather? It's so true! I mean, on one hand you've got the serious, dramatic movie. On the other hand, you've got the director saying things like: "You need to show some emotion! And for god's sake, someone throw a few pies!"

I've seen a girl get tomatoes thrown at her. I've seen five people get hit in the head with a frying pan. It's amazing!

Am I the only one that thinks this is bad?

2008-04-08T05:29:11Z

Lockheed Martin's website.

Apparently, they're actively working on a system of advanced military communication satellites which they've dubbed Skynet 5.

. . .

Guh!

2008-04-07T14:21:10Z

Between my own writing assignments and the massive amount of articles that I've had to print lately for class, I've gone through almost two reams of paper; nearly 1000 pages.

I'm really glad I bought this laser printer instead of a similarly priced inkjet. I'm constantly surprised by the fact that I haven't run out of toner yet. Good investment.

Serious cloud is cirrus.

2008-04-04T04:45:38Z

::hides::

Woo, registered!

2008-04-03T19:51:36Z

Summer:
Elementary German 1 and Elementary German 2

Fall:
Elementary Greek 1
Elementary French 1
Old Testament
Women in the Hebrew Bible
Advanced Biblical Hebrew

I'm excited!

I'm fairly proud of that.

2008-03-24T09:52:44Z

I just wrote a six page paper on the first two sentences of Athanasius's Life of Antony. It's still ridiculously incomplete, but this is a first draft anyway, so I'm not too worried about that part of it. I'm fairly proud of how much I squeezed out of those two sentences, though.

Hopefully tomorrow night, I will sleep for more than 5 hours! It will be a new record since last Wednesday!

Grammar Girl

2008-03-10T10:37:45Z

Top Ten Grammar Myths

It amuses me whenever StumbleUpon takes me to this, and similar, websites. I assume it's because I listed writing as an interest. I agree with these, but it's hard for me to read them without imagining what someone else's criticism of the site would be. =Þ

shadmere @ 2008-03-08T12:31:00

2008-03-08T17:31:46Z

FIVE IS A FOUR LETTER WORD

2008-03-04T08:06:15Z

TELL YOUR FAMILY!

RUN!!!!!!!!

For Jacob

2008-03-04T06:37:20Z

Best advice EVER.

2008-02-23T05:56:54Z

Someone on my board complained that they were bored.

Someone gave the advice: "Put on a coat. Attack the night. Maybe something Neil Gaiman-ish will happen to you."

LOL!

2008-02-21T13:14:52Z

Today's XKCD is just amazing.

While you're at it, I highly recommend you check out the blag at XKCD. Today was the first time I looked. And wow. http://blag.xkcd.com/

Good shooting.

2008-02-21T12:59:17Z

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/bam-navy-hits-r.html

So we've successfully proved that the US can hit a 13-foot target traveling at 17,000 mph from more than 240 kilometers away.

Pft, 13-foot? I can do that with my twelve gauge.

Helping

2008-02-13T12:29:25Z

Hahaha.

2008-02-13T12:23:35Z

Yes, Jacob. When you wait until the last moment to read 310 pages of really boring stuff, write three papers, and put together a presentation, you get to stay up all night working on it!

I'm a genius!

Take that, one-day-of-normal-sleep-over-the-past-week!

When Internets attack.

2008-02-11T14:54:56Z

Poor London. It had to deal with the Internet in real life.

http://deathboy.livejournal.com/1082404.html

I think my favorite part is when the various protesters started to Rick Roll the Scientology building.