How does one draw the line between "militant terrorists" and "innocent civilian bystanders"?

Perhaps in some parts of the world it's impossible to draw that line?

Any thoughts?

 Wow, this is really strange.   And sad.  It's interesting how it's hard to get the full/accurate perspective on war events until years afterward (cf. USA War for Independence, Civil War, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, etc).   Who knows how much more crucial information we're missing about current world conflicts...

God knows.

"...there is nothing covered up that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known. Accordingly, whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in the inner rooms will be proclaimed upon the housetops.

I say to you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have no more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!" 

- -  Jesus Christ

It is quite plausible that Jesus Christ knew what He was talking about.

Several fascinating articles I came across today:

1. This post by Al Mohler mentions the growing numbers of schools (and kindergartens!) allowing "transgendered" children in school, and catering to them extensively (essentially imposing their worldview upon the other children). The question that immediately comes to my mind is the age-old "Should we engage or disengage?" ...i.e., how much is enough, before one takes one's children out to homeschool them rather than leaving them in to 'have a godly influence'?

2. Another post by Mohler mentions that married couples are now a minority of couples in the USA. This is a thought-provoking milestone in our national moral decline, to say the least...

3. This article by Richard Fernandez (quoting Dershowitz and Arbour) contains a very insightful analysis of the current moral dilemma faced by the United Nations and by those who look to the UN to solve the world's problems. Most of the post is excerpted below:

"Is National Self Defense a War Crime?" Asks Alan Dershowitz in a op-ed in Canada’s National Post. The answer says Dershowitz is "yes" if you ask Louise Arbour, a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and currently the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights, for so long as national self defense entails the risk of inflicting collateral damage. Dershowitz rejects her position and goes on to argue that:

"Democracies simply cannot protect their citizens against terrorist attacks of the kind launched by Hezbollah without some foreseeable risk to civilians. There cannot be any absolute prohibition against such self-defensive military actions so long as they are proportional to the dangers and reasonable efforts are made to minimize civilian casualties."

Barbour's thinking has set up a wholly secular equivalent of the Problem of Evil. If we remove the term "God" from the standard proposition and replace it with appropriately secular terms we have this restatement:

Barbour's Dilemma is the problem of reconciling the existence of oppressive regimes, genocide and mass slaughter in a world governed by a wholly benevolent, pacifistic, nonviolent and impotent United Nations.

If the United Nations is benevolent then it cannot tolerate the existence of a Rwanda, Congo, North Korea or a Darfur. But if it attempts to stop these atrocities then inevitably it must inflict some collateral damage which will cause some people to die and that, according to Barbour, is a War Crime. There is no way out of the paradox and the system is in logical self-contradiction. Unlike the real problem of evil, a theodicy is not allowed as a solution to Barbour's Dilemma.because in a secular context, no meta-solutions are allowed by invoking a God who can make amends for everything or whose true nature we cannot completely understand. Those transcendant quantities cannot exist in Barbour's secular universe. They might exist in a religious universe, but not in the United Nations'.

There are also other problems with the UN hegemony...  where does the source of moral legitimacy for any enforcement arise, whether 'collateral damage' is done or not?   What right does any human have to 'impose morality' of any kind whatsoever upon a fellow human?   ...or, from whence does that right come?

There's another discussion I'm participating in at http://www.xanga.com/ArgumentsFromtheRight/537648500/item.html that is delving into questions of 'secular morality', if you're interested and have some time.

Del Gaudio said he made a tough call after a roadside bomb killed four of his men in April. While securing the scene, he was shot at by a machine gun in a follow-up attack. When he aimed his weapon to return fire, he saw that the gunmen had a line of children standing in front of them and two men filming with video cameras. He held fire until the children moved out of the way but was shot in his hand, which was only inches from his face. "Restraint almost cost me my life," he said.

Wow.

What can you call dedication like that, which strives to "do the right thing" while being physically attacked and being villified in one's own country's newspapers?

Heroism, I guess.  True patriotism.

Meanwhile, the endless flow of questions continues in my own mind.  Lately I've been thinking/wondering a lot about heaven and rewards and christian-motivation and prayer, and why God doesn't answer it sometimes.  And fatherhood - why does a father (or a Father) sometimes allow pain into the child's life, 'unwillingly' yet deliberately, in hope/expectation of a far greater end result?  I guess I've answered my own question there.

If you haven't been keeping up with the discussion about history and the resurrection , you may wish to do so!!  It's still smoking, thanks to several enthusiastic visiting participant-commenters.

Yes, three entries in one day is more than usual.  But this has been an unusual week.  I have been "stirred up" more than usual, though only my private journal has seen the majority of it.

Lately I've been wondering more about this phrase in Jesus' teaching - Matt. 5:42 - "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you".

??????

Does that mean that if someone walks up to me and asks for my car, that I just give it to him?  Or is it only an "in-need" response, as in I give it to him if he has need of it?  If a beggar on the street asks me, not just for five dollars or for a meal, but for my whole wallet, do I give it?  If one of you fellow Xangans sent me an email asking me for a thousand dollars, ought I send it?

If a man walks up to me and asks for my child, do I give him or her to the man?

"If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. "

Wow.  How far do I take this? !?

Ok, more philosophical/epistemological musings...      Sorry for those of you my esteemed readers who would rather read little tidbits and anecdotes...     But I'll come back to those in a few days, perhaps.

These thoughts were prompted by some discussions from this past week, although they've been percolating for quite a while.  My views on the inspiration/inerrancy of the Scriptures have also been undergoing some modification over the last few months.  I'll have to explain that some time.

For now, enjoy, and although I didn't write it in a very clear way, please feel free to wade in and suggest any of your thoughts, critiques, and suggestions for improvement.

============================

The topic is "science and the Bible", and the question is how to proceed if they seem to contradict.  (It might be helpful to merge these thoughts with Moreland's "four views" from our readings).  Working on the following assumptions:

1. The Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God to mankind.

2. Observational/nomological science connects us to the real world that God created, so that by performing experiments and observing the results, we (have the potential ability to) view/interact-with a real physical world, not an "illusion" - i.e. our observations "correspond" with a reality that exists outside of any human observers.

3. All of our interpretations of the Bible are fallible and must pass through multiple "layers" of cultural/environmental influences.  Examples of the layers are:
- between the original autographs and the extant manuscripts and codices
- between the extant codices' symbolic semantic Hebrew/Greek message and our own individual understandings (i.e. "Do I understand the language this manuscript is written in?")
- between the Hebrew/Greek and the English, if we don't know Hebrew/Greek (i.e. the issue of "translations")
- the broad-context questions - e.g. "I know this says "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth...", but does the word "days" in context refer to literal 24-hour days, or unspecified periods of time?"

4. All of our interpretations of scientific experiments are fallible and must pass through multiple "layers" of cultural/environmental influences.  Examples of the layers are:
- if I read about an experiment (e.g. Michelson-Morley) in a textbook rather than performing it myself (with direct sensory observation), I have the same difficulties of textual interpretation as above with Scripture:
- "do I understand the language of this scientific report?"
- "am I grasping the meaning of what the author wrote in broad context?"  (e.g. the word "evolution" has many meanings)
- if I perform the experiment myself, am I 'sure' that I am not performing the experiment incorrectly, or that I am not failing to account for all possible confounding factors? (i.e. experimental error, sensor noise, other confounding factors)
- whether another or I perform the experiment, are our assumptions valid?  (e.g. uniformitarian "annual layer" assumptions for varves, ice cores, tree rings, etc)
- whether another or I perform the experiment, is my model valid to the necessary precision? (e.g. relativity and quantum mechanics drastically revised the physical models of the 19th century, allowing greater prediction precision than before)

5. Both our scientific and our Scriptural understandings can be supposed to be "asymptotically convergent", meaning that although they can be "wrong" to various precisions, increasing time and study will bring our beliefs closer to "The Truth".
- e.g. for scientific theories, Einstein's theory of gravity "refined" Newton's, rather than "contradicting" Newton's.  Yet even Einstein's may not be the "exact" way that gravity is described.
- e.g. for scriptural interpretations...

6. It is desirable to hold to a set of beliefs that is as consistent as possible.  If possible, the set of beliefs that I hold should have no contradictions at all, when all qualifiers and caveats are accounted for.

7. It is desirable to hold to a set of beliefs that is as "livable" as possible.  This should "include" my own innate sense of what is morally desirable (while recognizing that my own innate conscience may possibly need revision from time to time).
- For example, if my conscience prompts me to treat other people with love and respect, even if they hold wrong beliefs (1 Peter 3:15), then a system of beliefs (such as Christianity) which shows the propriety and rationality (with respect to "the real world", both physical and spiritual) of such love and respect would be preferred over a system of beliefs which provided no rationale for such love of others (and certainly over a system which, for example, provided a rationale for destroying others so that my own 'fitter' genes would predominate/propagate).
- Yet, my conscience is not the end-all, since it might be corrupted.  For example, if I as a white Southern slave-owner of 150 years ago was confronted with compelling evidence from a belief system (such as Biblical Christianity) which I had strong reason to believe was true, I should be able to modify my innate sense of what was right and proper (e.g. from "The negro ought to know his place" to "The negro is my brother as a human, he has just as much dignity as an imagebearer-of-God as I do, and he needs to hear about God's salvation and kingdom just as much as I also need to hear").

 
Holding to these principles and assumptions, we might try to come up with a statement that we all agree upon...  (though I am not too optimistic about this...   such as:
"We agree that it is possible for scripture to 'trump' science, in the sense that:
- After all available scientific and scriptural evidence has been duly considered, it is possible for me:
- to experience and hold to a belief that my particular interpretation of a Scripture passage is directly contradictory to my particular interpretation of observational-scientific experiments and historical-reconstructions-supported-by-observational-scientific-experimental-evidence, and further:
- to experience "sufficient confidence" in a belief that my Scripture-based-belief indicates that the Scientific-theory is wrong, and further:
- to be "correct", "right", "legitimate," and "epistemically-justified," in my subsequent repudiation of a scientific theory based on an interpretation of Scripture that I am sufficiently confident is the correct interpretation (to the requisite level of asymptotic accuracy)."
In shorter words:

"We agree that sometimes it is proper to disbelieve in a scientific theory because of what Scripture says."

Or:

"It is possible to be so convinced that one understands what the Scriptures are saying/implying in a certain passage, that one believes in that interpretation in spite of the fact that scientific theories and evidence contradict that interpretation... and it is possible to be epistemically justified in so doing."

The critique might then arise: how does one know, to start out with, that the scriptures are "correct"/"infallible" in this scientific sense?  If it contradicts the scientific evidence we see around us, why shouldn't we throw it out?

In reply I would ask - "how does one know that ANY repository of truth is "correct" (let's temporarily postpone discussion of "infallible") in a scientific sense?"   And, "if a piece of evidence contradicts my current scientific understanding, do I throw out the "new piece of evidence" as "spurious," or do I revise (possibly drastically) my scientific beliefs to conform to the one new piece of "evidence?"

The basic problem is that theories never make quantum/qualitative jumps to the epistemological status of "scientific fact"... they instead gradually/quantitatively increase in the estimation of the scientific community, and sometimes for reasons other than scientific reasons.   (Cf. Popper, Kuhn, Ruse)

Yet the question of empirical corroboration of scripture-texts is important.  If the Bible consistently claimed things that were demonstrably false today (such as that people rise from the dead all the time, or that the earth is flat and is supported on the back of a giant tortise), we would be wise to reconsider our belief in it.

On the other hand, if the Bible claims things that are historically reasonable (such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead ca. 2000 years ago in Judea) and subsequently provides adequate ("non-circularly-reasoned") grounds for its own inerrancy, then it might conceivably be justifiable to trust its account of historical events which are accessible only in a limited way by modern scientific reconstructions...

Here is an incredible article... penned by a man who, along the lines of Martin Luther King Junior and other courageous men, stood up to injustice and paid the price for it.   Powerful.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/livenotbylies.html

Incredible.  Here's an amazing quote from the link, quoted from the Nature article.

"Indeed, it is not the job of a science teacher to meddle with the way their students are brought up or to attack their core personal beliefs. Rather, the goal should be to point to options other than intelligent design for reconciling science and belief."

!!!!!!

As Dilbert would say, "That was just wrong on so many levels."

I hate falsehood (such as, but not limited to, that statement) so much that I can't even think of any word to describe how terrible it is.  Note that I do not hate the people who say such, but the substance of their lies.

It seems these folks are either willfully ignorant (unlikely) or else knowingly and deceitfully trying to hide the fact that "pointing to options other than intelligent design" IS in fact "meddling with the way students are brought up."

Paraphrasing what these folks are saying in a slightly clearer fashion, "We science teachers shouldn't present evolution in a 'dogmatic' and 'confrontational' way... instead we should 'gently', 'gradually', 'subtly' try to brainwash the students toward our naturalistic beliefs."

Note the distinction attempted in the quote between "core personal beliefs" and other beliefs which are presumed to be 'public' or perhaps 'peripheral' - beliefs such as... the origin of life, the meaning of life (or not), the factuality and historicity of those "personal" beliefs...  ! !

HOW DARE a "personal" belief come out of the closet and present itself as actually, historically, scientifically, unilaterally, "TRUE"!  That would constitute narrowminded fundamentalist intolerance in the extreme. . .

(and this too, by Jay Richards, on a lighter note...  There's nothing quite like a good hard dose of satire once in a while...

This was an interesting event earlier this year... there are lots of articles describing it and its 'fallout'... 

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/01/17/summers_remarks_on_women_draw_fire?mode=PF

http://slate.msn.com/id/2112570/

I'm not going to give my opinion of his comments... yet... 
Here was one of my favorite excerpts from one of the articles (read them in their entirety first...)

"In his talk, according to several participants, Summers also used as an example one of his daughters, who as a child was given two trucks in an effort at gender-neutral parenting. Yet she treated them almost like dolls, naming one of them ''daddy truck," and one ''baby truck." "