A while back I decided to copy other blogs by having a little “shameless promotion” in which I logged nice things folks were saying about me.
Steve Ray recently blogged some nice things about me. He also warned me that once I read them I’d probably blush beet red.
Sigh.
He was right.
The trouble with Steve is that he’s just TOO NICE a guy.
In our age in which people are marrying later and delaying having children, many women find themselves in the painful situation of feeling that their reproductive years are slipping away from them without having the children they want to have. Part of the problem is that how many reproductive years a woman has is uncertain. It varies from woman to woman.
The method involves measuring the size of the ovaries by ultrasound (they shrink as a woman approaches menopause).
The method does not work on women who are on the Pill, which prematurely shrinks the ovaries.
Unfortunately, if the method works, it will be used to push some women toward using illicit reproductive techniques, but for other women it will have the opposite effect. Those with more (rather than fewer) reproductive years will know that it is still worth trying to conceive naturally, and even those women who are committed to using moral means to conceive but have fewer reproductive years left will know to try to conceive sooner and more earnesly.
In our age in which people are marrying later and delaying having children, many women find themselves in the painful situation of feeling that their reproductive years are slipping away from them without having the children they want to have. Part of the problem is that how many reproductive years a woman has is uncertain. It varies from woman to woman.
The method involves measuring the size of the ovaries by ultrasound (they shrink as a woman approaches menopause).
The method does not work on women who are on the Pill, which prematurely shrinks the ovaries.
Unfortunately, if the method works, it will be used to push some women toward using illicit reproductive techniques, but for other women it will have the opposite effect. Those with more (rather than fewer) reproductive years will know that it is still worth trying to conceive naturally, and even those women who are committed to using moral means to conceive but have fewer reproductive years left will know to try to conceive sooner and more earnesly.
Sure, we all love the Google search engine. But have you ever wondered how Google is able to deliver such superaccurate results so quickly?
If you haven’t read the answer before, read it now!
In an ironic move, privacy expert Lauren Weinstein has exposed MTV’s private plans to do a fraudulent debate show whose purpose is to humiliate its guests.
Weinstein, who was invited on the show, did some checking before accepting. Here is what he found:
Not really a debate at all, the show is actually a program for Comedy Central (yes, an MTV/Viacom network) called “Crossballs” — and its sole purpose is the embarrassment and humiliation of the expert guests who are brought on expecting a legitimate discussion program.
Crossballs is a rigged “reality” show, where real guests, who have been kept in the dark about the show’s real format, are paired off against actors (playing the debate opponents) for the amusement of the live audience. The stories I read from persons recently on the show included descriptions of crude, sexually-oriented verbal attacks (and worse, like being handed various sexual “apparatus”) and concerns that their reputations would be ruined once the shows aired [source].
While we can all agree that this is a shameful abuse of the talk-show format, what I want to know is: How is this any different (except in degree) from regular news shows?
I’ve done enough TV interviews to know that guests are regularly set up by news organizations for purposes of humiliating them and ridiculing their points of view.
(WARNING: I found the Weinstein story through another site that only linked the relevant page, which I have linked, but I wouldn’t go poking around on the site unless you want to see lots of disturbing Iraq prisoner abuse photos elsewhere on it.)
A new study has revealed (not surprisingly) that different parts of the brain are involved in humor recognition and humor appreciation.
This is something we could have guessed from a number of things:
1. People often “get” a joke but don’t find it funny.
2. There are those stoic Hollywood types who hear a joke and respond with the monotone word “Funny,” not batting an eyelash or cracking a smile.
3. We often laugh more often and more heartily when in a group than we do when alone. When watching a comedy program or movie by ourselves, we often “get” and appreciate the humor, but don’t laugh as frquently or with as much gusto as when we see the same comedy in the presence of a group of people, whose laughter reinforces our own appreciation of the humor.
The study suggests that the humor-recognition module of the brain is located in the left hemisphere (connected more closely with rational thought), while the humor-appreciation module is located deeper in the brain (containing structures connected more closely with the emotions).
The study was done by showing people episodes of The Simpsons and Seinfeld and monitoring their brains for activity.
According to one of the researchers, “If some people don’t find The Simpsons funny, it’s premature to say that they have a defective frontal lobe.”
Must . . . resist . . . obvious . . . joke.
A new study has revealed (not surprisingly) that different parts of the brain are involved in humor recognition and humor appreciation.
This is something we could have guessed from a number of things:
1. People often “get” a joke but don’t find it funny.
2. There are those stoic Hollywood types who hear a joke and respond with the monotone word “Funny,” not batting an eyelash or cracking a smile.
3. We often laugh more often and more heartily when in a group than we do when alone. When watching a comedy program or movie by ourselves, we often “get” and appreciate the humor, but don’t laugh as frquently or with as much gusto as when we see the same comedy in the presence of a group of people, whose laughter reinforces our own appreciation of the humor.
The study suggests that the humor-recognition module of the brain is located in the left hemisphere (connected more closely with rational thought), while the humor-appreciation module is located deeper in the brain (containing structures connected more closely with the emotions).
The study was done by showing people episodes of The Simpsons and Seinfeld and monitoring their brains for activity.
According to one of the researchers, “If some people don’t find The Simpsons funny, it’s premature to say that they have a defective frontal lobe.”
Must . . . resist . . . obvious . . . joke.
A new report indicates that Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the highest churchman in the Anglican communion, has been invited to appear on animated TV show The Simpsons.
This is less surprising than one might think since the Anglican communion’s recent history resembles episodes of The Simpsons. (Sorry. Couldn’t resist. But I suspect many Anglicans would say the same thing.)
In other Simpsons news, plans are in the works for a Simpsons movie.
Also, the fourth season of The Simpsons is finally out on DVD.
A new report indicates that Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the highest churchman in the Anglican communion, has been invited to appear on animated TV show The Simpsons.
This is less surprising than one might think since the Anglican communion’s recent history resembles episodes of The Simpsons. (Sorry. Couldn’t resist. But I suspect many Anglicans would say the same thing.)
In other Simpsons news, plans are in the works for a Simpsons movie.
Also, the fourth season of The Simpsons is finally out on DVD.
A reader is having difficulty with a Muslim who is trying to make apologetic hay with Matthew 21:7, which records that Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem involved both an ass and its colt, with the parallel accounts in Mark and Luke, which mention only the colt. These passages record the fulfillment of a Messianic prophecy in Zechariah 9:9, which can be read as either prophesying the use of one or two animals.
The reader writes:
The Moslem is making an argument that Matthew is being stupid by suggesting that Jesus is riding on TWO asses. He also stated that ONLY MATTHEW wrote about an Ass and a Colt but the other Evangelists don’t, so this mean Matthew is erroneous and is a Gentile (he insisted that Matthew is a gentile and not the Apostle. I disagree because the Church long held believe that Matthew the gospel writer is the same as Matthew the Apostle [altough the erroneous NAB commentary proposed otherwise]
I need to prove that the wording in the original writing means only ONE ASS in Matthew 21:7
However from people at Catholic-convert.com. It turned out that the original Greek said “Them,” implying that Jesus was riding on two animals. (Jimmy I need your language help on the original Greek too)
We then try to propose a solution that the “them” is referring to the “garments” which Jesus sat on. This argument is not pretty assuring although not entirely wrong. The “them” in Mat 21:7 could pass as referring to the “two animals” or the “garments”
In regard to the other evangelists, my argument to the Moslem is that they didn’t mention the Ass because it’s not necessary to fulfill Zach 9:9. But the Ass WAS there, it just didn’t get mentioned.
Okay, here’s some thoughts:
1. The original prophecy in Zechariah can be read either as involving one or two animals. Both readings are acceptable given the Hebrew of the passage.
2. If memory serves, the prophecy has been taken both ways by Jewish interpreters, though I wouldn’t use make this claim in discussions with your Muslim acquaintance unless I can check it out and verify it. I simply mention it for your background at this point.
3. The Greek of Matthew 21:7 definitely indicates that there were two animals involved.
4. The use of two animals is not implausible. As has often been pointed out, the colt was young and had never been ridden before. Having it follow its mother (and possibly having it tied to its mother) would have had a steadying effect on it and made it easier to ride.
5. There is no contradiction between Matthew and the other Evangelists regarding the number of animals. Matthew is simply giving more details of what happened at the event. This is a common occurrence in the gospels. Different authors mention different details about what happened in Jesus’ minsitry, which is the whole point of having several different accounts–i.e., so that they can supplement each other. In fact, the Qur’an does exactly the same thing. In the Qur’an Muhammad (endlessly) repeats the story of Noah and the Flood, giving different details on different occasions (and often getting them wrong).
6. The Greek of Matthew 21:7 can be taken to mean either that Jesus sat on both animals or that he sat on the garments placed on one animal.
One could argue that the former interpretation is more likely on two grounds: (a) the verse says that the garments were placed “on them” (i.e., on both animals) and if the garments were placed on both animals this suggests that both were to be ridden, (b) the verse says that “they led the ass and the colt, and they laid on them the garments, and he sat upon them” (my literal translation from the Greek); in this the second occurrence of the word “them” (autOn) is most naturally taken from a word-repetition point of view as having the same referent as the first occurrence of the word, which is clearly being used to refer to the ass and the colt.
However, one could respond by pointing out (a) that there is a lot of flexibility in language, and Matthew could have used “them” differently in the second instance, and (b) in the Greek word order, the nearest preceding plural noun to the second occurrence of “them” is “garments” (as in the translation I gave above). This makes “garments” the more natural referent for the second “them” from a word-order point of view.
From this it is clear that a word-repetition point of view would support the “them” = “ass + colt” hypothesis, while a word-order point of view would support the “them” = “garments” hypothesis.
This leaves unaffected the fact that the garments are said to be placed “on them,” but if Matthew is speaking of the ass and colt as a unit (which he clearly is since one pronoun is used for both) then placing the garments on one “of them” is sufficient for saying that the garments were placed “on them” (without requiring that they were placed on both “of them”). If the latter is what Matthew meant then the garments might have been placed on only one animal (i.e., the colt), and Jesus rode only that animal.
In any event, both interpretations are possible given the Greek.
7. If the verse is interpeted to mean that Jesus rode both animals then this does not entail a physical difficulty or impossibility. He could have ridden them in turn (i.e., he first rode one, then the other). Hypothetically, if the two were side by side and one was much smaller, he could have ridden one and placed a foot on the other, though this is less likely.
8. Given the ambiguity of the Hebrew prophecy, it is not implausible that Jesus would want to have two animals involved in the event. Nor is it implausible that he would want to ride both animals, most likely in turn. Doing these things would make it especially clear to that the prophecy was being fulfilled.
9. If there were Jews in Jesus’ day who took the “two animals” interpretation, it would be even more valuable to fulfill the prophecy in this way to make it clear to them in particular that the prophecy was fulfilled.
10. There is no support whatsoever in this for the idea that Matthew was a gentile. That the author or authors of Matthew were Jewish is not contested by anybody, even by those who (wrongly) claim that the author was different than Matthew the apostle. Matthew’s gospel is clearly the most traditionally Jewish of all the gospels in its outlook, which strongly indicates Jewish authorship.
11. In fact, the “two animals” interpetation corresponds particularly well with the interpretive rules in use in first century Judaism, which tended to see more distinctions and more entities in a text, though grammatically the text could be read as involving fewer distinctions or entitites. The “two animals” interpretation thus supports rather than diminishes the Jewish authorship of Matthew.
I would also note that you are likely encountering a phenomenon that is common in Muslim anti-Christian apologetics. Some Muslim apologists will produce lengthy lists of alleged Bible contradictions that have clearly been plagiarized from Western sources (i.e., taken from Western sources without acknowledgement, as if the Muslims had done their own original research). These charges have been refuted over and over again. Indeed, at times one can be given the impression that the Muslim authors are plagiarizing from the very books written to explain the alleged contradictions and are hypocritically suppressing the explanations that resolve them. Your Muslim acquaintance likely is drawing his argument from such a plagiarized Muslim catalog of Bible “contradictions.”
It is difficult to take such Muslim catalogs seriously, both because the alleged contradictions have long been satisfactorily explained by Christians and because the Qur’an is filled with contradictions and absurdities that dwarf anything alleged regarding the Bible.