Stem Cell Research

I have found that the position of those opposed to embryonic stem cell research is rarely well represented on mass media sources. I do not know why, except that the bias of the media supports it. I suggest, however, that it is an inhumane practice very much worthy of our censure.

The basic position of those members of society who, like me, will be voting against Proposition 71 is this: experimenting on human beings is morally reprobate.

The problem with a lot of society today is that they have no real conception of what humanity is. Naturalistic thought truthfully provides no reasonable basis for the sanctity of human life, or even a sufficeint definition of what humanity is. Evidence of the latter is that nobody treats human cells better than other cells, despite their genetic identity.

Those of us who believe in the soul define personhood metaphysically. That is, there is an immaterial element to all humanity, which is called the soul. I can see no reason to believe that a human being, biologically, is not a human being metaphysically. And since the dignity of humanity comes from the possession of this immaterial substance (in conjunction with the matter, it's in no way morally flawed), abortion is immoral.

Abortion should never be cemented by building upon it other frameworks. Using aborted embryonic stem cells is like using a murder victim's body for research without their consent. I can't vote for the government to supply money to such an endeavor.

I'm tired.

It's interesting that so much of the world has a strong opinion about the American election. It's also interesting that so much of it is opposed to George W. Bush. Of course, by "world" I can't actually mean the "the entire population of the world." There is no way to poll the entire world, and a very great deal of it is not informed and has no opinion, I assume, on the American election.

The World watches America vote

Anyway, in a sampling of people around the world who are concerned with American politics and are not Americans there seems to be a majority that disagrees with Bush, as well as I can figure. This is somewhat tentative, still, but I'll go with it.

Why? Why do they care? And why do they oppose Bush?

I think the questions end up answering themselves if one sees them as one and the same. That is, they care because of Bush, and that's why they oppose him. America's current offensive stance against terrorism, while the strongest and most effective strategically, is also likely to be one of the most offensive. People are worried when the world's giant is angry.

So, why should this not worry conservative voters? Well, when did the majority ever start dictating what truth is? In general, the countries in which people may have an opinion on this subject are going to be more technologically advanced, since the polls are taken on the internet. These countries of the world, unfortunately, are likely to be the least Christian. How does this matter? Christians can understand like nobody else taking a stand for something that one sees as true. A death for others is the foundation of our faith, and martyrdom is the very meat of our early religious history.

In other words, America has the unique condition of being the most Christian country in the world at the present moment.

This also explains why this election is so heated, it really does boil down to a Christian versus non-Christian world-view, or at least world-views consistent with Chrsitianity versus a secular, French Revolution style, understanding of the Constitution.

Torrey Conference ended up being pretty good, session-wise. I've gotten nowhere near enough work, done, though, as I thought would happen.

All of the speakers had good style and pretty good messages. None of them were perfect, of course. One gave an exposition of Romans 1-11 in order to do Romans 12. It was really good, as he layed out completely a reading of Romans that comes straight out of Luther. That was an enjoyable trip down the backbone of Protestant theology, even if it's hard for me to understand.

I'm convinced there is a forensic element to justification, but I'm not convinced that's all there is. It seems to me there must be a change of soul in order for God's knowledge of us to remain correct. So, are regeneration and justification really different things?

We also had a pleasant Calvinist exposition on Ephesians 2:8 Thursday night that was thrown into a sermon on sovereignty largely to irritate the Wesleyans and Armenians in the crowd, as the speaker admitted. As I tend in the Wesleyan direction I knew he was poking at me, but I wasn't really bothered. I'm not bothered by God's sovereignty and I don't see the verse saying what he thinks it says.

Today's sessions were somewhat poor. The last session was a sparsely attended worship session that I wasn't all that inspired by. My taste in worship has changed somewhat dramatically since I regularly attended Calvary. I just don't speak that language from the heart anymore. The liturgy appeals to me more. But I don't think that the worship service was awful. It was mainly a taste issue (based on what I think are probably real issues in the worship movement). He definitely was from Orange County, though. He really spoke the dialect. There's an intonation that's so typically Orange County, mainly, especially in the South/Central OC young white people subculture.

Torrey Conference is this week. What a burden!

Instead of being at all a time to relax a little and learn some sound Biblical teaching, it is a time when I have twice as much time that's required to be spent in a class but just as much homework and work. What a joke!

Biola should excuse upper classmen from Torrey. If not all upper classmen, at least commuter upper classmen, or all seniors. It's a joke to expect us to go to the same number of conferences as Freshmen when we obviously have a lot more work to do. Our professors are less inclined to care about Torrey conference homework-wise than other professors. I have two important papers to work on, a session to prepare for next week, and a senior thesis to log a lot of hours on. What a great opportunity! I could worship God by doing the thing that I should be doing in a dedicated manner. Or I could go to a sermon of potential value. It's just frustrating, especially since there's no more reasonable grace for exemptions.

I'm trying hard to not be cynical, but I really am struggling with this.

They don't make movies like they used to...

Tonight I celebrated the end of my school week by partaking in some good old fashioned Indiana Jones action. I hadn't seen the Temple of Doom yet, so I checked it out from the Biola library in order to educated my previous ignorance with the brilliant light of new knowledge. I don't regret it.

It's a really suspenseful and dark movie. From the opening fight scene on there is rarely a moment where you're entirely relaxed. Libby and I were reassuring each other that it would be alright at several peak scenes just because it was so hard to believe that it would be. I don't think I've seen an action movie that builds suspense as constantly and consistently nearly as grippingly as this movie did.
It has some really disturbing things in it, too, which made it surprising that it was rated only PG. They freaking carve a man's heart out of his chest.

It's always fun watching Indiana Jones, though. I love Harrison Ford's character and acting, as well as his boy side kick. The girl was a little annoying, but that's somewhat par of the course, from what I remember from the first movie. The women are always getting in trouble and increasing the tension.

The gripping roller coaster style ride of this movie is about as good as you can orchestrate in an action movie. I wish they still did this as well, but I think action movies have moved on to different focuses now.

I got rain-wet walking from the library to my car ealier under a rainbow pregnant sky. The ominous darkening East frowned fiercely against the brilliant Western blue. Today was an exhilarating day to be alive.

The Trinity

I had the priviledge of journeying with 9 other students today through three hours of a discussion on the Trinity via Thomas Aquinas. It was one of the most enjoyable sessions that I had for a long time. I was able to grasp a vision of what a unified trinity might look like for the first time in my life. Thomas' view may not be completely correct, but it works well enough to guide one's thoughts in contemplation of God. So here's a summary of what we talked about, likely mostly for my own benefit in posterity.

His arguments begin with procession. There are, in a human soul, two kinds of inward processions. If our soul is created in the image of God, then these two kinds of processions will be present in God. These processions might be understood as conception in the intellect and love, which is any movement of the will. Concepts are words: thus the Word is the Concept of God within God. God being God, any concept He had would be perfect. This is the Word. God's internal movement (He is pure act, after all) towards Himself (and us, in God's conception of us) is a movement of His whole self, and thus the procession of the Holy Spirit is fully God.

To distinguish between the three persons whose essences are identical, St. Thomas relies on relations. Based on the processions, we can understand 4 relationships in God: Filiation, the relationship of a son to a father; Paternity, the relationship of a father to a son; Spiration, the relationship of the Father and the Son to the Spirit (a special kind of relationship used to describe God's will's procession); Procession, the relation of the Spirit to the Son and the Father.

There is an important, but difficult to understand distinction in what kind of relationships exist upon which his arguments rest. That is, there are relative relationships: the relationship of one thing to another. This kind of relationship does not inhere as an accident in the thing related. That is, if I move about my keyboard in front of or behind my monitor, it won't change the keyboard at all. It will be relating to the monitor in a different manner, however. The other kind of relation is the relation of something in which there is an inherence of accidents. An example of this is the black coloring of a Bible's cover. The Bible isn't defined by the black, so the black must be relating to the book in some way.

Aquinas takes this distinction to say that this second kind of relation in God will not be accidental, but essential. This is based on his simplicity doctrine, which I won't argue for here. Those relations I described earlier are all essential in God, then.

From this discussion, Aquinas is free to move on to the discussion of Persons. Personhood is defined as distinct substance of a rational nature. But, wait, isn't substance essence? How can there be three persons of distinct substances if there's only one essence? This problem is solved by a proper understanding of what substance is. Substance can be understood either as essence (or ousia) or it can be understood as the genus of things that are. St. Thomas eliminates the first definition and clings to the second, which has three properties. One part of this is the important term "hypostasis." This is understood as that which accepts accidents. That is, what underlies all of my blond hair, blue eyes, etc. When people refer to me, they don't refer to my accidents, but tomy substance or hypostasis. It can also mean the "natural thing," in which part I am in substance a human. My substance is the human substance. In another way I am "subsistence," or an individualized something.

The last article we worked on in session was the most difficult but most rewarding part of our journey. It is Question 29, Article 4 of the Summa. In this section he explains his vision of the Trinity in more detail than he had yet done (I suppose he's been doing this all along, but this article is a kind of culmination). There is a lot of work done in a few sentences of the last paragraph in the responsio of this article, but it's worth looking at.

Here's the text:

Now distinction in God is only by relation of origin, as stated above (28, 2, 3), while relation in God is not as an accident in a subject, but is
the divine essence itself; and so it is subsistent, for the divine essence
subsists. Therefore, as the Godhead is God so the divine paternity is God the Father, Who is a divine person. Therefore a divine person signifies a relation as subsisting. And this is to signify relation by way of substance, and such a relation is a hypostasis subsisting in the divine nature, although in truth that which subsists in the divine nature is the divine nature itself.

He says this:

1. Distinction in God based on relation.
2. Relations in God are essence of God.
3. The Divine Essence is self subsisting.
C1: Therefore the Relations in God are subsistent.
C2: Therefore the Godhead is to God as Paternity is to God the Father.
4. God the Father is a Person.
C3: Therefore Divine Person signifies a relation that's subsisting.
C4: This signifies relation by way of substance, and this is a hypostasis subsisting in the Divine Nature!

This explains the Trinity. It lays out a relationship between the Persons and Essence that makes sense with a simplicity of God doctrine. It's pretty beautiful, if you see it. It's probably easiest to see when talking about with someone, though. Then the image is shared and it's pretty exciting. It comes together and makes sense. You can see how each person is God, truly, and how God has distinctions that are Persons, truly. It's a great beginning to two more sessions on the Trinity. I'll be leading the next one.

Columbus Day is this week.

There was a parade in Denver held up by some American Indians and other protesters, reported as front page news by cnn.com. In recent years it has occurred to me, as a result of a more educated mind and greater time in books, that Columbus, and the image of Columbia, are critical symbols in our national fabric. Unfortunately, these have been discarded as the outmoded images of Manifest Destiny and non-politically correct western-centered pride.

There were definite, truly evil things that happened as a result of Columbus' discovery. He did things that he ought never have done in America. But equally true is that we still owe him our recognition. Sure, the Indians were in North America before anyone else, and the vikings were the first Europeans over here. But the reason that we owe Columbus recognition is not the novelty of his find, but the heritage of his discovery. The Native Americans and vikings' discovery did not lead to our country's existence. Our country's existence stemmed from the Rennaissance wanderings of one Christopher Columbus. And to not recognize that would be unfair and proud. And the recognition of Columbus' gifts in different modes, including a single day can be positively seen as a little repayment of a vast debt.

So, remember Columbus Day! Be proud of being an American, and be thankful that Columbus made that possible!

Justin Shelby is doing a lot better today! He is conscious and responsive. This is a major answer to a lot of peoples' prayers. As tomorrow is the first day of the week after the event, it looks like a long hard time is finally coming to an end. Praise be to God!

My blog is over a year old, now. I started it October the first of last year, and now it's October the eigth of this year. I've come a long way since then.

Curiously, I'm reading the same things now in my Romantic Literature class as I was a year ago in Torrey. We have moved on to Coleridge, leaving Wordsworth behind us for the moment.

Coleridge's style of poetry is more enticing to me than Wordsworth's. His descriptions of nature, I think, fit the sensibility that I have had tempered in my experiences in the mountains. Anyway, I've enjoyed what I've been reading so far. Today in class we began discussing "Kubla Khan." This poem is the most eerie pieces of poetry that I have ever read. I literally tremble when contemplating it for any length of time. I suppose further study would eradicate this intensity of response, but for the moment it is thrilling.

The most directly pleasing aspects of this poem is its power to replicate in your soul the exact feelings described in the metaphor. This, to me, is a powerful argument that what is described in the poem is not only Nature and inspiration, but our nature, from which inspiration flows. The pleasurable fear it produces is a result of it describing in pleasing terms what I am like, both good, evil and powerful in my tremendously vital imagination. When I say pleasing I do not mean "so much fun inside of myself" but rather I am attempting to capture the natural movement of the soul towards beauty which results from reading beautiful language. The poet draws us with his eloquence to imagine his metaphor, and then we realize its power, and withdraw instinctively from the disturbing quality it possesses, and perhaps feel a little betrayed by a poet who demonstrates, and then claims, a powerful authority over us.

Anyway, here's the poem, which was published by Coleridge preceded by this introduction:

Kubla Khan

IN Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure-dome decree:
Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
Through caverns measureless to man
Down to a sunless sea. 5
So twice five miles of fertile ground
With walls and towers were girdled round:
And there were gardens bright with sinuous rills
Where blossom'd many an incense-bearing tree;
And here were forests ancient as the hills, 10
Enfolding sunny spots of greenery.

But O, that deep romantic chasm which slanted
Down the green hill athwart a cedarn cover!
A savage place! as holy and enchanted
As e'er beneath a waning moon was haunted 15
By woman wailing for her demon-lover!
And from this chasm, with ceaseless turmoil seething,
As if this earth in fast thick pants were breathing,
A mighty fountain momently was forced;
Amid whose swift half-intermitted burst 20
Huge fragments vaulted like rebounding hail,
Or chaffy grain beneath the thresher's flail:
And 'mid these dancing rocks at once and ever
It flung up momently the sacred river.
Five miles meandering with a mazy motion 25
Through wood and dale the sacred river ran,
Then reach'd the caverns measureless to man,
And sank in tumult to a lifeless ocean:
And 'mid this tumult Kubla heard from far
Ancestral voices prophesying war! 30

The shadow of the dome of pleasure
Floated midway on the waves;
Where was heard the mingled measure
From the fountain and the caves.
It was a miracle of rare device, 35
A sunny pleasure-dome with caves of ice!

A damsel with a dulcimer
In a vision once I saw:
It was an Abyssinian maid,
And on her dulcimer she play'd, 40
Singing of Mount Abora.
Could I revive within me,
Her symphony and song,
To such a deep delight 'twould win me,
That with music loud and long, 45
I would build that dome in air,
That sunny dome! those caves of ice!
And all who heard should see them there,
And all should cry, Beware! Beware!
His flashing eyes, his floating hair! 50
Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed,
And drunk the milk of Paradise.

Cute kittens!

This picture on Dustin's site made me do a google image search for kittens. Kittens sure are cute. They're so small! And they've got big eyes, and big feet! Cats really are wonderful creatures to have as pets. I wish I didn't have a cat allergy. Die nose die!

Doom the movie?

Oh the horrors that this may unleash.

Ghengis Khan's Palace?

Looks like they might have found the Khan rulers palace. Sweet. Genghis Khan connected East and West, destroyed the Islamic Caliphate of the Middle East (or what was left of it) and threatened Europe. His followers maintained a peaceful trade route from China to Europe, letting Marco Polo travel overland to China. Very sweet to find out more about him.

I've been watching the Mount Saint Helens cam pretty religiously lately. And today I was totally watching when it erupted! It's still frame, but it was fun none the less to be one of the first people to see the images. I'm so cyber-connected it's not even funny.

Looking at Lem's pictures of the Joshua Tree trip make me want to go back there again. The sky's so blue, it just looks pleasant. I love California, it's so beautiful.

I love the desert, especially in Joshua Tree's exotic high desert vallies and rocky outcroppings. The sun kisses it intensely under the clear blue dome towering above you.

I also like the spaciousness, the wide open freedom. I noticed today how each house of the city is a person-space. There is so little non-peopled space around me right now. But if I drove to Joshua Tree there would be easily accessible, non-peopled wilderness. It is awesome.

The ocean is pretty much self-explanatorily awesome. In session it struck me that standing on the beach and gazing out over the ocean is like our perception of God sometimes. We can see the ocean, and recognize that it is the ocean. We can even describe some positive things about it. We can also describe it by remarking on what it is not, it's limitless, it's depthless, etc. Same with God. We can see Him sometimes, and we can know some things about Him, but He extends far far far out of our range of sight. And that's just the surface. There are inexhaustible depths below His relations to us.

And of course, California's mountains are some of the most beautiful in America. The dizzying sheer plunges in the Sierra Nevada provide ample food for a beauty starved soul. Crystal lakes forested thickly by arrow-straight pines, marching in rows up into the granite wilderness make me home sick. I realized that I only got to go to Mammoth once this summer. That's really sad. I miss the sun drenched alpine meadows nestled amongst solid granite towers so much. Shoot, it makes me homesick imagining it.

Must read more Wordsworth, must mature imaginative faculty, to be able to connect in my parlor to the most sublime natural things. There's a transition from loving California: the Romantics. I don't know if Wordsworth's ideas are the best, but the man loved nature, and the man connected to it in a unique way from which we can learn at least a route of pleasure.

I'm going to bed now, because it's very late. I'm staying up mostly to listen to a Smashing Pumpkin's CD of Phil's. I enjoy early 90s rock a lot more than most things that are being made today, and a heck of a lot more than all the 80s junk that's being shoved in our face recently.