Bible Discussion — Genesis 33-36

05/2/2007, 12:00 pm -- by | 7 Comments

This week, Bweinh.com looks at the next three chapters of the Bible, Genesis 33-36.

Previously in Genesis: 1-4 | 5-9 | 10-14 | 15-18 | 19-22 | 23-26 | 27-29 | 30-32

 
INTRODUCTION:
Maj. Jones:
I’m Major Doug Jones. My claim to fame which allows me to post as a guest contributor is that I am Josh’s father. I have served Jesus as a Salvation Army officer (pastor) for almost 31 years. I enjoy reading this weekly Bible discussion and hope to share something that will bless others as these bright young minds have been blessing me.

MC-B:
Another Old Testament story, another tale of rapes and massacres but also of the blessings and plans of God.

Steve:
Ups and downs, highs and lows, the book of Genesis has them all, as we see a happy reunion between Jacob and Esau, followed by unnecessary genocide.

Mike:
Jacob has been called back to Bethel. On the way, he has a meeting with Esau that God in his grace makes far more peaceful than it ought to be on the surface. After this, he arrives at Shechem and is tempted to stay there — the land is good and he figures he’s close enough to Bethel. But after his daughter is raped, Simeon and Levi gain revenge, forcing Jacob to leave and go to Bethel, where he meets God again.

David:
This is quite a homecoming for Jacob. God reaffirmed his name change to Israel, he suffered the loss of his wife, the birth of his most precious son, the death of Rebekah’s nurse and the death of his father. Oh, and his daughter gets raped and his sons commit murder. Plus Reuben sleeps with one of his concubines.

 
SOMETHING YOU’D NEVER NOTICED BEFORE:
Job:
With the feared coming of Esau, Jacob placed his wives and children in order of favoritism, with Rachel and Joseph in the safest position.

Tom:
Jacob starts off chapter 31 by hiding behind a bulwark of handmaids, wives, and children until Esau and his 400 men were close enough for Jacob to tell if his gifts of livestock had succeeded in pacifying the horde. What a little weasel.

Josh:
When Isaac called Esau in chapter 27 for his final blessing, it was largely because he felt his death would come soon. He certainly seemed pretty far gone — he couldn’t even recognize his own son. But in chapter 35 we learn Isaac survived the entire time Jacob was gone, a period spanning no less than twenty years.

Maj. Jones:
Running from Esau in chapter 28, Jacob ran into God at Bethel with his dream of the ladder. Now God has brought him back to Bethel to change his name to Israel.

Mike:
The random reference to Reuben sleeping with his father’s concubine, Bilhah.

MC-B:
Again, I only remember this story vaguely. How long until we get to Jonah and the whale?

Ouch. That long, huh?

Steve:
It’s quite clear that regardless of their bad decisions, Shechem loved Dinah very much. And interestingly, the author of Genesis refers to him as “more honorable than all the household of his father,” making Simeon and Levi’s behavior even worse.

David:
Rebekah’s nurse is travelling with Jacob, his mother’s nurse. She must have been of great age and great character to choose to sojourn with Jacob.

Continued here!

Clash of the Titans XVII: HPV Vaccine

04/27/2007, 12:00 pm -- by | 18 Comments

In this corner, arguing against a standard HPV vaccine, is Job!

 And in this corner, arguing for a standard HPV vaccine, is Tom!

I am very much not a father. I am very much not a female. But I do think it is somewhat possible that I might someday father a female and I can guarantee you no government is going to mandatorily vaccinate my adolescent daughter for any sort of sexually transmitted disease, such as the Human Papillomavirus.

The implication is disgusting. While the vaccine appears to be very effective, thorough and well-tested (albeit costly), and while I’m definitely not saying all Gardasil doses should be destroyed and the recipe burned, the notion that the government should go to
such brash, expensive, and heavy-handed means to “vaccinate” poor parenting is audacious, invasive and infuriating.

Currently only one state, Texas, has taken the steps to make such vaccinations mandatory. While the issues raised about Merck’s campaign donations to Gov. Rick Perry are tough to build an argument around, his use of an executive order in favor of legislation requiring all girls entering sixth grade to be vaccinated does show a feeling that public dialogue may not go his way. And when the Texan legislature overruled his order, it further showed that apprehension about such invasion is most certainly there.

I think a far better tack to take would be allowing some competition to ferment, to make HPV vaccines cheaper and more readily acceptable, perhaps even easier and less expensive than pap smears.

What is more, understanding the disease, the manner in which it’s spread and the way it affects the physiology and psychology of women is of far greater benefit to our society than allowing the government to come in and sweep the problem under the rug.

Issues as personal as sexuality and children should always be handled delicately and with broad dialogue — never with executive orders that imply an urgency that suspects parents don’t already worry enough. Offer the vaccines, sure. Mandate them?

Over my dead body.

This shouldn’t be a debate over the actual use of the HPV vaccine. Its spread might be linked to the grinning, busted-up specter of promiscuity enjoying belle-of-the-ball status throughout most of the western “romantic” world, but few would say nothing should be done to stop the single largest cause of cervical cancer. Instead, my focus is bringing the vaccine into the standard arsenal of vaccinations.

Should a child get a vaccine their parents don’t want? There’s a difference between “standard” and “mandatory” vaccination. Your child won’t be denied access to preschool because she wasn’t immunized against HPV. Then there’s Job’s position — it should be available on request, but not suggested as a matter of course. When was the last time your co-worker was out for a few weeks with a nasty case of measles, mumps, or polio? Never — because of the vaccines that have rendered most individuals immune to them. They don’t merely keep individuals from getting sick, but prevent disease from spreading throughout a population. Since HPV is often asymptomatic in men, this makes it more important for women to be immunized, as a matter of course if the parents do not object.

There are moral implications to women getting these vaccinations before puberty. But when you travel to the third world, you don’t start vaccinations when you’re hip-deep in mosquitos. You get the shots well before you need them, to develop a sufficient immune response. Vaccines are useless for someone already infected, so it’s best to give the shots when they have the best chance to be effective. Will it make the country more promiscuous? How could it get any worse? And how many kids know what MMR or DTaP (two current vaccines) stand for? All the kid has to know is she’s getting a shot to keep her from getting sick, and if she’s good, she’ll get a lollipop.

HPV has been strongly linked to cervical cancer; even in women who approach sex the right way, its widespread nature makes it a threat — from rape, a husband’s past, or infidelity. We owe it to ourselves and our children’s children to try to stop it.

{democracy:29}

Bible Discussion: Genesis 30-32

04/25/2007, 11:00 am -- by | 8 Comments

This week, Bweinh.com looks at the next three chapters of the Bible, Genesis 30-32.

Previous discussions from Genesis: 1-4 | 5-9 | 10-14 | 15-18 | 19-22 | 23-26 | 27-29

 
INTRODUCTION:
Rev. Joel:
Hi, I’m Rev. Joel Tom Tate, former RD of Shenawana Hall. Since I’m the pastor of the North Chittenden WESLEYAN church in North Chittenden, Vermont, you can consider yourself strangely informed.

The only profitable way to read this passage is with humility. If you read it as though it was written by and for primitive people you will find yourself resisting the obvious meaning and implications of the text.

Steve:
It’s hard for me to understand the female characters of Genesis, because I can’t possibly grasp how vitally important it was — for status and survival — for them to bear male children. Cattiness, competition, fighting over a man — all that I can grasp without any problem. But Rachel’s rage and desperation, not just at being outdone by her sister, but at failing at what was then the primary task of a woman, is very foreign.

Mike:
Jacob wrestles with those who would deceive him and those who would bless him.

 
SOMETHING YOU’D NEVER NOTICED BEFORE:
Job:
The Scripture says, “And Jacob deceived Laban the Aramean by not telling him that he was fleeing.” Jacob had made deceit his own little Canaanite cottage industry, and while credit needs to be given to Moses for never painting any of the patriarchs in too good a light, it is interesting that in this verse (and this verse alone) the writer of Genesis gently reminds us that, hey, it was just an Aramean getting deceived, not a member of the chosen tribe.

David:
“And God remembered Rachel…” I have memories of myself spying the clock at work and realizing, “Agh! I forgot to pick Rachel (my daughter) up from school!” I’m sure it really wasn’t like that for God here, although it may have felt that way to Rachel.

Mike:
Bilhah bore a son as a surrogate for Rachel, and it was referred to as “bearing upon [Rachel’s] knees.” Apparently, the adoptive mother caught the baby so that from moment one, the child would imprint with the adoptive mother. How beautiful for Rachel — how difficult for Bilhah!

Josh:
I’m somewhat surprised it took Laban an entire week to catch Jacob. Jacob only had a 2-3 day head start, and all his possessions, women, children, and animals to keep track of. Jacob must have really been pushing his crew to get away.

Rev. Joel:
Jacob was the first gigolo, his sexual services being purchased with a bunch of roots.

Tom:
Rachel used her “moon time” to get away with something. It might have been the first time, but it would not be the last.

Steve:
Jacob refers to God as the “God of [his] father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac.” The “Fear of Isaac” is an interesting way to identify God, especially if we remember that little story about Abraham, Isaac and the sacrifice.

Continued here!

Bible Discussion: Genesis 27-29

04/18/2007, 11:30 am -- by | 14 Comments

This week, Bweinh.com looks at the next three chapters of the Bible, Genesis 27-29.

Previous discussions from Genesis: 1-4 | 5-9 | 10-14 | 15-18 | 19-22 | 23-26

This week’s visiting pastor was unable to participate due to inclement weather, but he’ll be with us next week.

 
INTRODUCTION:
Job:
Some of our Scripture’s greatest heroes are capable of such villainy. From David’s nauseating sin concerning Uriah to Asa’s shocking refusal to remove the high places, we see a pattern of humanity in people we would like to be more than human. In this vein, this passage brings us the story of Jacob actively and premeditatedly deceiving Isaac, letting him steal Esau’s blessing. While Jacob would go on to father the Lord’s people, we see in him the humanity that made him incapable of saving them.

Steve:
Anyone who wasn’t paying close attention in Sunday School will probably be surprised this week, as we watch yet another hero of the flannelgraph lie and cheat his way to success. The constant spotlight on the personal flaws and errors of the patriarchs is a reassuring aspect of the Genesis account. Imagine if the George Washington/cherry tree story ended with him lying to blame it on his brother and gleefully laughing while he was whipped with a switch. Less inspiring? Certainly. But more accurate? Almost definitely.

 
SOMETHING YOU’D NEVER NOTICED BEFORE:
Josh:
When Laban agreed to give Rachel to Jacob for seven years’ work, he probably did so assuming that in seven years’ time, he would have found a husband for Leah. And even though he demanded seven more years’ work to get the originally agreed-upon woman, he didn’t make Jacob wait the seven years, but gave her upfront.

Of course, it was still a dirty, dirty trick.

Chloe:
Isaac asks for “tasty food” in the NIV. That’s a great phrase.

Steve:
For not loving Leah (whose name, my Bible helpfully informs me, may have meant ‘Wild Cow’), Jacob sure didn’t have any problem getting her pregnant. Repeatedly.

Job:
In back to back chapters both brothers “lifted up” their “voice and wept.” Esau, out of severe sadness when realizing his blessing had been stolen, and Jacob when he met and, uh, stole a kiss from Rachel.

Tom:
I’d noticed it, but never really thought about it, but Esau was as hairy as a goat! A goat!

Continued here!

Clash of the Titans XIV: Metric v. Imperial

04/17/2007, 10:00 am -- by | No Comments

In this corner, supporting the metric system, is Tom!

 And in this corner, supporting the imperial system, is Mike!

As a people, Americans have always paid our collective independence more than its share of lip service. We claim to be a land of freedom, say we have thrown off the bonds of tyranny that yoked our nation in her infancy, and present ourselves to the world as a paragon of liberty. Yet we persist in using a system of weights and measures based not on any semblance of sense, but on the whims and physical characteristics of the despotic few who governed the monarchies of antiquity.

The standard system ruled the roost of world business for centuries, growing comfortably fat off the toil of our brows and calculating machines. Wide rolls of strange numerical conversions began to hang from its jowls as it glutted itself at the table of commerce. Was this monster decimal? Octal? Dodecahedral? Who could afford to question? Time was better spent trying to determine the number of ounces in a hogshead, or inches in a furlong. But a new wind was about to blow.

Amid the tumult of the last time the French showed any collective semblance of bravery, a few daring souls decided to forge a universal system of measure. Rather than the length of a king’s thumb, or the volume of your average sheep bladder, they selected a length they would use for a base, a length of the people. The world was changing! The king was dead; he could no longer force the people to memorize numbers like 12, 16, 1160, or 5280! Instead, they counted their fingers, counted their toes, averaged the result and arrived at the number 10. That’s right, the same number upon which our entire system of numbers is based.

Not only can you convert between a nanometer and a kilometer just by moving a decimal place, you can even move between two and three dimensions without straining. Without measuring someone’s anatomy. Without consulting a council of bearded elders, table of ciphers or magician’s grimoire. When was the last time a child was able to proudly tell his teacher the number of cubic inches in a gallon? But any precocious tot can be instructed that a thousand independent little cubic centimeters together become a proud, powerful liter.

In a time of increasing foreign tension, should we really be raising the next generation to measure the world in a way foreign to the others who call it home? Is it worth enduring the confusion and inconsistency of the standard system, just so our grandchildren will measure their ice cream in the manner of our fathers? Just look into your heart, and count your toes.

I think you’ll find they hold the answer.

I pastor a church in a threatened part of the world. Chester County, Pennsylvania, just east of Lancaster, is a county of rolling hills and mushroom farms, and is a traditional home to horse trainers. You can still pass an idyllic Saturday in the southern part of the county watching the county as it used to be.

But the town where I pastor, Exton, has long been under threat. Every chain restaurant in the world, it seems, has moved in. I live about twenty minutes away, in Coatesville; a mere ten-minute drive from our church or home could take you to five McDonald’s, three Wendy’s, two Friendly’s, three Applebee’s, and countless other familiar restaurants that have conspired to all but destroy local cuisine.

We don’t need more themed chain restaurants beating the individuality out of us, and we sure don’t need a metric system forcing us all into a mold, even if it is a perfectly square, perfectly sensible, extremely user-friendly mold.

Do you really prefer the meter to the yard? We know how the meter came into being: it was a product of the “pure reason” so popular (and so stunningly bloody) in the French Revolution. Indeed, in 1799, the French stored away the originals of the meter and the other metric units, adorning the metric system with the motto, “For all men, for all time.”

On the contrary, we don’t know precisely where the yard comes from, only that its origin lies in charmed tradition. The girth of a person’s waist? The distance from Henry VIII’s nose to the tip of his outstretched thumb? No one knows for sure–all we know is that it’s a much better story than a bunch of progress-minded revolutionaries laying off the bloodshed long enough to standardize something random, then attempting to force the rest of the world to use it.

And they have tried to force the metric system. Don’t believe me? Ask the “Metric Martyrs,” a group of five English grocers who were fined for failing to measure their produce in metric units. Ask any Canadian you want. Their government went to the trouble of creating a logo to demonstrate their allegiance to metric’s new world order, pushing imperial users into underground quietness. Like Narnians, they must patiently await their chance to again enjoy their nation as it used to be.

So, go ahead, vote for the metric system. And while you’re homogenizing the world, would you also cast a ballot for eradicating local accents, closing the family-owned hardware store, and creating a list of state-approved songs for worship?

Thanks so much.

{democracy:23}

Bweinh! Soundtrack — Death Cab for Cutie

04/13/2007, 8:31 pm -- by | No Comments

Every weekend, a different Bweinh!tributor will discuss a song or songwriter that inspires or interests them. Read the last two soundtrack entries here and here.

Disclaimer: As a man living in modern American society I can, without taking too many liberties, uninhibitedly offer constructive criticism to the collective members of that elite fraternity.

The most obvious unifying characteristic among most men in our society is a simple one — insecurity. The kid who drives a truck with tires taller than he is and tailgates minivans on the interstate. The middle-manager who throws over his family for an attractive secretary, showing the world he’s “still got it.” The twentysomething who takes perverse pride in the number of girls he can manipulate into falling for him. The business man who’ll stop at nothing to get his piece, just to stay ahead of the Joneses.

Take a look at the advertisers paying for any television programming with a largely male audience. Alcohol, a noted social disinhibitor, playing a large role in the happiness of attractive men, with strong hairlines, frolicking with generously-endowed women in sunny locations. Bobs ranging from Dole to Smilin’, and other pillars of virility, announce that you can get the better of your advanced age, questionable exercise regime and poor dietary habits. And historically, cigarettes — a product designed, on first use, to command some measure of respect from others. These are our birthright as American men in our society.

And this song our anthem.

A lonely, soothing piano intro begins, coaxing us into the melody. The simple theme repeats, gaining momentum and complexity as the strains pour out of the secondhand speakers we’ll replace with those Bose numbers we’ll save up for after we get a new muffler on the Duster. A pause, then a simple, soft, yet strangely driving beat ushers in lead vocalist Ben Gibbard’s revealing first verse’s lyrics.

You may tire of me as our December sun is setting
‘Cause I’m not who I used to be
No longer easy on the eyes; these wrinkles masterfully disguise
The youthful boy below

Who turned your way and saw
Something he was not looking for: both a beginning and an end
But now he lives inside someone he does not recognize
When he catches his reflection on accident

As a man young in years, you may not think these words speak to me in particular. But I am also a fellow referred to by many since my 20th year as “Ol’ Tom,” who styled his hair with a Bic in a pointless race with heredity for a time, six times, and half a time. I feel a strong sense of kinship with the song’s imaginary protagonist.

On the back of a motorbike
With your arms outstretched trying to take flight
Leaving everything behind
But even at our swiftest speed we couldn’t break from the concrete
In the city where we still reside.

And I have learned that even landlocked lovers yearn
For the sea like navy men
‘Cause now we say good night from our own separate sides
Like brothers on a hotel bed

Some of us run from it, into the welcoming arms of Coors, Corvettes, and Cialis. Some fight it with arduous exercise, wheatgrass shakes, and ginkgo biloba. And some embrace it, as I have. I am a man, not Hollywood and Madison Avenue’s version of one, and I proudly take my place among my fellows.

Won’t you join me? We’ll all scoot over; I’m sure there’s room for one more.

Bible Discussion: Genesis 23-26

04/11/2007, 11:15 am -- by | 16 Comments

This week, Bweinh.com looks at the next four chapters of the Bible, Genesis 23-26.

Previous discussions from Genesis: 1-4 | 5-9 | 10-14 | 15-18 | 19-22

 
INTRODUCTION:
Pastor Dave:
Hi, I’m Pastor David Maxon, associate pastor at Dexter Faith Fellowship, husband of Connie, father of Stephen, Jeremiah, Thomas, Rose, Sarah and John — need I say more?

Steve:
One of the common criticisms of the Bible is that it’s nothing but a book of fairy tales cooked up to consolidate power and keep the lower classes in line. But for a so-called “myth,” it’s crawling with incredibly specific historical details, many of which can be easily verified today, and would have been taken for granted by its ancient readers. The place names, the genealogies, the pitch-perfect description of Middle Eastern bargaining, courtship, and real estate sales — all are more fitting with a contemporaneous recording of historical fact than an ex post facto work of fiction.

 
SOMETHING YOU’D NEVER NOTICED BEFORE:
Tom:
The elaborate flattery and veiled negotiations over Abraham’s purchase of the field and cave in which to bury Sarah seems a lot like typical marketplace bartering.

Job:
It’s noted that the Chief Servant waited until the camels had finished drinking before breaking out the jewelry and further questions. Kind of like when you wait for the fizz to recede before adding more soda. You just don’t want to rush it…

Steve:
The use of the nose ring when Abraham’s servant found Rebekah.

Pastor Dave:
I never noticed the steps Abraham went through to procure a parcel of land to bury Sarah — all the tribal politics he had to negotiate to be sure not to offend the sons of Heth.

Josh:
Chapter 24 is a good deal longer than seems necessary. When Laban asks Abraham’s servant what he has to say, rather than summarizing, the account has him tell us nearly verbatim what we just read, even repeating conversations. It would have been great if he finished his tale by saying, “So then I came here and told you I had something to tell you, and you asked me what it was, so then I said…”

Continued here!

Clash of the Titans XI: Romeo Must Die?

04/6/2007, 12:00 pm -- by | No Comments

In this corner, arguing that Romeo must die, is Tybalt!

 And in this corner, claiming Romeo’s not that bad a guy, is Benvolio!

The gentleman Romeo, if he can even be called such, has besmirched my family’s honor for the last time, and for this, he must pay with his life.

Romeo must die.

Please know that I have not reached this decision lightly or without provocation. I was willing to forgive Romeo the many insults he had brandished, but even one as kind and forgiving as I has a breaking point, a terrible moment when even the very heart within us cries out, “Enough! Enough! Surely this vile, unholy tide of offense must ere long wane!”

But it did not!

It did not wane!

The scornful laughter, the queer and sideways looks, yea, even his forbidden romance with my young and innocent cousin — all these I have sought to handle with the subtle grace befitting my status. I am not fool enough to believe that my noblesse should enoculate me from such slings and arrows, borne as I know they are out of the petty jealousy of lesser men.

But friends, there comes a time when even a gentleman of my exalted station and breeding, faced with provocation so foul that I dare not speak of its substance, must repay the ultimate insult with the ultimate punishment.

Prithee, what? You beg me speak of its substance?

I shall not! I must not.

Very well.

Know ye now that his exalted list of topmost friends, upon which my name was once surpassed only by that of Founder Tom, was stripped of all its reference to my humble person! I wish with all my heart it were not true, but it is so!

Cry treachery! Cry havoc!

Romeo must die!

To be honest, I’m not quite sure what all the fuss is about. Unholy tides of offense? Queer and sideways looks? For heaven’s sake, death?? Come on!

Romeo’s not such a bad guy, once you get to know him.

The other day, for instance, Romeo and I were chillin’ out by the market and he started telling me about this girl he had a thing for. Ol’ Romes wanted her bad, but she was gonna be a nun, so I was all like, “Dude, forget about her — there are plenty of other hotties out there, right?” Then we went to this crazy party, and instead of moping around all night in his creepy robes mumbling about insults like some other guys, he got back on the pony!

Figuratively, of course.

That’s how my man Romeo rolls!

Again figuratively.

He’s also really good at lots of stuff, like that rhyming game Andre the Giant liked in The Princess Bride, and fencing, and also needlepoint. But he’s not so good at needlepoint that he makes you feel stupid for not having the basketweave stitch down, you know? I hate those guys.

Anyway, who’s this other guy kidding with his talk of “exalted station” and “subtle grace”? Just the other day, I was stopping this fight when he came flying in like a madman, waving some big ol’ sword around, talking about how he “hated peace” as much as he “hated hell, and me!” Weird!

I’m starting to think death is this guy’s answer to everything.

But back to Romeo — I mean, sure, he can get a little emotional, and I wish that party girl had been older than 14, but you can’t have everything! He’s a good guy, and I wish my opponent could see that. Maybe Mercutio can help me arrange a meeting.

Romeo’s not that bad!

{democracy:18}

Evolution Evolution Redux

04/4/2007, 11:34 pm -- by | No Comments

First, a quick recap. In case you missed our previous installment here, we decided that the relative ease with which anyone can pass on his or her genes has effectively eliminated conventional microevolution of our species. The hopes and dreams of dozens of science fiction fans eagerly awaiting uber-humans have been dashed. In light of this supreme manifestation of man’s dominance over nature, how can mankind rise to meet new challenges?

The answer, regrettably, is not genetic engineering. As much as it makes my scientific nose twitch eagerly to scent its sweet aroma on the winds of societal acceptance, Western society (for better or worse, the dominant school of thought worldwide) values individuality too much to surrender it to the whims of a white-coated pipette monkey. Instead, humanity will have to change together.

People are more than the sums of the interactions of their genes. We can’t help but also be the sum of our interactions with each other. Every time two people interact, they change each other. Sometimes that change leads to good, to the betterment of mankind. An interesting parallel can be drawn between a societal evolutionary model and the Catholic priesthood. Despite the fact they’ve willingly surrendered from the “gene” race completely, a vast number of people have been improved by their interactions with priests. A vast number of people even acknowledge this change, and take steps to share it with others. Then again, a vast number of people have been hurt by priests, and not only in Springeresque ways.

Every time we interact, each of us is improving or worsening. Our task is, through our daily lives, to make the positive outweigh the negative. In the same way “natural” evolution is based on individual genes interacting and changing, societal evolution is based on the collective effect we have on each other. Evolution has become synonymous with improvement, but the sad fact is that change in either direction is part of evolution.

So visit that shut-in! Tutor that wayward youth. Tell the smarmy clerk at the record store that emo is “so yesterday.” Take it upon yourself to be a beneficial mutation — change our societal DNA.

Clash of the Titans IX: Nature v. Nurture

03/30/2007, 11:30 am -- by | 4 Comments

In this corner, defending the primacy of nurture, is Chloe!

 And in this corner, fighting for the power of nature, is Tom!

There are many good reasons to support the nurture theory, though I can only outline two here. The first reason is the Flynn Effect, named for the psychologist who pinpointed the phenomenon. The second has to do with individual socioeconomic status.

The Flynn Effect is the overwhelming worldwide IQ increase over the last several decades. In 1932, the average IQ was 100; 110 was considered intelligent. By 1997, however, the average IQ had climbed to 120, with 130 classified as intelligent. If we know anything about evolution, micro- or macro-, we know that it takes a very long time for such a drastic change to occur. It shouldn’t happen in 65 years.

What caused this jump in IQ, if not nature? Why, it must be nurture! In the past century, the boom of knowledge about healthy eating, child rights and education has revolutionized the way we treat children. No longer do our sons and daughters work in factories or fields instead of going to school. No longer do our tots go days without eating. And thank goodness, no longer do our spawn eat potatoes meal after meal after grueling meal. Today’s kids study till 18, eat all types of vegetables, and beg money from Mom and Dad rather than working. The environment in which today’s children are raised has improved drastically. They’ve been given the tools (green beans, a pencil and a law against working before 16) to go further than any child before them. And where does nature come into this? Well — it doesn’t.

The second reason nurture is the more vital developmental process is socioeconomic. I’ll focus on America, though this could be applied across the globe. There are three major classes — upper, middle, and lower. The majority of the upper class attends your Harvards, most of the middle class goes to your Houghtons, and the lower class is lucky to mix a GED in with the criminal records. A sweeping generalization, but bear with me.

Now look at the genetic makeup of each class. A large portion (81%) of the upper class is…you guessed it — white! The middle class has nearly the same percentage of all races as the population, but the lower class has higher percentages of blacks (21%) and Hispanics (13%). According to the nature argument, these groups are in their position because genes determined their intelligence. That stinks of eugenics to me. Not all proponents of nature are eugenicists, but the implications about race and intelligence are frightening.

How can the classes be explained by nurture? Many members of the lower classes have been oppressed in myriad ways, like being displaced into vastly different cultures, and their environment has done little to help them reach their greatest potential. The middle class has not faced such opposition; if individual members have, they’ve overcome it. Meanwhile, their environment allows the upper class to devote more time to studies, politics, the arts, etc. Their surroundings — nice homes, private schools, country clubs — make it remarkably easy to reach their full intellectual potential.

Silver spoons, ladies and gentlemen, have nothing to do with DNA.

Any and every human being is a complex, miraculous creation. As any dating-site spokesperson will tell you, there are innumerable aspects to any person’s personality, all of which can be adequately expressed by a picture and a short paragraph.

This complexity develops from a dizzying array of factors, both internal and external, the interaction of which eventually weaves the tapestry of a human life. While it would be absolute folly to ignore the input of external, artificial affects, the fact remains that the natural aspects of a person’s constitution are the more important.

In order to explore the dominance of nature over nurture, it’s vital to consider where to draw the line between the two. For the sake of this argument, nurture’s realm can only extend to the arena of the senses. In other words, we’ll consider a human being to be like a computer. In this example, the “nurture” component would be the programming. Education, beliefs, language, television, radio — these are what make up the realm of nurture. The hardware itself, and the electricity that causes it to run and function properly, is nature.

The human machine is admirable on a number of levels. However, which aspect of humanity has been most lauded in story and song historically? Our plasticity. Call it whatever you’d like — mastery over the elements, triumph in the face of adversity, what have you. Evolutionary theory has classically been based on the ability of an organism to adapt to its surroundings, but man has been the world’s only creation able to bend that rule back upon itself on a large scale, drastically changing his environment to suit himself.

Given the enormity of cultural differences among societies that have accomplished amazing feats individually and collectively, we clearly cannot consider mere cultural programming the key to unlocking the secrets of humanity’s greatest accomplishments. The Middle Eastern cultures that brought into being the Great Pyramids differed a great deal from those who constructed the equally Great Wall of China. The society which oversaw the manifest destiny of the United States resembled only in passing the same nation that first landed men on the moon.

All these people were different in culture, were different in color, and were different in education, beliefs, and values. The only concrete similarity shared among these vastly disparate peoples is the 1.2% of their genomes that differs from that of a chimpanzee.

The soul. The breath of G-d. Self-actualization. Whatever it is that makes us think, “What if?”

It is that aspect of humanity which has birthed the cultures, societies and ideas that have so radically changed the world over the past six millennia.

Not the other way around.

{democracy:15}

Evolution Evolution

03/28/2007, 7:06 pm -- by | 4 Comments

Regardless of your opinion on macroevolution, microevolution is a well-documented phenomenon. In this process, gradual genetic changes that naturally accumulate in a population manifest themselves in changes in an individual’s ability to pass genetic material on to subsequent generations. If the changes make individual reproduction more successful, they become more frequent in the population; if they do not, they are less likely to become common in the population. In this manner, traits which make an individual more likely to reproduce successfully are considered “good” by the population, and those traits (if genetic in nature) become more common.

By its very nature, this system works best in a population exposed to an outside stress. A situation that makes life (and thereby reproduction) difficult reinforces even the slightest changes in the population, enhancing their effect. As a result, populations that face difficult situations over long periods of time change more quickly, relative to their brethren in more idyllic environs. A classic example takes place in hospitals, where antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria develop and crowd out their fellows much more quickly than in the world at large.

The problem with this process, which has worked quite well for millennia, is the same problem that affects us all — complacency. Once we become comfortable, we find motivation difficult. If a fellow can graduate from sixth grade and walk into a six-figure job, why would he endure ten more years of schooling? It works the same for large populations — when any given individual in a group can pass on his genes, and expect them to survive at the same rate as any other member, how can the group evolve?

Conventionally, evolution cannot continue, in the way referred to as “nature.” There are ways in which a population can change, but they bespeak the other crucial aspect of human development — nurture. Friday, in the next Clash of the Titans, Chloe and I will debate the nature vs. nurture argument. Bearing that in mind, until next week this article will remain:

To be continued.

Bible Discussion — Genesis 15-18

03/28/2007, 10:00 am -- by | No Comments

This week, Bweinh.com looks at the next four chapters of the Bible, Genesis 15-18.

Read our take on Genesis 1-4, Genesis 5-9, and Genesis 10-14 here!

 
INTRODUCTION:
Steve:
Contrary to what I heard a bohemian college boy tell two adoring Gothic lady friends in an all-night diner on Monday, the God of the Old Testament really is the same as the God of the New Testament. In these chapters, we see the same love and desire for fellowship that sent salvation in the form of Christ, expressed in an intensely personal covenant with Abraham and his tribe.

Mike, Josh J:
God here chose Isaac to bear the precious covenant, while at the same time blessing Ishmael, though he was outside the covenant.

 
SOMETHING YOU’D NEVER NOTICED BEFORE:
Job:
Hagar was the Egyptian boomerang. From there, it was her descendants that would bring Isaac’s back to the Nile.

Chloe:
Abraham cut a ram in two pieces. What did that look like? How hard must it have been?

Mike:
God asked Hagar to return to a situation where she was being treated in a hostile fashion by her mistress and to “submit to her” — not that this is a prescription for people to return to abusive households, I just never noticed it before.

Steve:
Interestingly enough, God knows and tells Abraham precisely what’s going to happen to his as-yet unborn descendants, as well as the future iniquity of the current inhabitants of the land — not yet complete, but just give it about 400 years.

Tom:
Sure, it takes place before the Kosher laws were handed down, but I had to notice the meal Abram prepared for the three men (or angels, or G-d), was decidedly NOT kosher. “So he took butter and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree as they ate.” Maybe that law got thrown in there because G-d didn’t like the pairing when Abram served it?

Continued here!

How a Gecko Changed my Life

03/21/2007, 7:17 pm -- by | 4 Comments

Television is the media form of the masses. Newspapers are older, the Internet is trendier, but television will always be the outlet of the average American. Television brings news, entertainment, and entertainment news to dozens of households across this great nation. A number of my correspondents complain, however, about the brief commercial interruptions that mar the otherwise sparkling one-way national dialogue. In particular they take issue with car insurance commercials.

Car insurance is the form of insurance that, in my opinion, has had the most impact on American culture. The automobile is the first love of the American male, with the Canadian female a close second, and barbeque rounding out the top three. As such, the car has impacted facets of our society ranging from banks, to car washes, to music, and even the silver screen! Car insurance is what makes the high speed limits and radar detectors we all enjoy feasible in a society where 18-24 year old men are allowed behind the wheel.

With car insurance of such lofty import to the America we all know and love, I declare it to be our patriotic duty to not only watch, but enjoy the Rodney Dangerfield-esque struggle of the Geico caveman. I implore us to mount the edge of our collective seat while the inspiring E-surance superheroine saves the world once again. And I beseech you, the American television watcher, to cheer along with the workmen who restored that Allstate customer’s life from its shambles when an automobile scattered it and itself across her living room. At two in the morning.

United, we can restore car insurance’s trust in itself, and in us. Because, in the words of one much wiser than myself…

“It’s Tina. We’re getting back together.”

Bible Discussion: Genesis 10-14

03/21/2007, 12:00 pm -- by | 7 Comments

This week, Bweinh.com looks at the next five chapters of the Bible, Genesis 10-14.

Read our take on Genesis 1-4 and Genesis 5-9!

 
INTRODUCTION:
Job:
Even though history had progressed for thousands of years, some of it even well documented, it’s only at this point — with the dispersion of people and the singling out of Abram — that things begin to become truly interesting. Cities, ethnicities, cultures and customs begin to finally and firmly cement themselves into forms we still recognize today.

Steve:
Now the descendants really start to flourish again, and I suppose they have to, what with the whole of humanity reduced to the few folks stuck on the ark! Each of Noah’s three sons had at least four sons, and the few of those who were specifically mentioned had at least four sons, so if you assume they were all having daughters too, within about fifty years, they could have had a population of well over a thousand people. These growing people get some big ideas, God teaches them a lesson before the focus narrows, and we meet perhaps the most influential man in the Old Testament — father Abraham.

Continued here!

Clash of the Titans V: PC v. Apple

03/17/2007, 11:25 pm -- by | 3 Comments

In this corner, arguing for the PC, we have Tom!

 And in this corner, arguing for Apple, is Djere!

The question of which platform is superior between PC and Macintosh is not a trivial matter. Thousands of lines of text in forums decry one, exalt the other, each citing a myriad of reasons their chosen platform is the best. Although the question of platformital superiority can be approached from a number of avenues, many of them are simply unimportant.

For example, one completely irrelevant way the platforms can be compared is the breadth of the software libraries available to each. What difference does it make that (as of press time) popular freeware/shareware website C-net.com listed a staggering 55,822 titles under “All Windows Software,” and just a paltry 4,603 listings for “All Mac Software”? What difference does it make that twelve times as many downloads were available on this popular and influential e-hemoth?

Another boneheaded way to compare operating systems is by looking at their popularity, relative to each other. Who on earth would think it relevant in any way to a real, honest debate about platforms that Apple had a paltry 2.4% of the market share in 2006 — in terms of real, worldwide shipments — versus a combined 50.6% for just the top 5 PC manufacturers? What do we care who the world trusts for its computing needs?

Likewise unimportant is the ability to customize your computer whenever you want. No one cares about upgrading a computer without replacing it, or performing system repairs on your own, or being taken seriously by friends, relatives, and co-workers.

No, the computer debate is about one thing — trust. Do you trust your children’s computing lives to a bunch of rag-tag, animating, photo-editing, long-haired, music-sharing hippie freaks?

Or do you trust the welcoming, all-encompassing embrace of Windows and its industrial brotherhood, the PC manufacturers?

PC. People Caring.

Failure reading drive C:
[A]bort, [I]gnore, [R]etry, or [F]ail?
r
Failure reading drive C:
[A]bort, [I]gnore, [R]etry, or [F]ail?
i
Failure reading drive C:
[A]bort, [I]gnore, [R]etry, or [F]ail?
a

Oh, hello there! I was just spending some time getting to know the zeroes and ones, first strung together in the 80s, that still form the foundation of the average Windows PC. While Microsoft prides itself on polishing its rubbish to a sheen gloss, mimicking the refined, elegant lines and textures of Mac OS X, what lies beneath is the same slathering of spaghetti code Bill Gates cooked up when Carter was in office.

Until recently, a head-to-head comparison of Mac to PC compared apples to oranges. But with Apple’s recent switch from IBM’s Power PC processors to Intel’s x86 architecture, direct comparisons can be made. Will I make them? No! I’m not a ‘Mac Evangelist.’ If you’re looking for one of those, check your local community college art department.

What I will tell you is this — Macs are more reliable because you have one source for a Mac: Apple. You can buy a Dell, an HP, an IBM, or you could build your own PC capable of running Windows. All those vendors and their configurations add lines of code to Windows’ OS, each zero and every one cutting into your performance. Apple has limited its hardware support to keep your Mac running smoothly every time you turn it on. And Mac OS X is based on the rock-solid UNIX operating system, so you’ll never have to see one of Bill Gates’ famous ‘Blue Screens of Death.’

Even if you ignore pro-Mac arguments like ease of use, lack of viruses, reliability, stability, power, and originality, you could still use Apple’s Boot Camp software, allowing you to run Windows on your Apple. Purchasing an Apple computer literally can give you the best of both worlds.

Now if you’ll excuse me…..

Failure reading drive C:
[A]bort, [I]gnore, [R]etry, or [F]ail?

{democracy:7}

« Previous Page — Next Page »