Well, the transfer over to the new host went smoothly. A couple of full length podcast episodes are up now, and you can find “Say Hello to my Little Friend” in the iTunes store!

Thanks Amy for pointing this story out to me. When I saw it my reaction was “That is SO something I could see myself doing!”

Jeff Deck and Benjamin Herson have not wasted their lives.

They fight a losing battle, an unyielding tide of misplaced apostrophes and poor spelling. But still, they fight. Why, you ask. Because, they say. Because, they must.

For the last three months, they have circled the nation in search of awkward grammar construction. They have ferreted out bad subject-verb agreements, and they have faced stone-faced opposition everywhere.

See the full story here.

I can totally relate to these guys. I see it all the time in stores – even sometimes from government departments. There they are: Spelling errors, grammatical bungles, malapropisms by the score. Everywhere! INTJs of the world unite!

This is the first of 2 episodes on religion in the public square, a subject that will probably come up from time to time at the podcast.

Episode 002: Religion in the Public Square [ 38:37 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Episode 1 of “Say Hello to my Little Friend: The BerettaCast” has launched.Enjoy!

Episode 001: Introductions [ 15:58 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

This post is a test, just to make sure that I’ve got this podcasting thing figured out.

Episode 000: This is a Test [ 0:08 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

The blog, “Say Hello to my Little Friend” is going to carry on as usual – PLUS keep watching this space for a podcast to be added. You’ll be able to follow the episodes here, and you’ll also be able to (eventually) locate and subscribe to it using itunes.

Stay posted for details!

According to Chuck Missler, the Olivet Discourse in the Gospels is a problem. It’s not that he rejects it altogether, but it’s still a problem that he thinks needs to be resolved.

A major part of the reason that he thinks it’s a problem is here:

1) Jesus said in the Olivet discourse that the events he was describing would take place within “this generation.” No problem so far.

2) Chuck Missler doesn’t believe that the events that Jesus was speaking about did take place within that generation. There’s the problem.

If Chuck simply took 1) seriously, there would be no problem. He only thinks there’s a problem to resolve because of 2). Missler is a futurist, that is, he thinks that the events described in Matthew 24 are all in the future. Preterism is the view that the events that Jesus spoke about took place within that generation, that is, within the first century. They were in the future when Jesus predicted them, but then they happened, and they are now in the past. Preterists take the biblical references to timing quite literally. But look how Missler characterises the difference between futurists and preterists (“dispensationalism” is a type of futurism):

For many students of eschatology – the study of last things – the so-called Olivet Discourse has proven to be a troublesome passage; a hermeneutical battleground between the dispensationalists and the preterists, etc. The preterists insist that this passage – and the Book of Revelation – has been already fulfilled, and much of it is dismissed by them as simply allegorical. Yet even those who embrace a dispensational view have difficulty reconciling many of the Olivet Discourse passages.

Dismissed? What? The tactic is pretty weak: If someone takes a passage very seriously, but does not reach the same conclusion that you reach, simply allege that they dismiss the passage altogether.

The claim is pretty ironic, given that it is the preterists who are merely asking that we take Jesus’ claim about “this generation” seriously, while it is the futurists (like Missler) who are – for want a gentler term – dismissing such texts and labeling them as “problems” that we need to resolve so they will go away.

Dr Missler, here’s a great way to resolve the problem: Believe what Jesus said! Don’t be scared of the p word. Come on in Chuck, the water is lovely.

Some scientists in New Zealand aren’t happy.

Here’s why: An American group called the heartland institute cited the research of a number of scientists as part of their argument against the concerns about global warming. (The specific article is apparently buried somewhere in their maze-like website). BUT, these scientists object (in the words of Dr Jim Salinger), “We say global warming is real.”

On this basis, Dr Salinger (and other NZ scientists who were cited) has publicly alleged that the Heartland Institue has acted “unethically.”

The principle here, apparently, is that if someone cites your research and uses it to contribute to their casefor a view you don’t hold, they are being unethical. I say: What a bunch of crybabies. It is common for people making arguments to appeal to the claimsof those who disagree with them. In a courtroom it’s what is called a “hostile witness.” Dr Salinger complains that the Heartland Institute cited his claim that there have been warm and cold cycles in the earth’s history, because he himself doesn’t think that this observation undermines global warming at all. So what? Dr Salinger might not think so, but surely the author of the Heartland Institute’s article is quite entitled to think so.

Heck, when writing my own articles or theses I appeal to everty concession I can get from those who disagree with me. Calling it “unethical” is just a case of people being upset that their research has contributed to a cause that they didn’t want it to contribute to.

Heck, why don’t I just cry crocodile tears and say: “Boo hoo – some guy appealed to Calvin’s defence of the execution of Servetus as an argument for the conclusion that Christianity is evil. But Calvin didn’t think Christianity was evil. So this skeptic is being unethical, using Calvin’s claims to reach a conclusion that Calvin never held!”

Cry me a river. Welcome to a world where people disagree with you.

Recently, three men (one of whom is a Dominican Friar) broke into the Waihopai spy base in New Zealand – supposedly a top security facility, and deflated one of the enormous balloon-like covers of a satellite dish.

Setting aside the embarrassing fact of how apparently easy this was, the men themselves, now granted bail, have described their deeds as comparable to those of our war heroes. From a recent news story:

He [Mr Murnane - one of the accused] revealed that the three men had all been wearing poppies on Wednesday morning last week when they set about deflating one of the two balloons surrounding the satellite dishes.

“The people who died (as Anzac soldiers) died against tyranny. We wore red poppies when we did the job and we were proud of that, it is the same tradition,” Murnane said.

The same tradition – those who went to war for New Zealand, and those who damage Government owned spy bases. It’s certainly not impossible. Patriotism is not, after all, a love of the state. It’s a love of one’s country, and it’s quite conceivable that one could fight for one’s country and destroy spy bases in the same country out of love for that country – a love which may very well engender contempt for the state, if that state is not acting in the best interests of the country.

I’m not saying that I agree with what these folk did. I wouldn’t do it. But even if these guys are off their rockers, this relatively small event should get a few of us to look again at the issue of whether or not patriotism might sometimes put you at loggerheads (and even in the firing line) of those who govern the country towards which your patriotism is directed.