Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • The Art of Not Waging War

    A Chinese bamboo book, open to display the bin...
    Image via Wikipedia

    As we become involved in the conflict in Lybia, I’ve been reflecting on the American strategy–or lack thereof–in foreign policy. To the extent that we have such a strategy it appears to be big on expenses on low on good results.

    I’m not a pacifist, and I certainly won’t object to seeing Gaddafi out of power. There’s plenty of reasons why he should go. The question in my mind is how we decide where to take military action, and what goals we set.

    It’s very difficult to attain victory in a war when the goals are either not well-defined, or difficult to measure, or impossible to attain. The latter is usually the case with goals that are assigned to the military but which the military is ill-equipped to accomplish, such as nation building.

    Our politics, and the lack of strategy in our international policy, tend to create situations in which our military will be tied up for long periods of time without any real hope of actual success.

    For some reason some people think no-fly zones or sanctions are more humane means of accomplishing the mission than actual war. I disagree. If there is a reason to intervene militarily, that intervention should be aimed at well-defined goals, and the means should be sufficient to accomplish those goals quickly. Any other course of action is actually less humane–it simply kills more people and extends the misery for long periods of time.

    If we cannot find the moral justification to take decisive action, let me suggest that we take no action at all.

    As I was thinking about this, I watched a show on the History Channel about Sun Tzu, and when the show was over I chose to take a run through The Art of War. It’s not a large book. Here are a couple of notes I underlined today:

    There is no instance of a country having benefitted from prolonged warfare (2:6).

    It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on (2:7).

    In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns (2:19). 

    Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting (3:2).

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Chosen?

    I like this take on the word chosen.

  • Clayboy on Bell and Hell

    He makes some random observations.

  • Herold Weiss on Genesis 2:4b – 4:26

    Herold Weiss is continuing his series on the doctrine of creation in the Bible with a discussion of sources and how this passage might enlighten our understanding. The entire series has been extremely interesting and has generated some serious (and some not so serious) discussion.

    (Note: I am publisher of Herold Weiss’s new book Finding My Way in Christianity: Recollections of a Journey.)

  • On Risk – Quote of the Day

    From Allan Bevere:

    … no human being is entitled to a risk free existence.

    The entire article is worth a read.

  • Evolution and Continuous Upward Progress

    This is a recreated vector image in SVG. The o...
    Image via Wikipedia-Perhaps not so much with this upward progress

    Peter Kirk has written a post titled The Gospel is not incompatible with theistic evolution, in which he responds to an article by Dr. David Shackelford. Peter’s response covers most of the ground.

    I wanted to add something here, however, regarding “continuous upward progress,” which Dr. Shackelford, as quoted by Peter, says is “demanded” by most “versions of evolution.” I’m in the dark about what he means by “versions,” unless he’s referring to popular conceptions, and especially social evolution.

    For example, an evolutionary view of the early Christian church would have the church “progressing” toward greater order and organization, thus the pastoral epistles must be later than other writings because they refer to such greater organization. On the other hand, if the progress is not so steady, nor unidirectional. I’m no church historian, but I’ve often wondered if the progress toward greater structure was not faster amongst those coming from Judaism with synagogue traditions than for Gentile Christians. All this begs the question of what is “progress” and more particular what is “upward progress.”

    But the biological theory of evolution teaches no such thing. Though there is, I believe, a general trend toward greater variety, simply because there are more creatures to be varied, even that trend is not inevitable, and one can question whether a trend toward greater variety would be “upward progress” in general.

    The tendency of biological evolution is toward suitability for some ecological niche (stated loosely–I’m no biologist), and depending on how you look at it, the tendency could be distinctly downward, for example, when a population of fish living in a cave lose their eyesight. The tendency can be terminal when a population fails to adapt to environmental changes.

    For certain periods of time and using certain defintions of “upward” (people who use this term usually mean upward as leading toward us humans), you will find “upward progress” in evolution, but there is nothing about the theory, nor is there general evidence in the record, to suggest that evolution demands upward progress.

     

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Quote of the Day

    From Brian McLaren: “We are suffering the consequences of our idolatry. Our motto ‘In God We Trust’ is printed right on the front of the God in which we trust.”

  • Observing Lent

    Despite this, I’m observing Lent.

  • Inspired (or not so much inspired) Interpretations

    Tony Breeden has taken Joel Watts to task over his understanding of Genesis and origins. As if frequently the case with such discussions, Breeden has mistaken his own interpretation for “what the Bible actually says.” It’s “disagree with me, deny the Bible.” Joel responds rather well, I think, using some excellent scriptures.

    I suggest that we need to derive our doctrine of inspiration more from observing it in action, as we can in Scripture, and less by trying to apply particular proof texts.

  • Michael Patton on the Best Bible Version

    I’m glad to see this, though I do disagree with a few points.

    First, I don’t agree that using a formal equivalence translation means you are closer to the original. You are closer in some ways–reflecting the words and structure of the original language–yet you are often further in other ways, including reflecting the thought.

    Second “word for word” is not the best way to describe formal equivalence. I prefer “form for form” but even that misses it just a bit. In formal equivalence translators attempt to approach the words and structure of the source language as much as is possible in the receptor language.

    Third, I would not use “sentence for sentence” as a description of dynamic (or functional) equivalence. It’s somewhat difficult to define the term “word” in a way that is transferable between languages. Similarly, sentences may change. Even in formal equivalence, one Greek sentence might be translated by multiple English sentences, for example. I would say “thought for thought” would be closer to the truth.

    Nonetheless, I think this is generally a helpful and balanced presentation.