Evangelicals are NOT Christians – they're a political movement that should its soul to the highest bidder.

Hi Sharon, I hope you know that I remember fondly the hospitality that you showed during our bike trip across America and have very much enjoyed staying in contact through FB. And there are few times that I disagree with one of your posts. But I do with this one. It makes a critical logical error. 

First, "Evangelicals are NOT Christians." Martin Luther was the original evangelical. Helmut Thielicke was an evangelical. Billy Graham was an evangelical. Charles Colson was an evangelical. So to say that Evangelicals are not Christians is a gross generalization which itself is the most common logical fallacy. Of course "Evangelicals" are Christians. Or we should say, some evangelicals are Christians because some people who call themselves Evangelicals do not in fact follow Jesus. So at worse, we can say some "Evangelicals" are not Christians. 

Then there's the statement, "they’re a political movement that sold its soul to the highest bidder" again is a gross generalization." First of all, evangelicalism was originally a religious movement that started during the time of the Renaissance. It was called the Reformation. It has only recently been characterized as a political movement. Sadly, the press and now many others don't take the time to be more nuanced in how it uses the word. They don't tell the difference between sincere Evangelicals who continue to follow Jesus from those who have been co-opted by the current GOP and its terribly flawed candidate for president. And yes, some who call themselves Evangelcals have been caught up in transactional politics so that character and principle no longer matter as long as their candidate gives them what they want. 

Then there are those like me who still want to see the government pursue justice, treat people well, care about fiscal responsibility, care about the environment. 

Having said all that, I share your concern about people who call themselves Evangelicals and have traded Jesus for Joe Biden's predecessor.

 

Is Mary did you know?” Mansplaining?

Some think that his song is an example of a type of condescension know as mansplaining.  Perhaps from a certain perspective one might think this.  But upon reflection,  this song is not just about what Mary knew, about Jesus, but what we know about Jesus (and Mary as well. 

Mary grew in her understanding of who her son would be. There is enough in the Gospels that show she along many of the disciples didn’t really get the person of Jesus and the mission of Jesus until after the resurrection and his gift to them of the Holy Spirit.  This question, Mary did you know is theologically perceptive, the answer to which we all need to answer in the way Jesus himself  would have us answer.  Peter, before he denied Jesus three times only knew the answer because is was revealed to him:  “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”  If this song is mansplaining, then The Father himself is the chief mansplainer since he had to reveal to Peter and he had to reveal to Mary.

By and Large

 By and large is originally a sailing term meaning "alternately close-hauled and not close-hauled." 

A ship that is sailing "close-hauled" is sailing as directly into the wind as possible (typically within about 45 degrees of the wind). The "by" part of the phrase means "close-hauled." (This "by" also appears in the term full and by,meaning "sailing with all sails full and close to the wind as possible.") 

"Large," by contrast, refers to a point of sail in which the wind is hitting the boat "abaft the beam," or behind the boat's widest point. A 1669 example of a variant spelling of "by and large" gives us a sense of the range implied: "Thus you see the ship handled in fair weather and foul, by and learge" (S. Sturmy, Mariners Magazine). 

The suggestion of a wide range carries over into the term's "in general" sense.

Do Masks Help in preventing the spread of Coronavirus

A friend contested the efficacy of wearing masks to prevent the spread of Coronavirus. The objection was based on the small size of the virus allowing them to pass through masks. But here is why I don't think that is helpful.

Of course it's fine to ask the question, "Are masks helpful...?" But simply saying that because of the small size of viruses, masks don't work, is ignoring part of the evidence. "The smallest bacteria are about 0.4 micron (one millionth of a meter) in diameter while viruses range in size from 0.02 to 0.25 micron. This makes most viruses submicroscopic," So, sure, they are small. But this doesn't mean that they can't be stopped by a physical barrier.

N95 masks actually do stop most virus infection. But they are not perfect. Surgical masks also stop viruses. But they do it by blocking the aerosol from our breath, not the viruses themselves. And they not near as effective. But they offer a physical barrier. Your "disclaimer" with the Petri dishes was actually meant to show how droplets containing viruses are stopped by using masks. So, you're showing evidence that masks do work in stopping droplets that contains coronavirus.

While you say that you are citing science, you are cherry picking the fact about size and ignoring the fact the physical barriers are actually effective. You're isolating one factor and not taking into accounts other factors. Physical barriers are helpful. The N95s are the best. The surgical masks are next best and most cloth masks, unless they have another barrier inside them are the least.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449

The overwhelming consensus among people who spend their lives in the field of virology says masks are helpful in preventing the spread of the virus.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762694?guestAccessKey=358eefca-92be-44ac-b813-63b5d1744486&utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_content=tfl&utm_term=030420

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/0921A05A69A9419C862FA2F35F819D55/S1935789313000438a.pdf/testing_the_efficacy_of_homemade_masks_would_they_protect_in_an_influenza_pandemic.pdf

So, I'm sorry if you're tired of the debate. But debate is good and it brings out truth. Pushing back by expressing your opinion in fine. However, instead of ignoring the evidence that is out there, there is a case for using the "precautionary principle". That is: "“a strategy for approaching issues of potential harm when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking.”

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/369/bmj.m1435.full.pdf

While studies are not conclusive, the overwhelming consensus as the moment, is that wearing masks in addition to social distancing, tracking and tracing, is helpful in preventing the spread of Coronavirus. I'll be wearing mine when I can't social distance.

Even Mike Pence as started recommending it.

https://people.com/health/mike-pence-encourages-wearing-face-masks-coronavirus/

"The Unknown Shore"

Sometime at Eve when the tide is low
I shall slip my moorings and sail away
With no response to a friendly hail
In the silent hush of the twilight pale
When the night stoops down to embrace the day
And the voices call in the water's flow
Sometime at Eve When the water is low
I shall slip my moorings and sail away.
Through purple shadows
That darkly trail o'er the ebbing tide
And the Unknown Sea,
And a ripple of waters' to tell the tale
Of a lonely voyager sailing away
To mystic isles
Where at anchor lay
The craft of those who had sailed before
O'er the Unknown Sea
To the Unknown Shore

A few who watched me sail away
Will miss my craft from the busy bay
Some friendly barques were anchored near
Some loving souls my heart held dear
In silent sorrow will drop a tear
But I shall have peacefully furled my sail
In mooring sheltered from the storm and gale
And greeted friends who had sailed before
O'er the Unknown Sea
To the Unknown Shore
- Elizabeth Clark Hardy

Anthony Bourdain - The Chef and Food

Vegetarians, and their Hezbollah-like splinter-faction, the vegans, are a persistent irritant to any chef worth a damn.

To me, life without veal stock, pork fat, sausage, organ meat, demi-glace, or even stinky cheese is a life not worth living.

Vegetarians are the enemy of everything good and decent in the human spirit, an affront to all I stand for, the pure enjoyment of food. The body, these waterheads imagine, is a temple that should not be polluted by animal protein. It's healthier, they insist, though every vegetarian waiter I've worked with is brought down by any rumor of a cold.

Oh, I'll accomodate them, I'll rummage around for something to feed them, for a 'vegetarian plate', if called on to do so. Fourteen dollars for a few slices of grilled eggplant and zucchini suits my food cost fine.

Anthony Bourdain

Scott Sauls tells of Tim Keller- The Kind of Leader Worth Following

When someone is mentored and appreciates what he received, it's not wrong to say what the mentor passed on to his protegé.  Scott Saul does that here about his mentor Tim Keller.

https://scottsauls.com/blog/2017/10/20/the-kind-of-leader-worth-following/