My search for the Greek New Testament

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."

- The New Testament, "The Gospel According to St. Matthew," Chapter 7, Verses 7 and 8 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

Many of you have heard that I am learning Ancient Greek, and that part of the reason for doing so is to be able to read the New Testament in the original. I was curious to see how hard it is to obtain a copy of that online (emphasis on "copy" - not to be confused with original manuscripts), and so I typed it into Google. I discovered that there are a large variety of different editions, some published by one group, some by another. This was a bit of a problem, as I needed to commit to one version for price reasons, and it's hard to know which one to pick.

My favorite superhero

Batman has always been my favorite superhero. This is not to say I haven't enjoyed other superheroes as well - I loved the old Superman movie with Christopher Reeves growing up (sad about his accident), and I loved the Spider-Man movies that came out in my adolescence (or at least the first and second - I wasn't such a big fan of the third). But my favorite hero has always been Batman.

Some thoughts about third parties, refusing to vote, and choosing the lesser of two evils

I'm a believer that sometimes one has to choose the lesser of two evils, because no good choice is then available. But I've heard it argued that choosing the lesser of two evils is "choosing evil." This is a problematic claim, because when no better choice is available, choosing the lesser of two evils is the option that will minimize evil the most, and is thus the most anti-evil (and most pro-good) choice available.

Another problematic argument is that refusing to vote is "the greatest political statement you can make" (in the words of an old friend of mine). The context of this argument was that it shows you will not support either candidate. But refusing to support any candidate for president is often to allow the worst of the two candidates to enter office, as happened in the last election. The real political statement made is "I don't want a say in what happens in my government," and this is a statement that few civic-minded people would ever want to make.

Another problematic solution is to vote for a third-party candidate. Since the advent of political parties in the Founding Fathers' time, there have been over fifty presidential elections; but only in three of them have new parties entered the White House, and all of them were prior to the Civil War. Third-party candidates gaining the White House is thus extremely rare; and unless the polls show massive support for a third party, the chances of a third party actually gaining the White House are quite remote. Sorry, Ron Paul supporters: third-party candidacy would seem unrealistic to me.

Thus, voting for the best (or least bad) of the two main candidates is the best option that is realistically available. The best candidate to vote for in the last election was Mitt Romney.

Did the Founding Fathers oppose political parties? (Actually, no ... )

A few problems with “The Communist Manifesto”

"A spectre is haunting Europe - the spectre of communism. All the Powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this specter ... Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as Communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the Opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries? Two things result from this fact: I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power. II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a Manifesto of the party itself."

- Opening lines of "The Communist Manifesto" (1848)

I was recently told that I should write a blog post about why Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were wrong - arguing not on values as I did in another post (though there is a place for that as well), but on facts and theories, challenging their dubious factual and theoretical claims.

Karl Marx

Friedrich Engels

In discussing problems with Marxism, where does one start?

To someone who's read and understood their book "The Communist Manifesto," that might seem easy - and in some ways, it is. But in trying to debunk it, I had one big problem: where to start. Despite "The Communist Manifesto" being a tiny book (which I read through in a day), it sometimes seems when I'm reading the book like its two authors were having a competition to see who could cram more fallacies into a small amount of space. And they both won.

Marx and Engels

Discussion of Marxist fallacies is practically a genre in its own right ...

I intend this blog post to be a short one, so I will only be able to summarize this book's problems. But if you're after a more thorough treatment of its fallacies, this is practically a genre in its own right, so there are lots of works to choose from.

My positive experience with psychology

One of the great surprises of my education was how much I liked psychology. This would have surprised me in my younger days, as I thought of psychology in terms of counseling and clinical psychology - things that I would not have been good at. To be sure, those things are a part of psychology, but psychology was so much more than that, something I little suspected in my youth.

Why I am learning Ancient Greek

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."

- The New Testament, "The Revelation of St. John the Divine," Chapter 22, Verse 13 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

I've actually had the desire to learn Ancient Greek for a long time, but I didn't think I'd ever have the time or the opportunity to do it. I took an ethics class from NAU's philosophy department in May 2009 where we talked about the Greek philosopher Plato, and I posted on the 28th of that month that I "want[ed] to learn Ancient Greek."

Plato

But I never thought that I'd actually have the opportunity to do it. I thought: "I don't think I'll ever live near someplace where they offer a class in it. Only one university in Arizona has a Classics department, and that's U of A (which is 3 ½ hours away)."

But I recently realized that with a dead language, taking a class in the subject isn't as important, since I won't be needing to speak or listen to the language. If reading it is enough, I can learn it from a book. So it recently occurred to me to get a textbook about it, and start teaching myself Ancient Greek.

Did the Founding Fathers oppose political parties? (Actually, no … )

It has often been argued that the Founding Fathers were against political parties. Some of them undoubtedly were, but others of them actually founded political parties. These included John Adams and Alexander Hamilton (founders of the Federalist Party), and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (founders of the Democratic-Republican Party). They weren't always called political parties - often they would use less controversial language like "the political friends of Mr. Hamilton" or "the political friends of Mr. Jefferson." But they were parties in every sense of the word.

George Washington

Critics of political parties make much out of George Washington's opposition to them. But it's easy to oppose political parties when your self-interest doesn't require their support, and George Washington is the only presidential candidate who was ever elected without the support of a political party. His reputation for walking away from power, along with his remarkable war record, made it so he didn't need parties. All he had to do was not say he wouldn't be president, and he would be elected. Most of the other founders, by contrast, did need their support, and actively courted it to gain political office.