Blog Comments

Footnote: Stossel was interviewing Dan Ariely, author of The (Honest) Truth about Dishonesty.

From the same show and in a similar vein was his interview with Michael Brooks, author of Free Radicals: The Secret Anarchy of Science

Ack! Okay, okay, I left one out - sorry!

The other case where probability is a valid concern is in determining the level of scrutiny a given claim should receive. Lower probability may rightfully receive greater scrutiny - so long as the application is fair. I might not care that Granny wears glasses if she is reporting the mailman on the doorstep but an angel on the flagpole? It's legit to find out how good her glasses are and whether or not she was wearing them where I might not bother for the mailman. But I'm not disputing at this point - I'm assessing credibility.

I think you mistake 'lording' for leadership but the point is that taking the reins, so to speak, would (theorhetically) eliminate a lot of the dirty work involved. Just because it's not ultimately likely to work right doesn't mean it can't be made to seem so and therefore tempting.

It wasn't robbed - it was upheld. It's just as true when being upheld as when being denied - it's just easier to see the case for denial.

If you rob from Peter to pay Paul, then yes, this is mercy without justice. But anyone can be merciful, and it does not have to rob justice. For example, if you do an act of service (say, helping an arthritic neighbor move furniture) then you have provided mercy , but where is justice robbed?

I don't know if Christ was tempted. He's never struck me as one who enjoyed Lording it over people in the first place (even though ultimately that is exactly what he will do.) Sure, we (as mortals) occasionally have thoughts like "If only I were President then I would handle this problem in this manner" but ultimately the temptation that Satan threw at him was glory-- but Jesus did not seek glory. Even with his disciples, who he did lead, he saw himself as a servant and not a ruler.

No, they are clearly individual concepts but I do think they are so closely related to one another that trying to do one minus the other misses the point in either case.

We will be tempted. And sometimes we will all fail. That's why we have repentence. Yes, it is better to not have to repent, but I'm glad that Jesus gave us a line to climb out of the pit when we fall into it.

One thing this brings up too-- it is often tempting to try and go to 'the edge.' Get close to sin and try to not cross that line (because we are enjoying the temptation.) Satan works in many ways, and that's a big one. Lead you to the edge of sin and then let go of the reins.

Satan is not a separate entity. It is just the illusion of the senses seeking dominance.

Short answer: I think you are trying to merge two different items into one. Mercy and justice may be closely related like a brother and a sister but they are two different items. Otherwise, Micah 6:8 "He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." (NIV) is being unnecessarily redundant.

thank you

Since we already know we will be tempted, I don't see how it differs. The only difference in our foreknowledge is it lacks specificity and the high degree of certitude but I can say the same about traffic home - I know it's gonna be there and be bad but I haven't the specifics nor the same certitude.

I don't think it makes the slightest difference in effect.

hi, quick question please. If Jesus, as God, foreknew Satan was going to tempt Him in the desert, would it still be considered the same kind of temptation we face or did He not know He was going to be tempted and does it make a difference if He did or didn't, and why? thanks

I like the line about "...what we want and even need isn't always what is best for us." Its refreshing to find a Christian that doesn't believe you get everything you want because you follow God.

I would love to know more about what the case was all about. One minor correction: RvW gave the states no power whatsoever to prevent a woman from having an abortion before the third trimester. This has been modified by the very minor adjustment of viability to replace the end of the second trimester, but that is all.

And even where viable unborn children are concerned, a state cannot prohibit an abortion if it is done to prevent impairment of a major bodily function, or death.

Good. I'll been very skeptical as to whether one could determine the viability of a fetus much less when "spirit" entered into the picture.

woot.

Sounds wonderful.

Awesomeness.