I finished reading Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians by Dr Jeffery Burton Russell, which describes how the Flat Earth myth is historically bogus. (The Flat Earth myth discussed is not the myth that the world is flat, but rather the persistent myth that people in general and Christians in particular during Columbus’ time believed that the world was flat). An interesting read overall, though I’m glad the author limited himself to 80 pages. This quote from the last page of the last chapter of the book (where the author describes why the Flat Earth myth persists) caught my attention:

The modern view combining relativism and progress as widely understood is incoherent. A true relativism would assume that no worldview is better than another; a true progressivism would assume that worldviews are moving closer and closer to a predetermined and preferred goal. The two beliefs are mutually exclusive. … The hope that we are making progress toward a goal (which is not defined and about which there is no consensus) leads us to undervalue the past in order to convince ourselves of the superiority of the present. (Russell, 76)

I have commented on this subject before (see A Modern Absurdity: Everything new is good, everything old is bad) but it bears repeating, because I really believe that this mentality is one reason why people are hesitant to seriously consider Christianity, while some unfortunately seem so eager to embrace Scientology. If what is old is bad, then Christianity must be bad, right? That is fallacious thinking. I’m no luddite; I probably spend half my waking life on my computer for school, work, or recreation. But I do recognize that what’s “new and improved” often is not ‘improved’ at all, and what’s “new” is often merely what’s old wrapped in the fancy new dress of modernity. The fact that something is old is certainly no reason to reject it out of hand.

TruthMedia has started a new blog to discuss movies, Movies at TheLife.com. Currently the focus is on The Nativity Story, a film that “follows the life of the Virgin Mary and Joseph over the two-year period immediately prior to the birth of Jesus and several years afterward” (from the Wikipedia article). After watching the trailer, I’m excited to see this movie. While The Passion of the Christ was rather disappointing (for both style and theological reasons, although there were some great moments in it) The Nativity Story looks like it should be a great film, and early reports seem to confirm this. Search out this film when it opens in theaters December 1, or if it’s not playing in your country, find a way to see it!

Related links:

• Video: Watch the Nativity Story trailer!
• Is the slaughter of the children historical? - As depicted in the trailer
• Who is Jesus? - A full study of his entire life on Earth

If a respected British medical school has its way, British doctors will be routinely killing babies born with serious disabilities. The Times of London reported in a page one story this weekend on the shocking proposal from Britain’s respected Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology. The College has called on doctors to consider permitting infanticide in the case of seriously disabled newborn babies. According to the paper, geneticists and medical ethicists supported the proposal - as did the mother of a severely disabled child - while a prominent children’s doctor described it as “social engineering.” (Source: NewsMax)

The issue is, of course, who decides who lives and dies under such a proposal? What qualifies as “severely disabled”? Steve Wagner of STR gives his thoughts on the issue here: Ob/Gyns in England Want Debate about Killing Newborns. As one commenter notes, “I’m curious who gets to decide what an appropriate level of “pain, distress, and discomfort” is necessary to make a baby a candidate for killing. What if the family is just poor? There’s a certain level of distress and discomfort that come from that.”

I was thinking of this issue and that comment as I read the following news story today, found on Google News Canada’s front page:

A 16-year-old girl is facing a charge of second-degree murder as well as six other criminal charges after her newborn boy’s body was found in a wood north of Montreal. The girl gave birth to the baby over the weekend at the home of her mother’s boyfriend in Ste-Sophie, about 50 km north of Montreal. (Source: Ottawa Sun)

Under the proposal of legalized infanticide, would the above act be considered a crime? The idea that inconvenient babies should be killed is immoral and should not be tolerated; here is an issue in which tolerance is not acceptable.

Further reading: Greg Koukl’s articles regarding abortion

While walking to school this afternoon, the following question popped into my head (I don’t recall the no doubt convoluted sequence of thought that led to this):

The Preamble for the United States Declaration of Independence reads, in part:
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident: that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

How would our world be different from how it is now had it read instead:
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident: that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Holiness.”?

Perhaps our society would not be so focused on personal gratification (lesser good), and instead more focused on personal sanctification (greater good)?