HELP ACLJ FIGHT TAX-PAYER ABORTIONS, CALL 877-989-2255...listen to this clip...this guy says over $300 million is used every year to pay for 1000's of abortions...all at taxpayer expense, ..and ObamaCare will likely increase €he # of abortions along with increased tax dollars ..which is outrageous ...I JUST REALIZED OBAMA CARE WILL INCLUDE TAXPAYER-FUNDED ABORTION:( ...I've been sayingon blogs that I am a republican but am for in favor of more health coverage for all people ...ot realizing that it will also probably increcrease the funding for planned parenthood & abortions ...
INFREQUENTLY UPDATED (mostly for historical purposes): This is ALL about the CHRISTIAN FAITH, with daily news & other items mixed in ! We cannot ignore what's happening in the world around us:the good, the bad, & the ugly, but we CAN try to respond to it thru the LENS of FAITH ! I keep running the race of faith in the name of the Father-Son-&-Holy-Spirit ! Join me
Thursday, October 27, 2011
*10/27/11 HELP ACLJ FIGHT TAX-PAYER ABORTIONS, CALL 877-989-2255..,
HELP ACLJ FIGHT TAX-PAYER ABORTIONS, CALL 877-989-2255...listen to this clip...this guy says over $300 million is used every year to pay for 1000's of abortions...all at taxpayer expense, ..and ObamaCare will likely increase €he # of abortions along with increased tax dollars ..which is outrageous ...I JUST REALIZED OBAMA CARE WILL INCLUDE TAXPAYER-FUNDED ABORTION:( ...I've been sayingon blogs that I am a republican but am for in favor of more health coverage for all people ...ot realizing that it will also probably increcrease the funding for planned parenthood & abortions ...
*10/27/11 HELP ACLJ FIGHT TAX-PAYER ABORTIONS, CALL 877-989-2255..,
HELP ACLJ FIGHT TAX-PAYER ABORTIONS, CALL 877-989-2255...listen to this clip...this guy says over $300 million is used every year to pay for 1000's of abortions...all at taxpayer expense, ..and ObamaCare will likely increase €he # of abortions along with increased tax dollars ..which is outrageous ...I JUST REALIZED OBAMA CARE WILL INCLUDE TAXPAYER-FUNDED ABORTION:( ...I've been sayingon blogs that I am a republican but am for in favor of more health coverage for all people ...ot realizing that it will also probably increcrease the funding for planned parenthood & abortions ...
Those "BEER BELLIES" may REALLY BE "WHEAT BELLIES", MODERN WHEAT NOT SO HEALTHY?
Those "BEER BELLIES" may REALLY BE "WHEAT BELLIES", MODERN WHEAT NOT SO HEALTHY?
http://boingboing.net/2011/10/26/triticum-fever-by-dr-william-davis-author-of-wheat-belly.html#more-126282
"... Note that I said "modern" wheat, because I would argue that what we are being sold today in the form of whole grain bread, raisin bagels, blueberry muffins, pizza, ciabatta bruschetta, and so on is not the same grain our grandparents grew up on. It's not even close ..."
"... Modern wheat is the altered offspring of thousands of genetic manipulations, crude and sometimes bizarre techniques that pre-date the age of genetic modification. The result: a high- yield, 2-foot tall "semi-dwarf" plant that no more resembles the wheat consumed by our ancestors than a chimpanzee(which shares 99% of the same genes that we do) resembles a human. I trust that you can tell the difference that 1% make..."
"...If the health benefits of a wheat-free diet sound hard to believe, why not conduct your own little experiment and see for yourself: simply eliminate all things made of wheat for four weeks -- no bread, bagels, pizza, pretzels, rolls, donuts, breakfast cereals, pancakes, waffles, pasta, noodles, or processed foods containing wheat (and do be careful to read labels, as food manufacturers love to slip a little wheat gliadin into your food every chance they get to stimulate your appetite). That's a lot to cut out, true, but there's still plenty of real, nutrient-dense foods like vegetables, fruit, nuts, cheese and dairy products, meat, fish, soy foods, legumes, oils like olive oil, avocados, even dark chocolate that you can eat in their place. If after that 4-week period you discover new mental clarity, better sleep, relief from joint pain, happier intestines, and a looser waistband, you will have your answer. real, nutrient-dense foods like vegetables, fruit, nuts, cheese and dairy products, meat, fish, soy foods, legumes, oils like olive oil, avocados, even dark chocolate that you can eat in their place...."
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
RANGERS DEREK HOLLAND DOES SCHWAARZENAAGER IMPRESSION
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "YouTube Service" <noreply@youtube.com>
Date: Oct 26, 2011 8:03 PM
Subject: VANDERKOK sent you a video: "RAnGERS..DEREK HOLLAND DOES SCHWAARZENAAGER IMPRESSION"
To: <VANDERKOK@gmail.com>
help center | e-mail options | report spam VANDERKOK has shared a video with you on YouTube:
I heard this on the radio ..See story plus...video...at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/24/derek-holland-impression-caray-schwarzenegger-world-series_n_1029628.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/24/derek-holland-impression-caray-schwarzenegger-world-series_n_1029628.html© 2011 YouTube, LLC
901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066
MADONNA's BROTHER HOMELESS in "GRITTY" MICHIGAN CITY (TRAVERSE CITY)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "JP VANDERKOK" <vanderkok@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 26, 2011 12:06 PM
Subject: MADONNA's BROTHER in "GRITTY" MICHIGAN CITY (TRAVERSE CITY)
To: "POSTEROUS TheDAILYNEWS4U.com W/ Tagalog, MisterMustardSeed" <post@thedailynews4u.posterous.com>Ha, ha,NY post writer describes traverse as "gritty", not knowing it is a beautiful resort town in the summer, with beautiful Lake Michigan & inlets nearby as well as sleeping bear dunes, & some nice little islands to explore, among other things (incl interlochen music camp) . See links at
MADONNA's BROTHER in "GRITTY" MICHIGAN CITY (TRAVERSE CITY)
Ha, ha,NY post writer describes traverse as "gritty", not knowing it is a beautiful resort town in the summer, with beautiful Lake Michigan & inlets nearby as well as sleeping bear dunes, & some nice little islands to explore, among other things (incl interlochen music camp) . See links at
10/16/11 @ seal beach salon memorial
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: vanderkok [via Pixelpipe] <postmaster-noreply@pixelpipe.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:25 PM
Subject: 10/16/11 @ seal beach salon memorial
To: vanderkok@gmail.com
From: vanderkok [via Pixelpipe] <postmaster-noreply@pixelpipe.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:25 PM
Subject: 10/16/11 @ seal beach salon memorial
To: vanderkok@gmail.com
re NANCY MURPHY’s BIG MISTAKE (THAT “CHRISTIANS HAVE NO SOULS” , & SHE SAYS RICHARD MOUW AGREES WITH HER.
re NANCY MURPHY’s BIG MISTAKE (THAT “CHRISTIANS HAVE NO SOULS” , & SHE SAYS RICHARD MOUW AGREES WITH HER.
THE BEST REFUTATION of NANCEY MURPHY I have come across can be found at: www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/emergentism-physicalism
also see http://hearingtheword2.posterous.com/must-read-excellent-article-refuting-so-calle
NOTE: I was in a class at Fuller Seminary taught by Nancey Murphy and found it to be unintelligble and completely contrary to all my Christian beliefs and my Christian education coming out of Calvin College & Seminary where they don't teach anything written by Nancey Murphy. I am surprised she refers to Mouw as a "physicalist" who won't sing when a song is about "soul", because I always thought of Mouw as being in agreement with mainstream Christianity and Calvin College (he used to teach at Calvin, maybe that's why he left) . I think this sort of teaching that refutes the existence of soul is extremely dangerous, especially at the seminary level where future pastors are being (supposedly) trained
I found this article at http://povcrystal.blogspot.com/2010/06/we-have-no-souls.html
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Option 1: humans are made of three parts, body, soul and spirit.
Option 2: humans are made of two parts, either a body and a soul, or a body and a mind.
Option 3: Humans are made of just one part, if you want to call it a part, that is a physical body [physicalism].
And then option 4 is “Who cares!” I myself used to believe that people were made up of one part, just bodies, that the mind was really only a construct of the brain, and that there was no soul. Now, though, I vacillate in hope between two other views - that maybe we are two parts and that we have bodies which perish and souls which are immortal, or alternatively, that maybe we are just one part, bodies which are 'selves' but without souls, that in some way become changed and immortal after death. If that sounds unintelligible :) it might make more sense after you read (or listen to the mp3 files of) the three part interview (Christianity, Neuroscience & the Soul) with Nancey Murphy. In the first part of the interview she discusses the biblical view of bodies/souls and the change in that line of thought due to the incorporation by medieval scholasticism of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle which showed interest in the soul. The second part of the interview deals with the blow to Aristotelian physics and Thomas Aquinas' interpretation of it, that integration of matter (bodies) and Form (souls), from the ideas of Copernicus, Galileo, and atomism. Some thinkers went completely atomistic like Hobbes (sort of the father of contemporary physicalism), others referenced Plato's idea of radical body/soul dualism for the sake of free will, like Descartes. Most interesting to me in this part of the interview was this bit ...... One of the things that happened with Descartes is that, while the Aristotelian synthesis claimed that plants, animals and humans have souls, for Descartes, only human beings have souls, and so that had come to be the accepted view between 1650 and 1850. And so Darwin comes along and points out this huge amount of continuity between humans and animals. Well, if animals don’t have souls, one line of reasoning goes, then why should we think humans must have them? And so on the one hand there was a strong movement towards physicalism on the basis of that argument. But on the other side people would say, oh, if Darwin is showing all of this continuity between humans and animals, how are we going to make it clear that there are major distinctions between us and the animals? And one common strategy was to say, well, we have souls and they don’t. In part three of the interview, Physicalism, free will, and the promise of resurrection, she talks about how modern neuroscience seems to prove there is no soul in the Aquinas or Descartes sense of the word, and that some Christian theologians and biblical scholars have been saying for 50 to 100 years that "Christians don’t have souls, never needed them, and Christianity would be much better off if we never had thought we had them". The interviewer asks how, if we are just bodies without souls, we can escape determinism and achieve immortality. Her answer is interesting - that while being just bodies without souls, still we're more than the sum of our material parts, and that we do get resurrected. Here below is the text of the third part of the interview ..... ********************** Part Three Interviewer: Well, that certainly leads us to a whole host of new problems, and maybe best brought to light by Francis Crick’s comment that he has “falsified” Christianity by proving there is no soul? Well, if he had done his homework, he would know about the Christian theologians and biblical scholars who have been saying for 50 to 100 years that Christians don’t have souls, never needed them, and Christianity would be much better off if we never had thought we had them. I recall a very amusing remark that you made at a conference last fall where you introduced yourself as someone who teaches at a graduate theological seminary and spends her time telling her students that they have no souls. (Laughs) I do get their attention (big laugh). And I have a running debate with the president of the seminary [that would be Richard Mouw], who is a dualist himself—he says primarily on philosophical grounds—but when I first started preaching physicalism, he would stop when we were singing hymns that had soul language in it, and he would tell me I was not allowed to sing those hymns (laughs)..."
SEE http://povcrystal.blogspot.com/2010/06/we-have-no-souls.html
here's the rest of the article:
Today I read/listened to Nancey Murphy, Professor of Christian Philosophy at the Fuller Theological Seminary, discuss her 2006 book, Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies?. She begins by asking a question .... Which of the following accounts of human nature comes closest to your own view?
Option 1: humans are made of three parts, body, soul and spirit.
Option 2: humans are made of two parts, either a body and a soul, or a body and a mind.
Option 3: Humans are made of just one part, if you want to call it a part, that is a physical body [physicalism].
And then option 4 is “Who cares!” I myself used to believe that people were made up of one part, just bodies, that the mind was really only a construct of the brain, and that there was no soul. Now, though, I vacillate in hope between two other views - that maybe we are two parts and that we have bodies which perish and souls which are immortal, or alternatively, that maybe we are just one part, bodies which are 'selves' but without souls, that in some way become changed and immortal after death. If that sounds unintelligible :) it might make more sense after you read (or listen to the mp3 files of) the three part interview (Christianity, Neuroscience & the Soul) with Nancey Murphy. In the first part of the interview she discusses the biblical view of bodies/souls and the change in that line of thought due to the incorporation by medieval scholasticism of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle which showed interest in the soul. The second part of the interview deals with the blow to Aristotelian physics and Thomas Aquinas' interpretation of it, that integration of matter (bodies) and Form (souls), from the ideas of Copernicus, Galileo, and atomism. Some thinkers went completely atomistic like Hobbes (sort of the father of contemporary physicalism), others referenced Plato's idea of radical body/soul dualism for the sake of free will, like Descartes. Most interesting to me in this part of the interview was this bit ...... One of the things that happened with Descartes is that, while the Aristotelian synthesis claimed that plants, animals and humans have souls, for Descartes, only human beings have souls, and so that had come to be the accepted view between 1650 and 1850. And so Darwin comes along and points out this huge amount of continuity between humans and animals. Well, if animals don’t have souls, one line of reasoning goes, then why should we think humans must have them? And so on the one hand there was a strong movement towards physicalism on the basis of that argument. But on the other side people would say, oh, if Darwin is showing all of this continuity between humans and animals, how are we going to make it clear that there are major distinctions between us and the animals? And one common strategy was to say, well, we have souls and they don’t. In part three of the interview, Physicalism, free will, and the promise of resurrection, she talks about how modern neuroscience seems to prove there is no soul in the Aquinas or Descartes sense of the word, and that some Christian theologians and biblical scholars have been saying for 50 to 100 years that "Christians don’t have souls, never needed them, and Christianity would be much better off if we never had thought we had them". The interviewer asks how, if we are just bodies without souls, we can escape determinism and achieve immortality. Her answer is interesting - that while being just bodies without souls, still we're more than the sum of our material parts, and that we do get resurrected. Here below is the text of the third part of the interview ..... ********************** Part Three Interviewer: Well, that certainly leads us to a whole host of new problems, and maybe best brought to light by Francis Crick’s comment that he has “falsified” Christianity by proving there is no soul? Well, if he had done his homework, he would know about the Christian theologians and biblical scholars who have been saying for 50 to 100 years that Christians don’t have souls, never needed them, and Christianity would be much better off if we never had thought we had them. I recall a very amusing remark that you made at a conference last fall where you introduced yourself as someone who teaches at a graduate theological seminary and spends her time telling her students that they have no souls. (Laughs) I do get their attention (big laugh). And I have a running debate with the president of the seminary, who is a dualist himself—he says primarily on philosophical grounds—but when I first started preaching physicalism, he would stop when we were singing hymns that had soul language in it, and he would tell me I was not allowed to sing those hymns (laughs). Well, I know you’re using the word “preaching” figuratively when you say “preaching physicalism,” but it does seem to me that physicalism poses some very serious problems. Once you acknowledge that the brain is what’s doing it, you get back to some very serious stakes for Christians, do you not? Yes. And serious stakes for the whole human race. It’s the problem that Descartes and Hobbes already recognized: if human bodies are controlled by the laws governing their parts, then everything that a human being does must be controlled by the laws of the natural sciences, and if that’s the case, then not only do we not have free will, not only do we not have moral responsibility, but we can’t even have rationality. And so if what you and I are saying is simply the product of the outworking of the laws of neurobiology inside our heads, then there’s nothing rational about what we’re doing: we’re just making noises. Well, if I thought determinism was true I wouldn’t have spent so long preparing for this interview. That’s right, you would have known that it was either going to come out well or badly! Exactly! But how do we get out of this now? This is a tough spot. I believe that, in contrast to Hobbes’ day, we are in a position right now where we can begin to unravel the knot. We have this image of the way the world is constructed, and an image about how the major sciences relate to one another, that I will call the “hierarchy of the sciences” with the corresponding “hierarchy of complex systems.” So we think that everything is made of subatomic particles, whatever the physicists say they are this decade, and atoms are composed of those, chemical compounds are composed of those, biochemicals are composed of vast complexes of those simpler molecules, and now you’re getting into the range of biology. You can start talking about cell walls and variously more complex tissues, and then organs, and then organisms, and then you can move to ecology to talk about the large systems in which the organisms live, or you can move to psychology and the social sciences to talk about the complex relations among human beings. It seems to me that the major assumption throughout the whole of the modern world view has been that the parts of any of these complex entities unilaterally determine the behavior of the whole. This makes sense in some kinds of systems. If you think of an ordinary mechanical watch, it’s just almost undeniable that the behavior of the parts of the watch determine the behavior of the whole. And this is something that’s often called “bottom-up” causality. Exactly. And in fact, if your watch doesn’t work that way, you throw it out and get another one. But we’ve also got lots of different kinds of different systems in our world that don’t work that way. For instance, if you look at a system like an ant colony, you find that the very character of the ants in the colony is shaped by their relationships to the other ants around them. They’re all genetically identical, but one ant will become a forager, and another ant will become a nest builder, and this depends on frequency of running into ants of the various sorts as it’s running around doing its business. And so the same little ant body is made into a forager, or a nest builder, or some other functional kind of ant in the system depending on how the system as a whole affects its experiences. What we’re looking for here is higher-level ordering that is in some sense causally autonomous, or not “reducible,” whatever that means? Yes, and so the ant colony is an example. You’ve got the genetic level, you’ve got the level of the organism as a whole—the ant—you’ve got the colony itself, and then you’ve got the wider environment, and so you’ve got four levels of complexity there, and so what you find when you get systems complex enough, with enough causal levels, the system as a whole will have holistic system qualities not manifest by any of its parts. For instance, colonies last about the same length of time as the queen does, and in some subspecies that’s about 15 years. If you find a young colony, the ants in it are going to be more aggressive and less predictable. If you find an older colony, the ants are less aggressive and much more predictable. The worker ants are replaced I think maybe once every year, so it’s not that you’re training the same ants. It’s that the system as a whole is going through a developmental phase that shapes the parts themselves and the roles that they play. Now our goal in this intellectual endeavor is not just to understand ant colonies, but to give a sense of the human person, and some of the phenomena that we associate with being one, like subjectivity, a sense of having the ability to choose, of having free will, the sense of being responsible for our actions, of being moral agents, and of course, very importantly, the ability to have a relationship with God or the divine. So how do we get there from this? Well, we are like the ant colony. We are complex systems with holistic characteristics. Some of those holistic characteristics are able to exert downward effects on lower level parts, and much of this is what’s going on in our cognitive systems. I have the ability to perform what I call self-transcendence. For instance, I find myself angry at a student, and I can then move to a level of evaluation and ask, “Why am I angry at that student? Should I be angry or should I not be angry?” and make a judgment about that. And if I think I should not have been angry, then I can go back and try to redesign my cognitive processes so I’m not so likely to be upset about students doing those sorts of things. And when we get to the point where we can reflect on those higher order reflections in light of moral concepts provided by our culture, we’re at the level that we can become morally responsible agents. So I can decide that I was perfectly justified in being angry at the student. I treat the student badly as a result. But then I reflect on whether that was a Christian way to interact with the student, and Jesus’ enemy-love comes to mind, and I think, “Oh, whoops! I failed morally.” So we have to have these multilevel capacities for self-transcendence and self-evaluation. We have to have the cultural resources of moral evaluative language, and that is what gives us the capacity to be moral thinkers. Of course the capacity to make ourselves carry out what we decide is the moral thing to do, that’s a discussion for another whole day. Now it does appear to me that some of our older notions of causality and the causality of the will are going to have to be reexamined here, because it doesn’t sound to me like the will is going to turn out to be some kind of “uncaused cause.” Right. But, also one has to wonder, if the self, the mind, the soul is just a manifestation of very complex meta-levels of organization of a physical system, then what happens to immortality? What happens to life after death? Well, the Christian view, the early Christian view, and some scholars say the only suitable view for Jews also, is the view of the resurrection of the body. Jesus simply died. There was no soul going off to heaven. But three days later his body was, not just resuscitated, but raised in a transformed manner, suitable for some other world than this crass material world that we live in. And so what Christian preachers need to do is to reemphasize the resurrection at the end of time, rather than the sermons that say your loved-one’s soul has flown to God and is at peace in heaven and all that sort of stuff. And I think that’s much more authentically Christian than the souls-flying-away kind of image. I must ask this skeptical question: why is it that the physical sciences and neuroscience have been able to chip away at dualism, whereas the seeming improbability of bodies being brought back to life is accepted? (That was a very poorly worded question!) (Laughter) Well, actually there are a lot of Christians who accept pretty much all of the Christian teaching except resurrection. You can ask scholars, is there enough historical evidence available, and there is a small but strong minority of Christian scholars who say that we’ve got adequate evidence to conclude that something really strange happened on that third day. It was such a powerful event that it totally changed the lives of the disciples, who’d been hiding—turned them into fearless evangelists. We would all say that we can’t describe exactly what it was like. It’s not a ghost, it’s not a resuscitated corpse, it’s like nothing anybody has ever seen. But to be a Christian, Saint Paul would say, “If Christ be not raised then our hope is in vain.” So it’s a part of the package of being a Christian, and even if there isn’t enough historical evidence for it to stand on its own legs apart from the whole system, you have to ask is there enough reason to believe in the Christian system as a whole. And I could go on for ten days straight about why I think there is. Well, I suppose my question really is, where do you draw the line? What aspects of your theology have to accommodate themselves to contemporary science, and what aspects remain matters, inviolable matters of faith? Well, belief in God and God’s doings in the history of his people are not really the sorts of things that science could ever disprove. And I really want to emphasize again that, on this matter of the soul, although it’s been taken to be central to Christian thought for many centuries, I was convinced prior to looking at the science that physicalism was a perfectly okay understanding, and even a better understanding of the original biblical teaching. So biblical scholars beat the neuroscientists to this conclusion by almost a hundred years. Well… right on! (Laughter) But I would be really upset if I found some aspect of what I see as central to my Christian belief-set to be in radical conflict with science, and couldn’t find any way to resolve the conflict. Professor Nancey Murphy, thank you very much. Thank you very much. It’s been a delight." [END].
Vander
THE BEST REFUTATION of NANCEY MURPHY I have come across can be found at:
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/emergentism-physicalism
also see
http://hearingtheword2.posterous.com/must-read-excellent-article-refuting-so-calle
NOTE: I was in a class at Fuller Seminary taught by Nancey Murphy and found it to be unintelligble and completely contrary to all my Christian beliefs and my Christian education coming out of Calvin College & Seminary where they don't teach anything written by Nancey Murphy. I am surprised she refers to Mouw as a "physicalist" who won't sing when a song is about "soul", because I always thought of Mouw as being in agreement with mainstream Christianity and Calvin College (he used to teach at Calvin, maybe that's why he left) . I think this sort of teaching that refutes the existence of soul is extremely dangerous, especially at the seminary level where future pastors are being (supposedly) trained. -Vander-
re NANCY MURPHY’s BIG MISTAKE (THAT “CHRISTIANS HAVE NO SOULS” , & SHE SAYS RICHARD MOUW AGREES WITH HER.
re NANCY MURPHY’s BIG MISTAKE (THAT “CHRISTIANS HAVE NO SOULS” , & SHE SAYS RICHARD MOUW AGREES WITH HER.
THE BEST REFUTATION of NANCEY MURPHY I have come across can be found at: www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/emergentism-physicalism
also see http://hearingtheword2.posterous.com/must-read-excellent-article-refuting-so-calle
NOTE: I was in a class at Fuller Seminary taught by Nancey Murphy and found it to be unintelligble and completely contrary to all my Christian beliefs and my Christian education coming out of Calvin College & Seminary where they don't teach anything written by Nancey Murphy. I am surprised she refers to Mouw as a "physicalist" who won't sing when a song is about "soul", because I always thought of Mouw as being in agreement with mainstream Christianity and Calvin College (he used to teach at Calvin, maybe that's why he left) . I think this sort of teaching that refutes the existence of soul is extremely dangerous, especially at the seminary level where future pastors are being (supposedly) trained
I found this article at http://povcrystal.blogspot.com/2010/06/we-have-no-souls.html
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Option 1: humans are made of three parts, body, soul and spirit.
Option 2: humans are made of two parts, either a body and a soul, or a body and a mind.
Option 3: Humans are made of just one part, if you want to call it a part, that is a physical body [physicalism].
And then option 4 is “Who cares!” I myself used to believe that people were made up of one part, just bodies, that the mind was really only a construct of the brain, and that there was no soul. Now, though, I vacillate in hope between two other views - that maybe we are two parts and that we have bodies which perish and souls which are immortal, or alternatively, that maybe we are just one part, bodies which are 'selves' but without souls, that in some way become changed and immortal after death. If that sounds unintelligible :) it might make more sense after you read (or listen to the mp3 files of) the three part interview (Christianity, Neuroscience & the Soul) with Nancey Murphy. In the first part of the interview she discusses the biblical view of bodies/souls and the change in that line of thought due to the incorporation by medieval scholasticism of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle which showed interest in the soul. The second part of the interview deals with the blow to Aristotelian physics and Thomas Aquinas' interpretation of it, that integration of matter (bodies) and Form (souls), from the ideas of Copernicus, Galileo, and atomism. Some thinkers went completely atomistic like Hobbes (sort of the father of contemporary physicalism), others referenced Plato's idea of radical body/soul dualism for the sake of free will, like Descartes. Most interesting to me in this part of the interview was this bit ...... One of the things that happened with Descartes is that, while the Aristotelian synthesis claimed that plants, animals and humans have souls, for Descartes, only human beings have souls, and so that had come to be the accepted view between 1650 and 1850. And so Darwin comes along and points out this huge amount of continuity between humans and animals. Well, if animals don’t have souls, one line of reasoning goes, then why should we think humans must have them? And so on the one hand there was a strong movement towards physicalism on the basis of that argument. But on the other side people would say, oh, if Darwin is showing all of this continuity between humans and animals, how are we going to make it clear that there are major distinctions between us and the animals? And one common strategy was to say, well, we have souls and they don’t. In part three of the interview, Physicalism, free will, and the promise of resurrection, she talks about how modern neuroscience seems to prove there is no soul in the Aquinas or Descartes sense of the word, and that some Christian theologians and biblical scholars have been saying for 50 to 100 years that "Christians don’t have souls, never needed them, and Christianity would be much better off if we never had thought we had them". The interviewer asks how, if we are just bodies without souls, we can escape determinism and achieve immortality. Her answer is interesting - that while being just bodies without souls, still we're more than the sum of our material parts, and that we do get resurrected. Here below is the text of the third part of the interview ..... ********************** Part Three Interviewer: Well, that certainly leads us to a whole host of new problems, and maybe best brought to light by Francis Crick’s comment that he has “falsified” Christianity by proving there is no soul? Well, if he had done his homework, he would know about the Christian theologians and biblical scholars who have been saying for 50 to 100 years that Christians don’t have souls, never needed them, and Christianity would be much better off if we never had thought we had them. I recall a very amusing remark that you made at a conference last fall where you introduced yourself as someone who teaches at a graduate theological seminary and spends her time telling her students that they have no souls. (Laughs) I do get their attention (big laugh). And I have a running debate with the president of the seminary [that would be Richard Mouw], who is a dualist himself—he says primarily on philosophical grounds—but when I first started preaching physicalism, he would stop when we were singing hymns that had soul language in it, and he would tell me I was not allowed to sing those hymns (laughs)..."
SEE http://povcrystal.blogspot.com/2010/06/we-have-no-souls.html
here's the rest of the article:
Today I read/listened to Nancey Murphy, Professor of Christian Philosophy at the Fuller Theological Seminary, discuss her 2006 book, Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies?. She begins by asking a question .... Which of the following accounts of human nature comes closest to your own view?
Option 1: humans are made of three parts, body, soul and spirit.
Option 2: humans are made of two parts, either a body and a soul, or a body and a mind.
Option 3: Humans are made of just one part, if you want to call it a part, that is a physical body [physicalism].
And then option 4 is “Who cares!” I myself used to believe that people were made up of one part, just bodies, that the mind was really only a construct of the brain, and that there was no soul. Now, though, I vacillate in hope between two other views - that maybe we are two parts and that we have bodies which perish and souls which are immortal, or alternatively, that maybe we are just one part, bodies which are 'selves' but without souls, that in some way become changed and immortal after death. If that sounds unintelligible :) it might make more sense after you read (or listen to the mp3 files of) the three part interview (Christianity, Neuroscience & the Soul) with Nancey Murphy. In the first part of the interview she discusses the biblical view of bodies/souls and the change in that line of thought due to the incorporation by medieval scholasticism of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle which showed interest in the soul. The second part of the interview deals with the blow to Aristotelian physics and Thomas Aquinas' interpretation of it, that integration of matter (bodies) and Form (souls), from the ideas of Copernicus, Galileo, and atomism. Some thinkers went completely atomistic like Hobbes (sort of the father of contemporary physicalism), others referenced Plato's idea of radical body/soul dualism for the sake of free will, like Descartes. Most interesting to me in this part of the interview was this bit ...... One of the things that happened with Descartes is that, while the Aristotelian synthesis claimed that plants, animals and humans have souls, for Descartes, only human beings have souls, and so that had come to be the accepted view between 1650 and 1850. And so Darwin comes along and points out this huge amount of continuity between humans and animals. Well, if animals don’t have souls, one line of reasoning goes, then why should we think humans must have them? And so on the one hand there was a strong movement towards physicalism on the basis of that argument. But on the other side people would say, oh, if Darwin is showing all of this continuity between humans and animals, how are we going to make it clear that there are major distinctions between us and the animals? And one common strategy was to say, well, we have souls and they don’t. In part three of the interview, Physicalism, free will, and the promise of resurrection, she talks about how modern neuroscience seems to prove there is no soul in the Aquinas or Descartes sense of the word, and that some Christian theologians and biblical scholars have been saying for 50 to 100 years that "Christians don’t have souls, never needed them, and Christianity would be much better off if we never had thought we had them". The interviewer asks how, if we are just bodies without souls, we can escape determinism and achieve immortality. Her answer is interesting - that while being just bodies without souls, still we're more than the sum of our material parts, and that we do get resurrected. Here below is the text of the third part of the interview ..... ********************** Part Three Interviewer: Well, that certainly leads us to a whole host of new problems, and maybe best brought to light by Francis Crick’s comment that he has “falsified” Christianity by proving there is no soul? Well, if he had done his homework, he would know about the Christian theologians and biblical scholars who have been saying for 50 to 100 years that Christians don’t have souls, never needed them, and Christianity would be much better off if we never had thought we had them. I recall a very amusing remark that you made at a conference last fall where you introduced yourself as someone who teaches at a graduate theological seminary and spends her time telling her students that they have no souls. (Laughs) I do get their attention (big laugh). And I have a running debate with the president of the seminary, who is a dualist himself—he says primarily on philosophical grounds—but when I first started preaching physicalism, he would stop when we were singing hymns that had soul language in it, and he would tell me I was not allowed to sing those hymns (laughs). Well, I know you’re using the word “preaching” figuratively when you say “preaching physicalism,” but it does seem to me that physicalism poses some very serious problems. Once you acknowledge that the brain is what’s doing it, you get back to some very serious stakes for Christians, do you not? Yes. And serious stakes for the whole human race. It’s the problem that Descartes and Hobbes already recognized: if human bodies are controlled by the laws governing their parts, then everything that a human being does must be controlled by the laws of the natural sciences, and if that’s the case, then not only do we not have free will, not only do we not have moral responsibility, but we can’t even have rationality. And so if what you and I are saying is simply the product of the outworking of the laws of neurobiology inside our heads, then there’s nothing rational about what we’re doing: we’re just making noises. Well, if I thought determinism was true I wouldn’t have spent so long preparing for this interview. That’s right, you would have known that it was either going to come out well or badly! Exactly! But how do we get out of this now? This is a tough spot. I believe that, in contrast to Hobbes’ day, we are in a position right now where we can begin to unravel the knot. We have this image of the way the world is constructed, and an image about how the major sciences relate to one another, that I will call the “hierarchy of the sciences” with the corresponding “hierarchy of complex systems.” So we think that everything is made of subatomic particles, whatever the physicists say they are this decade, and atoms are composed of those, chemical compounds are composed of those, biochemicals are composed of vast complexes of those simpler molecules, and now you’re getting into the range of biology. You can start talking about cell walls and variously more complex tissues, and then organs, and then organisms, and then you can move to ecology to talk about the large systems in which the organisms live, or you can move to psychology and the social sciences to talk about the complex relations among human beings. It seems to me that the major assumption throughout the whole of the modern world view has been that the parts of any of these complex entities unilaterally determine the behavior of the whole. This makes sense in some kinds of systems. If you think of an ordinary mechanical watch, it’s just almost undeniable that the behavior of the parts of the watch determine the behavior of the whole. And this is something that’s often called “bottom-up” causality. Exactly. And in fact, if your watch doesn’t work that way, you throw it out and get another one. But we’ve also got lots of different kinds of different systems in our world that don’t work that way. For instance, if you look at a system like an ant colony, you find that the very character of the ants in the colony is shaped by their relationships to the other ants around them. They’re all genetically identical, but one ant will become a forager, and another ant will become a nest builder, and this depends on frequency of running into ants of the various sorts as it’s running around doing its business. And so the same little ant body is made into a forager, or a nest builder, or some other functional kind of ant in the system depending on how the system as a whole affects its experiences. What we’re looking for here is higher-level ordering that is in some sense causally autonomous, or not “reducible,” whatever that means? Yes, and so the ant colony is an example. You’ve got the genetic level, you’ve got the level of the organism as a whole—the ant—you’ve got the colony itself, and then you’ve got the wider environment, and so you’ve got four levels of complexity there, and so what you find when you get systems complex enough, with enough causal levels, the system as a whole will have holistic system qualities not manifest by any of its parts. For instance, colonies last about the same length of time as the queen does, and in some subspecies that’s about 15 years. If you find a young colony, the ants in it are going to be more aggressive and less predictable. If you find an older colony, the ants are less aggressive and much more predictable. The worker ants are replaced I think maybe once every year, so it’s not that you’re training the same ants. It’s that the system as a whole is going through a developmental phase that shapes the parts themselves and the roles that they play. Now our goal in this intellectual endeavor is not just to understand ant colonies, but to give a sense of the human person, and some of the phenomena that we associate with being one, like subjectivity, a sense of having the ability to choose, of having free will, the sense of being responsible for our actions, of being moral agents, and of course, very importantly, the ability to have a relationship with God or the divine. So how do we get there from this? Well, we are like the ant colony. We are complex systems with holistic characteristics. Some of those holistic characteristics are able to exert downward effects on lower level parts, and much of this is what’s going on in our cognitive systems. I have the ability to perform what I call self-transcendence. For instance, I find myself angry at a student, and I can then move to a level of evaluation and ask, “Why am I angry at that student? Should I be angry or should I not be angry?” and make a judgment about that. And if I think I should not have been angry, then I can go back and try to redesign my cognitive processes so I’m not so likely to be upset about students doing those sorts of things. And when we get to the point where we can reflect on those higher order reflections in light of moral concepts provided by our culture, we’re at the level that we can become morally responsible agents. So I can decide that I was perfectly justified in being angry at the student. I treat the student badly as a result. But then I reflect on whether that was a Christian way to interact with the student, and Jesus’ enemy-love comes to mind, and I think, “Oh, whoops! I failed morally.” So we have to have these multilevel capacities for self-transcendence and self-evaluation. We have to have the cultural resources of moral evaluative language, and that is what gives us the capacity to be moral thinkers. Of course the capacity to make ourselves carry out what we decide is the moral thing to do, that’s a discussion for another whole day. Now it does appear to me that some of our older notions of causality and the causality of the will are going to have to be reexamined here, because it doesn’t sound to me like the will is going to turn out to be some kind of “uncaused cause.” Right. But, also one has to wonder, if the self, the mind, the soul is just a manifestation of very complex meta-levels of organization of a physical system, then what happens to immortality? What happens to life after death? Well, the Christian view, the early Christian view, and some scholars say the only suitable view for Jews also, is the view of the resurrection of the body. Jesus simply died. There was no soul going off to heaven. But three days later his body was, not just resuscitated, but raised in a transformed manner, suitable for some other world than this crass material world that we live in. And so what Christian preachers need to do is to reemphasize the resurrection at the end of time, rather than the sermons that say your loved-one’s soul has flown to God and is at peace in heaven and all that sort of stuff. And I think that’s much more authentically Christian than the souls-flying-away kind of image. I must ask this skeptical question: why is it that the physical sciences and neuroscience have been able to chip away at dualism, whereas the seeming improbability of bodies being brought back to life is accepted? (That was a very poorly worded question!) (Laughter) Well, actually there are a lot of Christians who accept pretty much all of the Christian teaching except resurrection. You can ask scholars, is there enough historical evidence available, and there is a small but strong minority of Christian scholars who say that we’ve got adequate evidence to conclude that something really strange happened on that third day. It was such a powerful event that it totally changed the lives of the disciples, who’d been hiding—turned them into fearless evangelists. We would all say that we can’t describe exactly what it was like. It’s not a ghost, it’s not a resuscitated corpse, it’s like nothing anybody has ever seen. But to be a Christian, Saint Paul would say, “If Christ be not raised then our hope is in vain.” So it’s a part of the package of being a Christian, and even if there isn’t enough historical evidence for it to stand on its own legs apart from the whole system, you have to ask is there enough reason to believe in the Christian system as a whole. And I could go on for ten days straight about why I think there is. Well, I suppose my question really is, where do you draw the line? What aspects of your theology have to accommodate themselves to contemporary science, and what aspects remain matters, inviolable matters of faith? Well, belief in God and God’s doings in the history of his people are not really the sorts of things that science could ever disprove. And I really want to emphasize again that, on this matter of the soul, although it’s been taken to be central to Christian thought for many centuries, I was convinced prior to looking at the science that physicalism was a perfectly okay understanding, and even a better understanding of the original biblical teaching. So biblical scholars beat the neuroscientists to this conclusion by almost a hundred years. Well… right on! (Laughter) But I would be really upset if I found some aspect of what I see as central to my Christian belief-set to be in radical conflict with science, and couldn’t find any way to resolve the conflict. Professor Nancey Murphy, thank you very much. Thank you very much. It’s been a delight." [END].
Vander
THE BEST REFUTATION of NANCEY MURPHY I have come across can be found at:
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/emergentism-physicalism
also see
http://hearingtheword2.posterous.com/must-read-excellent-article-refuting-so-calle
NOTE: I was in a class at Fuller Seminary taught by Nancey Murphy and found it to be unintelligble and completely contrary to all my Christian beliefs and my Christian education coming out of Calvin College & Seminary where they don't teach anything written by Nancey Murphy. I am surprised she refers to Mouw as a "physicalist" who won't sing when a song is about "soul", because I always thought of Mouw as being in agreement with mainstream Christianity and Calvin College (he used to teach at Calvin, maybe that's why he left) . I think this sort of teaching that refutes the existence of soul is extremely dangerous, especially at the seminary level where future pastors are being (supposedly) trained. -Vander-
COLDPLAY TALKS ABOUT MYLO XYLOTO, their NEW ALBUM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: vanderkok [via Pixelpipe] <postmaster-noreply@pixelpipe.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 8:57 AM
Subject: COLDPLAY TALKS ABOUT MYLO XYLOTO, their NEW ALBUM
To: vanderkok@gmail.com
COLDPLAY TALKS ABOUT MYLO XYLOTO, their NEW ALBUM ...I heard this interview on the radio ....for a story about coldplay, see http://www.esquire.com/the-side/music/coldplay-mylo-xyloto-review-6528860 , to be inspired by the greatest (true) story ever told, see www.HEARINGtheWORD.posterous.com.
From: vanderkok [via Pixelpipe] <postmaster-noreply@pixelpipe.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 8:57 AM
Subject: COLDPLAY TALKS ABOUT MYLO XYLOTO, their NEW ALBUM
To: vanderkok@gmail.com
COLDPLAY TALKS ABOUT MYLO XYLOTO, their NEW ALBUM ...I heard this interview on the radio ....for a story about coldplay, see http://www.esquire.com/the-side/music/coldplay-mylo-xyloto-review-6528860 , to be inspired by the greatest (true) story ever told, see www.HEARINGtheWORD.posterous.com.
9/20/11 A PRIEST FOUND 4000 CATHOLICS WHO HAD NEVER SEEN A PRIEST
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: vanderkok [via Pixelpipe] <postmaster-noreply@pixelpipe.com>
Date: Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:26 AM
Subject: 9/20/11 A PRIEST FOUND 4000 CATHOLICS WHO HAD NEVER SEEN A PRIEST
To: vanderkok@gmail.com
9/20/11 cblog A PRIEST FOUND 4000 PERSONS PRACTICING CATHOLIC FAITH in KOREA DESPITE HAVING NEVER SEEN A PRIEST; st p apost m:"In todays gospel jesus reveals universal love..not limited to specific group, but to those who accept the message & believe..no better example than the saints today..the korean martyrs ..great faith...church founded entirely by lay people..in kore, evangelism was difficult b/c korea had history of closing itself off to the world. But literature from jesuits was brought in.later chinese priest went to korea ..surprised 4000 people were already practicing the catholic faith even tho they had never seen a priest [actually, they had seen a priest...His name was Jesus Christ] ..continue liturgy..example of korean martyrs..respond boldly..rejoice in god's love..faith..to world . [also see http://saintoftheday.posterous.com/saint-of-the-day-september-20-2011-andrew-kim ] Deut 10.12-22
1 King Darius issued an order to the officials of West-of-Euphrates"Let the governor and the elders of the Jews continue the work on that house of God; they are to rebuild it on its former site. I also issue this decree concerning your dealing with these elders of the Jews in the rebuilding of that house of God: From the royal revenue, the taxes of West-of-Euphrates let these men be repaid for their expenses, in full and without delay. I, Darius, have issued this decree..." R: let us go rejoicing to the house of the lord Lk 8.19-21
The mother of Jesus and his brothers came to him but were unable to join him because of the crowd He was told, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside and they wish to see you." He said to them in reply, "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and act on it."
From: vanderkok [via Pixelpipe] <postmaster-noreply@pixelpipe.com>
Date: Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:26 AM
Subject: 9/20/11 A PRIEST FOUND 4000 CATHOLICS WHO HAD NEVER SEEN A PRIEST
To: vanderkok@gmail.com
9/20/11 cblog A PRIEST FOUND 4000 PERSONS PRACTICING CATHOLIC FAITH in KOREA DESPITE HAVING NEVER SEEN A PRIEST; st p apost m:"In todays gospel jesus reveals universal love..not limited to specific group, but to those who accept the message & believe..no better example than the saints today..the korean martyrs ..great faith...church founded entirely by lay people..in kore, evangelism was difficult b/c korea had history of closing itself off to the world. But literature from jesuits was brought in.later chinese priest went to korea ..surprised 4000 people were already practicing the catholic faith even tho they had never seen a priest [actually, they had seen a priest...His name was Jesus Christ] ..continue liturgy..example of korean martyrs..respond boldly..rejoice in god's love..faith..to world . [also see http://saintoftheday.posterous.com/saint-of-the-day-september-20-2011-andrew-kim ] Deut 10.12-22
1 King Darius issued an order to the officials of West-of-Euphrates"Let the governor and the elders of the Jews continue the work on that house of God; they are to rebuild it on its former site. I also issue this decree concerning your dealing with these elders of the Jews in the rebuilding of that house of God: From the royal revenue, the taxes of West-of-Euphrates let these men be repaid for their expenses, in full and without delay. I, Darius, have issued this decree..." R: let us go rejoicing to the house of the lord Lk 8.19-21
The mother of Jesus and his brothers came to him but were unable to join him because of the crowd He was told, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside and they wish to see you." He said to them in reply, "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and act on it."
COLDPLAY TALKS ABOUT MYLO XYLOTO, their NEW ALBUM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: vanderkok [via Pixelpipe] <postmaster-noreply@pixelpipe.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 8:57 AM
Subject: COLDPLAY TALKS ABOUT MYLO XYLOTO, their NEW ALBUM
To: vanderkok@gmail.com
COLDPLAY TALKS ABOUT MYLO XYLOTO, their NEW ALBUM ...I heard this interview on the radio ....for a story about coldplay, see http://www.esquire.com/the-side/music/coldplay-mylo-xyloto-review-6528860 , to be inspired by the greatest (true) story ever told, see www.HEARINGtheWORD.posterous.com.
From: vanderkok [via Pixelpipe] <postmaster-noreply@pixelpipe.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 8:57 AM
Subject: COLDPLAY TALKS ABOUT MYLO XYLOTO, their NEW ALBUM
To: vanderkok@gmail.com
COLDPLAY TALKS ABOUT MYLO XYLOTO, their NEW ALBUM ...I heard this interview on the radio ....for a story about coldplay, see http://www.esquire.com/the-side/music/coldplay-mylo-xyloto-review-6528860 , to be inspired by the greatest (true) story ever told, see www.HEARINGtheWORD.posterous.com.
7/8/11 HOLY, HOLY, HOLY
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: JP VANDERKOK <vanderkok@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 10:40 AM
Subject: Fwd: 7/8/11 HOLY, HOLY, HOLY
To: "POSTEROUS.com, HEARINGtheWORD2, Pk3@aol, 1/7/10" <post@hearingtheword2.posterous.com>, "FLICKR, F4fts@yahoo.com, Vox 9/29/10 Flickr.com/photos/vanderkok" <word88egg2twitter@photos.flickr.com>
From: JP VANDERKOK <vanderkok@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 10:40 AM
Subject: Fwd: 7/8/11 HOLY, HOLY, HOLY
To: "POSTEROUS.com, HEARINGtheWORD2, Pk3@aol, 1/7/10" <post@hearingtheword2.posterous.com>, "FLICKR, F4fts@yahoo.com, Vox 9/29/10 Flickr.com/photos/vanderkok" <word88egg2twitter@photos.flickr.com>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: vanderkok [via Pixelpipe] <postmaster-noreply@pixelpipe.com>
Date: Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 3:51 AM
Subject: 7/8/11 HOLY, HOLY, HOLY
To: vanderkok@gmail.com
From: vanderkok [via Pixelpipe] <postmaster-noreply@pixelpipe.com>
Date: Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 3:51 AM
Subject: 7/8/11 HOLY, HOLY, HOLY
To: vanderkok@gmail.com
8/28/11 SHEILA SCHULLER ASKS FOR PRAYER 4 CRYSTAL CATHEDRAL ...as ..
the clock continues to tick towards end of october & whether or not the CC will be able to bail themselves out of bankruptcy or not ...need $50 million to stay on their feet ...ENTIRE WORSHIP SERVICE @
http://cblogs.posterous.com/82811-crystal-cathedral-worship-service RH SCHULLER's ENTIRE MESSAGE @:
http://cblogs.posterous.com/82811-soundwaves-never-die-by-rh-schuller-cry
10/25/11 TRANSCRIPT of PRESIDENT OBAMA's TONIGHT SHOW with JAY LENO APPEARANCE
I was at the show at 10am (see ) and here's a transcript of the entire interview:
Transcript of President Obama's Interview on the Tonight Show With Jay Leno
http://news.yahoo.com/transcript-president-obamas-interview-tonight-show-jay-leno-003505288.html
By National Journal staff | National Journal – 16 hrs ago Below is a transcript of President Obama's interview on Tuesday's Tonight Show With Jay Leno as provided by NBC.
THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH JAY LENO
JAY LENO: It's an honor and a privilege to welcome my first
guest back to the show. Welcome the 44th President of the
United States, President Barack Obama. (Applause.)Welcome back.THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you. It is good to be back.JAY LENO: It's good to have you back, sir. Of course, the big
news this week, Gaddafi is dead. Rebel forces -- killed by rebel
forces. Your reaction? Your take on this?THE PRESIDENT: Well, this is somebody who, for 40 years, has
terrorized his country and supported terrorism. And he had an
opportunity during the Arab spring to finally let loose of his
grip on power and to peacefully transition into democracy. We
gave him ample opportunity, and he wouldn't do it. And,
obviously, you never like to see anybody come to the kind of end
that he did, but I think it obviously sends a strong message
around the world to dictators that --JAY LENO: Yeah.THE PRESIDENT: -- people long to be free, and they need to
respect the human rights and the universal aspirations of people.JAY LENO: Now, the mob mentality -- and it was a rebel mob, I
guess. It wasn't a government --THE PRESIDENT: Right.JAY LENO: -- they televised the death. Your thoughts on that?THE PRESIDENT: You know, obviously, that's not something that I
think we should relish. And there was a reason after Bin Laden
was killed, for example, we didn't release the photograph. You
know, I think that there's a certain decorum with which you treat
the dead even if it's somebody who has done terrible things.JAY LENO: Now, you took some heat for the whole
leading-from-behind tactic here with Libya. Explain that.THE PRESIDENT: Well, the truth was, we -- this was a phrase that
the media picked up on.JAY LENO: Okay.THE PRESIDENT: But it's not one that I ever used. JAY LENO: No.THE PRESIDENT: We lead from the front. We introduced the
resolution in the United Nations that allowed us to protect
civilians in Libya when Gaddafi was threatening to slaughter
them. It was our extraordinary men and women in uniform, our
pilots who took out their air defense systems, set up a no-fly
zone. It was our folks in NATO who were helping to coordinate
the NATO operation there. And the difference here is we were
able to organize the international community. We were able to
get the U.N. mandate for the operation. We were able to get Arab
countries involved. And so there was never this sense that
somehow we were unilaterally making a decision to take out
somebody. Rather, it was the world community. And that's part
of the reason why this whole thing only cost us a billion
dollars --JAY LENO: Right.THE PRESIDENT: -- as opposed to a trillion dollars. Not a
single U.S. troop was on the ground. Not a single U.S. troop was
killed or injured, and that, I think, is a recipe for success in
the future.(Applause.)JAY LENO: Let me ask you about that because, with
Osama Bin Laden, I remember the night before you were at the
correspondence dinner and the whole deal.THE PRESIDENT: Right.JAY LENO: How hard was it to make that decision to send in those
Navy SEALs? because that could have been --THE PRESIDENT: It could have been a disaster, but the reason I
was able to do it was -- when you meet these SEALs and you talk
to them, they are the best of the best. They are professional.
They are precise. They practice. They train. They understand
what exactly they intend to do. They are prepared for the worst
in almost every circumstance. So even though it was 50/50 that
Bin Laden would be there, I was a hundred percent confident in
the men, and I could not have made that decision were it not for
the fact that our men and women in uniform are the best there is.
They are unbelievable.(Applause.)JAY LENO: Now, you just announced the troops coming out of --THE PRESIDENT: Right.JAY LENO: -- Iraq. We have, like -- 4,000, I think, were
killed. THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, 4-.JAY LENO: Billions of dollars spent, nine years. What was
accomplished? What did we accomplish there?THE PRESIDENT: Look, Saddam Hussein is gone, and that's a good
thing.JAY LENO: Right.THE PRESIDENT: The Iraqis now have the opportunity to create
their own democracy, their own country, determine their own
destiny. And I'm cautiously optimistic that they realize that
the way they should resolve conflict is not through killing each
other but, rather, through dialogue and discussion and debate.
And so that would not have been possible had it not been for the
extraordinary sacrifices not just of our Armed Forces, but also
their families. You know, when you think about the rotations
that over a million of our troops went through --JAY LENO: Right.THE PRESIDENT: -- and reservists and National Guardsmen and
-women and the strain that that placed on those families during
this long period, it's remarkable. So I think Americans can
rightly be proud that we have given Iraqis an opportunity to
determine their own destiny, but I also think that policymakers
and future Presidents need to understand what it is that we are
getting ourselves into when we make some of these decisions. And
there might have been other ways for us to accomplish those same
goals. But the main thing right now is to celebrate the
extraordinary work that our men and women did. Having them home
for the holidays for good is going to be a big deal.(Applause.)JAY LENO: Let me ask you now, many members of -- many members of
the GOP opposed withdrawing from Iraq.THE PRESIDENT: It's shocking that they opposed something I
proposed.(Laughter and applause.)JAY LENO: But, I mean, wasn't it originally -- didn't they want
to get out of Iraq?THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, I don't know exactly how they are
thinking about it. You know, as you said, we've been in there
four years, over 4,000 young men and women killed, tens of
thousands injured, some of them for life, spent close to a
trillion dollars on this operation. I think the vast majority of
the American people feel as if it is time to bring this war to
a close --JAY LENO: Yeah.THE PRESIDENT: -- particularly because we still have --(Applause.)You know, we still have work to do in Afghanistan. We are
transitioning to Afghan lead there. Our guys are still -- and
gals are still making sacrifices there. We would not have been
able to do as good of a job in decimating al Qaeda's leadership
over the last two years if we had still been focused solely on
Iraq. And one of the arguments I made way back in 2007 was, if
we were able to bring the war in Iraq to a close, then that would
allow us to go after the folks who perpetrated 9/11, and
obviously, we've been very successful in doing that. We are not
done yet.JAY LENO: Yeah.THE PRESIDENT: But al Qaeda is weaker than anytime in recent
memory. We have taken out their top leadership position. That's
been a big accomplishment.(Applause.) JAY LENO: Can I ask you about taking out their top leadership,
al-Awlaki, this guy, American-born terrorist? How important was
he to al Qaeda?THE PRESIDENT: Do you what happened was we put so much pressure
on al Qaeda in the Afghan/Pakistan region --JAY LENO: Right.THE PRESIDENT: -- that their affiliates were actually becoming
more of a threat to the United States. So Awlaki was their head
of external operations. This is the guy that inspired and helped
to facilitate the Christmas Day bomber. This is a guy who was
actively planning a whole range of operations here in the
homeland and was focused on the homeland. And so this was
probably the most important al Qaeda threat that was out there
after Bin Laden was taken out, and it was important that working
with the enemies, we were able to remove him from the field.
come back, I want to ask you about Hilary Clinton and her role
with the President right after this.(Commercial break.)JAY LENO: Welcome back, talking to the President of the
United States. So tell me about Hilary Clinton and the job she's
doing.THE PRESIDENT: She has been, I think, as good of a Secretary of
State as we've seen in this country. She's been outstanding.(Applause.)JAY LENO: Very good.THE PRESIDENT: I'm really proud of her.JAY LENO: I mean, something I think is really great is the fact
that you guys are both rivals. And I did a lot of jokes about
you guys going after each other, but you come together for the
sake of the country. And I thought that was pretty interesting.
Tell me about how that works. THE PRESIDENT: You know, it really wasn't that difficult. The
truth is Hilary and I agree on the vast majority of issues. We
did during the campaign. In fact, one of the problems with all
of those debates was you started running out of stuff to say
because --JAY LENO: Yeah.THE PRESIDENT: -- we had a similar world view. She was, I
think, understandably tired after the campaign and hesitant about
whether or not this would be a good fit, and I told her that I
had complete confidence in her, that the country needed her. She
stepped up to the plate. She works as hard as anybody I've ever
seen. She is tenacious, and we are really very proud of her.
The entire national security team that we've had has been
outstanding, and it's not just rivals within the Democratic
party. My Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, is a Republican.JAY LENO: Right.THE PRESIDENT: He was a carryover from the Bush Administration.
He made an outstanding contribution. So I think one of the
things that we have done is been able to restore a sense that
whatever our politics, when it comes to our national security,
when it comes to the national defense, everybody has to be on the
same page. And so the question now is, as we end the war in
Iraq, it is time for us to rebuild this country, and can we get
that same kind of cooperation when it comes to fixing what's
wrong here?(Applause.) JAY LENO: Now, let me ask you something. And this is a fun
story. This is stuff I love, this rumor that Joe Biden and
Hilary might swap, and she might run for Vice President and he
might -- is there any -- THE PRESIDENT: You know, Joe Biden is not only a great Vice
President, but he has been a great advisor and a great friend to
me. So I think that they are doing great where they are, and
both of them are racking up a lot of miles. JAY LENO: Yeah.THE PRESIDENT: Joe tends to go more to Pittsburgh.JAY LENO: Right.THE PRESIDENT: Hilary is going to Karachi.JAY LENO: Right.THE PRESIDENT: But they've both got important work to do. They
are doing great.JAY LENO: Yeah. But you don't want to say "big f'ing deal" in
Karachi. That could have some problems. Now, I want to -- now,
the approval rating -- the bad news is your approval rating is
41 percent.THE PRESIDENT: Right.JAY LENO: The good news is you are still three times better than
Congress. They are at 13 percent. So explain. I mean -- so if
you are grading on a curve -- if you are grading on a curve, you
are killing. You are just killing.THE PRESIDENT: You know, look, we have gone through the worst
financial crisis, the worst economic crisis since the
Great Depression. People are hurting out there, and they've been
hurting out there for a while. And people were having a tough
time even before the crisis. You know, incomes, wages, we are
all flat. Costs of everything from college to health care to gas
to food, all of it was going up, and so people were feeling a lot
of pressure even before this crisis. And so I --every day I wake up saying to myself, "Look, you can't expect
folks to feel satisfied right now." I'm very proud of the work
that we've done over the last two or three years, but they are
exactly right. We've got more work to do, and that's why, right
now, for example, our biggest challenge is to make sure that we
are putting people back to work. We stabilize the economy, but
there are not enough people working. And so we put forward this
jobs bill that has proposals that traditionally have been
supported by Democrats and Republicans. I mean, we've got -- we
are putting construction workers back to work rebuilding our
roads and our bridges. I suspect folks here this L.A. would say
that there are some roads that could be fixed. You know, that's
just my guess.(Applause.)JAY LENO: See, here's the problem. And the thing that angers me
and I think a lot of Americans is I didn't like what they did to
President Bush. I don't like when they do it to you. When
Mitch McConnell says, "Our goal is to make this guy a one-time
president." I mean, why -- does that anger you? How is that a
goal? That doesn't help the -- THE PRESIDENT: Look, I think the things that folks across the
country are most fed up with, whether you are a Democrat,
Republican, Independent, is putting party ahead of country or
putting the next election ahead of the next generation. (Applause.)And so what we need -- there are some real differences between
the party in terms of where we want to take the country. I
believe we've got to invest in education and research and
infrastructure in order for us to succeed in the long-term, and I
think that there's nothing wrong with us closing the deficit and
making our investments by making sure that folks like you and me
who have been incredibly blessed by this country are doing a
little more of a fair share. They have a different philosophy.
We can argue about that, but on things that, traditionally, we
have agreed to like infrastructure, like tax cuts for small
businesses to give them incentives to hire veterans, on things
that traditionally haven't been partisan, we should be able to
get together. The election is 13 months away. We've got a lot
of time, and the last thing we need to be doing is saying to the
American people that there's nothing we can do until the next
election. We've got to do some work right, putting people back
to work.(Applause.)JAY LENO: Well, you are by passing congress now and giving these
executive orders.THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.JAY LENO: Explain that. Explain that.THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, if Congress is gridlocked, if the
Republicans in Congress refuse to act, then there is going to be
a limit to some of the things we'd like to do, but there's still
some actions that we can take without waiting for Congress. So
yesterday, for example, we announced working with some of the
federal housing agencies. Let's make it easier for people to
refinance. A lot of these folks, because their homes are
underwater now, their mortgages are higher than what their homes
are worth, a lot of them are having trouble getting refinanced by
their banks. And so they are locked in at high rates when rates
should be a lot lower for them. We've said, "Let's figure out a
way to waive some of the fees, waive some of the provisions that
are preventing them from being able to refinance." And that
could mean an extra couple thousand bucks in people's pockets
right now. They then have that money to buy a computer for their
kid for school or what have you, and that will get the economy
going again. So we are going to look for opportunities to do
things without Congress. We can't afford to keep waiting for
them if they are not going to do anything. On the other hand, my
hope is that, at some point, they start listening to the American
people, and we can work with Congress as well. (Applause.)JAY LENO: Well, you are talking about listening to the American
people. As President, you look out your window. Do you see this
occupy Wall Street movement? What do you make of it from your -- THE PRESIDENT: Look, people are frustrated, and that frustration
has expressed itself in a lot of different ways. It expressed
itself in the Tea Party. It's expressing itself in occupy
Wall Street. I do think that what this -- what this signals is
that people in leadership, whether it's corporate leadership,
leaders in the banks, leaders in Washington, everybody needs to
understand that the American people feel like nobody is looking
out for them right now. And, traditionally, what held this
country together was this notion that if you work hard, if you
are playing by the rules, if you are responsible, if you are
looking out for your family, you are showing up to work every day
and doing a good job, you've got a chance to get ahead. You've
got a chance to succeed. And, right now, it feels to people like
the deck is stacked against them, and the folks in power don't
seem to be paying attention to that.So if everybody is tuned in to that message and we are working
every single day to figure out how do we give people a fair shake
and how do we make sure that everybody is doing their fair share,
then people won't be occupying the streets because they will have
a job and they will feel like they are able to get ahead. But,
right now, they are frustrated. And part of my job over the next
year is to make sure that if they are not seeing it out of
Congress at a minimum, they are seeing it out of their President,
somebody who is going to be fighting for them. JAY LENO: We'll take a break. When we come back, we'll talk
more with the President, ask him some personal issues. We'll get
to an issue, of course, that's very big here in Hollywood, this
issue on the Kardashians. We'll find out more about that.
Okay. Right back with President Obama right after this.(Commercial break.)JAY LENO: Welcome back to our President, President Obama. We're
going to talk about some lighter stuff, about dealing with the
pressure of being President. Now, I know you quit smoking.THE PRESIDENT: I did. I did, definitively.JAY LENO: It's out.THE PRESIDENT: It's out. JAY LENO: All right. Remember you are under oath.THE PRESIDENT: I am.JAY LENO: So tell me how you cope with the daily pressures. How
does --THE PRESIDENT: Big on exercise.JAY LENO: Yeah. THE PRESIDENT: Work out in the morning with Michelle. We've got
a little gym in the White House. She's in better shape than me,
though. So --JAY LENO: And she's very competitive. THE PRESIDENT: She is.JAY LENO: Yeah.THE PRESIDENT: And so it's embarrassing sometimes.JAY LENO: Yeah.THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. She'll get up there a half an hour earlier
than me. She will have already run 10 miles or something. JAY LENO: You know --THE PRESIDENT: And I'm, you know --JAY LENO: Speaking of that --THE PRESIDENT: -- staggering up to the gym.JAY LENO: As President, everything is public. And I turned on
the news last night, and I see my President at a very famous
restaurant here in Los Angeles called "Roscoes Chicken and
Waffles." Now, I think you ordered the Country Boy Special.
What is that? THE PRESIDENT: Wings and waffles.JAY LENO: Wings.THE PRESIDENT: With hot sauce.JAY LENO: So the fried chicken wings, waffles with syrup, and
wings with hot sauce. Now, is Michelle -- I mean, she's sitting
back, watching the news. Here you are scarfing down the waffles.THE PRESIDENT: Originally, it was just a way to be out there and
say hi to everybody, but --JAY LENO: Yeah.THE PRESIDENT: -- once we got in the car, it smelled pretty
good.JAY LENO: Yeah.THE PRESIDENT: So, I mean, I'm eating the wings. You've got the
hot sauce on there.JAY LENO: Yeah.THE PRESIDENT: The fancy presidential limousine -- JAY LENO: Yeah.THE PRESIDENT: -- smelling like chicken.JAY LENO: Yeah.(Applause.)THE PRESIDENT: And we were actually going to a fund-raiser --JAY LENO: Yeah.THE PRESIDENT: -- with Will Smith and Jada. JAY LENO: Yeah.THE PRESIDENT: And I didn't realize it was so close. So,
suddenly, we pull up, and my sleeves were rolled up, and I got a
spot on my tie. And my fingers are -- I'm looking for one of
those Wet Ones, you know, to see if I have chicken on my teeth.
Anyway, it was not elegant --JAY LENO: No.THE PRESIDENT: -- but outstanding chicken.JAY LENO: Outstanding chicken.THE PRESIDENT: Outstanding chicken and -- JAY LENO: Now --THE PRESIDENT: Now, here's the secret, though. Here's the
secret. Michelle, she's done a great job with this healthy
eating --JAY LENO: Right.THE PRESIDENT: - and let's move and get exercise. But Michelle,
as quiet as this is kept, she loves french fries. She loves
pizza. She loves chicken. Her point is just in moderation.JAY LENO: Right.THE PRESIDENT: So she does not get upset as long as, you know,
it's not every day.JAY LENO: Right, right. Okay.THE PRESIDENT: And that's the theory. She doesn't mind the
girls having a -- having a smack, although Halloween is coming
up.JAY LENO: Yeah. THE PRESIDENT: And she's been giving, for the last few years,
kids fruit and raisins in a bag.JAY LENO: Ooh.THE PRESIDENT: And I said, "The White House is going to get
egged" -- JAY LENO: Right.THE PRESIDENT: -- "if this keeps up. We are going to" --JAY LENO: Yeah. You've got to go -- yeah.THE PRESIDENT: "You need to throw some candy in there." JAY LENO: Yeah, moderation. Come on. Exactly. Exactly.THE PRESIDENT: A couple Reese's Pieces or something.JAY LENO: Yeah.THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.JAY LENO: Okay. You turned 50 recently. THE PRESIDENT: I did.JAY LENO: Okay. Biggest gripe?THE PRESIDENT: My hair is getting a little gray.JAY LENO: Yeah, it is getting a little gray, a touch in there, I
see.THE PRESIDENT: But, you know, overall, I feel great. You know,
Michelle thinks I look old, but that's okay. She still thinks --
she still thinks I'm cute. That's what she tells me.JAY LENO: How are the girls doing, Malia and Sasha?THE PRESIDENT: The girls are doing wonderfully. You know, they
are growing -- they just grow up so fast. They are thriving.
They -- it's amazing how steady, well-mannered, kind they are.
You know, they are just good people.JAY LENO: Yeah.THE PRESIDENT: And part of this, I think, is a testimony to
Michelle, also having my mother-in-law in the house --JAY LENO: Oh, yeah.THE PRESIDENT: -- because she doesn't take any mess. So --JAY LENO: Do they have cell phones?THE PRESIDENT: We have -- Malia got a cell phone, but their not
allowed to use it during the week just like they are not allowed
to watch TV during the week.JAY LENO: Really? Boo. Boo. Really? Wow.THE PRESIDENT: During the weekends, they get their TV time,
but --JAY LENO: Oh. Speaking of TV time --THE PRESIDENT: Yes.JAY LENO: -- now, you recently said that you didn't like the
girls watching the Kardashians.THE PRESIDENT: That's -- JAY LENO: Have you seen the show?THE PRESIDENT: No, I have not seen the show.JAY LENO: Ah-hah. So you are making a judgment without ever
seeing the show.THE PRESIDENT: I am probably a little biased against reality TV
partly because, you know, there's this program on C-SPAN called
"Congress" --
JAY LENO: Right.
THE PRESIDENT: -- that is -- that I -- that I -- that --(Laughter and applause.) No, I have not seen the show. And do you recommend it, Jay? Doyou think that --JAY LENO: I just think it's a wonderful show. I don't know if
it's something -- I don't know. Has Michelle seen it? Have the
girls ever seen it?THE PRESIDENT: I think the girls have seen it, yeah.JAY LENO: Now, have you been watching the GOP debates?THE PRESIDENT: I'm going to wait until everybody is voted off
the island before --(Applause.)Once they narrow it down to one or two, I'll start paying
attention.JAY LENO: Well, I know you are a huge basketball fan. This
lockout, this is really depressing. THE PRESIDENT: It's heartbreaking.JAY LENO: What needs to be done here? Who is wrong?(Laughter.)THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, if you look at the NFL, they were
able to settle theirs. JAY LENO: Yeah.THE PRESIDENT: And I think they understood. Players were making
millions of dollars. Owners, some of us are worth billions of
dollars. We should be able to figure out how to split a
nine-billion-dollar pot so that our fans, who are allowing us to
make all of this money, can actually have a good season. And I
think the owners and the basketball players need to think the
same way.(Applause.) JAY LENO: Do you think the whole season is going to go? I mean,
it's two weeks, and it's another -- it's a month.THE PRESIDENT: I'm concerned about it. I think they need to
just remind themselves that the reason they are so successful -- JAY LENO: Yeah.THE PRESIDENT: -- is because a whole bunch of folks out there
love basketball. And, you know, basketball has actually done
well, but these kinds of lockouts a lot of times take a long time
to recover from them.JAY LENO: Exactly. Now, who have you got in the World Series?THE PRESIDENT: You know, my White Sox are not in there. So I
just want to see a good game.JAY LENO: I'm with you. THE PRESIDENT: I do not take sides unless it's my side.JAY LENO: Wow. Wow.(Laughter.)THE PRESIDENT: Do not take sides unless it's your side.JAY LENO: Well, Mr. President, it has been an honor and a
privilege to have you here.THE PRESIDENT: Always a pleasure.JAY LENO: Say hello to Michelle and the family. Thank you so
much.THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.JAY LENO: We'll be right back with music from Yo-Yo Ma. (Applause.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)