Jerry Walls: What is wrong with Calvinism? (Dale)

May 172013
 

Devastating.

I have long noted that Augustinian/Calvinist theology is unpopular among Christian philosophers, though many, like me, go through a Calvinist phase (when I was a sophomore and junior in college), before seeing its problems to be hopeless. Walls concisely and fairly sums up what Calvinism is all about, and then shows it to be profoundly problematic, focusing on philosophical problem rather than biblical ones.

I would add that many of us – many Christians who’ve studied analytic philosophy – are persuaded by the Consequence Argument that compatibilism about human freedom is false, and also that if compatibilism about human freedom were true, then J.L. Mackie would have a sound argument for atheism. Christians need to make the free will defense against that argument, and to do that, you must believe in libertarian freedom. (But, that’s the kind of freedom we all, or almost all, believe in anyway.)

Mysterianism, as Walls points out, is very important to being a Calvinist. They think that “The Bible teaches X” is an answer to any difficulty. But it isn’t – in particular, objections to the effect that the Bible doesn’t actually teach X, and/or that X seems to be a contradiction.

Judging just by a few things he says here, I assume that Walls is a “social” trinitarian; but I don’t think that detracts from his case. And note that God is a “he” throughout.

Note to young professors and grad students – this is how you give a presentation. Note what Walls does.

  • Simple but relevant slides. Not too many. No distractions.
  • Talks loudly, to the audience, moving around.
  • Touch of humor.
  • Knows what Continue reading »

Important new open access journal: The Journal of Analytic Theology (Dale)

May 122013
 

jatCongratulations to editors Oliver Crisp, Michael Rea, Trent Dougherty and Kevin Diller on the launch of an important new open access journal: The Journal of Analytic Theology.

What is “analytic” theology?

Good question. Roughly: theology done using the tools of contemporary (typically English-language) “analytic” philosophy.

What is that? Here’s one answer by a master practitioner. Also, this journal aims to “explore theological and meta-theological topics in a manner that prizes terminological clarity and argumentative rigor.” I assume that the topics will not be limited to Christian ones, although glancing through the names on the editorial board, I don’t recognize the names of anyone I know to be a non-Christian.

I’m sure this is going to be an important source both for philosophers and for theologians. The inaugural issue in fact features some interactions between the two.

It also features an interesting article by trinities contributor Scott Williams – congratulations, Scott! Maybe I’ll post a few comments or here on trinities soon.

Finally, kudos are due to the Center for the Philosophy of Religion at the University of Notre Dame and Baylor University for their support of this project. Their support is advancing the cause of Christian thought.

Love the logo. If they made another, they could talk about their official “logos.”

OK, I’ll stop.

Linkage: White vs. Navas – Does the New Testament teach “the deity of Christ”? (Dale)

May 112013
 

boxing-clip-artAbly reviewed by Sean Finnegan. I would add a few philosophical comments:

  • White, like many evangelicals, understands “the deity of Christ” as meaning that Jesus and God are numerically one, that is, numerically identical. He argues that various things the NT asserts about Jesus imply this. (e.g. He is worshiped, called “Lord.”) Conveniently, he ignores the many passages which assert or presuppose a qualitative difference between Jesus and God. He ignores these because it is self evident that things which ever (or even merely could) differ, can’t be numerically identical.
  • White emphasizes the charge of “rationalism” vs. Navas. It’s unclear quite what that is supposed to be. Perhaps his main idea is that a “rationalist” ignores elements of divine revelation which are inconsistent with his theology.
  • But if that’s what he means, then as I just observed – White is plainly a rationalist! Takes one to know one, evidently. :-) (Is he projecting his own double-think onto his opponent?)
  • Sean’s point about choice of passages should be emphasized. Navas here fights White, as it were, on White’s home turf. To be fair, White should debate him again, taking the negative side, and letting Navas pick the five passages.
  • White was sloppy on the topics of monotheism and worship. And he overuses the ad hominem and question-begging assertion that Navas is simply looking at the texts through unitarian blinders. Still, he is an able debater. As is Navas.
  • This sort of debate can get tedious because of the focus mainly on the exegesis of texts. Those texts are, of course, the main evidence. But I think that both sides could have spent more time making their overall case – actually making explicit arguments, not only showing how various texts allegedly fit their respective views, and then going, see! This is, after all, a battle of theologies. If only reading the texts was going to solve this, well, it would’ve been resolved a long time ago. And it is clear – or at least, it is clear to me – that the theoretical arguments are really the locus of disagreement. e.g. Jesus is rightly worshiped, and only God can be rightly worshiped, therefore, Jesus just is God and vice-versa. (Even though they differ!) But that second premise is false, according to the New Testament. On carefully thinking through White’s traditional catholic arguments, see this. They do get a bit more into such argument in part 2.
  • Relatedly, it strikes me that for White, focusing almost completely on (favorite) texts is a way of avoiding hard questions, like: isn’t White’s theology self-contradictory? (e.g. Jesus and the Father are both identical to God, but not to each other. God is and is not the ultimate source of the cosmos. God does and does not have a God above him.) If so, we can reject it as false. And we can see that there is a weighty reason to suspect his interpretations of the texts, on our assumption that what they teach is true, and so self-consistent. If he’s going to resist these inferences, he’ll need to say a lot more about how it can be rational to believe a clear, stable, apparent contradiction. It will not do to merely repeat that his view is (allegedly) based on all the texts.
  • In light of 2nd and 3rd century catholic theology, it is amazing that White thinks it absurd (and/or “Gnostic”) that the Son is an intermediary between God and humans, who is less great than God / the Father. More on that theme in a forthcoming screencast and paper, but for now, see this series.

Interview with Ray Faircloth, translator of the Kingdom of God Version of the New Testament (Dale)

May 052013
 

kingdom of god versionI think I’ve met only two people who have translated the whole New Testament from the original Koine Greek to some modern language. One was an American evangelical missionary, who’d translated the New Testament into some obscure tribal language from South America. The other was the Englishman Ray Faircloth, who runs the biblicaltruthseekers website. (Some of his materials are also available here.)

In both cases, I was impressed. What an acheivement, and what a weight it must be, to try to effectively and accurately render what one regards as the most important texts in human history, the communications of God to humankind.

I was privileged to be able to interview Ray Faircloth a few days ago near Atlanta, Georgia, where we were both in town for a conference. Maybe at a later date I’ll post a few representative passages from his translation.

Congratulations on the publication of your translation of the New Testament, The Kingdom of God Version. How long did this take you?

This took three and half years.

Was that full time?

No, it was in blocks of time, so that you’d get so far, and you’d need to move on to another subject, and come back to it at a later time.

What, in your view, is most distinctive about your Kingdom of God Version?

It’s hard to say one thing, but much of it was attempt to get rid
Continue reading »

Two chances this year to take a course with me (Dale)

Apr 232013
 

(1) If you’re an underClose up of The Thinkergraduate college or university student, you can take my introductory philosophy course online for credit. It runs from May 28, 2013 – June 28, 2013, and is based around my online screencast lectures, like this one on the ethical theory of  cultural relativism, or this one on Jesus on human happiness, or this one on Paley’s design argument. Those lectures are always there on youtube, for free. But you can earn college credit working with them only in the summer. There is flexibility in when and how you work, though you do need to keep up with the ever-flowing pace. Click here for registration information.

On our campus, this course, called Phil 115 Philosophical Inquiry – counts as a humanities course (within the general education courses). Your institution may count it as transfer credit for a course called, e.g. Introduction to Philosophy, or whatever general education category that counts for. Some info about transfer credit is available at the link above, but you may also need to talk to your institution’s Registrar, or even the chair of their Philosophy department, to see what transfer credit they will give for it.

India 2013 slideshow summary(2) Last year I took ten students on a study abroad course for three weeks to western India (Pune and Mumbai). (See the pics on our department webpage.) It was a really great trip; I taught a course called Global Philosophy of Religion to the ten I brought, together with about thirteen Indian students from this college in Pune. The two groups really enjoyed each others’ company, and we all learned a lot, and had many memorable experiences and one of the most fascinating and important countries in the world. We’re planning the next incarnation now, for this coming winter. (The “winter” there, by the way, is pleasantly hot and sunny.) The course includes material from both Indian and “Western” philosophers, and particularly concerns theories relating to religious diversity (e.g. pluralism, exclusivism), and different concepts of God / the Ultimate and of gods, as well as the basics of the Hindu and Sikh religions.

Probably within a month this page will be updated with this year’s information. Tentative dates right now are December 27 to Jan 19. Costs will be slightly higher than last year, because then we had a one-time grant helping us. Application info is here. The deadline will be some time in October – stay tuned. Email me if you want to be updated as things develop.

These courses are available to any English-speaking undergraduate college student, anywhere. They are very inexpensive for residents of New York State – a little more for others. We were delighted last time to have a really good Australian student join us in India.

See you in Atlanta? (Dale)

Apr 082013
 

LostI’ll be attending and presenting at 2013 Theological Conference in the Atlanta area. Registration is open till April 19, and anyone may attend.

I went last year and had a great time. I met a lot of interesting unitarian Christians (aka One God believers, Christian monotheists, biblical unitarians), and enjoyed the presentations and the beautiful wooded grounds of the conference center. The weather was delightful last year.

Among the presenters will be Kermit Zarley, author of (among others) this book. And Sean Finnegan. And Dustin Smith. A main organizer of the conference who I assume will also present is Sir Anthony Buzzard.

My presentation will be on some of the themes I’ve been posting here on in recent months. It will be called “The Lost Early History of Unitarian Christianity.”

I hope to see you there.

He is risen… so not reincarnated (Dale)

Mar 312013
 

Jesus is alive, and he still has a real, flesh and blood body. He has had that body continuously – but for a break of less than three days –  for over 2000 years. Because of that, he has not switched bodies, not reincarnated, not been reborn as some present day dude. Jesus is still driving the original model… with a few upgrades, of course.

This is important to know, because of the proliferation of fake Jesuses today, like A.J. Miller in Australia, Sergey Anatolyevitch Torop in Russia, Jose Miranda (also here) in America, Álvaro Theiss (also here) in Brazil, and other assorted crazies.

Acid test: Does this claimant Continue reading »

One-self Trinity theories (Dale)

Mar 232013
 

I used to call these sorts Trinity theories of “modalism.” I still think that is not a bad description, so long as you specify that it is not by definition heretical or wrong.

But I now think “one-self” is a more neutral term, which even better describes the sort of theory.

The reasoning goes like this.

The Christian God must, after all is said and done, be Continue reading »

Credo House Ministries’ Inaccuracies about the Trinity and the Council of Nicea (Dale)

Mar 212013
 

Unimpressed-Mona-LisaI’ve blogged about these folks before. I do not enjoy criticizing apologists, because I think Christian apologetics is important. And the folks at Credo House Ministries seem like good-hearted and hard working Christians who are doing their best to help Christians love God with their minds. And I think Patton is an excellent blogger and writer.

But I feel compelled to correct some of their inaccurate statements about “the” doctrine of the Trinity. In this video, they want to correct the myth that “The Trinity” – by which they mean “the” doctrine of the Trinity, or rather, the widely accepted catholic creedal formulas -”was invented.”

Well, given that it is a doctrine which we’re talking about, a theory, which didn’t exist in BC times, of course it was “invented,” i.e first formulated and stated by some folks.

But it actually wasn’t in 325, at Nicea! That formula, as then understood, was consistent with Christian unitarian theology.

But let’s go through their video. Continue reading »

Linkage: Dan Wallace: 5 Myths About Bible Translation (Dale)

Mar 192013
 

booksCheck out this post by Dan Wallace over at Parchment and Pen. I teach religious studies, and regularly encounter this one:

Myth 1: The Bible has been translated so many times we can’t possibly get back to the original.

Wallace’s answer is absolutely right.

#2 is also an important point. Wallace might have added that quotation marks are never in the Greek manuscripts; they didn’t exist in ancient times. In a sense, they are part of the translation – and at times, a product of translators’ interpretation.

I agree with the substance of Wallace’s comments #3 and #4 as well. But on #5, it is wholly unclear what he means by the “deity of Christ.” Evangelicals love that phrase, I think in part because of its ambiguity.

It is true, though, that Constantine is not any kind of major player in the development of catholic doctrine. That’s just Dan Brown nonsense – the bane of anyone who loves the intellectual enterprise of history.

Update: 15 more. Some of this stuff is embarrassing; but Wallace is doing God’s work, because many of these are in wide circulation.

Linkage: Sokal Hoax 2.0 (Dale)

Mar 082013
 

id-rather-like-you-to-know-youve-been-trolled.jpgEvery philosophy student and every theology student should know about the original Sokal hoax. Here’s the best reflection on its important lessons. (Dr. Boghossian later expanded the discussion in this book.)

Now a philosopher has pulled a similar hoax; this time it’s a naturalistic atheist vs. the Association for Reformational Philosophy. The story is at Jerry Coyne’s blog, Why Evolution is True. (Never mind that this particular post provides no such reason. :-) ) Coyne notes,

This shows once again the appeal of religious gibberish to the educated believer

True – for some. But Continue reading »

Swinburne @ Biola (Dale)

Feb 272013
 

swinburne4Richard Swinburne was a visiting fellow at Biola University’s Center for Christian Thought in the Fall of 2012.

Here are the videos they’ve posted from that visit.

Interestingly, they seem to have avoided the topic of Swinburne’s Trinity theory – at least, judging by the videos they posted. One has to wonder why. Maybe they just wanted to leave room to discuss the soul, about which Swinburne has many plausible arguments. But in general, again, judging by what they’ve posted, they seem to have avoided areas in which some would think Swinburne to be, as it were, off the (American) evangelical reservation.

In this one, he pretty clearly implies that churches not ruled by bishops in a line traceable to the apostles are not legitimate churches, not continuations of the movement (and he thinks institution) Jesus founded. That would be: most Protestant churches! But the interviewer lets it go.

Again, in this one, Swinburne expounds a view of atonement which I think differs quite a bit from what most American evangelicals think, but the differences are not highlighted.

Here’s an exception. Right up front, in the first minute, Swinburne notes that probably most Biola philosophers and theologians will disagree with his thesis, that “God” is what Swinburne calls “a metaphysically necessary” being. (See here for what he means by that.) Be forewarned: this is as arcane as Swinburne gets, and the questioners afterwards are clearly, and understandably, struggling to grasp his meaning and motivations. Here too is the written form, which is forthcoming in the European Journal for Philosophy of Religion.

For my fellow philosophers, here are a few quick thoughts on that paper, to help you understand why Swinburne denies that God (on anything) is a metaphysically necessary being.

  • Most of us want to say that God, if he exists, must be a metaphysically necessary being – one who can’t not exist, whose non-existence is absolutely impossible. Why think this?
  • Some would say, Continue reading »

Santa vs. Arius, round 2 (Dale)

Dec 062012
 

Now that I’m actually looking for it, I see that this stuff is very popular on Catholic websites and blogs. Here it is – the same version I mentioned last time in comic form.

Excellent epistemologist and apologist Tim McGrew responded on Facebook to my previous post:

Of the 318 bishops that Athanasius (and Eusebius in his Chronicon) say were present, I can find names of only 68, counting Nicholas among them. I do think this calls for a revision of your claim that “[i]f he had been there, likely his name would be on the lists.” The lists are, judging by other information we have, exceedingly incomplete. [emphasis added]

Tim, I can’t find that – can you give a citation and/or link? Book II of the Chronicon  is only preserved by Jerome, isn’t that right? But I don’t find what you say here. I can’t find any mention of Nicholas of Myra by searching Athanasius’s works  (electronically and by indexes of what I have in print). I’m willing to withdraw my argument, but I need to see the primary source(s).

I do find, in addition to the source I cited before, this book. I don’t know how reliable this guy is. But he puts the earliest mention at 510, probably well after St. Nick legends had started to grow.

And The New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd ed., 2003) says, boldly,

No historically trustworthy evidence of [Nicholas's] ancestry or the events of his life exists, except for the fact of his episcopate.

After mentioning his alleged presence at Nicea and some other claims about him (but not the assault on Arius),

More than 2,000 churches are dedicated to him in France and Germany, and about 400 in England. Russia, Sicily, Lorraine, and Greece honor him as patron. The principal miracle-legends deal with his liberation of three unjustly imprisoned officers; his secret provision of dowries for three poor girls; and his deliverance of three innocent youths condemned to death. The oldest documentary evidence of the Nicholas legends is an eleventh-century manuscript in Karlsruhe Library. (“Nicholas of Myra, St., vol. 10, pp. 377, 378, emphasis added)

This reputable writer puts him at Nicea (p. 58), but doesn’t cite any primary source. He says that and the second council of Nicea, in 787, Nick came up:

On October 1, the bishops discussed a series of biblical texts pertaining to images and a long series of citations from patristic writings. …St. Nicholas of Myra and Plato were said to have been recognized in visions because they both looked like their images. (p. 308)

Again, no primary source. :-( The only lesson I take from this is that he was a popular saint at that point.

Here is a somewhat more helpful secondary source, by Dr. Adam C. English. Click to look inside, then scroll down half way, to “Council of Nicea.” Essentially, some lists have Nick at Nicea and others don’t. But the earliest don’t. Hence, the denial cited in my previous post. And some historians, looking at all the evidence, deny he was there. But this author says that on the whole, it is more likely that he was there. I don’t understand the basis of this judgement, just from looking at that excerpt. Is it just that, given the good evidence of his existence as a bishop at the time, he probably would’ve been invited and gone?

In any case , one could grant for the sake of argument that Nicholas was at Nicea. Then, my argument of the last post re: absence of evidence has to be surrendered.

But I would still argue that without a reasonably early source for this tale, we should not believe it. It would have been, had it occurred, a memorable part of the proceedings, and so it is likely that it would’ve been soon recorded. It would be too good, too juicy to leave out. Thus, if it wasn’t…

Is the earliest version of the punching / slapping story in the source named above from the 11th c.?

Update: No answer to this last question yet, but in Facebook discussion Tim says essentially that one should suspend belief on whether or not this happened.

I say, if it were just the different attendance rolls that were relevant, I’d be on the side of suspending belief too. But given the nature of the story, I think denial is more reasonable. This is a… colorful story about a man who for whatever reason became (after his demise) a legend-magnet (and we’re not really sure how early this occurred). And again, had it happened, it likely would’ve been reported at the time.

Did Santa punch out Arius? (Dale)

Dec 052012
 

(click for image credit)

If memes are to be believed, yes.

Santa (Nicholas, Bishop of Myra) punched Arius himself in the face, at the famous council of Nicea, no less.

But – I hate to tell you – memes are not always to be believed.

This one’s been making the rounds online for a few years. Even Catholic philosophy professors are getting in on the fun.

And it is fun. Postmoderns are so wishy-washy about truth, about commitment, about correct doctrine. No one these days cares so much that they’d punch their theological opponent in the face. Ah, to return to the good old days…

>:-/

In fact, catholic church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries were sometimes marred by violence, and it was not at all funny. To those who would applaud the alleged punch, or at least find it hilarious, I would paraphrase a great man: those who use the fist, will get the fist.

In any case, when I heard this recently I thought it sounded too fun to be true… (and I only told you the start of it – apparently in some longer versions Nick gets reprimanded by Constantine himself, and then vindicated by Jesus and Mary). I’ve read some books about Nicea, and never bit down on this little chestnut before. (I’d remember.)

So I do a little internet fact checking, and find this, from the old Catholic Encyclopedia:

There is reason to doubt his presence at Nicaea, since his name is not mentioned in any of the old lists of bishops that attended this council.

Sorry, folks. Here, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If he had been there, likely his name would be on the lists. But, it isn’t. Thus, it is unlikely he was there.

Better quality fun-spoiling would be a citation of the earliest version of this legend. I’m willing to bet that it is nowhere close to the time of alleged event (325 AD).

Anyone?

I leave you with a better Catholic meme. To get the joke, you must be both a sci-fi nerd and a theology (or biblical studies, or religious studies) nerd.

You’re another! (Dale)

Nov 272012
 

“You’re another” – that’s what tu quoque means – it’s the name of an informal fallacy, often called a fallacy of relevance. For example, if I argue that your theory is self-contradictory, suppose you retort that my theory is too. Well, so…? It’s irrelevant to the point that the first theory mentioned is self-contradictory (so, self-refuting).

Cornell grad student Chad McIntosh argues that if the social trinitarian God – or rather: the three divine persons  posited by clear “social” Trinity theories – would be deceivers, then so would the perfect self in whom I believe, being a unitarian Christian. So granting that an ST is implausible, for similar reasons unitarian Christian theology is implausible (because it has a perfect being doing what appears a wrongful deception).

Is this a defense of ST?

I’ve already argued in that paper than a Swinburne-type ST implies what looks like wrongful deception by at least one of the three divine persons. This hasn’t been disputed.

I don’t grant that if God is a single self, then Continue reading »

Who Should Christians Worship? (Dale)

May 302012
 

Here’s a screencast version of a talk I gave in Atlanta at the 2012 Theological Conference sponsored by the Atlanta Bible College. My thanks to the hosts and audience there for a good discussion.

This version is a bit longer, and I’ve tweaked my definitions of idolatry, I hope making them more accurate.

I believe an actual video of my talk will eventually be posted at the 21st Century Reformation website. The Atlanta version is more conversational and has film of me talking, and I believe it will include the Q&A that followed. I will post links when they are available.

Part 1:

Part 2: Continue reading »

Arguing against no one (Dale)

May 162012
 

Princeton philosopher Thomas Kelly in a paper on the epistemology of disagreement (i.e. what the reasonable response when we find the people just as smart and informed etc. as us disagree on some important matter):

In principle, we ought to be able to give due weight to the available reasons that support a given view, even in the absence of actual defenders of the view who take those reasons as compelling. But in practice, the case for a view is apt to get short shrift in the absence of any actual defenders. The existence of actual defenders can serve to overcome our blindspots by forcefully reminding us just how formidable the case is for the thesis that they defend… But the case for a given view itself is no stronger in virtue of the fact that that view has actual defenders…

Thomas Kelly, ” The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement,” p. 31 (in pre-print).

At first this reminded me of a proverb I’ve often thought of when reading some catholic theologian who has evidently never put the slightest effort into understanding the overall case for unitarianism:

“The first to speak in court sounds right–until the cross-examination begins.”  Proverbs 18:17 (NLT)

But this is actually a different point than Kelly’s. A better courtroom analogy for Kelly’s point is: Continue reading »

Craig on Flying Spaghetti Monster Mockery (Dale)

May 142012
 

The “Flying Spaghetti Monster” was born as an inept parody of intelligent design arguments.

About this, philosopher William Lane Craig is right on the money.

The FSM is more than this, though. It is thought by many village-atheist-type young males (roughly 12-29) to be an oh-so-clever-and-naughty parody of monotheism in general, apart from any design-creation controversies.

The thing is, the FSM is not clever – only naughty – or at least, potentially so, if people care enough to be offended by it (which I do not recommend). Really, the only amusing thing about it is how amused these folk are with themselves, as they think they’ve somehow pulled the pants down on believers in God.

But the joke’s on them.

Here are two differences between God and the FSM: (1) Many of our greatest scientists and philosophers have believed in God (examples: Newton, Descartes) – either on the basis of one or more arguments or based on his being the best explanation for certain facts vs.  no such people re: the FSM, (2) countless seemingly sane people claim to have experiential evidence for the existence of God vs. none for FSM.

Now these facts don’t show that God exists or that it is reasonable to believe in God. But it does show that it is reasonable to investigate the existence of God and not give another two seconds of thought to the FSM.

Done.

King of the Non Sequitur (Dale)

May 132012
 

The word is “Therefore…” When you are making a deductive argument, this means that what you are about to say logically follows from (is implied by) what you have just said. That is, if the former part were to be true, what you’re about to say must also be true.

A non sequitur (Latin for: “it doesn’t follow”) is an invalid argument, one in which the premises don’t imply the conclusion, that is, where one could consistently accept all the premises and yet deny the conclusion.

I recently stumbled upon this youtube video, The Trinity Explained (with Reason), featuring a supremely confident sounding young man. I watched amazed, as a torrent of non sequiturs ensued.

If only this fellow was as good at constructing arguments as he as at selecting pictures!

Here are most of them – note that in each case, the step starting with “Therefore” is not implied by the premises.

1. If unitarianism is true, God is more comprehensible than if trinitarianism is true.
2. God is not totally comprehensible and not fully explainable.
3. Therefore, unitarianism is false.

1. Unitarianism is true.
2. Therefore, God is no greater than a human being. Continue reading »

Ramble on (Dale)

May 122012
 

I was interviewed a couple of times at the 2012 Atlanta Bible College Theological Conference.

Here’s the first, in which I ramble on about my own religious history and views about God, the Trinity, and Jesus.

Also: pacifism (I’m agin’ it. Perhaps the majority of conference goers, I think, were for it.) I wasn’t expecting that question – hence the rambling. :-)

Thanks to Carlos Jimenez for filming, editing, and posting this. You can comment on the youtube page.

Better rambling below the fold… Continue reading »

 Older Entries

Switch to our mobile site

Click to listen highlighted text! Powered By GSpeech