Open Scripture

Marriage. Al Mohler has a review of Time’s consideration of the topic of marriage. It would seem that Time has concluded that marriage is “in purely practical terms just not as necessary as it used to be.” Dr. Mohler points that this is really just a wrong-headed way of examining the problem, but that most Americans lack the spiritual framework to even understand the issue properly. This is kind of sad.

Theology. The Pyromaniacs have posted an excerpt from Spurgeon examining the sin of academic hubris committed by some theologians who think that theology must be lofty and require a degree to be understood. However, God’s theology is simple and is meant to be understood by children and simply trained men. Theology goes deeper, but only in the way that if you closely examine the petals of a flower you find more details you don’t see when you look at the whole.

Romanism. Which brings me back to the absurd statements made recently by the pope. One of the basic problems with the Roman tradition is its insistence that only the Church and its magisterium can provide ultimate authority on truth. However, as the recent absurdity from the Vatican shows, that only begs the question, if the pope is the only ultimate authority able to interpret scripture, who is the authority responsible for interpreting his statements? The Reformation teaches us that everyone is responsible in himself to God for his own theology. The church certainly has a role in theology, but ultimately, even churches may succumb to sin and heresy themselves.

Truth. That theology must be according to the truth of the word. And that truth is the heart of worship. A worshipper of God, must worship according to God’s truth. You cannot worship God without God’s truth. And the key to that, is realizing how God has made himself known to us.

Creationism. Fred Butler has another edition of his series discussion the theological complications caused by more “modern” interpretations of Genesis. Basically, if you decide science trumps the Bible, you’ve already destroyed the basis for good theology, so what’s the point?

Environmentalism. Ever seen one of those images of New York or the earth water. Been reading Hunger Games? Sea level rise is a total myth. Check this analysis of how unlikely some of these scare tactic photos are.

National Insecurity. I had several friends link off to Bruce Schneier’s article suggesting we close the George Washington monument until such time as we, as a nation, grow up and stop sacrificing our liberty for safety. I agree. A closed monument would be a superb symbol to our national disregard for freedom.

TSA. The list of TSA injustices continues unabated. I have fewer things this week mostly because I was finding so much other stuff of interest, not because there were fewer things to post. It’s good to know that our government thinks pizza boxes are a good advertising source for jobs for people interested in groping airline passengers. Also the TSA does respect the privacy of its own employees accused of abuse even if it does not respect your Fourth Amendment rights.

And here’s yet another movie showing that the process you go through at the airport is about jumping through meaningless hoops and punishing passengers and has nothing to do with finding weapons.

Toys. If we ever move to a different house, I think Gabe wants us to build him a room like this:

Economics. There are real poor people in the United States and the west, but I get really annoyed at the level called “poverty” in this country. People who live in “poverty” in this country are often wealthier than their wealthiest ancestors. Here’s a nice visualization showing how quality of living and wealth have increased over the past couple centuries and a good reminder of how much we take for granted.

Cheers.

For some years now I’ve thought about training myself up in Biblical Greek. I’m going to take a crack at it over the next few months. While I do that, I hope to blog hear a bit about how that’s going and any interesting things I learn on the way.

For this first post, I want to share some of the tools I’ve got at my disposal. During a recent visit, my father-in-law gave me a Greek Reader’s New Testament (Thanks Scott!) and the Basics of Biblical Greek by William Mounce. From there I’ve started in on the basics, reviewing the Greek alphabet and pronunciations rules (which I already knew from a previous introduction to the language).

I’m practicing reading Greek and have now read through 1 Peter 1 and 1 John 1. However, I’m still just getting the initial pronunciation down, so it takes me as long to read a word or two in Greek as it would to say a sentence or two in English. I’ve found some MP3 audio files online of fluent readers reading the Greek. I may see if I can use those to improve my pronunciation and speed (which are both horrible for now).

Another tool I’m using to help in this process is Anki. This is a tool for building sets of flash cards, which are pretty mandatory for learning the vocabulary. The extra gimmick, though, is that Anki will reorder your decks according to how well you know your vocabulary. So, each time you go through the deck, you note on each card how hard it was to come up with the answer.

I’m sure someone has some pre-built decks for Mounce’s vocabulary, but I want the practice of typing out the words to help me as well (it’s a visual-kinesthetic learning thing). As such, I had to see about using a keyboard. Unfortunately, I had the craziest time trying to get a decent Greek Polytonic keyboard to work under Ubuntu. However, since I got myself a new Mac for Christmas, the built-in Greek Polytonic keyboard was pretty close to what I needed. However, it uses the wrong phi (“φ”) character by default. So I used a program called Ukelele to edit the Greek Polyphonic to use the “circle with a pipe through it” version rather than the “long curly line” version. I can now switch to Greek as easy as hitting Cmd-Opt-Space. Ἀί κάν συίτχ βάκ τού Ἐγγλεις ἄζ ἴζι ἄζ ἵττιγγ θώς κἰζ ἀγήν.

Anyway, I’m having fun with it so far. Cheers.

Christianity. There is one Jesus. He was a real person whose statements are recorded with a more reliable pedigree to document these sayings than possibly any other text on record. Yet, it seems everyone tries to adopt him as saying this or that or anything else. Dan Phillips has a good summary of why this is simply foolish. Jesus rejected all worship but that which walked along the path he clearly laid out.

Papism. Moving on from Christianity to something almost totally unrelated to Christianity, we have the Pope making one of the strangest statements ever: “Pope Benedict XVI says in a new book that the use of condoms can be justified in some cases, such as for male prostitutes seeking to prevent the spread of HIV.” Say again? I am so glad the Vatican “clarified” this statement so that I could get confirmation of what the Pope really means. Essentialy, he means, by analogy, “If you’re going to commit vehicular homicide, please be responsible and wear a seatbelt.” That’s an imperfect analogy, but that’s what it amounts to in my view.

Homosexuality. Phil Johnson shares some thoughts on the charge of homophobia that is so often leveled at anyone who believes homosexuality is a sin. Phil points out that Christians can legitimately say this and have no fear and no hatred for homosexuals. He also ends with a postscript about a certain loathsome Kansan who only says derogatory things about Christians. That man and his followers are not following Christ.

Environment. China is doing a bang-up job at cleaning up the environment. So well, in fact, that the US Embassy recently reported the air quality was “crazy bad.”

Environment. Continuing on the environment, we have Al Gore admitting to having pandered for bad environmental policy. Ok, so good for him admitting it, but now we have to wonder what all he’s pandering for now that makes him money in private industry? He makes a lot of money from environmentalism, how do we know he’s only pushing good environmental policy?

TSA. If the President is okay with these, I say every time he, his wife, his family, or his staff boards Air Force One or Marine One, they have to be given a nudie scan and an enhanced pat down. We need to make sure that he and his staff don’t bring dangerous weapons like nail clippers or more than 3 ounces of toothpaste on board.

But wait, it gets better. Federal VIPs are exempt. And so continues the unlawful practice of giving our lawgivers a different set of rules to follow.

President Obama seems to also believe lawful search and seizure includes taking random women aside and asking them to remove prosthetic breasts or reaching up her skirt or sexually assaulting them.

And I don’t think my wife or children will be traveling with me by plane in the near future:

And if you have the time, just look at what happens when a woman tries to carry (queue “Dun-Dun-DUNNNNN”), breast milk through security.

President Obama, the TSA is nothing but a poor excuse for bullying. Shame on your predecessor for saddling us with it and shame on you for continuing and even justifying this stupid organization’s existence.

Transportations. Moving on to stupid policies that could be but aren’t yet. Our head of Transportation wants to put a jammer in cars to prevent the use of cell phones while driving. You need to call 911? Too bad. You can’t while in your vehicle. I didn’t grow up and move out so I could have another baby sitter. Feds, Don’t Tread on Me!

Zero Tolerance. And even more absurdity. The only idealogy that could possibly justify this kind of absurdity is the notion that the mere temptation to sin is what causes sin. However, we know of scripture this is definitely not the case. (James 1:14-15) That we live in a society where a professional thinks this could be reasonable is just so strange.

DO NOT READ. After reading all of that, this seems pretty sane.

Creation. Fred Butler has posted some videos from a guy who’s got a book out to refute some of Dawkins. Looks interesting. I also liked this article regarding the optimization of eyes and the difficulty this presents for evolutionary theory.

Cheers.

For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fail. For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. — 2 Peter 1:5-11

A long time ago, I remember having a conversation with one of my best friends in high school. We were talking about life after death and he said something to the effect of, “When I die, I will go to heaven.” At the time, I marveled and questioned how he could be so sure. A year later, had I had the same conversation, I would have replied, “Me too.” I think every believer has a moment of doubt every now and again, but a Christian who believes and practices his belief can be sure of the salvation provided by his savior. This section of 2 Peter addresses this issue in detail.

Context: In verses 3-4, Peter has just stated that God blesses his followers with everything they need to completely follow Christ. So now he says that “for this very reason” we should “supplement [our] faith with virtue.” Why? “They will keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful” and to “make your calling and election sure.”

Salvation is Assured

There are those who would use this passage to say that salvation is something we must work at. They believe that we must in our own free will participate and hold fast to our salvation. However, I think it’s pretty clear that this is not what Peter is referring to. I have two reasons for this.

1. In verse 9, Peter equates failure to “supplement” these things with blindness rather than death, the spiritual state of someone who is not saved.
2. In verse 10, Peter uses terms that indicate failure here leads to sin and assuring oneself, not death.

Peter seems to be pretty circumspect if he’s trying to say this is a salvation issue. Instead, he’s speaking to those who have been elected and telling them to seize the assurance of election by embracing these qualities.

This leads to a very practical conclusion. If you believe, you must act like you believe if you want to be sure of it. As James put it, “Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” (James 2:18) Not only does doing so help us to grow in the knowledge of Christ, but it helps us to be more confident in that knowledge.

Qualities of Assurance

So what are these qualities? Let’s look at each:

Faith: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. … By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.” (Hebrews 11:1,3) This is the foundation of all Christian quality and virtue. Without faith, you are not a believer and can do nothing at all that pleases God. “For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” (Romans 14:23b)

Virtue: This term is translated “moral excellence” in the New American Standard Bible. It indicates a life lived with great virtue. Christian virtues include “love, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.” (Galatians 5:22-23)

Knowledge: “Make me know your ways, O Lord; teach me your paths.” (Psalm 25:4) Virtuous and faithful knowledge is of great worth (Philippians 3:8) and such knowledge comes grows out of faith and virtue. (Proverbs 9:10)

Self-control: Self-control means “being sober-minded” and not being “conformed to the passions of your former ignorance.” (1 Peter 1:13-14) Know your sins and resist temptation. Pray for the strength to overcome and grace will be provided. (1 Corinthians 10:13)

Steadfastness: Sometimes this is called “perseverance.” This indicates the ability to patiently endure trial and still hold fast to your virtue. (James 1:2-3)

Godliness: “Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children.” (Ephesians 5:1) It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. When talking about God, flattery is called worship. Attempt to be as perfect as you can.

Brotherly Affection: While the virtue of godliness is vertical to God. This is performing the same act horizontally. This is the second great command, “love your neighbor as yourself.” (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:39)

Love: “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Galatians 5:14) Love is the capstone and chief of all virtues. Love can be used to describe the essence of all other virtue and a mature believer can term all acts of virtue in how they show love to others and most especially to God.

Our pastor, Bob Flack, recently defined love as “continuing to seek my joy by pursuing God’s best for another person regardless of the cost to me.” Love is both the most fundamental virtue and a fitting end to this list.

Practice Virtue and…

Practice virtue and you may become assured of your salvation. If you have been saved by Christ, your salvation cannot be taken away at all. As Paul said, “For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rules, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:38-39) Yet, you may forget the great gift of salvation if you fail to practice your faith.

Cheers.

Creationism. Steve over at Triablogue notes that Richard Dawkins admits, “The big war is not between evolution and creationism, but between naturalism and supernaturalism.” By this admission, the issue is metaphysical rather than evidential (which means your decision to agree with creation or evolution depends on your philosophy rather than your evidence). Of course, scientific evidence is always and only interpreted within a metaphysical epistemological framework, whether you admit that fact or not.

International. Even though I think President Obama is a terrible President, I can give him credit when he does something right. I agree with Krauthammer’s analysis about his trip to India. Making India a member of the Security Council at the UN seems like good, common sense diplomacy for a number of reasons. The UN maybe a dysfunctional organization that resembles the bar scene in Star Wars, but it isn’t wholly without purpose.

TSA. The TSA is going to be made fun of until it stops touching people’s junk and using the nudie-scanners. As I mentioned last week, I suggested to my legislators that the TSA be dismantled. I got a very vague form letter in response from Rep. Jenkins that said nothing at all about the TSA, which doesn’t surprise me. (I voted for the other guy in the primary because Rep. Jenkins does not impress me.) The number of stories we are hearing about various molestations and abuses by “our” TSA officials is getting a little sickening. I am pretty sure something will change, but I hope we really dismantle the TSA and don’t just settle with limiting them slightly.

Guns. This is an excellent idea. Buy truck? Free gun to go in it!

Star Wars. I’ve been worrying about this myself, but now I have some help. If you too need some helping trying to decide how to talk to your kids about Star Wars, check out this PSA:

You’re watching Talking to Your Kids About Star Wars. See the Web’s top videos on AOL Video

Pork Spending. Given the outcome of the midterm election, it sounds like President Obama is giving up on his hope for Federally funded high speed trains. He’s set his site a little lower on new high speed buses. This I might go for.

Obama Replaces Costly High-Speed Rail Plan With High-Speed Bus Plan

Cheers.

A common argument against Calvinism is that it can’t be true that God only picked a few to be saved from eternity past because God wants to save everyone. The proof text for this is found in 2 Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise [to return again] as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” How can it be that God only chose a few if “all should reach repentance?”

The problem is, that this single verse is not a complete picture of God. God doesn’t desire solely to show mercy, but he also desires to show his wrath. Consider Romans 9:22-24 (emphasis is mine):

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—-even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles.

Notice that God desires to show his wrath and his power, not just mercy. Sin must be punished and God will send the sons of Adam who do not repent into eternal punishment. God prepared these “vessels of wrath” just as He prepared the “vessels of mercy.”

This whole passage in Romans immediately follows Romans 9:20 where Paul rebukes the hypothetical person who questions why our Creator would work in such a way that cannot be resisted. The answer is simply this: God is glorifying Himself because He is the Creator and this is how He works. Like it or not, that is our God.

Therefore, in 2 Peter 3:9, we cannot understand God’s desire for repentance to be that everyone is able to choose purely out of our own free will, but that God has some say in the matter. He has made us each to fulfill a purpose and for some that purpose is to provide an example of God’s glory, wrath, and power to those of us whose purpose it is to receive mercy. The terror of God’s wrath is terrible to consider but makes the mercy that He has shown through his Son, Jesus Christ, that much more glorious.

Cheers.

Now with more pictures!

Theology. Dr. Albert Mohler provides more commentary regarding BioLogos and its continued attack on traditional creationism. This time around he notes that BioLogos is trying to evade theological responsibility for taking a theological stance.

Theology. Dan Phillips has some sobering words regarding a recently convicted murderer and the moral significance of sin and unmerited grace.

Politics. It seems everywhere I got his past week, I see more complaints about the TSA. It seems they’re stepping up and attempting to defend new security theater tactics that involve looking at you nude or groping you. The TSA must go. I have suggested this to my legislators. (HT: Lucas)

Politics. Speaking of the TSA, have you seen the cover for their new children’s book? (HT: Alan)

Local/Health. My loving and beautiful wife (and ex-roommate, Dan, and another friend, Jay) sent me the latest in diet technology. The best part, of course, is that this is a professor at my Alma Mater.

Health. I don’t smoke, but this has gone from ludicrous to indescribably ridiculous. As if the existing labeling wasn’t clear enough, as if everyone doesn’t already know that cigarettes cause lung cancer, and as if people are not responsible to take care of themselves. If cigarettes are really bad enough to warrant this kind of labeling they should simply be outlawed. However, I can tell you in two words why they won’t be: “taxes” and “marijuana.” Just to clarify, the government is now responsible for telling us what, when, and how to breath and we have the privilege of paying for this “service.” (HT: co-woker, Michael A.).

Cheers.

Theology. Alan Kurschner has an interesting post this week regarding Monergism and Synergism. It explains the Calvinist/Arminian distinction from the point of view of whose will has primacy in each view. Related to this was a post over at Pyromaniacs. And, while it’s interesting to watch discussed, I’ve never really liked philosophical arguments like this. The post is dead on, but it assumes a certain amount of philosophical sophistication that goes right over the heads of most people (including myself until I force myself to recall the details of compatibilism and its antithesis).

Christianity. It is an error to think that Christianity is “blind faith” without proof. While evidence is not the end of the discussion, Christians like to highlight that even a hardcore scientist must admit gaps in knowledge that must be taken by faith (or if not outright admitted, he lives his life accepting it implicitly that he can’t know everything and must take certain aspects of reality by faith). The guys over at Triablogue consider how Christianity’s drive-by detractors are more interested in debating evidence when that’s not the main point of whatever is being discussed while avoiding the discussion when it is.

Christianity. John MacArthur has something to say that’s worth hearing, regarding Joel Osteen. He’s about as bad a false teacher as there is.

Politics. Using one group of victims to defend another does not make for a very good argument. There may be some parallels between abortion, slavery, and the holocaust, but stating those parallels as a quick way to make an argument is a great way to be crass and rude to a group that still identifies itself with victims of past atrocities.

Politics. I realize this doesn’t have to be typical of Obama supporters, but this is funny. The irate lady is the best.

Politics. Some truths are self-evident.

Biology. This is cool. The article weirdly delves (as such articles so often do) into a completely unrelated subject, evolution, for no apparent reason. I understand the issue differently according to an entirely different hypothesis. Our bodies are wondrously made in that we are all given the common grace to resist death, i.e., the punishment for sin, in ways we are just starting to understand. Leaving that aside, let’s hope this can yield some nifty new medical science discoveries in the fight against cancer and other diseases.

Science. Recently, someone I know posted this regarding the supposed inability of a MacDonald’s burger to decompose. Interestly, someone decided to actually be scientific about the problem. The issue isn’t that MacDonald’s burgers have some weird chemical property, but that a dry bun and burger don’t decompose or mold because they dry out too quickly.

Technology. Beware of which browser you use while getting a loan online. Apparently, the browser you use is a valid risk factor when determining the success of a loan.

Technology. Interesting fact: every Democrat that signed a pledge in support of net neutrality in the House lost his or her seat. I’m opposed to net neutrality legislation, not because I like the idea of corporations making special ISP deals with each other, but because we don’t need more government legislation piling on more regulators on business. Any law that passes won’t actually mean “neutrality” anyway, it will mean “make it harder for small ISPs to compete with big ones.”

Phones. I want the latest version of Asterisk for my home phone system. Now, if I can find some time to get all the important things done so I can find some time to do some tinkering…

Phones. This is accurate:

Work. This article reports on what I do for a living. I’m not mentioned by name, but my handiwork is.

Halloween. For those who have children who go trick-or-treating, you might want to know this bit of wisdom from the book of Davidicus.

Movies. And last, but not least: This is the best summary of Star Wars. Evar.

Cheers.

Lots of interesting things I came across this week. I’m going to try a little different format this time.

Reformation Day. Yesterday was Reformation Day. On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses to the door of Castle Church in Wittenburg. This event would have been pretty insignificant in and of itself if it had not been for the printing press, the ongoing and gross corruption of the church and its doctrine, and the way the Roman church then sought to suppress these ideas. All Protestants should remember this day and the reasons why the Reformers are important to this day.

Homeschooling. I’m still not certain we will homeschool our children, but if we do, it will be partly due to examples like this one. Homeschooling is nothing more than directly discipling your children and must be done with utmost care. Unfortunately, while I have the greatest respect for some of the professional educators out there, I don’t think most educators take it quite so seriously day-to-day. (John 10:12)

God’s Will. As you might know, one of my pet peeves is hearing someone say, “God is leading me to do X.” It’s not so much that I don’t believe God could be leading you to do X, but that making God the author of your personal decisions is pretty tenacious. Are you really sure about that? Or are you just making a decision based upon your personal preferences and forging God’s signature at the bottom? I think the latter is much, much more common. Dan Phillips has some clarifying words on the subject that I commend to all Christians.

Presuppositionalism. Here is a good summary of what Presuppositionalism is. I have recently decided I have preferred this apologetic for some time rather than the more popular classical form, though I did not know it had a name until recently. Van Til is quoted at the end and sums up the issue like this, “Historical apologetics is absolutely necessary and indispensable to point out that Christ arose from the grave etc. But as long as historical apologetics works on a supposedly neutral basis, it defeats its own purpose. For in that case it virtually grants the validity of the metaphysical assumptions of the unbeliever.”

Creationism. Al Mohler, Jerry Coyne, and now Karl Giberson are all discussing the merits of Creationism versus Theistic Evolutionism versus Scientific Evolutionism. Dr. Mohler’s latest comments shows how Theistic Evolutionists, like Giberson, are “throwing the Bible under the scientific bus” and destroying Christianity in the process. In Giberson’s own words, “Empirical science does indeed trump revealed truth [the Bible].” Theistic Evolution is only an acceptable position if you hold to this fact, which is a danger to the salvation of any professing Christian taking that stance and especially to anyone who might follow after that professor.

Science. From the “facts-about-learning-that-don’t-make-sense-to-me” department: Hard to Read Fonts Improve Learning. If true, it’s an interesting finding under the heading of Unintended Consequences.

Science. And did you know you have taste receptors in your lungs. Apparently, your lungs can taste bitter things and when that happens your lungs open up more. Very interesting.

Politics. This is just the sort of reason why I don’t listen to NPR. It’s one thing for a privately owned news-related organization like FOX News or CNN or MSNBC or Bill Maher or Rush Limbaugh to express opinions and another for a publicly funded one. I’m with Bill O’Reilly on this one: Let NPR earn their pay honestly and without relying on tax payers who may not agree with them. Let’s defund NPR.

Politics. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is simply a liar. There’s no way around it.

Phones. I hope this is true. I really want to see a device really win the battle against the carriers. The lock in to a specific carrier with extended plans depending on the phone you buy is lame. It would be far better to pay for your device up front and pay for your plan as you go instead of getting tied into extended carrier contracts based upon the phone you have. In theory, the iPhone has avoided this, though in practice you’re generally tied to AT&T at the moment (there’s a rumor that might change too soon). The Nexus One attempted to take a swipe at the issue, but wasn’t really successful. The other Android phones are locked in to specific carriers. We’d all be better off if there was real competition between the carriers.

Perl. In Perl programs, you can use many common statements in two ways. (1) In the way most other languages use them, e.g.:

if ($something ~~ 'true') { say "true" } # condition
unless ($something ~~ 'true') { say "false" } # negative condition
while ($something ~~ 'true') { say "still true" } # while loop
given ($something) { when ('true') { say "true" } } # switch statement Perl 5 v10
for (@somethings) { when ('true') { say "true too" } } # for-switch Perl v10

(2) And as a modifier. In Perl 5 v12, you can now use when from the switch statement as that sort of modifier:

say "true" if $something ~~ 'true';
say "false" unless $something ~~ 'true';
say "still true" while $something ~~ 'true';
for (@somethings) { say "true too" when 'true' } # for-switch Perl 5 v12

For those that may not know, the ~~ is the smart match operator that matches the first thing against the second using the obvious matching test (here it would be equivalent to ‘eq’ to test for equality). The when-statement runs its block whenever the context variable $_ (which is set to whatever is placed in given() or to each element of the array in for()) smart matches against whatever is in the condition.

Humor. Here’s a funny story about naval aviation that one of my friends shared with me this week. It’s an old one, but a good one. (HT: Kyle)

Finally, some other funnies…

This is just the right way to play with a cat.

This is a repost from my old blog that has been updated to reflect more than 2 years of “progress” in making my name as confusing as possible.

Okay, so just about every time I start to get to know someone new this question inevitably comes up. The basic confusion is that I like to use my full name on things, Andrew Sterling Hanenkamp, and sometimes I use Andrew and sometimes I use Sterling and things get really confusing. I’m writing this blog post to try and explain the history of my name and the basic issues involved with its multiple uses.

I was born, “Andrew Sterling Hanenkamp.” I’m not exactly sure where “Andrew” came from other than my parents liked the name. I like it because it means “manly” and “strong,” which I hope reflects on my character some, since it doesn’t at all reflect my physique. My middle name, “Sterling,” comes from my dad’s dad, Delmont Sterling Hanenkamp. His response to having me named after him was basically, “Why’d you give him that name? I hate it.” Grandpa Del didn’t much care for his name, though I can’t say I blame him with “Delmont” as his first name. (Though, I’m told he seemed to like his first name. Go figure.)

When I was a wee short person, I went by the name “Andy” and my surviving grandparents, who are in their 80’s, still call me that to this day. About third grade, I got tired of “Andy” and started demanding that everyone call me a serious name, “Andrew.” (No offense to the Andy’s out there, I was a third grader and didn’t know any better.) The name “Andrew” lasted through the end of high school and into the first week or two of college.

Problem. I lived in an all guy’s dorm on Manhattan Christian College’s campus. Not only that, but women weren’t allowed up the stairs to our hall. In general, this meant that folks, especially girls, were yelling up the stairs whenever they wanted someone. There were three Andrews on my floor. One was a sophomore, he got to keep his name. One decided to go by his last name. The last, me, decided to go by his middle name. I’d halfway considered doing it anyway, so this was the last bit of motivation that carried it through.

Now, fast forward about 10-12 months and I started chatting with this girl online named Terri. We exchanged emails. We chatted. We talked on the phone. We met up in person. This was in 1997, when Internet dating was still one of those naughty no-nos for creeps and weirdos (my email address at the time was sterling@weirdness.com, by the way), but we only lived a couple hours apart and somehow managed to keep our relationship after she moved up to Manhattan. Most of you probably know that we got married and had kids, etc. But I digress. When she asked me what to call her, I decided that it would be “cool” for her to have a special name for me that happened to line up with what my parents called me, “Andrew.” So, now I have two names. One familiar and one for my colleagues.

This became further confused when she moved up to Manhattan. She wanted me to be known as “Andrew” in the contexts we shared, which mostly included church. Therefore, many of my friends here know me as “Andrew.” Some know me as both and pick whichever they prefer. Thus, I pretty much always sign email and such as “Sterling” unless it’s to a friend or someone at church. Sometimes, I don’t sign just avoid the issue, but then the email comes from “Sterling,” which has to be explained and on and on…

(All this and I haven’t even mentioned my desire to go by “Master Sterling” since I have a Master’s degree, but I’ll leave that for another time.)

Therefore, if you have any doubt, just call me “Sterling.” That’s my general preference. The only folks that call me “Andrew” are those that already do (don’t change what you call me just because you read that I prefer “Sterling,” it’s not that important), my neighbors, those that go to my church, and family. Everyone else can go with “Sterling.”

Anyway, I hope that clears everything up. No, actually don’t. I confess to enjoying this particular eccentricity, so if I’ve confused you all the more. Great! Just pick something to call me and stick with it, though I’d prefer that it wasn’t offensive.

Cheers.