It features:

• Tischendorf’s 8th edition Greek New Testament (with Morph Tags)
• Strong’s database
• Intuitive parsing for passage lookup
• Copy functioning for the Greek Text (great for reports and research), using Mac native Unicode.
• Lightweight (approx 2.5mb download)
• Minimalist UI
• Automatic Updates.

I figured, ‘eh, why not,’ assuming it would just crash when it got to Illustrator. But as I was getting back to working on some photos, I noticed the absence of the crash notice.

I checked, and it worked. I was astonished. 

But wait, that was only updated to 13.0.1. The latest is 13.0.2.

Since I was getting adventurous and hopeful - off I went to try and update again. I waited, hoped, did my sacrifices, etc…. Worked like a charm.

It runs/launches much faster, too. Did this work for anyone else? Does anyone have an explanation?

In section 107 - 

1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

 

2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

 

3) amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

 

4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

 

The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

It seems pretty generous, and I think that it is vague enough to give us some real room to use media to teach. Not bad at all. Usually copyright law drives me nuts.

Enter: Evernote.

I originally got the idea from lifeacker, where they recommend getting rid of public domain books to reduce clutter. Since books are freakin’ heavy, I decided to go for it. However, I am a knowledge junkie. My personal library comes from 7 years of study, and I’ve got many, many classics of literature and philosophy that I struggled to part with. The problem was that I liked having them on hand.

So, I thought, Evernote! I’ve used you to take notes, keep track of ideas for my various papers and projects, and hold a whole lot of ancient documents I am studying.

I think you know where I am going.

I couldn’t use the client (for 10.5.2), as it seemed to crash every time I pasted in the complete works of Sophocles or some other obnoxiously ancient text. Their web app - which is shockingly just as good, if not better than the local client - took them like a charm (syncing with the local client went without a hitch). Now I have a huge box of classic books ready to donate, which translates into a huge box I don’t have to pack-move-unpack, and I still have them readily accessible at any time.

Evernote, I lift my beer to ya.

Oh yeah, the first three people that post a comment requesting an invite, will get one. Just put your email address in the appropriate spot (not in the body, unless you like spam)…

So I figured I’d give it a shot, and lo and behold. I guess Tentatio meets their standards. Aside from decent sources when I run my mouth, this means I can do fun things like this:

I found myself not particularly enjoying the work, however, and like some profound movie, it stuck with me (and bothered me) for several days. But I could not figure out why. It wasn’t that there were pictures of dead people - Leukemia cured me of any acute fear inherent in death. Nor was it the fact that most of the subjects of the piece died of cancer - I found that kind of amusing because “it’s always cancer.” And no, you aren’t allowed to find that funny unless you have dealt with it - think of it like a club. An exclusive club. Expensive, too - even with insurance.

Anyway, After a few days of mulling it over, I finally came to understand why the exhibit unnerved me to such a degree. The artist sought to celebrate both life and death, especially the latter. I am all for celebrating and cherishing life, but I will never do the same for death.

Things were not supposed to be this way. We weren’t meant to die.

Regardless of how readers of the Biblical Narrative interpret the beginning of Genesis, the anthropology is universal: our own mortality is a profound corruption. Life was given as a gift, death is the curse of our own doing.

Culture seems to be moving in a way that idolizes death, using descriptions like “a sweet release,” “a turning to peace,” and “rest.” There are even religious cliches that move in the same direction: “going to be with the Lord.”

But we weren’t meant to experience this separation from those close to us; they weren’t meant to die, and neither are we. Death is not a natural part of the human life cycle, but rather it is decidedly un-natural. Treating death as anything else robs our ability to mourn, feel the pain inherent in death and separation, AND experience life to the fullest.

Life is all we have right now, and death is an abrupt end. Seek to live a full life. Don’t fear death, but hate it - because it is a curse.

The fact remains: without the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, I would have died sometime in early-2006. So as my wife continues to raise money for the organization (while I cheer from the sidelines), I am trying to get as much support as possible. The link below goes directly to the Team in Training donation site, which has raised many millions to find cures and treatments for blood cancers. There are no gimmicks, and all donations from this point on go DIRECTLY to the LLS.

It doesn’t take a few gigantic donations, but rather the generosity of many - giving even a dollar at a time - to defeat one of the deadliest forms of cancer. I owe my life to this organization, and so do the generations of patients after me.

Please Donate, even if it is a few dollars: http://www.active.com/donate/tntgmo/teamkaty

I do not intend to prove you wrong. But there are other points of view – not particularly antagonistic to science – that are rarely heard.

I don’t think we have to split faith and science dualistically. When splitting like this takes place, the result is immediate polarization, and any attempt at communication breaks down into shaking fingers furiously at one another. Then, all anyone can do is shake harder…or make a fist and shake it, because that’ll show ‘em.

[Science is] a method, a way of finding this knowledge. Observe, hypothesize, predict, observe, revise. (emphasis mine)

Defining science as a method is well put. It amazes me how rarely people understand that concept, and in an ideal situation, anyone trumpeting under the banner of science would first have to submit to this method. Granted, I do not like talking about science totally in this way, merely because “submitting to the method” reminds me of some freaky cult – which isn’t science. Engineering, maybe, but not science.

Baseless insults to engineers aside, there stand at least two huge barriers in the way of finally putting an issue like this to rest. From the way I see things, the first problem is in the fact that both sides’ uppity-ness has little to do with the conclusions made and more so in the assumptions about the other party’s assumptions. (what an obnoxious sentence)

If a person has grown up in a spiritual culture that makes a big deal about the Earth being flat, and then a scientist comes along and points out that it is, indeed, round, that person’s entire life becomes shattered. So when Chuck Darwin started spending too much time looking at finches and comes to some astonishing ideas that result in even more astonishing conclusions, does that force any implications on others in a non-scientific realm?

Maybe – or maybe not - but the immediate knee-jerk by everyone opposing C-Dawg might indicate that they merely assumed an imposed-conclusion about their spirituality. Plus, if those who aren’t scientists feel threatened and want to respond to science-based claims with their own science, do they violate their existential integrity in doing so? I say yes. Scientists can say that humanity descended from purple boogers shot from the nose of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but to what degree would that effect the notions of spiritual revelation? And if I decide that it does effect my religion, am I still religious by attacking back with more science?

There’s the rub.

The second of the huge barriers I mentioned is the strange polarization that has come to plague our intellectual realm. The one point on which scientists and creationists seem to agree is that we must choose one or the other.

Why?

Why not both/and?

Scientists might say that using both/and violates the methods on which their work rests. Theologians (conservative Christian, typically) often say that without a literal 6-day creation, then systematic theology states that “faith in Jesus” suddenly reduces to vanity.

I think the problem is that I can at least understand what both sides are saying. Spiritually, I have gained more out of life than I would have thought possible (though that is not necessarily the goal), and yet my fingers tap-tap-tap on the keyboard of my MacBook Pro – a pinnacle of science (fan-boyism aside).

Westerners love the comfort of either/or.

Tension that comes from both/and can be unsettling.

But somehow I think that the both/and tension might be the best way to go…