Women at Empty Tomb

We often hear the criteria of “embarrassment” being utilized when attempting to determine a claim’s historicity. The idea being, if the statement was not general knowledge and embarrassing to the person writing, it is more likely to be historical.

For example, if I wrote an autobiography and admitted cheating during law school, this would have a greater probability of being historical as it is embarrassing and not general knowledge. Obviously what is embarrassing to one person may not be to another. My admitting to an affair would fulfill this criterion, whereas an NBA player’s claim may not. My admitting to voting for Obama may not; if Rush Limbaugh admitted to doing so—it is very likely to be true.

It must be a claim against my self-interest. My profession of you having an affair would not be embarrassing at all. Especially if I did not care for you.

Additionally, a person may be forced to admit something not true, simply because it is already generally assumed or stated, and to disclaim it takes more effort than embracing it. Therefore, we need three criteria for embarrassment:

1) Stated by the person whose self-interest would be harmed;
2) Derogatory or disfavorable to that person or their interests;
3) Not previously made generally known.

We often see Christian scholars utilize this method when defending historicity within the Gospel accounts. I want to focus on one such claim—the women at the empty tomb.

The earliest account we have is Mark 16:1-8:

Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. And they said among themselves, "Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?"

But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away--for it was very large. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. But go, tell His disciples--and Peter--that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you."

So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

I will let William Lane Craig explain why this fits the embarrassment criterion:

Given the low status of women in Jewish society and their lack of qualification to serve as legal witnesses, the most plausible explanation, in light of the gospels' conviction that the disciples were in Jerusalem over the weekend, why women and not the male disciples were made discoverers of the empty tomb is that the women were in fact the ones who made this discovery. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that there is no reason why the later Christian church should wish to humiliate its leaders by having them hiding in cowardice in Jerusalem, while the women boldly carry out their last devotions to Jesus' body, unless this were in fact the truth.

In a debate, one might succinctly respond, “Mark enthusiastically embraced role reversals. He had the foreigners Pilate and the Centurion unwittingly recognize who Jesus really was; whereas his own people—the Jews—did not. Mark wrote of Jewish Religious leaders accusing Jesus of being the Messiah—and He was!—whereas his disciples were the ones betraying him to the executioner! Mark would like nothing better than have the lowest in the Jewish society play the greatest honor of discovering the empty tomb.”

There is much more to unpack, but when pressed for time, this concisely states the response.

The first question is whether this would be against the author’s self-interest. This is written by the Gospel of Mark’s author. (I will call him Mark for convenience.) The only possible candidate for an older record is 1 Corinthians 15, and that makes no mention of a tomb, let alone its whereabouts or discovery. This is our first record of occurrence.

You may hear claims there was a pre-Markan source, or this was consistent with oral tradition—but without those sources, we must work with what we have. [We often hear claims the persons writing these accounts would dare not make untruths, because they would be “checked out” by readers, looking to confirm what was said. Nonsense. In 2010, we have amazing resources to check out claims, yet we still receive mass e-mails about dead people removing religious broadcasting and people are too lazy to check out the truth for themselves. Indeed, the only thing access and technology has done is speed myth and legends spreading! Additionally in Galatians 1:6 (50 CE) Paul is concerned about how quickly the people were turning away to “another gospel.” Apparently they were NOT verifying Paul’s statements or fact-checking what was said.]

According to Papias (circa 130 CE), Mark was Peter’s companion, and wrote down what he remembered Peter had said. Unfortunately, Papias does not tell provide a source for this claim, and appears to be defending Mark against attacks as to its authenticity. Scholars have retreated to claiming a Peterine influence at best, rather than Peter being the sole source of the Gospel.

Which raises the interesting issue—was Mark writing FOR Peter, or AGAINST Peter? Many Christians envision an early church that was united in thought, deed and doctrine throughout the First Century. Perhaps a minor difference between immature and mature Christians or how to integrate Jewish practice with gentiles joining this new faction.

However, Paul states in 1 Corinthians1:11-12, less than 20 years after Jesus’ death, “For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe's household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, ‘I am of Paul,’ or ‘I am of Apollos,’ or ‘I am of Cephas,’ or ‘I am of Christ.’” Paul is concerned about growing factions, following individuals—this is not the description of a united church body!

In fact, the New Testament is replete with edicts against those causing divisions. See Rom. 16:17, 1 Cor. 11:18, Jude 19. We must address whether Mark was within a division against Peter.

Mark indicates Jesus changing Simon’s name to Simon Peter or Simon Petras--meaning “rock.” Mark 3: 16. Mark’s first recorded parable recounts is the famous parable of the sower—who throws seed in four spots—the wayside, the stony ground, among thorns, and on good ground. Mark 4:1-9. Jesus later explains (with a note of exasperation towards the disciples) these are descriptions of people who receive the word. 4:13-20.

Follow the description of the seed on stony ground: “Immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth. But when the sun was up, it scorched and because it had no root, it withered away.” (4:5-6). Jesus explains these people, “These likewise are the ones sown on stony ground who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with gladness; and they have no root in themselves, and so endure only for a time. Afterward, when tribulation or persecution arises for the word's sake, immediately they stumble.” (4:16-17)

This is an apt description of Peter! At the Last Supper, Peter says, “Even if all stumble, I will not.” (14:29) Of course we know Peter ends up denying Jesus once the heat is on, and the Gospel of Mark leaves Peter with a third denial and weeping. (14:72)

Mark writes that Peter correctly identifies Jesus as the Messiah (8:29) yet almost immediately, Jesus rebukes Peter, calling him the equivalent of Satan. (8:32). At the transfiguration, Peter is described as afraid and makes a suggestion Jesus politely ignores. (9:5-6) Jesus asks Peter, James and John to be with Him when he prays in the Garden before His crucifixion, and the three fall asleep. Who does Mark indicate Jesus rebukes for it? Peter (14:37)

Given the choice between whether this is a polemic for or against Peter, a straight-forward reading would be it does not paint a favorable picture of Peter. Even Christians recognize how badly the disciples are portrayed and fashion defenses to explain it.

If we are looking for the simplest explanation, here is the situation:

1) There were factions within the church prior to Mark being written.
2) Mark displays characteristics indicating other influences besides Peter.
3) The disciples—especially Peter—are portrayed extremely poorly

The expedient conclusion is that this is written AGAINST Peter—not in support of Peter. Therefore having someone other than the disciples discover the empty tomb supports the theme of writing against the disciples. It fails the first requirement in that Mark is not supporting the Disciples’ self-interest.

But we can’t stop there. Even assuming the Gospel is written against one Christian faction (the Peterine group), the question can still be raised, “If Mark was making up the tomb discovery, then he would have men make the discovery to bolster the story, rather than use women who were of lower social caste and not used as legal witnesses.” Rather than use the disciples, Mark would have utilized other men.

There is a bit of bait-and-switch happening here. Notice the first clause—the initial premise, “IF Mark was making up the tomb discovery…” The problem I often see, when this is raised, is that the Christian first addresses it as if Mark was making up the story, but then uses Mark as historical fact. No, no, no—if we are going under the presumption Mark is making it up, we must address it as if Mark was making it up!

In other words, the Christian claims, “Why would Mark make up women?” after claiming Pilate did this, and Joseph of Arimathea did that, and the Jewish leaders did this…and so on. The better question is where did history stop and myth come in? If we are looking at Mark making up the women—where else can we look to see if Mark made up part of the story?

Let’s look at an example. Mark records a person, Joseph of Arimathea—a Sanhedrin member—requesting the body of Jesus. Joseph then performs burial rites and places Jesus in a tomb. (Mark 15:43-46)

[A minor excursion here is helpful to demonstrate how myth development is demonstrated in the gospels. In Mark, Joseph is a council member, “waiting for the Kingdom of God” and puts Jesus in a tomb. Matthew removes Joseph’s status as a Sanhedrin member, refers to him as a rich man, but now Joseph has become a disciple of Jesus, and Jesus is laid in Joseph’s personal tomb. (Matthew 27:57-60) Luke reinstates Joseph as a council member, adds he was a “good and just man” as well as indicated Joseph dissented from the conviction of Jesus. Luke states the tomb had never been used. (Luke 23:50-53) John also agrees the tomb has never been used, agrees with Matthew (against Mark and Luke) that Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, and adds Nicodemus as a co-conspirator with Joseph. (John 19:38-41) By the Gospel of Peter Joseph was both a disciple of Jesus and a friend of Pilate. Peter indicates it was Joseph’s tomb, and it was in a Garden named after Joseph! Celtic myth eventually claimed Joseph held the Holy Grail when it collected Jesus’ blood.]

Curiously, Joseph of Arimathea appears for this one part at the end of Act III, and then disappears from the scene. We haven’t heard of him before; we hear nothing of him after. Even when the early church interacts with the council, we hear nothing about Joseph of Arimathea. (Acts 5:34)

Mark also indicates that after Sabbath, women came to the tomb to anoint Jesus with spices. Mary, the mother of James, Mary Magdalene and Salome. (Mark 16:1) Although this was normally done at the burial (John’s Gospel does included it), it is possible to be done again. Note, like Joseph, the women have appeared for the first time by name at the crucifixion (Mark 15:40, 47)

What is more important are the names. In first century Palestine, burials and tombs were family matters. A person would be buried in a family tomb; the family was expected to perform the burial rites. Mark is writing a story of abandonment. Christ has already predicted all will abandon him. (Mark 14:27) Who would be expected to normally bury Jesus? His father, Joseph, and his mother, Mary.

Mark is deliberately emphasizing Jesus’ own family abandoning him in the end. In case we are too thick to get it, he introduces “Joseph of Arimathea” to play the part of Jesus’ father Joseph, and two Mary’s to play the part of Mary, Jesus’ mother. Not convinced? What are the chances Joseph, Jesus’ dad, is unavailable and the name of the person who is available also happens to be named Joseph?

Or that Mary, Jesus’ mother, is not available, and another Mary prepares to perform the rite. A happy coincidence? How far will that coincidence stretch? Mary, the mother of Jesus, has sons named James and Joses. (Mark 6:3) This Mary also has sons named James and Joses. (Mark 15:40) Could Mark make it any more obvious? Like Joseph of Arimathea, Mary(s) appear, act their part and disappear.

Not coincidentally, failing to obey Jesus’ last command to inform the Disciples (Mark 16:7-8), making the abandonment of Jesus complete by all persons.

This is a strong example Mark’s author was deliberately modifying facts…making things up…to make a point. Mark loves to use the unexpected—role reversal. We see this theme replete through Mark.

What better example of this, then the statement, “The first shall be last and the last shall be first”? (Mark 10:31) Again, in case we miss the point, Mark tells the tale regarding the sons of Zebedee desiring a place of honor, and Jesus saying they must be servants first. (Mark 10:37-44) Or the disciples turning away children (considered extremely low status in first century Palestine), and Jesus saying, “No—the children get to see me.” (Mark 10:13-16)

The centurion—a foreigner, not a God-fearing man—is the person who declares Jesus the son of God. (Mark 15:39.) (For even a deeper look at the irony here, it is likely the Centurion was saying this mockingly: “This was the son of God…and I’m the queen of Spain!” Yet he was actually correct. Another level of role reversal—saying the right thing, thinking he was wrong. If you believer I am taking this too far, remember the soldiers clothing Jesus with a purple robe and giving him a crown of thorns. (Mark 15:17) Even Christians agree an ironic statement was being made there.)

The accusation against him from the Romans was that he was “King of the Judeans.” (Mark 15:26) A sign meant to be mocking, but again turns out to be true. Jesus tells his followers to “take up their cross and follow me” (Mark 8:34; 10:31) yet it is a non-follower—Simon of Cyrene—who is compelled to carry the cross. (Mark 15:21) The named “Simon” playing the role of “Simon Peter” is another coincidence…or is it?

Finally, we should consider how Mark treats females. The person receiving the highest praise within Mark (in fact the only person to receive solely praise) is a woman—the woman who anoints Jesus at Bethany. Mark 14:3-9. (Again, note the ironic role reversal that Jesus indicates she will always be remembered, yet her name is not given.)

Mark treats favorably the woman who touches Jesus to heal her blood problem (Mark 5:25-34) and the Greek woman requesting healing for her daughter (Mark 7:25-30)

So this is what we have:

1) An author who enjoys irony and role reversal,
2) An author who treats women favorably,
3) An author manipulating names to make a point, (Joseph/Joseph. Mary/Mary)
4) An author intending to make a specific point. (Complete abandonment.)

Why wouldn’t Mark use females to discover the empty tomb? It makes sense in light of the themes running through this gospel.

The Christian scholars claiming differently are using a modern thought process (“If I were making up the claim, I would do it this way…”) without looking at it in the Gospel writer’s framework.

As Matthew and Luke utilized Mark for their stories regarding women encountering the empty tomb, these are not independent statements and need not be addressed once Mark’s position is clarified. John appears to incorporate Mary Magdalene being at the tomb, perhaps through oral transmission of the story initiated in Mark, but differs greatly on the details.

When Mark is reviewed as 21st Century courtroom testimony, we might wonder why, if he was making it up, he would use woman at the empty tomb. When Mark is reviewed within its own writing, in its own time, we wonder why he would use anyone else.

It is your fault; not God's

Hollywood fails to adequately demonstrate the tension that can exist between a lawyer and a client. Only certain personalities have the propensity and wherewithal to pursue litigation. And if they are willing to sue another person; they are certainly willing to sue me if I screw up their case.

Additionally, the client is firmly convinced regarding the absolute justice of their position, and no judge or jury would ever rule against them. If it does occur, the client looks for a reason why-- the lawyer can be an easy target. They think, “Surely the only way the case was lost was by deliberate legal malfeasance!”

This is not something they teach you in law school. You learn it by trial-and-error. You learn it by the client storming in your office, breathing threats and refusing to pay their bill. Each lawyer eventually adapts a means throughout the litigation to reduce this client tension as much as possible.

One lawyer who I worked with on a few cases (friend of the firm) had an approach that was…to say the least…unique. The first time I saw it, I was shocked. Our respective clients were being sued--he represented one defendant; I represented the other. Once his client completed his testimony, he asked his lawyer (as is common), “So how did I do?”

This lawyer let loose a string of obscenities. “That was the WORST testimony I have ever seen. The judge was ready to toss you out of the courtroom. I couldn’t believe you answered those questions that way; didn’t you see me shaking my head? Didn’t you see the look on my face?

“I only hope I can salvage something out of this train wreck you delivered me. Maybe we can hope the judge will give you sympathy for being so stupid.”

Now the client is shaking in his shoes. He’s never testified before; he doesn’t sit through courts day after day. He figures he completely destroyed his own case. I was sitting there thinking, “His testimony wasn’t that bad. Not perfect; only professional witnesses give perfect testimony. It wasn’t the harpooning this lawyer is playing it to be.”

But I understood why this lawyer was doing it. See, if you tell a client their testimony was fantastic and great and wonderful, and eventually lose the case…well…it can’t be the client’s fault, right? They were told by a professional litigator that their testimony was the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel, true? So they start to look for something else being the fault, which can often be the lawyer.

Further, if you win the case, it makes the lawyer look like a hero. They salvaged the wreck handed to them by the client and saved the day. The client ends up thanking the lawyer profusely for rescuing the case.

It makes a win-win for the lawyer. Lose—blame the client. Win—take the credit. The second time I saw this lawyer do the same thing, I was not surprised.

This is symmetrically analogous to how many Christians treat their God and non-believers. It is the non-believer’s fault for not being persuaded there is a God. We’re told we have a bias—our fault. We’re informed we want to sin—our fault. We’re told we ignore evidence, or make it too hard for the theist, or don’t have the right faith—our fault.

We’re told we read the wrong books, or the right books but the wrong way—our fault. Yes, this is mostly done to bolster the prejudices of similarly situated believers. To allow one believer to gloat with his/her fellow believer about how wonderful they are as compared to the non-believer. Yet a minor part is done to guilt the non-believer. Make them think they are doing something “wrong.” To make them look for salvation for screwing this up. Look for help through the believer.

Oh, the Christian may say, “I only want them to find God;” nevertheless, by repeating it directly to the non-theist they hope they get to be a tiny portion of saving the non-theist’s day. A tool obtaining credit for notching up another for Jesus.

Yet think about it…why does a God need the Christian’s help? Why is it the only proofs of God are fallacious arguments based upon flimsy propositions? In fact, if God was readily evident, why do we need all these proofs; wouldn’t one be sufficient? Why must the theist build their case on assumption over assumption?

We agree with the theist a God could easily demonstrate itself. It doesn’t need humans, or subtitles of writings, or vague prophecies twisted into supposed fulfillments. Appear to people and talk with them. Demonstrate a miracle. Performing psychic mind tricks. Win a million dollars through Randi’s challenge. One could think of a myriad ways in which this could be done.

Christians recognize this. They must, because they fashion excuses for why God isn’t doing it. One excuse is that not knowing another person is an integral part of a relationship. Another claims it is Pride, rebellion and it wouldn’t make a difference anyway. There is always the old stand-by: “It would violate our freewill.”

While we could tear into the speculative unsubstantiated nature of these defenses, the reason I bring them up is to point out even the Christian sees this as a problem. They are busy creating conflicting resolutions—they sure must see it as a problem!

So why am I being yelled at? Why am I being told it is my fault when we both see the elephant in the room—that any such God could easily demonstrate itself. Doesn’t God shoulder some of the responsibility?

The more I am yelled at (figuratively speaking, of course), the more I think about that lawyer. Is the Christian covering up for their God-concept’s inadequacies? See, it is much the same win-win situation from the Christian’s standpoint. If I am not convinced—it was my fault; if I am, it is to the believer’s credit…er….*cough, cough*….”God’s credit.”

What method do we use to make determinations about God?

We have been having a discussion with Ten Minas Ministries regarding methodologies, specifically scientific method. It appears to boil down to this: If the theist agrees the scientific method is not able to make supernatural determinations—what method does the theist propose to use instead?

Ten Minas Ministries responded with a comment that needs some unpacking:

I propose that we test a theory. I observed in the past that when Mr. X was exposed to phenomenon A, he responded with reaction 1. So I want to perform an experiment using the scientific method. I expose Mr. X to phenomenon A again, testing to see if yet again he will respond with reaction 1. But low and behold, this time he responds with reaction 2. When I do the experiment again I observe reaction 3.

The scientific method cannot test intelligent agents because an intelligent agent can choose to react differently. That is why the scientific method is ill equipped to test claims of supernatural intelligence like the Christian God. That is why there are other disciplines like sociology, anthropology, psychology, etc. It isn't a cop out. It is a common sense limitation of the scientific method. It was never intended to measure intelligent reactions.

Not a single one of you relies upon the scientific method for every bit of knowledge in your life. Contrary to what the Barefoot Bum said, the scientific method is not simply "the method of drawing conclusions from evidence." Yes, it is one method of drawing conclusions from evidence, but so is philosophy. So is sociology. So is historiography. The scientific method employs experimentation. Therefore, if the question you are investigating is not subject to experimentation the scientific method is useless.

You do not conduct an experiment to decide whether or not it is probable that you will be struck by a car before you cross the street. Yet you certainly "know" that if you step into oncoming traffic you will end up in the hospital or in the grave.

Dagoods says the theist does not propose a method. Yet I just proposed an alternative method in our discussion on my blog. I specifically mentioned utilizing the methodology of philosophy, which involves applying inductive or deductive reasoning to agreed premises.

Sometimes the theist feels like we are banging our heads against the wall. We are told we are not providing a methodology, so we provide a methodology only to hear the atheist repeat the same accusation. We are told that we do not provide any reasons for inserting God but simply arbitrarily assign a "God of the gaps." So we provide our reasons only to have the same accusation repeated over again. We see the atheist repeatedly refusing to accept any methodology other than the scientific method all the while refusing to admit that for the vast majority of knowledge they have arrived at in their lives they did not use the scientific method. Then if we get frustrated by the virtual ignoring of everything we say, the atheist declares triumph by claiming that the theist has no answer for their arguments.

Repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true. There is little else I can say to respond to your points other than to say that theists have proposed alternative methodologies over and over again. Ignoring them does not make this any less true. The theist repeatedly provides reasons why they fill these gaps with God. Again, ignoring these reasons does not make your argument true.

If we are proposing an “alternate” to the scientific method; I think it important to first know what we mean by “scientific method.” How would you know you took an “alternate route” if you didn’t know what the original route was?

The Barefoot Bum recognized this issue and specifically asked, “What do you think scientists mean by “the scientific method.”?

Wikipedia defines it as: “To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses .“ or “A method of discovering knowledge about the natural world based in making falsifiable predictions (hypotheses), testing them empirically, and developing peer-reviewed theories that best explain the known data. “

Another ‘net resource states, “A process that is the basis for scientific inquiry. The scientific method follows a series of steps: (1) identify a problem you would like to solve, (2) formulate a hypothesis, (3) test the hypothesis, (4) collect and analyze the data, (5) make conclusions.“ Merriam-Webster defines it as, “principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses “ Ten Minas Ministries gave similar definitions here.

We see a common theme running through these descriptions: Testable hypothesis, data observed (at times through experimentation,) and a theory best explaining the known data. It should be noted this is an ongoing process in that the resulting theory becomes the new hypothesis, and new data may require an additional revision (or even complete elimination) of the new hypothesis.

We quickly realize why the scientific method is not utilized by the theist, as by definition supernatural is outside the natural realm, and is therefore untestable, unobservable, and unverifiable by the only means at our disposal—the natural world.

Ten Minas Ministries appears to propose two solutions to the theists’ problems in this regard:

1) Scientific method is insufficient to make determinations when intelligent agents are involved; and

2) Philosophy is an alternative method;

Dealing with the first he uses the example of phenomenon acting on an individual, who may exhibit different reactions. Because of these different reactions, Ten Minas Ministries claims scientific method is unusable. This is not true at all. In fact we use the varying reactions to make statistical determinations, through the scientific method.

Take the phenomenon of my cutting off another car in traffic. Now look at a number of proposed reactions from the driver I cut off:

1. She does nothing.
2. She honks her horn.
3. She gives me the finger.
4. She strikes my car with her own.
5. She gives me a three-week paid vacation to Tahiti.
6. She develops pancreatic cancer.
7. Her car turns into a DeLorean Time machine.
8. She obtains the ability to shoot laser beams from her eyes.

Every single person, in reading this list, makes an assessment as to each reaction’s viability. Why do we immediately eliminate DeLorean’s and laser beams? Because our own observations, other observations we read, any test we perform all results in no DeLorean’s and no laser beams. We may not consciously be using the scientific method—but that is exactly how you immediately eliminate those possibilities.

We can go further. By observing and collecting data, even though horn-honking, finger-giving and car smashing are possibilities, we can make statistical determinations as to the likelihood of each. Yes, an individual CAN decide to smash my car, but my experience, one could say my numerous experiments in this field, indicate this possibility to be so low, I decide to do it anyway.

Curiously, Ten Minas Ministries uses the example of stepping into oncoming traffic, and how we do not experiment this, yet we know we will be seriously injured if we do so. I am not certain what he means that this hasn’t been experimented. We may not have personally done so, but we read and see pictures and video over and over and over demonstrating in the fight between pedestrian and automobile—automobile wins. Every time. I don’t have to personally experiment every claim—I can use the experiments of others.

I am seeing a confusion over the term “experiment”—it is being narrowly defined to include replication of the exact theory proposed. In other words, to experiment whether I will be injured if I walk in front of a speeding car, I must personally do so, rather than view the experiments of others.

I would disagree the scientific method is so narrowly defined to a certain person in a certain situation MUST obtain a certain result, only through experimenting that exact situation. If this is what Ten Minas Ministries is proposing, we are certainly coming at it from two very different foundations.

Continuing in my thread, he uses a few examples that further demonstrate this possible confusion. For example he indicates historical determination is outside scientific method, stating, “We cannot conduct an experiment to determine whether or not Nero truly was emperor of Rome...” I am uncertain what he means by “experimentation.”

Using the scientific method, we look first at the hypothesis: “Nero was Emperor.” We look at the data—historical books, coins, statutes, opposing opinions, world results, etc. We can “experiment” (loosely) by comparing other leaders and other results and see the same consistent results. Other leaders have coins. Other leaders have statutes. Etc. And again, even under this method, new data could cause a change in hypothesis.

Look at this another way. We cannot replicate the Big Bang. Does this mean we are not using the scientific method to determine its existence, because we cannot “experiment” by creating another Big Bang? We cannot experiment with a non-heliocentric solar system by making another solar system. We cannot experiment with making stars go super-nova—does this render such determinations outside scientific method?

Vinny made a similar observation when it comes to history.

I was surprised Ten Minas Ministries differentiated certain fields as being outside scientific method, such as psychology. Actually, there is experimentation and data observation—any person familiar with such things as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) or the whole battery of neuropsychological testing understands the use of scientific method in this field. Granted, it is not as precise or studied as other fields such as chemistry—but that does not remove it entirely from scientific method. Sociology can use experimentation.

There is debate whether Anthropology uses scientific method. Notice though, in that debate is the proposed alternative method is defined and addressed.

What is the proposed alternative method given here? “Philosophy.” Philosophy is the search for knowledge. It may inspect how one goes about that search, or what one utilizes. I am uncertain, though, what is meant by “Philosophy” as a method. I know you may feel as if you are beating your head against a wall, but I am truly stumped by what you mean as “philosophy” as an alternative method.

We seem to be in agreement in definition and understanding regarding “scientific method.” Both your definition and the others I found lay out certain steps that appear pretty clear.

What “steps” are proposed in the method of “philosophy”? It’s like saying, “we use the method of communication” which is really no method at all, merely the only way we can relate an idea to another human. What is the method of “philosophy”—can you describe it in alternative terms to scientific method?

Ten Minas Ministries, I agree whole-heartedly none of us use the scientific method for every bit of information in our lives. We are influenced by culture, upbringing, unique situations, etc.

This is exactly the point of this whole exercise! We recognize our own tendency to, even unknowingly, insert our own bias in determining. We want--we really, really want--that person to be a wonderful spouse, so we overlook and rationalize away the fact he is a convicted wife-beating deadbeat. “He’s changed.” We ignore the statistical evidence against it.

This is why I harp on method. To remove the very problem you identify. If we stick with the method, we can both recognize such bias and remove them from our determination.

I may want the canonical gospels to be historically accurate. I may really, really want it. In recognizing that desire, I realize the bias will impact my study. They may still be historical; they may not. I look for a way to root out such bias by creating a consistent method whereby the possible outcomes are: historical, partly historical, not at all historical or unknown. Only by sticking with the method can I hope to remove my bias—even if (and ESPECIALLY if) the results are not my desire.

I know you feel as if you are beating your head on a wall, but I truly do not see what method you are proposing, in lieu of scientific method. What steps are you saying we take in a “philosophical” method?

What is the Problem with ‘”God of the Gaps?”

Over at Ten Minas Ministries I had a discussion regarding the old complaint of naturalistic bias when skeptics look for solutions. I mentioned the historical incidents where supernatural explanations were given (lightning, season change, disease transmission) as no natural explanation was known at the time, only to have later discovery determine there were natural, non-supernatural explanations.

This generated a response of how theism is not “God-of-the-Gaps” and how naturalism is limiting itself by not looking at all solutions, etc., etc., etc.

It is interesting how the modern theistic apologist disdains “God-of-the-Gaps;” holding their nose with one hand, and holding the argument as far away from them as possible in the other. But in the very next breath, tells us if we have a “gap” in our knowledge, we should consider the possibility of God as a resolution to that gap.

Is it just me, or is that incongruous?

Look, we all draw from a limited number of possible solutions, based upon past study and experience. If I had a fender-bender this morning, and was looking for a solution, I would look first to certain possibilities. I would not consult my astrological chart or horoscope to see its input. I would not consider it a government plot to put location devices on my car at the repair shop. I would not consider it karma for having too rich a dinner the night before.

Why?

Isn’t the answer simple?

Because I am not persuaded by astrology. I am not convinced there is a government conspiracy. I do not believe in karma. I don’t look for solutions in things I am not persuaded exist. It seems perfectly understandable why a person who did believe in astrology would look to their horoscope later, searching for possible meaning regarding a traffic accident. It is one tool in their toolbox of solutions.

Likewise theists believe in a God. Many brands of Christianity believe in a God who is extremely and actively involved in worldly affairs. We know this because they pray to this God to provide healing, and safety (from such accidents) and jobs and family and love and….you get the point. We know this because they thank this God for getting the healing, the safety, the jobs, the family…

“God” is a tool in their toolbox of solutions. One only need a few Christian facebook friends who update their status to see just how much they think this God is part of the world. So why wouldn’t they employ a God-of-the-gaps?

Think about it—the Christian believes in this awesome creator, power, infinite, unique being that makes a universe with a blink of a thought. We don’t have a solution to how non-life developed into life. It seems perfectly reasonable for the theist to reach in their toolbox and find a ready-made tool to solve the immediate problem—God. (And yes, this sets the problem back one step, leaving us with other issues. But to a theist, this solves this issue at the moment.)

Why do bad things happen? To a Christian, they can readily use the tool—“God.” To an astrologist—stars out of sync. To a scientologist—bad thoughts. Each use means they believe exist.

What baffles me is when Christians do not understand why I fail to use such a tool for a solution. Hello….”atheist?” In order for me to look for a supernatural explanation, I must first be convinced there IS a supernatural! Imagine a co-worker telling me, “Oh, I know why you had a car accident—I looked at your horoscope.” Why is that not convincing to me? Why is that not convincing to the Christian? Because neither of us believe astrology!

Christians claim we are limiting our options by not looking for supernatural resolutions. Er…so what? Don’t we all do that? Don’t we all limit our options by removing solutions we do not think exist or think so unlikely as to not be worthy of consideration?

With me, many Christians limit their options by removing homeopathy from their toolbox. They go to an M.D. with me. They remove vaccine-deniers. They remove alien interventions and abductions. They remove ESP, new age candles, horoscopes, feng shui, bad karma, dowsing, magnetic bracelets, bag bomb, and hosts of other crazy possibilities from their solutions.

For the same reasons I remove the tool labeled “God.” Now the Christian gets excited: “Wait a minute—you are limiting possibilities.” Yep.

Why should this be a surprise? Remember—The Christian doesn’t like God-of-the-Gaps. The Christian doesn’t like inserting “supernatural” when a natural solution is not currently known. If they find such a solution repulsive…who am I to argue with ‘em?

DagoodS v The Barefoot Bum

I recently wrote a blog entry discussing oppositional positions in partisan situations. The Barefoot Bum disagreed with me in the comments, as well as his own blog entry here and an additional note on an example here.

There are many points I agree with The Barefoot Bum, some I still do not. I agree we cannot object to an oppositional approach within an adversarial or partisan system—indeed, he is quite correct that is the inherent reason the system is adversarial. It is necessary within the definition.

My point was not that we should “all just get along” and eliminate partisan politics—rather, the point was to avoid maintaining partisan acrimony, solely to maintain an adversarial position. Simply to be able to say, “We are not ‘them.’”

I have written and re-written a response numerous times, and it never quite seems to say the thoughts pounding in my head. Perhaps, in the end, I see this partisanship adopted too readily. Rather than rise above mindless disagreement, and learn why it is we object to the other side’s position, or learn why we support our own, I see too many people concede their arguments to “I disagree because the other side says it.”

All I know is: If you’re for it; I’m against it

We have become a society so blinded by our partisanship; we are slowly coming to a standstill. We spend all our energy preventing our perceived enemies from progressing that we no longer get anything done but debate.

We live in an “us vs. them” world—this isn’t a surprise to anyone. Nor should it be. The survival of one’s species depends on the ability to determine what is “friend” and what is “foe.” We wouldn’t be here if we couldn’t tell the difference between the “us” of friendly animals and the “them” of not friendly animals and sharks. Especially sharks.

Our social make-up results in the desire to associate with similarly situated people. Parents with small children gravitate to having friends who are parents with small children. The clubbing crowd hangs out with other clubbers. And, of course, Republicans with Republicans, Protestants with Protestants, etc.

By virtue of this associate, we create the “us vs. them” scenario. We team up on atheist blogroll to be an “us” of atheists as compared to the “them” of non-atheists. Baptists join Baptists churches to be the Baptist “us” instead of joining the Methodist “them.” There is nothing wrong with this; it is naturally part of who we are as humans. No matter who you are reading this blog, you fall into both an “us” or a “them” category as compared to others reading this blog.

You may be an “us” right hand dominant as compared to a “them” left hand dominant. Or vice versa. (Or some smart aleck who is ambidextrous who is a “them” to all of us who are not.)

I notice a common curious attribute developing. We view the comparative beliefs on a scale. As if everything bad that happens to “us” weighs us down, tipping the scale up for the “thems.” And, alternatively, anything bad happening to “them” tips the scale in our favor.

Therefore, we support anything bad for “them.” Because it must be beneficial for us, right? And we must oppose anything beneficial for “them.” Because that must be harmful for us, right? And anything those “them” want, must be something they think is beneficial—oppose it! If those “them” don’t want it—support it! It must be beneficial for us.

We spend our time watching the other side, countering their every move. Not because we have a moral mandate, or justified reason; but because we think if they want it/don’t want it—we must demand the opposite. To support “us.”

Slacktivist wrote a great blog entry regarding health care reform. His point, to summarize, was that taxes are actually down, and health care costs are up. Yet your average tea-bagger is screaming to high heaven how terrible their “them” is—how awful Pres. Obama is to America. Yet if you asked these simple questions:

“Do you want taxes lower?”
Tea-bagger: “Yes.”

“Do you want health costs to increase?”
Tea-bagger: “No.”

They would discover they actually support the proposed solution under the current Administration! (I know that is overly simplistic, but on these two points it is bottom line correct.)

See, they don’t think. All they know is their leadership, in the form of media personalities, is whipping them into a frenzy of how the Democrats want to do….something. How the President proposes…something. Because the Democrats and the President is a “them”—they must oppose it! Not for what it is; not for a certain ideology. But because the other side wants it.

I read Sarah Palin’s facebook page. She posts a note, and 1000’s of people file responses. Most are what you would expect. I often read a comment like this, “Boy, Sarah, you sure made the media angry. That shows how right we must be.”

Do you get it? Because the media (“them”) was unhappy, it validates the Palin crowd (“us) position. If the “them” was happy, the “us” must be doing something wrong! Likewise, if the “them” is unhappy, the “us” must be doing something right! We validate our beliefs on how unhappy the other side is!

Using the same logic, a murderer must be doing something right, because their victim is unhappy!

I see this all the time practicing law. All. The. Time. If one side wants Expert A to be chosen; the other side immediately objects. Why? Simply because the enemy—“them”—wants it, so we—“us”—must not. If I propose a former Judge to be a facilitator; the other side immediately rejects him or her. They assume my wanting it necessarily translates to them not.

I could tell countless stories as illustrative; I will tell one on myself.

I represented a woman who was looking for past child support due from an ex-husband. He was claiming he was too poor to have paid support. During the hearing, his attorney approached him with a document. It was a letter, sent by Social Security Administration detailing his reported income for the past ten years. (For non-Americans, we pay taxes from wages into Social Security, and once a year, the SSA sends out a notice indicating how much wages were taxed toward Social Security.)

Because the amounts were minimal, his attorney felt this was support for his being too poor to pay Child support.

His attorney moved for the admission of the letter. I objected. Because he wanted it in; I assumed I (the other side) did not. I knew he had not followed the Rules of Evidence, and could not get it admitted the way. I was right—the judge would not let it in.

The attorney tried to get it in another way. I smugly objected again; he was still doing it incorrectly. Again the judge ruled in my favor.

Look at me: winning because the other side was not getting what it wanted, right? Wrong.

It came time for me to present proofs. One basic element necessary was to demonstrate the ex-husband had received wages--any wages--whether it was $1 or $1,000,000 in the last 10 years. Now…wouldn’t that letter have been just the ticket to do that? Now I was stuck with going through complicated proofs, when all I would have had to do (if I hadn’t been so cocky objecting to that letter!) was point out that they had proved this element for me! The letter that they put into proofs would be sufficient.

I fought what “them” wanted, not because of the content, but simply because I was thinking if “them” wanted it; I must not. Luckily, as an epilogue, I was able to introduce the same information through the ex-husband by using the letter to “refresh” his memory. But it was still an unnecessary, extra step.

A basic rule of objecting is to FIRST ask yourself the question, “Does the evidence I want to prevent help or hurt my case?” Not, “Can I win the objection?” Not, “If the other side wants it, I must not.” I had forgotten this rule.

Certainly there are issues we oppose “them.” I support gay marriage for various reasons, not because the “thems” oppose it. But I often see, in blogs and debates and discussions, people so readily oppose what the other person says…blindly…almost instinctively…without thinking why they oppose it, other than the fact their enemy—“them”—wants it.

Make sure you put a bow on it

I don’t watch TV. One blessing of a conservative Christian up-bringing was the lack of a television. We didn’t get one until I was 21. Now…more than 22 years later…I don’t have the draw or desire I see in others my age that were raised with one.

The other night, I was working on my computer while my wife watched this show--The Bachelor. I have enough familiarity with Americana to know it was out there, and the rough concept. (If you don’t know—it is 15 or so beautiful women vying for the affection of one man, who whittles down the number of women each week until he has narrowed his “choice” of potential partner to one.)

Having never watched the show (or its alter ego The Bachelorette) I found myself watching for about five minutes. It was all I could stand.

Really? This is what counts for entertainment? Apparently it has been on for a number of seasons, so not only did it gain a following, it has enough support to warrant bringing it back again and again.

It consists of pretty women who are looking for fame (let’s be honest) through national exposure. Who must pretend to be enamored with a guy (still being honest) who looks and acts like 100 other guys in their community. Only those other 100 guys aren’t on television. A guy who is “looking for love” but has a television camera on every date, and is provided limos and grand meals, and glorious settings outside the reach of most dating couples.

I couldn’t care less, so I didn’t look it up—but has there been a single couple that worked out as a result of these shows?

As a concession to the numerous action movies my wife sits through with me, on a rare occasion I will watch a romance movie with her. They can all be reduced to one plot theme: “Within the next 120 minutes, the woman will realize the right guy she should be in love with.” (Although infrequently, they kill the guy off, meaning:

1) Negatively: my wife is an emotional wreck for the next hour; and
2) Positively: I never have to watch that movie again! *grin*)

In our entertainment, this is what we have come to like. Kill the bad guy, get the girl and explain the plot within a few hours. Wrap up my fantasy in a nice little box. Dating involves limos and roses and romance. Never flat tires or an ill-advised call from a ex.

This spills over to politics. Vote the right person in, they fix all our problems, we live happily ever after. Go to college—you will get a good job, have a nice income and retire at 65 with an appropriate pension.

We want our lives to be answered and explained in neat little packages.

Problem? Solution.
Issue? Resolution.
Question? Answer.

This is why God-belief is such a fantastic sell. So what if it creates cognitive dissonance, or talks out of both sides of its mouth? So what if it says completely opposite propositions in the same paragraph with a straight face?

It always provides a nice, tidy presentation. Easily embraced; wonderfully respite. It is this reason Craig does so well with Kalaam’s Cosmological argument in debates. Yes, I know he expands out the premise in great length, but the little diddy:

P1: Everything that begins has a cause.
P2: The universe began.
C: The universe has a cause.

is so simplistic, so tight, so packaged that it is easy to see why people succumb to its lack of sophistication. To explain the issues, the question-begging, the science behind why it is wrong takes time and discussion of difficult concepts.

We live in an America that wants the plot explained by the villain. Our culture wants the answer in easily digestible chews, with words no longer than two syllables. Multi-syllabic explanations are for certain categories on Jeopardy.

We want Prince Charming who (like he does in the movies) says just the right thing, or provides flowers at just the right moment. Absent that reality, why not create one in a God who—so it is claimed—always gives the right answer? Even when that answer is horrible, the person would rather believe in the God who gives horrible answers, than the messy solution of no God at all.

How many movies is the hero placed in what looks to be a terrible dilemma? Tied up with ropes over a shark pool? Of course, within the next 20 minutes she or he manages to escape, capture the villain, stop the missile from blowing up the world, and look absolutely stunning throughout. This same expectation from God is equally reassuring. Sure, things look bleak now, but in our simple explanation is the hope God will…eventually…likewise resolve all the pending problems and we wrap it up nicely.

Things like the Haitian earthquake happen. Because an orderly, trim explanation is the most comfortable, people pray God will do…something…and expect He must have some reason for allowing the event to occur. The hero of our movie has some reason for letting a person get killed; we need only wait for the explanation to come in the next hour or so.

For some, like Pat Robertson, they make up a reason to suit their tiny bundle of a God. Others assume some smart person somewhere has figured out an answer to the Problem of Evil, so why should they bother? Their solution is secure without the necessity of thought.

God makes the best Bachelor. He is always romantic, always makes great dates, always is on time, always dresses nice, is always showered, never farts, and always wraps up the show on a happy note.

You’ve been Punked by Pat Robertson

O.K., we all now know whatPat Robertson claims the reason for the 2010 Haitian earthquake—because 100’s of years ago the Haitians made a deal with the devil to be politically autonomous.

As expected, many other Christians immediately follow up with how Rev. Robertson is wrong, and he doesn’t speak for their particular flavor of Christianity.

But is anyone really surprised by this anymore?

It is not as if Christianity has a checks-and-balance system. No Snopes. No method to weed out the “true prophets” from the “false prophets.” Or “true Christians” from “false.” There is one, and only one, requirement for determination of truth—obtain a following.

What if I told you I grabbed a woman from her wheelchair and repeatedly threw her to the ground? That I kicked a woman in the face? That I choked a person; I hit a guy so hard he fell to the ground and lost a tooth? You would consider me a menace, and danger to society.

Remember Todd Bentley? He does it, and because he has a following--his audience laughs! This is the moral thing to do! And yes, many Christians spoke out against Todd Bentley, too.

Yet how many other items have we encountered, where the claim is passed from follower to follower, each assuming it is true? Because so many other have believed it?

How many Christians who criticize Robertson have passed on an e-mail about how the world is secretly persecuting Christians? An e-mail thoroughly debunked by snopes? How many saw this video about Albert Einstein and believed it to be true?

How many times have we been discussing with Christians and heard, “All the disciples died horrible martyr deaths. They wouldn’t have done that for a lie.” And we know the person hasn’t ever checked out the facts of the claim. We’ve heard Christians tell us how Pharisees were, using only the Bible as their source and no other. We’ve heard Christians tell us how the Canaanites were so evil—without any realization as to how we would know this.

So why is anyone surprised at Pat Robertson? The entire system is infused with “I think…” and “I believe….” And “To me…” and nothing to stop the insidious perpetuation of instilled falsehoods except one thing—if no one follows you, the concept dies.

Pat Robertson has a following. There are people who watch him and believe what he says. (Why would he lie?) To those people, the Haitians did make a deal with the devil—that fact is as historical as Abraham Lincoln being shot. To those people, God is punishing them for that deal—an absolute, certified, 100% fact.

As long as people will listen and support Pat Robertson, he will continue to make outrageous claims. Who will call him out on it? What followers will leave him?

We shouldn’t be surprised. The only thing left is cynical ridicule.

No Angst

I’ve thought of blogs…

I ought to answer a question:
“Where do morals originate?”
Yet all the eloquence aside,
It boils down to “Emotions inside.”

I’ve been listening to iTunes U,
A class on Modern Rhetoric,
It talks of how authors write,
It breaks me free from black and white.

I’m commenting on other blogs
Like The Pugnacious Irishman,
I write and spew and demonstrate,
But little in-road is ever made.

Who cares, really, about some verse?
I find more interest in family,
Rather than bitch about Sarah Palin,
Or disciples die for lie (yet again.)

I started another blog
To continue a conversation
And found--an oft-told report--
A Christian uninterested in retort.

To blog…just to blog… feels shallow.

I am beginning to see, with the Walrus, how the time has come to talk of shoes and ships and sealing wax…of cabbages and kings.

Church is Ruined for me

Having grown up in a Christian environment, it is unsurprising I continue to find comfort in many Christian traditions—including many Christmas trappings. I like Christmas Carols. I say, “Merry Christmas” with abandonment. I find angels and stars and nativity scenes pretty.

One thing I always enjoyed was the Christmas Eve service, where typically one sang Carols by candlelight. I announced plans to attend a former church’s Christmas Eve service, and the rest of the family piled along.

We sang Carols by Candlelight; I joyously joined in. Watched the band play Christmas songs; liked that too. Saw a skit about the innkeeper; I chuckled at the appropriate moments.

But there was something else—something that didn’t exist in my memories of tradition. Too much knowledge; too much information.

When referring to the innkeeper from “No room for them at the inn” (Luke 2:7), my mind, unbidden, immediately thought of how this wasn’t a “hotel” as we envision, but rather a large gathering room at one of Joseph’ family member’s house. How the author of Luke uses the word kata luma rather than a pandocheion (Luke 10:34)—a place for strangers to obtain lodging.

Or when it was mentioned how terrible to be born in a stable, I remembered how animals typically stayed in the same lodging as humans, especially in winter. A running gag involved how exciting the census was, and I had to clamp my lips shut from saying, “Not at all! This census so infuriated the Judeans, it led to the Jewish Revolt and the complete destruction of the Temple!”

This nuance would pop up, or this platitude would be spoken, and each time my mind thought of all the things unstated. Incorrect. Unknown to the vast majority of the audience.

I realized an analogy would be watching a magic show. But a magic show where you already knew how every trick was performed. As much as you would try to enjoy yourself in the moment, your eye couldn’t help but wander to where the magician was palming the handkerchief at just the right moment. You can appreciate the mastering of the trick, yet your mind was anticipating how the box would fold, or when the girl would appear, or how the mirrors were not solid.

In some manner it would be regrettable, because you can’t quite suspend your disbelief to enjoy the magic show for what it is; you know too much. You can’t enjoy it as MAGIC--it is parlor tricks.

I felt the same way. I know what the Pastor was trying to say. I understand the points being made. I understand the rest of the audience “oohhed” and “aahhhed” at the wonderment of magic being displayed before them. Yet it is no longer magic to me.

I still enjoyed the singing. I enjoyed seeing people I haven’t seen in some time. I could see how I would enjoy the socialization of church.

I could do the Christmas Eve service again next year without hesitation. I just cannot re-capture the naivety of the nativity anymore.

Lovin' Franken

If you are from Minnesota; I simply envy you unabashedly.

If you don’t watch the video, here is a synopsis.

Lieberman: Pontificating.
Franken: Your 10 minutes is up.
Lieberman: Can I have unanimous consent for extra time?
Franken: No.

McCann: [huffily] In all my years on the Senate floor, I have NEVER seen such outrage.
Franken: Duly noted. Now move on.


Here is why I love it. First of all, there is a reason for a 10-minute rule. It would be one thing if Lieberman was making some necessary points, and was in the middle of a well-framed argument. But no, he is merely blathering with no proposed solutions. This is the reason for the 10 minute rule! The idea is, “Take your best shot. Make good, strong points. Lose the rhetoric and sophistry. Be prepared.”

Even more importantly, I loved the response to McCann. Notice what McCann does NOT say. He does not list a rule Franken is violating. He does not even indicate what important statements Lieberman was not allowed to say. All he says is, “this is the way we always do it.”

For a “maverick,” you would think he (of all people) would understand, “This is the way we always do it” is not the best justification.

Occasionally, I am faced with similar situations in my practice. I come across attorneys who say, “In all my ___ years of practice I have NEVER seen anyone do that.” To which I love to reply, “Great! Today you get to learn something new! Today you get to do something you have never done before! Isn’t it fun to learn?”

Control of what I say; Control of what I do

A religion (or a religious belief) may have the best of intentions, yet by its very nature and the eagerness of people to follow, it is susceptible to being used as a control device. The “True Christian” defense is often employed to explain this very problem away. To explain why some particular leader manipulated the follower’s beliefs for the leader’s own gains. The defender will proclaim, “They weren’t a ‘True Christian’—they utilized Christianity’s methods, words and means to obtain their own ends.”

Even followers of religious doctrines recognize that in the wrong hands, the very techniques, beliefs, creeds and statements of their religion can look so very similar—yet with vastly different motivations and results.

Simply put, religion is an extremely pragmatic tool—effective to exert control.

Further, even without a nefarious motivation, religions naturally entail control through prescription of values. If a God (master of all time, space, energy, etc.) was interested in establishing a particular religion here on earth, it makes sense there would be a reason to do so. That reason results in exercising limitations and restrictions. The reason is the foundation for establishing the rules and regulations of the religion.

The reason is the justification for implementing direction and controlling the behaviors of the followers. Offer the correct sacrifice; the pleased God rewards. Offer the incorrect sacrifice; the angered God punishes.

By searching and proclaiming the reason a God would bother intervening in the world; one creates the rules to satisfy the reasons. If God intervened to make people happy—the religion explains what the person must do to make the God happy. If God intervened to be worshiped—the religion explains how to worship God. If God intervenes to save humans from themselves—the religion provides the means by which the God does so.

Christianity initiated during times when religious prescription was in full force. The Roman Gods required certain acts and sacrifices. The Jewish God required certain acts and sacrifices. Even the mystic religions had secret rituals.

The first Christian writing we have—1 Thessalonians—continues to follow the typical religions dictates. If you read through the book, you will see the focus on doing--not believing “walk worthy of God.” (2:12) “how you ought to walk and please God.” (4:1) “abstain from sexual immorality.” (4:3) “don’t defraud your brother” (4:6) “lead a quiet life, mind your own business, work with your hands.” (4:11) If you read through the entire book (it doesn’t take very long)—it reads like a list of Do’s and Don’ts of any variety of religions.

In fact, it doesn’t emphasize faith or believing, but rather uses those doctrines as tools of encouragement that the believer will continue to follow the rules.

But something changed. What that was, we can only speculate from piecing together the Christian documents we have and our little knowledge about the First Century Mediterranean. Christianity became a religion of belief. As long as one believed correctly, the actions could be forgivable.

“….if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Rom. 10:9)

What is the inherent problem here? Well…if all one has to do is have a certain belief, this can be easily made, and then there are no more limitations. Heaven is assured whether one acts a certain way or not. Christianity becomes a one-time thought, and then Blessed Assurance.

Paul recognizes this problem, and spends some length in Romans 6 attempting to justify how Christians were dead to sin, and shouldn’t keep on sinning because they no longer should want to, but what Paul doesn’t explain is why.

The result is a muddled balance whereby a person must believe AND that belief must be evidenced by works. (James 2:17-18) For all the claims about Christianity being “different” because it is not a works-based religion, it necessarily integrates works within its belief. (Go back to the top of this blog entry. Remember those “No True Christian” arguments? Was that as a result of what the person said they believed or what works were present? If one claims they were not a “True Christian” because of their works, then Christianity must be a works-based religion.)

Christianity’s retention of Do’s and Don’ts retains religion’s control over the believers. A comment was made in the last blog entry as to reconciling the concept of immediate justification (salvation) yet subsequently disappointing God. Was the act of salvation insufficient to completely satisfy God?

In short: yes.

Therefore, while God may be 90% or 99% or whatever percentage you desire to pick, pleased with one’s choice, there was still that remaining percentage, no matter how small, where you could still disappoint him.

So Christians spend an inordinate amount of time, effort, and funds to avoid that percentage (whatever it may be) chance of making Jesus cry. That small percentage is area the religious focus 99% of their lives.

If one’s own personal belief was enough—what would it matter if Adam and Steve were married? If one’s own personal belief was enough—who cares whether there was a strip club down the street? Or liquor is sold on Sunday? Or people wear certain clothes or say certain prayers or do certain acts?

By their nature, religions control. Christianity (despite its protests otherwise) is no exception.


(Title of Blog credited to Janet Jackson, of course.)

Sin…what is it good for?

Growing up, we were intimately familiar with the concept of “sin.” We knew the biggies—the ones we would never commit, but could gain a certain amount of satisfaction realizing we weren’t that bad:

1) Murder.
2) Rape.
3) Kidnapping.
4) Sex with farm animals.

There was the category of sins we didn’t want to do, but did anyway to avoid problems:

1) Lying.
2) Cheat on a test.

And finally there were sins we wanted to do, but knew we shouldn’t:

1) Disobey our parents.
2) Not share our toys.
3) Go to Movie theaters.
4) Get to second base.

We were taught the reason we sinned is because…(and this is obvious)…sinning was fun. It was what our [sin] nature wanted to do. No one sinned because they had to, or did it reluctantly. We did it because it was such a temptation to do the thing our very being craved most at the moment.

We sinned because we liked it. (Not the big ones, of course. No one was allowed to enjoy those!)

BUT…

We were also taught over and over how sin was a disappointment to God. Yes, our sins were covered by Jesus’ blood or atoned for or paid for by His death or _______ [insert appropriate Christian platitude] and we wouldn’t lose our salvation just because we didn’t clean our room when Mom asked us to. Yet every time we sinned—we were repeatedly informed—this hurt God. This bothered God. Jesus cried tears ‘cause we wanted to kiss before we were engaged.

Nobody wants to be a disappointment to their parents. We don’t want to hear the “Sigh” and see the long look on their face. This drives a stake of guilt right into the child’s heart. Even worse, we were disappointing God—the one who loved us, and died for us. Imagine how big His “sigh” would be, and how long His face could get!

And so we entered a cycle:

1) Be tempted by sin.
2) Say “no.”
3) Try not thinking about the sin.
4) Think about the sin.
5) Say “no” again.
6) Think about the sin.
7) Ask God to take away the temptation.
8) Think about the sin.
9) Remember the guilt you felt last time.
10) Say “no” again.
11) Remember the fun you had last time.
12) Justify doing it just this once.
13) Sin.
14) Now the fun is over, feel terribly guilty!
15) Ask forgiveness for the sin.
16) Vow to never sin again.
17) Go back to step 1.

We lived in an almost constant state of wrestling between wanting to sin and not wanting to sin and feeling guilty about sinning and talking about the sins we shouldn’t commit and thinking about sin. This creates a bit of inner turmoil, as you can imagine.

Then we would look at non-believers. We understood their conscience had been suppressed. Muted in some way. They didn’t feel quite the same guilt as we did when we sinned. In fact, one of the mandatory, necessary steps in converting the non-believer was to make them recognize they were sinning! If they didn’t realize they were disobeying God; they would never see their need for God to save them from disappointing God.

We also understood that deep, deep down, they secretly knew there was a God. That there were higher morals they should be following. (See Romans 1 & 2.) What we needed to do was reach past that guilt-free sinful exterior and pull those feelings out, so they could see how bad they were.

In other words, we needed them to feel the same guilt and turmoil we did when it comes to sinning.

Realize we were not envious of the non-believer for their non-guilt feelings. Oh, no—we pitied them. They were going to eternal torment in hell; who envies that? They were angering the creator of the universe; who wants to be in that position? We were light; they were darkness. We were salt; they were tasteless. We were fruit; they were despair. Every good analogy (life, light, salt) we were; every bad analogy (death, darkness, eventual agony) they were.

We felt empathy with the non-believer. We fought with and desired to reduce those inner battles over sin; we assumed they did at one time as well. We simply figured they took the wrong route. We faced up to our demons, and (with God’s help) continued to war against the evil sin nature. They had succumbed to it by claiming there is no God. Or that there are no morals. Or believing in the wrong, namby-pamby type God.

This is why many believers tell us deconverts we stopped believing in God so we could sin; it makes perfectly logical sense to the believer. They want to stop the inner discomfort; they assume we do as well. They think not believing in God will do so; they presume this is the choice we made to suppress the internal feud. “Remove God from the picture and one no longer has to feel guilty about disappointing God,” is how they reason.

They think we are convinced in the theory of evolution because it gives us an excuse to sin. They think we find contradictions in the Bible to allow us to sin. They think we look for any excuse in the world to disbelieve Jesus walked on water so we can cheat on our taxes without the same feelings of guilt the believer has.

This is why telling these types of believers we deconverted because of evidence and reasoning is a waste of time. They have already transferred their own motivations and desires on us. They believe we think just like they do, and the only reason they can possibly see for giving up God is to sin.

I wonder if this is why atheist-to-Christian stories often include tales of sinning, but feeling terrible about it. This is exactly the stereotype many Christians have in their mind regarding non-believers. It fits perfectly. That the only reason we don’t believe is to avoid the inner conflict the believer so righteously engages when wrestling with sin.

No Going Back

I enjoy casually reading Christian apologetic sites. Some include tales of how the Christian used to be an atheist…just…like…me. So they know what I am thinking, apparently. We read the following stories:

My name is Todd Pitner and if you happen to be a non-believer, I used to be one of you – an intellectually fulfilled ‘good person’ who had a pretty good run for 42 of my 45 years. Although born into a Catholic family and lovingly forced into church attendance, after high school I couldn’t get church in the rear-view mirror fast enough. Other than the obligatory annual Christmas and Easter services, I was “godless and doing just fine.”

Upon joining the Church of Narcissistianity– The Gospel According to Me, the next twenty-plus years served me pretty well. I compiled quite an impressive non-believer’s resume. My credentials:

– Made a lot of money, lost it all (bankrupt)
– Got married, had kids, all-work, no pray (divorced)
– Tried drugs, drank enough to kill a moose (alcoholic)
– Broke all Ten Commandments* (could never fix ‘em)
– Decided to kill myself (too much of a wimp)

* See Matthew 5:21-26 and 1 John 3:15 if
your left eyebrow went up on this admission.

Yes indeed, my life sucked. But as God is so prone to do, He brought me to my knees so that I might look up. In my utter despair, I gave up on Todd 1.0 and prayed for a Divine reboot, “God, if you’re there, if you’re really, really real…would you please help me?!”[emphasis all in original]

Link

Humanity had become nothing more to me than an organized network of molecules and enzymes. I viewed people as mere organisms going through their daily routines of metabolizing nutrients and expelling wastes, ovulating their eggs and ejaculating their semen. I knew the psychology of humans almost as well as their anatomies. The hidden things that pulled them this way and that were very evident to me. They were like guinea pigs, only more predictable, and my chief form of entertainment was to see how skillfully I could manipulate them. I knew that I was supposed to care about them, but I didn't. I couldn't. If mankind's goal was to alleviate its own suffering, a bullet to the head was more efficient and made more sense in my thinking than screwing around with medication or disease control.

What was the point of prolonging any one life? What difference did it make if a girl didn't live to marry or her mother live to see it? Of what value were temporary emotional experiences? They were simply the biochemistry of the brain reacting to sensory input and, upon that individual's death, any remaining memory of that experience would be thrown away along with the person who had experienced it. My extreme point of view had reduced people into throwaway metabolic units; I had become as cold and indifferent as the logic that I exalted.

Link

I was an atheist for most of my life. I thought that the idea of an all powerful, all loving God was just silly. I learned in school that evolution was where life came from, so what do you need God for? And I had a lot of self-motivation for living an atheistic lifestyle. I was living a very immoral life and a drunken life, life that was really a hundred percent focused on journalism.
…
Right from journalism school I went to the Chicago Tribune, which was unusual; but I had so much experience for a kid...because I knew since I was a little kid what I wanted to do. So I started as a general-assignments reporter. I went to Yale to get my masters in law, came back as a legal editor, covered federal courts, covered criminal courts, covered the Illinois Supreme Court and really enjoyed it but without God, without a moral framework, my personal life was out of control, the drinking, the carousing. I had no moral framework of how to do journalism so I would do whatever it took to get the story. I would steal; I would commit a federal crime by stealing federal documents from the courthouse. I made friends with the court clerk, and he allowed me to go by myself into the court files; and so I would go in there, and I would beat the competition all the time by finding all this wonderful stuff in the court files that no one knew about. So when I would find something particularly juicy, I would slip it under my vest, and I would steal it so when the story broke, the competition couldn't find the documents. Then I gave it a day or two, then I put it back. I figured it was worth it because I never got caught.

I would lie. I remember covering stories at the police headquarters, I would call the witness to a crime and I would say, "Hello this is Lee Strobel calling from police headquarters." Well the implication was that I was with the police department. I intentionally mislead and deceived them, because I figured they would tell me more than if they knew I was a reporter. There was nothing that I wouldn't do in pursuit of a story. I would step on my colleagues, in a very Machiavellian way. I, behind the scenes, destroyed the career of one of my colleagues because he was in my way. By the time I was done with him, he was fired from the Chicago Tribune. That's a terrible thing to do, to destroy someone's career; but I did it. And I didn't care. It didn't bother me one iota, because he was in my way. Get rid of him, destroy him...and I was able to do it. He got called on his honeymoon to be informed that he had been fired from his job...a terrible thing. But, as I said, I had no moral sense of right or wrong. If something was in my way, I got rid of it.

Link

And as I read these tales, I realized I could never go back to being a Christian. It would seem I do not qualify to be “atheist” enough.

I haven’t gone bankrupt. Haven’t cheated on my wife, nor been divorced. Not a drunk. The closest brush with the law outside of my job is speeding tickets. I haven’t destroyed someone’s career—I don’t lie and steal to frustrate my competitors. I don’t consider humans to be “guinea pigs,” nor do I think suicide is the solution is suffering.

Evidently, according to these Christians, there is quite a bit more to being an atheist and I am simply not getting with the routine.

Only a cynic would think these are horrendous straw-people, designed to impress other Christians as to how “atheistic” a person REALLY was. Only a scoffer would think these testimonies aren’t intended to relate to atheists, but are intended to tell Christians how miserable atheists actually are in the deep down inside.

I guess, until I qualify as a “True Atheist,” I will never have such great stories to tell of being so despondent, rich, and sexually immoral.

God’s a Big Human

Non-believers are often faced with the theist’s complaint as to how we attempt to “humanize” their God-concept, or how we complain their God-concept doesn’t act as we expect it too. They complain we approach the theistic question on the basis God acts like a human—only bigger.

I will attempt to explain why this is so.

As humans we are constantly attempting to figure out the world about us. Why did that tree fall? How can I measure twice, yet the plank is too short? Why do we become sick? Why is traffic stopped and can I get around it? In doing so, we communicate with other humans. We develop language, grammar, and skills to learn information, and figure out the world we live in.

Since we are human, understand human thinking, human emotions, human instincts and human knowledge, it is within that arena we base our communication and attempts to relate our observations. Think of this simple statement:

“My wife’s cat loves me.”

Now, I don’t know the psychology of cats. I don’t know how they obtain knowledge, what emotions they have, or what instincts they contain. We can speculate on such things, based upon observation, but no cat has learned human language in a way it can communicate exactly what it is feeling towards humans.

Look at the first part of the phrase, “My wife’s cat…” I suspect the cat would be stunned to learn it is “owned.” That it is a possession. If a cat is self-aware, it would be repulsed by the notion a human “owns” it. Secondly, how do we designate a certain individual within a household “owns” a cat?

Yet as another human, you understood this statement with no problem. You understood, despite current appearances, at one time the cat was a gift specifically designated for my wife. In my house, my wife has a cat, my son has a dog, my oldest daughter has a cat, and my youngest daughter has guinea pigs. While they all live in the same house, and are all fed by the same person (my wife)—we have broken up ownership amongst various persons.

Now look at the second part: “…cat loves me.” Again, I don’t know how a cat loves. I don’t know what the word means to a cat. I use a human term—“love”—that the other human understands so we can communicate a concept. What we expect from such a statement is that the cat prefers to sit on my lap as compared to my wife’s (it does) that it comes to me for attention (it does) and that it generally prefers, when it allows company, to be in my presence (it does.)

No one hears the statement, “My wife’s cat loves me” and thinks, “You are attempting to humanize the cat” or “You are saying, ‘If I were a cat, I would ____’” No!—we understand the use of the English word “love” is communicating a certain idea where we expect certain actions to align with the word.

We anthropomorphize things all the time:

“My car didn’t want to start.”

We know cars don’t have “wants” or desires. But every one of us (most of us have probably said that very thing) understood the phrase to mean the car was mechanically having difficulty. Does anyone complain, “Your idea regarding vehicles is human-centric”? Of course not!

“The ball wouldn’t go in the goal.”
“My locker door hates me.”
“Traffic was a bitch.”
“The rock refused to budge.”

Each phrase uses a human feeling to convey a concept. Sure, we understand rocks and locker doors do not have feelings or motivations. We utilize these words NOT because the locker door is supposed to understand what we are saying; we use them so the other human can understand the idea.

Now back to the cat example. I say, “My wife’s cat loves me.” But you observe the cat always runs away from me. It hisses at me when I approach. It arches its back. It claws at me if I pick it up. It never purrs with me; never jumps in my lap. This appears to be an incongruity. We have certain expectations from the word “love.” We understand a cat’s emotional base is very different from humans; when a human tells another human something “loves” him—that word “love” presents certain anticipated behaviors. Cars that “love” us are expected to have fewer mechanical problems. Projects that “love” us are expected to be easier than first thought.

And cats that “love” us are not expected to hiss, and claw and run away.

The word “love” is intended, even when applied to non-humans, to portray a communicable idea.

Turning to God…we understand a God is not human. It is different. But in order to discuss this rationally, theists must grasp this seemingly simple fact—non-theists do not have a specific definition for God.

I comprehend to theists, when I say the word “God” a certain mental image pops in their head. A Hindu thinks of multiple Gods with various personalities. A Catholic thinks of a certain Abrahamic version of God. Muslims a different Abrahamic version. Jews yet another Abrahamic version.

The problem I often see, is that this idea is so obvious to the theist, they cannot identify with a God being anything but what they picture in their mind. “Of course God is this” or “God is that” and the notion God could possibly be anything else is as crazy as a thin Santa Claus, or a tall leprechaun.

Yet to non-theists, we do not have a locked-in version of God. Sure, we understand the notion it could be a creator, or that it could have personality, or could exhibit something akin to emotions, or it could be bound by logic. Notice those are all “could’s.” What we are looking for is what actually IS; not what “could” be. So we ask the theist to describe their God-concept.

Because we are human (surprise)…and the theist is human (surprise)…the theist describes their God-concept in…will this be a surprise?...human terms.

The theist may say something like, “God loves humans.” Now to us non-theists, this is an attempt to depict God, using terminology we understand. We get (we truly, truly do) this is not intended to be EXACTLY like human love. We get (we truly, truly do) the thought communicated is a similarity, and that this God, being a completely different species, would have different emotions, feelings, thinking, etc.

The same way we understand “My cat loves me.”

And once this sentiment is expressed, we start to question it, in light of what we observe. We question “My cat loves me” when we observe the cat claw, hiss and run away. We question the sentiment “God loves me” when the God orders genocide, kidnap, and stealing. These are incongruous with our understanding of what the word “love” means.

I am NOT questioning God; I am questioning the human who claims this is what their God-concept is. Much the same way I don’t question the cat, “Why don’t you love him?” I question the owner, “Why do you say these actions are loving?”

If a believer in the Tanakh God indicated God was petty, jealous, malicious, and very powerful—we non-theists would simply nod our head. These words, even though they are human emotions, conform to what we observe relayed in the Tanakh. It is only once a person tries to say such a God is loving, or merciful do we question how those human terms apply to such a creature.

When you say, “God has X characteristic” where “X” is a human description of an emotion, feeling, thought or concept, we expect this God’s actions to align with our understanding of X characteristic.

It is NOT that we expect God to act like a human; it is that YOU have described God in human terms, and we question inconsistencies with that human term. We do not expect cats to act like humans, but if you describe a cat along human terms, we question inconsistencies with that term.

It is NOT that we say, “If I were God, then I would…” rather we are saying, “You claim your God-concept has X characteristic. I understand humans (including me) exhibit X characteristic by doing certain things. But you claim your God-concept does things contrary to exhibiting X characteristic. How do you line that up?”

The same way we do not say, “If I were a cat, then I would…” rather we are saying, “You claim your cat loves you. I understand how humans act when they love someone. But your cat does not act that way. How do you line that up?”

Is this making any sense?

Teenagers, Questions, and Answers

My teenage daughter is currently attending an Evangelical conservative church. (The current boyfriend is the draw.) She questions some things she’s been hearing and told me the following story:

Yesterday the teenagers were asked to submit questions to a Pastor. (“One of the big guys who knows the answers,” as she puts it. *grin*) She and the boyfriend put together what they thought was a pretty clever question—basically “Why does God allow little kids to die of cancer?”

The ol’ Problem of Suffering.

What my daughter found interesting (and slightly amusing) was how the pastor hemmed and hawed, talked around the question, but then she noted this: He never answered the question! She said the closest thing to an answer was, “I don’t know.”

What struck me was how she picked up on that particular problem and how she was savvy enough to see how he didn’t answer it.

See, there really isn’t a good answer. There isn’t a cutsey little phrase, or snap bumper-stick capsulizing in digestible form a coherent response.

Everything we understand about morals, and charity and doing the right thing includes deep involvement in reducing pain and suffering as much as possible, to the point of elimination if possible. We’ve spent millions of hours and probably trillions of dollars research ways to reduce cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, polio, influenze, small pox, malaria, AIDS, and numerous other diseases.

To claim there is a God who can reduce it, but doesn’t, raises the huge question, “Why?” The fact the Christian cannot answer this very basic fact about God demonstrates why I reiterate any claim about God is unenforceable, because God is unobservable and unverifiable.

If you don’t know enough about your God-concept to explain why such a God wouldn’t cure cancer in a five-year-old, don’t tell me how it writes books, or provides you a parking space, or gave your child the winning shot in the J.V. basketball game.

Gay Marriage fails another Popular vote

Well. There it is. Maine’s election this past Tuesday was yet another instance where gay marriage failed to pass. Every single popular vote on Gay marriage in America has failed. Literally from California to Maine. Including my home state of Michigan.

Why?

The obviously correct answer is that Gay marriage is not the popular majority position amongst voters. We must recognize this simple fact. We who support gay marriage need to take the next step and question how we convince enough of the majority to change their position, and we become the majority.

There are quite a number we simply won’t. To them it is a matter of principle. Whether for religious reasons or long-held opinions as to what is “traditional” they will never, ever vote for gay marriage. Yes, there are instances where people can change. But deconversions are the exceptions—not the norms—and getting a swing this large will not come in that manner.

I find it hard to believe (perhaps it is true) the entire majority position is comprised of such individuals. Therefore the only hope is to focus on those who are not entrenched in principle, but still do not desire gay marriage to be allowed.

How do we motive these people? What can we say to open their minds to the possibility of allowing gay marriage even though they personally do not want it?

Motivating people is hard, due to the individuality of humans. Some people are enamored by automobiles, and would be motivated by a chance of owning a rare car. To me, cars are unavoidable means by which we get from Point A to Point B. While I appreciate a Corvette, I wouldn’t spend the money on one. (Yet I am the person who couldn’t live with surround sound, and cannot understand people satisfied with listening to Pirates of the Caribbean through…gasp!...TV speakers.)

Those opposing gay marriage use a powerful motivation—fear. They claim gay marriage will lead to school children being taught a certain way. They claim gay marriage will lead to polygamy. To people marrying pets. To your children becoming gay. They understand the power of threats: “If gay marriage is allowed, then _______” and fill in that blank with something--anything--people could possibly be scared by.

You can’t talk people out of fear. You can’t reason fear away. Ever have a child wake up in the night, terrified about the monster under the bed? You know there is no monster. You can show them how empty it is under the bed. You can argue, point out and explain how there are no such things as monsters. Did your cadre of reason diminish their fear? Not even a bit.

Instead you hold them, let them know it is alright. We fear the unknown. We fear the dark because we cannot see. We fear the interview or introduction because we don’t know the person’s reaction. By reassuring the child that what is known—you—is there, you calm them down.

We are not going to argue these people out of these fears. The only way to reassure them is to generate familiarity with homosexuals. To meet gay couples. To gain understanding into their lifestyle—which unsurprisingly consists of “who is making dinner?” and soccer games, and watching TV, and enjoying a glass of wine.

See…familiarity is fear’s nemesis. Remember how scared you were driving a car the first time? How you carefully checked your mirrors again and again? How you didn’t want to parallel park? After driving for years, you think nothing of it. You hop in the car, turn the key, and your mind isn’t even focused on the automatic driving process.

I admit I am uncertain how to implement this idea—I just know it is the way to counter fear.

Besides reducing the opponents’ motivation of fear, we must equally propose our own motivation—selfless support for a minority.

To make many of the current majority position sit back and truly think, what harm does it do to them to allow gays to marry? Does it really reduce the value of heterosexual marriage? Think long and hard about that.

Britney Spears’ marriage lasted 55 hours. Zsa Zsa Gabor has had 9 husbands. We have a television show where producers interview potential females to marry a bachelor; the courtship taking place before camera crews. There are wedding chapels next to casinos. You can be licensed to practice marriages over the internet.

Every one of those marriages is legal. Allowed. Sanctioned.

This is the institution we are protecting? We find so sacred, no homosexual need apply? In reviewing such examples, I am uncertain how it is possible to tarnish heterosexual marriage any more than it has done to itself!

Does it really diminish your own marriage? Did the fact Britney Spears was only married 55 hours on a lark make no difference, but the fact Bob and Ted (who you will never meet) are married in Portland make your marriage just that little bit less?

Where were you on July 21, 2005? What happened on that day? Did you wake up and (if you were married) all of a sudden feel as if your marriage just didn’t mean as much? As if you and your spouse were just not as meaningful as before? If you were not married, did you wake up to the realization that your eventual heterosexual marriage would be less significant? Less wonderful? Less passionate?

Do you forever remember July 21, 2005 as a day--marked in infamy--when marriage lost its sanctity and become an unholy, impure travesty?

“What happened?” you are thinking, “What terrible tragedy could possibly have occurred to bring this about?” Simple…the day before, on July 20, 2005, Canada legalized same-sex marriage.

That’s right (remember, marriage is NOT an exclusively American idea)—our neighbor to the north allowed gay marriage. And not a single American felt their current or future marriage was reduced in any way.

See the reality is we each find the meaning in marriage through our own marriage. Whether Zsa Zsa picks up another husband, a celebrity marries or the Gosselins divorce does not affect the depth or value I have with my wife. Nor would allowing gay marriage impact my marriage. My wife and I make our own course—we don’t measure our marriage by the marriage of others.

The motivation we need to impart is protection of a minority position. There are less homosexuals than heterosexuals. There always will be. If we voted down hetero/homo lines, the homosexual will always lose. Yet so would males. And African-Americans. And every other minority.

The reason America can be great is NOT that we can implement majority rule. 1000’s of governments before America understood the simple concept of “might makes right.” We can be great because we use majority rule to protect minority positions. We can look beyond “who has the most votes gets the say” to understanding and granting rights to those who will never have the most votes.

This is where we have gone awry. We have become a nation of bipartisanship, where the only important question is who can get the most votes to support ME. We will do anything to get those votes. We have stopped looking out for the little person. To wonder how we can do better. To push and prod to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

America is failing. Not because of the economy, but because we have lost all empathy with minority positions. We want to win, and win at all costs. Voting is no longer a civic duty; it has become a video game where the final question is “Do I have the highest score?”