We have often noted that people who change their theistic beliefs, even dramatically, don’t change. The basic personality stays the same. I am aware of one person who indicated in their testimony how, as a non-believer, they were a physical bully. After becoming a Christian, they no longer physically bullied people around.
But I noted the person was abrasive, condescending, venomous and verbally abusive toward any who disagreed with him, justifying it under the guise of treating others like Jesus treated the Pharisees. Did he change? Not really.
I know of a pastor who is no longer a Christian and now wants to “lead a flock” of non-believers. If you disagree with him, out come the same effective tools used as a pastor to get you to “toe the line.” Did they change? Not really.
In a moment of introspection I realize I haven’t changed much either.
See, as a Christian, I held the Bible in high regard. It would not be far from the truth to accuse me of being a “Biblian.” I figured it was our one sure-shot direction from God. I heard the testimonies and stories from people about how they felt with their feelings that God was “leading” them to do this or “calling” them to do that.
I know the tales of guys who “felt” God had a certain woman for them, and when that woman didn’t return the affection, it must be the woman’s fault. I watched people do some pretty selfish things; all under the firm conviction God was directing them through “inner thoughts.” Those of us outside the “inner thoughts” saw many of these rationalizations to be what they were—the person using God as an excuse to do what they wanted anyway.
I didn’t want to be such a person. I wanted to be as objective as possible. While it was possible God could communicate in visions, or feelings or urges, it was a certainty God communicated through the Bible. Relying on the Bible was safe. No fear of letting emotions or selfish desires sound like a god.
Needless to say, I studied the Bible. I cross-referenced the Bible. This was the one secure communication from God that I could say, “We may feel this way; but the Bible mandates this from God.”
Frankly, I believed some pretty different concepts as a Christian. I was not certain people who did not have the mental capacity to perform Rom. 10:9 were going to heaven. I couldn’t say with conviction, “Babies go to heaven.” Why? Because the Bible doesn’t say it! I hoped that a God of mercy would have at least the same amount of mercy as a human and would not commit such an injustice—but I didn’t know.
I was squeamish on the topic of abortion. Oh, there are plenty of arguments against abortion without needing to go to the Bible, but when people say, “God is against abortion” I became very, very silent. All the verses regarding God recognizing children in the womb are glorifying his knowledge. There is no specific verse saying “deliberate abortion is wrong.” Inferences and exegetical manhandling—yes. Specifics; no. Without those specifics, I thought it was better to be quiet than find out some day, in heaven, I was wrong.
Women preaching in church? Absolutely wrong. Paul came through for me on that one. That verse about women not wearing gold or pearls bothered me though. A lot. (1 Tim. 2:9) I tried to pass it off as “the intent was that women were to be modest,” but to be honest—that didn’t sit well with me. I kept my mouth shut and stewed on what God felt was important.
I couldn’t understand why God seemed so cavalier about slavery—so who was I to determine God might not get royally pissed off at a gold wedding band? Oh, the Bible allowed slavery. I didn’t postulate we bring it back, of course. But I didn’t say the Bible was against it either.
And now, on the other side of the fence, I find myself much the same.
I see these theistic debates in which analogies are used. The words, “I think God is…” or “I feel like God would…” and I feel the same pinch in my stomach as before. What is the basis the theist feels this way? Where are they coming up with this? I questioned it when I believed there was such a God—is it a surprise I question it even more?
And I see non-theists debate with the theists as to how the analogies don’t work, or use the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or Thor, and a war of words commences. I watch forums where it becomes: Cut. Paste. NITPICK, NITPICK, NITPICK.
What I don’t see are Christians who actually know their Bible. The same thing I saw as a Christian. On more than one occasion I have come in (with unwelcome sword flaming), demonstrated my “expertise” on the Bible, and both parties run off. They don’t want to discuss the creation, content or context of the Bible. They want to discuss, “I feel.” They want to discuss their perception of God.
I realize, in retrospect, this is exactly what I did as a Christian. Christians wanted Bible study to be, “Let’s read a verse and tell each other what we feel about it.” And I would point out the contradictions in other verses (the genesis of my deconversion, only I didn’t know at the time) and ask how they reconciled these conflicts. They, too, ran off. It was not what they wanted to discuss.
I’m not good at the “feelings” bit. Mystics drive me right off a cliff. (Is that a surprise? I think not.) “Touchy-feely” thoughts about God (or the responses thereto)—I am not good at.
Do you know why leopards don’t change their spots? Because they like the spots they have on! They have no reason, no desire, and no ability to change them anyway. I wish I could be a little less abrasive. Maybe less dogmatic on the lack of knowledge regarding the Bible. Yet every time I try to do so, I become extremely uncomfortable.
Like a naked leopard.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Can you Trust a Survey?
Recently the Pew Forum on Religion & Life issued its SecondReport on major Religious trends in the United States. Understandably, many Evangelical leaders were upset to discover 57% of the people who identified themselves as “Evangelical” thought eternal life is possible through other religions.
The survey is being (slightly) lauded as demonstrating increasing tolerance within America. Before we become alarmed (if you are an evangelical) or encouraged (if you think Americans are becoming more tolerant) I question how the survey was conducted.
See, the survey also concluded 21% of people who identify themselves as atheists believe there is a god. Yep, that’s right. 1 in 5 atheists (according to the survey) say, “I am an atheist. I believe there is a god.” Something doesn’t add up.
And no, “atheist” was not a catch-all phrase. The agnostics were separated out, of whom 55% believe there is a god, and the “secular unaffiliated” were also separated out, of whom 66% believe there is a god.
To further demonstrate how odd the results appear, 6% of people who say they are atheists, and 14% of people who say they are agnostic, stated they believed in a personal god! Not only that they believe in some general notion of “god,” but a particular description of one! Now, it may seem as if I am dangerously approaching the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. We are all quite familiar with “No True Christian.” I don’t want to say these folks are “No True Atheist”—but I would sure like an explanation of what they think the word “atheist” means by saying they are atheist and believe in a personal god!
So I looked at how the question was asked. Enlightenment:
From Data (Note: PDF File.)
You can see exactly what was happening. The person being interviewed was getting bored with the survey and launched out the quickest answer. We can imagine the conversation:
Interviewer: What is your present religion, if any? Are you Protestant, Roman Catholic, Mor--
Interviewee: [impatiently] Oh, I am not one religion in particular.
Interviewer: [following instructions] “and would you say that’s atheist, agno--”
Interviewee: [impatiently] Atheist, I guess.
The person was marked down “atheist” and later, when the question of what type of god they believed in came up, they said, “a personal god.” No one ever thought to ask, “Does this line up?”
In a local Judge’s chamber there is a picture of a cake from a certain bakery. On the cake is the following message:
“Good Luck, Betty
“Underneath that
“Best Wishes from all.
Likewise we can imagine THAT conversation:
Person: We would like to order a cake.
Bakery: What do you want on it?
Person: ‘Good Luck, Betty,’ and underneath that, ‘Best Wishes from all.’
The survey is being (slightly) lauded as demonstrating increasing tolerance within America. Before we become alarmed (if you are an evangelical) or encouraged (if you think Americans are becoming more tolerant) I question how the survey was conducted.
See, the survey also concluded 21% of people who identify themselves as atheists believe there is a god. Yep, that’s right. 1 in 5 atheists (according to the survey) say, “I am an atheist. I believe there is a god.” Something doesn’t add up.
And no, “atheist” was not a catch-all phrase. The agnostics were separated out, of whom 55% believe there is a god, and the “secular unaffiliated” were also separated out, of whom 66% believe there is a god.
To further demonstrate how odd the results appear, 6% of people who say they are atheists, and 14% of people who say they are agnostic, stated they believed in a personal god! Not only that they believe in some general notion of “god,” but a particular description of one! Now, it may seem as if I am dangerously approaching the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. We are all quite familiar with “No True Christian.” I don’t want to say these folks are “No True Atheist”—but I would sure like an explanation of what they think the word “atheist” means by saying they are atheist and believe in a personal god!
So I looked at how the question was asked. Enlightenment:
Q.16 What is your present religion, if any? Are you Protestant, Roman Catholic, Mormon, Orthodox such as Greek or Russian Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, something else, or nothing in particular?[emphasis in original]
INTERVIEWER: IF R VOLUNTEERS“nothing in particular, none, no religion, etc.” BEFORE REACHING END OF LIST, PROMPT WITH: “and would you say that’s atheist, agnostic, or just nothing in particular?”
From Data (Note: PDF File.)
You can see exactly what was happening. The person being interviewed was getting bored with the survey and launched out the quickest answer. We can imagine the conversation:
Interviewer: What is your present religion, if any? Are you Protestant, Roman Catholic, Mor--
Interviewee: [impatiently] Oh, I am not one religion in particular.
Interviewer: [following instructions] “and would you say that’s atheist, agno--”
Interviewee: [impatiently] Atheist, I guess.
The person was marked down “atheist” and later, when the question of what type of god they believed in came up, they said, “a personal god.” No one ever thought to ask, “Does this line up?”
In a local Judge’s chamber there is a picture of a cake from a certain bakery. On the cake is the following message:
“Good Luck, Betty
“Underneath that
“Best Wishes from all.
Likewise we can imagine THAT conversation:
Person: We would like to order a cake.
Bakery: What do you want on it?
Person: ‘Good Luck, Betty,’ and underneath that, ‘Best Wishes from all.’
Monday, June 23, 2008
Create Your Own Religion
On occasion, we hear an argument for Christianity based upon it being unique. We hear phrases like, “Only Christianity does not require works to earn salvation” or “The Bible is unique because it was authored by 40 different people from various walks of life, over 1000’s of years, on three continents, blah, blah, blah…”
There is nothing about being “unique” or “different” which means something is correct. Answering the question, “What shape has only four equal straight lines and four equal angles?” with “a perpendicular purple parasite” is certainly unique. Yet clearly incorrect.
Curiously, we hear the exact opposite argument as well—that because some concept within Christianity is universally accepted, the fact it is NOT unique makes it true.
“Every society has morals.”
“Every society has a creation story” (or flood myth)
“The vast majority of people have always believed there is a god.”
When the occasion warrants, the Christian will embrace uniqueness as “proof” of the truth of Christianity, and (hardly taking a breath) will then claim its common themes demonstrate how it must be true. The reality is that ALL religions have particulars which make them unique, and ALL religions have a commonality.
When reviewing all religions, we can develop a blueprint by which to create our own.
Identify a Problem
Relatively easy—observe the world about us and see what most humans identify as a difficulty or something that needs to be improved. We see weather, and seasons with too little rain, or too much. A problem. A solution to this problem is creating a weather-god to control the problem.
We see humans desiring to hurt other humans. Create a god who imposes rules upon society. We want to impose OUR rules on other societies—include that requirement within one’s god. When creating a god, all bets are off—the sky is the limit. We can have our god do anything we want.
I like the “problem” the Aztecs invented—a non-problem! They saw the sun crossing the sky everyday and thought “what would happen if it stopped doing that?” thus creating the problem of keeping the sun doing what it was doing anyway!
Get the humans involved
This is absolutely key. Most frustrating being asked to help out a project, showing up, and then given nothing to do. Give us something—anything! Hold a string, measure the doors, collect the receipts. As long as we are doing something (no matter how small) we feel as if we are “useful.”
The religion that dies on the vine is the one having a god which will do whatever it desires, regardless of human involvement. This is why religions (yes, even Christianity) always have the human doing something forcing an impact on the god.
Offer sacrifices of food to the Rain-God to make it rain. Offer sacrifices of blood to make the sun travel across the sky. Offer requests to ask the god to do something. Offer worship, offer virgins. Believe the right thing, preach the correct words, use the right “Holy Writing.” Every religion promulgates because it keeps the humans involved: “Do this thing, and god will respond favorably.”
The question, of course, is “Do what?” What is it that a god likes? The simplest solution is to imagine God is a great, big, human (with superpowers) so a God would like what a human likes! Humans like food—offer a god food. Humans like to be praised—offer the god praise. Humans like recognition—offer the god recognition through sacrifice. Humans like to be right—offer the god the “correct” belief. Every thing offered by a religion is something a human wants. (Because that is the only way we know how to relate—on human terms.)
Have you thought about how human-like the Christian God is? He requires “correct belief.” (Always in line with what this or that particular Christian is telling me.) Why? What if I am wrong? Dead, absolutely, couldn’t-be-any-more-wrong wrong? What is that to a God? A God who has lived an infinity and can make galaxies consisting of billions of exploding balls of gas, with orbiting rocks—and I blow this creature’s entire Monday by not thinking a certain way?
We really think such a creature cares? And why is this creature so all-consumed with worship? With receiving glory? So obsessed that (according to Christians) it will physically force everyone to bend their knee as a display of its awesomeness. If I am standing—does God cry? This creation of a God wants what the humans who created it want—recognition through power.
I confess it is difficult to take seriously the claims of how incomprehensible a Creator/God would be, and then be told how I, a human who will only live 80 years or so, can so outstandingly affect its thoughts, emotions, actions and desires. As if it must dance to my (or any other human) tune.
Our religion has created a resolution to the problem (a god) yet retained the human as a necessary part of the resolution to the problem. What happens when the problem continues?
Find blame for the problem continuing
See, even if we have the god to give the rain, and have the religion to tell the humans how to make the god give the rain—sometimes the rain doesn’t fall. This will need to be explained away, and we have a variety of tools available to us.
1) Accentuate the positive; completely ignore the negative.
If you pray for 10 people to get well, and one person does—point this out over (and over and over). If people hear it enough, they will only remember how you prayed about Bob and Bob got well. If they don’t hear it, they will forget you also prayed for Bill and Bo and Buff and Bono and Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate.
And don’t just passively wait for things to happen—point out the positive when you haven’t even done anything! I love how churches hold picnics in August and then “Thank God for the wonderful weather we have today, with no rain.” Their god was sitting in heaven, thinking about giving rain to the farmers who desperately need it for the crops, but then saw the First Baptist Church was having its annual picnic and without even being asked provided wonderful sunny weather. In August.
Thank your god for food. Or your job. Or your spouse. Or the building in which to meet. Or your friends. See how you can start to point out all the wonderful things happening to you that could ONLY have come from a benevolent god? Sure, other people have jobs, and spouses. Sure, other people just lost their job, or started divorce proceedings. But if we can ignore them, and continually point out how the god gave—it all seems so positive.
2) Blame the person.
One thing to be very careful is never committing to specifics within a religion. Don’t fall into the trap of saying, “If you place ten grapes and two watermelons on an oak stump at noon, god will provide 2 centimeters of rain on your entire property within 24 hours.” Oh, no. ‘Cause this would be disaster when the rain didn’t fall.
Always add a nebulous word or two allowing wiggle room, so we can blame the person. Remember Linus from Peanuts who always wanted to see “The Great Pumpkin”? Remember what “The Great Pumpkin” required? A sincere pumpkin patch. That’s a great word—“sincere”! This way, when The Great Pumpkin fails to make an appearance, we can claim poor Linus was not “sincere” enough. Easy to measure ten grapes and two watermelons. How does one measure “sincerity”?
I’m sure you can immediately see all the advantageous words, thoughts and phrases to explain away why god didn’t solve the problem through the religions’ mechanisms. Blame it on not having the right belief. Or not believing enough. Blame it on the person not exercising the tenets of the religions correctly. (I.e. “having sin.”) Blame it on the prayer, the prayee, or the pray itself.
Now we would say, “If you genuinely give ten grapes and two watermelons, with a humble heart, and a contrite spirit—no thought of your own selfish desires—god will provide the rain.” When the rain doesn’t happen we got “genuine” and “humble” and “heart” and “contrite” and “spirit” and “selfish desires”—all SORTS of words to point out how the person did it wrong, wrong, wrong!
Of course, if it only rains 1 centimeter—see One (1) above: accentuate that positive!
3) Create an enemy
Although not necessary, it is useful to manufacture an opponent to your god within your religion. It can be another god, or a very powerful monster, or a demi-god. The Christians conveniently have the Devil. (or “sin-nature”)
This way, when the expected results don’t occur, we can blame this other creature for cutting god off at the knees and “blocking” god from doing what god wants to do. “God wishes he could save everybody, but golly-gosh, that darn ‘sin-nature’ prevents him from doing so.”
Feel free to mix and match any of these three elements. Have the Devil block a person, because they had sin in their life, but at least God allowed them to eventually find employment—just not the job they wanted. See how easily that works?
Be exclusive!
Everybody likes a birthday. A day set aside when we are just a little bit different than everyone else in our life. A day we justify sleeping in, or relaxing, or buying something we don’t need because on that day we are special.
We all like the boss recognizing us. Pointing out how we are distinctive and exceptional as compared to the other employees. Or getting that special reward.
A religion can offer that. God likes you because you did it right. God DOESN’T like those other people, or that other (wrong) belief, or those other religions. They aren’t special—they are human-made fictions.
You get rewards; they will get punishments. You get heaven; they get hell. You get crowns of glory for YOUR accomplishments; they will get toasted tootsies for their failure to be special.
And there you have it. How to successfully create a religion. Identify the problem. Resolve the problem by requiring humans to do something. Rationalize the dilemma of the problem continuing. Emphasize how special all the followers are.
Christianity unique? In minor points—yes. But on the whole as a religion? Not hardly.
There is nothing about being “unique” or “different” which means something is correct. Answering the question, “What shape has only four equal straight lines and four equal angles?” with “a perpendicular purple parasite” is certainly unique. Yet clearly incorrect.
Curiously, we hear the exact opposite argument as well—that because some concept within Christianity is universally accepted, the fact it is NOT unique makes it true.
“Every society has morals.”
“Every society has a creation story” (or flood myth)
“The vast majority of people have always believed there is a god.”
When the occasion warrants, the Christian will embrace uniqueness as “proof” of the truth of Christianity, and (hardly taking a breath) will then claim its common themes demonstrate how it must be true. The reality is that ALL religions have particulars which make them unique, and ALL religions have a commonality.
When reviewing all religions, we can develop a blueprint by which to create our own.
Identify a Problem
Relatively easy—observe the world about us and see what most humans identify as a difficulty or something that needs to be improved. We see weather, and seasons with too little rain, or too much. A problem. A solution to this problem is creating a weather-god to control the problem.
We see humans desiring to hurt other humans. Create a god who imposes rules upon society. We want to impose OUR rules on other societies—include that requirement within one’s god. When creating a god, all bets are off—the sky is the limit. We can have our god do anything we want.
I like the “problem” the Aztecs invented—a non-problem! They saw the sun crossing the sky everyday and thought “what would happen if it stopped doing that?” thus creating the problem of keeping the sun doing what it was doing anyway!
Get the humans involved
This is absolutely key. Most frustrating being asked to help out a project, showing up, and then given nothing to do. Give us something—anything! Hold a string, measure the doors, collect the receipts. As long as we are doing something (no matter how small) we feel as if we are “useful.”
The religion that dies on the vine is the one having a god which will do whatever it desires, regardless of human involvement. This is why religions (yes, even Christianity) always have the human doing something forcing an impact on the god.
Offer sacrifices of food to the Rain-God to make it rain. Offer sacrifices of blood to make the sun travel across the sky. Offer requests to ask the god to do something. Offer worship, offer virgins. Believe the right thing, preach the correct words, use the right “Holy Writing.” Every religion promulgates because it keeps the humans involved: “Do this thing, and god will respond favorably.”
The question, of course, is “Do what?” What is it that a god likes? The simplest solution is to imagine God is a great, big, human (with superpowers) so a God would like what a human likes! Humans like food—offer a god food. Humans like to be praised—offer the god praise. Humans like recognition—offer the god recognition through sacrifice. Humans like to be right—offer the god the “correct” belief. Every thing offered by a religion is something a human wants. (Because that is the only way we know how to relate—on human terms.)
Have you thought about how human-like the Christian God is? He requires “correct belief.” (Always in line with what this or that particular Christian is telling me.) Why? What if I am wrong? Dead, absolutely, couldn’t-be-any-more-wrong wrong? What is that to a God? A God who has lived an infinity and can make galaxies consisting of billions of exploding balls of gas, with orbiting rocks—and I blow this creature’s entire Monday by not thinking a certain way?
We really think such a creature cares? And why is this creature so all-consumed with worship? With receiving glory? So obsessed that (according to Christians) it will physically force everyone to bend their knee as a display of its awesomeness. If I am standing—does God cry? This creation of a God wants what the humans who created it want—recognition through power.
I confess it is difficult to take seriously the claims of how incomprehensible a Creator/God would be, and then be told how I, a human who will only live 80 years or so, can so outstandingly affect its thoughts, emotions, actions and desires. As if it must dance to my (or any other human) tune.
Our religion has created a resolution to the problem (a god) yet retained the human as a necessary part of the resolution to the problem. What happens when the problem continues?
Find blame for the problem continuing
See, even if we have the god to give the rain, and have the religion to tell the humans how to make the god give the rain—sometimes the rain doesn’t fall. This will need to be explained away, and we have a variety of tools available to us.
1) Accentuate the positive; completely ignore the negative.
If you pray for 10 people to get well, and one person does—point this out over (and over and over). If people hear it enough, they will only remember how you prayed about Bob and Bob got well. If they don’t hear it, they will forget you also prayed for Bill and Bo and Buff and Bono and Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate.
And don’t just passively wait for things to happen—point out the positive when you haven’t even done anything! I love how churches hold picnics in August and then “Thank God for the wonderful weather we have today, with no rain.” Their god was sitting in heaven, thinking about giving rain to the farmers who desperately need it for the crops, but then saw the First Baptist Church was having its annual picnic and without even being asked provided wonderful sunny weather. In August.
Thank your god for food. Or your job. Or your spouse. Or the building in which to meet. Or your friends. See how you can start to point out all the wonderful things happening to you that could ONLY have come from a benevolent god? Sure, other people have jobs, and spouses. Sure, other people just lost their job, or started divorce proceedings. But if we can ignore them, and continually point out how the god gave—it all seems so positive.
2) Blame the person.
One thing to be very careful is never committing to specifics within a religion. Don’t fall into the trap of saying, “If you place ten grapes and two watermelons on an oak stump at noon, god will provide 2 centimeters of rain on your entire property within 24 hours.” Oh, no. ‘Cause this would be disaster when the rain didn’t fall.
Always add a nebulous word or two allowing wiggle room, so we can blame the person. Remember Linus from Peanuts who always wanted to see “The Great Pumpkin”? Remember what “The Great Pumpkin” required? A sincere pumpkin patch. That’s a great word—“sincere”! This way, when The Great Pumpkin fails to make an appearance, we can claim poor Linus was not “sincere” enough. Easy to measure ten grapes and two watermelons. How does one measure “sincerity”?
I’m sure you can immediately see all the advantageous words, thoughts and phrases to explain away why god didn’t solve the problem through the religions’ mechanisms. Blame it on not having the right belief. Or not believing enough. Blame it on the person not exercising the tenets of the religions correctly. (I.e. “having sin.”) Blame it on the prayer, the prayee, or the pray itself.
Now we would say, “If you genuinely give ten grapes and two watermelons, with a humble heart, and a contrite spirit—no thought of your own selfish desires—god will provide the rain.” When the rain doesn’t happen we got “genuine” and “humble” and “heart” and “contrite” and “spirit” and “selfish desires”—all SORTS of words to point out how the person did it wrong, wrong, wrong!
Of course, if it only rains 1 centimeter—see One (1) above: accentuate that positive!
3) Create an enemy
Although not necessary, it is useful to manufacture an opponent to your god within your religion. It can be another god, or a very powerful monster, or a demi-god. The Christians conveniently have the Devil. (or “sin-nature”)
This way, when the expected results don’t occur, we can blame this other creature for cutting god off at the knees and “blocking” god from doing what god wants to do. “God wishes he could save everybody, but golly-gosh, that darn ‘sin-nature’ prevents him from doing so.”
Feel free to mix and match any of these three elements. Have the Devil block a person, because they had sin in their life, but at least God allowed them to eventually find employment—just not the job they wanted. See how easily that works?
Be exclusive!
Everybody likes a birthday. A day set aside when we are just a little bit different than everyone else in our life. A day we justify sleeping in, or relaxing, or buying something we don’t need because on that day we are special.
We all like the boss recognizing us. Pointing out how we are distinctive and exceptional as compared to the other employees. Or getting that special reward.
A religion can offer that. God likes you because you did it right. God DOESN’T like those other people, or that other (wrong) belief, or those other religions. They aren’t special—they are human-made fictions.
You get rewards; they will get punishments. You get heaven; they get hell. You get crowns of glory for YOUR accomplishments; they will get toasted tootsies for their failure to be special.
And there you have it. How to successfully create a religion. Identify the problem. Resolve the problem by requiring humans to do something. Rationalize the dilemma of the problem continuing. Emphasize how special all the followers are.
Christianity unique? In minor points—yes. But on the whole as a religion? Not hardly.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Balance
We see “balance” as a good thing; a goal worthy to be achieved. The “right” thing to do. The Statue of Justice holds a scale in her left hand. The scale is…balanced.
I attended a seminar on jury trials, and the speaker indicated studies showed jurors reacted negatively to the question (commonly asked) “Can you be fair and impartial?” The implication perceived was that the lawyer thought the juror could not be “fair and impartial”—and who wants to think that? The recommended question was “Can you be balanced?”—inquiring whether they can “weigh” the evidence.
Since balance is a good, worthy goal; the opposite of balance—imbalance—is reprehensible. An injustice to be avoided and disparaged. I see people claiming they are not pushing for their agenda, or desiring their particular viewpoint prevail. Oh no—they are performing a much higher calling—a service to humankind. They are only desiring “balance.”
The other day I was listening to Dr. Albert Mohler discuss the recent California decision to allow same sex marriage, and the media attention surrounding the first marriages allowed. Dr. Mohler’s complaint was the focus on the human side of the story. The tales of couples who had been together for a long, long time and could finally be married. He was concerned the media was not presenting any depiction from the viewpoint of those against same-sex marriage. And how this was another step in the complete unraveling of our society.
I was interested in how he framed his concern. “The media is not being balanced in their presentation of the story.”
Balanced. “How horribly wicked of the media to be imbalanced,” I thought, “I am against imbalance. We must rise as one and rid ourselves of the evil of imbalance from the media failing to present Dr. Mohler’s point of view.” As I was gathering my pitchfork, club and torch in preparation to advance on my local newspaper, it struck me—where is it written the media has to be balanced? And what does “balanced” even mean in presenting an issue?
Does every story require the newspaper or television or radio present the Christian view and the non-Christian view? And the Jewish view? And the Muslim view? And the view of the people from Nebraska? And the people with tattoos? Imagine the attempt to present a “balanced” view of all representations on an event. It would take 12 hours to cover all the editorials on a 2-alarm fire!
Humorously, Dr. Mohler was speaking through a medium of media—satellite radio. I wonder what would happen if I called his radio show and said, “You didn’t present the non-theist position accurately. Please give me a five minute rebuttal everyday.” Would Dr. Mohler proclaim, “Oh yes. Because I hold ‘balance in the media’ in such high ideal, this is absolutely necessary”? Or would he discover he was not quite so interested in “balance” after all?
Or what if I asked my local church to teach a class from a non-theistic standpoint on the Bible? We discover (rightly so) the church is not so interested nor designed to be “balanced.” It is presenting a decidedly one-sided view.
As it turns out—we are NOT so interested in balance. Let you in on a not-so-secret secret. The absolutely last thing I want is a “balanced” jury. I want a jury so inclined to be favorable to me, they are simply aching to render a verdict on behalf of my client by the time I have finished my opening statement.
I don’t want the politicians I vote for to be “balanced.” I want them to make laws in support of viewpoints I hold. Not surprisingly, I expect Christians equally do not want “balanced” politicians—they, too, want lawmakers and judges favorable disposed toward their Christian standpoint.
I don’t expect news agencies to be “balanced.” Anyone who compares the same story on CNN with FOX will quickly discover how easy it is to put spin on an event. Sometimes I wonder if the reporters were at the same occurrence! These are companies intent on doing what companies do—make a profit. This is not some “higher institution” with lofty goals and sacred trusts of being “balanced.” These are businesses making money.
Don’t try and sell me that you are looking out for the best interests of humans under the guise of “being balanced.” That you are not upset at the lack of your viewpoint being represented, but are perturbed over the injustice of imbalance. Don’t couch the dissatisfaction with the noble self-congratulatory claim of just wanting balance.
Because you might find you get what you wished for. And what church would want Dr. Dawkins giving a rebuttal every Sunday?
I attended a seminar on jury trials, and the speaker indicated studies showed jurors reacted negatively to the question (commonly asked) “Can you be fair and impartial?” The implication perceived was that the lawyer thought the juror could not be “fair and impartial”—and who wants to think that? The recommended question was “Can you be balanced?”—inquiring whether they can “weigh” the evidence.
Since balance is a good, worthy goal; the opposite of balance—imbalance—is reprehensible. An injustice to be avoided and disparaged. I see people claiming they are not pushing for their agenda, or desiring their particular viewpoint prevail. Oh no—they are performing a much higher calling—a service to humankind. They are only desiring “balance.”
The other day I was listening to Dr. Albert Mohler discuss the recent California decision to allow same sex marriage, and the media attention surrounding the first marriages allowed. Dr. Mohler’s complaint was the focus on the human side of the story. The tales of couples who had been together for a long, long time and could finally be married. He was concerned the media was not presenting any depiction from the viewpoint of those against same-sex marriage. And how this was another step in the complete unraveling of our society.
I was interested in how he framed his concern. “The media is not being balanced in their presentation of the story.”
Balanced. “How horribly wicked of the media to be imbalanced,” I thought, “I am against imbalance. We must rise as one and rid ourselves of the evil of imbalance from the media failing to present Dr. Mohler’s point of view.” As I was gathering my pitchfork, club and torch in preparation to advance on my local newspaper, it struck me—where is it written the media has to be balanced? And what does “balanced” even mean in presenting an issue?
Does every story require the newspaper or television or radio present the Christian view and the non-Christian view? And the Jewish view? And the Muslim view? And the view of the people from Nebraska? And the people with tattoos? Imagine the attempt to present a “balanced” view of all representations on an event. It would take 12 hours to cover all the editorials on a 2-alarm fire!
Humorously, Dr. Mohler was speaking through a medium of media—satellite radio. I wonder what would happen if I called his radio show and said, “You didn’t present the non-theist position accurately. Please give me a five minute rebuttal everyday.” Would Dr. Mohler proclaim, “Oh yes. Because I hold ‘balance in the media’ in such high ideal, this is absolutely necessary”? Or would he discover he was not quite so interested in “balance” after all?
Or what if I asked my local church to teach a class from a non-theistic standpoint on the Bible? We discover (rightly so) the church is not so interested nor designed to be “balanced.” It is presenting a decidedly one-sided view.
As it turns out—we are NOT so interested in balance. Let you in on a not-so-secret secret. The absolutely last thing I want is a “balanced” jury. I want a jury so inclined to be favorable to me, they are simply aching to render a verdict on behalf of my client by the time I have finished my opening statement.
I don’t want the politicians I vote for to be “balanced.” I want them to make laws in support of viewpoints I hold. Not surprisingly, I expect Christians equally do not want “balanced” politicians—they, too, want lawmakers and judges favorable disposed toward their Christian standpoint.
I don’t expect news agencies to be “balanced.” Anyone who compares the same story on CNN with FOX will quickly discover how easy it is to put spin on an event. Sometimes I wonder if the reporters were at the same occurrence! These are companies intent on doing what companies do—make a profit. This is not some “higher institution” with lofty goals and sacred trusts of being “balanced.” These are businesses making money.
Don’t try and sell me that you are looking out for the best interests of humans under the guise of “being balanced.” That you are not upset at the lack of your viewpoint being represented, but are perturbed over the injustice of imbalance. Don’t couch the dissatisfaction with the noble self-congratulatory claim of just wanting balance.
Because you might find you get what you wished for. And what church would want Dr. Dawkins giving a rebuttal every Sunday?
Friday, June 13, 2008
Loser
I hate losing. This does not come as a large surprise. Oh, I don’t mind losing in a backyard game of volleyball—those are for the fun anyway. Or a game of cards with the kids.
I hate losing in court. With a passion. Experience has shown me—there are times I will lose. Sure, times when I win. Victories I can croon about. Yet there are times I lose, too.
See, every case or motion or hearing brought to a judge or jury will have a decision. And that decision will be for one side or the other. There is always a winner; always a loser. No one likes to hear a judge say, “I heard your side and was not persuaded by it. I am deciding you are wrong.” No one expects the loser to walk out the door yelling, “Yippee! I just learned a valuable lesson that I will remember for the rest of my life!” We appreciate the loser doesn’t like or agree with the decision. Goes without saying.
Yesterday, as you probably know, the United States Supreme Court rendered its third decision regarding the Guantanamo Bay Detainees in Boumediene v Bush. (Warning: PDF file.) Boumediene held, in simplest form, that the detainees had the right to pursue a writ of habeas corpus through the Federal courts.
Not that they would win. Not that they are entitled to be set freedom. The ONLY issue ruled upon was the detainees had the right to have access to the court to have their case heard.
When looked at in that light, doesn’t seem like much, does it? Simply the right to be heard? What is surprising, if you look at the legal history laid out, as to how hard it has been to even get this far. The detainees each brought a case of writ of habeas corpus (literally “You have the Body”) which is a test of the legality of the detention or imprisonment. Again, understand in each of these cases the government most likely has substantial evidence to support detaining these individuals and would likely prevail. This is NOT a claim to release the prisoners. This is NOT a trial as to the guilt or innocence of the individuals. This is merely a claim in which the government must show sufficient reason as to why these individuals are being detained. That’s it.
Initially the Federal District court dismissed the claim, stating it had no sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay. No Jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit court agreed on appeal. The Supreme Court disagreed, however, in Rasul v Bush noting Federal Law (28 USC 2241) extended habeas jurisdiction over Guantanamo Bay.
The Republican Congress understood what to do—amend the Law! (28 USC 2241). And guess what the new amendment said? It explicitly stated “no court…shall have jurisdiction…to hear an application for habeas corpus filed…by or on behalf of an alien detained . . . at Guantanamo.” Showed that uppity Court what to do! If the Supreme Court thought this law gave those detainees the right to have access to the court, then change the law.
Again, the Supreme Court in Hamdan v Rumsfield ruled that the amendment was inapplicable to these cases, as it was enacted AFTER the writs were filed. (We abhor ex post facto laws—laws done after the fact. Making what you did yesterday illegal and then charging you for doing it!)
Congress, no dummy, amended the law again to state no writ of habeas corpus was available to “enemy combatants” (no longer detainees), and again were confident they had prohibited these individuals access to the courts.
In yesterday’s decision, the Supreme Court held, despite this new designation of “enemy combatant” the detainees are still allowed the right of access to the court to see if they are being detained illegally. It has taken six years.
I was shocked at President Bush’s reaction to this ruling. He said, "We will abide by the court's decision. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it." The first sentence is fine. It is what he must do as President—uphold the Constitution. It is why we instituted and have the checks-and-balance three branches of government. So that when the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, the Executive branch enforces that interpretation.
The second sentence was more troubling. Yes, we know President Bush doesn’t agree with it. We understand President Bush would have tortured, maimed and shot the detainees by now. To hell with what the citizens or the rest of the world thought of it. We understand he felt like a loser.
I freely support George W. Bush as a private citizen proclaiming to the world what he doesn’t agree with. He can tell us he is so upset he wishes the court was hog-tied and chicken-feathered. But as my President (as little as that is) I want to hear him say he will abide by the Court’s decision and SHUT UP! Who is the President of the United States to agree or not agree with the decision? It is his job to start enforcing the law—not liking it or disliking it.
President Bush went on, “It was a deeply divided court. And I strongly agree with those who dissented and that dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security." Again, no problem with the first sentence. (Although “deeply” is a bit over the top.) Again, the second sentence was unnecessary.
We know you agreed with the dissenting opinion. You just said you disagreed with the majority opinion. Doesn’t take a genius IQ to figure out which one you agree with. What was more troubling, though, was that emphasis on “U.S. national security.”
I have no doubt the dissenting Justices have serious concerns about U.S. national security. I strongly suspect the majority Justices do as well. But understand—their job is NOT about U.S. national security! It is about interpreting the United States Constitution and protecting the rights enumerated therein!
I am stuck with a President who holds his interpretation of National Security Interest over all other interests. He doesn’t care about the economy. He doesn’t care about natural disasters. He doesn’t care about foreign relations, governments, social issues. He cares about killing Muslim terrorists.
President Bush doesn’t know what an 8th Grade Government class graduate does. Thank goodness the United States Supreme Court, despite the whine of the President as to what their focus should be, ignored him and performed their duty—follow the Constitution.
Amusingly, President Bush stated his staff would study the ruling: "We'll do this with this in mind — to determine whether or not additional legislation might be appropriate so we can safely say to the American people, 'We're doing everything we can to protect you.'"
Good luck. He has tried it twice with his Republican Congress, and each time the Supreme Court stuck to its job. Now that the Congress no longer holds a Republican majority, it is doubtful this law will be changed. For the third time.
Mr. President, I know you are genuinely doing everything you can to protect me from terrorists. Thank you. But the United States Supreme Court is doing everything they can to protect me from your complete abrogation of rights under the Constitution. Thank AND bless them for it!
I hate losing in court. With a passion. Experience has shown me—there are times I will lose. Sure, times when I win. Victories I can croon about. Yet there are times I lose, too.
See, every case or motion or hearing brought to a judge or jury will have a decision. And that decision will be for one side or the other. There is always a winner; always a loser. No one likes to hear a judge say, “I heard your side and was not persuaded by it. I am deciding you are wrong.” No one expects the loser to walk out the door yelling, “Yippee! I just learned a valuable lesson that I will remember for the rest of my life!” We appreciate the loser doesn’t like or agree with the decision. Goes without saying.
Yesterday, as you probably know, the United States Supreme Court rendered its third decision regarding the Guantanamo Bay Detainees in Boumediene v Bush. (Warning: PDF file.) Boumediene held, in simplest form, that the detainees had the right to pursue a writ of habeas corpus through the Federal courts.
Not that they would win. Not that they are entitled to be set freedom. The ONLY issue ruled upon was the detainees had the right to have access to the court to have their case heard.
When looked at in that light, doesn’t seem like much, does it? Simply the right to be heard? What is surprising, if you look at the legal history laid out, as to how hard it has been to even get this far. The detainees each brought a case of writ of habeas corpus (literally “You have the Body”) which is a test of the legality of the detention or imprisonment. Again, understand in each of these cases the government most likely has substantial evidence to support detaining these individuals and would likely prevail. This is NOT a claim to release the prisoners. This is NOT a trial as to the guilt or innocence of the individuals. This is merely a claim in which the government must show sufficient reason as to why these individuals are being detained. That’s it.
Initially the Federal District court dismissed the claim, stating it had no sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay. No Jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit court agreed on appeal. The Supreme Court disagreed, however, in Rasul v Bush noting Federal Law (28 USC 2241) extended habeas jurisdiction over Guantanamo Bay.
The Republican Congress understood what to do—amend the Law! (28 USC 2241). And guess what the new amendment said? It explicitly stated “no court…shall have jurisdiction…to hear an application for habeas corpus filed…by or on behalf of an alien detained . . . at Guantanamo.” Showed that uppity Court what to do! If the Supreme Court thought this law gave those detainees the right to have access to the court, then change the law.
Again, the Supreme Court in Hamdan v Rumsfield ruled that the amendment was inapplicable to these cases, as it was enacted AFTER the writs were filed. (We abhor ex post facto laws—laws done after the fact. Making what you did yesterday illegal and then charging you for doing it!)
Congress, no dummy, amended the law again to state no writ of habeas corpus was available to “enemy combatants” (no longer detainees), and again were confident they had prohibited these individuals access to the courts.
In yesterday’s decision, the Supreme Court held, despite this new designation of “enemy combatant” the detainees are still allowed the right of access to the court to see if they are being detained illegally. It has taken six years.
I was shocked at President Bush’s reaction to this ruling. He said, "We will abide by the court's decision. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it." The first sentence is fine. It is what he must do as President—uphold the Constitution. It is why we instituted and have the checks-and-balance three branches of government. So that when the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, the Executive branch enforces that interpretation.
The second sentence was more troubling. Yes, we know President Bush doesn’t agree with it. We understand President Bush would have tortured, maimed and shot the detainees by now. To hell with what the citizens or the rest of the world thought of it. We understand he felt like a loser.
I freely support George W. Bush as a private citizen proclaiming to the world what he doesn’t agree with. He can tell us he is so upset he wishes the court was hog-tied and chicken-feathered. But as my President (as little as that is) I want to hear him say he will abide by the Court’s decision and SHUT UP! Who is the President of the United States to agree or not agree with the decision? It is his job to start enforcing the law—not liking it or disliking it.
President Bush went on, “It was a deeply divided court. And I strongly agree with those who dissented and that dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security." Again, no problem with the first sentence. (Although “deeply” is a bit over the top.) Again, the second sentence was unnecessary.
We know you agreed with the dissenting opinion. You just said you disagreed with the majority opinion. Doesn’t take a genius IQ to figure out which one you agree with. What was more troubling, though, was that emphasis on “U.S. national security.”
I have no doubt the dissenting Justices have serious concerns about U.S. national security. I strongly suspect the majority Justices do as well. But understand—their job is NOT about U.S. national security! It is about interpreting the United States Constitution and protecting the rights enumerated therein!
I am stuck with a President who holds his interpretation of National Security Interest over all other interests. He doesn’t care about the economy. He doesn’t care about natural disasters. He doesn’t care about foreign relations, governments, social issues. He cares about killing Muslim terrorists.
President Bush doesn’t know what an 8th Grade Government class graduate does. Thank goodness the United States Supreme Court, despite the whine of the President as to what their focus should be, ignored him and performed their duty—follow the Constitution.
Amusingly, President Bush stated his staff would study the ruling: "We'll do this with this in mind — to determine whether or not additional legislation might be appropriate so we can safely say to the American people, 'We're doing everything we can to protect you.'"
Good luck. He has tried it twice with his Republican Congress, and each time the Supreme Court stuck to its job. Now that the Congress no longer holds a Republican majority, it is doubtful this law will be changed. For the third time.
Mr. President, I know you are genuinely doing everything you can to protect me from terrorists. Thank you. But the United States Supreme Court is doing everything they can to protect me from your complete abrogation of rights under the Constitution. Thank AND bless them for it!
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Idioms
My youngest daughter (age 8) has a delightful mind which looks at the world just a bit differently. She comes up with some interesting thoughts. (She was the one who wondered, in the story of the Feeding of the Five Thousand what the people drank, and came up with the solution they must have gotten water out of the “fish guts.”)
One of my favorite stories to tell happened about two years ago as I walked by her room. I spotted her standing--arms overflowing with about every stuffed animal she owned. On one hand the fingers were drumming; her face had a look of intense concentration. (The tongue peeking out of the corner of her mouth.)
Me: Honey—what’s wrong?
Daughter: Mom told me to pick up all of my stuffed animals, but didn’t tell me what to do next!
Or another tale. My family often plays “I Spy” in restaurants while waiting for our food.
Daughter: I spy with my little eye…a goat.
Family: [after searching frantically for five minutes] O.K. We give up. Where is it?
Daughter: [triumphant] Right over there.
Me: [again after searching] I’m sorry, honey, I still don’t see it.
Daughter: [even more proud at her “win”] THAT’s because it is in the shape of a frog!
At the end of this school year we were treated with a fat notebook full of stories written or dictated by my daughter. One of the projects involved the teacher starting an Idiom, and then having the child finish the rest. Here is the world of phrases through the eyes of an 8-year-old:
“Strike while the…Rake is raking up leaves.”
“What’s good for the goose, is good for the…water we need to drink.”
“You can’t teach an old dog new…tricks like ‘go get it.’”
“A penny saved is…a penny spent.”
“Children should be seen and not…hurt other children.”
“It is better to be safe than…sorry about lying.”
“While the cat’s away…you can buy a scratching post.”
“Where there’s a will there’s a…way to make it right.”
“Necessity is…needing water and food.”
“People who live in glass houses…will get hurt.”
One of my favorite stories to tell happened about two years ago as I walked by her room. I spotted her standing--arms overflowing with about every stuffed animal she owned. On one hand the fingers were drumming; her face had a look of intense concentration. (The tongue peeking out of the corner of her mouth.)
Me: Honey—what’s wrong?
Daughter: Mom told me to pick up all of my stuffed animals, but didn’t tell me what to do next!
Or another tale. My family often plays “I Spy” in restaurants while waiting for our food.
Daughter: I spy with my little eye…a goat.
Family: [after searching frantically for five minutes] O.K. We give up. Where is it?
Daughter: [triumphant] Right over there.
Me: [again after searching] I’m sorry, honey, I still don’t see it.
Daughter: [even more proud at her “win”] THAT’s because it is in the shape of a frog!
At the end of this school year we were treated with a fat notebook full of stories written or dictated by my daughter. One of the projects involved the teacher starting an Idiom, and then having the child finish the rest. Here is the world of phrases through the eyes of an 8-year-old:
“Strike while the…Rake is raking up leaves.”
“What’s good for the goose, is good for the…water we need to drink.”
“You can’t teach an old dog new…tricks like ‘go get it.’”
“A penny saved is…a penny spent.”
“Children should be seen and not…hurt other children.”
“It is better to be safe than…sorry about lying.”
“While the cat’s away…you can buy a scratching post.”
“Where there’s a will there’s a…way to make it right.”
“Necessity is…needing water and food.”
“People who live in glass houses…will get hurt.”
Friday, June 06, 2008
Will you Date Me?
The Tanakh is precise about dates. It places its story within a specific time frame, by reference to events, ages, persons, etc. I understand the Old Earth Creationism claim which lengthens the time within Genesis One to beyond a 7-day week of 24 hour days. But once Adam appears, how does the OEC get around the fact the Tanakh gives a precise history, placing Adam at the most at 6000 BCE?
How much allegory can be read into numbers? How can anyone reading the Bible conform it to the evidence of humans existing before 6000 BCE? (I am always puzzled at the concept of Old Earth Creationists who accept science as “trumping” Genesis One regarding the age of the earth, but deny science “trumping” the Bible when it comes to cosmology or evolution. How did they pick one over the other?)
For some time I have wanted to go through the Tanakh to see how precise a dating system we can have, and I was given a reason to do so on a thread elsewhere. It was interesting enough. The easiest way to do this is to work backwards.
926 BCE – Shishak (also known as Pharaoh Shoshenq) attacks Rehoboam. (1 Kings 14:25-28; 2 Chron 12:1-12) Rohl has attempted (unsuccessfully) to claim this was, in fact, Ramesses II, not Shoshenq, which would move the date of this attack back by about 300 years. Rohl calls this a “New Chronology.” The problem with Rohl’s claim, is that Assyrian King Lists, as well as other histories, align with the current Egyptian chronology. In order to modify it, we also have to introduce, wiggle, wrestle and create elaborate possible explanations and wild theories to resolve the other histories. The simplest explanation, rather than turn the world upside down to somehow make the Bible align, is that this was Shoshenq. The vast predominance of Bible scholars agree.
931 BCE – Since the attack of Shishak occurred five years into Rehoboam’s reign, this would be the first year of Rehoboam and the last year of King Solomon.
971 BCE – Solomon starts to reign [He reigned for 40 years.] (1 Kings 11:42). Four years into his reign (967 BCE) he began to build the first temple. This is critical, because this date gives us our jumping off point to cover the time of David, Saul, Judges, Joshua and Exodus. We make a large leap back in time at this point.
1447 BCE – Exodus from Egypt. 1 Kings 6:1 says Solomon began to build the temple 480 years after the people left Egypt. The Septuagint says 440 years. (For the moment, I will use the Masoretic Texts) Adding 480 years to 967 BCE gives us 1447 BCE.*
*An anomaly. Paul claims in Galatians 3:17 the law was given 430 years after the covenant was made with Abraham. Abraham was 75 at the time of the covenant, (Gen. 12:1-4) which we will soon see was 2092 BCE. This would place the Exodus at 1662 BCE. I have seen on my internet travels, when apologists want to play funny with the dates, rather than use the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1, they work around Abraham and Paul to move the date of the Exodus. I have not seen this contradiction addressed head-on.
1877 BCE – Jacob enters Egypt with his family. Exodus 12:40-41 says this was 430 years prior to the Exodus, fixing us to this particular date. It also conforms to the four hundred years predicted by God in Gen. 15:13-16**
**Anomaly Two. Exodus 6:16-20. We have the genealogy of Levi (son of Jacob) -> Kohath -> Amram -> Moses. Levi lived to be 137, Kohath 133, and Amram 137. However, Joseph was at least 30 (probably older) when the family moved to Egypt, and Levi was his older brother, so the most conservative age would have Levi being 31 when the family moved to Egypt. Adding all the time: Levi [137], Kohat [133], Amram [137] and Moses up to the time the people left [80], subtracting the time Levi did not live in Egypt [-31] puts us at 457 years. Close to the 430 years, true? But this would mean each of the individuals had their sons very, very late in life. All of them would have to be over 100 years old.
At the moment we have a date certain (1877 BCE) to work backwards from. The method of doing so is simple. Jacob was 130 years old when he entered Egypt. (Gen. 47:9) Therefore we can determine the year he was born. 1877 BCE + 130 years = 2007 BCE. We are told Isaac was 60 years old when he had Jacob. (Gen. 25:26; Gen. 35:28-29) Now we can calculate the year Isaac was born. 2007 BCE + 60 years = 2067 BCE.
With the simple process we can progress backward and use the age of the fathers at the time of the birth to calculate the year the father was born. Where were we? Ah, yes—Isaac.
2067 BCE – Isaac Born.
2167 BCE – Abraham Born. (He was 100 when Isaac was Born. Gen 21:5; 25:7)
2237 BCE – Terah Born (Gen 11:26; 11:32)
2266 BCE – Nahor Born (Gen. 11:24-25)
2296 BCE – Serug Born (Gen. 11:22-23)
2328 BCE – Reu Born (Gen. 11:20-21
2358 BCE – Peleg Born (Gen. 11:18-19)
2392 BCE – Eber Born (Gen. 11:16-17)
Eber named Peleg because of the Great Divide. The Tower of Babel. (Gen. 10:25). This would place the event of the Tower of Babel between 2392 BCE (Eber’s birth) and 2358 BCE (naming of Peleg).
2422 BCE – Salah Born. (Gen. 11:14-15)
2457 BCE – Arphaxad Born (Gen. 11:12-13)***
***Another Anomaly. According to Luke 3:36, a fellow named “Cainen” is inserted between Salah and Arphaxad. P75, one of the earliest manuscripts we have of Luke does not have Cainen. Further, Josephus, in his similar genealogy in Antiquities 1.6.5 does not have Cainen. Curious.
2459 BCE – Flood (Gen. 10:10-11)
2557 BCE – Shem Born (Gen. 11:10-11; 5:32)
3059 BCE – Noah Born. (Gen. 9:29)
Interesting to see Noah lived 950 years, or from 3059 BCE to 2109 BCE. Notice Noah was alive at the time of the Tower of Babel!
3241 BCE – Lamech (Gen. 5:28-31)
3428 BCE – Methuselah (Gen. 5:25-27)
Methuselah. Oldest recorded living person in the Tanakh at 969 years of age. 3428 BCE – 969 years = 2459 BCE. Year of the Flood. Coincidence?
3493 BCE – Enoch (Gen 5:21-24)
3655 BCE – Jared (Gen. 5:18-20)
3720 BCE – Mahalalel (Gen. 5:15-17)
3790 BCE – Cainen (Gen. 5:12-14)
3880 BCE – Enosh (Gen. 5:9-11)
3985 BCE – Seth (Gen. 5:6-8)
4115 BCE – Adam (Gen. 5:3-5)
It is simple math. Calculated from agreed upon dates within history. How can the Bible be read any what BUT humans first appeared only a few millennium ago? And the flood spoken of was in 2500 BCE?
One common apologetic you may come across in this area is the claim “When the Jews wrote genealogies, they would ‘skip’ a generation. The word ‘begat’ does not necessarily mean a direct ancestor and the words ‘son of’ do not necessarily mean a direct ancestor.” The most common example utilized is the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1.
Matthew 1:1 states, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.” As we know Jesus was not the actual son of David, nor David the actual son of Abraham; this would seem to support the apologetic. However, the problem is that this is an introduction—not a specific genealogy. In fact, to demonstrate the point, the author immediate launches into a genealogy which clearly indicates the intended linage.
Within the genealogy itself, though, the author definitely engages in some generation-skipping. Matthew 1:8-9 only has “Joram -> Uzziah -> Jotham “ whereas 1 Chron. 3:11-12 has “Joram -> Uzziah (Ahaziah) -> Joash -> Amaziah -> Azariah -> Jotham.” Apparently the author missed a few! This is further complicated by the fact the author states he is grouping the genealogy in three (3) sets of 14, (Matt. 1:17). Did the author deliberately cut out a few in order to maintain this magic number? [Only to have a later copyist blow it anyway. If you count the names, there are only 41, demonstrating some copyist left one out!]
We see generation skipping in this genealogy. No question. Yet we also see a stated purpose for doing so (keeping the number to 14.) What was the stated purpose of the authors of the Genesis genealogies to skip generations?
Secondly, I have not found any demonstration it was common practice to skip generations in other genealogies. It should be mildly noted this is a circular argument:
1. We know it was common practice to skip generations because the Bible author does.
2. The Bible author skips generations because it was common practice to do so.
Thirdly—the one that puts a fork in it—these genealogies give very specific ages. Even if there WAS generation-skipping—it doesn’t change the numbers!
Assume, for an instant, the genealogy stated, “Abe begat Charles.” The apologist could claim, under this generation-skipping theory, the possibility of inserting “Bob” between “Abe” and “Charles—thus lengthening the time indicated. In fact, the apologist can insert “Bob,” “Bob, Jr.,” “Bob the III” and so on, and claim that “Abe begat Charles” was a period of 1000’s of years with hundreds of “Bob’s” in-between.
But that is not what we have. No, what WE have is “Abe begat Charles when Abe was 34.” A period of 34 years between Charles’ birth and Abe’s birth. If you want to insert a skipped generation—go ahead. It will still only be 34 years! We could insert “Bob” as follows: “Abe begat [Bob who begat] Charles when Abe was 34.” See how old Abe is? Still 34! See how many years have passed? 34.
This argument completely fails to understand that inserting generations doesn’t help it one bit, due to the specificity of numbers.
Since nothing is straightforward in Biblical studies, mention must be made about the Septuagint. A Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh which was complied some time in the Third Century BCE. The Septuagint has numerous ages within these genealogies where it adds 100 years to the age of the father. For example, instead of saying Adam had Seth at 130 years of age, the Septuagint states Adam was 230. Instead of Seth being 105, the Septuagint says 205. Enosh is 190 instead of 90 and so on.
There has been no cogent explanation for this seemingly arbitrary adding of 100 years. No explanation of translation issues, or even textual errors. I suspect the translators were already seeing the problem of placing history so close, especially with greater contact amongst foreign histories, and decided to lengthen the time as best they could. Even by adding 100 years, though, due to the limited number of people, at best this totals approximately 1400 years, placing Adam to 5500 BCE.
I am curious how Old Earth Creationists explain these dates. Was God s-l-o-w-l-y developing the earth and then… BAM! Hits it with humans 8000 years ago? Or do we not only analogize “days” to mean “millions and millions of years” in Genesis One, but start analogizing the humans listed? The genealogies? Those years?
The authors of Genesis’ intentions are clear. They thought humans had only been around for a short period of time. They were wrong. How much more could they be wrong about?
How much allegory can be read into numbers? How can anyone reading the Bible conform it to the evidence of humans existing before 6000 BCE? (I am always puzzled at the concept of Old Earth Creationists who accept science as “trumping” Genesis One regarding the age of the earth, but deny science “trumping” the Bible when it comes to cosmology or evolution. How did they pick one over the other?)
For some time I have wanted to go through the Tanakh to see how precise a dating system we can have, and I was given a reason to do so on a thread elsewhere. It was interesting enough. The easiest way to do this is to work backwards.
926 BCE – Shishak (also known as Pharaoh Shoshenq) attacks Rehoboam. (1 Kings 14:25-28; 2 Chron 12:1-12) Rohl has attempted (unsuccessfully) to claim this was, in fact, Ramesses II, not Shoshenq, which would move the date of this attack back by about 300 years. Rohl calls this a “New Chronology.” The problem with Rohl’s claim, is that Assyrian King Lists, as well as other histories, align with the current Egyptian chronology. In order to modify it, we also have to introduce, wiggle, wrestle and create elaborate possible explanations and wild theories to resolve the other histories. The simplest explanation, rather than turn the world upside down to somehow make the Bible align, is that this was Shoshenq. The vast predominance of Bible scholars agree.
931 BCE – Since the attack of Shishak occurred five years into Rehoboam’s reign, this would be the first year of Rehoboam and the last year of King Solomon.
971 BCE – Solomon starts to reign [He reigned for 40 years.] (1 Kings 11:42). Four years into his reign (967 BCE) he began to build the first temple. This is critical, because this date gives us our jumping off point to cover the time of David, Saul, Judges, Joshua and Exodus. We make a large leap back in time at this point.
1447 BCE – Exodus from Egypt. 1 Kings 6:1 says Solomon began to build the temple 480 years after the people left Egypt. The Septuagint says 440 years. (For the moment, I will use the Masoretic Texts) Adding 480 years to 967 BCE gives us 1447 BCE.*
*An anomaly. Paul claims in Galatians 3:17 the law was given 430 years after the covenant was made with Abraham. Abraham was 75 at the time of the covenant, (Gen. 12:1-4) which we will soon see was 2092 BCE. This would place the Exodus at 1662 BCE. I have seen on my internet travels, when apologists want to play funny with the dates, rather than use the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1, they work around Abraham and Paul to move the date of the Exodus. I have not seen this contradiction addressed head-on.
1877 BCE – Jacob enters Egypt with his family. Exodus 12:40-41 says this was 430 years prior to the Exodus, fixing us to this particular date. It also conforms to the four hundred years predicted by God in Gen. 15:13-16**
**Anomaly Two. Exodus 6:16-20. We have the genealogy of Levi (son of Jacob) -> Kohath -> Amram -> Moses. Levi lived to be 137, Kohath 133, and Amram 137. However, Joseph was at least 30 (probably older) when the family moved to Egypt, and Levi was his older brother, so the most conservative age would have Levi being 31 when the family moved to Egypt. Adding all the time: Levi [137], Kohat [133], Amram [137] and Moses up to the time the people left [80], subtracting the time Levi did not live in Egypt [-31] puts us at 457 years. Close to the 430 years, true? But this would mean each of the individuals had their sons very, very late in life. All of them would have to be over 100 years old.
At the moment we have a date certain (1877 BCE) to work backwards from. The method of doing so is simple. Jacob was 130 years old when he entered Egypt. (Gen. 47:9) Therefore we can determine the year he was born. 1877 BCE + 130 years = 2007 BCE. We are told Isaac was 60 years old when he had Jacob. (Gen. 25:26; Gen. 35:28-29) Now we can calculate the year Isaac was born. 2007 BCE + 60 years = 2067 BCE.
With the simple process we can progress backward and use the age of the fathers at the time of the birth to calculate the year the father was born. Where were we? Ah, yes—Isaac.
2067 BCE – Isaac Born.
2167 BCE – Abraham Born. (He was 100 when Isaac was Born. Gen 21:5; 25:7)
2237 BCE – Terah Born (Gen 11:26; 11:32)
2266 BCE – Nahor Born (Gen. 11:24-25)
2296 BCE – Serug Born (Gen. 11:22-23)
2328 BCE – Reu Born (Gen. 11:20-21
2358 BCE – Peleg Born (Gen. 11:18-19)
2392 BCE – Eber Born (Gen. 11:16-17)
Eber named Peleg because of the Great Divide. The Tower of Babel. (Gen. 10:25). This would place the event of the Tower of Babel between 2392 BCE (Eber’s birth) and 2358 BCE (naming of Peleg).
2422 BCE – Salah Born. (Gen. 11:14-15)
2457 BCE – Arphaxad Born (Gen. 11:12-13)***
***Another Anomaly. According to Luke 3:36, a fellow named “Cainen” is inserted between Salah and Arphaxad. P75, one of the earliest manuscripts we have of Luke does not have Cainen. Further, Josephus, in his similar genealogy in Antiquities 1.6.5 does not have Cainen. Curious.
2459 BCE – Flood (Gen. 10:10-11)
2557 BCE – Shem Born (Gen. 11:10-11; 5:32)
3059 BCE – Noah Born. (Gen. 9:29)
Interesting to see Noah lived 950 years, or from 3059 BCE to 2109 BCE. Notice Noah was alive at the time of the Tower of Babel!
3241 BCE – Lamech (Gen. 5:28-31)
3428 BCE – Methuselah (Gen. 5:25-27)
Methuselah. Oldest recorded living person in the Tanakh at 969 years of age. 3428 BCE – 969 years = 2459 BCE. Year of the Flood. Coincidence?
3493 BCE – Enoch (Gen 5:21-24)
3655 BCE – Jared (Gen. 5:18-20)
3720 BCE – Mahalalel (Gen. 5:15-17)
3790 BCE – Cainen (Gen. 5:12-14)
3880 BCE – Enosh (Gen. 5:9-11)
3985 BCE – Seth (Gen. 5:6-8)
4115 BCE – Adam (Gen. 5:3-5)
It is simple math. Calculated from agreed upon dates within history. How can the Bible be read any what BUT humans first appeared only a few millennium ago? And the flood spoken of was in 2500 BCE?
One common apologetic you may come across in this area is the claim “When the Jews wrote genealogies, they would ‘skip’ a generation. The word ‘begat’ does not necessarily mean a direct ancestor and the words ‘son of’ do not necessarily mean a direct ancestor.” The most common example utilized is the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1.
Matthew 1:1 states, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.” As we know Jesus was not the actual son of David, nor David the actual son of Abraham; this would seem to support the apologetic. However, the problem is that this is an introduction—not a specific genealogy. In fact, to demonstrate the point, the author immediate launches into a genealogy which clearly indicates the intended linage.
Within the genealogy itself, though, the author definitely engages in some generation-skipping. Matthew 1:8-9 only has “Joram -> Uzziah -> Jotham “ whereas 1 Chron. 3:11-12 has “Joram -> Uzziah (Ahaziah) -> Joash -> Amaziah -> Azariah -> Jotham.” Apparently the author missed a few! This is further complicated by the fact the author states he is grouping the genealogy in three (3) sets of 14, (Matt. 1:17). Did the author deliberately cut out a few in order to maintain this magic number? [Only to have a later copyist blow it anyway. If you count the names, there are only 41, demonstrating some copyist left one out!]
We see generation skipping in this genealogy. No question. Yet we also see a stated purpose for doing so (keeping the number to 14.) What was the stated purpose of the authors of the Genesis genealogies to skip generations?
Secondly, I have not found any demonstration it was common practice to skip generations in other genealogies. It should be mildly noted this is a circular argument:
1. We know it was common practice to skip generations because the Bible author does.
2. The Bible author skips generations because it was common practice to do so.
Thirdly—the one that puts a fork in it—these genealogies give very specific ages. Even if there WAS generation-skipping—it doesn’t change the numbers!
Assume, for an instant, the genealogy stated, “Abe begat Charles.” The apologist could claim, under this generation-skipping theory, the possibility of inserting “Bob” between “Abe” and “Charles—thus lengthening the time indicated. In fact, the apologist can insert “Bob,” “Bob, Jr.,” “Bob the III” and so on, and claim that “Abe begat Charles” was a period of 1000’s of years with hundreds of “Bob’s” in-between.
But that is not what we have. No, what WE have is “Abe begat Charles when Abe was 34.” A period of 34 years between Charles’ birth and Abe’s birth. If you want to insert a skipped generation—go ahead. It will still only be 34 years! We could insert “Bob” as follows: “Abe begat [Bob who begat] Charles when Abe was 34.” See how old Abe is? Still 34! See how many years have passed? 34.
This argument completely fails to understand that inserting generations doesn’t help it one bit, due to the specificity of numbers.
Since nothing is straightforward in Biblical studies, mention must be made about the Septuagint. A Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh which was complied some time in the Third Century BCE. The Septuagint has numerous ages within these genealogies where it adds 100 years to the age of the father. For example, instead of saying Adam had Seth at 130 years of age, the Septuagint states Adam was 230. Instead of Seth being 105, the Septuagint says 205. Enosh is 190 instead of 90 and so on.
There has been no cogent explanation for this seemingly arbitrary adding of 100 years. No explanation of translation issues, or even textual errors. I suspect the translators were already seeing the problem of placing history so close, especially with greater contact amongst foreign histories, and decided to lengthen the time as best they could. Even by adding 100 years, though, due to the limited number of people, at best this totals approximately 1400 years, placing Adam to 5500 BCE.
I am curious how Old Earth Creationists explain these dates. Was God s-l-o-w-l-y developing the earth and then… BAM! Hits it with humans 8000 years ago? Or do we not only analogize “days” to mean “millions and millions of years” in Genesis One, but start analogizing the humans listed? The genealogies? Those years?
The authors of Genesis’ intentions are clear. They thought humans had only been around for a short period of time. They were wrong. How much more could they be wrong about?
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
The Shark Bible
“But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!” Shark 5:15.
We often hear the complaint about the God of the gaps. Within discussions surrounding the development of the universe, or the evolution of biological life, the cringe at the cry of “Goddidit.” Yet I see this spill over into other areas of discussion—the same reliance of inserting and asserting a god to bolster a claim.
The other day, listening to Christian Radio, I heard the enthusiastic claim, “Without God there is no way to put value on human life. Humans have as much value as an apple or a blade of grass.” How is whether there is a god or not modify value of humanity from our perspective? What is the great gauge in the sky that tells us of relative worth, and the pointer indicting how humans fall on the scale?
I see theists wrestling with the same issues of determining the value of lives, and instead of coming to grips with how to do that, flatly state, “There is a god. And my god values human life,” swish their hands together and think they somehow made an argument. Simply asserting a god exists and then imposing what you think value should be upon your god does not an argument make.
As humans, it is somewhat easy to have another human agree with us the human species has value. Talk about preaching to the choir! It is almost intrinsic we agree our own kind has worth, because we believe in our own worth. Yet go outside of our species, and convince them of your value!
Imagine being in the water with a great white shark, and convincing it you have value. The only value you have to a shark is as a meal. (Not what we have in mind when we use the term “value,” is it!) A shark may convince another shark that their species has worth, but when it comes to the human species in the water, we are lower on the food chain.
If the sharks had a god, and the sharks had a Bible, it would proclaim the value of sharks. The sharks’ god would value sharks’ lives.
How do we determine “value” when it comes to biological species? “Value” is a compared worth of good within the market place. A baseball is worth a coupla bucks. A baseball signed by Babe Ruth is worth a great deal more. Each is just a baseball; one is even smudged with someone writing on it. In our marketplace we “value” that ink smudge more than 15,000 brand-new unsmudged baseballs.
When it comes to species, though, this because a far greater difficulty. What is a human compared to a flower? What if the flower contained an element which cured all cancer? What is a human compared to two humans? Or three humans? Even within our own species we manage to devaluate other humans. Think of war—we are willing to kill the soldiers for the other side, consider them “less value” than keeping our comrades alive.
We are willing to kill 10’s of 1,000’s of civilians in war to protect ourselves. In the marketplace of value, we consider our own citizenry of higher value to protect than the citizenry of another country.
Even if a god exists; it is not informing us as to value. For all we know, it does consider sharks more valuable. They’ve been around longer, and haven’t yet found the need to evolve. Sure, they don’t have opposable thumbs…but with those teeth and that speed—how needs thumbs?
We can see how people throughout history have used “Goddidit” to justify devaluing others. The Aztecs would offer captives as sacrifices to continue the sun on its course. The life of the captive was worth less than the lives of the captor. The Jews devalued those living on land they wanted, and boldly proclaimed it was God who had made the value determination. (Deut. 20:17-19). However, if the Jews wanted…say…some female virgins—their God (coincidentally, we are sure) did a role reversal and ordered them to value the female virgins. Not the little boys or the already married, of course. (Numbers 31)
The authors of the New Testament considered the teachings of females of less value than that of males. Lo and behold, their God did too! (1 Tim. 2:12) Over and over, we observe this technique: 1) Assert a God, 2) Make the God value what you want to value.
Christians would like to claim humans have value because of their God, yet even that brings struggle. What has more value to a Christian: life or a soul? If a person died, yet their soul was saved, many Christians would consider a soul of higher value than life. What has more value to a Christian: human life or God’s glory? Many Christians would claim the ultimate value was the glory of God. God could kill a human to demonstrate his Glory, and a Christian would have to say this has more value. (Rom. 9:20-24)
So why DO we value other humans? Whether you like it or not, I think it is a matter of similarity. We value other humans because they are similar to us, and we consider ourselves to have value. If we were sharks, we would likewise consider other sharks to have more worth.
This translates to relations among humans as well. Think about it, right now some 19-year-old kid is aiming his rifle at another 19-year-old kid. Each has brothers, sisters, parents, friends. Each considers themselves of value. Each is willing to kill the other. Why? Because the other 19-year-old is more dissimilar than the kid’s parents, family, country members, etc. It matters not which side of the battlefield we spot this kid—each is willing to kill the other out of the same dissimilarity.
Using a god to get one off the hook of attempting to make these decisions doesn’t work anymore. God hasn’t given us a value system, and those who don’t believe in a God see you are only using God to impose your own values.
We often hear the complaint about the God of the gaps. Within discussions surrounding the development of the universe, or the evolution of biological life, the cringe at the cry of “Goddidit.” Yet I see this spill over into other areas of discussion—the same reliance of inserting and asserting a god to bolster a claim.
The other day, listening to Christian Radio, I heard the enthusiastic claim, “Without God there is no way to put value on human life. Humans have as much value as an apple or a blade of grass.” How is whether there is a god or not modify value of humanity from our perspective? What is the great gauge in the sky that tells us of relative worth, and the pointer indicting how humans fall on the scale?
I see theists wrestling with the same issues of determining the value of lives, and instead of coming to grips with how to do that, flatly state, “There is a god. And my god values human life,” swish their hands together and think they somehow made an argument. Simply asserting a god exists and then imposing what you think value should be upon your god does not an argument make.
As humans, it is somewhat easy to have another human agree with us the human species has value. Talk about preaching to the choir! It is almost intrinsic we agree our own kind has worth, because we believe in our own worth. Yet go outside of our species, and convince them of your value!
Imagine being in the water with a great white shark, and convincing it you have value. The only value you have to a shark is as a meal. (Not what we have in mind when we use the term “value,” is it!) A shark may convince another shark that their species has worth, but when it comes to the human species in the water, we are lower on the food chain.
If the sharks had a god, and the sharks had a Bible, it would proclaim the value of sharks. The sharks’ god would value sharks’ lives.
How do we determine “value” when it comes to biological species? “Value” is a compared worth of good within the market place. A baseball is worth a coupla bucks. A baseball signed by Babe Ruth is worth a great deal more. Each is just a baseball; one is even smudged with someone writing on it. In our marketplace we “value” that ink smudge more than 15,000 brand-new unsmudged baseballs.
When it comes to species, though, this because a far greater difficulty. What is a human compared to a flower? What if the flower contained an element which cured all cancer? What is a human compared to two humans? Or three humans? Even within our own species we manage to devaluate other humans. Think of war—we are willing to kill the soldiers for the other side, consider them “less value” than keeping our comrades alive.
We are willing to kill 10’s of 1,000’s of civilians in war to protect ourselves. In the marketplace of value, we consider our own citizenry of higher value to protect than the citizenry of another country.
Even if a god exists; it is not informing us as to value. For all we know, it does consider sharks more valuable. They’ve been around longer, and haven’t yet found the need to evolve. Sure, they don’t have opposable thumbs…but with those teeth and that speed—how needs thumbs?
We can see how people throughout history have used “Goddidit” to justify devaluing others. The Aztecs would offer captives as sacrifices to continue the sun on its course. The life of the captive was worth less than the lives of the captor. The Jews devalued those living on land they wanted, and boldly proclaimed it was God who had made the value determination. (Deut. 20:17-19). However, if the Jews wanted…say…some female virgins—their God (coincidentally, we are sure) did a role reversal and ordered them to value the female virgins. Not the little boys or the already married, of course. (Numbers 31)
The authors of the New Testament considered the teachings of females of less value than that of males. Lo and behold, their God did too! (1 Tim. 2:12) Over and over, we observe this technique: 1) Assert a God, 2) Make the God value what you want to value.
Christians would like to claim humans have value because of their God, yet even that brings struggle. What has more value to a Christian: life or a soul? If a person died, yet their soul was saved, many Christians would consider a soul of higher value than life. What has more value to a Christian: human life or God’s glory? Many Christians would claim the ultimate value was the glory of God. God could kill a human to demonstrate his Glory, and a Christian would have to say this has more value. (Rom. 9:20-24)
So why DO we value other humans? Whether you like it or not, I think it is a matter of similarity. We value other humans because they are similar to us, and we consider ourselves to have value. If we were sharks, we would likewise consider other sharks to have more worth.
This translates to relations among humans as well. Think about it, right now some 19-year-old kid is aiming his rifle at another 19-year-old kid. Each has brothers, sisters, parents, friends. Each considers themselves of value. Each is willing to kill the other. Why? Because the other 19-year-old is more dissimilar than the kid’s parents, family, country members, etc. It matters not which side of the battlefield we spot this kid—each is willing to kill the other out of the same dissimilarity.
Using a god to get one off the hook of attempting to make these decisions doesn’t work anymore. God hasn’t given us a value system, and those who don’t believe in a God see you are only using God to impose your own values.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Soccer Parents
Stereotypes are often based on reality. There is a great deal of truth in the Soccer Mom stereotype of constant transportation from school to home to practice to home to games to home to training to…all the while in a Mini-van sufficient loaded with snacks, Gatorade (the 2000’s answer to Kool-Aid), and with some (but not all) of your own children and some (but not all) of your friends’ children.
The schedule might modify. The Mini-Van might be an SUV. But the basic creature is the same. This is the person who works relentless throughout the week. When the father comes home bushed from working and is ready to relax after a “hard day’s work,” the mother has just punched in for her evening shift after already working the morning, mid-morning, afternoon and late-afternoon duty.
But on the weekend the Soccer Father comes out. This is the guy who is 50-100 pounds overweight yelling at his son/daughter to “Suck it up! Run harder! You aren’t out of energy!” Or who is convinced he knows the rules better than the referee and was blessed with eagle vision, giving him the ability to clearly see that forward was 2.2 centimeters offside and the fact the referee missed such an obvious call may require an after-game lynching. The Soccer Father knows coaching better than the coach.
Things I have heard from Soccer Fathers:
“Get up! This isn’t a spectator sport!” (His daughter was still cart wheeling in the air after being leg-swept.)
“JESUS FUCKING CHRIST! That was the THIRD time you crossed the line! Don’t you have any God DAMNED SENSE?!” (The boy was 9.)
“Take that player out!” (As in “cause him some injury.”)
“Your kid got what he deserved!” (To the other player down on the ground.)
And of course the famous—“No Call! No Call!” meaning the trip should be ignored, equally followed by the “Where is the Call?!” meaning the trip on our team must be whistled.
Not all Soccer Mothers or Soccer Fathers are like this, obviously. As one referee put it to us this past weekend, “There is one on every team.” Often it is only one. Yet the one that shows up is always…interesting.
Together we are Soccer Parents. As Soccer Parents we interact with other Soccer Parents. We see each other and chat about this team or that. This coach, or this player. We may be in the same league and playing each other on Saturday, but Sunday – Friday we are as pleasant and polite and happy as can be.
However on Game day we develop a completely different relationship with the other team’s Parents. They are “those” parents. We sit on our side. They sit on theirs. In-betwixt exits an imaginary line which is only rarely crossed, and never breached. We may occasionally nod to the other parents. Speaking feels like a concession to the enemy.
We are aghast when the “other” Soccer Parents dare question a call in our favor. We are equally aghast when the “other” Soccer Parents don’t see how the next call should never have gone against us. Our Parents yell “encouragement.” The “others” yell criticism.
The reality? There could be a mirror on that in-between line. We are really looking at ourselves. On Monday those parents are taking their sons and daughters to soccer/ballet/competitive horse racing. So are we. They hurt when their children hurt. So do we. They yell just like we yell.
Yet on game day—when we are at war—we treat those most like us as the enemy.
The schedule might modify. The Mini-Van might be an SUV. But the basic creature is the same. This is the person who works relentless throughout the week. When the father comes home bushed from working and is ready to relax after a “hard day’s work,” the mother has just punched in for her evening shift after already working the morning, mid-morning, afternoon and late-afternoon duty.
But on the weekend the Soccer Father comes out. This is the guy who is 50-100 pounds overweight yelling at his son/daughter to “Suck it up! Run harder! You aren’t out of energy!” Or who is convinced he knows the rules better than the referee and was blessed with eagle vision, giving him the ability to clearly see that forward was 2.2 centimeters offside and the fact the referee missed such an obvious call may require an after-game lynching. The Soccer Father knows coaching better than the coach.
Things I have heard from Soccer Fathers:
“Get up! This isn’t a spectator sport!” (His daughter was still cart wheeling in the air after being leg-swept.)
“JESUS FUCKING CHRIST! That was the THIRD time you crossed the line! Don’t you have any God DAMNED SENSE?!” (The boy was 9.)
“Take that player out!” (As in “cause him some injury.”)
“Your kid got what he deserved!” (To the other player down on the ground.)
And of course the famous—“No Call! No Call!” meaning the trip should be ignored, equally followed by the “Where is the Call?!” meaning the trip on our team must be whistled.
Not all Soccer Mothers or Soccer Fathers are like this, obviously. As one referee put it to us this past weekend, “There is one on every team.” Often it is only one. Yet the one that shows up is always…interesting.
Together we are Soccer Parents. As Soccer Parents we interact with other Soccer Parents. We see each other and chat about this team or that. This coach, or this player. We may be in the same league and playing each other on Saturday, but Sunday – Friday we are as pleasant and polite and happy as can be.
However on Game day we develop a completely different relationship with the other team’s Parents. They are “those” parents. We sit on our side. They sit on theirs. In-betwixt exits an imaginary line which is only rarely crossed, and never breached. We may occasionally nod to the other parents. Speaking feels like a concession to the enemy.
We are aghast when the “other” Soccer Parents dare question a call in our favor. We are equally aghast when the “other” Soccer Parents don’t see how the next call should never have gone against us. Our Parents yell “encouragement.” The “others” yell criticism.
The reality? There could be a mirror on that in-between line. We are really looking at ourselves. On Monday those parents are taking their sons and daughters to soccer/ballet/competitive horse racing. So are we. They hurt when their children hurt. So do we. They yell just like we yell.
Yet on game day—when we are at war—we treat those most like us as the enemy.
Friday, May 23, 2008
I, Robot
Jon, over at Evangelical Agnosticism provided me with a vivid flashback from my years in Christian youth groups—the Revival.
Every so often, at least yearly, we would have a special speaker come in for a week-long session of Bible study. The speaker was touted as being especially designed for teenagers, with the appropriate accolades regarding all the places he (sorry—no females allowed) had been, or how many lives he had touched, or the size of the venues in which he had spoken.
Most of these came and went with nary a response. A shrug. A “meh.” Back to our life routines. Once in a while—once in a great while—we would have one cause Revival! How or why no one could explain. Perhaps it was on mere teenage whimsy.
At every occasion there was such a speaker you could count on one or two teens feeling the renewal of the spirit, and stepping forward with a sparked interest of re-dedicating their life to Christ. It was always the same two teens. And they went back to being the same people in a matter of days. However, when Revival happened, after the standard teens went forward, more and more and more would pour in the aisles, going up front, confessing their sins, and getting back on the high for Jesus.
One such revival happened when I was in 8th or 9th grade. I hate programmed emotional response. I dislike doing things simply because the crowd about me does it. And I knew that was exactly what this was—an emotional compulsion, with a fear of exclusion. It is one thing when one teenager goes forward and 59 stay in their seats. But when 40 go forward, all of a sudden the 20 left are the minority. The ones being left out.
The worst thing for a teenager is to be “left out.” There is some sort of balance, undetectable, when the impetus swings the other way. When it goes from “those going forward are ‘left out.’” to “those staying behind are ‘left out.’”
We weathered the sobbing, the confessions, the prayer groups, the exclamations, the vows, and the speaker moved on to the next town—pleased to add one more notch to his accolades. (Do I need to say we all returned to our normal teenage selves within a week? I do not.)
The following Sunday, right before the service, our Pastor approached me (He was the father of one of my best friends.)
Pastor: I hear you kids had quite a week of revival.
Me: Uh…yeah. I guess so.
Pastor: I want you to speak to the crowd. Tell ‘em what happened. Tell ‘em how your life has changed because of this week.
My palms went instantly sweaty. I hadn’t gone forward. I hadn’t been part of the sobbing, etc. The Pastor presumed I must have been. (Who wouldn’t want to be part of a Revival? Who would want to be “left out”?) But this was my Pastor. My friend’s dad. An adult I saw at least 3-5 times a week!
Me: [gulp] O…….kay….. [gulp]
Now I had about 10 minutes to think up something to say. Part of my problem is that I wasn’t that bad of a kid. I didn’t have much to confess. I didn’t go to movies; I didn’t play cards; I didn’t cheat; I didn’t have the teenage political power to do any of the cool things the cool kids did; I didn’t drink alcohol. No smoking, no pot, no drugs. Heck, I didn’t wear blue jeans!
I hadn’t murdered, I hadn’t pillaged a village. The closest thing I had come to sex was being repulsed by my girlfriend for daring to attempt to French kiss her.
One thing you must know—despite these teenagers being in the throws of emotional ecstasy, and the competition to confess sins—we were smart enough to not confess too much or too little. Confessing to not putting money in the offering plate which your parents had given you was…too minimal. Confessing to stealing money from the offering plate would forever brand you as a thief. You might get away with something in-between--confessing swiping a candy bar from a store. (But you had to follow up with how it made you feel so guilty, you didn’t enjoy a single bite and threw away half of it, and later went back to the store and put money in the jar for homeless kids to make up for it.)
You never confessed to sex. The closest thing we would hear might be someone saying they went “too far” with their girlfriend/boyfriend. The term “too far” was never explicitly defined, nor examined, and was left for the hearer’s imagination as to what “too far” could possibly mean. Never confess to pornography. Serial murders read pornography. You’d be slapped into a mental institution so fast your head would spin.
Okay to confess to alcohol/smoking if you say only did it once. And didn’t like it. Not good to confess to anything harder than that. Even pot might result in drug rehab.
So we all played this little role of confessing “correctly”—enough so we could see it was a “real” change in the person’s life—not enough to land you in any permanent or serious trouble. Cussing was a good middle ground, too.
I now had about five minutes to come up with some “safe” middle ground that the audience would cluck their tongues disapprovingly, yet not permanently ostracize me. What to say; what to confess to? Poor “Rock ‘n Roll” got the chop. I found myself, at age 13 or 14, standing in front of what seemed like a terrifying audience of 1-2 Billion people (probably 250 or so), confessing to listening to the “devil’s music” and vowing to never do so again.
The people simultaneously frowned in disapproval for the sin while nodding their heads in approval for the repentance (an art we master), and I had managed the gauntlet. Not too much sin; not too little. Goldilocks and I had found “Juuuust Right.”
Obviously I went right back to listening to Rock ‘n Roll (careful, kiddies. In my day this meant the Bee Gees. Perhaps that WAS the devil’s music!), which was not a difficult feat, considering I never gave it up. One particular parent hounded me for years—reminding me how I had stood up in front of the whole church and vowed to never listen to that awful music, and why was I listening to it now?
How does one say they felt coerced into confessing something? One doesn’t.
Yet as we continued to grow up out of the teenage years…we didn’t. Even as adults, the sins being shared were in that safe middle ground. No one confessed to having an affair (even though we knew it was happening.) No one confessed to stupid little sins like flipping off the driver who cut us off.
We picked safe middle grounds. “Impure thoughts”—undefined, unexplained, but universally understood. “Not being loving enough”—again, safe. Like robots, we never showed too much emotion, never showed too much error, certainly never showed too much sin.
The ones who never confessed to gossip (but should have) would have a field day if we dared confess to anything horrible.
And we have developed of generation of “middle sin” Christians. Christians who never commit the gross atrocities, but never solely sin the light ones. It has become accepted practice for Christians to accept other Christians who are committing these “middle sins.” As if this is what a de facto Christian is—a robot with some minor malfunctions which occasionally need tinkering.
Do you know why people cannot tell the non-theists in the crowd? Because for so long Christians have acted like humans there IS no difference. Just like Christians, we atheists commit these “middle sins.” Sure there is an occasional non-theist who commits an atrocity. Sex as a teenager. So, too, Christians. An occasional non-theist who is better than most. So, too, Christians.
The failure of Christianity does not stop at the lack of proof. The failure of Christianity is confirmed by the lack of moral difference. With or without a god-belief; we look the same.
Every so often, at least yearly, we would have a special speaker come in for a week-long session of Bible study. The speaker was touted as being especially designed for teenagers, with the appropriate accolades regarding all the places he (sorry—no females allowed) had been, or how many lives he had touched, or the size of the venues in which he had spoken.
Most of these came and went with nary a response. A shrug. A “meh.” Back to our life routines. Once in a while—once in a great while—we would have one cause Revival! How or why no one could explain. Perhaps it was on mere teenage whimsy.
At every occasion there was such a speaker you could count on one or two teens feeling the renewal of the spirit, and stepping forward with a sparked interest of re-dedicating their life to Christ. It was always the same two teens. And they went back to being the same people in a matter of days. However, when Revival happened, after the standard teens went forward, more and more and more would pour in the aisles, going up front, confessing their sins, and getting back on the high for Jesus.
One such revival happened when I was in 8th or 9th grade. I hate programmed emotional response. I dislike doing things simply because the crowd about me does it. And I knew that was exactly what this was—an emotional compulsion, with a fear of exclusion. It is one thing when one teenager goes forward and 59 stay in their seats. But when 40 go forward, all of a sudden the 20 left are the minority. The ones being left out.
The worst thing for a teenager is to be “left out.” There is some sort of balance, undetectable, when the impetus swings the other way. When it goes from “those going forward are ‘left out.’” to “those staying behind are ‘left out.’”
We weathered the sobbing, the confessions, the prayer groups, the exclamations, the vows, and the speaker moved on to the next town—pleased to add one more notch to his accolades. (Do I need to say we all returned to our normal teenage selves within a week? I do not.)
The following Sunday, right before the service, our Pastor approached me (He was the father of one of my best friends.)
Pastor: I hear you kids had quite a week of revival.
Me: Uh…yeah. I guess so.
Pastor: I want you to speak to the crowd. Tell ‘em what happened. Tell ‘em how your life has changed because of this week.
My palms went instantly sweaty. I hadn’t gone forward. I hadn’t been part of the sobbing, etc. The Pastor presumed I must have been. (Who wouldn’t want to be part of a Revival? Who would want to be “left out”?) But this was my Pastor. My friend’s dad. An adult I saw at least 3-5 times a week!
Me: [gulp] O…….kay….. [gulp]
Now I had about 10 minutes to think up something to say. Part of my problem is that I wasn’t that bad of a kid. I didn’t have much to confess. I didn’t go to movies; I didn’t play cards; I didn’t cheat; I didn’t have the teenage political power to do any of the cool things the cool kids did; I didn’t drink alcohol. No smoking, no pot, no drugs. Heck, I didn’t wear blue jeans!
I hadn’t murdered, I hadn’t pillaged a village. The closest thing I had come to sex was being repulsed by my girlfriend for daring to attempt to French kiss her.
One thing you must know—despite these teenagers being in the throws of emotional ecstasy, and the competition to confess sins—we were smart enough to not confess too much or too little. Confessing to not putting money in the offering plate which your parents had given you was…too minimal. Confessing to stealing money from the offering plate would forever brand you as a thief. You might get away with something in-between--confessing swiping a candy bar from a store. (But you had to follow up with how it made you feel so guilty, you didn’t enjoy a single bite and threw away half of it, and later went back to the store and put money in the jar for homeless kids to make up for it.)
You never confessed to sex. The closest thing we would hear might be someone saying they went “too far” with their girlfriend/boyfriend. The term “too far” was never explicitly defined, nor examined, and was left for the hearer’s imagination as to what “too far” could possibly mean. Never confess to pornography. Serial murders read pornography. You’d be slapped into a mental institution so fast your head would spin.
Okay to confess to alcohol/smoking if you say only did it once. And didn’t like it. Not good to confess to anything harder than that. Even pot might result in drug rehab.
So we all played this little role of confessing “correctly”—enough so we could see it was a “real” change in the person’s life—not enough to land you in any permanent or serious trouble. Cussing was a good middle ground, too.
I now had about five minutes to come up with some “safe” middle ground that the audience would cluck their tongues disapprovingly, yet not permanently ostracize me. What to say; what to confess to? Poor “Rock ‘n Roll” got the chop. I found myself, at age 13 or 14, standing in front of what seemed like a terrifying audience of 1-2 Billion people (probably 250 or so), confessing to listening to the “devil’s music” and vowing to never do so again.
The people simultaneously frowned in disapproval for the sin while nodding their heads in approval for the repentance (an art we master), and I had managed the gauntlet. Not too much sin; not too little. Goldilocks and I had found “Juuuust Right.”
Obviously I went right back to listening to Rock ‘n Roll (careful, kiddies. In my day this meant the Bee Gees. Perhaps that WAS the devil’s music!), which was not a difficult feat, considering I never gave it up. One particular parent hounded me for years—reminding me how I had stood up in front of the whole church and vowed to never listen to that awful music, and why was I listening to it now?
How does one say they felt coerced into confessing something? One doesn’t.
Yet as we continued to grow up out of the teenage years…we didn’t. Even as adults, the sins being shared were in that safe middle ground. No one confessed to having an affair (even though we knew it was happening.) No one confessed to stupid little sins like flipping off the driver who cut us off.
We picked safe middle grounds. “Impure thoughts”—undefined, unexplained, but universally understood. “Not being loving enough”—again, safe. Like robots, we never showed too much emotion, never showed too much error, certainly never showed too much sin.
The ones who never confessed to gossip (but should have) would have a field day if we dared confess to anything horrible.
And we have developed of generation of “middle sin” Christians. Christians who never commit the gross atrocities, but never solely sin the light ones. It has become accepted practice for Christians to accept other Christians who are committing these “middle sins.” As if this is what a de facto Christian is—a robot with some minor malfunctions which occasionally need tinkering.
Do you know why people cannot tell the non-theists in the crowd? Because for so long Christians have acted like humans there IS no difference. Just like Christians, we atheists commit these “middle sins.” Sure there is an occasional non-theist who commits an atrocity. Sex as a teenager. So, too, Christians. An occasional non-theist who is better than most. So, too, Christians.
The failure of Christianity does not stop at the lack of proof. The failure of Christianity is confirmed by the lack of moral difference. With or without a god-belief; we look the same.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Get Yer Tokens Here!
“Jesus loves the little Children,
“All the Children of the World.
“Red and Yellow, Black and White;
“They are Precious in His sight.
“Jesus loves the little Children of the World.
This was a regular song cycled through our repertoire as Sunday School attendees. The tune was catchy; the words simple; the memory firmly ingrained. It could even be illustrated by a flannel graph of Jesus looking passively down on one (1) “red” children in full Native American garb, one (1) “yellow” oriental child in straw hat and kimono, one (1) “black” child in full African dress, and one (1) Midwestern child in non-descript Midwestern clothes. (In case you were too thick to get the point of the song.)
[For those of you heathens who never went to Sunday School, if you wonder why Flannel Graph Jesus wasn’t smiling at the kiddies, it was because Flannel Graph Jesus NEVER smiled. He had three looks—Disapproval (vs. the Pharisees), Disappointment (vs. the Disciples) and Tolerance (vs. Women or Children or General Audience.)]
Which is kinda funny, considering it was a large group comprised solely of extremely Caucasian, Middle America Children. The closest thing we came to “red” was playing Cowboys & Indians; to “yellow” was slideshows from missionaries; and our entire township had one (1) token African-American family. Since they weren’t Baptist (apparently)--not represented in our Sunday School either.
Growing up in a Conservative Church environment, we learned what “token” meant. Our churches had one, maybe two African-American families. The token representation. Maybe one oriental family. Another group represented. Native Americans? Rarer than hen’s teeth, but you could still find a few. Not a large minority—oh my no!
Yet what always cracked me up was when any racial discussion came about, we would hear people within my social group exclaim the old adage, “Some of my best friends are black!” (Evidently that one family had a LOT of best friends!) As if this exclamation gave the person a pardon against the possibility of being prejudice.
One of my friends made a keen observation. “You want to know if you have African-American friends? Ask yourself this simple question—when is the last time you ate dinner at an African-American home? How many times in the past five (ten?) years have you done so?” That will answer the question post-haste!
The reason I bring this up is that I am observing a new phenomena of this old trend. “Some of my best friends are homosexuals.” Or “Some of the best relationships I see are among homosexuals.” But I am seeing this from people who then go on (and on and on) about how homosexual acts are SIN, and homosexuals should NOT be allowed to marry, and how homosexuality is tearing apart the very fabric of our society to the point we will no longer be able to function. (O.K., that last is a bit hyperbolic. Sorta.)
And I have to wonder where they are getting all these homosexual friends? Are they the same black friends my social group claimed to have? Because I have no homosexual friends. None. Nada. Zip.
But that shouldn’t be a surprise—look at my social upbringing. My friends were conservative Christians. We socialized with people who would make homosexuals extremely uncomfortable. “Gay” was a derogatory term in my social group. We socialized at events in which homosexuality would be ostracized.
I grew up in a social environment that deliberately and consciously excluded homosexuals. Oh, some of my classmates and associates may have been homosexuals; I am not referring to people who were forced to hide their same sex attraction, or considered such an attraction a sin and something to be avoided.
I am talking about a person who recognized themselves as homosexual, and accepted it. No—no such persons would be welcome within my group. At the very end of my gamily holding on to Christianity, the topic of homosexuality came up in our Sunday School. The teacher was trotting out the tired line of “Love the sinner; hate the sin” and expounding upon how our church would be welcoming to homosexuals.
I (being me) challenged that observation. I pointed out how uncomfortable the members would make them feel, and how the attitude against homosexuality oozed from almost every pore of almost every person. The teacher argued with me that the church folk could disguise their disgust (not exactly his words, mind you) and welcome them with open arms.
At this point the pastor quietly spoke up and said, “Let’s be honest. If two guys came to church holding hands, do you really think they would ever want to come back here?” The room grew silent.
I don’t have gay friends. My former friends (‘cause we hung around the same people) do not have gay friends. I have never eaten dinner in a home of two homosexual people living together. Never.
I am uniquely UNqualified to make any statement such as “some of my best friends are homosexuals” or “some of the best relationships I know are among homosexuals.” Which causes me to continue to wonder about these people I read on-line, in books and in articles who are so vehemently opposed to homosexual sex, yet claim to have these relationships giving them insight.
Where are they finding all these gay friends?
Of course, I am in serious jeopardy of projecting. While my experience has resulted in no gay friends—this doesn’t mean every Conservative Christian has had the same experience.
Certainly someone who converted later in life could have already developed relationships with homosexuals. Which really causes me to wonder how that works:
“Hi. Hey—I’ve converted to Christianity. And I’ve learned this new thing. Turns out God HATES homosexual acts. It is a violation of His Moral Character, and the equivalent of spitting in his face. So I gotta tell ya—I can’t approve of what you and your partner do…er…late at night…uh…in your…well…you know. And I can’t support you all getting married. Nope—wouldn’t be right. And I don’t think you are entitled to equal protection under the law anymore.
“And if you converted to Christianity with me; you’d have to give up any homosexual sex. Oh, you can still be attracted to another person of your gender—you just can’t have sex with them. And the two of you…well…you can’t…you know. Because it is a sin. And God hates that.
“But don’t worry—God still loves YOU. Just because I find what you do is a sin, and will be petitioning against you having any of the same rights as us heterosexuals, we can still be friends, right?..........Right?”
I get how a liberal Christian could have gay friends. I get how liberal theists could have gay friends. I get how a Conservative Christian could have friends who are gay, but won’t tell anyone of their same sex attraction. I get how Conservative Christians could have friends who are gay, but the Christian won’t tell them of their belief homosexual acts are a sin.
What I don’t get is why a homosexual would continue to be friends with a person who informs them who they are results in a heinous sin, and the person will do everything in their power to keep the homosexual from being able to marry their partner, or be protected from discrimination, or be protected from hate speech.
Why would a homosexual want to be the “token” pardon for why the person is not prejudiced against gays? ‘Cause their best friend is gay…
“All the Children of the World.
“Red and Yellow, Black and White;
“They are Precious in His sight.
“Jesus loves the little Children of the World.
This was a regular song cycled through our repertoire as Sunday School attendees. The tune was catchy; the words simple; the memory firmly ingrained. It could even be illustrated by a flannel graph of Jesus looking passively down on one (1) “red” children in full Native American garb, one (1) “yellow” oriental child in straw hat and kimono, one (1) “black” child in full African dress, and one (1) Midwestern child in non-descript Midwestern clothes. (In case you were too thick to get the point of the song.)
[For those of you heathens who never went to Sunday School, if you wonder why Flannel Graph Jesus wasn’t smiling at the kiddies, it was because Flannel Graph Jesus NEVER smiled. He had three looks—Disapproval (vs. the Pharisees), Disappointment (vs. the Disciples) and Tolerance (vs. Women or Children or General Audience.)]
Which is kinda funny, considering it was a large group comprised solely of extremely Caucasian, Middle America Children. The closest thing we came to “red” was playing Cowboys & Indians; to “yellow” was slideshows from missionaries; and our entire township had one (1) token African-American family. Since they weren’t Baptist (apparently)--not represented in our Sunday School either.
Growing up in a Conservative Church environment, we learned what “token” meant. Our churches had one, maybe two African-American families. The token representation. Maybe one oriental family. Another group represented. Native Americans? Rarer than hen’s teeth, but you could still find a few. Not a large minority—oh my no!
Yet what always cracked me up was when any racial discussion came about, we would hear people within my social group exclaim the old adage, “Some of my best friends are black!” (Evidently that one family had a LOT of best friends!) As if this exclamation gave the person a pardon against the possibility of being prejudice.
One of my friends made a keen observation. “You want to know if you have African-American friends? Ask yourself this simple question—when is the last time you ate dinner at an African-American home? How many times in the past five (ten?) years have you done so?” That will answer the question post-haste!
The reason I bring this up is that I am observing a new phenomena of this old trend. “Some of my best friends are homosexuals.” Or “Some of the best relationships I see are among homosexuals.” But I am seeing this from people who then go on (and on and on) about how homosexual acts are SIN, and homosexuals should NOT be allowed to marry, and how homosexuality is tearing apart the very fabric of our society to the point we will no longer be able to function. (O.K., that last is a bit hyperbolic. Sorta.)
And I have to wonder where they are getting all these homosexual friends? Are they the same black friends my social group claimed to have? Because I have no homosexual friends. None. Nada. Zip.
But that shouldn’t be a surprise—look at my social upbringing. My friends were conservative Christians. We socialized with people who would make homosexuals extremely uncomfortable. “Gay” was a derogatory term in my social group. We socialized at events in which homosexuality would be ostracized.
I grew up in a social environment that deliberately and consciously excluded homosexuals. Oh, some of my classmates and associates may have been homosexuals; I am not referring to people who were forced to hide their same sex attraction, or considered such an attraction a sin and something to be avoided.
I am talking about a person who recognized themselves as homosexual, and accepted it. No—no such persons would be welcome within my group. At the very end of my gamily holding on to Christianity, the topic of homosexuality came up in our Sunday School. The teacher was trotting out the tired line of “Love the sinner; hate the sin” and expounding upon how our church would be welcoming to homosexuals.
I (being me) challenged that observation. I pointed out how uncomfortable the members would make them feel, and how the attitude against homosexuality oozed from almost every pore of almost every person. The teacher argued with me that the church folk could disguise their disgust (not exactly his words, mind you) and welcome them with open arms.
At this point the pastor quietly spoke up and said, “Let’s be honest. If two guys came to church holding hands, do you really think they would ever want to come back here?” The room grew silent.
I don’t have gay friends. My former friends (‘cause we hung around the same people) do not have gay friends. I have never eaten dinner in a home of two homosexual people living together. Never.
I am uniquely UNqualified to make any statement such as “some of my best friends are homosexuals” or “some of the best relationships I know are among homosexuals.” Which causes me to continue to wonder about these people I read on-line, in books and in articles who are so vehemently opposed to homosexual sex, yet claim to have these relationships giving them insight.
Where are they finding all these gay friends?
Of course, I am in serious jeopardy of projecting. While my experience has resulted in no gay friends—this doesn’t mean every Conservative Christian has had the same experience.
Certainly someone who converted later in life could have already developed relationships with homosexuals. Which really causes me to wonder how that works:
“Hi. Hey—I’ve converted to Christianity. And I’ve learned this new thing. Turns out God HATES homosexual acts. It is a violation of His Moral Character, and the equivalent of spitting in his face. So I gotta tell ya—I can’t approve of what you and your partner do…er…late at night…uh…in your…well…you know. And I can’t support you all getting married. Nope—wouldn’t be right. And I don’t think you are entitled to equal protection under the law anymore.
“And if you converted to Christianity with me; you’d have to give up any homosexual sex. Oh, you can still be attracted to another person of your gender—you just can’t have sex with them. And the two of you…well…you can’t…you know. Because it is a sin. And God hates that.
“But don’t worry—God still loves YOU. Just because I find what you do is a sin, and will be petitioning against you having any of the same rights as us heterosexuals, we can still be friends, right?..........Right?”
I get how a liberal Christian could have gay friends. I get how liberal theists could have gay friends. I get how a Conservative Christian could have friends who are gay, but won’t tell anyone of their same sex attraction. I get how Conservative Christians could have friends who are gay, but the Christian won’t tell them of their belief homosexual acts are a sin.
What I don’t get is why a homosexual would continue to be friends with a person who informs them who they are results in a heinous sin, and the person will do everything in their power to keep the homosexual from being able to marry their partner, or be protected from discrimination, or be protected from hate speech.
Why would a homosexual want to be the “token” pardon for why the person is not prejudiced against gays? ‘Cause their best friend is gay…
Friday, May 16, 2008
Why Fat People Can’t Marry
The current social wave of banning marriage for homosexuals (excuse me, “Defining marriage legal in such a way that homosexuals can’t marry”) is a form of coercion. It is a way of saying, “I don’t like what you do; so I am going to make it as uncomfortable as possible for you in another aspect of your life.”
Why do we care if they marry? (I say “they” because I am a heterosexual.) Seriously—why? I don’t care if two teenagers marry. I don’t care if two people 50 years difference in age marry. I don’t care if people marry in mixed races. I don’t care if divorcees marry, if Ohioans marry, if two people of different religions marry or if two people marry when one of them is pregnant. Oh, we may care from a concerned standpoint—but no one is out petitioning laws to ban such practices.
If Bob and Tom want to marry—how exactly is that affecting you? What great tragedy has just entered your life which is so insurmountable we must enact amendments to State constitutions to keep this tragedy from happening again?
What I see is a group of people (not just Christians) who simply don’t like homosexuality. Whether for religious reasons, or the way the person was raised, or cultural pressure. And since the laws making homosexuality illegal have failed; the next best thing is to deny them some other privilege. Some other way to make ‘em uncomfortable.
We don’t have a problem with homosexuals driving. They seem adapt enough to do so. We don’t have a problem with them working—they make fine customers and patrons and tenants and debtors. We don’t have a problem with them voting, or serving in governmental positions (not legally, anyway), or walking in the park, or being on television.
But if they want to marry—GASP! The horrors! Have you ever stopped to think why? What the big deal is?
I will submit the two worst arguments for banning homosexual marriage are the slippery slope claim and “The Bible says ____.”
Slippery Slope
This argument is typically framed, “If we let gays marry it would start a slippery slope. What is to stop polygamists from marrying? Or people marrying pets? Or pedophiles marrying small children?”
Hmm…let’s think about that for a second, shall we? *snaps fingers* That’s it! That’s what would stop such a slippery slope from happening--we can actually think! Do you know it is possible to enact laws to allow some groups of people do some things, without the necessary eventuality that ALL people will do ALL things? Really—you can!
Do you also realize we could use the “slippery slope” argument on just about anything to preclude us from passing laws on just about anything? For example: If we pass a law to allow 18 year olds to marry, this could dangerously lead us to allowing 17 year olds to marry, which could, by slippery slope, lead to allowing 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6…. Oh wait. Why doesn’t that happen?
Because we actually can figure out how to determine a cut-off and stop. Lawmakers do look at the laws they are passing, and the reasons behind them. They do not shrug and say, “Aw, gee. We let homosexuals marry. Guess we gotta let people marry a tree as well.” Frankly, if I was a representative, senator or governor I would be insulted to think it was claimed I was so stupid I couldn’t figure out how to put limits on anything once I passed a law.
The following is the classic example of how silly a claim of “slippery slope” can be:
”The Bible says ____”
…or “God says ___.” Now at first blush, this may seem to be an infringement upon another person’s right to petition for laws which they favor. It is not. They can. I have no problem with that. If a person said, “I don’t want homosexuals to marry because I don’t want it”—they are perfectly within their constitutional rights to pursue such a cause to their utmost.
However, if they are going to cloak this right in some sort of divine admonition, or divine ordinance—I will look to that with a far closer scrutiny. To see what that basis is, and further to determine whether they are making up what their god says to justify what they want.
First of all, it should be noted the Bible is silent (both in the Tanakh and the New Testament) regarding homosexual marriage. Probably because it was not being practiced during the time of either writing (certainly not on a large scale, if at all). The same way the Bible is silent regarding e-mail, or coffee in church, or whether to buy an SUV compared to a Mini-van. The issues didn’t exist at the time—so the Bible wouldn’t address it.
The Bible does address acts of sex which are homosexual. Rom. 1:26-27. “A-ha!” the person may say, “If homosexual acts are sinful—we have every right to ban them from marrying to commit such acts.”
Where did it become your obligation to stop others from sinning? When did you become the “Sin Police”? The ending of Romans One is a list of sins which the world (the non-believers) are engaged in. In one of the greatest turns of irony, vs 26 starts off with, “For this reason God gave them up…”
According to the very verses you use, your God isn’t trying to stop them; who are you to assume a duty even your God won’t do?
I’ll let you in on two (2) not-so-secret secrets.
Lean in close.
Ready?
1. They are having sex regardless of not being married.
Yep, it’s true. Did you honestly think the entire homosexual community consists of frustrated virgins aching for the laws of America to change so that one day they could actually have sex by consummating their marriage? In fact, in yet another short-sighted irony, the fact they cannot marry makes them less likely to wait for marriage. ‘Cause they can’t!
How many people do you really think are not committing homosexual acts because they can’t be homosexually married? Do you think this is making even a dent in your duties on “Sin Patrol”? Do you think you are preventing a single homosexual act of sex by virtue of not allowing marriage?
Why not pass a law prohibiting homosexuals from having driver’s licenses? This would be far more effective in reducing acts you consider sin.
2. Being homosexual is more than sex.
I am not qualified to talk in this area, but in reading what homosexuals write, and having associated with a few, I have come to understand it is who they are. It is more than a preference for a certain sexual act. It is an attraction to the same gender.
Much the same way I am attracted to my female wife for more than just a certain shape of bones and skin. I am fascinated with the way she smells. The way she talks. The way she moves. The way she thinks.
If a person feels that same way about another of their same gender…you won’t be able to legislate it away.
Secondly, as I look at your Bible and your God, I start to read other sins. Sins like allowing someone to marry who was previously divorced for reasons other than adultery. (Matt. 5:32, 19:9) Where is the call for laws prohibiting divorced people from re-marrying?
Look, if you are trying to convince me you…er…I mean your God…has its panties all in a pinch over sins occurring, then why is it only the sins YOU don’t like? Why is it you…er…your god is not equally all up in arms over a violation of this sin as well? Shouldn’t the laws define marriage as “One man and one woman, neither of whom has been divorced, unless the divorce arose out of adultery or the person was previously married to a non-believer who left them”? (1 Cor. 7:15)
Many Christians hold that 2 Cor. 6:14 (“Do not be unequally yoked with non-believers.”) is a prohibition against believers marrying non-believers. A sin! Where is the call for the laws of marriage to be changed to prevent this grievous harm? Now our definition reads, “One man and one woman of one belief, neither of whom has been divorced, unless the divorce arose out of adultery or the person was previously married to a non-believer who left them.”
And don’t forget the famous passage of 1 Cor. 7:9. “Better to marry than burn with passion.” Is it a sin to be so horny? Although no specific verse addresses it, many Christians infer pre-marital sex is a sin. If you can’t wait—we should order marriage quickly. Where is the call for the definition: “One man and one woman of one belief, neither of whom has been divorced, unless the divorce arose out of adultery or the person was previously married to a non-believer who left them, who must get married before they become so horny they fornicate prior to hearing, ‘I now pronounce you husband and wife.’”
Ah—we don’t want to follow all those pesky sins associated with marriage, do we? Just the ones that affect others. You know—the gays.
The Bible equally speaks against gluttons. Prov. 23:20-21, Titus 1:12. Just as homosexuality is amongst a list of sins in Romans 1, gluttony is included in a list of bad character traits and sins in Matt. 11:19 and Luke 7:34.
Where is the call banning fat people from marrying? Oh, I hear the cries of differentiation. The reason homosexual marriage is to be banned is that homosexuals will continue to be sinning throughout the marriage by committing homosexual acts.
Yet equally, won’t fat people encourage each other to eat more? To sin? Worse, will they provide a lifestyle which will encourage their children to become gluttons? At least homosexuals will allow their children to choose their orientation—will gluttons provide a similar choice for their own children? To eat healthy?
Further, this concept of “their marrying will provide more opportunity to sin” falls flat on its face when viewed in light of all the other areas which marriage provides more opportunity to sin. You can’t commit the sin of a wrongful divorce without marrying. Gay or straight. The only way to commit the sin of failing to love your wife is to…yeah…you get it. Have a wife.
Regardless of who marries who—according to your God and your Bible, the roles of marriage offers greater opportunities to sin. If it is post-marriage sin you are so worried about, let’s ban it altogether.
I tire of the cloaked justification for why a person is “entitled” to be against homosexual marriage. If you don’t like it—fine! I can understand preference. But don’t try and sell the concept it has nothing do with your likes or dislikes and you are (reluctantly) bound to follow some moral code you secretly don’t like. Don’t try and sell you are just doing what your God wants you do to, and if it was up to you--it would be a fine thing.
Nobody buys it anymore.
(Endnote: I wrote most of this yesterday, prior to the California ruling. Good timing.)
Why do we care if they marry? (I say “they” because I am a heterosexual.) Seriously—why? I don’t care if two teenagers marry. I don’t care if two people 50 years difference in age marry. I don’t care if people marry in mixed races. I don’t care if divorcees marry, if Ohioans marry, if two people of different religions marry or if two people marry when one of them is pregnant. Oh, we may care from a concerned standpoint—but no one is out petitioning laws to ban such practices.
If Bob and Tom want to marry—how exactly is that affecting you? What great tragedy has just entered your life which is so insurmountable we must enact amendments to State constitutions to keep this tragedy from happening again?
What I see is a group of people (not just Christians) who simply don’t like homosexuality. Whether for religious reasons, or the way the person was raised, or cultural pressure. And since the laws making homosexuality illegal have failed; the next best thing is to deny them some other privilege. Some other way to make ‘em uncomfortable.
We don’t have a problem with homosexuals driving. They seem adapt enough to do so. We don’t have a problem with them working—they make fine customers and patrons and tenants and debtors. We don’t have a problem with them voting, or serving in governmental positions (not legally, anyway), or walking in the park, or being on television.
But if they want to marry—GASP! The horrors! Have you ever stopped to think why? What the big deal is?
I will submit the two worst arguments for banning homosexual marriage are the slippery slope claim and “The Bible says ____.”
Slippery Slope
This argument is typically framed, “If we let gays marry it would start a slippery slope. What is to stop polygamists from marrying? Or people marrying pets? Or pedophiles marrying small children?”
Hmm…let’s think about that for a second, shall we? *snaps fingers* That’s it! That’s what would stop such a slippery slope from happening--we can actually think! Do you know it is possible to enact laws to allow some groups of people do some things, without the necessary eventuality that ALL people will do ALL things? Really—you can!
Do you also realize we could use the “slippery slope” argument on just about anything to preclude us from passing laws on just about anything? For example: If we pass a law to allow 18 year olds to marry, this could dangerously lead us to allowing 17 year olds to marry, which could, by slippery slope, lead to allowing 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6…. Oh wait. Why doesn’t that happen?
Because we actually can figure out how to determine a cut-off and stop. Lawmakers do look at the laws they are passing, and the reasons behind them. They do not shrug and say, “Aw, gee. We let homosexuals marry. Guess we gotta let people marry a tree as well.” Frankly, if I was a representative, senator or governor I would be insulted to think it was claimed I was so stupid I couldn’t figure out how to put limits on anything once I passed a law.
The following is the classic example of how silly a claim of “slippery slope” can be:
But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system?
And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you Greg -- isn't this an indictment of our entire American society?
Well…you can do whatever you want to us. But we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!
”The Bible says ____”
…or “God says ___.” Now at first blush, this may seem to be an infringement upon another person’s right to petition for laws which they favor. It is not. They can. I have no problem with that. If a person said, “I don’t want homosexuals to marry because I don’t want it”—they are perfectly within their constitutional rights to pursue such a cause to their utmost.
However, if they are going to cloak this right in some sort of divine admonition, or divine ordinance—I will look to that with a far closer scrutiny. To see what that basis is, and further to determine whether they are making up what their god says to justify what they want.
First of all, it should be noted the Bible is silent (both in the Tanakh and the New Testament) regarding homosexual marriage. Probably because it was not being practiced during the time of either writing (certainly not on a large scale, if at all). The same way the Bible is silent regarding e-mail, or coffee in church, or whether to buy an SUV compared to a Mini-van. The issues didn’t exist at the time—so the Bible wouldn’t address it.
The Bible does address acts of sex which are homosexual. Rom. 1:26-27. “A-ha!” the person may say, “If homosexual acts are sinful—we have every right to ban them from marrying to commit such acts.”
Where did it become your obligation to stop others from sinning? When did you become the “Sin Police”? The ending of Romans One is a list of sins which the world (the non-believers) are engaged in. In one of the greatest turns of irony, vs 26 starts off with, “For this reason God gave them up…”
According to the very verses you use, your God isn’t trying to stop them; who are you to assume a duty even your God won’t do?
I’ll let you in on two (2) not-so-secret secrets.
Lean in close.
Ready?
1. They are having sex regardless of not being married.
Yep, it’s true. Did you honestly think the entire homosexual community consists of frustrated virgins aching for the laws of America to change so that one day they could actually have sex by consummating their marriage? In fact, in yet another short-sighted irony, the fact they cannot marry makes them less likely to wait for marriage. ‘Cause they can’t!
How many people do you really think are not committing homosexual acts because they can’t be homosexually married? Do you think this is making even a dent in your duties on “Sin Patrol”? Do you think you are preventing a single homosexual act of sex by virtue of not allowing marriage?
Why not pass a law prohibiting homosexuals from having driver’s licenses? This would be far more effective in reducing acts you consider sin.
2. Being homosexual is more than sex.
I am not qualified to talk in this area, but in reading what homosexuals write, and having associated with a few, I have come to understand it is who they are. It is more than a preference for a certain sexual act. It is an attraction to the same gender.
Much the same way I am attracted to my female wife for more than just a certain shape of bones and skin. I am fascinated with the way she smells. The way she talks. The way she moves. The way she thinks.
If a person feels that same way about another of their same gender…you won’t be able to legislate it away.
Secondly, as I look at your Bible and your God, I start to read other sins. Sins like allowing someone to marry who was previously divorced for reasons other than adultery. (Matt. 5:32, 19:9) Where is the call for laws prohibiting divorced people from re-marrying?
Look, if you are trying to convince me you…er…I mean your God…has its panties all in a pinch over sins occurring, then why is it only the sins YOU don’t like? Why is it you…er…your god is not equally all up in arms over a violation of this sin as well? Shouldn’t the laws define marriage as “One man and one woman, neither of whom has been divorced, unless the divorce arose out of adultery or the person was previously married to a non-believer who left them”? (1 Cor. 7:15)
Many Christians hold that 2 Cor. 6:14 (“Do not be unequally yoked with non-believers.”) is a prohibition against believers marrying non-believers. A sin! Where is the call for the laws of marriage to be changed to prevent this grievous harm? Now our definition reads, “One man and one woman of one belief, neither of whom has been divorced, unless the divorce arose out of adultery or the person was previously married to a non-believer who left them.”
And don’t forget the famous passage of 1 Cor. 7:9. “Better to marry than burn with passion.” Is it a sin to be so horny? Although no specific verse addresses it, many Christians infer pre-marital sex is a sin. If you can’t wait—we should order marriage quickly. Where is the call for the definition: “One man and one woman of one belief, neither of whom has been divorced, unless the divorce arose out of adultery or the person was previously married to a non-believer who left them, who must get married before they become so horny they fornicate prior to hearing, ‘I now pronounce you husband and wife.’”
Ah—we don’t want to follow all those pesky sins associated with marriage, do we? Just the ones that affect others. You know—the gays.
The Bible equally speaks against gluttons. Prov. 23:20-21, Titus 1:12. Just as homosexuality is amongst a list of sins in Romans 1, gluttony is included in a list of bad character traits and sins in Matt. 11:19 and Luke 7:34.
Where is the call banning fat people from marrying? Oh, I hear the cries of differentiation. The reason homosexual marriage is to be banned is that homosexuals will continue to be sinning throughout the marriage by committing homosexual acts.
Yet equally, won’t fat people encourage each other to eat more? To sin? Worse, will they provide a lifestyle which will encourage their children to become gluttons? At least homosexuals will allow their children to choose their orientation—will gluttons provide a similar choice for their own children? To eat healthy?
Further, this concept of “their marrying will provide more opportunity to sin” falls flat on its face when viewed in light of all the other areas which marriage provides more opportunity to sin. You can’t commit the sin of a wrongful divorce without marrying. Gay or straight. The only way to commit the sin of failing to love your wife is to…yeah…you get it. Have a wife.
Regardless of who marries who—according to your God and your Bible, the roles of marriage offers greater opportunities to sin. If it is post-marriage sin you are so worried about, let’s ban it altogether.
I tire of the cloaked justification for why a person is “entitled” to be against homosexual marriage. If you don’t like it—fine! I can understand preference. But don’t try and sell the concept it has nothing do with your likes or dislikes and you are (reluctantly) bound to follow some moral code you secretly don’t like. Don’t try and sell you are just doing what your God wants you do to, and if it was up to you--it would be a fine thing.
Nobody buys it anymore.
(Endnote: I wrote most of this yesterday, prior to the California ruling. Good timing.)
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Responsibility
This past weekend I entered a new experience—I became a grandfather.
Not permanently, thankfully! My sophomore daughter, in her child development class, brought home one of those fake babies. It cries, needs to be feed, needs to be held, needs its diaper changed, and within its little plastic body contains a computer critically recording the attention it receives.
My daughter’s grade depends on appropriate care. Folks, if you want an effective method of birth control—this is a splash of hard reality for a 16-year-old to discover the responsibilities of motherhood. By the end of the weekend, we heard the following phrases:
“I’m only 16—I shouldn’t have to take care of a baby!”
“I’ve done everything I can, and it is still crying. Why won’t it stop crying?”
“Why won’t you go to sleep?”
“Just leave me alone. I am exhausted from watching the baby.”
“If I get a bad grade, it is the baby’s fault. It won’t tell me what to do.”
“Not again!”
(Do you see yourself in any of those phrases?) She couldn’t go out with her friends—had to take care of the baby. Couldn’t swing and veg out with the iPod—had to take care of the baby. Couldn’t watch movies with us. Had to watch the baby.
I thoroughly enjoyed watching her being dropped into a duty she was clearly not prepared to handle. Nuts, none of us first-time parents were ready for the awesome responsibility of taking care of a new human. But over time, as we became more familiar with the steps that worked and the steps that miserably failed, we just naturally took on the cloak of accountability that comes with parenthood. Did it without thinking.
And if we had a second child, some of the previous memories came back and a quick refresher as to the responsibility, and again, over time, we simply fall back and do things without thinking. It was fun to see someone else have that brand new experience and re-remember those feelings.
Which got me to thinking—how many other things do I do, in which I have a responsibility and I am simply going through the motions? Just doing what I did yesterday, the day before, the week and months and years before without ever taking a moment and contemplating the awesomeness of the adventure?
As a citizen—how cognizant am I of my responsibility? It is always discouraging to an attorney to hear people attempt to get out jury duty. As if it is some torturous implementation of our government. Yet the same people can be the first to complain about the inadequacies of our justice system!
How many people know their state representative/senator? Or their federal representative/senator? How many of us have never written to either—yet complain about what our government is doing?
How many of us have never gone to a local school board meeting? Or a local governmental meeting? Yet we wonder why our school’s sports program requires a fee to play, or why our children’s books are 5 years out of date.
As I watched my daughter struggle with what is natural to me, I realize I have fallen into a malaise toward my own responsibilities in other areas. That I have reduced my citizenship responsibilities to paying taxes, reading reports in media and whining with the best of them.
It is time for me to become more actively involved. To take on some responsibility rather than let this life lazily pass by.
Not permanently, thankfully! My sophomore daughter, in her child development class, brought home one of those fake babies. It cries, needs to be feed, needs to be held, needs its diaper changed, and within its little plastic body contains a computer critically recording the attention it receives.
My daughter’s grade depends on appropriate care. Folks, if you want an effective method of birth control—this is a splash of hard reality for a 16-year-old to discover the responsibilities of motherhood. By the end of the weekend, we heard the following phrases:
“I’m only 16—I shouldn’t have to take care of a baby!”
“I’ve done everything I can, and it is still crying. Why won’t it stop crying?”
“Why won’t you go to sleep?”
“Just leave me alone. I am exhausted from watching the baby.”
“If I get a bad grade, it is the baby’s fault. It won’t tell me what to do.”
“Not again!”
(Do you see yourself in any of those phrases?) She couldn’t go out with her friends—had to take care of the baby. Couldn’t swing and veg out with the iPod—had to take care of the baby. Couldn’t watch movies with us. Had to watch the baby.
I thoroughly enjoyed watching her being dropped into a duty she was clearly not prepared to handle. Nuts, none of us first-time parents were ready for the awesome responsibility of taking care of a new human. But over time, as we became more familiar with the steps that worked and the steps that miserably failed, we just naturally took on the cloak of accountability that comes with parenthood. Did it without thinking.
And if we had a second child, some of the previous memories came back and a quick refresher as to the responsibility, and again, over time, we simply fall back and do things without thinking. It was fun to see someone else have that brand new experience and re-remember those feelings.
Which got me to thinking—how many other things do I do, in which I have a responsibility and I am simply going through the motions? Just doing what I did yesterday, the day before, the week and months and years before without ever taking a moment and contemplating the awesomeness of the adventure?
As a citizen—how cognizant am I of my responsibility? It is always discouraging to an attorney to hear people attempt to get out jury duty. As if it is some torturous implementation of our government. Yet the same people can be the first to complain about the inadequacies of our justice system!
How many people know their state representative/senator? Or their federal representative/senator? How many of us have never written to either—yet complain about what our government is doing?
How many of us have never gone to a local school board meeting? Or a local governmental meeting? Yet we wonder why our school’s sports program requires a fee to play, or why our children’s books are 5 years out of date.
As I watched my daughter struggle with what is natural to me, I realize I have fallen into a malaise toward my own responsibilities in other areas. That I have reduced my citizenship responsibilities to paying taxes, reading reports in media and whining with the best of them.
It is time for me to become more actively involved. To take on some responsibility rather than let this life lazily pass by.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Which Dictionary to use?
Half an hour. Between Sunday School, Bible class, Vacation Bible School, Primary Church, Teen church, sermons, Prayer meeting and small groups it was universally understood the amount of time dedicated to teaching/preaching was to be a half an hour. Not enough to cover the Sermon on the Mount. Certainly not enough to go through the book of Revelation! But just the right amount of time to give a complete discourse on a Parable.
Therefore it was common (especially by the proliferation of all that Bible study) to cycle through many of the Parables. And within the speech on the Parable, we would enter a familiar formula. First read the passage. Then assign the “actual” names to all the participants within the story. Give the spiritual point of the story. Tie in some historical fact to anchor the tale within the time period (and impress the audience with your ability to own and read a Commentary) and finally reinforce the application the recipients should utilize out of the story. Often one would work in a personal tale to illustrate the parable. Beginning, end or middle—it could go anywhere.
Since my friends and I had sat through the same routine on countless previous occasions, and having half a brain a piece—we figured out the point, the illustration and “who’s who” long before the person finished reading the verses. We were raised to be polite enough to listen through the next 27 ½ minutes of a person telling us what we already ascertained.
The Parable of the Talents entered the rotation on a regular basis.
The teacher would enter the tired monotone, we would hear (as we expected to hear) that the man was God, and the servants were Christians, and the talents were abilities, and we should use our abilities with hard work toward God’s work, and it was bad to not use our abilities, and someday we will be rewarded/punished for how we used our God-given abilities.
A story about a Christian who stopped singing for God, and started singing Rock-n-roll and then lost his ability to sing in a horrific blender accident…and the half hour was up…Time to go!
Seemed pretty straightforward and obvious. Hard work rewarded. Different people have different special abilities. Shouldn’t squander what we have.
And 100% wrong. This was not what the parable was about. We thought the first two servants were the “good guys” and the third servant was the “bad guy.” This is a total reversal to what the first century Judean audience would have understood. To them—the first two servants (and the man) were the bad guys, and it was the third servant who was doing the right thing.
How come they never taught that in our Sunday School?
See, to the Judean mind, including the peasants to whom this story was directed, “goods” were of a pre-determined quantity. One person gaining was ONLY possibly by another person losing. The first servant’s gain of five talents would only be possible by another, most likely a poor person, losing an equivalent sum.
Therefore, the only commendable person in the parable was the sole person who did not cause harm to others, yet retained what was rightfully the masters. The audience would understand a man who “reaped where he did not sow, and gathered where they did not scatter seed” was—in essence—a bad person who was only becoming rich at the expense of others.
Luke 19:12-29, further exemplifies the character of the man in highlighting the fact the man was going to receive a kingdom, which was opposed by the citizenry. When he did receive the kingdom, the man killed those who opposed him.
Eusebius, in reviewing this parable, thought Matthew was using a literary device to demonstrate the real person who was punished was the first servant who had gain illicitly. Even Eusebius understand the “good” guy in the parable was the third servant, and the “bad” guy was the first servant.
(And a side note not often pointed out—when there were multiple items it was often the “oddity” that was the exemplary item in Jesus’ Parables. One good seed, the rest were bad. One good Samaritan; the rest were unhelpful.)
O.K. so we have two very different interpretations of this parable—one very 20th Century (“use your abilities”) and one very 1st century (“The rich get richer.”) Which one did Jesus intend? Which one is the one we should use?
I ask this because often, in Biblical discussions, people talk about how Jesus’ words would be perceived by the people of the time. What it meant to them. Why he used certain terms. And how, to fully understand what Jesus was saying, we have to immerse ourselves in First Century Judea.
But in doing so—this parable is much different than what most of us were taught in our classes. Were all those classes wrong? Or are we to derive two completely different, even juxtaposed interpretations of the same passage?
Was Jesus talking to 1st century peasants, but in the back of his mind also talking to 21st century capitalists?
I often see Christians hopping back and forth between two opposing positions—that the books of the Bible were written for a specific period of time as compared to the books of the Bible written for ALL time. When it comes to the skeptic questioning the scientific or historical accuracy—we are assured the books were only written for what the people knew at the time. Yet then we are told the moral implications of the Bible are for all time.
Are they? Or is the Christian picking and choosing which suits them best? Which conforms to the culture they know?
We are told slavery was appropriate at that time, or polygamy was appropriate at that time, or genocide was appropriate at that time; but not now. Not once we have come to understand the full moral implications of such practices.
Well then—what about women preachers? Oh, THEN I am assured THAT one is universal! That has nothing to do with “at that time” but rather is a mandate from day one until the earth blows up. Literally. The bit about women covering their head or not wearing gold…well sure…THAT bit was only appropriate at that time.
You know the question is coming…
How do we determine any consistent methodology of what was appropriate only for that time period, and what is universally mandated? How do we determine the Parable of the Talents was to mean one thing at that time, and a complete role reversal now?
When we are to define the terms of the Bible—which dictionary do we use? The one the First Century would use for the New Testament and the Sixth Century BCE would use for the Tanakh? Or do we toss those out and use our dictionaries of today?
Therefore it was common (especially by the proliferation of all that Bible study) to cycle through many of the Parables. And within the speech on the Parable, we would enter a familiar formula. First read the passage. Then assign the “actual” names to all the participants within the story. Give the spiritual point of the story. Tie in some historical fact to anchor the tale within the time period (and impress the audience with your ability to own and read a Commentary) and finally reinforce the application the recipients should utilize out of the story. Often one would work in a personal tale to illustrate the parable. Beginning, end or middle—it could go anywhere.
Since my friends and I had sat through the same routine on countless previous occasions, and having half a brain a piece—we figured out the point, the illustration and “who’s who” long before the person finished reading the verses. We were raised to be polite enough to listen through the next 27 ½ minutes of a person telling us what we already ascertained.
The Parable of the Talents entered the rotation on a regular basis.
For the kingdom of heaven is like a man traveling to a far country, who called his own servants and delivered his goods to them. And to one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one, to each according to his own ability; and immediately he went on a journey. Then he who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and made another five talents. And likewise he who had received two gained two more also. But he who had received one went and dug in the ground, and hid his lord's money. After a long time the lord of those servants came and settled accounts with them. So he who had received five talents came and brought five other talents, saying, “Lord, you delivered to me five talents; look, I have gained five more talents besides them.” His lord said to him, “Well done, good and faithful servant; you were faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord.” He also who had received two talents came and said, “Lord, you delivered to me two talents; look, I have gained two more talents besides them.” His lord said to him, “Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord.” Then he who had received the one talent came and said, “Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed. And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours.” But his lord answered and said to him, “You wicked and lazy servant, you knew that I reap where I have not sown, and gather where I have not scattered seed. So you ought to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I would have received back my own with interest. Therefore take the talent from him, and give it to him who has ten talents. For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matt. 25:14-30
The teacher would enter the tired monotone, we would hear (as we expected to hear) that the man was God, and the servants were Christians, and the talents were abilities, and we should use our abilities with hard work toward God’s work, and it was bad to not use our abilities, and someday we will be rewarded/punished for how we used our God-given abilities.
A story about a Christian who stopped singing for God, and started singing Rock-n-roll and then lost his ability to sing in a horrific blender accident…and the half hour was up…Time to go!
Seemed pretty straightforward and obvious. Hard work rewarded. Different people have different special abilities. Shouldn’t squander what we have.
And 100% wrong. This was not what the parable was about. We thought the first two servants were the “good guys” and the third servant was the “bad guy.” This is a total reversal to what the first century Judean audience would have understood. To them—the first two servants (and the man) were the bad guys, and it was the third servant who was doing the right thing.
How come they never taught that in our Sunday School?
See, to the Judean mind, including the peasants to whom this story was directed, “goods” were of a pre-determined quantity. One person gaining was ONLY possibly by another person losing. The first servant’s gain of five talents would only be possible by another, most likely a poor person, losing an equivalent sum.
Therefore, the only commendable person in the parable was the sole person who did not cause harm to others, yet retained what was rightfully the masters. The audience would understand a man who “reaped where he did not sow, and gathered where they did not scatter seed” was—in essence—a bad person who was only becoming rich at the expense of others.
Luke 19:12-29, further exemplifies the character of the man in highlighting the fact the man was going to receive a kingdom, which was opposed by the citizenry. When he did receive the kingdom, the man killed those who opposed him.
Eusebius, in reviewing this parable, thought Matthew was using a literary device to demonstrate the real person who was punished was the first servant who had gain illicitly. Even Eusebius understand the “good” guy in the parable was the third servant, and the “bad” guy was the first servant.
(And a side note not often pointed out—when there were multiple items it was often the “oddity” that was the exemplary item in Jesus’ Parables. One good seed, the rest were bad. One good Samaritan; the rest were unhelpful.)
O.K. so we have two very different interpretations of this parable—one very 20th Century (“use your abilities”) and one very 1st century (“The rich get richer.”) Which one did Jesus intend? Which one is the one we should use?
I ask this because often, in Biblical discussions, people talk about how Jesus’ words would be perceived by the people of the time. What it meant to them. Why he used certain terms. And how, to fully understand what Jesus was saying, we have to immerse ourselves in First Century Judea.
But in doing so—this parable is much different than what most of us were taught in our classes. Were all those classes wrong? Or are we to derive two completely different, even juxtaposed interpretations of the same passage?
Was Jesus talking to 1st century peasants, but in the back of his mind also talking to 21st century capitalists?
I often see Christians hopping back and forth between two opposing positions—that the books of the Bible were written for a specific period of time as compared to the books of the Bible written for ALL time. When it comes to the skeptic questioning the scientific or historical accuracy—we are assured the books were only written for what the people knew at the time. Yet then we are told the moral implications of the Bible are for all time.
Are they? Or is the Christian picking and choosing which suits them best? Which conforms to the culture they know?
We are told slavery was appropriate at that time, or polygamy was appropriate at that time, or genocide was appropriate at that time; but not now. Not once we have come to understand the full moral implications of such practices.
Well then—what about women preachers? Oh, THEN I am assured THAT one is universal! That has nothing to do with “at that time” but rather is a mandate from day one until the earth blows up. Literally. The bit about women covering their head or not wearing gold…well sure…THAT bit was only appropriate at that time.
You know the question is coming…
How do we determine any consistent methodology of what was appropriate only for that time period, and what is universally mandated? How do we determine the Parable of the Talents was to mean one thing at that time, and a complete role reversal now?
When we are to define the terms of the Bible—which dictionary do we use? The one the First Century would use for the New Testament and the Sixth Century BCE would use for the Tanakh? Or do we toss those out and use our dictionaries of today?
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Evangelical Manifesto
So have you seen the Evangelical Manifesto? (The link will take you to the website where you can download the Manifesto in PDF form.)
Seems those who claim the title of “Evangelical” are attempting to distant themselves from…something. What, exactly, is not patently clear. I understand the distaste these individuals feel with being constantly associated with political movements—but then I didn’t see anything specifically saying what political movements they either do not want to be associated with or do want to be associated with.
It speaks in great generalities, with few specifics.
I did find this statement interesting:
Why? Isn’t this exactly what the Evangelical is doing? Notice these other quotes from the document (emphasis added):
Sure seems to be saying they think theirs is the only way, the way for everyone, and they are quite prepared to coerce others. If they deem it “justifiable.”
Frankly, the paper comes across as (a touch whiney) public relations piece. The “why” of this manifesto is more interesting to me. Why did they think such a document (which they obviously spent a great deal of time wording just so) was necessary right now?
The obvious answer is the concern “Evangelical” is becoming a bad word. That the general public is associating certain demeanor or characteristic with a person who calls themselves an “Evangelical” and this document is an attempt to provide a new spin on the same thing.
I am in no position to speculate as to all the nuances of this document coming out now. I thought it might be an intriguing read for some. You might also want to read some of the comments. My favorite was:
Wouldn’t want some of those writing such a historic piece of work! *wink*
Seems those who claim the title of “Evangelical” are attempting to distant themselves from…something. What, exactly, is not patently clear. I understand the distaste these individuals feel with being constantly associated with political movements—but then I didn’t see anything specifically saying what political movements they either do not want to be associated with or do want to be associated with.
It speaks in great generalities, with few specifics.
I did find this statement interesting:
On the one hand, we repudiate those who believe their way is the only way and the way for everyone, and are therefore prepared to coerce others.
Why? Isn’t this exactly what the Evangelical is doing? Notice these other quotes from the document (emphasis added):
First, we believe that Jesus Christ is fully God become fully human, the unique, sure, and sufficient revelation of the very being, character, and purposes of God, beside whom there is no other god, and beside whom there is no other name by which we must be saved.
Second, we believe that the only ground for our acceptance by God is what Jesus Christ did on the cross …
Third, we believe that new life, given supernaturally through spiritual regeneration, is a necessity as well as a gift; and that the lifelong conversion that results is the only pathway to a radically changed character and way of life. Thus for us, the only sufficient power for a life of Christian faithfulness and moral integrity in this world is that of Christ’s resurrection and the power of the Holy Spirit.
On the other hand, we repudiate all who believe that different values are simply relative to different cultures, and who therefore refuse to allow anyone to judge anyone else or any other culture. More tolerant sounding at first, this position leads directly to the evils of complacency;. for in a world of such evils as genocide, slavery, female oppression, and assaults on the unborn, there are rights that require defending, evils that must be resisted, and interventions into the affairs of others that are morally justifiable.. [emphasis in original]
Sure seems to be saying they think theirs is the only way, the way for everyone, and they are quite prepared to coerce others. If they deem it “justifiable.”
Frankly, the paper comes across as (a touch whiney) public relations piece. The “why” of this manifesto is more interesting to me. Why did they think such a document (which they obviously spent a great deal of time wording just so) was necessary right now?
The obvious answer is the concern “Evangelical” is becoming a bad word. That the general public is associating certain demeanor or characteristic with a person who calls themselves an “Evangelical” and this document is an attempt to provide a new spin on the same thing.
I am in no position to speculate as to all the nuances of this document coming out now. I thought it might be an intriguing read for some. You might also want to read some of the comments. My favorite was:
Dear Sir: I would like to know more about the individuals who have worked on the manifesto. Have all these people truly "trusted" Christ as personal savior, before they can write about such issues? You do realize that not every theologian, pastor, etc. are not all born again believers.
Wouldn’t want some of those writing such a historic piece of work! *wink*
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Tired
I’m tired of arguing over concepts in the collection of books entitled “The Bible” with people who hold it to a far greater origination than I do, yet care less about how it was formed.
I’m tired of arguments which start, “It is possible…”
I am tired of people telling me what I believe, giving me long titles I don’t want, and then defining my position (which I don’t hold) and tearing apart the definition as stupid.
I am tired of Arguments by Wikipedia.
I’m tired of “interpretation.”
I am tired of people trying to win points in a debate (as if there is some universal scoreboard) and gamely holding on to what few points they think they scored.
I’m tired of “normal” being a standard which must be complied with.
I’m tired and scared of how little concerned many of my fellow citizens are about the on-going war, the economy, the health situation, and the future of our planet because they think a magic genie will make all the bad stuff go away for good people.
I’m even tired of my study of Christianity—at what point is wrong so wrong, it couldn’t be any wronger?
I’m tired of people who pride themselves on their moral standards, and then seeing how close they can skirt to not…quite…violating the moral standards, but just dance on the line.
I’m tired of Argument by Uninformed Indignation.
I’m reinvigorated by watching others actually give a damn about people who can give them no benefit whatsoever.
I’m tired of arguments which start, “It is possible…”
I am tired of people telling me what I believe, giving me long titles I don’t want, and then defining my position (which I don’t hold) and tearing apart the definition as stupid.
I am tired of Arguments by Wikipedia.
I’m tired of “interpretation.”
I am tired of people trying to win points in a debate (as if there is some universal scoreboard) and gamely holding on to what few points they think they scored.
I’m tired of “normal” being a standard which must be complied with.
I’m tired and scared of how little concerned many of my fellow citizens are about the on-going war, the economy, the health situation, and the future of our planet because they think a magic genie will make all the bad stuff go away for good people.
I’m even tired of my study of Christianity—at what point is wrong so wrong, it couldn’t be any wronger?
I’m tired of people who pride themselves on their moral standards, and then seeing how close they can skirt to not…quite…violating the moral standards, but just dance on the line.
I’m tired of Argument by Uninformed Indignation.
I’m reinvigorated by watching others actually give a damn about people who can give them no benefit whatsoever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
