There was a man who studied finches, then
He wrote a book about their Origin,
Now we have the Theory of Evolution
This must make me a Charles Darwinian.
There was a man who served and once again,
He said “Twice is ‘nuff for President.”
I wave Bush Bye with a great big grin,
I am a proud George Washingtonian.
I once was riding on my brand new Schwinn,
I fell down and scrapped my shin again,
I didn’t float off into space expansionin’
‘Cause I am an Isaac Newtonian.
I ate a burger at a Bennigans’
Had no credit; My fate was very grim,
Lucky my wallet still had a couple fins
Happily they are Alex Hamiltonians.
I wrote this once; I’m writing once again,
My system monitor went all blue screenin’
Banged away with Control-Alt-Deletin’
Damn! I hate being Bill Gatesian.
I’m not so sure about this new labelin’
Just ‘Cause some person got to wonderin’
Times have changed; Ideas are improvin’
Yet I am still called a “Darwinian.”
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Fired!
Jim Jordan asks a question:
Of course, this depends on a variety of other facts not given in a one-sentence question, so let’s try some scenarios to flesh out the possibilities:
Scenario One
Bob works for EvoScience, Inc. They have a contract which clearly states all research performed is the sole property of EvoScience. No stealing; No moonlighting. While working, Bob discovers what he thinks is the next progression in Intelligent Design. EvoScience refuses to publish it. Bob takes the research home and writes a book showing how this research demonstrates Intelligent Design. Should he lose his job?
Answer: Bob should lose his job. He had a contract, and failed to abide by the terms of the contract. Like it or spike it; the consequence of using that data was a loss of job. Same as a chemist working for Johnson & Johnson stealing a patent.
Scenario Two
Bob still works for EvoScience. His superiors insist he works only on projects based upon evolution. Several times at work, Bob is caught doing research on what he thinks is Intelligent Design. After three reprimands—should he lose his job?
Answer: Why not? As an employer, they can request their employees to follow certain disciplines. If I tell my secretary I want her to type in Word(c) and ONLY Word(c), no matter how much she likes WordPerfect(c), since I am the boss, I get to make the rules. She can type in WordPerfect(c) at home all she likes. If she thinks this demand is unreasonable—she is free to find another job.
(And before you think this is too harsh; remember this goes both ways. If I was hiring a secretary, and an interviewee insisted she would ONLY type in WordPerfect(c), I am free to not hire her. Nothing forces me to go out and buy a program I won’t use to satisfy an employee.)
Scenario Three
Bob. EvoScience. The policy of the company is once the research is published, it becomes public domain. After that the employees can do with it what they like. A few have even published (minor) articles using the same material with no consequence. After one particular research project is published, Bob does exactly that—prints an article using the research. His superiors are completely opposed to the premises within the article; should he lose his job?
Answer: …Wait. Before you answer, let’s try a few modifications:
a) Bob’s article argues for the extermination of the Jewish race as they are a “sub-class” of humans…
b) Bob’s article argues there is Global Warming, and our planet will die in 100 years…
c) Bob’s article argues Jesus was a myth…
d) Bob’s article argues we should not have used the atomic bomb in World War II…
e) Bob’s article argues for gay marriage…
f) Bob’s article argues the government is monitoring us through the fillings in our teeth…
g) Bob’s article argues pro-abortion…
Starts to get a little tricky…or does it? Again, why can’t an employer fire an employee for something they disagree with? On or off the job? Again—this goes both ways. If I hired a young lawyer, paid them a salary, but insisted s/he lie to my wife about the affair I was having—they are free to quit out of principle, even if it had nothing to do with their job of lawyering. Or if I hired them, but made them do my laundry—they can quit.
At what wacky idea must an employer tolerate an employee OR an employee tolerate an employer?
Scenario Four
Bob. EvoScience. Bob’s boss is staunch Catholic. Discovers Bob is Protestant and immediately fires him because he only wants to work with “true Christians.” Should Bob have lost his job?
Answer: O.K. This one is easy. We all know the non-discrimination for religious beliefs.
I see this all the time. People will call and say they were fired for being late to work one time. “They can’t do that, can they? If I was late only once?” Yes—they can. What they cannot do is fire you for your Race, Religion, Creed, Gender, Marital Status, and (in some areas) Sexual Orientation.
What is happening is the Intelligent Designers want their cake and eat it, too. When it comes being taught in schools—they want to insist this has nothing to do with religion. Nope—this is science, science, science. But when it comes to the workplace, “scientific belief” is not a protected class. Now, all of a sudden, the Intelligent Designer wants the same protection as a religion!
While I have enjoyed the furor over “Expelled,” I am starting to see it is really all a big “so what?” Think about what we should say in response to this movie:
Stein: Oh the HORRORS! Some poor teacher was DISCRIMINATED AGAINST for daring to speak on behalf of Intelligent Design.
Me: Yep. The person worked for a science department. Intelligent design is bad science. There is no protection of “free speech” in a science department. It is a job. Therefore they were rightly fired for doing bad science. There is no religious protection—“Intelligent design” claims to not be religious, remember?
There is no protection for discrimination on a non-protected class. None. You can fire someone for being bald, or bad breath, or for bad science.
What is it about “Intelligent Design” that grants it any more protection than a person who believes in Global Warming or to not use vaccines, or that aliens are slowly replacing people with robots?
So back to our original question—why should Intelligent Design be granted religious protection? Careful here—if you agree with me it is creationism, you may gain a religious protection in the workplace, but you will completely lose the battle to teach it in schools. (Plus it will make all those arguments about how intelligent design does not mean a god-belief pretty silly.)
If the employer wants to fire a person for believing in intelligent design—so be it. A big, fat “so what…”
If a scientist does a research project, publishes his data and then goes home and writes how it shows ID, [Intelligent Design] should he lose his job?
Of course, this depends on a variety of other facts not given in a one-sentence question, so let’s try some scenarios to flesh out the possibilities:
Scenario One
Bob works for EvoScience, Inc. They have a contract which clearly states all research performed is the sole property of EvoScience. No stealing; No moonlighting. While working, Bob discovers what he thinks is the next progression in Intelligent Design. EvoScience refuses to publish it. Bob takes the research home and writes a book showing how this research demonstrates Intelligent Design. Should he lose his job?
Answer: Bob should lose his job. He had a contract, and failed to abide by the terms of the contract. Like it or spike it; the consequence of using that data was a loss of job. Same as a chemist working for Johnson & Johnson stealing a patent.
Scenario Two
Bob still works for EvoScience. His superiors insist he works only on projects based upon evolution. Several times at work, Bob is caught doing research on what he thinks is Intelligent Design. After three reprimands—should he lose his job?
Answer: Why not? As an employer, they can request their employees to follow certain disciplines. If I tell my secretary I want her to type in Word(c) and ONLY Word(c), no matter how much she likes WordPerfect(c), since I am the boss, I get to make the rules. She can type in WordPerfect(c) at home all she likes. If she thinks this demand is unreasonable—she is free to find another job.
(And before you think this is too harsh; remember this goes both ways. If I was hiring a secretary, and an interviewee insisted she would ONLY type in WordPerfect(c), I am free to not hire her. Nothing forces me to go out and buy a program I won’t use to satisfy an employee.)
Scenario Three
Bob. EvoScience. The policy of the company is once the research is published, it becomes public domain. After that the employees can do with it what they like. A few have even published (minor) articles using the same material with no consequence. After one particular research project is published, Bob does exactly that—prints an article using the research. His superiors are completely opposed to the premises within the article; should he lose his job?
Answer: …Wait. Before you answer, let’s try a few modifications:
a) Bob’s article argues for the extermination of the Jewish race as they are a “sub-class” of humans…
b) Bob’s article argues there is Global Warming, and our planet will die in 100 years…
c) Bob’s article argues Jesus was a myth…
d) Bob’s article argues we should not have used the atomic bomb in World War II…
e) Bob’s article argues for gay marriage…
f) Bob’s article argues the government is monitoring us through the fillings in our teeth…
g) Bob’s article argues pro-abortion…
Starts to get a little tricky…or does it? Again, why can’t an employer fire an employee for something they disagree with? On or off the job? Again—this goes both ways. If I hired a young lawyer, paid them a salary, but insisted s/he lie to my wife about the affair I was having—they are free to quit out of principle, even if it had nothing to do with their job of lawyering. Or if I hired them, but made them do my laundry—they can quit.
At what wacky idea must an employer tolerate an employee OR an employee tolerate an employer?
Scenario Four
Bob. EvoScience. Bob’s boss is staunch Catholic. Discovers Bob is Protestant and immediately fires him because he only wants to work with “true Christians.” Should Bob have lost his job?
Answer: O.K. This one is easy. We all know the non-discrimination for religious beliefs.
I see this all the time. People will call and say they were fired for being late to work one time. “They can’t do that, can they? If I was late only once?” Yes—they can. What they cannot do is fire you for your Race, Religion, Creed, Gender, Marital Status, and (in some areas) Sexual Orientation.
What is happening is the Intelligent Designers want their cake and eat it, too. When it comes being taught in schools—they want to insist this has nothing to do with religion. Nope—this is science, science, science. But when it comes to the workplace, “scientific belief” is not a protected class. Now, all of a sudden, the Intelligent Designer wants the same protection as a religion!
While I have enjoyed the furor over “Expelled,” I am starting to see it is really all a big “so what?” Think about what we should say in response to this movie:
Stein: Oh the HORRORS! Some poor teacher was DISCRIMINATED AGAINST for daring to speak on behalf of Intelligent Design.
Me: Yep. The person worked for a science department. Intelligent design is bad science. There is no protection of “free speech” in a science department. It is a job. Therefore they were rightly fired for doing bad science. There is no religious protection—“Intelligent design” claims to not be religious, remember?
There is no protection for discrimination on a non-protected class. None. You can fire someone for being bald, or bad breath, or for bad science.
What is it about “Intelligent Design” that grants it any more protection than a person who believes in Global Warming or to not use vaccines, or that aliens are slowly replacing people with robots?
So back to our original question—why should Intelligent Design be granted religious protection? Careful here—if you agree with me it is creationism, you may gain a religious protection in the workplace, but you will completely lose the battle to teach it in schools. (Plus it will make all those arguments about how intelligent design does not mean a god-belief pretty silly.)
If the employer wants to fire a person for believing in intelligent design—so be it. A big, fat “so what…”
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Why Intelligent Design Hates the term Creationism
I have often said the power to define is the power to rule the argument. You give me the ability to mandate what words mean, and I will define the words to cause my position to win. Amongst librarians (I am told) the argument rages as to whether a Dictionary should be a description of what common usage of a word is, or a law as to what a word must mean. Does it follow society or force society?
150 years ago the word “fly” meant either an irritating insect or an action a bird does. After the invention of the airplane, it became description of travel, as in “Are you flying to New York?” More recently the word culturally modified to mean cool: “Pretty Fly for a White Guy.”
Need I say how the words “gay,” “cool,” “hip,” and “dime” have gained new meaning?
And within the past 20 years, we are being told the word “creationism” has taken on a new meaning. But who is it that is telling us the definition has changed? Those who want to distant themselves from the word—Intelligent Designers! The why I will explore in a minute.
What is “creationism”? It is the process of “creating” something. To cause something to come into existence. We use it generally of human abilities (“create a new advertising slogan”), but within the theistic debate, it is limited to creating something from something. Or making something different.
Simply put, “creation” needs a “Creator.” It was what a creator does—creates. And the process by which the creator creates is called creationism. We think of it in terms of supernaturalistic creation, albeit it could be used in the vernacular for natural items appearing.
So what’s the big deal for a theist to say they believe in a Creator? Is there a single person who believes in a god, but that god did NOT create anything and believes this universe came about naturally? Why do theists shy away from the word “creationism” when they obviously embrace a creator?
I’ll tell you why—because of us. No, no! Not the “us” of the skeptics. Nor the “us” of those who are persuaded by evolution. Not the “us” of the scientific community.
The “us” as in lawyers. He he he—they are scared of the sharks of the courtroom.
Prior to 1968, laws were enforced in the southern American states, prohibiting the teaching of evolution. In Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), the Supreme Court struck down Arkansas’s statutory prohibition against teaching evolution. In order to preserve creationism, new laws were enacted to force “balanced treatment” by mandating creation science be given equal time to teaching evolution.
In the landmark case of Edwards v. Arkansas, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) the United States Supreme court held the requirement of teaching “creation science” along with evolution violated the Establishment clause. In essence, the teaching of “creation science” became dead in public schools. Can’t do it.
Now many times we hear the claim the post-Edwards society was the birth of Intelligent Design. While that may be true for many of the current proponents of Intelligent Design the argument from design has been with us for a long, long time. It is the teleological argument. Think of Paley’s watch. (1802)
What WAS born, post-Edward was a new term, “Intelligent Design” for the same thing—creationism or creation science. Once Edwards came down, it was clear anything labeled “Creationism” would be barred from the classroom. Therefore, creationists became intent on abandoning such a label.
We are very familiar with this tactic within the legal community. I’ll give you a big fat “for-instance.” For many years we did what we called “a plea under advisement.” Basically a defendant would plead guilty and if they were good for a period of time (while the judge considered the plea “under advisement”) the case would be dismissed. If the defendant was charge with another crime, the judge then “accepted the plea” and found the person guilty. The Michigan courts pointed out how there was no such thing as a “plea under advisement” under our statutes, and banned the practice.
No problem. Because we do have a thing called a “delayed sentence.” Instead of a “plea under advisement”--now the defendant pleads guilty, the judge “delays” sentence for a period of time, and if no new charges appear on their record, the prosecutor moves for a dismissal of the action.
Do you see the difference? You don’t? That’s because there isn’t any! We have performed the same pragmatic action only it isn’t “plea under advisement” (because that is banned)—it is a “delayed sentence” (because that is not banned.)
This is exactly what is happening here. “Intelligent Design” is the exact same thing as creation science. Only because “creation science” is banned from the schools, the creationist must no longer call it “creation science” and came up with a new phrase—“Intelligent design.”
The change was effectuated very efficiently: re-define “creationism” and then isolate it from our new term. All of a sudden “Creationism” is defined solely as a literalist young-earth creationist. (Often we see the added “Noahic flood” as well, further enforcing the literalism.) “Intelligent Design” means…well…something different. But certainly not “Creationism”! Because then they would be barred from teaching it from schools, according to Edwards.
However, as good as lawyers are at re-defining terms and finding loopholes in new definitions, we are equally adapt at seeing the obvious. We know when we do it. And we know when it quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, and smells like a duck—calling it a dog does not make it anything but a duck.
When even the people trying to re-define the words, use the same meaning for the new term—it means the same thing. One of the fascinating evidences which came out in the Dover trial was the evolution of the creationist textbook “Of Pandas and People.”
In this textbook’s initial drafts, “creation” was defined as “various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc,” Then Edwards was decided. “Creationism” was barred from the classroom. The textbook was modified, and a new term was introduced—“Intelligent Design.” Defined as: “various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc,” No difference!
Approximately 150 times, cognates of the word “creationism” were replaced with the term “Intelligent Design” in the textbook after the decision of Edwards.
How stupid do they think we are? Honestly? Let me repeat this order:
1. “Creationism is X.
2. Edwards says you cannot teach Creationism.
3. “Creationism Intelligent Design is X.
And now they want to tell me “creationism” is not the same as “Intelligent Design”? The Dover decision displays it very nicely as to why we are just not that ignorant:
Or, to put it another way—for all the Intelligent Designers out there: Please describe the mechanism by which an intelligently designed object came into being without a Creator. It is inherent within the term itself: Intelligent Design requires an intelligent designer! They admit it themselves.
The only people being fooled into thinking there is a difference between “intelligent design” and “creationism” are the creationists themselves.
But what’s new about that method?
150 years ago the word “fly” meant either an irritating insect or an action a bird does. After the invention of the airplane, it became description of travel, as in “Are you flying to New York?” More recently the word culturally modified to mean cool: “Pretty Fly for a White Guy.”
Need I say how the words “gay,” “cool,” “hip,” and “dime” have gained new meaning?
And within the past 20 years, we are being told the word “creationism” has taken on a new meaning. But who is it that is telling us the definition has changed? Those who want to distant themselves from the word—Intelligent Designers! The why I will explore in a minute.
What is “creationism”? It is the process of “creating” something. To cause something to come into existence. We use it generally of human abilities (“create a new advertising slogan”), but within the theistic debate, it is limited to creating something from something. Or making something different.
Simply put, “creation” needs a “Creator.” It was what a creator does—creates. And the process by which the creator creates is called creationism. We think of it in terms of supernaturalistic creation, albeit it could be used in the vernacular for natural items appearing.
So what’s the big deal for a theist to say they believe in a Creator? Is there a single person who believes in a god, but that god did NOT create anything and believes this universe came about naturally? Why do theists shy away from the word “creationism” when they obviously embrace a creator?
I’ll tell you why—because of us. No, no! Not the “us” of the skeptics. Nor the “us” of those who are persuaded by evolution. Not the “us” of the scientific community.
The “us” as in lawyers. He he he—they are scared of the sharks of the courtroom.
Prior to 1968, laws were enforced in the southern American states, prohibiting the teaching of evolution. In Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), the Supreme Court struck down Arkansas’s statutory prohibition against teaching evolution. In order to preserve creationism, new laws were enacted to force “balanced treatment” by mandating creation science be given equal time to teaching evolution.
In the landmark case of Edwards v. Arkansas, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) the United States Supreme court held the requirement of teaching “creation science” along with evolution violated the Establishment clause. In essence, the teaching of “creation science” became dead in public schools. Can’t do it.
Now many times we hear the claim the post-Edwards society was the birth of Intelligent Design. While that may be true for many of the current proponents of Intelligent Design the argument from design has been with us for a long, long time. It is the teleological argument. Think of Paley’s watch. (1802)
What WAS born, post-Edward was a new term, “Intelligent Design” for the same thing—creationism or creation science. Once Edwards came down, it was clear anything labeled “Creationism” would be barred from the classroom. Therefore, creationists became intent on abandoning such a label.
We are very familiar with this tactic within the legal community. I’ll give you a big fat “for-instance.” For many years we did what we called “a plea under advisement.” Basically a defendant would plead guilty and if they were good for a period of time (while the judge considered the plea “under advisement”) the case would be dismissed. If the defendant was charge with another crime, the judge then “accepted the plea” and found the person guilty. The Michigan courts pointed out how there was no such thing as a “plea under advisement” under our statutes, and banned the practice.
No problem. Because we do have a thing called a “delayed sentence.” Instead of a “plea under advisement”--now the defendant pleads guilty, the judge “delays” sentence for a period of time, and if no new charges appear on their record, the prosecutor moves for a dismissal of the action.
Do you see the difference? You don’t? That’s because there isn’t any! We have performed the same pragmatic action only it isn’t “plea under advisement” (because that is banned)—it is a “delayed sentence” (because that is not banned.)
This is exactly what is happening here. “Intelligent Design” is the exact same thing as creation science. Only because “creation science” is banned from the schools, the creationist must no longer call it “creation science” and came up with a new phrase—“Intelligent design.”
The change was effectuated very efficiently: re-define “creationism” and then isolate it from our new term. All of a sudden “Creationism” is defined solely as a literalist young-earth creationist. (Often we see the added “Noahic flood” as well, further enforcing the literalism.) “Intelligent Design” means…well…something different. But certainly not “Creationism”! Because then they would be barred from teaching it from schools, according to Edwards.
However, as good as lawyers are at re-defining terms and finding loopholes in new definitions, we are equally adapt at seeing the obvious. We know when we do it. And we know when it quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, and smells like a duck—calling it a dog does not make it anything but a duck.
When even the people trying to re-define the words, use the same meaning for the new term—it means the same thing. One of the fascinating evidences which came out in the Dover trial was the evolution of the creationist textbook “Of Pandas and People.”
In this textbook’s initial drafts, “creation” was defined as “various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc,” Then Edwards was decided. “Creationism” was barred from the classroom. The textbook was modified, and a new term was introduced—“Intelligent Design.” Defined as: “various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc,” No difference!
Approximately 150 times, cognates of the word “creationism” were replaced with the term “Intelligent Design” in the textbook after the decision of Edwards.
How stupid do they think we are? Honestly? Let me repeat this order:
1. “Creationism is X.
2. Edwards says you cannot teach Creationism.
3. “
And now they want to tell me “creationism” is not the same as “Intelligent Design”? The Dover decision displays it very nicely as to why we are just not that ignorant:
The concept of intelligent design (hereinafter “ID”), in its current form, came into existence after the Edwards case was decided in 1987. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.
…
It is notable that not one defense expert was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by ID could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition. Accordingly, we find that ID’s religious nature would be further evident to our objective observer because it directly involves a supernatural designer.
…
Although contrary to Fuller, defense experts Professors Behe and Minnich testified that ID is not creationism, their testimony was primarily by way of bare assertion and it failed to directly rebut the creationist history of Pandas or other evidence presented by Plaintiffs showing the commonality between creationism and ID.
Or, to put it another way—for all the Intelligent Designers out there: Please describe the mechanism by which an intelligently designed object came into being without a Creator. It is inherent within the term itself: Intelligent Design requires an intelligent designer! They admit it themselves.
The only people being fooled into thinking there is a difference between “intelligent design” and “creationism” are the creationists themselves.
But what’s new about that method?
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
My Prediction on The Movie Opening this Friday
The point of predictions is to do them before the event occurs. This way, if I am correct, I can gloat about it later, saying, “See? See? I told you this would happen!” And if it turns out I am completely off the mark, I can bury it with some blog entry about Paul not being a Pharisee and hope my gaffe is quickly forgotten.
I predict Expelled the Movie will be both a colossal failure and a resounding success. Seems a pretty safe prediction, doesn’t it! *grin*
First—the colossal failure. It will bomb financially. It will obtain the most financial success in its opening weekend (not breaking the top 10 movie-makers) and then will quickly fade to oblivion by the next weekend. Out on DVD by Memorial Day 2008, I should think.
The reason for this? I know my (former) fellow Christians. They are cheap and this is as uninteresting to them as it is the rest of the world.
I am sorry, but Christians are cheap. My proof on this point is my interaction with numerous wait staff. Ask any person who has ever waited on tables for a living and ask them the worst tippers. Invariably they will tell you it is the Christian crowd on Sunday afternoon and worse!--the Baptists on Sunday evening. (The only ones left with a Sunday Evening service.)
As humans, we are cheap enough. There is a reason the number of sales of movie tickets have declined for the past years—DVD’s. Compare (for me):
Movie Tickets: Three Adults ($24), Two kids ($10)
Popcorn & Pop: Three Super Saver Package ($24)
Candy: Four ($10)
I can take my family and easily spend $68 without blinking. Now consider waiting a month or so:
DVD: $16
Pizza: Two ($11)
Pop: 24 cans ($5)
Candy: 3 bags ($9)
Microwave Popcorn: 10 bags ($8)
I have stuffed my family, with pop, popcorn, and pizza left over for $50. AND I can watch the movie again whenever I want. AND I can pause it and go to the bathroom. (See “Pop.”) How many Creationists are thinking of seeing this moving and then thinking of all the “stewardship” points they get for waiting for it to come out on DVD?
Secondly, I wonder how many Creationists are really interested in this movie. Let’s face it; the third worst killer word for a Movie is “Documentary.”* As a teenager, did you want to get together with your friends and see a…documentary? Naw—you wanted “Prom Night!” There the Creationist will be…clutching their $68 and thinking “’Expelled,’ which I know I should see, and would earn me God-points, but gosh-darn-it, ‘Leatherheads’ is showing at the same time. And God wants me to have a laugh. I will get it on DVD when it comes out…”
Not to mention this is April—spring is in the air, lawn work needs to be done, soccer games attended. Maybe next week. If it rains…or when it comes out on DVD.
I don’t see the excitement generated to go out on a spring day to see a documentary. In which the narrator is infamous for speaking in a monotone!!
Yes, I know every Christian film-maker is hoping to replicate “The Passion of the Christ.” They won’t admit it out loud (Pride being one of the seven deadly sins) but the desire is still there. This is no “Passion.”
“The Passion” was a phenomena. A rare occurrence. In the Christian community, it become more than a movie, it became “AN EVENT.” People were buying blocks of tickets and holding get-togethers afterwards. People were talking in church about movie times. Pastors were telling people to go in bulletins.
People who would never darken the door of a movie theater 10 years ago were buying movie tickets for friends. Tales were spread across e-mails about murderers confessing crimes after seeing the thing. And people openly weeping and becoming Christians right there on pop-sticky floors. Rumors had it Satan even went to see it! (And objected to his portrayal in the movie. He thought Jack Nicholson was more suited for the role.)
Is that sort of hype being generated about Expelled? I am a bit out-of-touch, but I haven’t seen the e-mails (I’m still on the mailing list.) I haven’t seen the hype. Because it is a documentary.
Plus, in “The Passion” people knew the story. They knew the happy ending. They knew this was the triumph of Christianity, with all its gore and pain. Here they know the story (face it—they know all creationists are being terribly persecuted by the science community. They’ve heard there is talk of bringing back burning at the stake…) but how interesting IS the story? Movies are about pictures and presentation and blood flying and grimaces and pain in the eyes and glorious Color. A story with a monotone narrator about some Ph.D. who we don’t care whether they obtained tenure—is that the making of a movie?
And THAT is why it will be a resounding success. Creationists don’t need to go see the movie. All they need is to know it was made. That some “smart” people somewhere said something which aligns with what the creationists thinks is justification enough to ratify the Creationist’s position in their mind.
This movie will become the proverbial “they” in statements such as “They don’t let creationists become professors” or “They have a conspiracy to keep the failed theory of evolution alive” or whatever else ”They” need be accused of.
How do we know it’s true? Because there is a movie about it! Sure, the creationist won’t actually see the movie, or study the other side which is presented, or look things up, or read a book. Oh, no! None of that is necessary. Why? ‘Cause some smart people said it, so it must be true.
I’ve watched this happen over and over. When discussing topics surrounding the Bible, I will ask a question of the Christian. And many times it has been said to me, “People smarter than YOU have studied it, and remained Christians.” True enough—but what have they studied? What is the argument? What are the competing claims?
All many Christians want is the reassurance that somebody, somewhere studied something and that somebody has an I.Q. or a degree or a talent, and that is good enough to satisfy them.
And this movie is just that “somebody.”
So my prediction? Bomb financially; haunt us for decades.
*The second worst is “Indie” and the worst of all time is “Sub-titled.”
I predict Expelled the Movie will be both a colossal failure and a resounding success. Seems a pretty safe prediction, doesn’t it! *grin*
First—the colossal failure. It will bomb financially. It will obtain the most financial success in its opening weekend (not breaking the top 10 movie-makers) and then will quickly fade to oblivion by the next weekend. Out on DVD by Memorial Day 2008, I should think.
The reason for this? I know my (former) fellow Christians. They are cheap and this is as uninteresting to them as it is the rest of the world.
I am sorry, but Christians are cheap. My proof on this point is my interaction with numerous wait staff. Ask any person who has ever waited on tables for a living and ask them the worst tippers. Invariably they will tell you it is the Christian crowd on Sunday afternoon and worse!--the Baptists on Sunday evening. (The only ones left with a Sunday Evening service.)
As humans, we are cheap enough. There is a reason the number of sales of movie tickets have declined for the past years—DVD’s. Compare (for me):
Movie Tickets: Three Adults ($24), Two kids ($10)
Popcorn & Pop: Three Super Saver Package ($24)
Candy: Four ($10)
I can take my family and easily spend $68 without blinking. Now consider waiting a month or so:
DVD: $16
Pizza: Two ($11)
Pop: 24 cans ($5)
Candy: 3 bags ($9)
Microwave Popcorn: 10 bags ($8)
I have stuffed my family, with pop, popcorn, and pizza left over for $50. AND I can watch the movie again whenever I want. AND I can pause it and go to the bathroom. (See “Pop.”) How many Creationists are thinking of seeing this moving and then thinking of all the “stewardship” points they get for waiting for it to come out on DVD?
Secondly, I wonder how many Creationists are really interested in this movie. Let’s face it; the third worst killer word for a Movie is “Documentary.”* As a teenager, did you want to get together with your friends and see a…documentary? Naw—you wanted “Prom Night!” There the Creationist will be…clutching their $68 and thinking “’Expelled,’ which I know I should see, and would earn me God-points, but gosh-darn-it, ‘Leatherheads’ is showing at the same time. And God wants me to have a laugh. I will get it on DVD when it comes out…”
Not to mention this is April—spring is in the air, lawn work needs to be done, soccer games attended. Maybe next week. If it rains…or when it comes out on DVD.
I don’t see the excitement generated to go out on a spring day to see a documentary. In which the narrator is infamous for speaking in a monotone!!
Yes, I know every Christian film-maker is hoping to replicate “The Passion of the Christ.” They won’t admit it out loud (Pride being one of the seven deadly sins) but the desire is still there. This is no “Passion.”
“The Passion” was a phenomena. A rare occurrence. In the Christian community, it become more than a movie, it became “AN EVENT.” People were buying blocks of tickets and holding get-togethers afterwards. People were talking in church about movie times. Pastors were telling people to go in bulletins.
People who would never darken the door of a movie theater 10 years ago were buying movie tickets for friends. Tales were spread across e-mails about murderers confessing crimes after seeing the thing. And people openly weeping and becoming Christians right there on pop-sticky floors. Rumors had it Satan even went to see it! (And objected to his portrayal in the movie. He thought Jack Nicholson was more suited for the role.)
Is that sort of hype being generated about Expelled? I am a bit out-of-touch, but I haven’t seen the e-mails (I’m still on the mailing list.) I haven’t seen the hype. Because it is a documentary.
Plus, in “The Passion” people knew the story. They knew the happy ending. They knew this was the triumph of Christianity, with all its gore and pain. Here they know the story (face it—they know all creationists are being terribly persecuted by the science community. They’ve heard there is talk of bringing back burning at the stake…) but how interesting IS the story? Movies are about pictures and presentation and blood flying and grimaces and pain in the eyes and glorious Color. A story with a monotone narrator about some Ph.D. who we don’t care whether they obtained tenure—is that the making of a movie?
And THAT is why it will be a resounding success. Creationists don’t need to go see the movie. All they need is to know it was made. That some “smart” people somewhere said something which aligns with what the creationists thinks is justification enough to ratify the Creationist’s position in their mind.
This movie will become the proverbial “they” in statements such as “They don’t let creationists become professors” or “They have a conspiracy to keep the failed theory of evolution alive” or whatever else ”They” need be accused of.
How do we know it’s true? Because there is a movie about it! Sure, the creationist won’t actually see the movie, or study the other side which is presented, or look things up, or read a book. Oh, no! None of that is necessary. Why? ‘Cause some smart people said it, so it must be true.
I’ve watched this happen over and over. When discussing topics surrounding the Bible, I will ask a question of the Christian. And many times it has been said to me, “People smarter than YOU have studied it, and remained Christians.” True enough—but what have they studied? What is the argument? What are the competing claims?
All many Christians want is the reassurance that somebody, somewhere studied something and that somebody has an I.Q. or a degree or a talent, and that is good enough to satisfy them.
And this movie is just that “somebody.”
So my prediction? Bomb financially; haunt us for decades.
*The second worst is “Indie” and the worst of all time is “Sub-titled.”
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Post-modernism: What is it and Why Must I Hate it?
In the theistic debate the word “postmodern” is often juxtaposed against Christianity. It has become the equivalent of circumcision of Paul’s time, or Rock-n-Roll of the 1970’s. We see:
I might read:
Or
Or
O.K. I am starting to get it. Simply put:
Postmodern = Bad.
J.P. Moreland defines it as:
Are you getting it?
Well…to be honest…me neither….
Wikipedia (at best only a good starting point) hits it dead-on with this one. It heads its article in bold:
”This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.”
It certain is.
Everyone seems to agree this thing “postmodern” exists. Everyone seems willing to use the term and debate upon it. Everyone seems to agree it is very difficult to define. Yet I find no consistency in its use.
As near as I can tell (and I might be quite wrong) postmodernism is a question as to the perception of reality. Is it real because it exists, or does it only become real once we perceive it? And because we perceive things differently, is reality equally different?
The classic example of this is the old adage, “If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?” Does the “reality” of sound require a recipient?
Seems like a fun philosophical question to debate at 1 in the morning over a glass of wine. Along with “How many angels can dance on a head of a pin?” or “If you went back in time and kept your parents from meeting—what would happen to you?”
But that is ALL it is--a philosophical mind masturbation. As all can see, even by voicing the statement “reality is not real” becomes a contradiction in itself, since it is making a statement as to the realness of reality! It is a question; not an answer.
Yet it has now become the bogeyman of the theistic debate. It appears as if I genuinely disagree with your position, it is equated with saying reality is not real, and therefore I am a “postmodernist” and am bad. It works as follows:
Christian: The Jesus of the Gospels is a historical fact.
Me: There is an element of myth within the Gospel accounts.
Christian: Since the Gospels are “truth” and “real” by your questioning their historical accuracy, you are saying “real” is relative and “truth” is relative, and therefore you are a postmodernist, and therefore you are evil and bad and a Satanist and I don’t have to listen to you.
I also see that “postmodernism” is considered the same as relative morals. It works like this:
Christians: Morals are absolute:
Me: Prove it.
Christian: Since you don’t think morals are absolute, you think morals are relative and since morals are the same as truth, you must also think all truth is relative, and therefore you are a postmodernist and evil and…
What I see is the term “postmodern” is used like a scarlet letter, and even the person using it doesn’t understand what it means, but they DO understand by labeling someone as a “postmodern” all the people who agree with them (i.e.—other Christians) will dismiss anything they say.
So you all are smart—you tell me. What is “postmodern” mean, what do I need to believe to be a “postmodern” and why am I against it?
We have been watching the postmodern mind in its development, and it is now well developed. Not only do we see the themes of postmodernity taking hold of the larger culture, but we understand the challenge this pattern of thinking poses to Christian truth and Christian truth-telling. Tolerance is perverted into a radical secularism that is anything but tolerant. There is little openness to truth, and growing hostility to truth claims. Indeed, the postmodern mind has a fanatical, if selective, dedication to moral relativism, and an understanding that truth has no objective or absolute basis whatsoever.Here
I might read:
The philosophical maneuvers borrowed from postmodern theory provide a mechanism for transcending the defensive posture against Enlightenment criticism that mainstream Christianity has had to assume for most of the last 300 years. By denying that truth is propositional, Emerging Church theorists avoid and renounce any responsibility to defend many of the doctrines long considered essential to the Christian faith.Here
Or
The fact of the matter is that, in their own minds, these young men had good “reason” to do this. Is it any wonder that our postmodern young people, with a lavish lifestyle that their grandparents could have never dreamed of, are so dark and miserable? Why is it that our young teenagers, who have their own TV’s, Stereos, Cell Phones, Game Boys, etc., who have never had to fight in a World War, are so angry at the very people who have spoiled them?Here
Or
Now postmoderns no longer recognize and respect someone who has a differing belief when it comes to the issue of tolerance. Instead, in their quest to be “tolerant” they are unjust because they are being intolerant of someone just because they have a different belief when in the past that would have been tolerated. So justice and “positive tolerance” are incompatible. They are, in fact, antithetical.Here
O.K. I am starting to get it. Simply put:
Postmodern = Bad.
J.P. Moreland defines it as:
On a postmodernist view, there is no such thing as objective truth, reality, value, reason and so forth. All these are social constructions, creations of linguistic practices and, as such, are relative not to individuals (as is often mistakenly supposed), but to social groups that share a narrative.Here
Are you getting it?
Well…to be honest…me neither….
Wikipedia (at best only a good starting point) hits it dead-on with this one. It heads its article in bold:
”This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.”
It certain is.
Everyone seems to agree this thing “postmodern” exists. Everyone seems willing to use the term and debate upon it. Everyone seems to agree it is very difficult to define. Yet I find no consistency in its use.
As near as I can tell (and I might be quite wrong) postmodernism is a question as to the perception of reality. Is it real because it exists, or does it only become real once we perceive it? And because we perceive things differently, is reality equally different?
The classic example of this is the old adage, “If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?” Does the “reality” of sound require a recipient?
Seems like a fun philosophical question to debate at 1 in the morning over a glass of wine. Along with “How many angels can dance on a head of a pin?” or “If you went back in time and kept your parents from meeting—what would happen to you?”
But that is ALL it is--a philosophical mind masturbation. As all can see, even by voicing the statement “reality is not real” becomes a contradiction in itself, since it is making a statement as to the realness of reality! It is a question; not an answer.
Yet it has now become the bogeyman of the theistic debate. It appears as if I genuinely disagree with your position, it is equated with saying reality is not real, and therefore I am a “postmodernist” and am bad. It works as follows:
Christian: The Jesus of the Gospels is a historical fact.
Me: There is an element of myth within the Gospel accounts.
Christian: Since the Gospels are “truth” and “real” by your questioning their historical accuracy, you are saying “real” is relative and “truth” is relative, and therefore you are a postmodernist, and therefore you are evil and bad and a Satanist and I don’t have to listen to you.
I also see that “postmodernism” is considered the same as relative morals. It works like this:
Christians: Morals are absolute:
Me: Prove it.
Christian: Since you don’t think morals are absolute, you think morals are relative and since morals are the same as truth, you must also think all truth is relative, and therefore you are a postmodernist and evil and…
What I see is the term “postmodern” is used like a scarlet letter, and even the person using it doesn’t understand what it means, but they DO understand by labeling someone as a “postmodern” all the people who agree with them (i.e.—other Christians) will dismiss anything they say.
So you all are smart—you tell me. What is “postmodern” mean, what do I need to believe to be a “postmodern” and why am I against it?
Monday, April 07, 2008
The Wrong Sort
So, while you walked up and down and wondered if it would rain, Winnie-the-Pooh sang this song:From “Winnie-the-Pooh.”
How sweet to be a Cloud
Floating in the Blue!
Every little cloud
Always sings aloud.
"How sweet to be a Cloud
Floating in the Blue!"
It makes him very proud
To be a little cloud.
The bees were still buzzing as suspiciously as ever. Some of them, indeed, left their nests and flew all round the cloud as it began the second verse of this song, and one bee sat down on the nose of the cloud for a moment, and then got up again.
"Christopher -- ow! -- Robin," called out the cloud.
"Yes?"
"I have just been thinking, and I have come to a very important decision. These are the wrong sort of bees."
“Are they?"
"Quite the wrong sort. So I should think they would make the wrong sort of honey, shouldn't you?"
"Would they?"
"Yes. So I think I shall come down."
We deconverts are told a variety of reasons why we a)failed to continue to be Christians or b)were not Christians in the first place. These reasons range from not having enough faith, to having the wrong sort of faith, to having the wrong belief, to being too focused on religion, too focused on church, too focused on other Christians, and so on and so on and so on. Our belief (as firmly held as any believer) we were actually Christians is stripped away by definition.
Simple, really. Define a “Christian” as a person who always believes Jesus is God (amongst other requirements), and since we did not “always” believe—Voila! We could not (by definition) have ever been a Christian. But rather than stick with that, the Christian often takes another step to dive into what sort of “Christianity” it was that we thought we believed in, and to further explain how it was the wrong sort of Christianity.
Which leads us directly to the question: Where does one determine the right sort of Christianity?
I can’t look to other Christians. Whenever we point out the moral failings in Christians we are assured this is all expected. Christians sin, too. (Rom. 7:19) When we point out the moral accomplishments of non-believers, we are assured this, too, is expected. Even the Samaritan can stumble upon Loving his neighbor.
Morally, we cannot tell the difference between believers and non-believers; let alone the difference between the “right sort” and the “wrong sort.”
Intellectually, we are informed there will be those who profess to know Jesus as Lord, and even manage to do great works in Jesus’ name, yet are not saved. Matt. 7:21-23. A person who claims to be Christian and demonstrates prophesy and casting out demons is insufficient to be certain they have the “right sort” of Christianity. People who are very persuasive, with golden tongues and silver voices and woo entire audiences into being convinced of their Christianity may not make it. 1 Cor. 13:1
So using other people as our determinative for the right sort is out.
Perhaps the Bible? Yet in looking at the various authors, they present differing views as to what qualifies for Christianity. Romans 10:9 indicates it is a matter of belief. Yet Matt. 7:24 indicates it is a matter of action—actually implementing the words of Jesus—not just believing them. “By your fruits you shall know them.” Matt. 7:20. The book of James clearly states works will be the evident result of faith. James 2:20;26. Not to mention John 13:35; “By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."
Now we are back to looking at people! And back to Christians giving excuses as to why this is not the way to look for the right sort of Christianity.
Perhaps look to Jesus for the right sort of Christianity? Fair enough, but which Jesus? The one who loved sinners or insulted sinners? The one who gave sight or the one who blinded? And for me to “look at Jesus” requires a determination as to the reliability of the historicity of the Gospels. Or am I being told to act like a myth? Am I being told to believe in a phantom?
We are informed the Bible is not a biology book, so we shouldn’t expect it to be accurate when it comes to biology. We are told the Bible is not a mathematics book—can’t expect it to be accurate regarding mathematics. It is not a book on cosmology, astrology, climatology, geology, chemistry—can’t expect it to be accurate regarding those fields.
News flash—the Gospels aren’t histories! If the Bible, not being a science text is unsurprisingly inaccurate when it comes to science; then isn’t it equally expected to be inaccurate when it comes to history? Not being a history text?
See, the constant problem in saying, “Don’t look to the Bible; look to Jesus” is that the Bible is the primary source for our information about Jesus! Tell me what you know about Jesus without using an anecdote from the Bible, and you will see what I mean.
We also have the problem of determining canonicity, Textual criticism, translation issues, not to mention the Synoptic Problem, the inaccuracies, and the contradictions. While a Christian may be able to overlook these problems, remember the person you are asking to “look” (i.e.-me!) cannot.
Finally, we are told to “Look to God.” While this is a pleasant phrase—does it practically do us any good? I have a friend who, whenever we part, says, “Drive Safe!” Pleasant words, but in the end no practical value. Does this mean drive the speed limit? Less than the speed limit? Pass a slow car? Take a right on red?
While we have every intention (with or without this phrase) of driving safe, the saying itself holds no practical meaning. It is the same with “Look to God.” For the theist this is easy—they mean “Look to my God. The one I believe in.” But remember—belief is not enough. And I have all those other theists…you know… the wrong “sort” of Christians all saying to look to their Gods, too.
It has struck me how I have heard this accusation a LOT when discussing on-line. How I was the wrong sort of Christian. And almost every time, it causes me to contemplate, “Why have I never heard this from my family? Or my friends? Or my former acquaintances?” Only recently did I realize why (and yes, this makes me slow.)
Because they have the same sort of Christianity as I did. If mine was “wrong”—so is theirs!
They have the same intellectual understanding of Christianity. The same moral beliefs. We shared the same prayer life. The same convictions. The same “fruits” working on the same projects at the same times. We cried together, laughed together, and fought the Christian fight together.
They dare not tell me I had an inaccurate picture of Jesus—it is the same picture they hold to now. They cannot say I was incorrect in my comprehension of the Canon, or inspiration or inerrancy—it is their same view. They cannot fault my morals, my beliefs or my knowledge. It would be an indictment against their own beliefs.
I wonder if all those people who accuse me of having the wrong sort of Christianity realize just how many others, standing behind me, they are also accusing? Is my entire family practicing the wrong sort of Christianity? I can assure you, they would be quite surprised to discover due to one itty-bitty deconversion (mine) we had discovered a belief held by dozens of people, across four generations (on many sides) was completely wrong.
Is my family doomed to hell because of me? Or my friends and church associates—1000’s, maybe 10’s of 1000’s when I consider all the sister/daughter churches of the places which I attended—these people would be shocked to discover one small deconversion was the hole which broke the dam, revealing their entire belief system is the wrong sort.
I wonder if they realize how many people they are condemning to hell because of the accusation one deconvert held the wrong belief? I know my family and friends understand this quite well!
Does one little bee-sting on the nose determine the whole hive must be the wrong sort of bees?
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Sauce for the Goose…
…is sauce for the Gander. Or so they say.
For all those Christians upset about the limitation to their “Freedom of Speech” as portrayed in Expelled the Movie or how scientists who hold to creationism are treated by their evolutionary associates:
So…do you really hold Freedom of Speech in such high regard—or only the Freedom of your particular brand of speech?
(H/T to KVO for this story here)
For all those Christians upset about the limitation to their “Freedom of Speech” as portrayed in Expelled the Movie or how scientists who hold to creationism are treated by their evolutionary associates:
Friends Defend Ousted TeacherArticle
Grand Rapids -- Filmmaker and anthropologist Graham Townsley could not believe it when he heard his friend, Kent Dobson, lost his job after hosting a historical documentary about Jesus.
"We bent over backward to be really careful and not make crazy assertions," Townsley said of the Discovery Channel program he made with Dobson last summer in Egypt and Israel. "We were so careful to be respectful."
Dobson, the 31-year-old son of retired Calvary Church pastor Ed Dobson, resigned his post as Bible teacher at NorthPointe Christian High School last week after the school board questioned his role in the March 16 special, "Jesus: The Missing History."
On the hourlong program, Dobson questioned biblical scholars on possible contradictions between the Gospels and the historical evidence of Jesus' life. The questions included:
Was Bethlehem Jesus' birthplace?
Was Jesus a carpenter or a stone mason?
Was Jesus' eviction of money changers from the temple a political or religious move?
Is there any truth in the Gnostic gospels?
In the program, which is not scheduled for rebroadcast, Dobson does not definitively answer the questions or take a position. He interviews biblical scholars who present evidence that contradicts the Bible.
"You see, when I was a kid, we were told the four Gospels of the New Testament told you everything you needed to know about Jesus," Dobson says early in the program. "But as I studied the ancient history of my faith, I started coming up with real questions."
Those questions were what led to Dobson's resignation, his father, Ed Dobson, said last week.
Ed Dobson said the board left his son with no choice but to resign.
Kent Dobson, NorthPointe school board President Kevin Belk and other board members have refused to comment on the specifics of Dobson's departure from the private school on the city's Northeast Side. Superintendent Tom Hofman said only that Dobson resigned because it was apparent to all parties involved that statements made on the program were "outside of the school's Statement of Faith."
Carlos Hidalgo, Dobson's friend and former chairman of the NorthPointe school board, said the teacher's desire to delve deep into Scripture is what appealed to his students.
"This is what Kent is all about. You don't hide from the tough questions or turn them aside," Hidalgo said. "Young people look for truth, not just glib answers like, 'We've always done it this way.' He challenges the status quo in a soft, nonbelligerent kind of way," Hidalgo said.
But, once you start asking questions, "all the dominos start falling," said NorthPointe parent and Calvin College professor Don Hettinga. "The unfortunate thing about these events is that they suggest that thinking deeply and asking questions is wrong," he said.
Dobson was recruited nearly two years ago to teach Bible classes to juniors at NorthPointe, formerly Grand Rapids Baptist Schools. He also traveled to Israel with his students and lived there with his family from 2002-05.
NorthPointe has a "Christian world and life view taught from a conservative viewpoint," according to the school's Web site. That's in contrast to Dobson's style of asking questions and digging deep for the truth, friends said.
So…do you really hold Freedom of Speech in such high regard—or only the Freedom of your particular brand of speech?
(H/T to KVO for this story here)
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
I am the enemy
It is amazing the effect of words and labeling. The other day, while waiting for an Oil Change, I watched some talking head on a news program make a good point:
“We see the Bush Administration utilize certain words, and the media simply picks up on it without thought as to what those words even mean. Think about the current use of the word ‘Surge’ regarding the influx of troops in Iraq. Normally, when we think of the word ‘Surge” we think of a short burst—like a surge of electricity or a surge of water—which quickly returns to the original state.
“However, what we have in Iraq is an increase in troop size with no apparent reduction in the future. This is not a ‘Surge;’ it should be called what it is—an Escalation.”
In the legal community we have seen the same clever use of words when it comes to the “War” on Drugs. See, in “war” things become acceptable which would normally be questioned. If I had an illegal gun in my house – I can be charged with illegal possession of a weapon. We would think it ludicrous to claim the Government could seize my house, simply because I had a single gun within.
Yet if I was growing one (1) plant of marijuana, because we are in a “war” on drugs, the State has the right to take my entire home!
If I get into a fistfight at a bar, the state can charge me with assault and battery. There are no driving sanctions involved—I wasn’t driving at the time. BUT, if I take a puff of pot in that same bar—I will lose my ability to drive for 30 days. No restricted license available. Why?—because we have a “war” on drugs.
I get the same sinking feeling when it comes to the theistic debate arena. As if, to many Christians, I am “the enemy.” And we all know we treat our enemies very differently than our friends. Because this is a “war”—and in times of war we do things normally considered unacceptable.
Could you imagine inviting me to your house, and discover me snooping around your computer—reading your old e-mails? How rude! Or pawing through your financial records in your cabinets? Yet when it comes to our enemies, this is acceptable behavior. We call it “spying.” In fact, we train and teach men and women to do exactly that—spy on other countries. Because they are the enemy.
When speaking to our friends, we expect the truth. But when speaking to the enemy, we actually promote the exact opposite. It becomes wrong to speak the truth; you lie to your enemies.
Many Christians believe it is not only allowable, but honorable to lie to me. Why? Because I am the enemy. The most stark quote on this can be found here “So, for war purposes (believers and unbelievers are at war), I deceived.”
Another interesting facet of people at war is how we caricature the enemy. Look at these war propaganda posters of the Japanese depicting them raping white women, or with sharpened teeth and evil stares. No matter how much a Sony DVD player goes up in price, such an editorial cartoon would be considered slanderous now. Because we are not at war.
Yet I see the same caricature depicted of non-believers. How many times have we been depicted as immoral, alcoholic, sex-crazed social deviants? Or that we are somehow bent on turning every convenience store into a strip joint and every church into a brothel.
How many times have I been told, “Try reading the Bible” when I know it better than the person telling me? Or we see the phrase, “You believe there are no absolutes.” It is a common tactic used in time of war—paint the enemy as ridiculous at times, or frightening at others.
The reason I bring this up is that I have been following the reviews of the upcoming movie with Ben Stein - Expelled. I haven’t seen the movie, and have no intention of doing so until I can free-of-charge. I will not provide financial support to the producers of this film.
But what I find fascinating is the umbrage taken by non-believers and evolutionists to the many visual comparisons of Stalin and Hitler to scientists holding to evolution. Or the concern over the falsehoods, in obtaining the interviews, in editing the interviews, in the reasons for kicking PZ Myers out, in the scientific claims made, and in the factual claims made.
Why? Don’t you get it? To them, they are in a time of war. This is behavior which is to be commended! If this movie was a complete lie, yet was the impetus for Intelligent Design being incorporated in one (1) public school—the Christians promoting this film would consider it a success! The ends most certainly are justified by the means.
To them, if a lie brings about a moral good—then the lie is no longer morally wrong. If a caricature of anyone holding to evolution being the equivalent of Stalin or Hitler convinces a single person to not investigate evolution on their own—then the caricature was morally good.
Don’t you see those complaints about falsehoods; complaints about inaccuracies; complaints about incorrect depictions will fall off them like water off a duck’s back? They don’t care; such actions are tolerable when the outcome is noble.
What if a person of Japanese decent complained of the posters and cartoons distributed in World War II? They would be equally laughed at and disregarded—the enemy complaining about being treated like the enemy? How amusing! Or a foreign country complaining we “lied” about a person in the Ambassador’s staff not being a spy. One lies to the enemy. It is right, just and fair to do so.
You are fighting with the wrong weapons on the wrong ground. Every complaint of “Lie!” is met with a solidifying of their position. Shoot—if the enemy is complaining of your lying, you must be doing something correct! ‘Cause one lies to one’s enemies.
I do think it important to point out the errors. I think websites, such as I linked, must be created to counter the falsehoods in this film. But I equally find it naïve if you think a single Christian will care—even if we prove it a lie.
I am the enemy. What I say is to be rejected outright.
“We see the Bush Administration utilize certain words, and the media simply picks up on it without thought as to what those words even mean. Think about the current use of the word ‘Surge’ regarding the influx of troops in Iraq. Normally, when we think of the word ‘Surge” we think of a short burst—like a surge of electricity or a surge of water—which quickly returns to the original state.
“However, what we have in Iraq is an increase in troop size with no apparent reduction in the future. This is not a ‘Surge;’ it should be called what it is—an Escalation.”
In the legal community we have seen the same clever use of words when it comes to the “War” on Drugs. See, in “war” things become acceptable which would normally be questioned. If I had an illegal gun in my house – I can be charged with illegal possession of a weapon. We would think it ludicrous to claim the Government could seize my house, simply because I had a single gun within.
Yet if I was growing one (1) plant of marijuana, because we are in a “war” on drugs, the State has the right to take my entire home!
If I get into a fistfight at a bar, the state can charge me with assault and battery. There are no driving sanctions involved—I wasn’t driving at the time. BUT, if I take a puff of pot in that same bar—I will lose my ability to drive for 30 days. No restricted license available. Why?—because we have a “war” on drugs.
I get the same sinking feeling when it comes to the theistic debate arena. As if, to many Christians, I am “the enemy.” And we all know we treat our enemies very differently than our friends. Because this is a “war”—and in times of war we do things normally considered unacceptable.
Could you imagine inviting me to your house, and discover me snooping around your computer—reading your old e-mails? How rude! Or pawing through your financial records in your cabinets? Yet when it comes to our enemies, this is acceptable behavior. We call it “spying.” In fact, we train and teach men and women to do exactly that—spy on other countries. Because they are the enemy.
When speaking to our friends, we expect the truth. But when speaking to the enemy, we actually promote the exact opposite. It becomes wrong to speak the truth; you lie to your enemies.
Many Christians believe it is not only allowable, but honorable to lie to me. Why? Because I am the enemy. The most stark quote on this can be found here “So, for war purposes (believers and unbelievers are at war), I deceived.”
Another interesting facet of people at war is how we caricature the enemy. Look at these war propaganda posters of the Japanese depicting them raping white women, or with sharpened teeth and evil stares. No matter how much a Sony DVD player goes up in price, such an editorial cartoon would be considered slanderous now. Because we are not at war.
Yet I see the same caricature depicted of non-believers. How many times have we been depicted as immoral, alcoholic, sex-crazed social deviants? Or that we are somehow bent on turning every convenience store into a strip joint and every church into a brothel.
How many times have I been told, “Try reading the Bible” when I know it better than the person telling me? Or we see the phrase, “You believe there are no absolutes.” It is a common tactic used in time of war—paint the enemy as ridiculous at times, or frightening at others.
The reason I bring this up is that I have been following the reviews of the upcoming movie with Ben Stein - Expelled. I haven’t seen the movie, and have no intention of doing so until I can free-of-charge. I will not provide financial support to the producers of this film.
But what I find fascinating is the umbrage taken by non-believers and evolutionists to the many visual comparisons of Stalin and Hitler to scientists holding to evolution. Or the concern over the falsehoods, in obtaining the interviews, in editing the interviews, in the reasons for kicking PZ Myers out, in the scientific claims made, and in the factual claims made.
Why? Don’t you get it? To them, they are in a time of war. This is behavior which is to be commended! If this movie was a complete lie, yet was the impetus for Intelligent Design being incorporated in one (1) public school—the Christians promoting this film would consider it a success! The ends most certainly are justified by the means.
To them, if a lie brings about a moral good—then the lie is no longer morally wrong. If a caricature of anyone holding to evolution being the equivalent of Stalin or Hitler convinces a single person to not investigate evolution on their own—then the caricature was morally good.
Don’t you see those complaints about falsehoods; complaints about inaccuracies; complaints about incorrect depictions will fall off them like water off a duck’s back? They don’t care; such actions are tolerable when the outcome is noble.
What if a person of Japanese decent complained of the posters and cartoons distributed in World War II? They would be equally laughed at and disregarded—the enemy complaining about being treated like the enemy? How amusing! Or a foreign country complaining we “lied” about a person in the Ambassador’s staff not being a spy. One lies to the enemy. It is right, just and fair to do so.
You are fighting with the wrong weapons on the wrong ground. Every complaint of “Lie!” is met with a solidifying of their position. Shoot—if the enemy is complaining of your lying, you must be doing something correct! ‘Cause one lies to one’s enemies.
I do think it important to point out the errors. I think websites, such as I linked, must be created to counter the falsehoods in this film. But I equally find it naïve if you think a single Christian will care—even if we prove it a lie.
I am the enemy. What I say is to be rejected outright.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
A Little Mixed-Up
At one time, people read the historical accounts in the Tanakh, and presumed them to be literally, factually, and historically true. God created the world in exactly one week, approximately 6000 years ago. People actually lived to be 900 years old.
The Flood consisted of 40 literal days of rain, and the entire world was covered in water. There was a literal Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. Ten actual plagues (as described) happened, resulting in 600,000 Hebrew men (plus women, children, livestock and belongings) exiting from Egypt. Joshua’s genocide occurred, followed by the time of the Judges, followed by a Joint Kingdom.
Times change.
Advances in science have happened. Geology and dating has become more accurate. Archeology has generated vast discoveries. And as the pace of technology increases—these stories are slowly being chipped away.
Oh, there are still stalwarts who hold to a 6000 year old Earth, and a world-wide Flood, and Exodus—despite the evidence. But many have re-evaluated the accounts. Now the “days” in Genesis chapter one are considered “periods of time.” Or the story is allegorical in form only. No longer is it actual, literal or historical. “Adam & Eve” are representations—not actual people.
The Flood? Only a local affair in which some guy probably put his wife and kids with a coupla calves and sheep on a raft for a few weeks. The Ten Plagues? Volcanic Eruption. The Exodus? Well, there weren’t really two million people wandering around for 40 years. Maybe a few thousand (at best) and then only a year or so. Joshua’s genocide? Minor skirmishes.
As we study and learn, the stories of the Tanakh become more and more improbable, even to the person who holds them as inspired, and science is prevailing. The Christian has to modify their position from an actual, literal event to more of a type, or legendary or blown-out-of-proportion event.
But isn’t that saying the stories of the Tanakh are wrong? See, the question presented is: what did the authors of these stories believe? Did they hold them out to be historical events? If so, weren’t they wrong? If they were wrong as to history (which we can confirm); why should I trust they would be right regarding actions on the part of a God—which we can’t confirm?
I realize that Christians of today’s time do not want to appear silly in light of the evidence presented. So they wrangle and force an allegorical meaning into what, even they see, cannot have actually happened.
Yet this undercuts the premise. It recognizes the Bible is wrong. It recognizes the Bible, when written, was factually inaccurate and only recent developments have placed the Christian in this precarious position by which they must read into the text what is not there.
Look at the New Testament authors. Did they think these were historical events? (And, on the Jewish side, it should be noted Josephus, writing in the First Century, treated these as actual, literal, historical events. Not as allegories. Not as mythical developments.)
Matthew and Luke record Jesus as saying Noah was an actual person. (Matt. 24:37-38; Luke 17:26-27) The author of 1 Peter treats Noah as an actual person, with an actual flood. (1 Peter 3:20) So does the author of 2 Peter. (2 Peter 3:20)
The authors of the New Testament treat Moses as an actual person. Not an allegory. (Matt. 8:4, 19:7; Mark 7:10, 12:19; Luke 20:37, 24:27; John 1:45, 3:14, 5:46; Acts 7:20-44; Rom. 9:15; 1 Cor. 10:2; 2 Cor. 3:13; 2 Tim. 3:8; and Jude 9) Adam is considered a real person. (Luke 3:38; 1 Cor. 15:45; 1 Tim. 2:13-14; and Jude 14)
And, most famous of all, the author of Hebrews commends Noah (11:7) and Moses (11:23-29) for the events recorded in their lives in the Tanakh. As well as confirming the historical claim of Joshua’s genocide. (Hebrews 11:30-31)
2000 years ago, those who revered the Tanakh treated the historical accounts as events which happened as literally recorded. What has changed? If greater knowledge has demonstrated these accounts are in error, I understand it is quite convenient to brush it off as “allegorical” or “legend” or “myth,”—but can you understand why the claim this is error goes a long way to proving the Bible is in error on these points?
But it gets worse. And funnier.
See, in the First Century, it was accepted practice to write historiographical documents. When writing a biography, it was not expected, nor anticipated, for the author to write an exact date-by-date, event-by-event actual history.
So the author would write what they anticipate the person would have said—not necessarily what the person actually said. We see this in the speeches Josephus ascribes to individuals in his accounts. We also see this in the speeches the author of Acts puts in the lips of Peter and Paul.
No one reading the documents in the First Century (nor writing them) would have questioned, “A-ha! But did Peter actually say, word-for-word, what is recorded here?” Of course not! They recognized the author’s imputing speech which would have normally been predictable for the individual.
Did Jesus give the word-for-word Sermon on the Mount or was this what Matthew’s audience expected Jesus would have said? At the time—this question would never have been asked!
Further, it was expected to ascribe events to certain people of certain social status. Holy Men heal people. If you were writing about a Holy Man, you would naturally include a story about healing. If they were a person of great honor, you would provide them an honorable birthplace, often with astounding events occurring (earthquakes, darkness, miracles) to accompany the birth.
Again, this was expected in the biography. No one was inspecting this with a 21st Century mindset, questioning whether Mary really gave birth in Bethlehem or Nazareth. Or whether there were angels attending the birth. This was a birth of the Christ—angels would be part of the perceived story. (So would earthquakes and darkness at the death of such a Christ.)
One of the ways in which a philosopher’s position was explained was through challenge-riposte. The story would unfold as the philosopher is asked what is initially seen as a perceptive or difficult question, and then the philosopher would cleverly answer in such a way as to show the philosophical position being promulgated, and to gain in honor as having bested another.
How many times do the Gospels record Jesus being accused by Scribes or Lawyers or Pharisees or Sadducees or Jews? The people reading (or hearing these stories read) understood this was a convention to explain the philosophy of Jesus. They were looking for what Jesus taught, and the authors placed it in the form they were most familiar.
A common writing technique was a chiasm. To frame the story in certain relational sequences. The best example of this is the sandwiching of the curse of the fig tree, followed by the temple ruckus, and then closed with the seeing of the cursed fig tree. Mark is replete with chiastic structures. (Arguably completely infused, although I think some are a stretch.)
Again, this was a method familiar to the audience. An audience uncritical of whether Jesus actually, chronologically cursed the tree, then caused a ruckus, and then saw the results of a cursed tree.
Yet what do we see in today’s culture when it comes to the New Testament writing? The very same people willing to concede the lack of historicity of the Tanakh, grimly hold on to every word claimed to be said by Jesus is actual. Every footstep 100% historical. Every breath literal. Something the authors never intended!
Many Christians have it mixed up. When the authors (Tanakh) intended it to be historical, the Christian claims it is figurative. When the authors (New Testament) intended it to be figurative, the Christian claims it is historical!
Apparently the methodology is to completely abandon (or never study) what the authors intended by looking at similar works or how similar works are treated OR the Christian wants to believe what is most convenient at the moment.
The Flood consisted of 40 literal days of rain, and the entire world was covered in water. There was a literal Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. Ten actual plagues (as described) happened, resulting in 600,000 Hebrew men (plus women, children, livestock and belongings) exiting from Egypt. Joshua’s genocide occurred, followed by the time of the Judges, followed by a Joint Kingdom.
Times change.
Advances in science have happened. Geology and dating has become more accurate. Archeology has generated vast discoveries. And as the pace of technology increases—these stories are slowly being chipped away.
Oh, there are still stalwarts who hold to a 6000 year old Earth, and a world-wide Flood, and Exodus—despite the evidence. But many have re-evaluated the accounts. Now the “days” in Genesis chapter one are considered “periods of time.” Or the story is allegorical in form only. No longer is it actual, literal or historical. “Adam & Eve” are representations—not actual people.
The Flood? Only a local affair in which some guy probably put his wife and kids with a coupla calves and sheep on a raft for a few weeks. The Ten Plagues? Volcanic Eruption. The Exodus? Well, there weren’t really two million people wandering around for 40 years. Maybe a few thousand (at best) and then only a year or so. Joshua’s genocide? Minor skirmishes.
As we study and learn, the stories of the Tanakh become more and more improbable, even to the person who holds them as inspired, and science is prevailing. The Christian has to modify their position from an actual, literal event to more of a type, or legendary or blown-out-of-proportion event.
But isn’t that saying the stories of the Tanakh are wrong? See, the question presented is: what did the authors of these stories believe? Did they hold them out to be historical events? If so, weren’t they wrong? If they were wrong as to history (which we can confirm); why should I trust they would be right regarding actions on the part of a God—which we can’t confirm?
I realize that Christians of today’s time do not want to appear silly in light of the evidence presented. So they wrangle and force an allegorical meaning into what, even they see, cannot have actually happened.
Yet this undercuts the premise. It recognizes the Bible is wrong. It recognizes the Bible, when written, was factually inaccurate and only recent developments have placed the Christian in this precarious position by which they must read into the text what is not there.
Look at the New Testament authors. Did they think these were historical events? (And, on the Jewish side, it should be noted Josephus, writing in the First Century, treated these as actual, literal, historical events. Not as allegories. Not as mythical developments.)
Matthew and Luke record Jesus as saying Noah was an actual person. (Matt. 24:37-38; Luke 17:26-27) The author of 1 Peter treats Noah as an actual person, with an actual flood. (1 Peter 3:20) So does the author of 2 Peter. (2 Peter 3:20)
The authors of the New Testament treat Moses as an actual person. Not an allegory. (Matt. 8:4, 19:7; Mark 7:10, 12:19; Luke 20:37, 24:27; John 1:45, 3:14, 5:46; Acts 7:20-44; Rom. 9:15; 1 Cor. 10:2; 2 Cor. 3:13; 2 Tim. 3:8; and Jude 9) Adam is considered a real person. (Luke 3:38; 1 Cor. 15:45; 1 Tim. 2:13-14; and Jude 14)
And, most famous of all, the author of Hebrews commends Noah (11:7) and Moses (11:23-29) for the events recorded in their lives in the Tanakh. As well as confirming the historical claim of Joshua’s genocide. (Hebrews 11:30-31)
2000 years ago, those who revered the Tanakh treated the historical accounts as events which happened as literally recorded. What has changed? If greater knowledge has demonstrated these accounts are in error, I understand it is quite convenient to brush it off as “allegorical” or “legend” or “myth,”—but can you understand why the claim this is error goes a long way to proving the Bible is in error on these points?
But it gets worse. And funnier.
See, in the First Century, it was accepted practice to write historiographical documents. When writing a biography, it was not expected, nor anticipated, for the author to write an exact date-by-date, event-by-event actual history.
So the author would write what they anticipate the person would have said—not necessarily what the person actually said. We see this in the speeches Josephus ascribes to individuals in his accounts. We also see this in the speeches the author of Acts puts in the lips of Peter and Paul.
No one reading the documents in the First Century (nor writing them) would have questioned, “A-ha! But did Peter actually say, word-for-word, what is recorded here?” Of course not! They recognized the author’s imputing speech which would have normally been predictable for the individual.
Did Jesus give the word-for-word Sermon on the Mount or was this what Matthew’s audience expected Jesus would have said? At the time—this question would never have been asked!
Further, it was expected to ascribe events to certain people of certain social status. Holy Men heal people. If you were writing about a Holy Man, you would naturally include a story about healing. If they were a person of great honor, you would provide them an honorable birthplace, often with astounding events occurring (earthquakes, darkness, miracles) to accompany the birth.
Again, this was expected in the biography. No one was inspecting this with a 21st Century mindset, questioning whether Mary really gave birth in Bethlehem or Nazareth. Or whether there were angels attending the birth. This was a birth of the Christ—angels would be part of the perceived story. (So would earthquakes and darkness at the death of such a Christ.)
One of the ways in which a philosopher’s position was explained was through challenge-riposte. The story would unfold as the philosopher is asked what is initially seen as a perceptive or difficult question, and then the philosopher would cleverly answer in such a way as to show the philosophical position being promulgated, and to gain in honor as having bested another.
How many times do the Gospels record Jesus being accused by Scribes or Lawyers or Pharisees or Sadducees or Jews? The people reading (or hearing these stories read) understood this was a convention to explain the philosophy of Jesus. They were looking for what Jesus taught, and the authors placed it in the form they were most familiar.
A common writing technique was a chiasm. To frame the story in certain relational sequences. The best example of this is the sandwiching of the curse of the fig tree, followed by the temple ruckus, and then closed with the seeing of the cursed fig tree. Mark is replete with chiastic structures. (Arguably completely infused, although I think some are a stretch.)
Again, this was a method familiar to the audience. An audience uncritical of whether Jesus actually, chronologically cursed the tree, then caused a ruckus, and then saw the results of a cursed tree.
Yet what do we see in today’s culture when it comes to the New Testament writing? The very same people willing to concede the lack of historicity of the Tanakh, grimly hold on to every word claimed to be said by Jesus is actual. Every footstep 100% historical. Every breath literal. Something the authors never intended!
Many Christians have it mixed up. When the authors (Tanakh) intended it to be historical, the Christian claims it is figurative. When the authors (New Testament) intended it to be figurative, the Christian claims it is historical!
Apparently the methodology is to completely abandon (or never study) what the authors intended by looking at similar works or how similar works are treated OR the Christian wants to believe what is most convenient at the moment.
Monday, March 17, 2008
A Story Only an Inerrantist Could Love
Anyone who knows me would know I often bemoan the fact those who hold to the inerrancy of the Protestant Bible, when it comes to resolving conflicts, utilize a method we would never, EVER use in real life. They cry out, “As long as there is any possible logical resolution, no matter how inane—Inerrancy is maintained.”
I point out how we don’t use this low of a standard in any other facet of our lives; why should we use such a poor method when discussing what is supposed to be the greatest writing? Recently I was reminded of how we don’t use this method any other time.
I apologize in advance for the language. In my profession we tend to be very precise and literal when quoting others, and will do so here as well.
Ever have someone who, no matter what you do; no matter how hard you try—you constantly rub the wrong way? Even when you are trying to be nice, it always seems to blow up in your face? I had such an encounter with a Defendant.
We obtained a judgment against an individual. Apparently she thought we would never discover how she was employed—but we did. And we started to garnish her wages (a court order to direct a portion of her salary directly to us.) I got the call. She was fuming. (Trust me; her words could be in all capital letters for emphasis.)
Defendant: What is this about?
Me: Let’s see…Ah, yes--It is about a Judgment we obtained—
Defendant: I KNOW about the Judgment! Why did my employer send me this notice?
Me: What notice?
Defendant: The One I am holding in my hand!
Me: Ma’am, what does the notice say?
Defendant: Don’t you know?
Me: I don’t know what you are holding, I can’t see—
Defendant: Didn’t YOU file a Garnishment?
Me: Well, yes, but—
Defendant: Don’t you know how this is supposed to work?
Me: Yes, however—
Defendant: So what does this notice mean?
Me: Perhaps if you would stop interrupting me, I could answer your question.*
[*Most likely it is here where our relationship started to deteriorate.]
Defendant: FINE.
Me: Typically, upon receiving the garnishment, the employer provides what is called a Disclosure. Often the Defendants get a copy before I do. I presume—
Defendant: So how often are they going to take this money?
Me: I don’t know, I haven’t received a copy of the Dis—
Defendant: You Don’t Know! How can you garnish me if you don’t know?
Me: Again, ma’am, if you would let me explain, it depends—
Defendant: You ARE an attorney, you HAVE done this before. Don’t you know how this works?
Me: I do, but each situation is different. Until I get a copy of the Disclosure—
Defendant: When will they send you a copy?
Me: They have 14 days, but sometimes—
Defendant: Its BEEN 14 days!
Me: I know, but sometimes—
Defendant: Why haven’t you received your copy?
Me: Sometimes it takes—
Defendant: Are you telling me I received a copy before you did?
Me:
Defendant: How come they took it out of my paycheck? Will they be doing this every week? How much will they take? How long do these last?
Me:
Defendant: Why aren’t you talking to me? Don’t you have anything to say?
Me: I was waiting for you to finish. Every time I try to talk, you interrupt me, so—
Defendant: But you aren’t SAYING anything.
Me: Until I get that disclosure, I can’t answer any of your questions.
Defendant: Fine. [click]
Of course, since life has an ironic side to it, the employer messes up the garnishment (taking differing amounts,) causing even more calls. Now she decides she wants to take this back to the beginning.
Defendant: Why was I being sued?
Me: It has to do with rent due on your apart—
Defendant: There was no rent due! They were supposed to apply my security deposit to the rent! How can they charge me so much rent?
Me: Well, there were also damages to the—
Defendant: There were no damages! I left that place in perfect condition. How can you take my wages from me for money you aren’t entitled to?
Me: That was all decided in the Judgment.
Defendant: Well--I want to take this to the Judge.
Me: It’s too late for that—
Defendant: Are you saying we don’t have any rights? What kind of lawyer are you, trying to take away my rights? I know the law! I demand a hearing in front of a judge!
Me: But we already have a judgment—
Defendant: I don’t care—I am entitled to some sort of hearing—I know that! I want to know what I was sued for!
Me: If you send me a self-address, stamped envelope, I would be happy to—
Defendant: What?! Don’t I have a right to know what I was sued for? You HAVE to show me what the judgment was based upon. I demand it!
Me: Actually, I don’t. After a judgment has been entered, I am not required—
Defendant: I know my rights. You HAVE to show me. What kind of lawyer are you that you don’t even know you have to show me? They are taking money out of my paycheck, and I don’t have a right to know why? Is that what you are saying?
Me: Yep. That’s what I am saying. However, I am willing to provide that information if you would send—
Defendant: If you don’t have to provide it, why would you be willing to send me it? I KNOW I didn’t owe any rent. There were no damages to that apartment. You are trying to cover up something. Send me that information.
Me: You know if you would stop interrupting me—
Defendant: Why are you so rude? What have I done to you? All I care about is finding out why my wages are being taken, and you say you don’t have to provide that to me. What is it you want me to do? Go in front of a Judge? HE will force you to hand this over to me. How can I get this information?
Me: For the third time, send a self-addressed stamped envelope, and I will provide a breakdown of the damages.
Defendant: [long pause] The same…smart mouth as ever. Mother fucker! [click]
I knew this was not the end, so I wrote her last sentence in the file (to remember) and waited. She did send an envelope, and I returned it with a breakdown of the damages. Sure enough—the eventual call:
Defendant: I want to talk about these damages.
Me: ‘kay.
Defendant: I refuse to pay the “administrative fee” listed. I talked to a lawyer and they said they never even heard of an “administrative fee.”**
[**It always amazes me when Defendants tell me they have talked to a lawyer, expecting me to be impressed. As if all of a sudden I would wail, “Oh, NO! If some lawyer says it—it MUST be true!” Don’t they know who I talk to all day, every day?]
Defendant: I am going to file a hearing in front of the judge and he will never let you have any administrative fees. You have to give me an accounting of every single penny I paid in, and every rent, and when it was applied. I demand an invoice for the workers who repaired this damage, and every since receipt of items replaced. I want the hours they worked, and how much your client paid them.
Me: No.
Defendant: WHAT?!! You HAVE to give this to me. I DEMAND it!
Me: No, and for two reasons. First, I am not required to give you anything. I only gave you the list of damages out of courtesy. Two—
Defendant: Oh, no! I talked to a lawyer, and they said you have to give me a breakdown if I request it. And I did. And I want this too, as it is part of the breakdown. So you have to give it to me.
Me: --and Two, when we last talked—do you remember the last thing you said to me?
Defendant: What does THAT have to do with anything?
Me: I wrote it down. You said, “The same smart mouth as ever. Mother fucker.” May I suggest if you are asking for a courtesy from someone, you don’t call them a “mother fucker”? See, what happens, when a person is called a “mother fucker” is that they become disinclined to provide any other help or service for you.
And here is where she shot back, without missing a beat. I am in awe at the pure creativity of humans to avoid their own trouble:
Defendant: When I said that, there was another person in the room. I wasn’t talking to you; I was saying that to the other person. You don’t know if there was anyone else in the room with me. You can’t prove I was saying that to you; I could have been saying it to someone else.
Me: Then perhaps I could suggest in the future, when calling out “mother fucker” you designate with clarity as to which person you think is a “mother fucker.” This way the correct “mother fucker” will be apprised of their situation, and this type of confusion won’t occur.
Defendant: [click]
So I ask the inerrantist—do you think her explanation was logically possible? But do you really think—really honestly whole-heartedly think—I should believe there was another person in the room that day?
If you thought (perhaps for an instance) her explanation was inane--you can see why we just might think the same thing about the Christian apologist explanations utilizing similar “logical explanations.”
I point out how we don’t use this low of a standard in any other facet of our lives; why should we use such a poor method when discussing what is supposed to be the greatest writing? Recently I was reminded of how we don’t use this method any other time.
I apologize in advance for the language. In my profession we tend to be very precise and literal when quoting others, and will do so here as well.
Ever have someone who, no matter what you do; no matter how hard you try—you constantly rub the wrong way? Even when you are trying to be nice, it always seems to blow up in your face? I had such an encounter with a Defendant.
We obtained a judgment against an individual. Apparently she thought we would never discover how she was employed—but we did. And we started to garnish her wages (a court order to direct a portion of her salary directly to us.) I got the call. She was fuming. (Trust me; her words could be in all capital letters for emphasis.)
Defendant: What is this about?
Me: Let’s see…Ah, yes--It is about a Judgment we obtained—
Defendant: I KNOW about the Judgment! Why did my employer send me this notice?
Me: What notice?
Defendant: The One I am holding in my hand!
Me: Ma’am, what does the notice say?
Defendant: Don’t you know?
Me: I don’t know what you are holding, I can’t see—
Defendant: Didn’t YOU file a Garnishment?
Me: Well, yes, but—
Defendant: Don’t you know how this is supposed to work?
Me: Yes, however—
Defendant: So what does this notice mean?
Me: Perhaps if you would stop interrupting me, I could answer your question.*
[*Most likely it is here where our relationship started to deteriorate.]
Defendant: FINE.
Me: Typically, upon receiving the garnishment, the employer provides what is called a Disclosure. Often the Defendants get a copy before I do. I presume—
Defendant: So how often are they going to take this money?
Me: I don’t know, I haven’t received a copy of the Dis—
Defendant: You Don’t Know! How can you garnish me if you don’t know?
Me: Again, ma’am, if you would let me explain, it depends—
Defendant: You ARE an attorney, you HAVE done this before. Don’t you know how this works?
Me: I do, but each situation is different. Until I get a copy of the Disclosure—
Defendant: When will they send you a copy?
Me: They have 14 days, but sometimes—
Defendant: Its BEEN 14 days!
Me: I know, but sometimes—
Defendant: Why haven’t you received your copy?
Me: Sometimes it takes—
Defendant: Are you telling me I received a copy before you did?
Me:
Defendant: How come they took it out of my paycheck? Will they be doing this every week? How much will they take? How long do these last?
Me:
Defendant: Why aren’t you talking to me? Don’t you have anything to say?
Me: I was waiting for you to finish. Every time I try to talk, you interrupt me, so—
Defendant: But you aren’t SAYING anything.
Me: Until I get that disclosure, I can’t answer any of your questions.
Defendant: Fine. [click]
Of course, since life has an ironic side to it, the employer messes up the garnishment (taking differing amounts,) causing even more calls. Now she decides she wants to take this back to the beginning.
Defendant: Why was I being sued?
Me: It has to do with rent due on your apart—
Defendant: There was no rent due! They were supposed to apply my security deposit to the rent! How can they charge me so much rent?
Me: Well, there were also damages to the—
Defendant: There were no damages! I left that place in perfect condition. How can you take my wages from me for money you aren’t entitled to?
Me: That was all decided in the Judgment.
Defendant: Well--I want to take this to the Judge.
Me: It’s too late for that—
Defendant: Are you saying we don’t have any rights? What kind of lawyer are you, trying to take away my rights? I know the law! I demand a hearing in front of a judge!
Me: But we already have a judgment—
Defendant: I don’t care—I am entitled to some sort of hearing—I know that! I want to know what I was sued for!
Me: If you send me a self-address, stamped envelope, I would be happy to—
Defendant: What?! Don’t I have a right to know what I was sued for? You HAVE to show me what the judgment was based upon. I demand it!
Me: Actually, I don’t. After a judgment has been entered, I am not required—
Defendant: I know my rights. You HAVE to show me. What kind of lawyer are you that you don’t even know you have to show me? They are taking money out of my paycheck, and I don’t have a right to know why? Is that what you are saying?
Me: Yep. That’s what I am saying. However, I am willing to provide that information if you would send—
Defendant: If you don’t have to provide it, why would you be willing to send me it? I KNOW I didn’t owe any rent. There were no damages to that apartment. You are trying to cover up something. Send me that information.
Me: You know if you would stop interrupting me—
Defendant: Why are you so rude? What have I done to you? All I care about is finding out why my wages are being taken, and you say you don’t have to provide that to me. What is it you want me to do? Go in front of a Judge? HE will force you to hand this over to me. How can I get this information?
Me: For the third time, send a self-addressed stamped envelope, and I will provide a breakdown of the damages.
Defendant: [long pause] The same…smart mouth as ever. Mother fucker! [click]
I knew this was not the end, so I wrote her last sentence in the file (to remember) and waited. She did send an envelope, and I returned it with a breakdown of the damages. Sure enough—the eventual call:
Defendant: I want to talk about these damages.
Me: ‘kay.
Defendant: I refuse to pay the “administrative fee” listed. I talked to a lawyer and they said they never even heard of an “administrative fee.”**
[**It always amazes me when Defendants tell me they have talked to a lawyer, expecting me to be impressed. As if all of a sudden I would wail, “Oh, NO! If some lawyer says it—it MUST be true!” Don’t they know who I talk to all day, every day?]
Defendant: I am going to file a hearing in front of the judge and he will never let you have any administrative fees. You have to give me an accounting of every single penny I paid in, and every rent, and when it was applied. I demand an invoice for the workers who repaired this damage, and every since receipt of items replaced. I want the hours they worked, and how much your client paid them.
Me: No.
Defendant: WHAT?!! You HAVE to give this to me. I DEMAND it!
Me: No, and for two reasons. First, I am not required to give you anything. I only gave you the list of damages out of courtesy. Two—
Defendant: Oh, no! I talked to a lawyer, and they said you have to give me a breakdown if I request it. And I did. And I want this too, as it is part of the breakdown. So you have to give it to me.
Me: --and Two, when we last talked—do you remember the last thing you said to me?
Defendant: What does THAT have to do with anything?
Me: I wrote it down. You said, “The same smart mouth as ever. Mother fucker.” May I suggest if you are asking for a courtesy from someone, you don’t call them a “mother fucker”? See, what happens, when a person is called a “mother fucker” is that they become disinclined to provide any other help or service for you.
And here is where she shot back, without missing a beat. I am in awe at the pure creativity of humans to avoid their own trouble:
Defendant: When I said that, there was another person in the room. I wasn’t talking to you; I was saying that to the other person. You don’t know if there was anyone else in the room with me. You can’t prove I was saying that to you; I could have been saying it to someone else.
Me: Then perhaps I could suggest in the future, when calling out “mother fucker” you designate with clarity as to which person you think is a “mother fucker.” This way the correct “mother fucker” will be apprised of their situation, and this type of confusion won’t occur.
Defendant: [click]
So I ask the inerrantist—do you think her explanation was logically possible? But do you really think—really honestly whole-heartedly think—I should believe there was another person in the room that day?
If you thought (perhaps for an instance) her explanation was inane--you can see why we just might think the same thing about the Christian apologist explanations utilizing similar “logical explanations.”
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Will the Real Theist Please Stand Up?
Those of us who were formerly Christians are often informed we didn’t truly know God. We are informed we only dabbled in religion; didn’t really partake of what God was. We are informed we were never saved in the first place. I will highlight two problems with this claim.
1. It is a circular definition. The definition of a person who knows God is alleged to be: “A person who knows God.” Not very helpful. Oh, you can add as many adjectives as you desire, but it still boils down to a circular definition. “A person who truly knows God is a person who truly knows God” is just as circular as “A person who absolutely, positively, unequivocally knows God is a person who absolutely, positively, unequivocally knows God.”
The other day my daughter was working on a paper and asked, “Dad, can you give a good quote regarding Core Democratic Values?” Since this came out of the blue, I was uncertain as to what she was referring. “What are ‘Core Democratic Values?’” I asked; looking for clarification. “Oh, you know,” she responded in frustration, “Values which are both core and democratic.”
Not very enlightening. Yet I have the same conversation with many theists:
Me: I was once a Christian.
Them: Do you still believe there is a God?
Me: No.
Them: Then you weren’t a true Christian in the first place.
Me: Why not?
Them: Because a “true” Christian is defined as one who always believes there is a God.
So we define theist as a person who believes there is a god. I think I already knew that. Are they saying I didn’t really believe in a god? I was always faking it? Odd. Or was I self-deluded in believing in a God. Does a theist really want to go down a route claiming God-believers can be self-deluded? I would think not!
2. For a Christian, this is contrary to the Bible. Yes, I am quite aware the Bible speaks of us abiding in Christ, and his abiding in us. John 15:4-10. However, we cannot stop there. “Interpret Scripture with Scripture”—remember? The various books give specific and observable demonstrations which separate the believers from the non-believers.
Galatians 5:22 provides certain “fruit” or results which should be evident in a person who walks in the spirit: Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness and Self-Control. And yes, I exhibited all of those fruits. And continue to do so.
Here is why the Christian making this claim, “You were not a true believer” never, EVER goes to Galatians 5. This is key--because they recognize ALL humans are capable of exhibiting these traits! They dare not use this as a measuring stick, as we would all pass. We would all qualify as “walking in the Spirit.” Sure, we don’t exhibit all the traits all the time; but neither does the Christian! If this was the definition, no one is saved. If we use the Christian’s nomenclature (exhibiting some of these fruits some of the time) we are all saved.
Galatians 5:19-21 contrasts the works of the flesh. The works which all of us non-Christians should be partaking in. The things which would prevent us from inheriting the kingdom of God. That list: Adultery, Fornication, Uncleanness, Lewdness, Idolatry, Sorcery, Hatred, Contentions, Jealousy, Outburst of Anger, Selfish Ambitions, Dissensions, Heresies, Envy, Murders, Drunkenness, and “the Like.”
Again, what do we see? Sure, Christians as a whole avoid the adultery, Murder, drunkenness, idolatry, and sorcery. But what about selfish ambition? Is there an American Christian who has not had some selfish ambition? And in looking at the various splits and denominational fractions—need I point out contentions, dissensions and heresies? Never hated someone? Never envied or been jealous? Never angry?
Here the Christian excuses an occasional slip-up with the fact they still have a sin nature. So if you have this straight, Christians have Love, Joy, Peace, etc. some of the time (just like everyone else) and occasionally are selfish, contentious, envious, etc. some of the time (just like everyone else.) No wonder they dare not use Galatians as a determination of god-belief—we would all pass or fail!
Matthew 25:31-46 gives distinctions between believers and non-believers. The Believers helped the poor, needy and prisoners. Again, no Christian, in my recall, every told me I wasn’t a “true Christian” because I failed to conform to Matthew 25. Why not? Because I did!
In fact, I fulfill the requirements of a Bishop/overseer of 1 Timothy 3:1-8! One wife, hospitable, able to teach, good reputation, etc. How come no Christian ever wants to use those as the measuring rod by which I could be determined to be a “true” Christian? Simple—because I would pass!
Or take the simplest test of all—Rom. 10:9. “Believe with your heart and confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and God has raised him from the Dead.” Yep—passed that one too. Oh, the person making this claim may argue I didn’t “truly” believe—but the proof is in the pudding. Our beliefs are demonstrated by what we do—not what we say.
If I didn’t believe—do you think I put all that money in the plate out of fooling---what? Those hours spent studying and praying as a gag—for whom? Those days spent helping in the church, teaching, leading, cooking, cleaning—all for some sort of laugh and giggle?
What is it you think I believed?
In conclusion, let me ask this question. I believed there was a God, manifested in three persons, including Jesus (the Son) who took the form of a human, died, and was raised again so that we have the opportunity to have everlasting life. You tell me I didn’t really believe.
O.K., for arguments sake, imagine I became convinced again and re-converted. How would I know I wasn’t deluding myself again? If a person can believe as deeply, honestly and truly as I did—yet be completely fooling themselves—how do YOU know YOU aren’t fooling yourself?
Or, by this claim, must the person concede people who believe in God are very possibly tricking themselves into doing so? How could one tell the difference?
1. It is a circular definition. The definition of a person who knows God is alleged to be: “A person who knows God.” Not very helpful. Oh, you can add as many adjectives as you desire, but it still boils down to a circular definition. “A person who truly knows God is a person who truly knows God” is just as circular as “A person who absolutely, positively, unequivocally knows God is a person who absolutely, positively, unequivocally knows God.”
The other day my daughter was working on a paper and asked, “Dad, can you give a good quote regarding Core Democratic Values?” Since this came out of the blue, I was uncertain as to what she was referring. “What are ‘Core Democratic Values?’” I asked; looking for clarification. “Oh, you know,” she responded in frustration, “Values which are both core and democratic.”
Not very enlightening. Yet I have the same conversation with many theists:
Me: I was once a Christian.
Them: Do you still believe there is a God?
Me: No.
Them: Then you weren’t a true Christian in the first place.
Me: Why not?
Them: Because a “true” Christian is defined as one who always believes there is a God.
So we define theist as a person who believes there is a god. I think I already knew that. Are they saying I didn’t really believe in a god? I was always faking it? Odd. Or was I self-deluded in believing in a God. Does a theist really want to go down a route claiming God-believers can be self-deluded? I would think not!
2. For a Christian, this is contrary to the Bible. Yes, I am quite aware the Bible speaks of us abiding in Christ, and his abiding in us. John 15:4-10. However, we cannot stop there. “Interpret Scripture with Scripture”—remember? The various books give specific and observable demonstrations which separate the believers from the non-believers.
Galatians 5:22 provides certain “fruit” or results which should be evident in a person who walks in the spirit: Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness and Self-Control. And yes, I exhibited all of those fruits. And continue to do so.
Here is why the Christian making this claim, “You were not a true believer” never, EVER goes to Galatians 5. This is key--because they recognize ALL humans are capable of exhibiting these traits! They dare not use this as a measuring stick, as we would all pass. We would all qualify as “walking in the Spirit.” Sure, we don’t exhibit all the traits all the time; but neither does the Christian! If this was the definition, no one is saved. If we use the Christian’s nomenclature (exhibiting some of these fruits some of the time) we are all saved.
Galatians 5:19-21 contrasts the works of the flesh. The works which all of us non-Christians should be partaking in. The things which would prevent us from inheriting the kingdom of God. That list: Adultery, Fornication, Uncleanness, Lewdness, Idolatry, Sorcery, Hatred, Contentions, Jealousy, Outburst of Anger, Selfish Ambitions, Dissensions, Heresies, Envy, Murders, Drunkenness, and “the Like.”
Again, what do we see? Sure, Christians as a whole avoid the adultery, Murder, drunkenness, idolatry, and sorcery. But what about selfish ambition? Is there an American Christian who has not had some selfish ambition? And in looking at the various splits and denominational fractions—need I point out contentions, dissensions and heresies? Never hated someone? Never envied or been jealous? Never angry?
Here the Christian excuses an occasional slip-up with the fact they still have a sin nature. So if you have this straight, Christians have Love, Joy, Peace, etc. some of the time (just like everyone else) and occasionally are selfish, contentious, envious, etc. some of the time (just like everyone else.) No wonder they dare not use Galatians as a determination of god-belief—we would all pass or fail!
Matthew 25:31-46 gives distinctions between believers and non-believers. The Believers helped the poor, needy and prisoners. Again, no Christian, in my recall, every told me I wasn’t a “true Christian” because I failed to conform to Matthew 25. Why not? Because I did!
In fact, I fulfill the requirements of a Bishop/overseer of 1 Timothy 3:1-8! One wife, hospitable, able to teach, good reputation, etc. How come no Christian ever wants to use those as the measuring rod by which I could be determined to be a “true” Christian? Simple—because I would pass!
Or take the simplest test of all—Rom. 10:9. “Believe with your heart and confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and God has raised him from the Dead.” Yep—passed that one too. Oh, the person making this claim may argue I didn’t “truly” believe—but the proof is in the pudding. Our beliefs are demonstrated by what we do—not what we say.
If I didn’t believe—do you think I put all that money in the plate out of fooling---what? Those hours spent studying and praying as a gag—for whom? Those days spent helping in the church, teaching, leading, cooking, cleaning—all for some sort of laugh and giggle?
What is it you think I believed?
In conclusion, let me ask this question. I believed there was a God, manifested in three persons, including Jesus (the Son) who took the form of a human, died, and was raised again so that we have the opportunity to have everlasting life. You tell me I didn’t really believe.
O.K., for arguments sake, imagine I became convinced again and re-converted. How would I know I wasn’t deluding myself again? If a person can believe as deeply, honestly and truly as I did—yet be completely fooling themselves—how do YOU know YOU aren’t fooling yourself?
Or, by this claim, must the person concede people who believe in God are very possibly tricking themselves into doing so? How could one tell the difference?
Friday, March 07, 2008
How much is totally sufficient?
Yesterday, Dr. Albert Mohler had Dr. Lance Quinn of the National Association of Nouthetic Counseling in which they discussed the role of counseling within the Christian community. At Dr. Quinn’s introduction, they engaged in the following discussion:
Mohler: I think the best term I know to use is “Biblical Counseling” because that’s really the essence of what we are talking about here. Is guiding persons, not by our wisdom and not by our intuition and certainly not by a secular therapeutic worldview or construct, but rather by the scriptures. Because the underlying affirmation in all of this is that the scriptures—and the scriptures alone—are sufficient to guide persons in the faithfulness in Christ. Growth in Grace through correcting real human problems; to address real human needs. That’s your conviction as well.
Quinn: That’s right, I would say [name], along with just a few others, tragically, are just a few that are affirming the total sufficiency of Scripture for counseling in the life of the Church and the Life of the Christian. So much of the other brands of forms of so-called “Christian Counseling” are really integrated in that they take psychological concepts and they try to integrate them with Christianity and often that’s a failed project
Which raised an interesting question to me—in what areas does the Bible constitute “total sufficiency”?
If I told you I thought the Bible was “totally sufficient” to teach mathematics; you would laugh. The Bible does not contain the quadratic equation, nor the concept of functions from calculus. Nothing within about the sum of the sides squared equals the hypotenuse squared in a right triangle.
Not a single book of the Bible, nor the compilation ever proposed contemplated this would be a sufficient book to teach or learn mathematics. No author had any intention of it containing this information.
The Bible is not sufficient to provide us the ability to construct a skyscraper. Nor to build a computer. Not even enough information to develop the telephone or the light bulb. The Bible would be inadequate when discussing “World History” or “Forms of Government” or even “Social Studies.” Certainly portions of the Bible may touch upon such topics, but to be “totally sufficient”? Nonsense.
Even as a moral guide, most American Christians have a heightened view of morals from a U.S. Constitutional standpoint rather than the Bible. (The Bible is quite silent when it comes to “rights” ya know—those come from the Constitution. Things like slavery and polygamy are now prohibited by our laws, while accepted by the Bible.) The Bible is not sufficient to explain our laws.
So why does counseling get a pass? Why are all the years, study and requirements to become a licensed psychiatrist or licensed psychologist or licensed counselor pooh-poohed as hogwash an unnecessary? How did the Bible become “totally sufficient” to provide complete insight into counseling?
When I was growing up, if a couple had an issue in their marriage; they used one and only one source for counseling—the Pastor. Issue with a rebellious teenage? Go to the pastor. Problem with pornography, gambling, alcohol, adultery, anorexia, depression, insomnia? Go to the Pastor.
I look back in terror at the thought of people going to a person who may have the equivalent of a Bachelor’s Degree in theology, for direction in a field the rest of the world requires licensure, academic specialization and continuing education.
As these two gentlemen discussed the problem further, Dr. Quinn mentioned counseling a man who was in prison on a sex charge of some sort. The “problem” they compared to the secular society as to Christianity was that a person with a sex issue has an illness in the secular world, whereas it is sin in the Christian world.
I was aghast at the comparison. Somehow they equated “illness” to the concept it could therefore be cured. I am of the personal opinion (and this is solely my opinion) that pedophilia is incurable. No amount of counseling or psychiatric intervention of any sort will cure this problem. Sure, I treat it as an “illness”—an incurable, convictable, always present illness. It doesn’t “go away.”
See, but as a sin it can go away. All it takes is a little willpower and poof—no more sin. Yet I noticed Dr. Mohler and Dr. Quinn were careful to note one would still have to monitor, watch and restrict a sex offender—even if they claimed to be free of the sin. Sounds like good advice to me—just like what the world would do!
I also found it funny Dr. Quinn said upon a person entering their counseling program they would go to a licensed, Christian physician for “a physical.” And, if intervention was need on a physical basis, the Christian doctor would intervene.
Did you follow that? In other words, if a person needed prescription medicine for their situation, they would go around the “total sufficiency of the Bible” by declaring this a “physical” need, which the Bible has no qualms about treating. Neat, eh? You can go to a Christian counselor who proclaims the Bible is totally sufficient to resolve your depression, while treating with your Christian doctor who is prescribing Zoloft.
What do you think? Is secular counseling all just a bunch of flotsam and jetsam and completely unnecessary? Is the Bible totally sufficient for counseling? Would the Bible be totally sufficient for counseling for a non-believer—or is it another one of those “Christians ONLY” clubs?
I know the Protestant crowd is completely infatuated with sola scriptura but this seems to carry it a bit far, don’t ya think?
Mohler: I think the best term I know to use is “Biblical Counseling” because that’s really the essence of what we are talking about here. Is guiding persons, not by our wisdom and not by our intuition and certainly not by a secular therapeutic worldview or construct, but rather by the scriptures. Because the underlying affirmation in all of this is that the scriptures—and the scriptures alone—are sufficient to guide persons in the faithfulness in Christ. Growth in Grace through correcting real human problems; to address real human needs. That’s your conviction as well.
Quinn: That’s right, I would say [name], along with just a few others, tragically, are just a few that are affirming the total sufficiency of Scripture for counseling in the life of the Church and the Life of the Christian. So much of the other brands of forms of so-called “Christian Counseling” are really integrated in that they take psychological concepts and they try to integrate them with Christianity and often that’s a failed project
Which raised an interesting question to me—in what areas does the Bible constitute “total sufficiency”?
If I told you I thought the Bible was “totally sufficient” to teach mathematics; you would laugh. The Bible does not contain the quadratic equation, nor the concept of functions from calculus. Nothing within about the sum of the sides squared equals the hypotenuse squared in a right triangle.
Not a single book of the Bible, nor the compilation ever proposed contemplated this would be a sufficient book to teach or learn mathematics. No author had any intention of it containing this information.
The Bible is not sufficient to provide us the ability to construct a skyscraper. Nor to build a computer. Not even enough information to develop the telephone or the light bulb. The Bible would be inadequate when discussing “World History” or “Forms of Government” or even “Social Studies.” Certainly portions of the Bible may touch upon such topics, but to be “totally sufficient”? Nonsense.
Even as a moral guide, most American Christians have a heightened view of morals from a U.S. Constitutional standpoint rather than the Bible. (The Bible is quite silent when it comes to “rights” ya know—those come from the Constitution. Things like slavery and polygamy are now prohibited by our laws, while accepted by the Bible.) The Bible is not sufficient to explain our laws.
So why does counseling get a pass? Why are all the years, study and requirements to become a licensed psychiatrist or licensed psychologist or licensed counselor pooh-poohed as hogwash an unnecessary? How did the Bible become “totally sufficient” to provide complete insight into counseling?
When I was growing up, if a couple had an issue in their marriage; they used one and only one source for counseling—the Pastor. Issue with a rebellious teenage? Go to the pastor. Problem with pornography, gambling, alcohol, adultery, anorexia, depression, insomnia? Go to the Pastor.
I look back in terror at the thought of people going to a person who may have the equivalent of a Bachelor’s Degree in theology, for direction in a field the rest of the world requires licensure, academic specialization and continuing education.
As these two gentlemen discussed the problem further, Dr. Quinn mentioned counseling a man who was in prison on a sex charge of some sort. The “problem” they compared to the secular society as to Christianity was that a person with a sex issue has an illness in the secular world, whereas it is sin in the Christian world.
I was aghast at the comparison. Somehow they equated “illness” to the concept it could therefore be cured. I am of the personal opinion (and this is solely my opinion) that pedophilia is incurable. No amount of counseling or psychiatric intervention of any sort will cure this problem. Sure, I treat it as an “illness”—an incurable, convictable, always present illness. It doesn’t “go away.”
See, but as a sin it can go away. All it takes is a little willpower and poof—no more sin. Yet I noticed Dr. Mohler and Dr. Quinn were careful to note one would still have to monitor, watch and restrict a sex offender—even if they claimed to be free of the sin. Sounds like good advice to me—just like what the world would do!
I also found it funny Dr. Quinn said upon a person entering their counseling program they would go to a licensed, Christian physician for “a physical.” And, if intervention was need on a physical basis, the Christian doctor would intervene.
Did you follow that? In other words, if a person needed prescription medicine for their situation, they would go around the “total sufficiency of the Bible” by declaring this a “physical” need, which the Bible has no qualms about treating. Neat, eh? You can go to a Christian counselor who proclaims the Bible is totally sufficient to resolve your depression, while treating with your Christian doctor who is prescribing Zoloft.
What do you think? Is secular counseling all just a bunch of flotsam and jetsam and completely unnecessary? Is the Bible totally sufficient for counseling? Would the Bible be totally sufficient for counseling for a non-believer—or is it another one of those “Christians ONLY” clubs?
I know the Protestant crowd is completely infatuated with sola scriptura but this seems to carry it a bit far, don’t ya think?
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Picking and Choosing
Prior to a trial, each side has to present to the other an Exhibit List—a pleading detailing what documents and items they intend to introduce at trial. It is no surprise the lists between opposing parties disagree. Why? Because each side is picking (out of ALL possible Exhibits) those which support their case.
When looking for support for our position, we look for those with similarities. We even overlook great dissimilarities to focus on minute agreement. How many times have we seen a creationist quote one little line from a scientist, thinking it supports creationism, yet ignore the plethora of other works and quotes from the same author that would strongly disagree with the creationist position?
One of the areas in which I watch this happening is the attempt to reconcile the resurrection appearances of Jesus among the canonical books. Similarities are trumpeted; inconsistencies are down-played. And in this search, we look for the earliest record of the appearances. 1 Corinthians 15 enters stage right.
The date of this writing would be 55 C.E. and only the second letter of Paul’s that we have. (1 Thessalonians being the first.) Which places this account within 25 years of the resurrection. Pretty good; but many Christian scholars believe it can be dated even earlier. The claim is made this section, or at least verses 3b-5 are part of a Christian credo which Paul learned long before writing 1 Corinthians. How long before is a question.
The argument Paul was quoting something else is based upon:
1) The term “I delivered to you what I received…” is a rabbinical term for the transmission of sacred traditions;
2) Non-Pauline words such as “for our sins,” “according to the scriptures,” “he has been raised,” and “on the third day.”
3) Semitic transliteration of “Peter” to “Cephas,” and the threefold use of “and that.”
Article here.
However, this ends up being a double-edged sword. Due to the non-Pauline nature of the writing, other scholars have argued this is a latter interpolation (insertion) in the text. Further, the three arguments are not as strong on their face:
1) Paul also uses the term “deliver what I received” when referring to the Eucharist (1 Cor. 11:23) which he claims to have received directly from God;
2) Paul uses “for our sin” in Gal. 1:4, “according to the scripture” could only be referring to the Tanakh (since the Gospels were not written yet) and what scripture this is referring to is problematic…Hosea 6:2 is generally suggested. Paul has an interesting use of the word “third” particularly in 2 Cor. 13:1. (When the Torah requires “two or three witnesses;” Paul uses that to say his appearing three (3) times is equivalent.)
3) Paul uses the term “Cephas” throughout 1 Corinthians (1:12; 3:22; 9:5) and never “Peter.” When writing Galatians, Paul uses “Peter” at 2:7 & 8, but favors “Cephas” at 1:18; 2:9, 11 & 14
If we are claiming this is a non-Pauline credo, it retains some very Pauline characteristics! Be that as it may, assuming this was a credo of some sort, passed from Christian to Christian eventually falling on Paul’s ears—what does it say about the Gospel stories which have very different accounts? How is it the Gospel of Matthew, if written by one of the Disciples, does not align with the credo? Nor the Gospel of John—also an alleged eyewitness according to Christian tradition?
Many Christian apologists attempt to place this credo early; unwittingly forfeiting the reliability of the Gospel accounts. They want us to look at the similarities, and ignore the differences. Let’s look at the order of appearances:
1 Corinthians
1. Cephas (presumably Peter)
2. “The Twelve” (title of the Disciples)
3. Over 500 brethren at once
4. James, the brother of Jesus
5. All the apostles
6. Paul.
Mark
Has no appearances.
Matthew
1. Mary Magdalene and the Other Mary
2. Eleven Disciples
Luke
1. Simon? (24:34)
2. Cleopas and ____ on the Road to Emmaus
3. Eleven and those who were with them.
4. Apostles. (Acts 1:2)
John
1. Mary Magdalene
2. Ten Disciples (No Thomas)
3. Eleven Disciples.
4. Peter, Thomas, Nathanial, sons of Zebedee and two other disciples
[And it should be noted, this is a straightforward reading. Inerrantists who attempt to align the Gospel accounts fiddle with these accounts. For example, some remove Mary Magdalene in the first appearance of Matthew, and add other followers in the last appearance of the same Gospel.]
What is striking is not only the differences in order, but the actual persons involved. The credo does not include the women—who are in both Matthew and John. The credo specifically lists James—again unmentioned in the Gospels. And finally lists “all the apostles” which is an unknown group comprised of unknown individuals, and unaccounted for in the gospels as well, although possibly included in Luke’s second book of Acts.
The credo includes this count of “over 500 brethren” which are not mentioned in any of the gospels. (Although the Gospel of Nicodemus mentions such an appearance.) Oddly, Acts 1:15 records the total number of “brethren” as being only 120. This is the same word used by Paul—how could it drop from 500 to 120?
Of the four Gospels—Luke would be the closest to this credo. Luke seems to have no knowledge of any appearance to Peter prior to the disciples (note the words are placed in other people’s quotes, with no indication of any event occurring) and does not include any appearance to James. While one may imply such an appearance occurred, due to James staying with the disciples in the room (Acts 1:14), it also includes the other brothers; not even the credo includes any appearance to them.
If this was an early creed, it lacks continuity with the later writings.
It finally should be noted, assuming Paul heard this from someone else, we have no knowledge as to how “early” it could be. Although apologists like to state Paul heard it from Peter on his first trip to Jerusalem (Gal 1:18), there is no reason Paul could have not heard it until his second trip. (Gal. 2:1) Or at his conversion experience. Or anytime between. Again, if this was a creed, it may have transmitted through other Christians. If it was only a one-time statement from Peter, one questions how reliable either it, or the Gospel accounts, are.
When looking for support for our position, we look for those with similarities. We even overlook great dissimilarities to focus on minute agreement. How many times have we seen a creationist quote one little line from a scientist, thinking it supports creationism, yet ignore the plethora of other works and quotes from the same author that would strongly disagree with the creationist position?
One of the areas in which I watch this happening is the attempt to reconcile the resurrection appearances of Jesus among the canonical books. Similarities are trumpeted; inconsistencies are down-played. And in this search, we look for the earliest record of the appearances. 1 Corinthians 15 enters stage right.
3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.
6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.
7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.
8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
The date of this writing would be 55 C.E. and only the second letter of Paul’s that we have. (1 Thessalonians being the first.) Which places this account within 25 years of the resurrection. Pretty good; but many Christian scholars believe it can be dated even earlier. The claim is made this section, or at least verses 3b-5 are part of a Christian credo which Paul learned long before writing 1 Corinthians. How long before is a question.
The argument Paul was quoting something else is based upon:
1) The term “I delivered to you what I received…” is a rabbinical term for the transmission of sacred traditions;
2) Non-Pauline words such as “for our sins,” “according to the scriptures,” “he has been raised,” and “on the third day.”
3) Semitic transliteration of “Peter” to “Cephas,” and the threefold use of “and that.”
Article here.
However, this ends up being a double-edged sword. Due to the non-Pauline nature of the writing, other scholars have argued this is a latter interpolation (insertion) in the text. Further, the three arguments are not as strong on their face:
1) Paul also uses the term “deliver what I received” when referring to the Eucharist (1 Cor. 11:23) which he claims to have received directly from God;
2) Paul uses “for our sin” in Gal. 1:4, “according to the scripture” could only be referring to the Tanakh (since the Gospels were not written yet) and what scripture this is referring to is problematic…Hosea 6:2 is generally suggested. Paul has an interesting use of the word “third” particularly in 2 Cor. 13:1. (When the Torah requires “two or three witnesses;” Paul uses that to say his appearing three (3) times is equivalent.)
3) Paul uses the term “Cephas” throughout 1 Corinthians (1:12; 3:22; 9:5) and never “Peter.” When writing Galatians, Paul uses “Peter” at 2:7 & 8, but favors “Cephas” at 1:18; 2:9, 11 & 14
If we are claiming this is a non-Pauline credo, it retains some very Pauline characteristics! Be that as it may, assuming this was a credo of some sort, passed from Christian to Christian eventually falling on Paul’s ears—what does it say about the Gospel stories which have very different accounts? How is it the Gospel of Matthew, if written by one of the Disciples, does not align with the credo? Nor the Gospel of John—also an alleged eyewitness according to Christian tradition?
Many Christian apologists attempt to place this credo early; unwittingly forfeiting the reliability of the Gospel accounts. They want us to look at the similarities, and ignore the differences. Let’s look at the order of appearances:
1 Corinthians
1. Cephas (presumably Peter)
2. “The Twelve” (title of the Disciples)
3. Over 500 brethren at once
4. James, the brother of Jesus
5. All the apostles
6. Paul.
Mark
Has no appearances.
Matthew
1. Mary Magdalene and the Other Mary
2. Eleven Disciples
Luke
1. Simon? (24:34)
2. Cleopas and ____ on the Road to Emmaus
3. Eleven and those who were with them.
4. Apostles. (Acts 1:2)
John
1. Mary Magdalene
2. Ten Disciples (No Thomas)
3. Eleven Disciples.
4. Peter, Thomas, Nathanial, sons of Zebedee and two other disciples
[And it should be noted, this is a straightforward reading. Inerrantists who attempt to align the Gospel accounts fiddle with these accounts. For example, some remove Mary Magdalene in the first appearance of Matthew, and add other followers in the last appearance of the same Gospel.]
What is striking is not only the differences in order, but the actual persons involved. The credo does not include the women—who are in both Matthew and John. The credo specifically lists James—again unmentioned in the Gospels. And finally lists “all the apostles” which is an unknown group comprised of unknown individuals, and unaccounted for in the gospels as well, although possibly included in Luke’s second book of Acts.
The credo includes this count of “over 500 brethren” which are not mentioned in any of the gospels. (Although the Gospel of Nicodemus mentions such an appearance.) Oddly, Acts 1:15 records the total number of “brethren” as being only 120. This is the same word used by Paul—how could it drop from 500 to 120?
Of the four Gospels—Luke would be the closest to this credo. Luke seems to have no knowledge of any appearance to Peter prior to the disciples (note the words are placed in other people’s quotes, with no indication of any event occurring) and does not include any appearance to James. While one may imply such an appearance occurred, due to James staying with the disciples in the room (Acts 1:14), it also includes the other brothers; not even the credo includes any appearance to them.
If this was an early creed, it lacks continuity with the later writings.
It finally should be noted, assuming Paul heard this from someone else, we have no knowledge as to how “early” it could be. Although apologists like to state Paul heard it from Peter on his first trip to Jerusalem (Gal 1:18), there is no reason Paul could have not heard it until his second trip. (Gal. 2:1) Or at his conversion experience. Or anytime between. Again, if this was a creed, it may have transmitted through other Christians. If it was only a one-time statement from Peter, one questions how reliable either it, or the Gospel accounts, are.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Questions on Morality
Over at rob’s rants the pastor has written a meandering and difficult to follow entry in which apparently he believes atheists say “truth is relative.” I will leave it to the reader to make heads-or-tails of what he is claiming.
At the end he asked a few questions. I’m a little surprised this individual would reach the level of a senior pastorate in a church and never encounter these very basic questions, or contemplate them from an alternative perspective. Giving him the benefit of the doubt—that this is a genuine inquiry, I will go ahead and answer them:
Does it exist (moral absolutes)?
The short answer: no.
Is it the same for everyone? Absolute?
Here is where I develop some confusion. What does he mean by “it”? Presuming he means “absolute morality,” then, by definition it would have to be the same for everyone. (And that would include any gods, too!)
The problem within the absolute vs. relative morality is that two people very often talk past each other, because (and I cannot emphasize this enough)--they define “moral” differently. We often see the conversation:
Skeptic: What God did in the Tanakh was immoral.
Christian: Do you believe in Absolute morality?
Skeptic: No.
Christian: Then you can’t say what God did was immoral, because that is just your opinion.
The misunderstanding which is occurring here is in the definition. The Christian defines “morals” as something which is absolute. Therefore, if the skeptic applies something (whatever that “something” may be) to god, if that “something” is not absolute, in the Christian’s mind, the skeptic cannot be talking about “moral” because contained within the definition of moral is absolute.
Imagine I defined swans as “white birds.” By definition—it is impossible to have a black (or red or blue) swan. Why? Because once it is no longer white—it is no longer a swan. In the same way, we understand an Absolute Moralist mandates morals to be absolute. We understand if we apply a non-absolute standard, they think it can’t be a system of morality. Because our system of morality is different.
A relativist considers morals to be a breach of an accepted code of behavior. We do NOT require the word “absolute” to be contained within the definition of immorality. The question we ask to determine “is it moral?” is the search for the accepted code. NOT whether there is some absolute contained within the system.
More and more I see Christians who just don’t get it. Ask us both to define morality—you will see the difference. Now, there may be an argument as to which is the more accurate definition—THAT is an interesting discussion. But until the difference is seen, the conversation will not get off the ground.
Is it different for everyone? Relative?
Here I assume “it” means “system of morality? In the end—yes. It is different for everyone. As humans we reach consensus through interaction. We may even have vast groups who all agree on a moral code. But we recognize this is a consensus which can change. Think of the stigma of divorce in our moral system. That has changed within our lifetimes.
The danger here is that the person holding to absolutes often believes this renders morals to be simply a matter of individual taste. Everyone can do what they want. Nonsense—we all mutually succumb to authorities in which we voluntarily inhibit our desires for the good of the society, other individuals and ourselves.
Think of it as a four-way stop sign. We don’t “do what we want” at the intersection, because we recognize by doing so—others will as well. We voluntarily give up a few seconds of time in order to better society, others and ourselves.
If moral absolutes do exist, what are they?
Good question. Ask someone who holds to absolutes. Start with polygamy. Move to slavery. Then ask when is it acceptable to kill a baby for the father’s sin which was absolved. That one is a tricky absolute, let me tell ya!
If they [moral absolutes] do not exist, what are the standards we live by?
I think the author meant a different question. I think the question was supposed to be “What are the standards we should live by?”
I would argue we should live by the Platinum rule: treat others as they would like to be treated. Clearly as a society we see that will raise conflicts and we have passed laws to balance the desires as compared to the greater benefit of the society. But in an individual capacity, living with other individuals—this is a good basic rule.
The reason why would be based upon aversion and social contract theory.
If they [moral absolutes] do not exist, but there are undeniable standards by which we all live, why listen to them?
I don’t think there are undeniable standards by which we all live. A glance through any newspaper of a foreign country should dispel that idea.
At the end he asked a few questions. I’m a little surprised this individual would reach the level of a senior pastorate in a church and never encounter these very basic questions, or contemplate them from an alternative perspective. Giving him the benefit of the doubt—that this is a genuine inquiry, I will go ahead and answer them:
Does it exist (moral absolutes)?
The short answer: no.
Is it the same for everyone? Absolute?
Here is where I develop some confusion. What does he mean by “it”? Presuming he means “absolute morality,” then, by definition it would have to be the same for everyone. (And that would include any gods, too!)
The problem within the absolute vs. relative morality is that two people very often talk past each other, because (and I cannot emphasize this enough)--they define “moral” differently. We often see the conversation:
Skeptic: What God did in the Tanakh was immoral.
Christian: Do you believe in Absolute morality?
Skeptic: No.
Christian: Then you can’t say what God did was immoral, because that is just your opinion.
The misunderstanding which is occurring here is in the definition. The Christian defines “morals” as something which is absolute. Therefore, if the skeptic applies something (whatever that “something” may be) to god, if that “something” is not absolute, in the Christian’s mind, the skeptic cannot be talking about “moral” because contained within the definition of moral is absolute.
Imagine I defined swans as “white birds.” By definition—it is impossible to have a black (or red or blue) swan. Why? Because once it is no longer white—it is no longer a swan. In the same way, we understand an Absolute Moralist mandates morals to be absolute. We understand if we apply a non-absolute standard, they think it can’t be a system of morality. Because our system of morality is different.
A relativist considers morals to be a breach of an accepted code of behavior. We do NOT require the word “absolute” to be contained within the definition of immorality. The question we ask to determine “is it moral?” is the search for the accepted code. NOT whether there is some absolute contained within the system.
More and more I see Christians who just don’t get it. Ask us both to define morality—you will see the difference. Now, there may be an argument as to which is the more accurate definition—THAT is an interesting discussion. But until the difference is seen, the conversation will not get off the ground.
Is it different for everyone? Relative?
Here I assume “it” means “system of morality? In the end—yes. It is different for everyone. As humans we reach consensus through interaction. We may even have vast groups who all agree on a moral code. But we recognize this is a consensus which can change. Think of the stigma of divorce in our moral system. That has changed within our lifetimes.
The danger here is that the person holding to absolutes often believes this renders morals to be simply a matter of individual taste. Everyone can do what they want. Nonsense—we all mutually succumb to authorities in which we voluntarily inhibit our desires for the good of the society, other individuals and ourselves.
Think of it as a four-way stop sign. We don’t “do what we want” at the intersection, because we recognize by doing so—others will as well. We voluntarily give up a few seconds of time in order to better society, others and ourselves.
If moral absolutes do exist, what are they?
Good question. Ask someone who holds to absolutes. Start with polygamy. Move to slavery. Then ask when is it acceptable to kill a baby for the father’s sin which was absolved. That one is a tricky absolute, let me tell ya!
If they [moral absolutes] do not exist, what are the standards we live by?
I think the author meant a different question. I think the question was supposed to be “What are the standards we should live by?”
I would argue we should live by the Platinum rule: treat others as they would like to be treated. Clearly as a society we see that will raise conflicts and we have passed laws to balance the desires as compared to the greater benefit of the society. But in an individual capacity, living with other individuals—this is a good basic rule.
The reason why would be based upon aversion and social contract theory.
If they [moral absolutes] do not exist, but there are undeniable standards by which we all live, why listen to them?
I don’t think there are undeniable standards by which we all live. A glance through any newspaper of a foreign country should dispel that idea.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Now that’s original
When an inerrantist is pressed, we often hear the battle cry, “Well, I only believe the originals were inerrant.”
Curiously, the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy does not quite arrive at this conclusion. The Statement brushes it by claiming the autographs (originals) are inspired, and “copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.” (Not having the original, it doesn’t do us much good to say “where they agree with what we don’t have, they are the same as the original.”)
Humorously though, the long-winded statement designed to persuade toward inerrency, loses its entire argument by conceding: “the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.”
That’s a fancy way of saying “We see errors in what we have.”
And I have always wondered, when the statement says
This is a bit like saying, “I bought a lottery ticket, and while I don’t have it anymore, I am certain the numbers on it match last night’s multi-million dollar drawing.” Funny how they don’t give out money on such a claim!
But when the topic switches to Textual Criticism, I am assured by astounding percentages, we have narrowed the field to 99.5% of the original. The last bastion is that persnickety .5% we can’t quite cover.
Er…hello? If our copies are 99.5% accurate to the originals (a completely speculative face-flop in the mud, in my opinion) and these copies we have include errors—doesn’t that mean the originals have errors too?
When it comes to errors, the poor copies are blamed. When it comes to integrity, the copies are lauded. Why is it I feel someone wants to have their cake and eat it too?
Curiously, the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy does not quite arrive at this conclusion. The Statement brushes it by claiming the autographs (originals) are inspired, and “copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.” (Not having the original, it doesn’t do us much good to say “where they agree with what we don’t have, they are the same as the original.”)
Humorously though, the long-winded statement designed to persuade toward inerrency, loses its entire argument by conceding: “the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.”
That’s a fancy way of saying “We see errors in what we have.”
And I have always wondered, when the statement says
Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.What “apparent inconsistencies with no convincing solution” these esteemed authors were referring to. If they couldn’t find a “convincing solution”—why should I believe there is one?
This is a bit like saying, “I bought a lottery ticket, and while I don’t have it anymore, I am certain the numbers on it match last night’s multi-million dollar drawing.” Funny how they don’t give out money on such a claim!
But when the topic switches to Textual Criticism, I am assured by astounding percentages, we have narrowed the field to 99.5% of the original. The last bastion is that persnickety .5% we can’t quite cover.
Er…hello? If our copies are 99.5% accurate to the originals (a completely speculative face-flop in the mud, in my opinion) and these copies we have include errors—doesn’t that mean the originals have errors too?
When it comes to errors, the poor copies are blamed. When it comes to integrity, the copies are lauded. Why is it I feel someone wants to have their cake and eat it too?
Saturday, February 23, 2008
What if You’re Wrong?
What if You’re Wrong?
Recently Jake & Elwood Blues asked the question What if you are Wrong? The Barefoot Bum responded with an excellent blog on the subject.
Here’s my .02…
I am wrong all the time. Just yesterday I made the perennial mistake of choosing the wrong grocery line. In one was a woman with what looked like 15-20 items and in the other was a woman with only a few. I chose to stand behind the woman with a few. Who needed a price check. On the last item in the store, apparently. I watched the other woman complete her purchases and walk out while still waiting.
What happened when I was wrong? I had to wait a little longer and exert some patience.
In my professional life, I am faced with clients who have significant problems. The worst thing I could do is not file their suit in time. To miss the Statute of Limitations. (We typically call this “Blowing the Statute.”) It is malpractice, and will cost my client the value of their case. In some situations, literally millions of dollars. And I am very likely to be sued for malpractice.
What happens if I am wrong? I will potentially harm lives, and suffer financial lose.
See, inherent in the question “What if You’re Wrong?” is a fear of the consequences. The lesser the fear; the lesser the worry if you are wrong. If being wrong means you have to turn your car around because you missed the turn—this is of little consequence. If being wrong means your child is severely harmed or killed, this has far, far greater consequences.
We all know what this question means when posed in the theist/non-theist debate. It is a question about an after-life that divides people between eternal reward and eternal damnation. I have never seen a Universalist ask this question. I don’t recall a non-believer asking this question. Why? Because the consequences are not as great as to a theist thinking a person could either miss out on heaven, or be damned to hell.
They aren’t asking me, “What if you’re wrong?” when I question the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. Or if I am a Calvinist as compared to a partial Calvinist. The fear here is “What if you are wrong about hell?”
But here is the problem—in order for us to consider the consequences significant enough to contemplate the question we would have to believe the consequences actually exist. First you have to convince us hell exists before we worry about the question, “What if you’re wrong?”
Imagine tomorrow a man in a sandwich board boldly claiming, “The End is Near” accosts you, proclaiming a nuclear war will happen within 30 days, and you must prepare a bomb shelter. As you pass by, thinking this fellow is a nut; he shouts out, “What if You’re Wrong?” Good question. If you are then you will seriously regret not barricading yourself in a bomb shelter.
The obvious problem is that you probably don’t believe it. You are not concerned about “What if You’re Wrong?” because you don’t believe the consequences.
We see this all the time. A person who has been hurt in a relationship will advise caution to others. Why? Because they have greater empathy to the question, “What if You’re Wrong?” The consequences are more poignant to them. Or a person who has had bad sushi. They will recommend you avoid a particular restaurant.
To the theist; we don’t care about being “wrong” because we are persuaded we have a snowball’s chance in hell of there being a hell for a snowball to be in.
To the non-believer: this is actually a genuine question out of concern for us. Believe it or not.
I was once a firm believer in hell. The eternal torment, darkness, screaming pain of being burned with no comfort. It was as real to me as the fact I was losing my hair. An unavoidable reality.
Obviously I did not want anyone going there. And I could not imagine jeopardizing one’s eternal future by daring to believe anything but.
It was as if we had a time machine that could take us back to September 10, 2001. And we were running around, telling the U.S. government to restrict air travel because of the terrible tragedy that was about to occur. And being mostly ignored. Telling people in New York to NOT go to work tomorrow. And being mostly ignored.
Telegramming airlines with no success. Taking out T.V. ads, and radio spots trying to warn the world of what was about to happen. And being treated like a man in a sandwich board with the sign, “The End is Near.” And fully expecting (because we know the future) that on the evening of September 11, 2001 to have the world lamenting, “Oh, if only we had listened.”
In the exact way, I expected people I knew to, in 100 years or so, saying “Oh, if only we had listened.” To realize the full consequences of being wrong.
When, as a Christian, I asked, “What if You’re wrong?” It was because I was scared of hell and thought you should be too. The fact you did not believe in hell was both incomprehensible to me, and compelled me to even more firmly convince you of the existence, so you too could be as afraid as I am. (There is the threat The Barefoot Bum is talking about.)
The person who asks, “What if You’re Wrong?” is more scared of the consequences than the person being asked.
At one time I looked forward to the Judgment seat. While I would regret all the things I did incorrectly—I was entering an eternal reward. As a new deconvert, I figured if there was a judgment, I would tell God exactly all the things I did in my search for him (to satisfy myself, if no other reason) and ask why he failed to respond.
Now? If (and it is only a momentary passing fantasy) there could possibly be a judgment before a god or gods, I would merely shrug and say, “Commend me or condemn me; it makes no difference. Either way I did the best I could with what knowledge I had.”
“What if I am Wrong?” I have to fear the consequences before I fear the question.
Recently Jake & Elwood Blues asked the question What if you are Wrong? The Barefoot Bum responded with an excellent blog on the subject.
Here’s my .02…
I am wrong all the time. Just yesterday I made the perennial mistake of choosing the wrong grocery line. In one was a woman with what looked like 15-20 items and in the other was a woman with only a few. I chose to stand behind the woman with a few. Who needed a price check. On the last item in the store, apparently. I watched the other woman complete her purchases and walk out while still waiting.
What happened when I was wrong? I had to wait a little longer and exert some patience.
In my professional life, I am faced with clients who have significant problems. The worst thing I could do is not file their suit in time. To miss the Statute of Limitations. (We typically call this “Blowing the Statute.”) It is malpractice, and will cost my client the value of their case. In some situations, literally millions of dollars. And I am very likely to be sued for malpractice.
What happens if I am wrong? I will potentially harm lives, and suffer financial lose.
See, inherent in the question “What if You’re Wrong?” is a fear of the consequences. The lesser the fear; the lesser the worry if you are wrong. If being wrong means you have to turn your car around because you missed the turn—this is of little consequence. If being wrong means your child is severely harmed or killed, this has far, far greater consequences.
We all know what this question means when posed in the theist/non-theist debate. It is a question about an after-life that divides people between eternal reward and eternal damnation. I have never seen a Universalist ask this question. I don’t recall a non-believer asking this question. Why? Because the consequences are not as great as to a theist thinking a person could either miss out on heaven, or be damned to hell.
They aren’t asking me, “What if you’re wrong?” when I question the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. Or if I am a Calvinist as compared to a partial Calvinist. The fear here is “What if you are wrong about hell?”
But here is the problem—in order for us to consider the consequences significant enough to contemplate the question we would have to believe the consequences actually exist. First you have to convince us hell exists before we worry about the question, “What if you’re wrong?”
Imagine tomorrow a man in a sandwich board boldly claiming, “The End is Near” accosts you, proclaiming a nuclear war will happen within 30 days, and you must prepare a bomb shelter. As you pass by, thinking this fellow is a nut; he shouts out, “What if You’re Wrong?” Good question. If you are then you will seriously regret not barricading yourself in a bomb shelter.
The obvious problem is that you probably don’t believe it. You are not concerned about “What if You’re Wrong?” because you don’t believe the consequences.
We see this all the time. A person who has been hurt in a relationship will advise caution to others. Why? Because they have greater empathy to the question, “What if You’re Wrong?” The consequences are more poignant to them. Or a person who has had bad sushi. They will recommend you avoid a particular restaurant.
To the theist; we don’t care about being “wrong” because we are persuaded we have a snowball’s chance in hell of there being a hell for a snowball to be in.
To the non-believer: this is actually a genuine question out of concern for us. Believe it or not.
I was once a firm believer in hell. The eternal torment, darkness, screaming pain of being burned with no comfort. It was as real to me as the fact I was losing my hair. An unavoidable reality.
Obviously I did not want anyone going there. And I could not imagine jeopardizing one’s eternal future by daring to believe anything but.
It was as if we had a time machine that could take us back to September 10, 2001. And we were running around, telling the U.S. government to restrict air travel because of the terrible tragedy that was about to occur. And being mostly ignored. Telling people in New York to NOT go to work tomorrow. And being mostly ignored.
Telegramming airlines with no success. Taking out T.V. ads, and radio spots trying to warn the world of what was about to happen. And being treated like a man in a sandwich board with the sign, “The End is Near.” And fully expecting (because we know the future) that on the evening of September 11, 2001 to have the world lamenting, “Oh, if only we had listened.”
In the exact way, I expected people I knew to, in 100 years or so, saying “Oh, if only we had listened.” To realize the full consequences of being wrong.
When, as a Christian, I asked, “What if You’re wrong?” It was because I was scared of hell and thought you should be too. The fact you did not believe in hell was both incomprehensible to me, and compelled me to even more firmly convince you of the existence, so you too could be as afraid as I am. (There is the threat The Barefoot Bum is talking about.)
The person who asks, “What if You’re Wrong?” is more scared of the consequences than the person being asked.
At one time I looked forward to the Judgment seat. While I would regret all the things I did incorrectly—I was entering an eternal reward. As a new deconvert, I figured if there was a judgment, I would tell God exactly all the things I did in my search for him (to satisfy myself, if no other reason) and ask why he failed to respond.
Now? If (and it is only a momentary passing fantasy) there could possibly be a judgment before a god or gods, I would merely shrug and say, “Commend me or condemn me; it makes no difference. Either way I did the best I could with what knowledge I had.”
“What if I am Wrong?” I have to fear the consequences before I fear the question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
