I'll be gone for a few weeks. Until then listen to some Weezer.
Pig - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT4O9ZTp1Ww
Buddy Holly - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiIC5qcXeNU
Island in the Sun - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hyoszso38E
Photograph - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhXXqL3RMqs
El Scorcho - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CEqVTWo4EI (Warning: Contains the word "damn" in the beginning of the song. You can skip in to 25 seconds if you want to skip it.)
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
On Hell
Matthollycart over at the AV forums is throwing around some ideas on universalism. Unfortunately, the AV forums have some rules that make having in depth discussions rather difficult (2000 word limit, no consecutive posting, etc.). For that reason, I'm posting a more detailed response here.
The claim that "being saved has to do with this life" is completely unsubstantiated. Of course, being saved can be and is now a present reality for many in this life, but it seems that for Matthew's remarks to have any value to his own position, he must demonstrate that it pertains only (or merely)to this present state. So, I take Matt to mean there are two categories of people in the following sense. Category 1 consists of those who receive salvation and are at some point reconciled to God. Rconciliation to God and salvation are two distinct concepts. One does not imply the other. Category 2 consists of those who do not receive slavation and go on to be reconciled to God at some point after death.
Of course, so far, this is nothing more than wild speculation. Romans 8:29-30 and John 3:18 (aside from a hundred other texts) present salvation as extending beyond our mere earthly, temporal life and as something that encompasses reconciliation to God (see Acts. 16:30 where belief is tied to salvation). 1 Cor. 1:18 contrasts "those who are perishing" with those who are being saved. Since even the saved a perishing in a physical sense, the contrast must be more than simply an observation of physical, temporal death. In othe words, salvation extends beyond the mere physical, earthly state (see also 2 Cor. 2:15). Matthew 10:22 doesn't make much sense if salvation is only a temporal, earthly state.
But maybe Matthew means something else. Maybe he means there are two categories of people in this sense: category 1 consists of those who are reconciled to God (saved) in this life and category 2 consists of those who are reconciled to God in the next life (this category would include everyone who doesn't fall into category 1). This is the normal universalist position. But in Matt. 25:46 the duration of the punishment of the wicked is directly parallelled to the duration of the life of the righteous. So when he speculates, "perhaps there is not punishment for ever and ever and that eventually these will be reconciled to God" on what grounds does he do so? If eternal punishment for the wicked doesn't mean for ever and ever, then neither does eternal life for the righteous mean for ever and ever. If his argument is predicated on "αἰώνιος" being temporal, then he will be hardpressed to argue for eternal life.
I didn't say he made that connection, I simply used it as an example. I fail to see how "perhaps [it] does not mean what we have always imagined" is an adequate alternative to how the text is usually understood. It's like someone says "I espouse X because of A, C, and D" and another person responds "But maybe that's not the case." Well... okay, but you haven't offered much of an alternative by simply saying "maybe it's not that's not right." Matthew doesn't provide any argument, just conjecture. And of course to phrase it "what we have always imagined" is simply a rhetorical spin. As though all the theologians who believe in a literal, eternal hell are doing so on the basis of their imagination.
First of all, what makes Matthew think the fact that S & G was earthly is the parallel the author wants to draw in 2 Peter 2? In that case, maybe paradise is acidic since it's in Abraham's bosom. The entire chapter makes little sense under Matthew's reading (see esp. vs 9, the end of vs. 12, 17b, & 21).As the Bible Knowledge Commentary points out, "God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire is a classic example of universal destruction of the ungodly." For proof of this see Jude 7.
Furthermore, if Matthew is correct and the passage teaches that the ungodly will receive punishment in this life, it is obviously false (since many do not: see Job 24).
In typical universalist fashion, Matthew committs the etymological fallacy.
Mat. 5:27-30 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that jeveryone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye lcauses you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into the garbage dump when Rome destroys Jerusalem in 70 A.D. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into the garbage dump when Rome destroys Jerusalem in 70 A.D. (P.S. most of you will have probably died before then anyway).
Does this interpretation really warrant a response? Did only adulterers and lustful persons get thrown into the dump? I guess if you were one of the Christians who happened to be killed and thrown into the dump your piety didn't really work out so well, huh? Oops, Matthew 18:8 makes the contrast of "eternal fire" with "entering life"... Guess that blows the whole "Ghenna is just a spatio-temporal place" fallacy out of the water.
To bad no one told that to John when he contrasted perishing with eternal life (Jn 3:16). Not to mention the fact that this makes nonsense out of Jn 4:36; 6:27; 10:28; 12:25; 12:50; 17:2; Rom. 5:21; 6:23; or Jude 21, to give just a few examples.
Matthew hints that this is coming from 1 John where we read: the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us (2:1). But has it not occured to Matthew that there are different senses in which the apostle speaks of eternal life? After all, at 5:11 John says, "is in his Son." So which is it? Is Christ eternal life (2:1; 5:20) or is eternal life simply something that is with/in Christ (5:11)? Or perhaps eternal life is something Christ gives (Jn 10:28)? After all, 1 Jn also says God is love. Does this mean that we go back and read that sense into every instance of the word love so that it becomes "Love is God"? It should be obvious that "love is God" is a different proposition than "God is love," as is the case with eternal life.
If it is simple, there is no debate over it and there is unanimity amongst the church fathers on it? So, basically, there is no personal variable that factors into these issues... No comment.
Of course, Matthew is here to reveal to us all the true meaning of "eternal," (via the etymological fallacy) which has escaped majority notice for the last 2000 years. And in Jude 7 Matthew simply imports his meaning into the text which says "just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire." Notice that "ὑπέχουσαι" (undergoing/suffering) is present active, but Matthew wants it to read "underwent" or "suffered." Someone has certainly had their mind conditioned.
Of course, salvation or damnation doesn't make much difference in this view. We all get a taste of heaven for a time and then disappear, I guess. Let us eat and drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
matthollycart:...what I am referring to is not that everyone gets saved in this lifetime but that perhaps there is not punishment for ever and ever and that eventually these will be reconciled to God. In this life no one can be saved (and being saved has to do with this life) without being born again and have faith in Jesus.
The claim that "being saved has to do with this life" is completely unsubstantiated. Of course, being saved can be and is now a present reality for many in this life, but it seems that for Matthew's remarks to have any value to his own position, he must demonstrate that it pertains only (or merely)to this present state. So, I take Matt to mean there are two categories of people in the following sense. Category 1 consists of those who receive salvation and are at some point reconciled to God. Rconciliation to God and salvation are two distinct concepts. One does not imply the other. Category 2 consists of those who do not receive slavation and go on to be reconciled to God at some point after death.
Of course, so far, this is nothing more than wild speculation. Romans 8:29-30 and John 3:18 (aside from a hundred other texts) present salvation as extending beyond our mere earthly, temporal life and as something that encompasses reconciliation to God (see Acts. 16:30 where belief is tied to salvation). 1 Cor. 1:18 contrasts "those who are perishing" with those who are being saved. Since even the saved a perishing in a physical sense, the contrast must be more than simply an observation of physical, temporal death. In othe words, salvation extends beyond the mere physical, earthly state (see also 2 Cor. 2:15). Matthew 10:22 doesn't make much sense if salvation is only a temporal, earthly state.
But maybe Matthew means something else. Maybe he means there are two categories of people in this sense: category 1 consists of those who are reconciled to God (saved) in this life and category 2 consists of those who are reconciled to God in the next life (this category would include everyone who doesn't fall into category 1). This is the normal universalist position. But in Matt. 25:46 the duration of the punishment of the wicked is directly parallelled to the duration of the life of the righteous. So when he speculates, "perhaps there is not punishment for ever and ever and that eventually these will be reconciled to God" on what grounds does he do so? If eternal punishment for the wicked doesn't mean for ever and ever, then neither does eternal life for the righteous mean for ever and ever. If his argument is predicated on "αἰώνιος" being temporal, then he will be hardpressed to argue for eternal life.
matthollycart: Nowhere in my post did I say that being thrown into a lake of
fire is symbolic for universal salvation. But what I am saying is that it
perhaps does not mean what we have always imagined it means.
I didn't say he made that connection, I simply used it as an example. I fail to see how "perhaps [it] does not mean what we have always imagined" is an adequate alternative to how the text is usually understood. It's like someone says "I espouse X because of A, C, and D" and another person responds "But maybe that's not the case." Well... okay, but you haven't offered much of an alternative by simply saying "maybe it's not that's not right." Matthew doesn't provide any argument, just conjecture. And of course to phrase it "what we have always imagined" is simply a rhetorical spin. As though all the theologians who believe in a literal, eternal hell are doing so on the basis of their imagination.
matthollycart: The overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah was earthly. People were killed physically, not tortured forever and ever.
First of all, what makes Matthew think the fact that S & G was earthly is the parallel the author wants to draw in 2 Peter 2? In that case, maybe paradise is acidic since it's in Abraham's bosom. The entire chapter makes little sense under Matthew's reading (see esp. vs 9, the end of vs. 12, 17b, & 21).As the Bible Knowledge Commentary points out, "God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire is a classic example of universal destruction of the ungodly." For proof of this see Jude 7.
Furthermore, if Matthew is correct and the passage teaches that the ungodly will receive punishment in this life, it is obviously false (since many do not: see Job 24).
matthollycart: Matthew 5:30 The word is Ghenna, which was an actual place in the
time of Jesus. He was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and those who
would be killed would be thrown in Ghenna. John 3:14-16, John 6:40, etc.
In typical universalist fashion, Matthew committs the etymological fallacy.
Mat. 5:27-30 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that jeveryone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye lcauses you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into the garbage dump when Rome destroys Jerusalem in 70 A.D. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into the garbage dump when Rome destroys Jerusalem in 70 A.D. (P.S. most of you will have probably died before then anyway).
Does this interpretation really warrant a response? Did only adulterers and lustful persons get thrown into the dump? I guess if you were one of the Christians who happened to be killed and thrown into the dump your piety didn't really work out so well, huh? Oops, Matthew 18:8 makes the contrast of "eternal fire" with "entering life"... Guess that blows the whole "Ghenna is just a spatio-temporal place" fallacy out of the water.
matthollycart: Eternal life is God's life. It is not referring to a period of
time. Those who do not love their brother do not have "eternal life" in them.
Eternal life is something that is in you, not living forever in heaven.
To bad no one told that to John when he contrasted perishing with eternal life (Jn 3:16). Not to mention the fact that this makes nonsense out of Jn 4:36; 6:27; 10:28; 12:25; 12:50; 17:2; Rom. 5:21; 6:23; or Jude 21, to give just a few examples.
Matthew hints that this is coming from 1 John where we read: the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us (2:1). But has it not occured to Matthew that there are different senses in which the apostle speaks of eternal life? After all, at 5:11 John says, "is in his Son." So which is it? Is Christ eternal life (2:1; 5:20) or is eternal life simply something that is with/in Christ (5:11)? Or perhaps eternal life is something Christ gives (Jn 10:28)? After all, 1 Jn also says God is love. Does this mean that we go back and read that sense into every instance of the word love so that it becomes "Love is God"? It should be obvious that "love is God" is a different proposition than "God is love," as is the case with eternal life.
matthollycart: Its not as simple as you are implying otherwise there would not
be a debate and many of the early church fathers would not have believed it.
If it is simple, there is no debate over it and there is unanimity amongst the church fathers on it? So, basically, there is no personal variable that factors into these issues... No comment.
matthollycart: Jude verse 7 actually support my points and hurts your view Red
Monkey. It says that Sodom and Gormorrah suffered (past tense) the vengence of
eternal fire. Again, we have a misunderstanding of the word eternal. From all
the years and conditioning in our minds that "eternal" is referring to living
forever, we make wrong interpretations of scripture. Jude is basically saying
that Sodom and Gormorrah received divine judgment from God in heaven.
Of course, Matthew is here to reveal to us all the true meaning of "eternal," (via the etymological fallacy) which has escaped majority notice for the last 2000 years. And in Jude 7 Matthew simply imports his meaning into the text which says "just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire." Notice that "ὑπέχουσαι" (undergoing/suffering) is present active, but Matthew wants it to read "underwent" or "suffered." Someone has certainly had their mind conditioned.
Of course, salvation or damnation doesn't make much difference in this view. We all get a taste of heaven for a time and then disappear, I guess. Let us eat and drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
Monday, December 29, 2008
God's Ethic or Man's?
Over at "Bock's Blog" some commentators have been challenging the idea of Biblical ethics in relation to homosexuality. Here is my response:
Steph hopes that "one day people will overcome their ancient prejudice and allow homosexuals to be married by the state," yet she hasn't provided any *argument* as to why those whith their "ancient prejudice" should adopt her view. I realize she can't do to much via blog comments, but perhaps if she did not spend time making assertions that are irrelevant (Jesus and Paul disagree, Jesus thought eating shellfish was a sin, etc...) she could at least give us a thumbnail sketch of what an argument for homosexual marriage would look like while avoiding straw-men (the church thinks homosexuals are lesser beings).
People will never have a meaningful dialogue or let go of their prejudices as long as they continue to react with such rhetoric. Such people are actually part of the problem.
First, PF states, "It's more logical that the views of people changed over time and and as a result, their conception of what God wanted changed accordingly." But, like some other commentators, PF fails to provide any evidence or argumentation for such a view. How does one weigh that it is *more logical* that people changed their concept of God over time because their views on polygamy changed (since PF brings up that issue) than what Bock is saying, that polygamy was never condoned in the first place? It seems to me that the first thing you would have to do is find an OT *prescription* that says polygamy is good.
Even if one could find a prescription regarding how polygamy is to be carried out (can you?) this does not logically lead to saying God endorses polygamy. As one Christian apologist has cited G. Wenham, “The law sets a minimum standard of behaviour, which if transgressed attracts sanction…What legislators and judges tolerate may not be what they approve. Laws generally set a floor for behaviour within society, they do not prescribe an ethical ceiling. Thus a study of the legal codes within the Bible is unlikely to disclose the ideals of the law-givers, but only the limits of their tolerance: if you do such and such, you will be punished. The laws thus tend to express the limits of socially acceptable behaviour: they do not describe ideal behavior,” (Story as Torah, 80).
Even if PF could prove that the Bible presents God as approving polygamy (rather than tolerating it) and then as disapproving it, it still wouldn't necessarily follow that *PF's explanation as to why this is the case* is more logical (probable) than some other explanation. For example, I think PF would agree that some "goods" are only relevant within a certain culture and yet just as morally binding, within that culture, as goods which transcend any particular culture. Thereofre, PF would have to show that the grounds of God's approval/disapproval is not tied to some temporary (like culture) circumstance. Because if my hypothetical "therefore" is the case, then it is not clear why PF's explanation is more logical than an explanation which may ground the command to something relevant only within that culture.
Of course, all of this will be extremely difficult (impossible) with PF's chosen issue of polygamy. I suggest PF try something more obvious like say, a cultic injunction, which Christians no longer follow. But then PF loses some of his rhetorical (emotional) force and then PF will have to deal with Bock's own explanation and show why it is less logical (probable) than PF's. In the end, my guess is that PF will have to push the entire question back as to whether it is more probable than not that the Christian God exists. In which case, we see that PF has really been begging the question to enter the discussion at this level.
Secondly, how does it logically follow that if God says at t1 under condition X that eating pork is bad and at t2 under condition Y that eating pork is not bad that God is therefore a "vacillating creature"? For the most part, what I've said above applies equally here. Does PF not believe that some moral imperatives are only culturally relevant? Does PF think that every law we have in 21st century American society is legitimately transferable to a culture in the 2nd century BC? PF has to demonstrate that God said whatever law or "good" which PF has in mind is transcendent of all cultures and all times and then, at some later point, went back on that.
PF responds,
Steph: "You [Bock,] still use the bible as a textbook yet you fail to see that
the historical Jesus and Paul are poles apart. In fact you do not differentiate
between the Aramaic speaking Jesus with his mission to return Jews to God, and
the Jesus of later tradition - the Greek translators and the evangelists. As far
as the homosexuality debate goes, the Bible got it wrong. They didn't know
everything. Jesus would have thought it was a sin, just as he thought eating
shellfish was. Personally I don't see why homosexuals would want to marry in a
church and belong to a religion that treats them as lesser beings, but I hope
one day people will overcome their ancient prejudice and allow homosexuals to be
married by the state in the same way I was."
Steph hopes that "one day people will overcome their ancient prejudice and allow homosexuals to be married by the state," yet she hasn't provided any *argument* as to why those whith their "ancient prejudice" should adopt her view. I realize she can't do to much via blog comments, but perhaps if she did not spend time making assertions that are irrelevant (Jesus and Paul disagree, Jesus thought eating shellfish was a sin, etc...) she could at least give us a thumbnail sketch of what an argument for homosexual marriage would look like while avoiding straw-men (the church thinks homosexuals are lesser beings).
People will never have a meaningful dialogue or let go of their prejudices as long as they continue to react with such rhetoric. Such people are actually part of the problem.
PF: "Darrell, the fact that there is progression in the opinions of the
biblical authors about polygamy in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament actually
argues for a more logical explanation (although to be precise, the NT does not
say polygamy is a sin).
Did God change his mind about what is right and wrong, like polygamy,
slavery, eating pork and wearing clothes with dual fabrics? If he did, he's a
vacillating creature.
It's more logical that the views of people changed over time and and as
a result, their conception of what God wanted changed accordingly. The books
assign to God's will their own prejudices. The ancient Israelites killed their
enemies and ascribed their blood lust to God (such as the prescription to take a
"vagina or two" as spoils of war). Jesus had a different idea (and no way to
defeat the Romans in battle even if he wanted to), so his theology was
different."
First, PF states, "It's more logical that the views of people changed over time and and as a result, their conception of what God wanted changed accordingly." But, like some other commentators, PF fails to provide any evidence or argumentation for such a view. How does one weigh that it is *more logical* that people changed their concept of God over time because their views on polygamy changed (since PF brings up that issue) than what Bock is saying, that polygamy was never condoned in the first place? It seems to me that the first thing you would have to do is find an OT *prescription* that says polygamy is good.
Even if one could find a prescription regarding how polygamy is to be carried out (can you?) this does not logically lead to saying God endorses polygamy. As one Christian apologist has cited G. Wenham, “The law sets a minimum standard of behaviour, which if transgressed attracts sanction…What legislators and judges tolerate may not be what they approve. Laws generally set a floor for behaviour within society, they do not prescribe an ethical ceiling. Thus a study of the legal codes within the Bible is unlikely to disclose the ideals of the law-givers, but only the limits of their tolerance: if you do such and such, you will be punished. The laws thus tend to express the limits of socially acceptable behaviour: they do not describe ideal behavior,” (Story as Torah, 80).
Even if PF could prove that the Bible presents God as approving polygamy (rather than tolerating it) and then as disapproving it, it still wouldn't necessarily follow that *PF's explanation as to why this is the case* is more logical (probable) than some other explanation. For example, I think PF would agree that some "goods" are only relevant within a certain culture and yet just as morally binding, within that culture, as goods which transcend any particular culture. Thereofre, PF would have to show that the grounds of God's approval/disapproval is not tied to some temporary (like culture) circumstance. Because if my hypothetical "therefore" is the case, then it is not clear why PF's explanation is more logical than an explanation which may ground the command to something relevant only within that culture.
Of course, all of this will be extremely difficult (impossible) with PF's chosen issue of polygamy. I suggest PF try something more obvious like say, a cultic injunction, which Christians no longer follow. But then PF loses some of his rhetorical (emotional) force and then PF will have to deal with Bock's own explanation and show why it is less logical (probable) than PF's. In the end, my guess is that PF will have to push the entire question back as to whether it is more probable than not that the Christian God exists. In which case, we see that PF has really been begging the question to enter the discussion at this level.
Secondly, how does it logically follow that if God says at t1 under condition X that eating pork is bad and at t2 under condition Y that eating pork is not bad that God is therefore a "vacillating creature"? For the most part, what I've said above applies equally here. Does PF not believe that some moral imperatives are only culturally relevant? Does PF think that every law we have in 21st century American society is legitimately transferable to a culture in the 2nd century BC? PF has to demonstrate that God said whatever law or "good" which PF has in mind is transcendent of all cultures and all times and then, at some later point, went back on that.
PF responds,
"These things have everything to do with gay marriage. The point is that
the Bible is a book that reflects the ideas of its authors, not some divine
instruction. And thus arguing against gay marriage because the Bible says it
is a sin is to side with a primitive culture which had an unreasonable and barbaric prejudice.
To buttress this point, I note that many of the writers of the Bible had no
problems with slavery, polygamy and genocide and did have problems with so many
things that seem bizarre today.
And to associate a wholesale change in what constitutes a sin as
"administrative differences Jesus introduced as part of his program" is bizarre.
What, God rolled out the new Coke? Either eating pork was a sin or it wasn't.
Why did God ever care what people ate? Either homosexuality is deserving of
death or it isn't."
I. As I thought, PF simply has to say the Bible is not God's Word. But of course, when he/she goes on to say it is "an unreasonable and barbaric prejudice" he/she begs the question. To butress the point (I assume that the Biblical ethic is "unreasonable and barbaric"), he/she cites the fact that the Bible authors had no problem with slavery, polygamy, and genocide. Of course, he/she only continues to reason in a circle when he/she cites slavery and genocide (it's promotion of polygamy is an unfounded assertion, as we have seen).
II. To say, "And to associate a wholesale change in what constitutes a sin as "administrative differences Jesus introduced as part of his program" is bizarre." is to work with a very narrow view of ethics which apparently either ignores or disregards the possibility of the moral value of thing being contingent on the situation (I'm not promoting anything like Fletcher's situational ethics).
III. I'm not sure I agree with Bock that, "Eating pork was a matter of clean and uncleanness for Israel. This is not the same as being sin or not. It was to be avoided but it did not mean one had sinned. It did prevent one entering the temple-- that is what cultic impurity was about. It is a distinct category from sin."
It certainly seems from the text that a person who disobeyed the dietary laws was guilty of sin: "Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby. For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth" (Le 11:43-45). Even though the passage doesn't specifically say that the person who eats the unclean food is sinning, it seems reasonable to arrive at that conclusion because God's people were supposed to be sanctified. In other words, the text does make clear that they had a moral obligation to sanctify themselves and be holy. It wasn't optional. According to this text, it would seem that keeping the dietary laws was one of they ways that they maintained this sanctity. A person's failure to observe the dietary laws would result in a loss of sanctity and, therefore, would also fail to keep their moral obligation.
No doubt, Bock is probably more qualified than me in this issue. Perhaps he has something in mind that I've missed.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Conversations with Christians: An excercise in futility - Homosexuality, Genetics, and Logic
This series has the subtitle "an exercise in futility. There may be several reasons as to why the exercise or dialogue is futile. It may be the case that it is futile because I'm a dense idiot. (If you think so, feel free to comment and let me know. I only ask that you provide some reasons.) Or it may be the case, and often is, that the exercise is futile because the other person and/or myself has let pride get in the way. It may be an exercise in futility because we get side tracked on an issue that is insignificant in the face of what started the converstaion etc... Whatever it is, if I add to or am the sole factor in this futility feel free to let me know. I have no qualms about admitting I'm wrong if I'm wrong (though convincing me of it may be another matter). I often let my sin nature get the best of me and for that I apologize.
Why I am doing this series: (1) It helps me to see where I went wrong in the conversation. I'm able to reflect and think "I shouldn't have said that" or "I should have said this more clearly" or "I was wrong about that." I hope it will help you to see the same, learn from it, and avoid it yourself. (2) It is an often sad picture of where a lot of Christians stand on issues and how they tend to think. I've been having these conversations like this for quite a few years now, and these are by no means unique or out of the ordinary examples/representatives. (3) I hope that it will help some, including myself, when dealing with these issues in the future. We can leave behind that which was fruitless and develop that which seemed more productive in pushing the issue forward.
The conversation arose when one person, BB, asked what they should do about their friend who is a Christian struggling with the sin of homosexuality. This conversation became futile for a couple different reasons, some of which are my fault.
BB: I'm really confused on this. I don't know how to help [the person] or what to say, because I always thought you chose to be homosexual but after knowing [the person], I really think that people may be "born gay."
GO: people are not born with sin, BB.
Me (Red Monkey): There may be evidence that people can be genetically wired towards things we consider wrong.... that doesn't mean we say it is no longer wrong or that it is now acceptable. For an analysis of homosexuality and genetics see: Brian S. Mustanski and J. Michael Bailey, “A therapist’s guide to the genetics of human sexual orientation,” Sexual and Relationship Therapy.
PR: That is the biggest lie the homosexual communtiy has sold to the common man, or is trying to sell, that it is genetic. Because, if it's genetic, then god screwed up. Right?
GO: Yes, PTR, there is NO evedence of it [being genetic].
PR: You can't say the [way] someone is is sin if you created it.
Me: There is nothing wrong with saying it is genetic (unless it isn't). But I believe there may be some evidence that it is genetic. I don't think that [the reasons you gave] logically follow.
PR: I've been in the homosexual community alot (not engaging [in it], understand, but had friends [who were homosexual]) and i can tell you i've talked to hundreds AND EVERY ONE had some kind of messed up back ground or was sexually abused.
Me: That may be, PR. But your limited experience does not prove that it is not genetic. It may simply be the case that you happen to have [only] met people who are homosexual by choice.
PR: If god created homosexuality and it's sin then is'nt it god's fault?
Me: No, that doesn't make sense.
PR: And [God] wll send you to hell and call you reprobate for something he made you to be... OKAY, THAT MAKES SENSE. I'm glad i follow a god like that.
GO: Homosexuals are trying to say that they are just born that way to justify their chosen lifestyle.
Me: PR, perhaps we could reason this out via [a more private conversation]?
Me: Could we talk about this more in depth [one on one], PR?
PR: Hey, D, what's up, bud?
Me: You could at least say "no," PR, so I don't have to wonder if you saw my question or not.
SA: No one is born genetically gay.
Me: How do you know that?
SA: Studying A&P for two years.
Me: Two years of anatomy and physiology doesn't prove that there is no genetic factor to homosexuality.
SA: Show me that there is a gene that makes one homesexual and then we can talk about it.
Me: I don't have to do that. You claimed there wasn't. It seems to me the burden of proof is on YOU to show that there isn't or that there can't be.
SA: Actually kind of funny because in the old days when I studied new age metaphysics it was taught that people were born gay because they were once woman (if they were lesbians) or men (if they were gay) funny to see [you defending it] in a Christian chat room. The burden is on the people who choose to use that as an excuse to sin.
Me: Since no one [in this conversation] claimed it as an excuse to sin, then no one shoulders that burden. However, you still made an assertion that should be supported.
SA: Actually I think saying someone was genetically prone to be a homosexual says just that [they are trying to excuse it from being sin].
Me: Then you have another thing to demonstrate: you have to prove that it logically follows that if one is genetically predisposed to something that they are no longer morally culpable for it. I'd be happy to discuss that issue with you more in depth, SA, one on one.
SA: I have seen no proof that anyone is genetically predisposed to do that. So I beleive it's a crock of butter. Which would mean if someone wants to use that as a reason they need to show me proof. Really no point [in discussing it further with you] since my mind isn't going to be changed.
Me: I hope you recognize that is horrible logic. Let's make the statement more general to see the fallacy: "No one proved to me that X is the case. Therefore, I believe X is not the case." Your reason then for not believing that homosexuality is genetic is...well, illogical.
AK: Red Monkey, i believe alot of things that arent logical, dont u?
Me: AK, that depends on what you mean by "not logical." I suspect that you are simply equivocating on what I meant.
SA: It could very well be illogical. My first reason for believing homosexuality is not genetic is because I personally don't believe God would create a genetic reason for a sin he sought to destroy a city over.
PR: Red Monkey, will you, if i take you right, actaully sit in front of god and try to justify a homosexual lifestyle as being somehow correct or unavoidable?
Me: SA, the reason you gave previously, which is not the reason you are now giving [that God wouldn't create a genetic reason for a sin he sought to destroy a city over], was illogical. The reason you are currently given is simply a different assertion that you would have to demonstrate... but I already asked you to do that and you said you wouldn't because you won't change your mind.
SA: I think a lot of people will be sitting in front of God explaining why they choose to do some of the things against his Word. To you it may seem illogical, to me it makes perfect sense.
Me: There is only one logic. To say [as you first said that] "No one has proven to me that X is the case. Ergo, I believe X is not the case" is clearly a fallacious line of thought. If that seems logical to you or makes perfect sense, then you have yet to substantiate this.
SA: I have my own brand of logic and it serves me well.
Me: Great. So what if the homosexual has HIS OWN brand of logic too that proves HIM right? Now what? Now you're kind of screwed... there are not "brands of logic"
SA: God will reveal the truth then won't he... for one of us. I have my own special brand of logic you don't have to agree.
Me: Oh? Too bad God didn't give us a unified logic or something like that to discern truth. I guess everyone just has to have God directly reveal to him the truth, right?
SA: God does give me my logic.
Me: Oh yeah? Well God gave the homosexual his logic too. So you're back at square one.
SA: Lol, I'm still at the same place I was at the beginning.
Me: So does it really not bother you, SA, to be stuck on an irrational position?
SA: Does it really not bother you that I don't care what you think about my logic?
AK: Red Monkey, I just dont think SA thinks it is a big deal.
SA: ....Basically.
Me: But you continue to make the same mistake. There are not different kinds of logic. Otherwise, we are all screwed. If that were the case, SA, let me ask you this: do you believe logic constrains us to conform to its conclusions?
SA: Red Monkey, as a Christian I love ya...
Me: Could you answer the question? How would you like it if a homosexual or an atheist treated you the same way? You refuse to answer my questions or adhere to any shared standard of reason. Instead, you have created your own private standard of "logic." So how can you possibly object to the homosexual who wants to create his own standard of ethics? If you can have your own logic, then why he can't he have his own ethic?
SA: Because you're trying to change my mind you can't. Sorry but I just don't want to continue going down the same path. And I have talked to many atheist, agnostics, homosexuals
Me: I didn't ask how many atheists, agnostics, and homosexuals you talked to... so I don't know why you made that statement. But I'm not surprised that I'm not changing your mind either. How could I expect to when you won't even interact with what I've said. You have simply put your foot down and said you have your own logic. When you do this, you can't go around telling homosexuals that they are sinning... or telling anyone that anything is a sin for that matter.
HH: Homosexuals are sinning.
SA: I will point them to scripture and I'm hoping that's what anyone else would do.
HH: What's your point, Red Monkey?
Me: But you would do that because you want them to conform to your logic and to your ethic. [But if your logic is a private affair,] what right do you have to tell someone that they should conform to your standard?
SA: It's called sharing the Gospel, Red Monkey.
Me: Call it whatever you want, that doesn't answer my question.
SA: I tell them what Scripture says, if they don't want to hear that then they can tell me.
Me: In other words, it isn't really YOUR OWN standard, it is a transcedent standard that applies to all men and women?
HH: I guess Red Monkey is not debating....just attacking
AK: It almost sounds like that, HH.
SA: I think we've resolved this, Red Monkey. I don't agree with you, you don't agree with me.
Me: In other words, you don't have an answer... thanks.
LD: From an outsiders view here you seem to be mocking people, Red Monkey. If you really want a debate I'll be over here in my corner.
Me: How was I mocking anyone, LD?
LD: Red Monkey, [it was just] implied. That's my view of what I read.
Me: So, in other words, you can't or won't offer any proof or reasons as to why you think I was mocking someone... you just want to make the observation? Great...
LD: I said that is my view. I did not elaborate. I cannot change how you view things. If you wish to debate me I am here.
Me: A debate is the provision of premises for a conclusion. You concluded I was mocking Shell. I asked you to provide premises for that conclusion and you refused to do so. Instead, you simply said you made an observation... and now you act like you are open for debate? Why should I believe you?
[End of discussion]
Interestingly, in the recent Newsweek article they did ground the case for pro-homosexual marriage in their "makeup." - "Briefly put, the Judeo-Christian religious case for supporting gay marriage begins with the recognition that sexual orientation is not a choice—a matter of behavior—but is as intrinsic to a person's makeup as skin color." Newsweek, Our Mutual Joy
Why I am doing this series: (1) It helps me to see where I went wrong in the conversation. I'm able to reflect and think "I shouldn't have said that" or "I should have said this more clearly" or "I was wrong about that." I hope it will help you to see the same, learn from it, and avoid it yourself. (2) It is an often sad picture of where a lot of Christians stand on issues and how they tend to think. I've been having these conversations like this for quite a few years now, and these are by no means unique or out of the ordinary examples/representatives. (3) I hope that it will help some, including myself, when dealing with these issues in the future. We can leave behind that which was fruitless and develop that which seemed more productive in pushing the issue forward.
The conversation arose when one person, BB, asked what they should do about their friend who is a Christian struggling with the sin of homosexuality. This conversation became futile for a couple different reasons, some of which are my fault.
BB: I'm really confused on this. I don't know how to help [the person] or what to say, because I always thought you chose to be homosexual but after knowing [the person], I really think that people may be "born gay."
GO: people are not born with sin, BB.
Me (Red Monkey): There may be evidence that people can be genetically wired towards things we consider wrong.... that doesn't mean we say it is no longer wrong or that it is now acceptable. For an analysis of homosexuality and genetics see: Brian S. Mustanski and J. Michael Bailey, “A therapist’s guide to the genetics of human sexual orientation,” Sexual and Relationship Therapy.
PR: That is the biggest lie the homosexual communtiy has sold to the common man, or is trying to sell, that it is genetic. Because, if it's genetic, then god screwed up. Right?
GO: Yes, PTR, there is NO evedence of it [being genetic].
PR: You can't say the [way] someone is is sin if you created it.
Me: There is nothing wrong with saying it is genetic (unless it isn't). But I believe there may be some evidence that it is genetic. I don't think that [the reasons you gave] logically follow.
PR: I've been in the homosexual community alot (not engaging [in it], understand, but had friends [who were homosexual]) and i can tell you i've talked to hundreds AND EVERY ONE had some kind of messed up back ground or was sexually abused.
Me: That may be, PR. But your limited experience does not prove that it is not genetic. It may simply be the case that you happen to have [only] met people who are homosexual by choice.
PR: If god created homosexuality and it's sin then is'nt it god's fault?
Me: No, that doesn't make sense.
PR: And [God] wll send you to hell and call you reprobate for something he made you to be... OKAY, THAT MAKES SENSE. I'm glad i follow a god like that.
GO: Homosexuals are trying to say that they are just born that way to justify their chosen lifestyle.
Me: PR, perhaps we could reason this out via [a more private conversation]?
[At this point, PR remains silent for a while and the person who originally
posed the question, BB, has started talking to other people about different
aspects of the problem. I think PR may have missed my question and so ask
again:]
Me: Could we talk about this more in depth [one on one], PR?
[PR is again silent for a while. Someone, D, enters the conversation:]
PR: Hey, D, what's up, bud?
Me: You could at least say "no," PR, so I don't have to wonder if you saw my question or not.
[Again, PR does not say anything. However, another person
who was watching the conversation decided to take PR's cause:]
SA: No one is born genetically gay.
Me: How do you know that?
SA: Studying A&P for two years.
Me: Two years of anatomy and physiology doesn't prove that there is no genetic factor to homosexuality.
SA: Show me that there is a gene that makes one homesexual and then we can talk about it.
Me: I don't have to do that. You claimed there wasn't. It seems to me the burden of proof is on YOU to show that there isn't or that there can't be.
SA: Actually kind of funny because in the old days when I studied new age metaphysics it was taught that people were born gay because they were once woman (if they were lesbians) or men (if they were gay) funny to see [you defending it] in a Christian chat room. The burden is on the people who choose to use that as an excuse to sin.
Me: Since no one [in this conversation] claimed it as an excuse to sin, then no one shoulders that burden. However, you still made an assertion that should be supported.
SA: Actually I think saying someone was genetically prone to be a homosexual says just that [they are trying to excuse it from being sin].
Me: Then you have another thing to demonstrate: you have to prove that it logically follows that if one is genetically predisposed to something that they are no longer morally culpable for it. I'd be happy to discuss that issue with you more in depth, SA, one on one.
SA: I have seen no proof that anyone is genetically predisposed to do that. So I beleive it's a crock of butter. Which would mean if someone wants to use that as a reason they need to show me proof. Really no point [in discussing it further with you] since my mind isn't going to be changed.
Me: I hope you recognize that is horrible logic. Let's make the statement more general to see the fallacy: "No one proved to me that X is the case. Therefore, I believe X is not the case." Your reason then for not believing that homosexuality is genetic is...well, illogical.
[At this point another person jumps into the foray, but he has other
interests:]
AK: Red Monkey, i believe alot of things that arent logical, dont u?
Me: AK, that depends on what you mean by "not logical." I suspect that you are simply equivocating on what I meant.
SA: It could very well be illogical. My first reason for believing homosexuality is not genetic is because I personally don't believe God would create a genetic reason for a sin he sought to destroy a city over.
[At this point, PR jumps back into the conversation and manages to create a
straw-man of my position and add some chaos and misdirection on the issue:]
PR: Red Monkey, will you, if i take you right, actaully sit in front of god and try to justify a homosexual lifestyle as being somehow correct or unavoidable?
[I decide it's best to ignore PR and AK so I don't get side
tracked and lose the point with SA:]
Me: SA, the reason you gave previously, which is not the reason you are now giving [that God wouldn't create a genetic reason for a sin he sought to destroy a city over], was illogical. The reason you are currently given is simply a different assertion that you would have to demonstrate... but I already asked you to do that and you said you wouldn't because you won't change your mind.
SA: I think a lot of people will be sitting in front of God explaining why they choose to do some of the things against his Word. To you it may seem illogical, to me it makes perfect sense.
Me: There is only one logic. To say [as you first said that] "No one has proven to me that X is the case. Ergo, I believe X is not the case" is clearly a fallacious line of thought. If that seems logical to you or makes perfect sense, then you have yet to substantiate this.
SA: I have my own brand of logic and it serves me well.
Me: Great. So what if the homosexual has HIS OWN brand of logic too that proves HIM right? Now what? Now you're kind of screwed... there are not "brands of logic"
SA: God will reveal the truth then won't he... for one of us. I have my own special brand of logic you don't have to agree.
Me: Oh? Too bad God didn't give us a unified logic or something like that to discern truth. I guess everyone just has to have God directly reveal to him the truth, right?
SA: God does give me my logic.
Me: Oh yeah? Well God gave the homosexual his logic too. So you're back at square one.
SA: Lol, I'm still at the same place I was at the beginning.
Me: So does it really not bother you, SA, to be stuck on an irrational position?
SA: Does it really not bother you that I don't care what you think about my logic?
AK: Red Monkey, I just dont think SA thinks it is a big deal.
SA: ....Basically.
Me: But you continue to make the same mistake. There are not different kinds of logic. Otherwise, we are all screwed. If that were the case, SA, let me ask you this: do you believe logic constrains us to conform to its conclusions?
SA: Red Monkey, as a Christian I love ya...
Me: Could you answer the question? How would you like it if a homosexual or an atheist treated you the same way? You refuse to answer my questions or adhere to any shared standard of reason. Instead, you have created your own private standard of "logic." So how can you possibly object to the homosexual who wants to create his own standard of ethics? If you can have your own logic, then why he can't he have his own ethic?
SA: Because you're trying to change my mind you can't. Sorry but I just don't want to continue going down the same path. And I have talked to many atheist, agnostics, homosexuals
Me: I didn't ask how many atheists, agnostics, and homosexuals you talked to... so I don't know why you made that statement. But I'm not surprised that I'm not changing your mind either. How could I expect to when you won't even interact with what I've said. You have simply put your foot down and said you have your own logic. When you do this, you can't go around telling homosexuals that they are sinning... or telling anyone that anything is a sin for that matter.
HH: Homosexuals are sinning.
SA: I will point them to scripture and I'm hoping that's what anyone else would do.
HH: What's your point, Red Monkey?
Me: But you would do that because you want them to conform to your logic and to your ethic. [But if your logic is a private affair,] what right do you have to tell someone that they should conform to your standard?
SA: It's called sharing the Gospel, Red Monkey.
Me: Call it whatever you want, that doesn't answer my question.
SA: I tell them what Scripture says, if they don't want to hear that then they can tell me.
Me: In other words, it isn't really YOUR OWN standard, it is a transcedent standard that applies to all men and women?
HH: I guess Red Monkey is not debating....just attacking
AK: It almost sounds like that, HH.
SA: I think we've resolved this, Red Monkey. I don't agree with you, you don't agree with me.
Me: In other words, you don't have an answer... thanks.
LD: From an outsiders view here you seem to be mocking people, Red Monkey. If you really want a debate I'll be over here in my corner.
Me: How was I mocking anyone, LD?
LD: Red Monkey, [it was just] implied. That's my view of what I read.
Me: So, in other words, you can't or won't offer any proof or reasons as to why you think I was mocking someone... you just want to make the observation? Great...
LD: I said that is my view. I did not elaborate. I cannot change how you view things. If you wish to debate me I am here.
Me: A debate is the provision of premises for a conclusion. You concluded I was mocking Shell. I asked you to provide premises for that conclusion and you refused to do so. Instead, you simply said you made an observation... and now you act like you are open for debate? Why should I believe you?
[End of discussion]
Interestingly, in the recent Newsweek article they did ground the case for pro-homosexual marriage in their "makeup." - "Briefly put, the Judeo-Christian religious case for supporting gay marriage begins with the recognition that sexual orientation is not a choice—a matter of behavior—but is as intrinsic to a person's makeup as skin color." Newsweek, Our Mutual Joy
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Responses to Newsweek's Defense of Homosexuality
There have been many responses to the recent Newsweek article defending homosexuality and many blogs have linked to these articles. However, I haven't seen a single blog post linking to all of the best responses. Here it is:
(1) Albert Mohler: Turning the Bible on its Head, The Real Issues in the Newsweek Debat (NPR Interview with Lisa Miller!)
(2) Darrell Bock: The seriese of posts is still ongoing, I will update this to the complete seriese when it is finished: (a) Haircuts, Public Homilies, News Magazines, and Gay Marriage, (b) Journalistic Integrity, the Bible, and Marriage in Newsweek's Gay Marriage Piece, (c) Newsweek and Gay Marriage (Check out his comment section too for interaction.)
(3) Robert Gagnon: More than "Mutal Joy" (probably the best response.)
(1) Albert Mohler: Turning the Bible on its Head, The Real Issues in the Newsweek Debat (NPR Interview with Lisa Miller!)
(2) Darrell Bock: The seriese of posts is still ongoing, I will update this to the complete seriese when it is finished: (a) Haircuts, Public Homilies, News Magazines, and Gay Marriage, (b) Journalistic Integrity, the Bible, and Marriage in Newsweek's Gay Marriage Piece, (c) Newsweek and Gay Marriage (Check out his comment section too for interaction.)
(3) Robert Gagnon: More than "Mutal Joy" (probably the best response.)
Friday, December 26, 2008
Job 23:3-5
"Oh, that I knew where I might find him,
that I might come even to his seat!I would lay my case before him
and fill my mouth with arguments.I would know what he would answer me
and understand what he would say to me."
Job was a righteous man. He had given his circumstance much thought (see vs 2, Hebrew word translated "complain"). He had reasons (or at least thought he had some) as to why he should be restored to favor with God.
As I look at my own life I don't find this is the case. I have not given deep thought as to why I'm in such a wretched state and I have no reasons to give as to why God should help me and treat me favorably. I can't say to God, as Job, "My foot has held fast to his steps; I have kept his way and have not turned aside. I have not departed from the commandment of his lips; I have treasured the words of his mouth more than my portion of food" (11-12) and I do not share his unbridled confidence that "when he has tried me, I shall come out as gold" (10). I wish I had that. I wish I were a better man. But as it is, I can only trust that God will be merciful to me, a sinner.
Whether your Christian life resembles that of Job's or that of a 1st century tax collector, rejoice because God likes you and will help you with His perfect wisdom in the right time. We can all be confident that "he will complete what he appoints for me..." (14). Though, Job, as Matthew Henry says, here (13-16) makes "a bad use of good truths" we can avoid that mistake knowing the grace of God through Christ.
But sinner, if you are unrepentant, beware. God will complete what he appoints for you, "and many such things are in his mind."
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Weezer (The Red Album)
Weezer has always been one of my favorite bands; in fact, they are probably the only band I like. Of course, that doesn't mean I only like Weezer's music (Trance is probably my favorite genre), but that they are the only band which produces music that is consistently good, in my opinion. Rarely do I like more than 2 or 3 songs from the same band.When I heard a few years ago that Weezer was working on a new album I was overjoyed. I think it was the only time I've ever been excited about the release of a music album.
They aren't your average rock bank. While most other bands are singing about how great they are, how tough they are, how mad they are, and how much the women love them (though this is generally more true of Rap music than Rock), Weezer's songs have always had a self-depreciating quality. Yet the self-depreciation has never been depressing or dark as it is in emo-tennage-angst music. Rather, it has always come across as light, sometimes humorous (see "Freak Me Out"), honest and usually with the subject maintaining redeemable qualities (see "Pardon Me"). All of this was reflected perfectly in the melodies and riffs (see "El Scorcho" but plug your ears for the curse word at the beginning).
Or at least, this was the case with all their previous albums. The Red Album, released June 2008, has little resemblance with the band's previous persona. I hate to use a stupid analogy, but it's sort of like that kid from American Idol, Kevin Covais aka Chicken Little (no, I didn't know that off the top of my head... I looked it up). The kid started the season with a humble attitude. He was a dork and he knew it and it made him kinda charming to the public. But at some point the fame got to him and his over-sized head got even bigger. For example, compare this with this (skip 1 minute into the second video). At that point, Chicken Little became more of a joke than charming and his attempts to make himself more than a dork came off as pathetic.
While The Red Album doesn't strike me as pathetic it does lose the charming qualities that Weezer was able to create with their previous albums. Alas, it seems they have become just another rock band with an over inflated ego.
Nevertheless, Weezer shows that it still has a unique symphonic talent with songs like "The Greatest Man That Ever Lived" (although the lyrics to this song are the perfect case in point of the egotistical rubbish that pervades the rest of the album) and "Pig" retains the charm, both lyrically and instrumentally, that made them great. Interestingly, "Pork and Beans" captures the essence of what Weezer has always been. Weezer never seemed to care if they were uncool to the general crowd, the difference is that now they seem to think they're too cool for the general crowd.
For me, what makes the egotistism unbearable is that this album, like the others, comes across as honest. But maybe this is more apparent to me as an avid follower of Weezer. Perhaps you would have to know more about Rivers and the previous albums to get it. Anyway, I get the impression that Rivers isn't just trying to sell a record with a formula that works (narcissism sells to the youth), but that he actually believes this crap.
Nevertheless, I will cut them a little slack since Rivers Cuomo has described the album as "experimental." Hopefully, they come out with another album soon that stops experimenting. But that's doubtful.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
P.S. While I'm on the topic of music: you might want to check out the vocal trance radio player sidebar gadget. Naturally I don't endorse every piece of music played there, but I listened to a few songs today and they were pretty good. One day I'd like to go to Geneva for historical purposes but also because some good trance comes from that part of the world.
Merry Christmas
No doubt, at this time of Christmas many are reading through the infancy narratives or watching plays or movies or hearing musicals at church on the birth of Christ. Some of us may even be reading and writing apologetic literature on the subject (see here, for example). Then again, maybe you aren't...
But, either way, keep in mind that,
But, either way, keep in mind that,
"It is of no value only to believe that this history is true as it is written...
The Scripture, God's Word, does not teach concerning faith, that it is a natural
work, without grace. The right and gracious faith which God demands is, that you
firmly believe that Christ is born for you, and that this birth took place for
your welfare... Therefore see to it that you do not find pleasure in
the Gospel only as a history, for that is only transcient; neither regard
it only as an example, for it is of no value without faith; but see to it that
you make this birth your own and that Christ be born in you."(Martin Luther, The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 1.1; Christmas Day; 143,145)
Pope Paul Washer
Check out John Fraiser's post on Paul Washer: One of the Worst Sermons I Have Ever Heard.
I admit, I know a lot of Paul Washer fans (emphasis on the word fan). I really appreciate Fraiser's critique of Washer and I plan on directing some of the Washerites I know to it. However, I don't completely agree with Fraiser. It has the danger of being the reactionary pendulum swing that leads us to another dead end. For example, see the comment by "Jason" which ends up simply straw-manning Washer. Hey, maybe Washer just uses hyperbole? Come to think of it, there was this other guy once who used a lot of hyperbole. I can't think of his name right now but I think he lived circa 16th century.
On an observational note. I'm not a Lutheran but it seems to be a fad among young Lutherans to get pissed off at whatever is popular among Protestant circles (you get bonus points if its Reformed). Oh yeah... Fraiser says he isn't pissed off though. I guess what us non-Lutherans consider pissed off is really just casual observation for them. I'd hate to see them when they are pissed off.
Maybe I'm wrong though. Maybe I just happened to come across a lot of Lutheran rants on stuff that, while I would usually roll my eyes at, wouldn't bother to make a hub-bub about it. But that's why I like those kind of Lutherans and that's why I like Fraiser's post. It's a perspective not often heard and some people need to hear.
P.S. I haven't personally listened to Paul Washer's sermon on marriage, but I've heard some people say they like it and one guy laugh at it because Washer "just talks about how much marriage sucks." I'd be interested to hear what Fraiser has to say about it.
I admit, I know a lot of Paul Washer fans (emphasis on the word fan). I really appreciate Fraiser's critique of Washer and I plan on directing some of the Washerites I know to it. However, I don't completely agree with Fraiser. It has the danger of being the reactionary pendulum swing that leads us to another dead end. For example, see the comment by "Jason" which ends up simply straw-manning Washer. Hey, maybe Washer just uses hyperbole? Come to think of it, there was this other guy once who used a lot of hyperbole. I can't think of his name right now but I think he lived circa 16th century.
On an observational note. I'm not a Lutheran but it seems to be a fad among young Lutherans to get pissed off at whatever is popular among Protestant circles (you get bonus points if its Reformed). Oh yeah... Fraiser says he isn't pissed off though. I guess what us non-Lutherans consider pissed off is really just casual observation for them. I'd hate to see them when they are pissed off.
Maybe I'm wrong though. Maybe I just happened to come across a lot of Lutheran rants on stuff that, while I would usually roll my eyes at, wouldn't bother to make a hub-bub about it. But that's why I like those kind of Lutherans and that's why I like Fraiser's post. It's a perspective not often heard and some people need to hear.
P.S. I haven't personally listened to Paul Washer's sermon on marriage, but I've heard some people say they like it and one guy laugh at it because Washer "just talks about how much marriage sucks." I'd be interested to hear what Fraiser has to say about it.
Birds of a Feather: The Faith of President Bush and President Obama
George Bush: "No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from [the Bible], but I do think that the New Testament for example is ... has got ... You know, the important lesson is 'God sent a son'... I do believe there is an almighty that is broad and big enough and loving enough that can encompass a lot of people"
Barack Obama: "I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people... I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I'm not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I've got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others."
George Bush: "I just, I can't go there... I'm not that confident in knowing, you know, the Almighty, to be able to say, Yeah, God wanted me of all the other people [to be president]... I [made the decision to go into Iraq] based upon the need to protect the American people from harm... You can't look at the decision to go into Iraq apart from, you know, what happened on Sept. 11. It was not a religious decision. George W. Bush has to make these decisions"
Barack Obama: "I think I have an ongoing conversation with God. I think throughout the day, I'm constantly asking myself questions about what I'm doing, why am I doing it... And so, the biggest challenge, I think, is always maintaining your moral compass. Those are the conversations I'm having internally. I'm measuring my actions against that inner voice that for me at least is audible, is active, it tells me where I think I'm on track and where I think I'm off track... Well, I think ["when I feel like my actions are aligned with a certain truth"] it's the power of the recognition of God, or the recognition of a larger truth that is being shared between me and an audience."
(Source: here and here)
Sounds like Barack Obama and George W. Bush went through the same school of religion. Although, if you read the entirety of both interviews it sounds like Obama is more religious than Bush. Admittedly, Obama's interviewer seems much better and more in-depth than Bush's. Perhaps it would be better to see Bush's response to the same exact questions.
Either way, it seems that all those Christians supporting Bush as "one of our own" have just as much reason to support Obama as one of their own too. Of course, it will be argued, Obama's policy is a lot worse. However, many Christians used the "one of us" mantra to over look and tolerate a lot of moronic policy from Bush. I hope those same Christians show Obama as much tolerance. I hope they are able to look at his stupid policies and say "Well, I don't really like it, but at least he is one of us! Heck, maybe God wanted him to do it. I doubt God would let one of our own screw us, so let's give him some support."
Actually, I hope they wake up and realize they had the wool pulled over their eyes by a politician and his party, the GOP.
Barack Obama: "I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people... I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I'm not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I've got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others."
George Bush: "I just, I can't go there... I'm not that confident in knowing, you know, the Almighty, to be able to say, Yeah, God wanted me of all the other people [to be president]... I [made the decision to go into Iraq] based upon the need to protect the American people from harm... You can't look at the decision to go into Iraq apart from, you know, what happened on Sept. 11. It was not a religious decision. George W. Bush has to make these decisions"
Barack Obama: "I think I have an ongoing conversation with God. I think throughout the day, I'm constantly asking myself questions about what I'm doing, why am I doing it... And so, the biggest challenge, I think, is always maintaining your moral compass. Those are the conversations I'm having internally. I'm measuring my actions against that inner voice that for me at least is audible, is active, it tells me where I think I'm on track and where I think I'm off track... Well, I think ["when I feel like my actions are aligned with a certain truth"] it's the power of the recognition of God, or the recognition of a larger truth that is being shared between me and an audience."
(Source: here and here)
Sounds like Barack Obama and George W. Bush went through the same school of religion. Although, if you read the entirety of both interviews it sounds like Obama is more religious than Bush. Admittedly, Obama's interviewer seems much better and more in-depth than Bush's. Perhaps it would be better to see Bush's response to the same exact questions.
Either way, it seems that all those Christians supporting Bush as "one of our own" have just as much reason to support Obama as one of their own too. Of course, it will be argued, Obama's policy is a lot worse. However, many Christians used the "one of us" mantra to over look and tolerate a lot of moronic policy from Bush. I hope those same Christians show Obama as much tolerance. I hope they are able to look at his stupid policies and say "Well, I don't really like it, but at least he is one of us! Heck, maybe God wanted him to do it. I doubt God would let one of our own screw us, so let's give him some support."
Actually, I hope they wake up and realize they had the wool pulled over their eyes by a politician and his party, the GOP.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
