Minor Thoughts from me to you

Archives for Adam Volle (page 4 / 8)

Solid!

As the wedding day of yours truly draws ever closer (golly, can it be less than two weeks away now?), certain facts of life are becoming impossible to ignore any longer. Among these: that my freedom to loaf for days' worth of time playing a much-anticipated video game with my brother shall soon meet its end.

So, I'd better get while the getting's good, eh?

Rather than blogging these next two weeks, I'll be spending my remaining free time as a man unattached playing Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, which by either wonderful coincidence or karma happens to be the final installment of my very favorite game series (I've been following Metal Gear and its hero Solid Snake since its initial release in the '80s).

And then I'll be on my honeymoon, at which point video games will likely seem an inconsequential loss.

Webmaster Joe shall entertain you while I'm saving the world. Later!

This entry was not tagged.

A Post of Pure Camp

summercamp

The Economist's new Lexington columnist (a charming detail of the magazine is that its regular columnists all write under psuedonyms, but rather than create new ones when they are hired they instead receive the psuedonym of the writer who worked their beat before them) kicks off his tenure with an article about atheist camps for children in the United States.

I've heard about these; I even once listened to an podcast interview with Don Sutterfield, an ex-Christian who nowadays works at the same "Camp Quest" Lexington explored for his article. I was amused as much then as now by its challenges to its campers, which include the camp counselors informing all the kids that an invisible unicorn lives in the woods, and that they'll receive a prize if they can prove it doesn't exist. Most of the daily activities aren't anti-religious but are likewise centered on critical thinking. Though I still don't count myself an atheist (yes, even despite my fall from grace), I'm still rather pleased to hear that such a place exists, wherein kids are taught how to consider information rather than what information to accept.

By contrast, both Webmaster Joe and I spent at least one summer together (Joe, how many times did you go overall? I think I went thrice) at AWANA Scholarship Camp, which I was saddened to learn today no longer exists. When we weren't belting out hymns for Jesus we were crooning pledges to America. At night we'd stand up before the assembly to declare our intention to throw away our country music albums for Jesus soon as we got home we swear, or give our testimonies or whatever. The point was clearly to rejuvenate our allegiance to the Christian values which so naturally erodes over time spent with... with...

Well, let's just say it:

Public school kids.

a_sparks

Above: AWANA's mascot Sparky, as Joe and I knew him back in the day. Below: The new-fangled Sparky of today. When did the whippersnappers give him wings?

wingedsparky

I seem to recall the camp succeeding in its mission too, at least with me. I returned to my neighborhood feeling very purified, driven, and ready to serve as a light in the spiritual darkness (we secretly watched Mortal Kombat and Die Hard while the 'rents were asleep) of my neighborhood. This lasted until "Mortal Kombat II", at least.

The very different summer getaways underline the differences between mainstream Christianity/other religions and skeptics/free-thinkers. To become more dismissive of evidence and thought contrary to your worldview is to "grow in your faith" in the eyes of the Church, but to simply be close-minded to the skeptic. The established religions ferociously grip old answers and consider it a testament to the strength of those old answers that they've succeeded in doing so for millenia. Skeptics of course see that same unwillingness to adopt new theories in light of further evidence as a gross weakness. One group lives by trusting what they are told; one group lives by questioning what they are told.

When the kids at camps like these grow up, which of them will have been better served by their experience?

And will the latter group remember all the words to the Sparky Song? 'Cause this is all I got:

_We are Sparks for Jesus

Sparks to light the world_

[something something something]

_As we tell each boy and girl.

We will hide God's Word in our heart

We will [something] right from the start.

We are Sparks! Sparks! Sparks! Sparks!

Sparks to light the world!_

This entry was not tagged.

Wizard Rock!

.wizardrock

I could post today about the end of Atlanta football star Vick's sentence, or how the fubar state of New York is now considering a totally insane 57% tax on its highest-earning residents - but I really wouldn't be a friend to you if I didn't instead take this opportunity to instead inform you about the recent phenomena that is Wizard Rock.

I learned about this wondrous (dare I say "magical"?) music subgenre from today's _USA Today _article on the subject, which profiled no less than four of the Harry Potter-inspired bands, including pioneer group Harry & The Potters.

Bands describing themself as part of this new movement generally seem to be of the punk rock persuasion, stylistlcally-speaking. Their lyrics range from the touching and somewhat maudlin, as in this little stanza by Draco & The Malfoys:

_He never gave me the attention he gave Harry

He never showed an interest in me

I watched him from afar, wishing I had a scar

So he would see the great wizard I could be_

...on to the more energetic (by H & P):

_Dumbledore, we all fight for you tonight

In our hearts we'll never let you die

Your love is keeping us alive_

According to USA Today there are now as many as 500 of these bands churning out similar numbers - and counting. So if you were wondering just what new kind of music scene will emerge to dominate this next decade's charts like Hip Hop in the 90's...

This entry was tagged. Entertainment

Dennis Prager & Honduras

honduras

Now this is interesting (well, to me):

I don't know much about the current situation in Honduras, but most of the news reports I've heard have generally portrayed the ouster of its president Manuel Zelaya as a military coup, albeit one of a man who seemed likely to make a play for the role of dictator.

Well, reknowned conservative commentator Dennis Prager has informed his listeners which side he supports by flying to the country and broadcasting his show from there. I think it's an unusually bold move; commentators are generally sedentary creatures who enjoy talking about the issues more than anything productive (and why not? Talking's easier), but his move here underlines the passion he communicates in his article.

Am I convinced? I have no idea, still knowing little about the country and its problems. Dipping my hand for but a moment into the well of information that is the Internet, I find that in 1998 the county was declared the third-most corrupt country on Earth by Transparency International's Corruption Research Center. A more recent (2008) publication from the Overseas Security Advisory Council informs me that Honduras was full of gang violence, kidnapping, and political shenanigans even before the "coup". Finally, I notice that as of July 2 the military has restricted citizens' rights, although Prager rightly notes they haven't taken power (so calling this situation a "military coup" is very much a misnomer), not even from Manuel Zelaya's party. All of this suggests we're talking about a struggling, nearly failed state that is chaotic but has thankfully had too much recent experience with complete authoritarianism (the military ruled until the 1980s) to succumb to an obvious power play.

That said, some of the response by the Honduran government is unquestionably illegal, such as Zelaya's deportation (no Honduran citizen may be forcibly removed from the country, according to the country's constitution), so it appears that the Hondurans have allowed themselves to push a little harder against the encroachment than was strictly advisable.

Shoot, let's just invade.

This entry was not tagged.

Ah'm ah Bubba?

confederate-flag

Are you tired of politics?

God knows, I am. As big a politics junkie as I used to be - in my time as a flag-wavin', God-fearin' Republican there wasn't a Townhall.com update I didn't read, nor an issue of _The Economist _I didn't completely consume for more general news before moving on to a host of blogs - these days I can barely finish a simple newspaper article without feeling that despicable strain that comes from forcing my poor brain to endure the consumption of totally repetitive and irrelevant information (for those of you who aren't Bible geeks like me, think of how you feel when reading the Book of Leviticus). Unless that newspaper article details the sexual exploits of one of our holders of higher office, anyway, because at least the secret life of Mark Sanford appeals to the voyeur in me.

But what the heck am I supposed to find interesting about Washington today - or indeed the world? No thoughtful debate of current issues exists within the federal and state levels of U.S. authority. Bills are written at absurd length and then submitted to the floor for approval on days when reading them, much less discussing them is impossible - and often include "blank checks", entire sections which are simply to be "filled in later" without returning for reconsideration. Which might be averted had our so-called representatives the huevos to simply vote down bills they've only just learned about, but Congress is utterly beholden to the unions, corporations, foreign governments, and associations which purchase its members' elections - the work of passing a bill doesn't really have anything to do with what's in it, so much as who is for it and who is against it. Indeed, at least in many sessions the leader of a party has simply informed his party's other members how they are to vote using hand signals - one for "yes", another for "no", an occasional third for "vote your conscience".

Oh, I suppose there is a little bit of discussion about the choices before us, now and then. Remember the most recent presidential debates? When an Ordinary Citizen would ask a pointed question and both Obama and McCain would simply ignore it, just make a vague statement about the economy or the Earth or Change instead? Just like their campaign managers demanded, I'm sure, because being boring and non-specific is how Poli-Sci wizards have determined one wins elections. There's a reason no president of our country has delivered a speech worthy of the Gettysburg Address in a very, very long time.

What is the American government that I am supposed to want to engage in it? Let's momentarily push past the oft-quoted reminder that "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch" (Benjamin Franklin is often incorrectly cited as the author, but in fact nobody can find evidence of the observation been written prior to '92). Let's note instead the unchallengeable fact that even the laws established both by the Unites States Constitution and our government are ignored whenever they get in the state's way. The government has a "compelling interest" in ignoring our property rights. It prosecutes people and expressly denies them the right to raise funds for their own defense. It goes to war without declaring war. It spies on us. It imprisons people indefinitely after they are found innocent of the crimes with which they were charged. It takes my money and gives it to the people who voted for and contributed to whoever is in office.

So I should work to change all that, right? I should start a movement. I should convince others of my position. That's what Democracy is all about.

Sure. That's the ticket. I'll just convince a bunch of first-class thieves to pass a bill which forbids them from stealing. Perhaps something along the lines of what Dan Carlin repeatedly suggests: a bill that requires a politician to excuse himself or herself from voting on any bill that affects an industry from which he or she has taken donations. If I campaign tirelessly for its passage, I'm sure it will only be a matter of time. Say, the rest of my life.

And really, that's a point I think needs to be brought up more often: the unknown amount of time I have on this planet and how much I can do with it. I have so many dreams. How much of this surely limited lifespan I have am I supposed to use up defending myself against these politicians and their supporters? These people hell-bent on owning me because they've bought into a utopian religion.

No, I really want nothing to do with any of it. I don't want to read another lie on the front page - and there is always a lie on the front page. I don't want to waste an hour or more of my day voting so that the next thief-in-chief to come along can say he has a mandate from me (or alternatively that he does not, but too bad).

But what options does rejecting this political arena, this total lie, leave me? Two, really: one is to resign myself to being at the mercy of whatever greedy power possesses the military might to hurt me and try to live my life as best I can anyway. The second is to succumb to what some commentators are snidely calling "the Bubba Effect" because they envision white rednecks from the South when they think of it (and incidentally, um, they're spot-on, 'cuz I am one). According to Glenn Beck's definition of the term (there seems to be disagreement), communities of like-minded individuals tend to form when citizens become disillusioned with the idea they are going to be able to live decent lives under their out-of-control government. Militias, for example. Or Christian Exoduses. Or Free State Projects.

I ask myself on a fairly regular basis these days if I have the courage to choose the latter and live a life of civil disobedience, as well as at what point the former would become unbearable (after Hate Speech Legislation? After socialized medicine? When my taxes reach a certain level?). Fortunately for me it's an academic question for now. I've the next several years of my life planned out and they mainly involve overseas work, living as a guest in other countries. My decision will remain deferred 'til my return.

And then, what?

Stalin = Hitler

hitler-stalin-pakt

"It is is depressing that it even needed to be discussed," begins The Economist latest Europe.view column. From that opening sentence it proceeds to inform us of the Russian reaction to a resolution by the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe) equating Stalin with Hitler.

'...the OSCE resolution prompted outrage from Russia. Indeed, under the new law criminalising the “falsification of history”, anyone who voted for it, discussed it or publicised it in Russia would risk a jail sentence of up to five years.'

It's a response I think anyone with their head on straight must find indefensible, but a comment on the article from another reader did adequately explain for me the psychology behind it.

'For better or for worse, human beings look to a few major events in national history for one of the most central components of identity building (the other typically being religion). As such, these are the places that hurt the most. All great events and all great leaders have their dark sides. We are all human. And yet, in some cases those dark sides are acknowledged but not played up. Jefferson's slave ownership (and, indeed, his diddling of some of those slaves) is not played up. July 4th does not focus on genocide of Native Americans. FDR is not the man with dictatorial aspirations who packed the SCOTUS. Truman is not celebrated for nuking hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. The names on the Vietnam War Memorial do not have bracketed numbers to indicate the number of innocent people those individuals might have brutalised.

'It is well known that for Russians, their victory (and the fact that it was a victory, rather than a defeat is hugely important) in WWII, which came at great cost (in no small part by virtue of Iosif Vessarionovich's incompetence) is the defining moment of their modern history. Stalin is only tolerated, for all his warts, because he personifies this victory. And now you want to tell them that they were no better than those they fought against and that it was all down to luck anyway?'

The poster, an Aiden Clarke, disdains "foreigners gloatingly belittling the cornerstones of [Russia's] national identity." I see his point and think his logic is pretty clear, but I've still not enough interest in preserving Russian pride to excuse any defense of the evil man - and what Aiden belittles with his comments is the full weight of Stalin's crimes. Furthermore, Aiden might be right in saying that the resolution is merely an exercise in "poking a wounded animal" by politicians, but the Russian reaction shows that it's nevertheless an exercise worth doing, for if the fact that the world would be better off if Stalin were never born is not common wisdom in every room of the Kremlin itself, then that fact bears more repeating.

Russians need to spend less energy protecting the nonexistent honor of its homegrown monster, more coming to accept and grieve the destruction he wrought.

This entry was tagged. Civil Liberties Ethics

In which Adam tries to make sense of arguments by Jonathan Edwards (and predictably fails)

225px-Jonathan_Edwards

Above: Jonathan Edwards.

Webmaster Joe's really been crankin' out the apologetics recently. And it's all interesting - not so much the in-and-outs of the arguments themselves (which I say without offense to Joe, I hope - I simply know them already) as my reaction to them from a new, quasi-outsider perspective, what I'm learning about how mental paradigms work.

The theology Joe is taking the time to explain to all of us seems to me self-evidently crazy and even evil. Reading it, I realize how Nazis could slay 6 million Jews (or Jews could wipe out lands full of Canaanites), how Muslims could understand why one should blow up women and children on buses, why Catholics once forced baptisms and lit people on fire. Yet I remember quite clearly once making many of the same points to other people, and how justified I felt in doing so at the time. What's more, I know the man making them now, and I would never consider him less morally-inclined than I. I'm forced to reconsider a bromide I once casually dismissed about good men, bad men, and religion.

But I suppose I'd better get to answering it all. And that shouldn't take much time, since Joe stipulated at the beginning of his post that all of his logic is based on the unwarranted assumption that the universe exists according to orthodox Christian theology. On that basis there's little arguing to be done.

Except with Jonathan Edwards' logic. That might hold up if not for the fact that his entire argument is made up of phrases that either don't mean anything or are self-evidently untrue. That is, God does not have "infinite glory" since glory is something He has to be given by others - beings which are not Him. He is also only "infinitely excellent" (read: perfect) because we're judging Him against Himself. "Infinitely lovely" because... because... Well, that one just makes my head hurt (seriously, what on Earth is that supposed to mean?). And he certainly isn't possessed of "infinite majesty" - He may well have "all" majesty, but not "infinite" majesty. There's only a finite amount of majesty (def: sovereignty, authority) to go around, at least as applies to us humans.

Really, the only term understandable within Edwards' whole fubar essay is "infinite punishment", which is very understandable - and horrifying. Uncalled for, too: even taking Christian theology for granted, I can't possibly be under obligation to God for any more than has been given to me, which would be one life's worth of service. You're not obligated to give a return on what you haven't received. That's why when we give God "all praise" we (presumably) mean that we are thanking Him for "everything we have" rather than infinite possibilities (unicorns, pink elephants, honest politicians?).

But maybe I'm trying to prove far more than is necessary here. After all, there really isn't any reason for me or anyone else to bother refuting Jonathan Edwards' analysis of why we deserve Hell, since Jonathan Edwards was a Calvinist and hence believed the hellbound were predestined by God for eternal torture anyway. If that's the case, how can it make sense to say the hellbound deserve their fate, except in that they were built for it? One would assume the whole case to be an exercise in absurdity for a man of such beliefs.

Funny that the same objection was of course raised nearly 2000 years ago to the Bible's Paul. Funnier still that the self-proclaimed apostle had no answer, either.

I made an earlier obversation that Calvinism is a religion that possesses no perspective on humankind distinguishable from Atheism, except that many atheists cling to the idea Life has independent value. However, it does have a flaw the atheistic world view doesn't have; the Calvinist perspective might be structurally sound if unattractive ("We are God's organic toys. He loves some of us and smashes others because this makes Him look good"), but for the fact that Calvinists also must insist that we playthings somehow did wrong and thus _deserve _this whole process that shouldn't need any justification. That keeps tripping them up.

What Calvinism really needs in order to form a coherent perspective is to do away with the concept of Sin entirely - but its adherents naturally can't do that, so maintaining their beliefs requires a certain level of cognitive dissonance and a willingness not to think it through too much. I suppose they accept their confusion as part of God's mystery (His doubtlessly infinite mystery).

Would that they would take the advice of Ayn Rand, who said: "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

This entry was not tagged.

Innocent? So what?

guantanamo

An absolutely chilling article from FOXNews.com informs us that the Obama administration is now claiming the right to "continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely even if they have been acquitted (italics mine) of terrorism charges by a U.S. military commission."

Recall that the Bush administration was lambasted during its stay for (a) holding terrorist trials by military commission instead of a jury and (b) holding terrorists for indefinite periods of time. Now our new president, still fresh from campaigning on the promise of a more humanitarian policy toward these same people, is saying that even when alleged terrorists do get trials and are found innocent, they remain entirely at the United States' mercy.

Would even President Bush have dared to suggest that? And what are we going to do about it?

This entry was not tagged.

What's so great about the USA?

MartinLuther

Our government (Joe and I are both Americans, if it wasn't completely obvious) is the world's oldest. Economically, we account for a quarter of the world's entire gross domestic product - which is a fact that tends not to be mentioned when activists bemoan the fact that we consume a quarter of the world's usable oil ("To each according to his need," we might reply to them). Relatively-speaking, citizens have more economic and social freedoms in the United States than any of their ancestors could imagine, and they have responded by being one of history's most generous people both in charity and in warfare.

There's a lot to celebrate. And maybe that's why the Unites States' citizens don't seem to understand what a pickle they're really in. Drunk with the glory produced by their ancestors, our fellow Americans fail to realize just how much danger they're really in.

Because they are in a bad state (no pun intended). They are broke. Worse, they are heavily, heavily in debt, and their government representatives are unwilling to even arrest their descent into financial ruin, much less lead them out of it, because Americans have been successfully fooled into accepting a paradigm of government known as the "two-party system". So long as Republican officials keep their voters scared of Democrats and Democrat officials keep their own scared of Republicans, both sides are aware they will never be held accountable for their actions. Bizarrely, they can take money from anyone - even the Iranian government - and then do favors for those financiers just as blatantly once they enter office, just so long as they tell the IRS about it.

Keeping their electorate scared of foreign agents has completed their stranglehold on the minds of their subjects ("constituents" is too polite a word at this stage). Somehow, they have successfully convinced over half of the U.S.A. that their personal security demands the continual presence of at least one million soldiers stationed inside their national borders, as well as many more on 820 different bases in over 39 different countries - this despite America's own constitution fairly clearly (though admittedly not completely unambiguously) rejecting the notion of a standing army entirely. The total cost for it all constitutes 21% of annual discretionary spending by their Congress.

They have also convinced many of their fellow citizens that their freedoms are subject to their own "compelling interest" - that is, the level of trouble the government would have in respecting rights to free speech, property, and privacy. The Supreme Court has ruled that governments may indeed abridge political speech (McCain-Feingold Act), take your property (Kelo), or wiretap you (President Obama is now legalizing what his predecessor illegally performed) without judge approval - which as it turns out is a rubber stamp anyway, as citizens are learning across the nation at the most local levels when they challenge police harassment. Inform a policeman that you don't consent to a search or that you are not interested in answering his/her questions and you can be arrested on any number of absurd new catch-all charges.

Indeed, so fragilely do your personal freedoms rest on the government's whims that it has been clearly established by federal judges - and I swear I am not making this up - that you do not actually have a legal right to your own urine or blood and that you cannot put in your body what you want (but then, all you "drug war"-lovers do know about that one, don't you?).

Strip away the paeans to public health and morality and you are left with the central message at the heart of it all: other people own you.

I would say these are the problems with the services our government is providing today - except that they aren't really "services" at all, are they? A favor must by nature be refusable, but should you refuse services the government is not adequately providing - and most certainly if you stop paying for them - you will be met by its mercenaries, men in blue uniforms inexplicably thought as heroes, who will use their guns and clubs to make you pay or else throw you in a cage.

Don't want to fight the Iraqis? You must still at least pay for the guns or you will go to prison.

Don't want government health care? You must buy health care - or you will go to prison.

Don't want to pay for other people's care/education/unemployment/retirement? You must - or you will go to prison.

Don't like how we're literally stealing your money? Pay anyway - or you will go to prison.

Don't want to do something as simple as wear you seat belt? You must, or you will get a ticket - and if you don't pay even that, yes, you will eventually go to prison.

And again, most Americans are OK with it.

In the main, that is because Republican and Democrat officials have successfully fooled the electorate into forgetting why the United States was a great idea in the first place - something that has nothing to do with Democracy or a Republic. Democracies and republics are not especially fantastic forms of government. The former are rule-by-mob and the latter are rule-by-mob with a couple levels of safeguards.

What was absolutely crazy about the U.S.A. was the notion (far from fully-developed though it was) that a person had a respected right to largely live life as he or she chose, _irrespective _of what his or her fellow citizens thought. That was the Big Idea, the Lightning Bolt, the historically uique factor, what made it a hundred times cooler than Greece thousands of years past and France just across the way. Yes, the Founding Fathers failed to initially apply that idea to all people - but that was because some failed to regard women and ethnic minorities as people, not because they didn't understand that people in general should make their own choices. That's a shame, but it's still a fabulous seed of an idea, largely alien to human history.

In fact it's great - and if the United States of America wishes to remain so or even reach still mightier heights, its citizens must recall the seed from which they sprung and rather than allow their leaders to whittle away at the tree of liberty grown from it, force them to allow its expansion.

Otherwise, the Declaration of Independence itself tells us what our next duty is:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

(PS: Boy, the Fourth of July really brings out the windbag in all of us writers, doesn't it? Well, the clock strikes midnight - back to sanity and hopefully some lower level of pretension!)

This entry was tagged. Philosophy

Calvinism Continued, or Newton, Robots, & Glory

John_Calvin

(Previous discussion of this subject can be found in the entry just below this one.)

The primary evil of Calvinism, in the eyes of those who do not adhere to its beliefs, is its denial of the free will to choose Heaven over Hell, God over the Devil. God's omniscience - His ability to know what we will pick ahead of time - isn't really an issue for mainstream Christianity; in fact the idea that God knows our decisions and accounts for them in His work, thus maintaining total control, is a staple of Arminianism (which is why people who say, "I believe in both!" when asked their opinion on the issue are both right and yet reveal their ignorance - "both" predestination and free will is the standard Arminian position of today, though there are of course some who deviate from it).

Interestingly, the same evil is inherent in Atheism: if we are merely biological machines, we are bereft of free will as Christians understand it. Our genetics and experience are the masters of our fate, not "us" (which we tend to think of as our consciousness).

Only "evil" is a misnomer when we discuss the existentialist horror of the atheist. Nobody has "done wrong" by creating the atheist universe. The most one could say about it (if one does take a negative view of the whole affair) is that it is a cosmic tragedy. Calvinism qualifies in theory as evil only because its situation has a mastermind who could produce something better if He liked.

However, it's worth pointing out that Calvinism has the advantage over Arminianism in that it is soon likely to be the only option left for believers - for the centerpiece of Arminianism is Humankind's "X-Factor", a decision-making entity we refer to as our soul or spirit, wholly independent of our biology and experience. Much as the LORD's Temple serves as an integral part of Judaism, without the soul's existence the entire Arminian view of Humanity is rendered incoherent.

So the fact that scientists are doing their best to prove that we don't have souls or spirits at all is potentially crippling (at least to the honest; Jews have gotten along just fine for nearly two thousand years pretending the Temple was never really important).

But not to Calvinism, since Calvinism doesn't require people to have souls. Removing the need for an independent decision-maker unshackled by the input it receives frees Calvinism of the need for there to exist a soul at all; all other functions of the soul can be easily attributed (and are indeed now largely proven to be the function of) the brain.

Calvinists thus have the following defense against the hypothetical scientists who have just proven the soul doesn't exist: "Well, fine - but you must understand that the Bible's authors were putting their message into words that people could understand."

If you believe in a bodily resurrection, all the better.

A note on the previously-mentioned existentialist horror of being an atheist (or a Calvinist, if you believe you're one of the pre-damned, but then I've never met a Calvinist who does): I recently read a great book of philosophical conundrums, one of which asked whether a robot who perfectly simulated being alive would in fact be alive. The question clarified for me the answer to the dilemma of how people like Dawkins, Harris, et al. live. For the last century, researchers have argued as to which is the chicken and which is the egg: our biology or our consciousness. But when there is no difference between life and its simulation, there is no need to differentiate between them - and so it is with Free Will and Predestination, Consciousness and Biology.

Now, a note on God's predestinative powers and Time: probably due in the main to science fiction stories, educated people have largely accepted the idea that Time is basically just another dimension, like Space (Newtonian Time). While that view is a superb manner in which to mentally picture Time and a lot of fun for the imagination, mistaking that abstract representation for reality is ultimately ridiculous. If God knows the future, it's not because He's already "seen it", "outside of it", or working simultaneously in the past, present, and future. If anything, God simply has a powerful enough intellect and influence to predict the course of events He sets in motion.

A third note, about my comparison of the Temples of Judaism to Calvinism: not to pat myself on the back too much, but I just realized how good a comparison that is. Modern Jews bizarrely insist that two verses, one in Hosea (6:6: "I desire mercy and not sacrifice") and one in Proverbs, frees them from entire books' worth of sacrificial requirements. Calvinists similarly are willing to overturn the entire rest of the Bible in favor of relatively few verses about God's control. Humans are treated as decision-making, moral agents responsible for their choices throughout the entirety of Scripture, except for the relatively rare declaration otherwise.

A final note, this one about God's glory, justice, et al.: We are told that God does everything for His own purposes. Fair enough. But we are often also told that God's purpose is "His own glory". Beg pardon, but what the dickens can God possibly want with glory? And what sort of creature would it make Him that He created beings to give it to Him?

The idea that God created people for the pleasure of creation is understandable. So is the idea that He wanted to have relationships. Those are two values that are self-justifying, independent. The idea that God created people just to reveal how awesome He is to them and demand that they admit it, not so much, and I suspect it's just "theology creep", the government-like tendency of theology to make more and more extreme statements to outdo itself.

God's justice and its requirement of blood to remit Sin is an equally bizarre idea, now that I think about it. I've forgiven many people in my life - and I have not found it necessary to kill anything in order to do so. A Christian might suggest that it is unnecessary for me to kill because Jesus paid the price for their sins against me - but I just don't honestly buy that I would find it necessary to kill regardless, unless I was defending myself from the offending party or utterly consumed by a need for vengeance.

A Christian might also suggest that all sins are sins against God, not men - but that is simply nonsense. Whosoever harms me, harms me (a better argument is the idea that God wants you to forgive as you were forgiven, but that proves a lack of need for blood). God is by all accounts undamaged. Indeed, the only crime against God must be simple, completely ineffective rebellion - which we must assume does not hurt God's feelings, because that would suggest we have some power over Him - and the idea that God can't put up with that suggests He's not merciful at all.

This entry was tagged. Philosophy

Calvinism (Continued From Comments)

Discussion continued from the comments section of "Two Fun New Books".

If I didn't call them something new, Joe, how could I hope to stimulate discussion? :)

Calvin's views fail to pass the mirror test, whereby one stands in front of the mirror (or in front of someone else, if you are very brave) and proceeds to make a pitch such as:

"Hi. I just want you to know that Jesus loves you - and it's possible that you were arbitrarily chosen to be one of the limited number of people he has created to accept into Paradise. I won't know unless you accept the offer, of course... and then die a Christian, too, 'cause if you ever fall away that means you were shamming.

"Why doesn't God love everybody? Oh, but He does! What's that? But why doesn't He save everyone, then - especially since nobody is capable of choosing Him on their own, or even doing a good thing unless the good thing is done with His incarnation as a Jewish carpenter in mind? Look, I know it sounds strange, but this is the only world view that you can really come up with if you take every line of this book as the unvarnished truth - and you must never question the book. Even though other parts of it have conclusively shown to have been added later/corrupted.

"Oh, and one more thing: When I say He 'loves' you, I don't want you to get any wrong ideas. He's really doing all this for His own glory."

At some point during the mirror test/friend test, your voice may start lowering, perhaps even to the point where you fail to finish the statement or only are whispering. Don't worry; it's a natural side-effect and a good indicator of a healthy sense of shame.

Blogger David D. Flowers cuttingly illustrates how Calvinist theology undercuts Jesus' message of love by tinkering a little with the Bible, producing what he calls "John Calvin 3:16-21".

_

16 For God so loved the elect, that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever of the elect believeth in Him shall not perish in the fire God created for those he hath predestined to burneth for all eternity, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent his Son into the world to condemn the heathen to hell and save only those who acknowledge they have no choice but to repent and do exactly as God says.

18 Whosoever be amongeth the elect is not condemned, but whosoever is among the damned stands condemned already because God’s sovereignty wills it.

19 This is the verdict: Light has come unto the elect, but all the other men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were predestined to be evil.

20 For everyone who doeth evil must hateth the light, and shall not come into the light because they have no choice but to doeth evil.

21 So he that doeth truth cometh to the light by the TULIP, that his deeds may be made manifest through reformed theology, that they are all forced by God._

Also, as I mentioned in my previous comment, John Calvin was something of an animal to anyone who disagreed with his views, and I can't believe he was a Christian, so as a source he's rather untrustworthy anyway. He'd certainly have killed me if he thought I posed a threat. Am I supposed to believe that such a man had Love Incarnate within his bosom? I cannot. One may blather all one wishes about someone's views in historical context and imperfection of man while on Earth, but if the Holy Spirit does not at least instill a man with the understanding that He cannot butcher people until he has established the Kingdom of Heaven, it is an impotent, worthless thing.

I'll add the same for Martin Luther, even though we have a lot for which to thank him as our liberator from the Catholic Church; the man was an anti-Semite who said, "We are at fault for not slaying them!"

Joe, you're a much more moral person than someone like Martin Luther, or John Calvin, and indeed the very God who is described by Calvinists. I think you should be confident enough in that good within you, be it born by the Spirit or through your own intellect, to reject what is clearly ridiculous and evil.

This entry was not tagged.

How To Handle Police

barry-cooper-470x313

Here's a bit of news I know I know I'm very late to the party on, but I think it's still worth mentioning for those who remain unaware ('cause it's great): After doing a little soul-searching and winding up an ardent supporter of marijuana legalization, a former narcotics officer named Barry Cooper now produces videos informing drug users how to avoid arrest, and has actually partnered with investors to conduct sting operations against police forces breaking the law in their investigations.

october2007leb_img_33

You don't have to buy his videos to become informed about your rights and the proper manner in which to handle law officers. Nor do you have to be a pot-smoker to benefit from that information. Publicly available films like "Busted: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters" are short and well worth watching, giving you a step-by-step guide to the common traffic stop and other unfortunate occasions.

This entry was tagged. Civil Liberties Police

"You benefit from government services, so..."

11949858391332901534government_icon_-_symbo_01_svg_thumb

"I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

The above quote encapsulates the answer with which liberty activists are often met. We are reminded of how much we owe to our various levels of government. Have you been recently accosted? Of course not, because your tax dollars pay for the police. Did you take the road to get here? The government built our road system. You should pay your taxes because you benefit from the government's services.

The implication is that we are ungrateful... er, ingrates, but it's a silly argument. The position is akin to nothing so much as that taken by the homeless man who sweeps a cloth over your car window and sticks out his hand expectedly (then proceeds to break your wipers if you renege on paying for the service you didn't request).

Benefiting in no way obliges the beneficiary unless that beneficiary has asked. I don't owe the government anything.

Neither do you.

Tactics for Liberty: How Libertarians Can Struggle

liberty-bell-atrophy

Liberty activist Sam Dodson's recent victory over the Cheshire County government in New Hampshire has inspired our own Webmaster Joe - but like many family men, he feels he hasn't the right to jeopardize his wife and two daughters' security by committing civil disobedience.

I'm not sure I agree with his description of illegal activism as "self-indulgent". Most of the men and women who have previously liberated American society from various evils had families; most of the Iranians currently protesting in Tehran's streets and opposing Ahmadenijad at risk to life and limb (God bless them all) likely have them. That they were and are still willing to engage the enemies of freedom underscores their commitment against injustice - and if we all felt such conviction, the injustices of today would likely never have been allowed to take root in the first place.

Which is not to downplay Joe's concerns regarding how civil disobedience might affect his family or to suggest he needs to "man up" and get to chaining himself to fences. No, no - the point deserved to be made, now has been, and I'd prefer to suggest methods by which citizens like Joe might contribute without undue risk to their livelihoods.

Having said that, my first suggestion will probably seem strange: cheat on your taxes. Starve the beast of government by denying it the funds with which to finance its clearly immoral and illegal programs. For the time being this is actually very safe, according to BookKeeperList.com, which writes that in in one recent year "only 2,472 Americans were convicted of tax crimes — .0022 percent of all taxpayers." That's despite the fact that the IRS believes 17% of Americans are not compliant. The IRS just doesn't have the manpower or data-mining equipment to inspect everybody and when it does find suspicious claims it rarely prosecutes. So really, what's the worst that can happen? Paying back-taxes? A penalty, maybe?

But I am am addressing at least one (and probably several, statistics tell me) Christians, so the question naturally arises: isn't that unethical? I've recently reached the decision that it is not. Even if you believe that every government which obtains power over you is legitimate by divine decree (which is stupid - does that mean African-Americans were wrong to protest in the '60's?), to "render unto Caesar" is one thing, especially in a country in which we have a deal with our Caesar; to render unto a known embezzler is another - and it is now undeniable from public information that we Americans are being taken for a financial ride. Even if you accept the idea that they have the right to take money from some people and give it to others, they're not doing that with the money you give them. They're just thieves.

Take for example John Stossel's investigation into the government agency meant to assist Native-Americans in poverty. He's found that $40,000 is purportedly spent on each Native-American purportedly being helped - an amount which obviously would put them all in the middle-class if we simply cut each of them a check for the amount.

Obviously, that money isn't going to those tribes. The government tells us it is, but it isn't - and even the government isn't so incompetent as to mismanage that much moolah. People aren't that stupid, Folks. It's being stolen from you - just as it's being stolen from you inside the Department of Defense (they've been trying to produce a credible financial statement for approximately a decade now), inside the Fed (which hasn't been audited in nearly a century), and doubtlessly inside many other departments.

I'm not saying it's necessarily being stolen from you without being accounted for. I'm sure most of the money that our government officials give to their friends is accounted for on their budget and rationalized, if poorly. But it's still being stolen. The intent of these people is not to help Native-Americans.

A second argument against faithfully paying taxes: I won't declare paying your taxes to be sinful (after all, it's basically the equivalent of handing your wallet to a robber - "Give us the money or else!"), but through your taxes you are funding programs you know to be morally wrong. I can't see that failing to assist evil men in their evil actions can be wrong.

(I wish this conversation was more than academic for me. In my life, the metaphor of the government as highway robber takes on a light-hearted tone. Thumbing through my wallet, the masked menace's eyebrows rise. "Really? This is all you have? Dude, tell you what - just keep it.")

Let's move on to another idea: If you can't be disobedient, fund people who are. The CD Evolution Fund is a charity which financially supports liberty activists in New Hampshire, usually by paying for their legal aid. The fund was instrumental in supplying Sam Dodson with representation during his two-month incarceration.

Obviously, you can also support other liberty-oriented projects. In fact we may want to discuss a libertarian tract of the sort produced by Mr. Ditko; I have $250 in my "Time for another project" account and am currently considering what might eventually pay for itself.

Finally, don't cooperate in your victimization to the extent the law allows. This will still make your life more difficult, as police and government officials don't like it when citizens remind them of their limitations, but freedoms are like muscles - if you don't exercise them, they waste away. Never let a government agent or policeman inside your house without a warrant. Don't tell traffic cops where you're going or where you're coming from if all they stopped you for was speeding.

A number of Free Staters and general libertarians take this tactic to daring levels, openly carrying firearms in areas legal to do so.

Before I close, a note on one tactic you haven't yet heard me mention: voting. To vote for a Libertarian is a harmless enough act, I suppose - and sure, it registers disapproval with the system as it stands - but like Ian on Free Talk Live I'm now wondering if it wouldn't be more productive to deny the legitimacy to our government granted by the electoral process. One of the reasons so few people offer more than token resistance to any government program is that the government is still considered to some extent "all of us", even if it's doing something illegal. But it's not. And perhaps ceasing to play into the pretense that it is would help bring light to that fact.

I think I'm done for now. One thing's for sure, Joe... With people like Sam Dodson doing as much as they are, there's one tactic we can't choose: getting along to get along.

Is Joe Wasting His Life?

joe

"Something I’ve been thinking lately," our dear webmaster Joe has recently written. "Am I different as a Christian than I would be if I wasn’t a Christian? Am I just wasting my life?"

Then he linked to a rap video appearing to strenously urge its viewers not to knock over convenience stores. DON'T WASTE YOUR LIFE, it demanded at its end via big white letters.

It probably goes without saying (but here it is anyway) that I've been worrying for Joe ever since. I had no idea he was knocking over convenience stores. And what's worse, I still don't know what's driven him to it. Does he need the money for crack?

Here's the worst of it: Separated as we are by just under 900 miles of amber waves of grain and purple mountains' majesty, I'm practically powerless to help the guy - except perhaps to wire him a little green, and wouldn't that just be enabling? My budget says yes, yes it would be, which means all I have left are my words.

And here they are, Joe - and on a public blog, no less, because the best antidote for darkness is the bright beam of posterity.

Joe, your dilemma highlights another problem with modern-day Christian theology: that is, what exactly a good Christian is supposed to do with his or her new life in Christ. Many (even most) Christians will of course scoff at the idea that this is any sort of quandary at all. "What does the Bible say?" they might respond. But my opinion stands that 'tis truly a tad tricky.

Here's why: the Christian New Testament of the Bible is an extremely apocalypse-focused collection of texts. Many scholars in fact agree that early followers of Jesus expected the end of the world to occur within their lifetimes or shortly thereafter, possibly because Jesus told them so (Matthew 24:34 - and no, He's not referring to the Transfiguration). Thus the overriding directive for Christians was to go forth and create new Christians, occupying yourself with as little else as possible - indeed, relinquishing the gift of marriage unless you just couldn't resist your sexual urges, and living as if you weren't married if you were.*

(*And as an aside, boy has that advice from our dear apostle Paul resulted in headaches for young Christians since; many are the Bible-believing boys and girls who have had to struggle with the idea that they're settling for serving their beloved God less by exchanging vows. Would that Paul had never written the stupid part - if he actually did. Anyway:)

If you desire to compare your accomplishments to that original standard, Joe, simply ask yourself how many people you've recruited for the Christ, and deduct points for all the time you've spent married when you could've been SAVING SOMEONE FROM ETERNAL TORMENT IN THE SNAKE PITS OF HELL.

Ahem.

There are other yardsticks available with which to measure your faithfulness, though, since as you are probably aware we are now well past those early, heady days, and we must now take note that God's Holy Church has been caught somewhat flat-footed by just how big a procrastinator its saviour has turned out to be. Pastors and priests usually explain our unexpectedly long wait for Jesus' second coming as an act of mercy on the part of the Lord; they say He is pushing back the final hour to allow more chances for salvation. Knowing that God's love is infinite and that He has now shown the sinners of this world so much love that they have waited well over a thousand years longer for His return than they waited for His arrival in the first place (the first references to a messiah at best occur in the Book of Isaiah, written in the 700's B.C.), the Church and we members of it should probably figure out how we're supposed to pass the time.

We will toss Paul's suggestions into the recycle bin, then (because Lord knows, someone will dredge them up again), and consider other Biblical advice. The Teacher of the Book of Ecclesiastes has some, though readers disagree as to precisely what that advice is; Christians and Talmud-lovers suggest Qohelet pushes for his readers to keep their treasure in Heaven, as Jesus would say, while people who actually read the book understand him to be basically proferring the same advice as Voltaire's Candide: "tend your garden", i.e. enjoy your work, wife, and life - in short, function as you were made to function - and leave the rest up to God.

I find it an attractive suggestion, Joe. What say you?

I should warn you, modern Christian thought rather rejects the Qohelet Theory. Rather, the view of today's mainline Protestant congregations is that your lifespan here 'pon Earth is a self-improvement project. You are meant over the course of your days to be slowly but surely perfected, to morph from a vile, despicable convenience store robber into a poor copy of Jesus Christ. The climax to this evolutionary narrative is your death, whereupon you are to complete your transformation (no matter what your spiritual state at the time of your deceasing) into a glorious new creature.

This option is also attractive, actually, but in my experience deceptively so; self-improvement is hard, stressful work if you take it seriously. Martin Luther addressed the difficulties in a treatise on Galatians. To paraphrase him, if you try to become a good man and think you are succeeding, you are a deluded egomaniac - and if you try to become a good man and fail, you will beat yourself up about it, since Mankind cannot be good enough.

Unfortunately, Luther's solution for this problem - "passive-righteousness" - is one of those ideas that sounds great on paper because it makes use of theology, but doesn't make any sense when you actually try to apply it. He claims that we must simply cease to struggle to be good (presumably "active-righteousness") and allow the Holy Spirit to do the work for us.

One only has to ask, "What does this mean I should do?" to realize it's hogwash. By and large, good things happen when we do them; nothing happens when nobody moves. Mankind's effort is clearly involved, So it clearly doesn't pass the real-world test (and is also horrifically debilitating) to declare nobody can be "good" via their own devices. Yes, you can argue that the results will never equal the amazing goodness of an omnipotent, omniscient person, the every action of whom is the standard by which Goodness is judged even if we don't understand how it could possibly be good at all - but what in the world kind of standard is that? A standard which you cannot reach, as I've learned since meeting my mother-in-law, is really no standard at all (and on the opposite side of the coin, any standard which you will reach no matter what is not exactly worth striving for either).

I would therefore say that the modern Christian concept of Life's purpose is usable, but the theology that accompanies it is not. Clearer some people are better than others and you should strive to be one of them. By all means, consider the question of whether you are a better person than you were five years ago and rate yourself appropriately, if you like.

But I'm personally still not quite crazy about it. To quote one of Franklin Deleanor Roosevelt's cabinet members (I forget which), "In the long run, we are all dead." Self-improvement is not a value in and of itself; taken alone, it is but vanity. Reward for self-improvement is only found in its context. Does being a better man, for instance, result in your being a better husband and father, thus benefiting the people you love? Is that a goal of yours? If yes, it is good.

I'd argue instead for a result-focused lifestyle (and yes, "self-improvement" can be a result - but as I said, it's of no real use as the ultimate one), in which we strive to create the reality we desire.

Note that I am not suggesting a result-oriented life; there is a difference. A man who sets out to be a good husband and father has a chance of dying satisfied only if he keeps proper perspective about how much control he has over such matters.

We have actually come full-circle, since a result-focused lifestyle is exactly what the apostle Paul was suggesting nearly two thousand years ago, the important difference being of course that he had already taken the liberty of choosing the result on which to focus. When I first met my fiance, I was surprised to find her very skeptical about that focus; unlike me, she'd never thought of the commission as binding upon her. Nowadays I agree, if only because so many of my ideas about Christianity are currently in flux that I don't feel I have enough answers to share with others.

But I digress! Let me know which of these options you choose, Joe, or if you'll be selecting another. In the meantime, remember to adequately scope out your targets before you strike, and pay your taxes on whatever your take is.

Sam Dodson: the example we needed?

samiam1

Sam Dodson

On June 9th, a remarkable event occurred at Cheshire County Jail in New Hampshire: one of its inmates - a Mr. Sam Dodson, arrested two months past and held on charges of disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, possession of property without a serial number, common law contempt of court, and refusing to be processed - was not so much released from his cell as ejected from it, and so fast that the officers who escorted him out the building doors did not bother to repossess the orange prison uniform Dodson was then wearing.

What makes this abrupt end to Dodson's extended stay at the facility a watershed moment in modern libertarian (small "l", so as not to be confused with the Libertarian Party organization - and even then, Sam Dodson and his Free State Project friends might bristle at the term) activism is that it marks the end of a battle of wills between Dodson and Keene District Court's Judge Burke with an unambiguous victory for a principled, noncompliant activist against government rule of law.

From his arrest through the entirety of his 60-day incarceration, Dodson refused to recognize the Keene District Court's legitimacy; he denied their "duty" to lock him up for the "crime" of video-recording in the courthouse lobby, forced his arresting officers to carry him to the institution, refused on arrival to give so much as his legal name for their documentation (which Judge Burke answered by illegally refusing him a trial), forswore all solid foods for a month-long hunger strike, and worked with fellow activists to both promote his case in the public eye and pelt the court with stinging motions that Judge Burke ignored at his peril.

burke1

Judge Burke

In short, Sam Dodson put into practice exactly the strategy so long now argued for by Free Staters and other anarchists/libertarians/voluntaryists in resisting government encroachment on our personal freedoms: he just did not consent to his own victimization. All demands on the part of his kidnappers - for that is what they were, he says - to comply with their rules were met with long, careful replies that ultimately amounted to a simple: "No."

The apparent success of this approach seemingly taken straight out of an Ayn Rand novel is giving food for thought to the many self-described minarchists, voluntaryists, and anarchists who empathize with Dodson's politics but have remained unconvinced tactical disobedience can make a real difference. As LewRockwell.com's blog has noted, the "common critique of activism and civil disobedience is that those participating in it accomplish nothing other than being jailed or fined, putting their property and lives at stake... [That the most it really does is help in] spreading the word about the beast that is the state." The events of June 9th may shift some of those fence-sitters' views.

As for those libertarians already in league with him and to Dodson himself, the release is as intoxicating as blood in the water to a pack of predators; they'll be following up the win with further pressure on both judge and court. Quite likely they'll be including among their next moves a set of their own civil and criminal complaints. After all, even anarchists and statists can agree it should be illegal to kidnap and hold a man for two months against his will without trial.

LINKS:

"Free Minds TV", a primary YouTube channel of the Keene activisit network, has an interview with Sam here.

The Free State Project-associated FreeKeene.com website has been reporting on Dodson's story from the beginning. The latest is always here, as well as two months' worth of articles that give a fuller picture of the ordeal's twists and turns.

Sam Dodson's own personal project in the service of our liberty - his Obscured Truth Network - will likely soon be updating again as a result of his return.

The height of Sam Dodson's fame (or infamy) during his protest was this article in the Boston Globe and this featured interview on FOX News' Freedom Watch.

This entry was not tagged.

The Bible Is Not God's Word

studybible

The Bible is not the "Word of God"; it is not "inerrant" nor "divinely-inspired", except in the same sense that any book can be said to be inspired by its subject.

That's a statement you've probably heard in some form or other fairly often, at least if you live in a Western or Western-ized country; one of the unique traits of this latest century is that it does not lack for atheists and agnostics. But you've certainly never heard it from me, because at least until three years ago I took the supernatural accuracy of the "Good Book" to be a given, indeed as one of the unassailable axioms at the foundation of my world view.

Now I don't. Can't, really - and the irony of my new inability to agree with the churches assuring us of a flawless text is that I developed it through my obedience to those same "spiritual authorities". A parade of pastors, professors, missionaries, and friends enjoined me to study the Word for myself, so I did - and my resulting growth in understanding quite naturally produced disbelief.

This is not to say that I blame (credit?) any of my teachers, amateur or professional, for my decision to renounce the misconception of the Bible as "perfect" - I have never been told anything by them but that unvarnished truth lies between the leather covers. My conclusions are my own and anyway, obviously other people in possession of far more detailed information about the life and times of the Testaments have remained believers (the apologist Dr. Norman L. Geisler, for instance). I merely tip my hat to them all for pointing the way to the evidence.

For evidence for disbelief it is, to any who are willing to interpret it without undue bias in its favor - and even to some who interpret with it. I was in fact a member of that latter camp back when I first began my concerted effort to be Biblically literate (for that matter, I still think I am). If ever I ran across a charge of inconsistency against the Bible, I took care to absorb the best arguments I could find from both the prosecution and defense (considering Geisler's defense, for instance, on one hand and prominent anti-christs such as Dan Barker on the other). When I judged that a reasonable doubt existed, I acquited.

Far too often that reasonable doubt just doesn't exist, though - and worse, some of the Christian arguments employed on the part of the Bible's defense are on their very face so absurd I want to remonstrate their proponents for either their dishonesty or stupidity. The very same Christians who put forward the ideas of which I speak (but which I shall not at the moment detail, as point-by-point refutation is not the point of this particular missive) would sneer or laugh if the same arguments were suggested to them by members of other religions.

Incidentally, those same arguments would be suggested, too, if those Christians actually took time to read what other religions are saying, which brings to my mind a tangential issue I nevertheless feel the urge to herein mention: the seemingly near-complete lack of authentic investigation of other beliefs and counter-claims by Christians. By "authentic investigation", I mean the consideration of primary sources of information: actually reading what Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris have to say, for instance, instead of only reading what Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, and Timothy Keller have to say about what atheists say. Allowing the defenders of your faith to cherry-pick quotations from your enemies to feed you - and relying mainly on that information to inform your world view - is dishonest, not to mention ineffective, since surprisingly often the people you assume to be honest (because hey, they're Christians, right?) aren't nearly as trustworthy as you'd like. Exhibits A, B, and C: the supposedly famous archaelogist Dr. Ron Charles (the provided link leads to an earlier Minorthoughts.com post about him), "Dr." Jason Gastrich, and the makers of the film Speechless: Silencing the Christians.

Now that I've gotten that off my shoulders, back to the Bible. A Christian might reasonably ask: "You say that reasonable doubt doesn't exist. Yet clearly many disagree with you, including people with doctorates. How can you think the Bible's mistakes are _so _evident when people who know more than you don't see what you see?"

That's not necessarily a question I can wholly answer. I do have my theories. One is that some who claim inerrancy secretly don't believe it and others - this I know for a fact - consider some of the Bible's "problems"to be signs of God actually influencing events by making people suddenly forget things, etc. Another theory is that there's an important difference between many of them and us skeptics: whereas they bring their full attention to the Bible as an act of worship, we considered it important to approach it from a neutral perspective and did so. Finally and certainly, the fact is that most people who want to believe something will, regardless of how obviously incorrect or totally ridiculous; modern cults and political parties (which aren't much different from cults, really) prove it on a daily basis. To the extent people feel it necessary to justify their beliefs, they have demonstrated that their justifications can be invented with little to no pricking of their consciences. I see no reason why those who claim to be Christians or religious Jews should be any different, whether they are laypeople or deans of Christian colleges.

I'll conclude this statement of disbelief with a few words on what I still do believe and what I don't. At least for now, I remain willing to believe in God, as well as a version of Jesus the Son of God somewhat less fanciful than the so-called "Four Witnesses" would recommend. I confess that I'm holding onto that conviction with my fingernails at the moment and feeling my grip lessen with each subsequent discovery; it's possible I still believe only because of my previously-mentioned bias to do so. I was raised to love God and to love Jesus. And I do. To let them go entirely would be emotionaly devastating, many times as difficult as letting go of the Bible (what my professor once referred to as the "fourth member of the Christian Quadrinity") has been. Also the implications of a godless multiverse utterly terrify me, for very good and well-known reasons. I don't want to die. I don't want my soon-to-be wife to die. Nor her grandfather, recently diagnosed with inoperable cancer, or my grandmother, nearing 90 and afflicted with Alzheimer's...

Those are the negative reasons for wanting there to exist a god. Positive ones exist, too. The gift of life is so precious and rewarding that I often feel infused with gratefulness for it, as though the emotion were pumping itself out of my heart and distributing through all my circulatory system. I would very much like this gratefulness to have an object that comprehends it.

I digress. Some items within the Bible I find unsupported and unconvincing include: its inerrancy and incorruptibility, most of the supposed 600+ messianic prophecies, Mary's miraculous pregnancy, stories of Jesus' childhood, Hell as presented, the historicity of the Book of Job, the historicity of the Book of Jonah, the assertion that the Book of Ruth is historical or even of a religious character, the historicity of Genesis's first several chapters, the doctrine of "original sin", the idea that all of the Bible's books combine to present one unified and convincing theology, the Biblical assertion that all who have not believed are "without excuse", the theological assertion that the Bible should be treated as one work by one author instead of as an anthology of works by multiple authors, and the complete reliability of each of the four Gospels' accounts.

Everything else I'm still thinking about.

Maybe you should start thinking about it, too.

Future posts, when they are forthcoming, will concern themselves with specific questions within and about the Scriptures I'm currently investigating.

This entry was not tagged.

The Most Racist Post Ever (Or, In Defense of Whitey)

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial, we have always been - and, I believe, continue to be - in too many ways . . . a nation of cowards. We . . . simply do not talk enough with each other about race." - Attorney General Eric Holder

"Oh, fine. Have it your way." - Adam Volle

I'm not the sort of man who worries himself a lot about racial issues.

I've never felt any need to wear a "White Power" t-shirt in order to make a point about "Black Power" ones. I think Affirmative Action is an obviously flawed concept, but it's not a pet issue. Illegal immigration bothers me little more. And hey, if a buncha folk of whatever bloodline care to celebrate "(X) History Month", I say, "Hey, sounds interesting," because y'know, really, it does.

Also, I'm aware that any discussion of "white people", "black people", etc. is fairly useless at best and racist at worst, since what you're really talking about when you discuss "white people", for instance, is a set of ethnicities (nevermind how many individuals) so diverse that only the most vague and general statements will be accurate. Take a hike through Europe (no, really; you won't regret it) and you'll be amazed at how much attitudes change as soon as you cross a border. You will find, for instance, that in Italy most traffic lines are considered mere suggestions, while in Switzerland you will be glared at for jaywalking. The same is of course true of "black people" or even just "African people", who in fact recognize the differences among themselves so well that we can't keep them from killing each other.

Finally, I'm an individualist. Ultimately I believe we are a planet filled with people, not races and nations. The idea of discussing races as though this world is populated by a half-dozen hive-minds with histories strikes me as largely nonsensical. A person does not bear part of any 'group responsibility' because he or she is born into a certain group.

So let's be clear: I'm not really interested in talking about various levels of responsibility attached to different skin colors. People like Eric Holder are. And it's only because they seem desperate to have a discussion of this sort that I'm now saying OK, fine - I'll do it. I will discuss how white people relate to black people, and red people, and yellow people, and everyone else. If only this one time, I will enter into our national dialogue on race relations and discuss both the role I think my own "white" race has played and will continue to play on God's green earth. I will do this thing, and I will do it for Eric Holder.

When you're finished reading, just remember to at least give me credit for this: I did wait until Black History Month was good and over first.

OK. That all said:

White people are at least thus far the coolest race to ever walk the face of this planet.

In all of recorded history, no other people has achieved so much in the sciences, nor on the battlefield, nor shown so much compassion off of it. No other demographic has contributed as objectively great a gift to the world as "our" (boy, how strange that feels to write) ideas of government and human rights. And no race, finally, has so well born the brunt of others' unmerited anger.

All of the above probably sounds like sick humor or absurd delusion to those familiar with the events of just the last half a millenium. Haven't white people committed many of the worst atrocities in history, they rightly ask? What about Slavery? What about Colonialism? What about all the genocide - from the wiping out of Native-American cultures to the Holocaust? What about Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

But such condemnatory questions - and the standard by which their answers are typically judged - depend on a very myopic world view. That is, you can only talk about how awful white people were to, say, own slaves, if you ignore the fact that Slavery is a worldwide institution that has existed in almost every known culture (including those of Africa and Israel) since time immemorial. A society of slaves has always been the standard rule by which other instititutions are judged, not the exception - and it would indeed be unfairly unobjective to judge any other way.

According to that standard, then, slaveholders prior to the 1800s were not especially evil. Instead, people who did not own slaves were especially good.

And who didn't support slavery prior to the 1800s? Very few people - some of whom were white abolitionists.

White people - indeed, all people - must be held to that same standard when we discuss the cringe-inducing subject of genocide. Though we may find it distasteful to think about, acts of cultural and ethnic genocide have long been common in world history. The ancient empires - those created by the Assyrians, Mongolians, Jews, Huns, Greeks, Babylonians, Japanese, Tamerlane, and numerous others - all often either completely eradicated entire cities full of their enemies or forced them to intermarry, opting for the complete destruction of others' identities than their physical forms. The city of Babylon, for instance, no longer exists for a reason, and Baghdad's population level did not recover from its visit by Tamerlane until the 1800s (!). In the context of this past, comparatively humanitarian countries such as the U.S.A. are the rogue states; the People's Republic of China, Nazi Germany, and North Korea look especially competent but not original.

Which brings us right 'round to judging the morality of the white races of Europe and eventually North America. Against this backdrop, this standard of racial and national relations, "our" conquering most of the known world was extremely impressive for the skill with which it was done, but not its depravity. Morally, all that is unique about the European race is what "we" did after placing "our" collective jackboot on the necks of other nations: We simply took it off. Other races were given not only their freedom, but equal representation in "our" governments.

This is an absolute miracle. In the history of the world, the white races are almost totally unique in having pulled up other races and given them equal standing within their own territories - in even encouraging other races to join them, to participate fully in the government. In fact, such openness is still comparatively rare in the countries of other races (how welcomed are immigrants to Asian lands? Arab ones?).

Let us also understand that other races were truly given the equal standing they now enjoy in white-dominated countries - for instance, the civil rights of African-Americans in the United States. The true triumph of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s many marches is not that he marched and freedom resulted; all of the marching in the world would have accomplished little if a majority of whites in the U.S.A. had not agreed that black people deserved all the rights they enjoyed. The glory of the Civil Rights movement instead is that the U.S.'s white establishment did not kill everyone involved. Yes, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s volunteers very bravely faced down dogs, a few arsonists, and police brutality, which are impressive obstacles - but let's admit that they were not exactly on par with the response of the Chinese government when its citizens tried to do the same:

[caption id="attachment_909" align="alignnone" width="755" caption="Tianenmen Square"]Tianenmen Square[/caption]

To review, then: in the white races we have a set of people who not only successfully conquered other races, but then proceeded to return their freedom to them - and in some cases repay them for the inconvenience. In the context of world history or even just modern times, they/we are saints - doubly so if you consider our forbearance when confronted with people like Reverend Lowery, who at President Obama's inauguration declared he pines for the day "when black will not be asked to give back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right."

(A couple of points for you, Reverend: (1) by and large, we whites aren't asking for the blacks to give back anything; in fact as far as I can tell it's you guys and the reds who keep demanding reparations. We whites don't even need a 'thank you' for freeing you. We'd be content if you'd just shut up. (2) Also, a big 'Jump in a river' on behalf of 'yellows' everywhere. (3) The only society in the world that has so 'embraced what's right' as to allow a minority member to become its chief executive is... the U.S.A., dominated for the whole of its existence by white people.)

If I did indeed attach differing levels of group responsibility and value to various skin colors, I'd consider white people about the best possible group to which I might belong. While as guilty as anyone of history's ugliest acts, in the last couple hundred years white people have - almost as a race - evolved.

But that would only be if I thought of races as truly possessing their own identities. I don't.

If you do, though, then A.G. Eric Holder's comments notwithstanding, you may just want to shut up about it. It's not really a dialogue in which history is on your side.

This entry was not tagged.

"Mutual Consent/Force"

It's a little-known fact that Steve Ditko, hailed by readers of comic books for co-creating Spider-Man and much of that character's supporting cast, occasionally still publishes new stories.

It's little-known for several reasons. First, all of these new tales can only be found between the covers of small-press magazines with extremely low print runs and sometimes a complete absence of color; Mr. Ditko's refusal to allow any publisher to compromise what he believes to be his artistic integrity has resulted in such publications being his only outlet. Second, the content of Mr. Ditko's stories nowadays is generally unattractive to mainstream audiences, as they adhere entirely to Objectivist principles of morality. All of Mr. Ditko's new fiction is and has now for years been unapologetically and indeed preachily (to the point wherein the narrator often lectures the reader on how to interpret the story) libertarian. Some of his product even eschews the art of fiction entirely and simply serves as visual for his pro-liberty ideas.

The piece of his below, entitled "Mutual Consent/Force", is a great example of that:

"Mutual Consent/Force" by Steve Ditko

I think it's a quite effective presentation; it reminds me of Jack T. Chick's successful series of religious tracts. The Libertarian Party should hire him to produce something similar they can hand out at information booths and conventions... but then, there are many things the Libertarian Party should do.

Anyway, thanks to Dinosaurs Garden's putting it up on their site, an online .pdf file containing the whole of Mr. Ditko's long out-of-print "Avenging World" comic book is now available for your perusal, should you be so inclined. It's an extremely well-drawn presentation of our world's problems and their libertarian solutions, hosted in an endearingly cliche manner by our own beleaguered Planet Earth.

This entry was tagged. Libertarian Philosophy