Tagged: Christianity
Can You Tell the Difference Between the Ideal Government and Ideal Christianity?
This should be a simple test, no? Here goes.
Is the following an ideal of government or of Christianity?
A. You will never die.
B. You can live forever after you die.
A. No consequences to decisions.
B. Consequences to decisions.
A. End of crime.
B. Justice in the afterlife metered out by the perfect judge.
A. At-will termination of unwanted pregnancy.
B. Care for orphans.
A. End of bodily suffering.
B. Learn from those who suffer.
A. Free food for all.
B. Thankfulness for food.
A. Free housing.
B. Thankfulness for shelter.
A. Student debt cancellation.
B. Definition of morality including “self-control”.
A. Harmony of all people groups everywhere.
B. Hope for the coming Kingdom of God to usher in new Heavens and new Earth.
****
Don’t be a sucker, folks.
The point of this little exercise, which we could continue, is to highlight the truly ridiculous claims of government (and those who want more government) against the backdrop of the supposedly ridiculous claims of the Bible writers.
The exercise should also serve to clarify to any parties actually interested to know what is meant when their Christian neighbors are “anti-government”. It’s not actually “government” that we see as the problem. Lies are the problem. Christians are anti-lie.
Two more examples.
You want me to stop believing that there is life after death? Gotta try a lot harder than suggesting that someone-not-named-me can solve “death”.
Want me to stop believing that abortion is wrong? Gotta try a lot harder than suggesting that someday soon children will only come from perfectly demographic’d couples and thoroughly thoughtful (yet passionate) sexcapades.
And on and on.
Government could be okay. But the lies would have to stop.
PS – All “A” are government. All “B” are Christianity.
Commentary on the SCOTUS Affirmative Action dissent by Sotomayor
“The result of today’s decision is that a person’s skin color may play a role in assessing individualized suspicion, but it cannot play a role in assessing that person’s individualized contributions to a diverse learning environment. That indefensible reading of the Constitution is not grounded in law and subverts the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection,” dissents Justice Sotomayor (italics mine).
To what is she dissenting?
“In the wake of the Civil War, Congress proposed and the States ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, providing that no State shall ‘deny to any person … the equal protection of the laws.’ Amdt. 14, §1,” as opined by Justice Roberts (the Court).
Can you see the disagreement?
To help, let’s consider another document’s claim regarding race.
St. Paul wrote, “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Forget, if you must, that the claim comes from an exclusive Christian teaching. No proselytizing here. But I want you to ask yourself if you can understand how Paul can list sets of two very real groups and then suggest that the very distinctions are abolished/overcome. Can you understand this concept of Paul’s/Christianity’s?
Good.
Justice Sotomayor cannot.
Justice Roberts can. But Justice Sotomayor cannot.
Justice Sotomayor writes over and over that because the constitution and its amendments and other SCOTUS opinions use words like “white” and “Mexican” that the law of the land is “race conscious”. This belief of hers is over and against the concept that the law is colorblind.
But I return again to the question I have posed. Is the simple use of words which delineate some people from others enough to transcend the otherwise transcendent belief that under some higher perspective, the delineations do not exist? Put another way, can the forest be lost for the leaves? Can the bigger point be missed? Or even, should the country have federal laws at all? Or should each dispute be brought before some local judge and the judge decide whatever they please?
The point Justice Sotomayor is pressing isn’t semantic.
When the border patrol is allowed to observe that some man around the border between the US and Mexico is Mexican-looking and subsequently act with suspicion towards him that they wouldn’t use with a “white” man, real people are involved. And when Harvard admissions folks are not allowed to ask, “Brown?”, real people are likewise involved.
The question, then, is are the two situations meaningfully the same situation when viewed from the perspective of “the Law”?
The answer is, “No.”
The reason for “no”, the reason they are distinct (despite both being similar in “gaining entrance” theme) is the constitution applies to US Citizens, not to any person, which is the very question the Border Patrol is tasked with helping to sort out in the first place.
Finally, as probably all of you know, the only question on my mind when I read Justice Sotomayor is, “Is she serious?”
If she were serious (and honest), then her sentences would read, “The result of today’s decision is that [all persons-of-earth-regardless-of-national-citizenship’s] skin color may play a role in assessing individualized suspicion by the US Border Patrol, but it cannot play a role in assessing that person’s individualized contributions to a diverse learning environment. That indefensible reading of the Constitution is not grounded in law and subverts the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection” (italics mine).
For that is her argument. And it is a serious argument, despite being flatly wrong as the 14th Amendment does not apply to every swinging dick which finds itself within the borders of this great country.
In Brief: The Similarity Between the Bible and the US Constitution
Released a couple days ago, Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion says, “Though I do not doubt the sincerity of my dissenting colleagues’ beliefs, experts and elites have been wrong before and they may prove to be wrong again. In part for this reason, the Fourteenth Amendment outlaws government-sanctioned racial discrimination of all types.”
Released a couple thousand years ago, St. Paul’s letter to the churches of Galatia says, “I marvel that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ for a different gospel, which is really not another, only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to the gospel we have proclaimed to you, let him be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is proclaiming to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let him be accursed!”
For my dad: the similarity is that Justice Thomas and St. Paul defend received wisdom. That, and the fact that both passages breathe life and manifest hope.
Great Comebacks, Too Late
I sometimes come up with amazing comebacks, too late to use. Oh well.
The first that comes to mind was once a scammer left a voicemail about legal action blah blah blah. Since I was divorced and always fearing some new bullshit from my ex, I called the number back. The dude proceeded to deliver the scam flawlessly but something just wasn’t right. Again, since I was divorced, I knew legal things didn’t happen quickly, or need to. So I finally just told him that I didn’t believe him. He seemed to have enjoyed being called out, just concluding, “Okay, Mr. Smart Guy, take your chances,” or some such thing.
Only later did I wish I said, “You sound black.” (He did. And I’m certain he was. But even if I’m wrong, it would’ve been hilarious.)
Tonight, another zinger came to mind only too late.
I have been sharing with folks at work (healthcare) that I am enjoying, if three years after the trend, cold showers. Well, this elicits all sorts of responses, mostly enjoyable to engage. One such response was, “I bet it opens your pores.”
My too little, too late response is, “‘Pores open?’ I was only aware of five senses.”
So funny. Or would’ve been.
The Reunion Will Be Beautiful
Back in college, over twenty years ago now, in a Political Science class, we read a book called The Origins of Major War. As usual in college courses, we had to write a paper afterward. My paper had a killer thesis.
You see, one of the defining traits of “major war” is that the countries which are labeled “hegemonic” (essentially a synonym of “major”) are involved. That, of course, is circular, but not weakening. America was/is hegemonic. So my thesis, still startlingly profound, was, “The United States will be in the next Major War.”
Can you feel it? Wow. Just amazing. So true, and so provocative.
What role will we play? Defender of all that is good? Do we begin it? Do we end it? Read on, we must, the reader surely concludes.
Well, I am back to more reading on this Sunday and have similarly struck another mega-epic-super-provocative-wow-factor-bursting-standard-breaking thesis. Ready?
The reunion will be beautiful.
Life right now is not beautiful. We do not like life.
There are too many indicators to list. It will suffice to say you don’t like me. And I don’t particularly like you. This is funny because you don’t know me and I don’t know you. But it’s true nonetheless. Life is a mess. Life is not beautiful. Anyone who says otherwise is just plain lying.
But, but! The reunion? Maybe not soon enough, but any reunion will be beautiful.
How do I know? And how can you, likewise, be certain?
Because union is a defining quality of beauty. No different than major wars are fought by major countries, the re-union will be be-autiful—otherwise, it ain’t either. No beauty, no union. No (re)union, no beauty. Feel me?
Hold on a little longer, folks. No need to languish in uncertainty over the question of the future, ie, “Am I really going to have to withdraw from our BS society to be happy?” Just do what you have to do for now.
The reunion will be beautiful.
PS – Thanks, Percy Bysshe Shelley.
With Great Books, It Happens Every Time
February 2, 2023 CE I began the fourth reading from the third volume of The Great Ideas Program, which, as longtime readers know, is intended to be used alongside the voluminous Great Books of the Western World sets. This fourth reading was the introductory salvo of Nichomachus of Gerasa’s Introduction to Arithmetic, written sometime around 100 AD.
Today, just now, after four long months and many fits and starts—not to mention giving serious consideration to giving up the reading of such dry and pointless prose in favor of books that align with my intellectual habits—I concluded the reading.
And I feel great. I feel like I have a new lease on life.
Before we address whether it is the coffee, which I confess I am running high on or not, I want to clarify that I actually have a new understanding of early math and this new understanding is actually useful to me. (As it would be to anyone.)
The understanding and its usefulness goes like this, “Life is huge.” Followed immediately by, “It cannot be exhausted, used up, depleted, drained, found out, solved, or emptied.”
But you, the driver, have to challenge yourself. You have to read books. And I say, “Start with good books. No, start with the Great Books of the Western World. You will not be disappointed.”
I have lived with the rule-of-thumb that I’m “not gonna read any book that’s newer than 100 years old until I have caught up” for nearly 20 years. I haven’t adhered to it perfectly, but it has served me well and I heartily recommend it.
Best wishes.
Christian Twistings 2: The Truer Question Behind “Who Created God?”
When I hear, “Who created god?” asked, I twist that into what I believe is the truer question, “Why do I believe life should make sense?” Or, worded another way, “Some parts of life make sense, and we value that. (This too makes sense.) Why doesn’t life as a whole make sense?”
Don’t get me wrong, “Who created god?” causes me to almost want to hear Christian apologetics answer. But these days, I prefer to get to the gospel as quick as possible. So I plan to twist and gain credibility with the twist. And then proceed.
Short answer to the above is, of course, a question.
****
“Why doesn’t life as a whole make sense, when the various parts of life make sense?”
“Let me ask you, ‘Does it need to make sense?’ And by ‘need’ I mean that you’re x amount of years into this life, and it hasn’t made sense yet (or did it used to and now it doesn’t?). So it seems to me that you are (and we all are) able to live without this ‘making sense’ issue/feeling solved. But I don’t want to put words in your mouth. So, I ask again, ‘Does it need to make sense?’ Because if it doesn’t need to, then the answer to both your original question and my ‘truer’ restatement of your question is, ‘I don’t know, but I do know that the Bible writers don’t concern themselves with ‘making sense’ of life. Their concern is your eternal salvation.”
The Apologetic for Those Who Believe in Active Spiritual Interactions, as if We Still Live in Bible Times
Some Christians believe that because the Bible records instances of exorcism, that that must mean there are humans walking the earth right now who have need of exorcism.
There is a problem with the initial reasoning, but I want to pass by that problem in favor of how to handle the conversation. Not just handle, but triumph.
If some well-meaning Christian in your life is shocked that you can believe the Bible is true and simultaneously not believe that we should spend any time on the concept of unclean spirits and demons etc., then simply respond, “I’m not the one who doesn’t believe. It’s you who doesn’t believe in these things.”
At this point, they’ll naturally fein shock and say, “What?! I am the one who does believe.”
Then you just say, “Then show me. Which one of our friends has an unclean spirit? Which one has a demon? Which church member does everyone know is the veritable town drunk of the dark spirit world? Point them out to me, please.”
They can’t, they won’t, and while it may not seem like they’re persuaded, rest assured that you have won.
The problem isn’t all of us who don’t “believe” such things are the same as they were back then. The problem is the people who claim to believe it, actually don’t believe it.
What they do believe, apparently, is everything the preacher says. Which is a problem.
And one other thing about this topic. Make sure to include that you think it is weird (‘cuz it is) that they would view it as a Christian behavior to convert someone into seeing demons and unclean spirits. “No, thank you.” “Thanks anyway.” “I’m fine with giving up that search from the start.”
The Fallout Is Not The Attack: Stay Focused—Especially When The Devil Is Involved
When is the last time you read a definition of the word “number”? Probably never, right?
Have you ever read one of the earliest definitions? Also “no”. I get it.
Nichomachus of Gerasa, around the time of Jesus, wrote, “Number is limited multitude or a combination of units or a flow of quantity made up of units; and the first division of number is even and odd.”
His overall task (as he saw it) was to defend the study of abstractions, like math—for its own sake. He writes, “Evidently, the one which naturally exists before them all is superior and takes the place of origin and root and, as it were, of mother to the others.”
In sum, within “science”, since arithmetic is first, it is greatest. So study it, he argues.
What I want you to see in this is the concept of order. Geometry is second to arithmetic because we can’t speak of geometry without using arithmetic terms and concepts.
The reason I want you to focus on “order”, Christian, is that headlines today include the removal of the Bible from some public school libraries.
Like all news, this event is published with the hopes of being sensational. And it certainly is. (Though I suspect many of us who brush the dust off the cover of our Bibles from time to time would save much of the sacred content until our children are teenagers.)
But we need to temper this sensational event (and future iterations of it) with the knowledge that this banning of the Bible is merely fallout of the attack (largely successful) against the Bible that has been ongoing for at least decades.
I say again, order.
Time for the gut punch.
Do you read the Bible to your kids and family?
My daughter, H-, from my first marriage isn’t talking to me right now. She’s thirteen and lives in a different town. We used to read the Bible as a rule before reading anything else.
Now in my second marriage and family, I tried some dinner time Bible reading for while (maybe a month), but the nature of my job kept interrupting it and “life gets in the way”, so that went by the wayside. (Never discount the sheer difficulty of the Bible.)
All the while, I created a Bible study podcast, mostly to help me study, but also with the idea that it’s easy and anyone could use it.
But it has been probably a good year or so since I’ve opened the actual Bible with my family. (I do have an old children’s Bible type book that I made it a point to read in full to my toddler and I am still reading it to my 1 year old from time to time.)
Finally, I can tell you that my church-going parents read us the Bible less than 5 times while we were kids.
The banning of the Bible at public school libraries is fallout, folks. The real attack is on our hearts, “hearts” in the Biblical sense.
The fallout is not the attack. The attack is real. The devil is real.
But so is our champion, Jesus the Christ, Yahweh our God, and the Holy Spirit.
Don’t be distraught.
But surely use the sensational event the way the LORD intends you to—repent! Begin anew. Read the Bible to your family. Make time.
(Comment below if you want recommendations on where to start. I’d be happy to offer ideas.)
I Had It All Wrong
I used to think of emotions, instincts, logic, reason, and other types of decision making as choices. I had it all wrong.
Now, I don’t know if there is a hierarchy, as in, “Reason is better than emotion,” for example. I don’t know if there is ultimate worth, as in, “At least I can say that reason guided my life.” I cannot say for sure that these traits are building blocks, as in, “Only after mastering emotion can you learn to reason.”
What I do know now, and know for certain, is that for those who do not act upon reason, it is not because they are avoiding reason. It is because they cannot reason. For these folks, using reason is as unavailable as flight is to a jack rabbit. Sure, they might end up “reasoning”, but they certainly didn’t flap their wings.
This is unfortunate.
But it is not the end of the story.
Life goes on. That’s the end of the story.
What shall be done in the time remaining? How should one communicate with those without reason? How should one live with them?
It calls to mind a line from Tolstoy. He wrote something like, “I could not follow any of the two women’s conversation. But I knew it had to be about something because it was unending.”
Next blog: What to do if your wife is happy everywhere but at home, and then invites her non-English speaking mother to stay at said home with no departure date?
Captain’s Log 