The Duck Dynasty Suspension, and the Trojan Horse

I agree with the philosophy that it is not always best to completely shy away from that which is ugly, because it behooves one to know what his opponents are thinking and doing.  So I will post a URL for the sfist blog post on Phil Robertson’s being suspended from Duck Dynasty: 'Duck Dynasty' Kingpin Says Homosexuality Is Like Bestiality [Update] (http://sfist.com/2013/12/18/duck_dynasty_kingpin_says_homosexua.php)

This comes from a secular San Francisco blog, and for those who do not mind the profane language, etc. you want to read the post and especially the comments that follow.  Read along and see if any of the liberal criticisms or allegations aimed at those without a seared conscience are actually valid; read and see if you begin to get the sense that some of the rank and file of the opponents of the Creator, regarding this issue, actually are not very well-armed.

Actually, what the heck?  Allow me to go ahead and personally just quote the post in toto and break in with comments along the way:

--------------

<< Phil Robertson, the daddy duck to the camo-clad Robertson clan featured on A&E's reality blockbuster Duck Dynasty, is quacking up a storm [apparently a semi-clever, derisive choice of words I didn’t catch at first--K] in the latest issue of GQ. In a profile by the magazine's Drew Margary, the 67-year-old Robertson let fly a whole flock of homophobic comments about homosexuals, and what he feels is their sinful lifestyle.

Robertson, who hails from the northwest corner of Louisiana "where Cajun redneck culture and Ozark redneck culture intersect," regularly captivates 14 million viewers on his family's reality show on A&E. But unlike the majority of Americans, he's not down with LGBT. [*Hint, hint.*  By analogy, if the majority of Germans during the time of the Third Reich were down with the NSDAP (aka the Nazi Party), the sheer fact of majority status would be a good reason for the minority to adopt the NSDAP philosophy.  The majority status consequently would also be a good reason for the minority to support the Nazis’ inclusion of homosexuals as targets of the wider Holocaust, in keeping with the said philosophy.  This sort of thing should be obvious, yet this is the lame sort of reasoning that facets of the Gay Lobby are peddling nowadays.  (Compare our previous look at the “wrong side of history” meme.)--K]  As he told GQ:

    "It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical."

Then, when asked what, in his mind, was considered sinful, Robertson elaborated:

    "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Robertson, who once had to flee the state of Arkansas because he assaulted a bar owner and his wife, says he never bothered repenting for his own sin, saying, "I didn’t dredge anything back up. I just put it behind me.” His son and reality TV co-star Jep even suggested the family tends to fall in line behind their father. GQ quoted Jep saying, "We’re not quite as outspoken as my dad, but I’m definitely in line. If somebody asks, I tell ’em what the Bible says.”

With the backlash already brewing, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation condemned the reality TV stars [sic] toxic philosophy. [Toxic only inasmuch as proclamations of truths about the Creator’s design of the human body have a way of stirring up people’s intuitive knowledge in a way that hampers the goals of the Gay Agenda,and toxic inasmuch as it causes us to face the harsh theodic realities of the fallen, post-Edenic world in which we live.  I’ll leave it at that, for now.--K] In a statement, GLAAD wrote that the statement is "far outside of the mainstream understanding of LGBT people." [What is GLAAD suggesting here: that Phil Robertson said that all homosexuals engage in bestiality and promiscuity?  Surely GLAAD must know that Robertson merely was either: a) answering the question posed to him of what was considered sinful; or b) likening a man’s lying with another man to other acts which pervert the use or design of the human body; or c) asserting that a moral compromise on the issue of homosexuality would lead to other compromises of sexual ethics whether in the case of many people or a few people; or d) some combination of (a-c).--K] Even in Louisiana, which passed a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality, a majority of the population believes there should be some kind of recognition. [Again, by analogy if the majority of Germans during the time of the Third Reich gave special (even privileged) recognition to the Nazi Party, the sheer fact of majority status would would be a good reason for the minority to adopt the philosophy of the NSDAP.  Of course, this philosophy called in part for the Nazis’ inclusion of homosexuals as targets of the wider Holocaust, but apparently some people who want to help gay people as such do not mind offering arguments which are logically counterproductive.--K] GLAAD goes on:

    "Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe," said GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz. "He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans - and Americans - who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil's decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families." [Get real, Cruz.  Again, is GLAAD suggesting that Phil Robertson said that all homosexuals engage in bestiality and promiscuity?  Surely GLAAD must know that Robertson merely was either: a) answering the question posed to him of what was considered sinful; or b) likening a man’s lying with another man to other acts which pervert the use or design of the human body; or c) asserting that a moral compromise on the issue of homosexuality would lead to other compromises of sexual ethics whether in the case of many people or a few people; or d) some combination of (a-c).

And speaking of matters of deceit, Mr. Cruz, why can’t it be that there are “true Christians” out there who hold beliefs which simply happen to be false when it comes to what LGBT folks do and think?  For example, there are Christians who think that Arminianism is true, or that Calvinism is true: not both sides on this issue can be correct, but you don’t want to say that one side’s false beliefs on the matter means that they are not “true Christians,” which surely you must know.--K]

A&E, for their part, fired off another statement from Robertson on Wednesday, which did little in the way of making an apology. Robertson writes: "I myself am a product of the '60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”

Update: Robertson has been placed on indefinite hiatus by the network.  [And if he backpedals on what he said I will lose respect for him.  There are people on MSNBC or any number of other TV channels who say that which is complete BS, in my view, just as it is also my view that their liberal rubbish creates an equally toxic environment for all the people that they claim to be helping or fighting for with their false statements.  I do not, however, think that their employers should necessarily pull the plug on them.  Is American society already forgetting why we allow and encourage people to express their varied and diverse set of viewpoints in this country?  Or is A&E simply attempting to figuratively cover their backside for financial reasons?--K] >>

--------------

Incidentally, I am one of those people who have never watched the show and are probably proud of this fact.   My final words are reserved for the commenter J_Temperance: save scholarship for the scholars, or at least begin to offer a good reason to ignore 2 Peter 3.14-16.

Actually, per this last statement allow me to say one last thing, though I do not claim that this is an original thought.  We all know that there are people in this world who will not sit still until every last vestige of opposition to the Gay Agenda is stamped out, whether through political pressure or force of law.  These people go as far as to peddle “liberal Christian theology” on TV shows (e.g. Glee) which otherwise would not give a rip about what is said in the Book of Leviticus or in Pauline Epistles but somehow find a way to mention them in the course of “standing up” for a gay character of the show or gays and lesbians in general.  So these people are willing to meddle in the affairs of dragons or to venture into places where they neither fit nor belong in order to stamp out opposition to their agenda.  In other words, pagans and unbelievers are willing to engage in biblical textual criticism even though Christians themselves, who generally are far better acquainted with biblical texts and their background, sometimes err with regard to biblical texts.

Some of these people are willing to destroy Paul’s “credentials” as an apostle of Christ in order to make their own lives easier.  In the process they destroy the reliability of all Pauline texts of the New Testament.  Not content to stop there, they obfuscate and destroy the words of other prophets or spokesmen sent by God, including Jesus of Nazareth.  Now think about what the results of their actions will be.

But do not think that the results will be entirely theological.  Remember that man’s fallen nature prompts him to pick on and target people on account of their being different; for example, this is why there are various jokes and slurs related to one’s hair color, weight, sex, ethnicity, race and place of residence.  Once you have managed to make various conservative groups disappear into the shadows or to cease to exist entirely, some other group must be scapegoated or targeted for godless, rebellious, bored liberals and moderates to rally, rage and fight against in a way that currently substitutes for various unbelievers’ lack of spiritual and religious life.  One hundred years from now when the droughts come, and the crops fail, and yet another financial bubble bursts, who will the lynch mobs, agitators, thugs and “anarchists” come after?  Will it be the witches this time?  Will it be the Jews?  The Mexicans?  Southerners?  Poor White trash?  The rich?  In the Western World, which will never completely shake its Judeo-Christian past and where in Russia (for example) there is a growing backlash against the Gay Agenda for reasons which almost certainly are irreligious on some levels, gays and lesbians (and other folks) should not feel especially safe.  Christianity will have largely been rendered obsolete by secular moralism and through theological liberalism: it won’t be around in sufficient strength to temper the agitators or to be a target of the people’s anger in the stead of those who are markedly different than the majority of folks.

Those who proffer “liberal Christian theology” to silence the voice of conscience in their own heads: if they are half as wise as they should be then they will cease and desist this nonsense immediately and allow the Bible to be the perfectly “homophobic” book that it is.  Leave well-enough alone and don’t be greedy, especially if half of all Americans already think as you do, as you claim.

Slick’s Apostasy: Various Angles of the Issue

I heard about this first via Alpha & Omega Ministries: Yesterday on the Dividing Line.  I have not yet heard what Dr. White had to say about it, but other people have chimed in in written format, which I can access more easily.

Analysis from the redoubtable Steve Hays: Triablogue: Born to fail.

 

Another from Glenn Peoples (HT: Jason Engwer): How to exploit a family falling out for the sake of ideology.

 

Personally, in my reflections on the whole matter I was thinking more about the specifics of the stated reason for abandoning Christianity.  Without daring to put myself in the company of those commentators I will post those thoughts below, FWIW and as a possible indication of what others might be thinking

 

**************

 

From http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/15/the-atheist-daughter-of-a-notable-christian-apologist-shares-her-story/:

This changed one day during a conversation with my friend Alex. I had a habit of bouncing theological questions off him, and one particular day, I asked him this: If God was absolutely moral, because morality was absolute, and if the nature of “right” and “wrong” surpassed space, time, and existence, and if it was as much a fundamental property of reality as math, then why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?

Four thoughts:

1) She was trained by Matt Slick.  Slick is cool, his ministry has stood the test of time, and he is probably one reason that I am a Calvinist today.  However, frankly his work has always been half-baked and over-reaching in some instances, and I fear that when it came to meta-ethics he may have trained his daughter poorly on account of possibly his own not having a solid grasp of certain issues.

2) Do the words “consequentialism” and “context” mean anything to either of the Slicks?  (Of course, I know that at least one of those matters to one of them.)  Or when did the Scriptures ever indicate that virtue ethics, or deontology, or divine command theory were the only possible correct paradigms by which to make sense of God’s law and God’s nature as revealed in the Scriptures?

Yes, Christians are sophisticated enough to reject divine command theory for reasons which are reflected in Euthyphro’s Dilemma.  Yet the Scriptures apparently never rule out consequentialism in toto and never rule out what we might call (gasp) situational ethics of a sort, and the whole of biblical ethics is best understood in considering both virtue ethics and these other ethical paradigms.

When and where is it appropriate in this country to walk around buck naked?  In a classroom at school?  No.  In worship services at church?  No.  At home?  Sure.

When and where is it appropriate to drive on the right side of the road?  In the U.S.?  Yes, but even then not if the driver is drunk and doing 100 mph on a crowded freeway.  In the U.K.?  No, unless suddenly it is good to cause needless head-on collisions with other vehicles.

Are circmstances or possible consequences relevant in the examples listed immediately above?  Yes, and that is exactly why there are exceptions to rules such as those to which we just alluded.

And is the range of permissible moral options dependent on the situation?  Yes, it is.  That is precisely how sex within the bond of marriage is permissible while your spouse’s cheating on you is not, or why harsh punishments are appropriate only for offenders who are culpable of the worst crimes, to cite two examples.

3) At some point the elder Slick may have got tripped up on issues of postmodern ethics or moral TAGs and passed a muddled, incomprehensible message down to his daughter--either that or the younger Slick just failed to grasp what she was being taught.  Similar language or similar terms appear in discussions of each, and this probably was a source of conflation or confusion at some point.

In any case, God is just (even essentially or transcendently so); in translation this means that God’s actions are just, for this is what the word “just” ultimately points to in terms of meaning and function.  Meanwhile, the words “just” and “moral” are more or less synonymous (though I  prefer “just” over the younger Slick’s “moral”), and those words ultimately mean either in accord with some ethical principle or in accord with what is good; and despite that the word “good” has many meanings--all of them dependent on what the metric or standard of measurement is--and despite anyone’s and everyone’s being capable of finding evil things to be favorable--i.e. “good”--or of prescribing evil conduct as though it were something just, God’s actions are just.

God has issued a body of ethical prescriptions and proscriptions of human behavior; each of these commandments are in accordance with both themselves and objective goodness: by definition, they are just.

Moreover, these commandments are “absolute” in the sense--and this is what people mean when they speak of moral rules which are “absolute”--that they are just regardless of whether Smith over here says, “Adultery?  Meh, that’s okay with me; there’s nothing wrong with it” or whether a society over there on the other side of the planet says, “Why not bow down before Baal?  Who else gives us rain for our crops or puts food on our table?”  That is the sense in which they are absolute.

However, this is not to be confused with the issues of divine command theory vs. rival meta-ethical theories.  There aren’t too many Christians who claim that if God suddenly decided one day to proscribe the consumption of turkey dinners then it would be evil to be turkey dinners in virtue of the proscription itself.  No, the claim would more or less be that if a divine proscription of turkey dinners came down the pike tomorrow then: a) it would be because the proscription did not have a favorable timing before then; and b) the proscription is done for a reason which is objectively good; c) rebellion against the Creator is not in accordance with what is objectively good; and d) guess what: God’s nature happens to be one of objective goodness, all such that it was never possible that an intuitively bad thing such as idolatry or sadistic torture or babies would have been prescribed at some point.

“...Why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?” she asks.  Answer: if you can find an instance of such things, then stop to reconsider the matter and to ask yourself whether such things promoted the well-being of someone or something at one point in the past but later outlived their ability to do so.  Why is it a sin to issue orders to a someone of the rank of Sergeant First Class in one year whereas ten years later it is not a sin to do so?  Hmm, could it be that someone there in the Army got promoted such that legal and moral privileges which formerly were not theirs later rightly became theirs?  This is one example off the top of my head; you should be capable of doing the same.

4) How old is Rachael Slick again?  Oh yeah, that makes sense.

Re: Jesus and Same Sex Marriage | Joe Dallas Online

For anyone who missed this clever post from Joe Dallas: Jesus and Same Sex Marriage | Joe Dallas Online.

Citation corrections are provided over at Triablogue: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/06/jesuss-teachings-on-marriage-in-light.html.

Regarding Rick Warren's Son

This is probably the best web page on the subject: Triablogue: Perseverance and suicide.

Notice that in the comments section someone mentions the Scripture that I would also mention in discussions where it is denied that suicide is an “unpardonable sin”: 1 John 3.15.  With that said, my thinking is that a person would have to work to prove that any Christian who has considered suicide was in fact regenerate when he died; any Christian who has died in this way would have done mental and logical gymnastics to work around the problem of ending his life without intentionally killing himself: something which can be done though presumably no one commits himself to such a project before he puts himself to death.

Follow-up on MLK and "The Optional Jesus"

Let’s go back to what Dr. King was saying, as quoted in 11/25/09 blog post. From Google Books and page 189 of The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr, Volumes 2-3:

    Concerning the work of Christ the two reformers stressed a substitutionary theory of atonement. They maintained that Christ actually took the place of sinners in the sight of God, and as a substitutee suffered the punishment that was due to men. But all of this is based on a false view of personality. Merit and guilt are not transferable from one person to another. They are inalienable from personality. Moreover, on moral grounds, a person cannot be punished in the place of another.

Actually, two things that are false are (a) the denial of the fact that guilt is transferable from one person to another; and (b) the denial of the fact that a person can on moral grounds be punished in the place of another.

Whose law or whose moral rules have you broken when you do something that is wrong? Answer: you have broken God’s law. Since it is God who is the offended party in this case, does he not have the right to forgive and to excuse the offenders as he will? Answer: of course he does. And suppose that I were to stand up for someone else--in practically any case of a rule’s having been broken--and say “Punish me instead of him. I’ll take the rap instead of him.” Regardless of whether the person who actually did the crime could or should be excused, am I not worthy of punishment if I willingly offer to be punished in someone’s stead? It seems to me that I am in fact worthy of punishment if that is what I insist on having.  (Notice, meanwhile, that this idea certainly is not far-gone if the scribes and Pharisees of Matthew 23.29-36 and Luke 11.45-51 are worthy of punishment in virtue of their claiming to be descendants of those who persecuted the prophets of old.) Therefore, if I offer to be punished instead then I am worthy of punishment.

Moreover, if I am worthy of punishment for a particular wrongdoing, then I also bear guilt of this particular act. Of course, the words “guilt” or “guilty” in this case would clearly carry a different meaning than it carries in the English colloquial phrase “guilty of sb,” which in turn means he did the crime, and in the phrase “feelings of guilt,” which simply speaks of feelings of culpability. So if I bring worthiness of punishment upon myself by my intercession for someone who actually did the crime, then I have brought guilt upon myself. For what else is guilt, according to the sense of the term that Dr. King uses above? Therefore, if guilt is not transferable from one person to another, we have seen at least that guilt of one person’s act of wrongdoing can become a property or quality held by another person.

Yet the guilt of one person’s act of wrongdoing can in fact virtually or exactly be transferred from one person to another. Whose law or whose moral rules have you broken when you do something that is wrong? Answer: you have broken God’s law. Since it is God who is the offended party in this case, does he not have the right to forgive and to excuse the offenders as he will? Answer: yes. Now suppose that I were to stand up for someone else, saying, “Punish me instead of him. I’ll take the rap instead of him.” If the divine punishment that I now bring upon myself were sufficient to demonstrate the degree to which God takes evil acts seriously or were sufficient to appease God’s wrath or anger, then what would be the point in punishing a second person? With that said, it is entirely conceivable that the punishment of one particular person could be effective such that punishment of a second party becomes unnecessary. And guess what: that is more or less what the Bible teaches us. For it informs us in no uncertain terms that the punishment of the transgressors was upon Christ (Isaiah 53) and that sinners who will believe in Christ are forgiven and excused such that their guilt becomes no more. Therefore, the guilt of one party ceases to exist while apparently one party freely brings guilt upon himself and is punished in order to spare the first party (Matthew 20.28; John 10.11-18).

Then again, perhaps Dr. King would object to all of this, saying, “Oh no, this won’t do at all. The person who actually sinned: he should be the one to be punished for the crime. All the people who have done me wrong in life: why should they be let off the hook while someone who did not commit their evil actions is punished for what they did?” The objection is that those who actually commit wrongdoings should be punished, not necessarily those who bear guilt of those actions. However, if one will stop to think about it then it becomes clear that not all those who have done wrong necessarily deserve to be punished. After all, even after God has forgiven any sinner for what that sinner has done the fact remains that this sinner has done wrong at some particular time in the past, an example being that Peter’s denial of Christ is a matter of public record. Peter and the other apostles of Christ did wrong, yet they do not deserve punishment, given that their sins were forgiven. Therefore, not all of those who have done wrong necessarily deserve to be punished. Therefore, we can say this of the individuals who personally sinned against Dr. King: what they sinned against was God’s property (Ps 24.1, Rom 9, Rom 11.36) and God will avenge himself as he will (Romans 12.19-20).

Triablogue: The optional Jesus

Yet another referral to Triablogue, but certainly not without good reason: Triablogue: The optional Jesus.

Indeed, liberalism in the context of Christian theology has a long record of being content not merely to see things in a different-but-understandable way but ultimately to rebel against the Scriptures in one way or another.  This is how MLK held the heretical beliefs that he held while masking them with standard Christian terminology, or how the saying “A little Greek is a dangerous thing” is proven in the case of queer Christian theology (as it were), or maybe even why someone like Carlton Pearson was able to resurrect his preaching career.

"The Passion of the Christ" and Commentary on the Problem of Evil

So “The Passion of the Christ” was on TBN a few nights ago.  I watched as Jim Caviezel was tied to a cross and I thought about how divine wrath was poured out on the real Christ when he was on the cross two thousand years ago (Isaiah 53.5).  But then I thought that there was love there and not just wrath.  Christ lay down his own life according to the command of the Father (John 10.17-18) and according to the love of both his Father and the sheep for whom he died to save and to bless (John 14.28-31, Ephesians 5.25-27).  Then I remembered John’s teaching that God is love and the scholarly opinion that every act of God’s is a loving act in some way or another (1 John 4.7-12).

Now, in considering the problem of evil we wonder why bad things happen to people of all sorts: both the righteous and the unrighteous.  We know for starters that all events are of God (e.g. see Lamentations 3.38, Romans 11.36) and that bad things which happen to the righteous benefit them in some way, considering Romans 8.28-39, other passages (e.g. Romans 5.3-4, Hebrews 12), and maybe previous thoughts on the matter.  So it becomes easier to see love in all trials and tribulations of the saints in particular.

On the other hand, when we ask why unbelievers fall prey to murderers, brutes, thieves, rapists, etc. it is all too easy to say “It is because they sinned.”  After all, such a response shows no immediate sign of one’s having considered that regardless of the individual rap sheets of unbelievers, no murderer has a right to do what he has done, no rapist has a right to do what he has done, etc.  Granted: if one turns his back on God then that person should expect to forfeit divine protection from various evils.  (Likewise, if you’re a teenager who moves out of his parents’ house to avoid authority, then don’t come asking them for money to pay rent outside in the real world.)  However, it is intuitively clear that no one had a right to kill the unbelieving victims of the Holocaust because of ethnicity or religious beliefs, none of the unbelieving victims of the torture of Uday Hussein during Iraq’s Baathist days deserved to be tortured, people did not have a right to chop off the hands of other people to coerce political support in Liberia and Sierra Leone’s diamond wars, etc.  So the response “It is because they sinned” is at best a lackluster response.

It is also an incomplete response.  For one thing, it says nothing of unborn infants who are burned or dismembered as victims of abortion before they have individually committed any sort of evil.  Of course, if one will assert that they are unrepentant sinners undeserving of divine protection in view of teachings of Original Sin, Romans chapter 5, and the gloss of “federal headship,” then fine: let them do so.  However, let the record show that apart from biblical exegesis--and even with biblical exegesis--the idea of inherited guilt does not have much in terms of other proofs.  In other words, in the world of Christian apologetics amid a broader world of skeptics who question Christianity the mere appeal to Romans 5 and certain other Scriptures is not very helpful.  Likewise, current extra-biblical proofs of corporate guilt--at least that I have seen--simply are neither cogent nor valid.*  However, even if they are valid it is not necessarily clear that corporate guilt theoretically can be predicated in cases where certain guilty parties did not even exist yet when their crime was committed, as with Adam before the fall.

Then again, maybe someone wants to argue for traducianism (e.g. see Genesis 46.26, Hebrews 7.9-10) such that we could see that all futurate human beings have existed since Adam’s time such that billions of people were parts of Adam even at the dawn of human history and thus perhaps were agents of that same individual.  Fine, but the point is this: people have their work cut out for them if they want to formally justify God’s allowing and causing what is (relatively) undeserved suffering of unbelievers.

Nevertheless, suppose that all philosophical and apologetical loose ends are tied in this case.  If God is love and if every act of his is a loving act in some way or another, then where is the love in the suffering of unbelievers either on the earth or in hell?  In terms of logos the answer is found by analogy human interpersonal relationships, I suspect.  It is not uncommon to hear that evil exists for God to demonstrate various attributes of his, including justice or justness.  That he would do such a thing as an end in itself or merely because he feels like doing so is not something that I am claiming.  However, stop and think about all the different people with whom you are acquainted and how well each of those people know you.  Chances are that you are acquainted with people that you dislike but have to deal with anyhow: chances are also pretty good that you do not divulge much personal information to them either.  On the other hand, think about the people that you like and are familiar with: you’re more willing to talk to them about current troubles, financial woes, bad days at work, interests and interesting anecdotes that you have.  And when it comes to the people that you love, usually the amount of personal information that both parties share and possess is rather high, especially among marital couples.  So people tend to open up to people that they’re cool with.

From the very beginning of time God in his wisdom has known what evil is or would be like, how bad evil is, what types and amount of destruction evil can cause, what (ethical/moral) goodness is, how excellent the members of the Trinity are, how much the same persons are capable of acting in accord with good during any and all circumstances, how wise they are and how they can use this wisdom perfectly in any situation, etc.  To know these propositions merely directly or through brain power is one thing.  To have both propositional and experiential knowledge of them is greater.  Consequently, if one member of the Trinity launches the current course of human events--with all its evil and pitfalls but also good things such as mercy, grace, and favor--it is conceivable that it is done to the benefit of other members of the Trinity who then come to have new experiential knowledge of various facets of God’s wisdom and goodness.  Of course, this is done among persons among whom there is no antipathy.

Meanwhile, there are angels whom God has rejected and there angels who have remained in the heavenly realm and who have not rebelled (Matthew 25.41, 2 Peter 2.4, Jude 1.6, Revelation 12.7-9; cf. Luke 10.18).  The current course of world history and human events--from start to finish--may also benefit the holy angels if they are capable of observing human events, God’s interaction with human events, and what their implications are.  Interestingly enough, the Scriptures speak of angels’ desires to learn of such things (1 Peter 1.12).

Finally, if God were to create human beings whom he loves but were to withhold in divulging to them much of what can be known about him, this would make for a peculiar relationship among people that he loves.  Again, if God were to create human beings but ensure that there be no Fall and no act of rebellion against God at any time in the future, there would be much of God that these humans would never know.  There would be much of his wisdom, justice and power that they would never know.  There would have been a case where to some significant degree someone did not open up to people that he’s cool with.

However, as reality now stands God has indeed informed all people that sin is bad, that rebellion is bad, that deviations from goodness and his commands are unworthy of pursuit and acceptance.  Of course, throughout human history people have rejected this knowledge and been given over to the natural results of deviation from what is good in God’s sight.  In the process God’s wisdom is proven time and again: a lesson which the saints learn and recognize yet which unbelievers often do not see.  Indeed, God has allowed the occurrence of evil acts throughout human history and has time and again punished those who choose to do what is evil while also recurrently restraining the amount of evil that may be committed under the sun: a cause for the saints’ experientially knowing of God’s goodness, righteousness and mercy while unbelievers often learn nothing from this.**  (For an example of all of this see Romans 1.18-32.)

So the problem and existence of evil are consonant with the ideas that God is love and that every act of his is somehow beneficent.  Again the question was “Where is the love in the suffering of unbelievers either on the earth or in hell?”  We already took at look at an answer which is conceivable on an intuitive and rational level.  However, it is sentimentally or emotionally unsatisfying simply to say “One group suffers miserably on earth and in hell so that another group is benefited.”  True it is that sinners choose to do that which is wrong, are undeserving of divine protection, and ultimately are punished exactly according to their crimes.  Still, true it is that God could have created a world in which people either by their nature or by divine protection had neither will nor ability to sin and that some might say that such a world is the best possible world.  In any case, there is probably no reason that a malcontent should be pleased with any world in which God creates a human race.  Of a possible world where the human race’s hands are tied from sinning, someone will claim that such a world is distasteful for lack of freedom, growth and maturity.  Of a world where people’s hands are untied, someone will complain about the freedom that does exist there and which allows evil.  Sentimentally or in terms of pathos there can be no absolutely satisfying answer for malcontents.  The bottom line of the matter is that in this world sinners get what they want, are punished exactly for the injustice that they wanted, and serve as a means of benefiting those whom God saves from themselves--all such that nothing in this universe goes to waste.

______________
* The idea that all citizens of a given country are at war when its leaders declare war is questionable; for instance, dissenters and war protestors do not seem to be at war with anyone.  Likewise, to say something like “The Luftwaffe dropped thousands of bombs on England during the Blitz” does not seem to be an accurate statement about each member of the Luftwaffe during the WWII: not every Luftwaffe pilot and mechanic would have been tasked with handling Britain at the time as opposed to patrolling other parts of German-held territory.  In fact, to treat someone favorably because he is your friend’s friend seems not to speak of transferable merit but of treating one favorably in order to please your friend.  A better case might be made in terms of republican forms of government and action where someone is tasked to act on someone’s behalf and the chosen party ends up misusing his power and authority behind the backs of those who sent it.

** Even more will be learned on the final day when “God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ” (Romans 2.16) and when the world is judged by the saints (1 Corinthians 6.2).

A Difficult Teaching

The divorce rate among Christians and non-Christians is said to be approximately 50% each: so about half the marital couples from each group break up. This is peculiar because many people in life initially embrace the idea of getting married, especially after they finish college and feel like settling down in life. Other people might feel compelled to marry according to the apostle Paul’s counsel to single people in 1 Corinthians 7. Still other people eventually want to resume dating after a divorce, the end of the matter often being a subsequent marriage to someone else.

So let’s assume that you are a single, late-blooming 30-year-old who is looking to date or to court (or whatever), all in the expectation of finding someone to settle down with. If you start looking for compatible single persons of the opposite sex, you will probably want to look for people who are within your age group or at least have the beginnings of their life-long career under their belt. Therein lies the problem: the pool of single people in your age group contains a number of divorcees, a number which will only increase as time progresses and your age increases.

Okay, so how is that a problem? It is a problem according to the teachings of Christ. It is written:

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (Matthew 5.27-32)

Again:

1 And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again. 2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away [his] wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put [her] away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same [matter]. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10.1-12)

This means that you would be doing some divorcees a favor not to marry them, lest your marrying this person turn him or her into an adulterer. It also means that the pool of available singles of your age group should be considered smaller than most people in this world would recognize. So now you have two options: either to start looking beyond your age group or not to marry at all. Both options are themselves problematic, an assessment with which the early apostles might have agreed:

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. 10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with [his] wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, All [men] cannot receive this saying, save [they] to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it]. (Matthew 19.3-12)

So there you have it: a difficult teaching.

By the way, how is it that not only are a man and his wife one flesh but also that a man and his wife are no longer two (Mt 19.6, Mk 10.8) though they certainly appear to be two in number? Could this be a question worth investigating in a future post?

About David's Census

It’s been a while since I threw a conundrum out there, so here is another one. Consider the following from 1 Chronicles 21:

2 And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know [it].

7 And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel.

We know that God’s actions are good and that God knows everything, including the identity of those who take censuses. So why would God punish Israel for the sin of the census above when it was David who took the census?

It is tempting to look at this series of events as one which makes sense only in light of the concept of collective guilt, or corporate guilt, or collective responsibility--specifically of the sort involved in the doctrines of Original Sin and the imputed righteousness of Christians (e.g., see Romans 5) or something like this.

Then again, is it so obvious that only corporate guilt can account for God’s eternal justice and goodness vis-à-vis the census at issue? Could it be that corporate guilt is not in play in 1 Chronicles 21 but rather a concept and reality of relative identity? Consider the parallel passage of 1 Chronicles 21, which is 2 Samuel 24. It is written:

10 And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly. 11 For when David was up in the morning, the word of the LORD came unto the prophet Gad, David's seer, saying, 12 Go and say unto David, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three [things]; choose thee one of them, that I may [do it] unto thee. 13 So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me. 14 And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies [are] great: and let me not fall into the hand of man. {are great: or, are many} 15 So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed: and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men.

After thinking about the matter over the course of time, I am thinking that one must eventually conclude that the Scriptures are committed to what is precisely a concept of relative identity. I won’t address the matter in any detail right now, but for now suffice it to say that a purely linguistic or semiotic account of identity seems destined to fall apart at some point, and that after one is careful to distinguish linguistic and metaphysical accounts of identity the supposed transitivity rule of identity can rightly be called into question. With that said, if relative identity is real--that is, if A and B can be the same F but not the same G--then perhaps it’s not the modern-day Pelagians who have to hate 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21, but rather the Arianists, unitarians, or those of their ilk. ;)

If God wills, I will have more to say about collective responsibility and relative identity in the future. And I should, because the issues are of relevance not only to Christian orthodoxy but also to Christian apologetics....

Hell and Everlasting Punishment: Supplemental

I lay in bed today and I thought to myself: if it is better for someone to throw himself into a watery grave than to cause those little ones to sin (Mt 18.1-9), is punishment on the final Day compounded if the initial act of offense, or causing to sin, creates a chain reaction or exponential reaction of other people’s sinning? If so, then the idea of infernal everlasting punishment should not be so hard to believe.

Hell and the Justice of Everlasting Punishment

On two grounds one could object to the biblical idea that infernal everlasting punishment is just:

1) The finite and completed amount of time in which Christ suffered before death;
2) Everlasting punishment supposedly is not commensurate with the evil deeds for which God will punish people.

*********************

The first objection

The crucifixion, suffering and death of Christ nowadays is typically articulated or described with the following phrase: “paid the price,” as in “Christ paid the price for our sins.” Because so many Christians today portray the suffering of Christ as “the price” for every sin of every reprobate who will eventually go on to be consigned to the lake of fire and everlasting punishment, it is only natural for one to stop and think: Hey, since it is the price for our sins, how could everlasting punishment be just, since it simply is much longer than death by crucifixion?

This is a fair question to ask and one which is not entirely novel. An easy answer could be “The short death of an eternal person carries a weight equal to that of the eternal death of a finite being.” I can see someone offering up this would-be solution, and it is not one that I accept. However, it is an idea that is not without merit. Suppose there was a luminary who was born into a life of luxury and high prestige and who really lived it up, all until he stepped away from that lifestyle, became like an unimportant pauper living on the streets, and then died an ignoble death involving his being mocked and his having to endure unspeakable pain and discomfort? The pain of knowing that you willingly put yourself in this position, and that you could instead be lounging in sunny Miami had you not made the decision to put yourself in this position--this has to count for something.

A better answer would be to explain what should be an obvious truth underlying the claim that “Christ paid the price for our sins”--it is understood by all, or rather it should be so understood, that no one is saying that the suffering of Christ is just like the punishment of sinners. No one thinks or asserts that people who reject Christ will on Judgment Day be sentenced to death by crucifixion. In other words, ideally the post-Arminians who run around saying “Christ paid the price for our sins” are merely asserting that either two things are required for justice or appeasement of divine wrath: the suffering of Christ or the everlasting punishment from which no reprobate will escape.

*********************

The second objection

The second objection begins with the notion that punishment which is not commensurate with the crime is neither good nor just. The objection itself is that everlasting punishment is not commensurate with the evil deeds for which one is punished. However, the objection is suspect on one hand and moot on another hand.

Think of the concept of infinity for a moment. Actual infinite numbers are impossible to begin with, and anything that we refer to or speak of in language is more or less defined or bounded. So in one possible sense, to say that one will be punished forever, or that one will live forever, etc. need not be anything other than to say that he or she will experience a certain state of affairs until the end of time.

However, if someone harbors the admittedly reasonable belief that the word “everlasting” as in “everlasting punishment” necessarily or really conveys the connotation of recurrent acts of extending time such that the duration of one’s punishment could continue to be extended--such that saliency of the phrase in question is in its connotations as opposed to denotation--then he should keep a number of things in mind:

1) He does not know what effects everlasting punishment will have upon the human body or the human person. It could well be that severe initial phases of punishment damage pain receptors or diminish the body’s capacity to feel pain, such that duration of punishment becomes a necessary means of proper, commensurate punishment. In fact, we hear about the destruction of wicked people in 2 Thessalonians 1.7-9 and 2 Peter 3.7, and what is a person destroyed but a person who is beaten down and thrashed if not broken to pieces and ruined? The full range of capacities which he had when he was born is no longer with him.

2) He seems to assume that once lawbreakers and rebels are consigned to the lake of fire on the coming Day, they will stop sinning. Yet the Bible seems to carry no indication that one stops sinning at this time, and sinners who even today are angry with God will have new reasons to be angry once they see the infernal flames begin to grow higher and higher all around them. Sinless perfection of personal conduct will very possibly never be attained by reprobates, and any future sins warrant future punishment--you get new punishment for every new sin.

3) What people are punished for is cosmic treason and rebellion against God and for transgressions against his law. And you have to stop and ask yourself and answer the questions: How much is God worth? How bad of a thing is it to thumb your nose at the divine? Is it a small or trifling thing to shake your fist at the infinite, holy, just, good, mighty Creator, Sustainer and Sovereign Ruler of the universe and all its vast array of beauty and good things? No, it is not a small and trifling thing to rebel against God.

So if you are punished forever for even just one wrongdoing, this may well be a just thing. Meanwhile, if God is willing to have some mercy upon Christ such that Christ’s suffering amounts to less than everlasting punishment, who can object to this? God is the offended party, and the offended party may have mercy as he will.

4) The appeal to commensuration is possibly a double-edged sword. If I walk up to a random stranger and sucker-punch him, then I deserve to be sucker-punched in return. If I pick on ugly, unpopular kids at school for fun, I deserve to have someone pick on me for fun. This is what commenurateness is all about: eye for eye and tooth for tooth, not prolonged torture for random sucker-punches or Chinese water torture for sardonic grins.

Correction: This is part of what commensuration is about. If I punch the stranger and he feels no pain and suffers no harm, then apparently he has no right to punch me in return to the point where I am pained or injured. Or if I pick on someone and he suffers no emotional distress as a result and is unbothered by my meanness, he has no special right to pick on me. However, if the physical pain I inflict on the first person takes several days before it goes away, and if the second person is traumatized for several subsequent days, and if we will be honest about the matter--then apparently I am suddenly deserving of punching and mocking with effects lasting several days

And one can guess what that seems to imply. If God were grieved by the unjust and harmful things that his creatures sometimes do, and if that grief were to persist forever, then sinners would suddenly become rightful candidates for punishment which is nothing less than everlasting.

Atheistic Ruminations

I think atheism is a physiological belief or condition first and foremost. Having reflected on my own experience I suspect that individuals who deny that God exists or deny that there is sufficient reason for theism are individuals who basically once had a bad day or a bad life.

Psychological pain is real, and grief is one sort of such pain. Serious physical pain in general often evokes some response or action to dull the pain: this response can come in the form of screaming, weeping, or one’s writhing on the floor in agony. Denials of God--denials that he exists or other similar denials--are acts of intellectual writhing in pain, if not frustration. You’re going through a rough time in your life, or you stop to consider other people who are going through a very rough time in their lives and you sympathize with them; these things are tough to deal with, and you take the easy way out: you numb the pain in denial (and defiance) of the divine.

These denials are easy to maintain and nurture, because man is meanwhile a creature of the senses, a creature of whom it is true: “out of sight, out of mind.” There is a reason that Israel shaped the golden calf when Moses was on Mt. Horeb, the people having just seen the wonders of God in Egypt before and during the Exodus: they could not nor would not deal with entities either unseen or not immediately manifest. There is a reason that self-professed Christians will sometimes act defiantly toward God's law: they don't see God or one of his messengers standing there watching them.

A hedonistic or quasi-hedonistic philosophy is built around the denial and around man’s sensory fixation. It will be asserted that it is impossible that the god of the Bible exists because it is impossible or incoherent that there should be a person who is “all-loving,” who is “all-powerful,” and who also allows pain and suffering. Is it a fair assertion? Frankly, some rejoinders to this assertion are not cogent, though ultimately and demonstrably it is a matter of course that the assertion is not fair. Yet this is what is asserted in opposition to theism; the entire matter can be summed up in the existence of pain or discomfort, with attendant issues of atheism being no less important.

-----------------

Post-script: I believe whole-heartedly in intellectual honesty, and this is why personally I agree with atheists in some instances. Accordingly, I do not subscribe to easy “free will” counterarguments to theodical arguments for atheism. For instance, you might have the following exchange:

Atheist: The idea of one’s allowing pain and suffering is not logically incompatible with the ideas that this person is all-loving and all-powerful.

Theist: Not so, because this allowance of pain and suffering itself allows for the existence of human free will, which itself is a gift of a loving god.

Atheist: Wrong. Since God is also all-powerful, he just does have the power to have human free will exist and also prevent all pain and suffering.

Theist: You misunderstand the term “all-powerful.” God is all-powerful in the sense that he can do all that is consistent with his nature.

Atheist: Then what is his nature then? What is really his nature when he can prevent pain and suffering of abused children and battered wives but allows it anyway? Is his nature truly good then? By analogy, what about you? If you can prevent such pain and suffering but refuse to do so, is your nature good?