Pages

Monday, September 25, 2006

The Millinery Argument and the end of Christianity as we know it

Well, friends, for months on end I’ve been fighting a losing battle against the utterly devastating arguments of John Loftus and his fellow debunkers.

I’ve been bluffing my way through one intellectual body-blow after another, trying to keep up a brave front, whistling by the graveyard, and all that.

But it’s time to throw in the towel.

The final straw came with Bill Curry’s latest objection to the faith.

Forget about evolution. Or Bible criticism. Or the problem of evil.

For Bill Curry has now leveled the most the bone-crushing objection of all:

The Millinery Argument Against the Existence of God

“This may seem like a trivial example, but when this passage was brought to my attention it weighed on me when I was a Christian. I was not about to impose on my wife that she needed to wear a hat. I thought require head covering seemed silly. It was evidence that I didn’t act like I believed the Bible was inspired, despite what I thought and proclaimed.”

Even before Curry had a chance to formalize The Millinery Argument in Bayesean terms, I could see that he had driven the final nail into the coffin of the Christian faith.

Even before I bothered to consult a decent commentary on 1 Corinthians, I knew the game was up.

Sorry if I’m mixing my metaphors in this reaction piece, but the instantaneous collapse of my Christian faith under this fatal blow has left me discombobulated.

Yes, friends, at the end of the day, despite the best efforts of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Leibniz, Warfield, Dembski, Craig, and Plantinga, to name a few, it all comes down to hats.

23 comments:

  1. THat's pretty funny...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Even before Curry had a chance to formalize The Millinery Argument in Bayesean terms

    ;-D

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yep, that's about it Steve. Hats off to the debunkers ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steve,

    Do women wear hats in your church, or do you ignore/rationalize away the stupid passages in the Bible like like I used to?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm wondering if the women in your church dare to speak...or do you ignore that verse too?

    How about the verse about men having long hair?

    Ignored?

    I'm sure you have some nifty rationalization as to why those verses no longer apply...dance monkey boy, dance!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Relevant verses in the 1 Cor. 11 passage:

    10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

    This gives you the subject. Do atheists believe in angels? Satanic angels? Oh, never mind then.

    15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

    So we're not talking about hats, are we...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Steve,

    Do women wear hats in your church, or do you ignore/rationalize away the stupid passages in the Bible like like I used to?


    Bill,

    Do men on your blog ever consult commentaries before they speculate about "stupid passages in the Bible," or do they simply ignore/rationalize away their biblical illiteracy?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous said...

    "I'm wondering if the women in your church dare to ...ignore ...the ...long hair...monkey boy."


    Anonymous,

    Why the sudden interest in long hair monkey boys?

    And don't try to ignore/rationalize away your absurdity by claiming I took your statement out of context!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm wondering if the women in your church dare to speak

    The context of this passage refers to the weighing of prophecies in the local church. While all of the church are to personally weigh a prophecy in their minds, the women should not voice their objections to the prophecy but leave this task to the leaders of the church.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yup, I read that blog at debunking Christianity. Wow! Was it stupid or what?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Even granting the argument, it's form is still:

    "Because *I* didn't take the faith seriously, therefore *the faith* isn't serious."

    I mean, c'mon.

    The other day my son didn't take his coloring assignment seriously, therefore, he reasoned, it wasn't real.

    If I would have let him continue on, he would have still received a minus, regardless of how he felt about it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Just because someone doesn't like the text, and doesn't see it in practice today, doesn't mean that the text is wrong or that Christianity has fallen on its sword.

    Calvin wrote,

    "Every woman praying or prophesying. Here we have the second proposition — that women ought to have their heads covered when they pray or prophesy; otherwise they dishonor their head. For as the man honors his head by showing his liberty, so the woman, by showing her subjection. Hence, on the other hand, if the woman uncovers her head, she shakes off subjection — involving contempt of her husband. It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul to forbid the woman to prophesy with her head uncovered, while elsewhere he wholly prohibits women from speaking in the Church. It would not, therefore, be allowable for them to prophesy even with a covering upon their head, and hence it follows that it is to no purpose that he argues here as to a covering. It may be replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one, does not commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in 1 Corinthians 14. In this reply there is nothing amiss, though at the same time it might suit sufficiently well to say, that the Apostle requires women to show their modesty — not merely in a place in which the whole Church is assembled, but also in any more dignified assembly, either of matrons or of men, such as are sometimes convened in private houses."

    Calvin determined that it is unlawful for women to do any prophesizing, in church or in private houses. Period.

    Just because no church requires a head covering does not mean that Christianity has failed. It means those churches have failed to live up to the teachings.

    This exchange should give us all pause to reconcile this teaching with our particular church's practice. Women are subjects of their husbands, should not say anything in church, and should alway wear a head covering.

    May our gracious Lord use this to further the cause of reformation and awakening.

    ReplyDelete
  13. EvanMay,

    I understand that commentaries are very useful tools if you want to ignore a clear teaching in the text. I suppose your commentaries on 2 Timothy 3:16-17 let us know that the author intended to include the qualifier “If the appropriate Calvinist commentaries are available.”

    All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto good works.

    Consider Luke 6:30 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. The text is clear but you don’t need a commentary to ignore it, you know it’s ridiculous. I suspect that you know it’s stupid and you run to a commentary to see the best rationalization that makes you feel good about ignoring the advice of Jesus.

    Consider the very next verse: 31Do to others as you would have them do to you. I know I’m presuming that you and Steve don’t enjoy personal invectives directed toward you, yet the invectives fly. I am sure that you and Steve can find the appropriate commentary showing how this verse isn’t meant to apply to anyone as evil as us debunkers, (only to left-handed Calvinists on Tuesday’s). So obviously you don’t think Jesus was capable of clearly communicating his intent, or maybe he didn’t know what he was talking about.

    I think it is fairly clear that you don’t think or act like the Bible is inspired. You are just in denial about it. Steve, I await you next round of insults. Let your light shine.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I understand that commentaries are very useful tools if you want to ignore a clear teaching in the text.

    This is an assertion, not an argument. I refer you to the commentaries so that you can realize how much you twist Scripture for your purpose, not so that I can "rationalize away" a "clear teaching."

    But of course, you’re right from the beginning, and since it's impossible for you to be wrong, you'll dismiss any opposing argumentation from the beginning. So before the Christian is even given an opportunity to respond, his future response is already dismissed as "ignoring" or "rationalizing away." This is far from fair argumentation.

    I suppose your commentaries on 2 Timothy 3:16-17 let us know that the author intended to include the qualifier “If the appropriate Calvinist commentaries are available.”

    Hardly. In fact, I affirm the clarity of Scripture to such a degree that when I see you misuse it in utter ignorance, my only explanation is a biblical one: you are a depraved individual that has not the Spirit

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'd also note that Curry's tactic is to simply quote a portion of Scripture (with no accompanying exegesis), and let the reader do all the work for him as he exclaims, "See! Anyone with a brain would agree that this is stupid or ridiculous!"

    But what if I don't think that Scripture is stupid or ridiculous? What if I don't think it is ridiculous to (within the boundaries of the context of the text, of course) "give to everyone who asks of [me]"?

    I mean, sure, Curry might think that these selfless acts are stupid or ridiculous, but why does he assume the rest of the world thinks the same way?

    ReplyDelete
  16. my only explanation is a biblical one: you are a depraved individual that has not the Spirit

    Basically your positions are such that it would take a miracle for anyone to believe them.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You haven't been listening to the posters (in this and at least one other thread).

    As an biblical anarchist, the word of God in the Bible is fact. Jesus did not say, "If someone takes something from you, let him have it, unless you want it back, and then have him arrested and prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law."

    Rather, he exhorted us to give what we have. Whatever we have. All of it, if necessary. And follow him. (The theme is repeated time and again, such as the famous "lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth..." -- he wants us not to worry about what we have on earth.)

    He literally wants us to give it all up and follow him. So what if we are poor on earth -- life is not about our lot on earth. Further it is not about our lot afterwards since God has determined that for us.

    Jesus said to give to everyone who takes what we have and not to ask for it back. Unfortunately, people like you have created a social system that requires the asking of the thing back. Our entire ability to live the Christianity that Jesus laid forth is constantly thwarted by those who have established the laws, culture and norms of our country.

    He said what he said. It is Divine law. We all must do it, and those who are elect, will

    ReplyDelete
  18. Steve,

    It may not do well to ignore the larger threat posed by hats. Case in point: the pope wears a funny hat. Do you agree with his doctrine? Certainly not. Also, the tyrant-torturer-madman John Calvin wore a hat. Adolph Hitler, too, wore hats on many occasions. I trust you are beginning to see a pattern here...

    ReplyDelete
  19. Basically your positions are such that it would take a miracle for anyone to believe them.

    Yes, it takes the miracle of regeneration. But that isn't because my position is irrational; it's because the unregenerate are irrational.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Mathetes:

    The question is...

    Do YOU wear a hat?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anarchist,

    If that's what you truly believe, then how come you own a computer?

    Also, I'm flattered that you think people like me created the social system we live under. I never knew I was such a powerful guy.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Mathetes has a point. To begin with, we should divide up the world between those who wear hats and those who don't.That's the central front in the cultural wars. I mean—just look at all those towel-headed jihadis.

    ReplyDelete
  23. So basically, the hats were necessitated...why? According to the best commentaries, why must women wear hats?

    And, after you give some explanation, does it make any sense, or is this but another tradition, much like separating men and women into different sides of the church, but one that was put into Scripture by a former Pharisee?

    ReplyDelete