What makes a failed prophecy fail?

Mt 24:29-34

 29"Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

 32"From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. 33So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

Opponents of Biblical inerrancy cite this as a stock example of a failed prophecy. Any attempt to defend it is dismissed as special pleading.

Rather than discuss the passage directly, I’d like to approach the issue from a different angle. Here’s a similar apocalyptic passage:

Acts 2:1-3,16-20

 1When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them.

16But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel:

 17 "'And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,

   and your young men shall see visions,

   and your old men shall dream dreams;

18even on my male servants and female servants

   in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.

19And I will show wonders in the heavens above

   and signs on the earth below,

   blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke;

20 the sun shall be turned to darkness

   and the moon to blood,

   before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day.

But on the face of it, the recorded events on the day of Pentecost (vv1-3) hardly reflect a point-by-point match with vv19-20.

Some commentators think this refers back to certain events on Good Friday. But there are two or three problems with that explanation:

i) Peter’s usage doesn’t seem to be retrospective. Rather, the linkage is between Joel’s oracle and what happened on Pentecost.

ii) While there are somewhat similar events on Good Friday, there’s still no direct correspondence between that and the wording of Joel.

iii) Moreover, Good Friday isn’t the day of judgment.

Other commentators think this looks forward. And certainly there are subsequent events in the history of Acts that exemplify vv17-18. Likewise, the outpouring of the Spirit is inaugurated on Pentecost. Yet there’s nothing in Acts that “fulfills” vv19-20.

But it won’t do to say this is a case of failed prophecy. For Luke himself juxtaposes a description of what actually happened on Pentecost with Peter’s citation of Joel. So the narrative itself invites the comparison and contrast between these two passages. Hence, it’s not as if the narrator was oblivious to the difference between vv2-3 and vv19-20.

Even if Peter (or Luke) thought the ultimate fulfillment of Joel awaited the day of judgment, that’s a fairly defused fulfillment–where it’s partly fulfilled at Pentecost, partly fulfilled in subsequent events in the history of Acts, and fully realized on the day of judgment.

Another possibility is that Joel is using stock apocalyptic imagery, which was never intended to set up a one-to-one correspondence between the colorful imagery and the specific fulfillment.

Whichever explanation we favor, the larger point is that a modern reader must make allowance for how ancient Jews and Christians understood prophetic fulfillment. We need to hear the text the same way they did. If they didn’t think prophetic diction was ever meant to map onto the future event in strictly descriptive terms, but was, instead, more generic, formulaic, and open-textured, then modern readers need to adapt to the ancient assumptions of an ancient text. No different than when we enter the world of Dante.

Best of William Lane Craig Debate Collection

The Best of William Lane Craig Debate Collection Volume 1
Total running time: 12 hours, 19 minutes

1) Christopher Hitchens - Does God Exist? Biola University

2) John Shelby Spong - Resurrection Debate: Bethel College, Indiana

3) Peter Atkins - What is the Evidence for/against the Existence of God? Carter Center, Atlanta

4) Gerd Ludemann - Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Boston College

5) Victor Stenger - Existence of God? Oregon State University

6) Jamal Badawi - Concept of God in Islam and Christianity: University of Illinois

The Best of William Lane Craig Debate Collection Volume 2
Total running time: 12 hours, 44 minutes

7) Lewis Wolpert - Is God a Delusion? Central Hall Westminster, London

8) Frank Zindler - Atheism vs. Christianity: Willow Creek Church, Chicago

9) Marcus Borg - Did Jesus Physically Rise from the Dead? University of North Texas

10) Austin Dacey - Does God Exist? Purdue University, Indiana

11) Francisco Ayala - Intelligent Design: Is It Viable? University of Indiana

12) Bart Ehrman - Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? College of the Holy Cross, Mass.

Biola/Reasonable Faith are selling each volume for $97.00 and the two volumes combined for $185.00. I'm selling each volume for $70.00 each, and probably with cheaper shipping, too ($3.00)!

Here are some blurbs:

"Dogfreid is a trusted friend and a man of impeccable character. He is often the first I turn to when in need of advice. Recently there has been mcuh said about Miami's so-called "Big 3" -- LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh -- but may I suggest that Miami actually boasts a "Big 4"? Yes, Dogfreid is to be counted among those who possess the heart of a champion." - Steve Hays

"Let A stand for my admiration of Dogfreid, B stand for all of his wonderful attributes, and C stand for it being a good idea to purchase William Lane Craig DVDs. Now consider the following argument: (1) If A, then B; (2) If B, then C; therefore, (3) If A, then C." - Paul Manata

"I care about three things in this life: (1) Driving on the correct side of the road; (2) reruns of Braveheart; and (3) supporting my dear old chap Dogfreid. Let it be known that this list exhibits an increasing order of importance, with (3) being of total importance." - James Anderson

"I studied under William Lane Craig. Do you understand how powerful of a thinker this has made me? Can you fathom the riches of knowledge I have obtained since working as this fine Christian scholar's understudy? Need any other incentive to purchasing these volumes?" - John Loftus

Go ahead and ignore the last blurb, please. I'm not sure it helps. The others you can take to the bank.

On Ridding the World of Five-Paragraph Essays

The most common form of essay writing on scholastic campuses is the five-paragraph essay. Consisting of an introductory paragraph bearing a thesis statement with three points (each of which is expanded in numerical order for the next three paragraphs) and ending with a concluding paragraph that recapitulates the thesis statement, five-paragraph essays have long been a staple of academia. This unfortunate practice should be abolished because following strict formal guidelines stifles creativity, some things cannot be summed up in three points (necessitating poorly linked final points that are only superficially related to the thesis statement), and because school administrations only use the five-paragraph essay to force adherence to dictatorial norms.

To demonstrate that five-paragraph essays stifle creativity, one only need to examine the fact that our greatest heroes in literature are precisely those authors who manage to break the mold, transcend the rules, and demonstrate their greatness through the application of style. This is the essence of creativity, the genius inside a man or woman that enables him or her to soar to heights only slightly lower than the angels can attain. Yet if one attempts to do this in a five-paragraph essay, one finds one’s grade significantly lowered, thus stifling any creative spark that the author may have originally carried.

This follows through to the fact that some subjects simply do not have three points and attempts to add in the third point come across as being ham-fisted or, what is worse, nonintellectual. The fact of the matter is that some subjects can fully be explained in only two points, while others require four or more points to develop. Adherence to the strict guidelines of the five-paragraph essay therefore result in forced attrition via the deletion of relevant data (i.e., the fourth, or higher, points) or, more commonly, forced inflation via the insertion of a third point that stands out like a hippie in a Presbyterian church.

It is inevitable that five-paragraph essays are used by school administrations, therefore, simply to force adherence to dictatorial norms. No concern is given to the fact that students did not decide what these norms should be, or why their essays must be five hundred words in length, or why they must contain five paragraphs arranged in a specific manner. Obedience is demanded, like an anti-proletarian government decreeing obedience from its subjects, where any nonconformity is punished swiftly by various actions of the administration (viz., the reduction of grades, public mockery in the classroom, detention after hours, and sometimes the forced repeating of an entire year’s worth of schooling). Such tactics belong to political dictatorships, not to the realm of academia.

All of the above makes it quite obvious that the five-paragraph essay format is prone to abuse and should be abolished as soon as humanly possible. It is time to evolve. Indeed, there is nothing that is stated in a five paragraph essay that could not be stated without stifling creativity, rigid adherence to three points, or the use of dictatorial tactics.

Another day, another doomsday

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/06/01/cooler_heads_prevail_against_climate_panic/

Black on black

Here's a black liberal assessing a fellow black liberal:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/the_obama_deception_why_cornel_west_went_ballistic_20110516/

Behold, I shew you a mystery

In my previous two posts, I commented on some “opening reflections” that then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger gave in advance of a “symposium” on the topic of “The Primacy of the Successor of Peter,” held December 1996:

Part 1
Part 2

In that introduction, Ratzinger referred to “an earlier … symposium held here in Rome in October 1989, directed by the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, at the request of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the theme: The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the First Millennium: Research and Evidence.”

That historical symposium is noted on the Vatican’s website, here.

But it is merely noted. There were “published Acts” from this symposium, but they cannot be found.

THE PRIMACY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME IN THE FIRST MILLENNIUM
Research and evidence
Proceedings of the Historical and Theological Symposium (Rome, 9-13 October 1989)
(Acts and Documents Series, No. 4, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City, 1991, pp. 784).

Symposium on the historical and theological primacy of the bishop of Rome II in the first millennium. Research and evidence, which we have the instruments , is the result of a request addressed to the study of the Pontifical Committee of Historical Sciences, by His Eminence Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, by letter dated January 19 1985. The letter expressed the interest of the congregation, within the jurisdiction of its own, the historical and theological issues concerning the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. In this context he felt the need to investigate further as it has been seen and experienced in the first millennium, trying to ascertain what was considered "deposit of faith" during that period and how it has developed the conviction of faith in this regard. To this end, the congregation considered appropriate prior research in their historical and invited the Committee to organize a symposium on the theme of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the first millennium, in order to bring out some historical conclusions, in the light of a overview of the issue by enabling a deeper theological point of view.

Contents of volume :

Presentation by Archbishop Michele Maccarrone.
Knock Otto, Petrus im Neuen Testament.
Antonio M. Javierre Ortas, Apostolic Succession and Succession of primacy.
Roland Minnerath, La position de l'Eglise de Rome aux trois premiers Siècles.
Victor Saxer, self-Africaine et romaine de Tertullien primacy to Augustin.
Charles Stone, the first conversion de Rome et du Pape (IV-Way S.).
Spyros N. Troianos, Apostolische Der Stuhl im Früh-und Recht Mittelbyzantinischen Kanonischen.
Stephan O. Horn, Die Stellung des Bischofs von Rom auf dem Konzil von Chalcedon.
Michele Maccarrone, "Sedes Apostolica - Vicarius Pietri." The perpetuity of the primacy of Peter in the office and the Bishop of Rome (Ages III-VIII).
Peter Conte, the "Consortium Apostolicae Fidei" between bishops and the Bishop of Rome in the seventh century (with appendix philological and canonical).
Rudolf Schieffer, Der Papst als Patriarch von Rom
Orlandis José, en la España El Roman Primado Visigoda.
Aidan Nichols, The Roman Primacy in die Ancient Irish and Anglo-Celtic Church.
Michel van Esbroeck, Primates, Patriarcats, Catholicossats, Autocéphalies en Orient.
Hubert Mordek, römische Der Primat des Westens Kirchenrechtssammlungen in den vom IV. bis VIII.Jahrhundert.
Vittorio Peri, The Church of Rome and the mission "ad gentes" (VIII-IX).
Harald Zimmermann, Der Bischof von Rom im saeculum obscurum.
Daniel Stternon, Interpretations, Oppositions Resistances et en Orient.
Horst Fuhrmann, im Widerstand gegen den Primat päpstlichen Abendland.
Roland Minnerath, historical and theological Symposium "The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the first millennium" (Rome, 9-13 October 1989).

After this symposium, a work was published containing its results, entitled, Il Primato del Vescovo di Roma nel Primo Millennio. Richerche e Testimonianze. Atti del Symposium Storico-Teologico, Roma, 9-13 Ottobre 1989. Edited by Michele Maccarrone. [Pontificio Comitato di Scienze Storiche, Atti e Documenti, 4.] (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. 1991. Pp. xii, 782)

Patrick Granfield, author of a number of works on the papacy, wrote an untitled review of this work, in The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 80, No. 3 (July 1994). Granfield said,

Monsignor Maccarrone, the editor of this volume, died in May, 1993. He was a superb church historian and a tireless worker for the Vatican in several capacities. For many years he was President of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences. He is well known for his scholarly research on papal history, especially for his studies on "Vicarius Christi," apostolicity, and Innocent III.

The subject of this book is important, with major historical, theological, and ecumenical dimensions: What was the role of the Bishop of Rome in the first centuries—before the Eastern Schism, the Great Western Schism, and the Reformation—The eighteen contributors, whose names are known to anyone familiar with the scholarly literature on the papacy, seek to answer that question. The articles are in various languages—seven in German, five French, four Italian, one Spanish, one English—and provide rich bibliographical data. The volume ends with a summary of the 1989 symposium and an extensive index of names and places.

The book is organized, more or less, chronologically, but not rigidly so, since there is some overlapping. The entire volume can be divided into six major categories.

1. The First Three Centuries.
2. The fourth and Fifth Centuries
3. The Third to the Eighth Centuries
4. The Primacy and Churches Outside of Rome
5. The Fourth to the Tenth Centuries
6. Opposition to the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

Granfield notes in this section on “Opposition, “The first millennium in general did not reject in principle the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. There was, however, occasional dissatisfaction in the way the primacy was exercised.”

He concludes:

In conclusion, this volume has achieved its goal: to analyze the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the first millennium both historically and theologically. The contributors trace the evolution of the primatial concept in the East and the West and provide solid historical evidence. The book is not, nor does it pretend to be, an exhaustive treatment of the topic. No one volume could do that. What it does give us is a panoramic view of the first ten centuries and shows that there was a persistent affirmation of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the Church of Christ. This volume is a significant contribution to the on-going study of the Petrine ministry.

My question is, if this “historical symposium” is such a great piece of research, why has it dropped off the map?

Five years later, Pope John Paul II wrote Ut unum sint, “On commitment to Ecumenism,” in which a pope essentially asks to “re-think” the papacy: I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility in this regard, above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation.

For all the bluster of the previous thousand years of papal statements, who’da thunk that they didn’t get it quite right?

Why some people hate Calvinism

Many react quite strongly against the Calvinist doctrine of election. Arminians think the notion is morally reprehensible. When we turn our thoughts to heaven and hell, some have been indigent that a loving God might show "favoritism" when they put their own parents up as exemplars; parents who, according to them, have never shown favoritism among their children. Calvinists are painfully aware of the strongly worded responses to what we feel the Bible teaches. Our God is called a moral monster, and we are called morally insensitive or defective for not being able to see how our teaching is morally and rationally repugnant. I think we can see some interesting analogies between this and reactions toward Jesus' raising of Lazarus from the dead in John 11.

We can note several things from the text,

1. The family knew that Lazarus would rise again, at the general resurrection. This hope didn't solve the psychological problem of evil. They were still deeply affected, saddened by their loss, and they would have liked to have Lazarus back then, not just at the general resurrection.

1a. It's safe to assume other families who lost loved ones also would have liked to have their loved ones back. They wanted this even they also knew that they would see their own loved ones again at the general resurrection.

1b. So there's a set S of people that will be raised at the general resurrection, but families who have lost loved ones are saddened by this loss and desire to see members of this set restored to them before the general resurrection.

2. Jesus tells the family that he will raise Lazarus from the dead.

2a. Jesus raises Lazarus so that God may be glorified, so the people may see the power of God, the glory of God.

2b. Jesus brings to life a member of S, someone chosen out of S, for God's purposes.

2c. Other families were just as sad as Lazarus' family, just as pious, just as faithful, just as whatever. According to human intuitions, this might appear to show partiality or favoritism. If any mere Jew had the power to raise from the dead, he would raise his own children, and the children of his neighbor too. Jesus didn't.

2d. There's several similarities with Romans 9 here. Ultimately, this "favoritism"was to glorify God, to put him on display. Jesus elects to save Lazarus. Chooses him out of the mass of people he could have raised from the dead. To others this appears unfair, unjust, partial, unloving, and self-promoting (done for God's glory, for God's purposes, to magnify God before the people).

3. Here was one reaction to that kind of Jesus, a Jesus who chooses to have mercy on some, not all (N.B. the fact of a future general resurrection did nothing to take away the sadness or dull the pain of the loss, and other families who lost their own loved ones — just as important to them as Lazarus was to his family, they didn't love their deceased less than Mary loved Lazarus):

"So from that day they plotted to take his life."

The kind of Jesus seen here is the kind to be killed. If Jesus went around healing everyone, raising everyone, and making no distinctions and divisions, he would probably not have been in danger. Or, if he at least gave everyone the choice to have their loved ones raised, their infirmities healed, and entrance into his circle granted, ready and willing to heal and save all without exception, he wouldn't have been in danger. The Jesus presented in this text is not the Jesus of Arminianism or Universalism. He's a Jesus who choses to bring certain people to life and leave others in their death. He's a Jesus who shows "favoritism." If, say, Thomas Talbott had lived back then and had the power to raise people from the dead, he'd raise everyone from the dead. If Thomas Talbott heard that Jesu raised Lazarus, and his own child had recently died, Thomas Talbott would ask Jesus to do the same for his own child. If Jesus refused, Thomas Talbott would claim that Jesus was a moral monster. Thomas Talbott would tell Jesus that his own parents would never show this kind of favoritism, and so this Jesus could not be the messiah, could not be God.

Schism in the church of godlessness

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/play-mythty-for-me-dr-carrier-carries-on/

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011/05/sources-of-jesus-tradition.html?showComment=1306873573247#c7896545096755396274

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011/05/sources-of-jesus-tradition.html?showComment=1306873719299#c3635598158446696327

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011/05/sources-of-jesus-tradition.html 

Are contact sports immoral?

Does the “violent” component of contact sports make them immoral or less ethical than nonviolent sports? The answer depends, in large part, on what you’re comparing them to.

Of course we can think of many nonviolent activities. But is that the standard of comparison? Is that a realistic alternative.

Appearances notwithstanding, it seems to me that contact sports restrain violence by channeling and regulating natural masculine aggression. Contact sports have rules which limit the violence.

If male aggression is an innate masculine trait, then attempts to suppress it will be counterproductive. The attempt to systematically suppress a natural irrepressible trait will simply divert the trait to a more dangerous outlet.

In place of contact sports, you’re liable to have more beatings, knifefights, gunfights, urban warfare. Gangs take the place of teams.

Of course, absent common grace and special grace, any social activity can degenerate. 

Godless prophets

http://theacru.org/acru/doomsday_prophets_who_never_say_theyre_sorry/

Sports and Moral Superiority

http://www.tedkluck.com/?p=746

HT: Paul Manata

Buy a jet, get a sports car free

I know for some of you, this is a deal that’s just too good to pass up.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/05/26/buy-a-jet-get-a-sports-car-free/

"Should We Cheer Osama’s Death?"

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/268417

“Religion of Peace” news

http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2011/05/muslim-persecution.html

The Question of Truth lies at the Centre of Theology” – by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Part 2

[Or Subhead: “The facts of history are just putty in our hands, shaped to meet whatever needs we have at the moment”]

I wanted to follow up on my previous post and provide the remainder of the document that I presented there. I’m going to follow this up with another document, The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church, which is intended to “recall the essential points of Catholic doctrine on the primacy” (and again, it will be important to compare these essential points with what Adrian Fortescue was saying about the papacy in 1920.) Ratzinger:

Given the historical nature of Christian Revelation, an attentive co-operation between historical and theological methods is essential to enable theological reflection, also critically justified, to fulfil its task. Undoubtedly, it is true that history as such cannot provide an apodictic certitude of the truth of faith. It should nevertheless be borne in mind that the true meaning of historical facts—even in profane matters—is not revealed by a mere photographical recording of facts as such, but unfolds only in a light that comes from elsewhere, from a vision of reality which can never be simply reduced to the limited horizons of a fact empirically considered. From this point of view it is even logical that the interpretation of faith cannot be indisputably imposed on the historian. What is essential however is that such an interpretation should not be excluded from the facts.

I’ve written about the way Ratzinger treats this subject in the past. Here is how he phrases it from his work “Called to Communion”:

“…compatibility with the base memory of the Church is the standard for judging what is to be considered historically and objectively accurate, as opposed to what does not come from the text of the Bible but has its source in some private way of thinking.”

What Ratzinger is saying here is that a particular interpretation of faith, which elsewhere he called “the base memory of the Church” must not only be imposed upon historical facts, but must be “the standard for judging what is to be considered historically and objectively accurate”.

One major problem with this is the way that Rome has untethered itself from its own history, and even from its own doctrines.

This is illustrated simply in the way that a phrase “no salvation outside of the church” has been “reformulated” to mean “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.”


This process of “reformulating history” had its roots in the opening address of Pope John XXIII from Vatican II, “Gaudet Mater Ecclesia [which curiously has been removed from the web and which G.C. Berkouwer (trans. Lewis B. Smedes, Calvin College) provides in his work “The Second Vatican Council and the New Catholicism”, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, pg 22)]:

“The certain and unchangeable doctrine, to which we must remain ever faithful, must be examined and expounded by the methods applicable in our times. We must distinguish (sic) between the inheritance of the faith itself or the truths which are contained in our holy doctrine, and the way in which these truths are formulated, of course with the same sense and the same significance.”

Of course. [Latin: oportet ut haec doctrina certa et immutabilis, cui fidele obsequium est praestandum, ea ratione pervestigatur et eponatur, quam tempora postulant nostra. Est enim aliud ipsum depositum Fidei, seu veritates, quae veneranda doctrina nostra continentur, aliud modus, quo eaedem enuntiantur, eodem tamen sensu eademque sentential.]

Raymond Brown, a leading Roman Catholic biblical scholar of the 20th century, explicated how this process came about:

One should start with the ... assumption … that no twentieth-century Church is the same as the Church of Churches of NT times … A critical study of the NT can point out unexpected differences, thus reminding us how much things have changed and what has been lost (or gained). … Churches and Christians, confronted by a critical picture of NT times, can be led to needed reform, either by chopping away distracting accretions or by compensating for deficiencies.

What I have just described is not pure theory; that it is possible is verified by what has happened in Roman Catholicism in this century. … Scholars can be purged once or twice, but a new generation keeps coming along; and eventually the [Roman Catholic] Church has to enter into dialogue with them. Thus [the second of three periods into which Brown divides Catholic Biblical Scholarship in the 20th century] saw the introduction of biblical criticism and the gradual but reluctant acceptance of its initial results an and through Vatican Council II. More than by any other single factor, the self-reform of Roman Catholicism in that Council was influenced by the modern approach to the Bible. Catholic mastery of biblical criticism has progressed since Vatican II, and the implications have proved more wide-ranging than even the most perceptive leaders of the Council foresaw. The third period of the century (1970-2000) in which we now live, therefore, has involved the painful assimilation of those implications for Catholic doctrine, theology, and practice (Raymond E. Brown, “The Critical Meaning of the Bible,” New York, NY: Paulist Press ©1981, Nihil Obstat and Imprimitur, from the Preface, pg ix).

Later in this same work Brown further explains this process works out in real life:

“Essential to a critical interpretation of church documents is the realization that the Roman Catholic Church does not change her official stance in a blunt way. Past statements are not rejected but are requoted with praise and then reinterpreted at the same time” (pg 18 fn 41).

Robert B. Strimple, in his contribution to “Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze what Divides and Unites Us,” (Chicago: Moody Press, Ed. John Armstrong, pg. 103), cites this very passage from Brown, along with other contemporary Roman Catholic theologians, and because of this “untethering from history,” concludes, “I am convinced that the theological situation in the Roman Catholic Church today must be viewed as worse than it was at the time of the Reformers.”

Continuing with Ratzinger:

From these methodological premises, it seems to me an important consequence for our theme follows: the collaboration between history and theology can be fruitful if the growing knowledge of historical (and exegetical, with reference to the Bible) facts leads to a deeper theological vision of the Roman Primacy and its ecclesiological function, which helps to distinguish better and better what is necessary and cannot be renounced, from what is accidental or non-essential to the truth of faith. Moreover, this collaboration requires that the question of the doctrinal evaluation of historical facts be made in the light of Tradition, as the locus and criterion of the self-verifying consciousness of the Church’s faith.

See my comments above.

Ratzinger concludes:

6. Lastly, the importance of the theme for ecumenical discussion cannot be ignored. It is true that the symposium does not intend to make a theological comparison of the different viewpoints of the Christian confessions, as would be the case with an ecumenical colloquium. On the other hand, it is quite obvious that the question of the Primacy of Peter and its continuation in the Bishops of Rome is one of the most burning issues in ecumenical dialogue. And it is precisely the awareness that at the centre of theology lies the question of truth, which obliges us to place the service of truth as the basis and goal of the search for Christian unity itself, without prejudice and in obedience to the Lord.

The invitation extended to Prof. Pannenberg and Prof. Chadwick to come to our symposium as representatives of the Lutheran and Anglican confessions (unfortunately Prof. Clement was unable to take part due to unexpected illness) attest to the interest with which the Catholic Church looks to a greater and ever deeper knowledge of the positions of non-Catholic Christians even on this particularly difficult topic. For Catholics, criticism of the papal primacy by other Christian brothers and sisters is like an earnest request to carry out the Petrine service in a way which is more and more in conformity with Christ. In turn, for non-Catholic Christians, the Roman primacy is a permanent and visible challenge to concrete unity, which is a task of the Church and must be her distinguishing mark before the world.

7. As I express my personal hopes and those of the Cardinals who are members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that this symposium may be a favourable occasion to further the in-depth knowledge of faith about this aspect of ecclesiological doctrine, in conformity with the Holy Father’s wishes, I am profoundly pleased to conclude my greeting by reading the Holy Father’s Message of good wishes to all the participants, which I have the honour to convey.

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

Taken from:
L’Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
1 January 1997
L’Osservatore Romano is the newspaper of the Holy See.
The Weekly Edition in English is published for the US by:

The Cathedral Foundation
L’Osservatore Romano English Edition
320 Cathedral St.
Baltimore, MD 21201
Subscriptions: (410) 547-5315
Fax: (410) 332-1069
lormail@catholicreview.org

Football vs. Baseball

This will be Triablogue's most controversial post ever!

I received an email with a link to philosopher Douglas Groothuis' critique of football in favor of baseball. Here's the responses I offered:

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

1. Football is intrinsically violent. It cannot be played without heavy padding and physical punishment. Professional players typically undergo multiple surgeries for repeated injuries. Many of these injuries are permanently debilitating. The nature of the sport encourages a toleration for, and even promotion of, violence. Players attempt to injure each other to take them out of the game. Many young men are seriously injured while playing football. Why risk the damage to a growing body? If the body is “fearfully and wonderfully made” and the temple of the Holy Spirit for the Christian, why should anyone treat one’s own body and other’s bodies to so much physical abuse? We were not designed for this kind of punishment.

ME: I don't get it. What does he mean that football *cannot* be played without heavy padding and physical punishment? I myself have played many padless pick-up football games that occurred without "punishment" (a somewhat subjective term, btw, since an activity may be more or less physically demanding on a person depending on the shape they're in). And I assume he's not talking about flag and two-hand touch. But if violence and heavy padding are *necessary* to football, what, pray tell, are thousands of people playing when they play flag and two-hand touch *football*? Furthermore, What about soccer or rugby? They don't wear "heavy padding," but often have as much or more "physical punishment" than an american football game. What about wrestling, like collegiate or olympic? This is a very technical and chess-like sport. Moreover,wrestling was known by the Israelites, are we to think the youth never engaged in matches? Never tried to mimick the Greeks in this way? Moreover, professional players in all sports undergo debilitating injuries from which they suffer permanent damage. I also daresay that this reasoning would make certain lines of work "immoral" since we're "fearfully and wonderfully made." Has Groothuis ever watched the Discovery Channel's "World's Most Dangerous Job"? Why would someone who's body is the Holy Spirit's temple do deep sea crab fishing?

I'd also add that it is *contingent* to football that "players *attempt* to injure each other and take them out of the game." How does Groothuis even know this, first off. Has he taken a poll? I know many players at high level high school ball (we won the CIF championship) who didn't attempt to injure other players, and indeed they felt bad when another player got injured. I know more than a few college players, and I went to high school with Charlie Joiner's daughter. He didn't indicate (at get-together's at her house) that he ever attempted to injure people. Second, there have been many baseball players who have "attempted" to injure another player. This "attempting to injure" is contingent and not necessary to either sport. Lastly, the violence is contingent upon the position. Receivers don't try to tackle the defense. Most of the time, running backs try to *avoid* tackles. So, some positions are more active, physical, or violent than others. Same with baseball, see below.

2. Baseball is not intrinsically violent, but only contingently violent; it much less violent than football overall. A runner barreling home from second base on a single to the outfield may need to collide with the catcher in order to attempt to score. However, his is not necessitated by the game as such, and the catcher is well-protected by his pads and mask. Many games are played where this kind of contact never occurs. Further, many runners will try to avoid the catcher entirely with a hook slide.

ME: So wearing pads in the catcher's case is something that *negates* the violent nature of this position in baseball? But with football, being "well-protected" with padding only serves to show its violent nature! But while we're on the catcher. We all know their careers are usually cut brutally short. Catchers typically suffer debilitating knee injuries for the rest of their lives. They also get hit by pitches and *must* block the plate from a hulking, 250 lb roid-raging base runner who *must* cross home plate. What worse, only one of these guys is wearing padding — the catcher — and that padding is rather meager. There are times in the game of baseball, then, when violence is "necessitated." So, we have *certain positions* that "must" get involved in brutal physical alteration, and this is an essential part of the game when those situations arise. Moreover, many football games are played where the physical contact is at a minimum, and the more prepared and physically stronger players can take the bumps and bruises that happen in the game. And of course, as mentioned, many players will *attempt* to *avoid* the hit, just like some base runners will.

3. Baseball is intellectually superior to football, because of the degree of strategy, finesse, and intelligence required to play it well. Football knows of many plays and patterns, but most of them reduce to speed, strength, and coordination--as opposed to intelligence.

ME: Sorry, it's *this* that doesn't appear well thought-out. I grew up playing *both* baseball *and* football. I was a thrid-baseman and clean-up hitter in baseball. I was a fullback and insider linebacker for most of my football "career," but at the end just played outside linebacker, as positions became more specialized and rest became more important to play at a high level. So, I know both games. Speaking for myself, I have always thought football required far more intelligence. The playbook is typically massive and complex, and players are required to memorize much or all of the playbook. I never once had a playbook to memorize in baseball. Further, while the *individual players* in a football play must be fast and strong, that doesn't mean that *the play* reduces to such. For there is misdirection, tricks, traps, and several moving parts combining to pull off a highly developed play. Typically, quarterbacks and middle linebackers must be *very* intelligent — as far as what is required for the game — and often spend *hours* not only memorizing their own plays, but also knowing where everyone on their side of the ball is and must be. They typically watch *hours* of footage from the other team, learning what to expect and coming up with plans for how to respond to the *dozens* of various positions they might find themselves in: whether it's 1st and 10, 2nd and 5, 3rd down, 4th down, what quarter it is, what half it is, what the score is, which player is on the field (which often determines what plays might be run, but then there's tricks with players who are usually only in on third down short yardage run plays, only to have it turn into a passing play, etc).

In baseball, a pitcher with less than a cannon arm (such as Greg Maddox) can be one of the best pitchers in baseball in light of his intelligence in pitch selection, control, knowledge of batters, and fielding ability. Nothing analogous is the case with football, to my knowledge.

ME: This is just an autobiographical remark. First, this just shows that more than a "cannon arm" is required of good pitchers. Indeed, of the very best pitchers, I'd say *all* of them had more than a "cannon arm." Baseball is full of stories about guys with "cannon arms" who burn out early, or never make it. We can also give examples with football. The great linebacker Sam Mills, who at 5'9" was one of the best linebackers of all time, largely due to his heart and game preparation, his knowledge of the game (which is why he became a coach). About cannon arms, what about, say, Joe Montana, who was drafted in round three because of his weak arm (a rating of six). Montana was one of the best quarterbacks ever, and intelligence and knowledge factored large.

Historically, intellectuals have been drawn to write and reflect on baseball.

ME: In America, maybe; it is the national pastime, after all. But consider intellectuals in other countries who write on soccer or rugby. Or consider ancient intellectuals who write on popular sports of the day. Baseball much older too, so we should expect this "historical" contingency. Of course, intellectuals have written on football, e.g.,

http://www.amazon.com/Football-Philosophy-Going-Popular-Culture/dp/0813124956

http://www.amazon.com/Praise-Athletic-Beauty-Ulrich-Gumbrecht/dp/067402172X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1306805645&sr=8-1

4. Aesthetically, baseball is superior because of its unique sense of time. There is no clock in baseball.

ME: Yeah, not sure about that. Anyway, football gives us elegance and simplicity, when we consider a play qua play. The individual parts may not be as elegant (though I dare say one cannot say this after watching a quarterback thread a needle through several defenders while his receiver effortlessly catches the ball and runs like a gazelle into the end zone), but the entire play often is. But on this, see Stanford prof Hans Gumbrecht, who loves football and argues for its aesthetic beauty, arguing it's just as much art as anything else artsy is. Lastly, you can have a *perfect* season in football. Watching the Patriots 2007 season was to watch something *beautiful*. Also, let's not forget 1972 Dolphins, who went undefeated in season and post-season. Just beautiful; especially considering they did this with the "no name" defense. Lastly, Groothuis uses this to claim Baseball is more Christian, but Christianity has an end to our games down here. History won't continue forever without end. Time is important in Christianity.

In football, the game is often over (determined) before it is over (temporally), rendering the final minutes meaningless and pointless. In baseball, as in the Christian world view, a measure of hope is always alive until the game is over. Near-miraculous comebacks are possible. When they occur, there is no greater drama in all of sports.

ME: Hardly, which is why football has a saying, "A minute is an eternity, in football." If we're going to get all "Christian worldview" here, we might think of "With the Lord, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day."

Speaking of comebacks, let's not forget the 1994 Bills down 34 - 3 in the second half. The Bill's star quarterback was out, so was their star running back. Things looked bleak. The fans left early, dejected. The Bills came back and won in overtime. If we're going to talk about football, hope, and the Christian worldview, this seems very close to the crucifixion of Jesus. All looked lost. The messiah was out of the game. The disciples scattered, dejected. But Jesus pulled off the greatest comeback ever. Or let's not forget the 1980 49ers, who overcame a 28 point deficit, trailing 35-7 at one point in the game. I could go on.

And in Christianity, it was over before it started. The enemy cannot mount a comeback. So, even on his own terms . . .

Moving on.

The pace of baseball is far more deliberate and delicate than football, given that there is no time clock. It is thus more conducive to patience and reflection.

ME: In football, there's *extensive* study that goes into a game. The majority of reflection is done during the week, but let's not forget the 15 minutes of reflection at half-time. Serious analysis and adjustments are often made, sometimes resulting in fantastic and amazing comebacks, see above. Also, one must make wise decisions in a short amount of time. Should we run or pass on 3rd? Should we go for a field goal or try to score a touchdown? Should we go for a two-point conversion, or kick the extra point. Often, these decisions can have huge ramifications. There is something to be said for patient decision making, but there's also something to be said for deliberate, immediate decisions. This is similar to the military, where intelligent and highly trained men have to make heavy and right decisions in a short time frame. Yes, there's something to be said for a long game of chess, but there's also something to be said of speed chess too.

6. Both baseball and football require athletic skill for their performance, but I venture to say that an expertly turned double-play, a diving catch in the outfield, or a deftly stolen base (particularly of home) demonstrates more athletic and aesthetic excellence than anything in football. Moreover, nothing in any sport has the dramatic effect of a grand slam home run, especially in a close game.

ME: An expertly turned double reverse finished with a half-back pass to a receiver waiting in the endzone, a diving catch 70 yards downfield, or a running back beautifully juking the defense out of their jocks, running a 98 yard touch down. Moreover, I'll put up Hail Mary's, the immaculate reception, or Jack Dempsey's kicking a 63 yard field goal with 3 seconds left to win the game, etc., up against game winning grand slams, exciting as they are.

7. No one can hog the ball or exclude other players from play in baseball. This is largely because baseball is the only team sport where the defense controls the ball.

ME: This just is to say that football isn't baseball. In baseball, everyone on defense can touch the ball. In football, everyone on defense can touch the ball, but on offense, certain players cannot (unless, there's a fumble). So what? I find the silent, unnoticed, soldiers in the trenches — aka, linemen — to fill and honorable role. But while we're on fairness, what about the salary cap? Any team can win any year in football. Any given Sunday!

8. In baseball, apart from the aberration of the designated hitter (a recent perversion only used in one league), all the players must function on both defense and offense.

ME: Again, this is just to say football isn't baseball. But at youth levels, many players frequently play both sides; and in pro-football, at any moment the offense can become the defense and vice versa. (And let's not forget refrigerator Parry!) So, a quarterback isn't expected to tackle well, but he should be able to do it well-enough to stop a linebacker who has intercepted his pass and is running toward the end zone.

More could be said, but if these reflections are correct, baseball is superior to football as a cultural form.

ME: Weighed and found wanting. But if Groothuis disagrees, we can fight it out :-) This isn't to say I am anti-Baseball. I enjoy it very much. I'm a Padres fan. Some of my favorite all-time players are Mike Schmidt, Don Mattingly, Steve Garvey, Tony Gwynn, Fernando Valenzuela, and Randy Johnson. My favorite World Series was the 2001 D-Backs v. Yankees. I will don a rally cap. I like watching games with a big bag of seeds. I have carried a broom around a ballpark, rooting for a sweep. So I have nothing against baseball.

In any case, maybe we can let George Carlin settle things (HT Peter Pike):

The new Truman Show

I have to say I’m of two minds about this story. On the one hand, I can understand why friends and well-wishers were quick to organize an electronic search party to find Matt Hill. I guess we fear the worst, and therefore mobilize efforts as early as possible. We live in a dangerous world. Some Criminal Minds scenario is never far from our haunted consciousness.

On the other hand, it’s almost like police-state surveillance, where–in effect–there are hidden cameras everywhere you go. A ubiquitous eye-in-sky. One of those Jason Borne scenes in which your every move is monitored, recorded, displayed on giant screens in Times Square. 

What if that’s precisely what he was trying to avoid. Not to be on-call 24/7. To drop out of sight for a few days. Get away from it all. Have some time to himself. Pull the plug on all of the increasingly intrusive devices which constantly track our whereabouts.

From the little I read, he’s single. A grown man. So he should be free to do something on his own, on the spur of the moment. It’s not like he has a wife and kids to come back to every night.

Yet his efforts to have a bit of privacy, peace and quiet, away from the public gaze, from the madding crowd, from the constant din of digital voices, had the opposite effect. In the light speed of the Internet, social media, &c., this suddenly became a national story. Like living in a fishbowl.

Is there no refuge? Are we all actors in The Trueman Show?

Maybe there’s more to the story, but it’s none of our business. 

Why weird people believe Michael Shermer

Michael Shermer has published a new book–his “magnum opus.”

We form our beliefs for a variety of subjective, personal, emotional, and psychological reasons in the context of environments created by family, friends, colleagues, culture, and society at large; after forming our beliefs we then defend, justify, and rationalize them with a host of intellectual reasons, cogent arguments, and rational explanations. Beliefs come first, explanations for beliefs follow.

We can’t help believing. Our brains evolved to connect the dots of our world into meaningful patterns that explain why things happen. These meaningful patterns become beliefs. Once beliefs are formed the brain begins to look for and find confirmatory evidence in support of those beliefs, which adds an emotional boost of further confidence in the beliefs and thereby accelerates the process of reinforcing them, and round and round the process goes in a positive feedback loop of belief confirmation. Dr. Shermer outlines the numerous cognitive tools our brains engage to reinforce our beliefs as truths and to insure that we are always right.

In the end, all of us are trying to make sense of the world, and nature has gifted us with a double-edge sword that cuts for and against. On one edge, our brains are the most complex and sophisticated information processing machines in the universe, capable of understanding not only the universe itself but of understanding the process of understanding. On the other edge, by the very same process of forming beliefs about the universe and ourselves, we are also more capable than any other species of self-deception and illusion, of fooling ourselves while we are trying to avoid being fooled by nature.

http://www.michaelshermer.com/the-believing-brain/

There’s only one nagging problem: If you take his thesis seriously, then you can’t take his thesis seriously. It’s like reading a book on psychology by a psychotic.

What if mother nature fooled Shermer into believing he outfooled mother nature? What if he’s trapped in a self-delusional feedback loop? What if the blind watchmaker evolved his brain to connect nonexistent dots? What if his brain is his own worst enemy? 

Out of a far country

Book here.

HT: Justin Taylor.

Our Intuitions and Mark 8:27-33

In debates with Calvinists, Arminians and Universalists often, though not necessarily always, start with moral intuitions and seemings of human reason to point out the immoral and unreasonable implications of the Calvinist system. Also, they will start with an assumption of what God is like. For example, if God is revealed as loving, this will be glossed in a manner believed to best fit with our intuitions of what a loving God must be like. They also start, often enough, with these intuitions and seemings only then to go looking for Scriptural support for their own position. I'll provide several quotes that I think evince this tendency.

"I knew instinctively that I could never worship a God who is less kind, less merciful, less loving than my own parents, but that is just what I seemed to encounter in the mainstream of Western theology: a God who, though gracious (after a fashion) to some (the elect), refuses to will the good for others (the non-elect). And I could not imagine my parents refusing to will the good for anyone.

[...]

In church I had been taught that the Bible is the final authority on everything, but in my home I was experiencing the true meaning of love. I was the second born in a large family of six children, and in our family it was unthinkable that our parents might favor one of us over another. There were no favorites, period; we were all equal objects of our parents’ love and equally precious to them. So it is perhaps not surprising that I should find myself unable to worship a God who, unlike my parents, was quite prepared to play favorites.”

-- Thomas Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, 8-9

"Faced with what I take to be a strong Calvinist exegetical argument from, say, James White about Romans, alongside a deeply held moral conviction that a God who behaves like a Calvinistic God does would not be good, why am I obligated to follow the exegetical argument instead of the evidence of my moral intuitions? I might change my moral convictions if I think the case is very strong. I might start doubting God's goodness. Or I might conclude that there has to be something wrong with the interpretation. Because of the fallibility of exegetes, however, a general rule that the intuitions must give way seems to me to be unjustified."

-- Victor Reppert

“But instead of concluding, as they should, that a loving God, who understands our limitations better than we do, would never require more of human reason than it can deliver, they draw a very different moral: namely, that we must set aside our critical faculties altogether and blindly accept some proposition that, according to the best judgment we can muster at the time, seems unworthy of human belief or perhaps even morally repugnant. In an effort to get us to accept such a proposition, they may also identify a humble submission to God with an uncritical submission to some tradition or some sacred text that either endorses, or appears to endorse, the proposition in question. But only a false prophet, I want to suggest, would ask us to accept some proposition, however true, despite the fact that it seems to us, for whatever reason, to be unworthy of human belief”

-- Thomas Talbott

“There is, of course, a way in which even a simple peasant could have undermined all of Nivlac's pretensions. Suppose that a peasant woman should have approached him and have said something like this: "Look, Nivlac, I love Morg with all my heart, and I believe that the Book of Morg is indeed his holy Word. And I don't know what to say about your fancy arguments that seem to imply such awful things about Morg. But I do know this. No holy or just or loving Creator like Morg, no Creator of the kind that I worship, could possibly hate this little albino child of mine that I love so much. Indeed, if he loves me, as you say he does, then he must also love my baby. So if you are right about the meaning of these verses – mind you, I'm not saying you are right – but IF you are right, then these verses are just wrong; they are not a true revelation from Morg.

-- Talbott, ibid, a parable about Traditionalists

“The argument opens with an examination of the philosophical problems with traditional Christian teachings on hell. It was here that my own doubts about the tradition began . . .

According to the traditional doctrine, hell is everlasting, conscious torment. What possible crime is a finite human capable of committing that would be justly be punished in this way? Many find the idea absurd, because it is hard to see how even the most hideous crimes humans commit could be balanced by the traditional eternal punishing.

-- Robin Parry, The Evangelical Universalist, 7, 11

“I will call no being good who is not what I mean when I apply that epithet to my fellow creatures, and if such a being can sentence me to hell for not so calling him, then to hell I will go.”

-- John Stuart Mill, Examination of Sir William Hamilton's Philosophy, p. 103

“[B]ut [the Bible’s] teachings can’t so fundamentally grate against our rational or moral deliverances that our belief is rendered simply irrational or immoral . . . If the Bible did indeed teach [unconditional election], wouldn’t it be more rational to believe that it’s not morally reliable?”

-- Jerry Walls, Good God, 76, 78

“This is the blasphemy clearly contained in the horrible decree of predestination! And here I fix my foot. On this I join issue with every assertor of it. You represent God as worse than the devil; more false, more cruel, more unjust. But you say you will prove it by scripture. Hold! What will you prove by Scripture? That God is worse than the devil? It cannot be. Whatever that Scripture proves, it never proved this; whatever its true meaning be. This cannot be its true meaning.”

-- John Wesley, sermon Free Grace

“Now, let's suppose that a thorough study of Scripture reveals to me that Calvinism is in fact true, that is, the being in charge of the universe is indeed a Calvinistic God who has predestined some to eternal life and some to everlasting punishment. The Omnipotent One does exist, and God is a reprobator. At first, as I discover this, I ask myself if I might be mistaken in thinking that this reprobating deity would not be good. However, depressingly for me, my intuitions don't budge. It seems true all right that the Omnipotent One has predestined some to heaven and some to hell, but I find that I can't worship Him. I remain convinced that the creature can say to the creator ‘Why hast thou made me thus.’ Given the fact that I have now agreed that Calvinism has the facts right, how do you now persuade me that this is right. Yes, I am headed for a showdown with the Almighty in which I stick my finger in the Almighty's face and tell him that I won't worship him since I can't see him as good. Prudentially, I ought to change my mind. But if the world were ruled by an Omnipotent Fiend, then these same considerations would still be present.”

--Victor Reppert

“Our moral intuition agrees with this. “There is a powerful moral revulsion against the traditional doctrine of the nature of hell. Everlasting torture is intolerable from a moral point of view because it pictures God acting like a bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for his enemies whom he does not even allow to die. How can one love a God like that?”

-- Clark Pinnock, Four Views on Hell, 149

I suppose that’s a sufficient sampling for our purposes. I’ve been aware of these quotes and argumentative tactics for quite some time, but a problem with the above attitude recently became more vivid to me while reading Mark 8, specifically

27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?”
28 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.”
29 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.”
30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

31 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.
32 He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.
33 But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

Though it will be difficult, I will refrain from making other objections (logical, philosophical, and theological) to the above quotes and simply focus on Mark 8.

I. Notice that what Jesus told Peter sounded both immoral and irrational to him.

First, everyone "just knew" that the Jewish Messiah could not suffer, be rejected, and die. So Peter faced a logical contradiction:

(1) The Christ cannot suffer and die.
(2) Jesus said I (we) was correct to call him the Christ.
(3) Jesus said he would suffer and die.
(4) Either he is not the Christ or he will not suffer and die.

This reasoning was rock solid to Peter. He’s being asked to embrace what he takes to be logically impossible.

Moreover, Jesus’ claim was immoral, for a good, sovereign, loving God would not allow his Christ to suffer and die. It is unthinkable and views God as some kind of moral monster who would allow the Christ to suffer and die. To be rejected and humiliated.

II. Note that the above quotes are apropos here, weighing in on Peter’s side. For example:

(i) If the Messiah were the son of Peter, he would not allow such a thing, and certainly his parents wouldn’t. Peter had grown up in a loving family, and that a father would allow his son to be killed and shamed is unthinkable. Peter could not worship a Messiah that presented a God that was less loving than Peter’s own parents.

(ii) So there had to be something wrong with the interpretation, Jesus needed correcting. No matter that Peter had seen Jesus perform miracles in front of him and teach with authority on several occasions, what he just said was so fundamentally off — both rationally and morally — that he needed to be corrected as to his interpretation of his Messianic role.

(iii) According to the best reasoning at the time, Peter was being asked to set aside these beliefs and embrace the rationally and morally repugnant [indeed, Mark indicates that the disciples would not understand, could not fully understand, until after Jesus died and resurrected again]. The idea was “absurd and hard to swallow.”

(iv) Peter certainly would not do this to the Messiah, and neither would his fellow man. Indeed, if his fellow man did do this to the Messiah, they would not be good, and so Peter could not call any being good who is not what he means when he calls his fellow man good.

(v) So what Jesus said can’t be true because this fundamentally grated against Peter’s rational and moral deliverances. But, IF what Jesus said were true, I say IF, then wouldn’t it be more rational for Peter to believe that Jesus was not the Messiah, or morally reliable?

(vi) Sure, Jesus could argue circles around Peter, but whatever the Old Testament proves, it never proves this.

(vii) His moral intuitions agree, there is a powerful moral revulsion against this teaching.

III. Jesus’ response is interesting. He doesn’t “understand” that Peter is faced with believing the morally and rationally absurd, and gently lead him like a child into knowledge or at least affirm him in his incredulity. Rather, Jesus calls him “satan” [an especially harsh remark, for surely Jesus knew that Peter was faced with both rational and moral absurdities that contradicted his intuitions!]. Jesus next says that Peter is looking at matters according to human intuitions. He has human concerns in mind. Human expectations of what God is like. Human expectations of what God must do if he is to be loving and just. Jesus knew that what seemed impossible for the disciples to believe would become clear to them in the future. They were blind at the time, and they had to walk by faith. What wasn’t an option for Jesus was that they could or should reject him because of what appeared rationally and morally absurd to them presently. However, according to the above quotes, Peter and the disicples had every rational and moral right to rebuke and correct Jesus, and he had no right to call Peter “satan” and dogmatically and authoritatively tell them that they needed to check their intuitions.

IV. I think Mark 8 provides some presuppositional framing to discussions regarding Arminianism and Universalism, and their use and heavy reliance on “moral intuitions” to dismiss Calvinist exegesis from the start.

No doubt, there’s more to say here, and there’s some distinctions that would be helpful to make. That’ll have to wait for another time. At the very least, though, according to the above quotes, it seems Peter was fully justified in rebuking Jesus, and even thinking he was morally and rationally untrustworthy. Peter would have been well within his rights to walk away from Jesus. Moreover, Jesus was unjustified in his harsh response to Peter's incredulity based on solid reasoning and moral intuitions.

God, the Cause of Evil?

sic

“God is the first cause of whatever happens; even a sinful act cannot occur without God as its first cause…” (Roger Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, 122)

et non

From the Arminian perspective, the Calvinist . . . MUST say (althought they do not always say) that the ultimate cause of evil is God. (Roger Olson)

http://rogereolson.com/2010/09/01/god-and-evil/

Father Loftus

Expect the smear campaign to start soon afterward on Amazon, as it happened (and continues to happen) to my other two books. It’s a war over there from deluded believers who think what I’m doing is a much more serious threat to their faith than most others, whether that's true or not (hey, they’re deluded so why should we think they know who best to target?).

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/05/end-of-christianity-will-be-available.html

John Loftus evidently lacks intellectual confidence in the quality of the forthcoming book he edited. Hence, he feels the need to launch a first-strike to preemptively discredit whatever Christians might have to say by way of reply. By the same token, he lacks confidence in the intellectual prowess of his constituency, since he feels the need to forewarn them to ignore whatever Christians might say in response.

Indeed, Loftus operates with the same mob psychology as the cult leader. “My children, we are the illuminati. Give no heed to what outsiders say. By definition, anyone who questions my oracles is sadly deluded. Let that be a warning to doubters in our midst. He who questions me shall be left behind when the Mothership docks.” 

Conflicted atheism

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/may/25/peter-singer-utilitarianism-climate-change

For Singer, apparently, value theory doesn't select for how you should deal with an issue; rather, the issue selects for which value theory you should espouse. Pick you pet issue, then pick whatever value theory supports your pet issue.