How The Personality Of The Enfield Poltergeist Differed From The Personalities Around It

I said a lot about the subject in my 2019 article on the poltergeist voice. I want to expand upon what I wrote there in relation to a certain aspect of the poltergeist's personality.

The poltergeist communicated in a variety of ways (e.g., speaking, knocking, writing), and it communicated through a variety of sources. Most significantly, the poltergeist voice manifested through multiple individuals, not just one, and sometimes was manifested in a disembodied form or through a dog. And some fraud hypotheses would propose that more than one person faked the knocking and writing incidents, for example, which means those hypotheses propose that multiple personalities were behind those phenomena. Even those who believe in the authenticity of one type of phenomenon sometimes reject the authenticity of another (e.g., accepting the knocking while rejecting the voice). So, when there's continuity across multiple types of phenomena and multiple individuals manifesting the phenomena, that continuity can have some significance for a wide variety of views of the case. That's especially true if the continuity involves something that seems to differentiate the poltergeist from the individual(s) thought to have faked the case or thought to have produced the poltergeist through psychic activity.

"Former Psychopath Dr. David Wood Shares His Astounding Transformation Into Christian Apologist"

Just my own summary:

1. David Wood goes into some depth about his testimony or conversion with Eric Metaxas. It starts at approximately 32:30 with Wood meeting another inmate named Randy who was a Christian. Wood saw Randy always sitting in his bunk reading his Bible. Randy wouldn't do anything the other inmates were doing.

2. One day Wood told Randy he was only reading the Bible because Randy was born in the US. If Randy had been born in China, then he'd be Buddhist. If India, Hindu. If Saudi Arabia, Muslim. Wood also told Randy "people like you believe whatever you're told to believe". Wood had the same idea of Christianity that he had of objective morality - that it's just a false belief that people are told by others, which they accept, because they don't know how to think for themselves. I guess Wood's idea is that Randy is a sheep. Like everyone else. Except for Wood himself.

3. However, Randy was the first Christian to put up a fight against Wood and argue back against Wood. Randy challenged Wood. The most "annoying" thing for Wood was that Randy would constantly question everything Wood himself believed: "Where did you get your idea then?" And Wood couldn't respond to Randy. Other than with silence.

Don't catch you slippin' now

Coram Deo asked a good question about why people riot. In general, I presume there are many different reasons. I offered a brief response in the post, but I'm sure it could be expanded and improved.

However, in the case of George Floyd, much of it is due to perceived racism. The kind of thing epitomized in Childish Gambino's "This Is America". George Floyd is coming on the heels of Ahmaud Audrey and Breanna Taylor too.

Yet, perception isn't necessarily reality. Is it only black folks and other minorities targeted by the police? Consider the tragic case of Daniel Shaver only a few years ago. The officer who killed Shaver was found not guilty.

Anyway, there's a lot of pent-up frustration against authorities in general, especially the police, police brutality, the blue wall of silence. A lot of it justified, in my view. There are a lot of corrupt cops. Cops who don't serve and protect. Of course, I'm not suggesting riots are the answer. Not at all. I don't defend the riots.

That said, I want to come to my main point: I think the left is fomenting a lot of the riots. Leftist agitators. Take arguments like this which attempt to justify violent protests. Likewise take how some argue "black rage" is a "spiritual virtue". Take the house that Obama built (e.g. Obama arguably inciting blacks against authorities). Take the fact that "Biden's staff is donating to a group that funds the release of rioters" (source).

It's as if leftists are using Floyd's death as a pretext to push their agenda. It's as if leftists want a second civil war. A revolution.

If so, I suppose that'd be in line with what socialists and communists have always wanted. To build a new world atop the ash heaps of the old world, the world of their fathers. They don't honor their parents, but wish to commit patricide and matricide. They're not their grandfathers' sons, but their grandfathers' slayers. Destroy Amerikkka, arise Utopia.

I don't think the US today can be defeated by external forces (e.g. China), but I think we could defeat ourselves by tearing ourselves apart. Many on the left are like a fifth column in the US.

Update. Andy Ngo, who himself was a victim of Antifa, makes good observations which overlap with mine.

The violence tonight is not about George Floyd.Growing numbers of young Americans have been taught to think of US as an evil empire—a white-supremacist, patriarchal hellscape.The part about the US being the best hope for humankind—a deeply flawed but noble democracy—not taught.

— Christina Sommers (@CHSommers) June 1, 2020

Caught on camera

Regarding the George Floyd controversy, I'm baffled by the mind-numbing stupidity of the police in this situation. Between dashcams, body cams, and the ubiquity of private citizens toting portable electronic cameras, the public activities of the police are under almost constant surveillance, so how can they lack the presence of mind to anticipate the fallout if something like this is caught on camera? It's not just a case of failing to take Floyd's interests into consideration, for his own sake. The real puzzle is why the officer failed to take Floyd's interests into consideration for the officer's sake. The officer was acting in a way detrimental to the officer's self-interest if this became another viral video of cops behaving badly. Morality aside, why do we have cops who can't see how they are acting contrary to their own best interests? How can they be so short-sighted?

To some degree this is encouraged by grand juries that give police a slap on the wrist. But it seems to run deeper than that.

One of the oddities of human nature is the capacity for highly compartmentalized identities. Humans are into role-playing. When we wear a uniform, it's easy to become detached from our natural identity and adopt the persona of the uniform. I'm no longer me but the man in the uniform. I'm not responsible for my actions: the man in the uniform is. Likewise tribesmen who wear face paint to camouflage their natural identity and project a different persona. They are blameless. It's the man in the face paint who did it. Or the man in the badge. They don't seem to see themselves doing it. Then they're blinded-sided by the reaction of outsiders.

The Silver Chair

This may have been my least favorite of the Narnia stories, but Dr. Masson provides a lot of useful background and analysis which shows the unsuspected depth of the storytelling, including the lunar symbolism and Odyssean motifs:

How to destroy a child's mind

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2019/10/24/video-surfaces-trans-child-texas-custody-battle-telling-father-mother-tells-hes-girl/

"Scientific studies" on spanking

I'm going to quote some representative excerpts of "scientific study" on spanking and corporal punishment:

However, this perspective began to change as studies found links between “normative” physical punishment and child aggression, delinquency and spousal assault in later life...Physical punishment is associated with a range of mental health problems in children, youth and adults, including depression, unhappiness, anxiety, feelings of hopelessness, use of drugs and alcohol, and general psychological maladjustment.26–29 These relationships may be mediated by disruptions in parent–child attachment resulting from pain inflicted by a caregiver...

75% of substantiated physical abuse of children occurred during episodes of physical punishment. This finding was replicated in the second cycle of the study (CIS 2003).40 Another large Canadian study41 found that children who were spanked by their parents were seven times more likely to be severely assaulted by their parents (e.g., punched or kicked) than children who were not spanked. In an American study,42 infants in their first year of life who had been spanked by their parents in the previous month were 2.3 times more likely to suffer an injury requiring medical attention than infants who had not been spanked. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3447048/

1. There's been a highly successful movement by secular progressives (cheered on by "progressive Christians") to use the totalitarian power of the state to deny parental authority and Christian ethics, even in the private sphere of the family.  

2. I don't concede the premise that you need a scientific study to be justified in many of your common sense beliefs. 

3. I'm of two minds about scientific studies. On the one hand, there's a need for scientific studies on many topics. On the other hand, many scientific studies are unreliable. Many influential studies, which became the received wisdom in academia and certain professions, studies which became the basis for law or public policy, have been debunked over the years. Consider the replication crisis in the social and life sciences. So just quoting a study or studies has no particular cachet with me. It's an unfortunate dilemma. We need studies, but which studies can be trusted, given their checkered track-record? It's not possible to endorse scientific studies in general. 

4. In addition, some studies are like the professional expert witness hired by defense attorneys. You can hire someone with impressive credentials to defend both sides of any position. 

5. A basic flaw in the study is the equivocal use of "physical punishment". Needless to say, that ranges along a very wide continuum. You can't lump all forms of physical punishment, then tar a light spanking with the same consequences. There are degrees of physical punishment, from slight to severe. It's willfully methodologically irresponsible not to draw necessary distinctions. 

Take the difference between swatting a child on the backside with your hand 1-3 times and whipping him on the backside with a belt or ruler. Those just aren't comparable. 

6. Likewise, I doubt pain is the primary factor in the efficacy of spanking. Breaking your arm when you fall from a tree or scraping your knees when you fall off your bike is far more painful then getting swatted on the backside by hand. Do scientific studies which hype the psychological harm of spanking say the same thing about painful childhood accidents? 

I suspect the impact of spanking is primarily psychological rather than physical. Because young children are so emotionally dependent on their parents, to be physically rebuffed by a parent is (temporarily) traumatic. It's easy to reduce a child to tears. 

7. Apropos (6), in biblical anthropology, mothers and fathers play different roles. They have overlapping roles, but there are differences as well as commonalities. In a qualified sense, it's not bad for kids to be afraid of their fathers. I don't mean they should live in a state of fear. But it's good for them to fear the paternal reaction if they cross certain lines. To take a comparison, although a lion protects his cubs, cubs must be more respectful to the lion than the lioness. You don't mess with the lion! 

8. The studies need to be far more selective. For instance, what's the long-term impact of spanking an extroverted, strong-willed boy? Children vary in temperament. Likewise, there are stereotypical psychological differences between boys and girls. What's effective discipline for one child may be ineffective for another.   

9. Do the studies screen out other variables for delinquency, depression, self-harm, domestic abuse, substance abuse, incarceration, and suicide? What about kids from high-crime areas? Kids from broken homes? Fatherless boys (due to divorce and maternal custody)? Kids with stepdads? Kids where mom has a live-in boyfriend, or string of boyfriends? 

10. How do rates of delinquency, depression, self-harm, domestic abuse, substance abuse, incarceration, and suicide for kids who experience moderate spanking compare with their counterparts in secularized nations where spanking is illegal? What's the comparative data? 

11. Do psychologists and sociologists who deplore spanking think a propensity for violence is innate–or the result of social conditioning? Do they think a violence-free society is possible with different socialization?

12. What's their model of a socially well-adjusted or maladjusted male? Consider the faddish misdiagnosis/overmedication for attention deficit syndrome for rambunctious boys. Do they think an aggressive streak is "toxic masculinity"? 

Suppose an aggressive streak or potential for violence is a necessary trait in males who take the initiative. What if the nature of boys to be adventurous, inventive, competitive, and take a risk is inseparable from an aggressive streak or potential for violence?  

13. Is there any correlation between declining crime rates and declining levels of testosterone? Is there any correlation between declining crime rates and a graying population? During the baby boom, young males were a larger percentage of the population. 

God doesn't exist–and I'm mad at him!

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/01/anger-at-god-common-even-among-atheists/

Is preaching an exercise of authority?

i) One complementarian or patriarchal argument I sometimes run across is that women shouldn't preach in church because preaching is an exercise of authority, in which case female preachers are exercising authority over men. But that's a very strained argument. In what respect am I putting myself under the authority of the preacher by my physical presence and merely hearing the sermon? I've heard thousands of sermons. When I sit in church and hear the sermon, sometimes I agree, sometimes disagree, sometimes agree in part and disagree in part. In what respect did I put myself under the authority of the preacher? How is he exercising authority over me? 

ii) One problem is the definition of authority. It reapplies to prooftexts (e.g. 1 Tim 2:12) a diluted concept of authority which is not, insofar as I can tell, how the concept was understood in the ancient world–where the concept of authority was more coercive. Take the authority of kings, slave masters, commanding officers. Or the authority of a Roman father over his family. The power to impose your will on someone else. 

ii) Suppose we define authority as obligating belief and/or action. But surely the mere act of preaching doesn't obligate belief and/or action. The preaching of John Spong, Benny Hinn, Jeremiah Wright, or Pope Francis isn't authoritative. 

iii) We could say a sermon is authoritative insofar as it is true. But that wouldn't single out male preachers.

iv) Here's a more principled argument:

There are natural stereotypical physical and psychological differences between men and women. These are normative differences because they exist by divine design. As Jordan Peterson puts it, "Men are less agreeable (more competitive, harsher, tough-minded, skeptical, unsympathetic, critically-minded, independent, stubborn)"

As a result, women are less naturally suited to be doctrinal guardians. They are generally less interested in doctrinal disputes. Less likely to get into theological fights. Less likely to enforce standards of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. 

That's why God reserved eldership for men. It's hard enough to find faithful men who hold the line, and much harder to find women who do that. Women make an indispensable contribution to the life of the church, but when feminine values dominate the direction of the church, there's a loss of fidelity to orthodoxy and orthopraxy. There are exceptions, but a general policy shouldn't be based on exceptional situations or individuals–although it can make allowance for exceptional situations and individuals. The argument could be fleshed out, but it lays a deeper foundation than ad hoc arguments about preaching as a male domain because preaching is allegedly an exercise of authority.

Aphantasia

A friend drew my attention to this:

https://www.livescience.com/61183-what-is-aphantasia.html

Has a percentage of the population always suffered from this deficit? I wonder if the younger generation's exposure to so much artificial sensory stimulation prevents the brain or mind/brain interface from developing the capacity to form mental images without an external stimulus, or retain imagery without continuous reinforcement. 

I recall reading something about Gordon Clark which indicates that he may have suffered from aphantasia. If so, that might be one reason he preferred abstractions and propositions to sense knowledge. He didn't have a normal experience of mental imagery. 

Do men talk about their feelings?

Women complain that men don't talk about their feelings. At least that's a cliche I've heard for as long as I can remember. However, in my admittedly anecdotal experience, many men do talk about their feelings. The reason more women aren't aware of that is because men generally share their feelings with other men! They confide in male friends.

Assuming that men are less likely to express their feelings with women, why is that? Again, I'm no expert, but women have a reputation for dredging up the past when they argue with their husband or boyfriend. I can't say how representative that is, but it's not based on nothing.

A man would be foolish to open up to a woman if he knows she's going to use that against him to win an argument. So I suspect that may be a major reason why men are more likely to open up around other men than with their wife or girlfriend. Just a hunch. 

In addition, there's a certain paradox in male friendship. On the one hand, men are naturally competitive with other men, so you might think they'd be reticent about letting down their guard and showing any sign of weakness. On the other hand, since men are psychologically alike, there's no particular shame in sharing emotions and experiences that are common to men. Moreover, I think men are more inclined to put things behind them rather than having a mental record of every word, deed, misdeed, or perceived failure on instant replay. 

These are, of course, broad generalizations with many exceptions. But if a wife or girlfriend wants a guy to let her on how he's feeling, she can't simultaneously turn that against him to win an argument. That's a betrayal of trust. It will be rewarded with resentment, and drive guys to confide in other guys. 

BTW, my enecounters with women over the years has generally been quite positive, so I'm not speaking from bitter personal experience. I'm not unloading or venting. Rather, I'm speaking on behalf of other guys whose experience is less agreeable than mine. 

The world of the soul

The relationship between body and soul is of great personal and practical importance in Christian theology. I've discussed this before, but now I'd like to approach it from a different angle. 

In part, that's related to the perennial nature/nurture debate. Humans have some hardwired psychological traits. Likewise, there are hardwired masculine and feminine traits. Finally, even as young children, individual humans have distinctive character traits. That' the nature side.

On the nurture side, social conditioning has great impact on our psychological formation. And while that's acquired, it becomes deeply engrained. Second nature. As embodied agents, our physical experience creates formative memories that we retain after we leave the body behind. 

There is, though, something about the relationship between psychology and physical experience that doesn't seem to be reducible to a physical explanation. Take the effect of a beautiful woman on a male viewer. Or consider the mood-altering power of music.

If you think about it, that's rather mysterious, because it's so indirect. It's not like drinking alcohol or popping psychedelic drugs, where you infuse your brain with foreign chemicals which alter brain chemistry. So how does merely hearing or seeing something have a similar effect? 

When a boy hits adolescence, he views women differently–especially pretty girls. Is that just due to hormones? Perhaps. When I die and leave my body behind, will images of women lose their appeal for me? 

What about music? As a young boy I enjoyed boy choirs. When I hit adolescence, I discovered a newfound appreciation for opera divas. Although androgens had a role, does this mean that when I die, I will cease to find the voice of opera divas like Caballé, Sutherland, Crespin, Milanov, Ponselle, Verrett, and Leontyne Price alluring?  Even if that has a physical point of origin, does the experience change the soul? 

But suppose this is backwards. Are hormones and brain chemistry productive or receptive? Is it like opening a window?

To take a comparison, different species have different sensory aptitudes. Some species can sense things other species can't detect. Yet their senses don't create the stimuli. 

Does the maturing brain generate these feelings? Or does it, like sensory enhancement, create new openings that enable the soul to become self-aware of mental states native to the soul, but impeded by physical barriers?

Broken Pieces and the God Who Mends Them: Schizophrenia Through a Mother's Eyes

Simonetta Carr is a mother and homeschool educator. She has worked as a freelance journalist and as a translator, and is the author of the Christian Biographies for Young Readers series. She was kind enough to answer a few of our questions about her newest book.

Q. Most of your books are about notable Christians and written for children, or for families to read together. In what ways did the process of writing a deeply personal book like Broken Pieces differ from those books?

A. There is no comparison. For the other books, I do a lot of research and then process the information, choosing the main points to share with young readers and finding the best way to communicate them. It's pretty straightforward.

Broken Pieces is completely different. As you said, it's a deeply personal book. I wrote the first part (memoir) fairly quickly, soon after my son's death, perusing all the diaries and emails I could find. It was OK to do it then. I don't think I could do it now.

The second part of the book (thoughts and advice) is an attempt to offer my feeble recommendations to readers who might find themselves in a similar or somehow related situation. This is the product of much research, through books and articles as well as interviews to psychiatrists, psychologists, pastors, mothers, and people who live with schizophrenia. I collected many answers and some new questions. This part was equally personal, not only because I compared this research with my experience, but because I found myself in a situation where I had to test my findings in a practical way.

Q. Is the church body (church members) doing a good job of ministering to those with mental illness and their families? How can we improve?

A. Sadly, it seems that we still have a long way to go in this respect. I would say society in general has a long way to go, and the church is no exception. The best way to improve is through education. We are all busy, so naturally we tend to read only subjects that touch us personally, but mental illness is more common than most people realize and could be as close as the person sitting next to us in the pew. Or even closer. Schizophrenia, for example, tends to appear suddenly where we least expect it. The common saying, "If you don't catechize your children, the world will" may be applied in this case too. If we don't educate ourselves and our children to understand mental illness and a proper Christian response to it, we will simply follow the shallow (and often damaging) comments we read in the news every time a crime is linked to mental illness.

Besides education, or while we are getting it, let's just look at our brothers and sisters as people bearing the image of God and offer our genuine friendship, fighting any feeling that makes us uncomfortable with something we don't fully understand. In my book, I make frequent mentions of John Newton's empathy, respect, and care towards his friend William Cowper. I also include a chapter on advocacy, which includes creating a loving and safe environment within the church.

Q. What are some tangible ways pastors and church leaders specifically can help families in their church who are affected by schizophrenia and mental illness?

A. I am not in the position of advising pastors. I would just repeat what I said about church members in general. Education is especially important, because people respect their pastor's opinions. Sadly, there are still pastors who discourage people from taking needed medications and blame all mental illness on a person's spiritual condition. I can't speak for other types of illness, but I know that schizophrenia can rarely be managed without medications. I have seen my son - an exceptionally intelligent young man - struggling to discern reality within a vortex of voices and perceptions. Nothing helped, until the medications decreased the voices to a level where they could be recognized and managed.

Education is also important in knowing how to avoid words that may generate stigma or trigger paranoid feelings. It's true that in some cases our society is becoming overly sensitive, but this is an area where caution is necessary.

My book include suggestions from pastors who had experience in this field.

Q. Are there three or four other resources on schizophrenia and/or mental illness that you recommend for readers who are eager to learn more.

A. I have a section at the end of my book with a variety of recommended resources. If you want to understand schizophrenia in general, the best book in my opinion is The Center Cannot Hold: My Journey through Madness, by Elyn R. Saks. Troubled Minds: Mental Illness and the Church's Mission by Amy Simpson is more exhaustive than mine on the church's response to mental illness. There is also a fairly new book by Michael R., Emlet, Descriptions and Prescriptions: A Biblical Perspective on Psychiatric Diagnoses and Medications, that can be of great help to pastors.

As for websites, the go-to place is usually the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI). They have a lot of information. On the Christian front, CRCNA's Disability Concerns provides many good resources.

Q. Last question: what are the books that have shaped you the most in your walk with Christ, and why?

A. Definitely a tough question. I read a lot and there are many books that have shaped my Christian life. Outside of the Bible, if you are looking for a monumental impact, I would say John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. When I first read it, I was a typical pragmatic Christian, the type that says, "Now that I know I am saved, just tell me what to do about my kids, my marriage, my devotions, etc." I read the Institutes out of curiosity and it jolted me into a completely different mindset, getting my eyes off my navel and onto the glory, majesty, and love of our Triune God.

Many books have shaped my life in a less drastic, but equally profound way. Right now I am slow-reading Ralph Erskine's Gospel Sonnets or Spiritual Songs, and it's a feast for my heart, pointing me to the love of Christ in ways that few authors can do. And that's really the only way to go through this pilgrim life with its obstacles, uncertainties, and sorrows, by "looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith," (Heb 12:1) or, to use Erskine's words, by making the object of our "chase the God of glory in the field of grace."

Intrusive thoughts

I was asked about Christians who suffer from intrusive blasphemous thoughts. There are different possible explanations:

i) A naturalistic possibility is that that their brain is doing funny things, and they need psychotropic medication to stabilize it. That's not a cure, but it can sometimes provide necessary relief. 

I have a relative whose parents thought it was a swell idea to send her to a missionary training school in Canada when she was an adolescent girl. She developed mental illness as a result of the isolation, and remains on medications to this day. 

I have another friend who suffered from night terrors and old-hag syndrome until he was diagnosed with sleep apnea, and underwent some sort of treatment, which greatly diminished the symptoms (as I recall).

ii) There's also the question of whether the individual is under too much stress at work, home, or school. 

iii) As to where such thoughts come from, most American men have consumed lots of unsavory stuff (myself included). Although we may keep that quarantined in the subconscious, it's still there. 

Martyn Lloyd-Jones talks about an elderly man who was very devout, but after he developed dementia, a different side surfaced–the side he self-censured when he was in his right mind.

iv) As for supernatural explanations, if evil spirits have access to human minds, then they might be able to plant blasphemous thoughts in human minds. Demoniacs could discern the true identity of Jesus, which suggests telepathy. Here's another example suggesting that demons can read minds:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/11/jesus-and-psychiatrists.html

v) As our country becomes more anti-Christian, there's probably a resurgence of paganism, so that may be in the air (so to speak). The experience might be like missionaries who go to countries steeped in witchcraft, and find themselves under psychological attack from unseen forces.

vi) Another possibility is that someone hexed the Christian who now suffers from intrusive blasphemous thoughts. 

vii) Just in general, I think human psychology is different at night, in the dark. We're more vulnerable to fear and doubt. That can have a naturalistic explanation, but it can also be opening for malign supernatural agents.

viii) I wouldn't worry about the unforgivable sin. Intrusive thoughts are involuntary. That's hardly comparable to the Gospel accounts.  

Cartesian demons and evolutionary psychology

Responding to some questions I was asked. 

Broadly, I’m a presuppositionalist (though I make adjustments, as does everyone). 

That's intelligent. Good to be discriminating. 

Often I have read modern proponents like Anderson and Oliphint defend the essentially Christian nature of God that must be in place for knowledge to even be possible against other theisms like Islam by pointing to problems in those worldviews. For example, in Islamic sources Allah is capricious. 

That's ambiguous. In presuppositionalism, knowledge is possible without belief in God, but the justification of knowledge is impossible without the Christian God. My questioner may intend that, but was speaking laconically. 

1) Can a skeptic assert that the Christian is in no better epistemic place than a Muslim as in the Bible God allows people to be deceived (indeed sends deceiving spirits) and, in the case of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel, robs a man of his reasoning? Can the skeptic take this further and argue the Christian is no better place than he is because just as we assert he can’t trust his reasoning faculties because they were formed by random, unthinking processes, we can’t trust our because it’s always possible we’re deceived?

i) The thought-experiment is incoherent. The appeal to biblical passages about divine deception presumes that Scripture is true and we know what it means (at least the passages under consideration). If, however, God deceives the reader, then that nullifies the appeal to biblical passages about divine deception, which the thought-experiment requires. If God deceives the reader, then he can't trust what the text appears to say about divine deception. So the argument never gets started. It can't be delusion all the way down. 

ii) Biblical passages about divine deception refer to a subset of wicked human beings rather than human beings generally. They don't refer to the epistemic situation of Christians. 

iii) The comparison is disanalogous. The allegation is not the abstract possibility that reasoning faculties formed by random thinking processes may render reason untrustworthy. Rather, that's taken to be an implication of naturalistic evolution. An actual defeater rather than a hypothetical defeater. 

2) What if someone decided that all they need is a God who is trustworthy, but not necessarily the Biblical God. I would say those attributes can’t be separated from the Biblical God, but what if they countered that perhaps Christianity is the best we have right now, but we might have a better candidate in the future?

Is a God trustworthy who hasn't revealed himself in any recognizable religion, who hides in the shadows while false religions proliferate with no corrective? 

Christian manhood

I'm going to make some comments on some material by Paul Maxwell. I only ran across him recently. He used to be a contributor to Desiring God and TGC. 

He frequently says things I agree with. However, he seem to be a self-help guru, so there's a self-promotional aspect what he says. That can be a danger if you say things to sell books and do workshops. Finding a market niche. Cashing in on the Jordan Peterson phenomenon. 

Another problem is when a thirty-something starts giving advice on how to get through life. Although that's old enough to have some life-experience under your belt, there are other pitfalls and turning-points in the lifecycle you haven't experienced. When guys who are middled aged or senior citizens listen to young guys proffer sage counsel on the journey ahead, that lacks a certain…cachet. In fairness, the same could be said for young pastors. 

There's also the impression that his philosophy of life is still a work in progress. That what he confidently says today may not be what he confidently said 10 years ago or what he will confidently say 10 years from now. A certain amount of shakedown time is often advisable. Don't give directions until you can see ahead. 

By the same token, exegesis is often primarily an intellectual skill. A younger pastor can preach through Romans or Revelation. But other books of the Bible are more existential, and it's better to wait until you're more emotionally seasoned before you preach through Job, Ecclesiastes, Jeremiah, Lamentations, or the Psalter. 

Battle of the sexes

This article supplies useful background info for my post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1990/06/24/sex-lies-and-conversation/01cb17ba-1af7-4bf4-8a02-3d1b6c11648f/?utm_term=.9565c103a700

In social relations, it's natural for an individual to use himself or herself as the frame of reference. The default setting is to relate to another person as if that person were me. How would I respond if I was them? Not putting myself in their shoes but putting them in my shoes.

Normally, men and women are psychologically different (although there's lots of overlap). As a result, it's natural for women to relate to men as if they were women, and vice versa. It's natural for a man to use male psychology as the frame of reference when relating to women. By the same token, it's natural for women to use female psychology when relating to men. 

But because men and women normally have a different psychological makeup, that fosters false expectations, misunderstanding, and frustration. Because members of the same sex tend to think alike, they don't have to adapt to each other to the same degree when relating to members of the opposite sex. Marriage requires a degree of mutual adjustment that isn't required for two or more male roommates.

This is why it's good for husbands to maintain some male friendships outside of marriage, as well as for wives to maintain some female friendships outside of marriage. Your spouse can't fill that role. 

Relating to members of the opposite sex is a skill that has to be learned in a way that's not the case when relating to members of the same sex. In marriage, that requires a willingness on both sides to respect and cherish the psychological differences between men and women, discover the differences, and accommodate when necessary. Strike a balance, but don't require men to be like women or vice versa. That's important in marriage, parenting, and education. 

Feminism doesn't think women should ever have to take male character traits into consideration. That's toxic masculinity. All the change must come from the male side of the ledger. That attitude probably has a mirror image in the reactionary world of the Manosphere. 

To some extent we seem to be evolving into a society of lifelong bachelors and spinsters where women live alone in the company of dogs and cats and cellphones while men live alone in the company of sexbots and computer games. That's what happens when biblical values are abandoned. 

Does God only heal certain types of disorders?

Atheists object that only certain kinds of healing miracles are reported. 

i) In my experience, atheists are rarely conversant with the best literature documenting miracles, so most of them are too uninformed to generalize about the types of healing miracles. 

ii) In addition, case-studies barely scratch the surface. Miracles are vastly underreported. The sample is infinitesimal. 

iii) However, for discussion purposes, let's stipulate that God rarely if ever performs certain kinds of miracles. Is there an explanation for that? Let's consider two related hypothetical examples. 

From what I've read, language acquisition is crucial to cognitive development and social formation. And there's a narrow window of opportunity for that to occur. If a child fails to acquire a language by a certain age, he will suffer severe cognitive impairment. 

And I've read that prior to the development of sign language, people born deaf were liable to cognitive impairment for that very reason. They had a normal brain. But without a linguistic stimulus, their cognitive development was stunted. That's an irreversible and unrepeatable phase in developmental psychology. If you miss out, it can't be fixed.

Suppose God healed a teenager born deaf. A teenager from the 17C. Assuming that his lack of language acquisition left him mentally impaired, restoring his hearing wouldn't restore his mind. 

To take another example, from what I've read, the brain of autistic kids fails to develop certain neural pathways. Suppose God heals the brain of a 17-year-old-autistic. Even though he now has the brain of a normal 17-year-old boy, does that mean he now has the personality of a normal 17-year-old boy? Or did his defective brain fail to process information correctly, so that he's psychologically stunted? Did he miss key steps in his cognitive development?  

If so, do we know what kind of person would pop out at the end of the miraculous healing? If he didn't develop the proper socialization, might he have a personality disorder? Might he turn out to be a psychopath or sociopath? Just restoring his brain doesn't automatically compensate for other deficits. And at that stage, the defective brain might suppress sociopathic behavior. Did the deficient brain structures that filtered out crucial information processing now filter out socially dangerous impulses? If you suddenly remove the screen, what emerges? 

I'm not stating this for a fact. I don't claim to be an expert. My immediate point is that these are considerations which critics of miraculous healing overlook. Physical restoration doesn't entail psychological restoration. Psychological restoration may await heaven. 

So old it's new again

https://mereorthodoxy.com/jordan-petersons-folk-wisdom/

Three lessons from the Jordan Peterson vs. Cathy Newman debate