Wednesday, January 18, 2012
The Bobcats
What is Paul attempting to establish here? Presumably something like this: if the majority of a particular population is not offended by a representation then there is no offense against that population. Sorry Paul, but that is to confuse subjective perception of offense with the objective reality of an offense.
To illustrate the devastating logic of Rauser’s retort consider this offensive team name: the Charlotte Bobcats.
Whether or not bobcats (lynx rufus) are subjectively offended by humans naming a basketball team after them is irrelevant. What matters is the objective reality of this prejudicial name. For centuries, bobcats have been oppressed by farmers, hunters, and trappers. And to have a sports team stereotype bobcats as feisty predators is pure bigotry, plain and simple. Rank speciesism.
Rauser's radical chic racism
According to Randal Rauser:
Of course it is a stereotype of a certain ethnically Indian warriors that is being invoked. You make all these inane comparisons with things like Steel workers as if the genocidal oppression of first nations people across North America is completely irrelevant.
i) This builds on the false premise that Rauser constantly imputes to sports fans: the assumption that naming sports teams after Indians perpetuates a negative stereotype. But negative from whose perspective? By definition, sports fans admire sports. They name a team after Indians because that carries a positive connotation for sports fans. His imputing to sports fans motives they don’t have.
ii) It may have negative connotations from Rauser’s perspective, given his faux pacifism. He doesn’t approve of violence. Male aggression. But that’s just a reflection of his effeminate ideology.
iii) Why assume that’s a negative stereotype from the viewpoint of American-Indians? Take a film like Dreamkeeper. That’s a film by, for, and about American-Indians. Among other things, it glamorizes Indian warriors.
iv) Rauser, as a paternalistic liberal, prefers to stereotype Indians as victims. He likes Indians as long as they are as weak, passive, and powerless. Demote them to the victim class. Domesticate them. Patronize them. He doesn’t like strong, aggressive Indians.
But, historically, Indians fought each other. “Oppressed” each other.
In the book Ellul argues that Christians have one primary allegiance. It is not to a nation state, not to a political party, and not to a social movement. Instead, it is to being a disciple of Christ who labors to see God’s kingdom of righteousness come in its fullness. This will potentially involve the participation in various nation states, political parties and social movements.
i) To begin with, Rauser routinely singles out the U.S. for criticism. So he’s not even-handed. He seems to suffer from penis-envy about the U.S. hyperpower.
ii) In addition, Rauser doesn’t make Christian identity the primary point of reference. To the contrary, he typically frames the issue in terms of national or ethnic identity.
iii) This, in turn, generates an amusing tension between Rauser’s theologically liberal disbelief in original sin, on the one hand, and his politically liberal belief in corporate guilt, on the other hand.
He blames entire nations, as well as the white man, for real or alleged injustices committed by individuals. In many cases, the “perpetrators” died long before we were born, yet somehow we’re responsible for what they did.
Why should I feel responsible for the past? I didn’t create the past. Like everyone else, I was born into the status quo. I didn’t create the status quo. I’m the effect, not the cause.
iv) Another problem with his argument is that corporate solidarity cuts both ways. If I should really think in terms of white identity, then shouldn’t I side with whatever my white ancestors did to non-whites?
Corporate solidarity doesn’t imply that we should feel guilty for what our ancestors did. Just that we identify with what they did. Does that mean I should sympathize with Custer and the 7th Calvary?
v) This is also complicated by the fact that it wasn’t just white on Indian aggression. Some Indian tribes were traditional enemies of other Indian tribes. As a result, some Indian tribes allied with the white man to defeat other Indian tribes. For instance, Crow and Arikara scouts rode with the 7th Calvary to defeat the Cheyenne and Sioux tribes. So who’s committing genocide against whom?
vi) Why is Rauser so preoccupied with what one dead group of people did to another dead group of people? Why this obsession with the past? The past is over and done with. Why not focus on real-time atrocities in the world today? For instance:
“Philip Jude” and the fullness of corruption
Someone named “Philip Jude” showed up in the comments box of
my Mark
Shea post yesterday, and we had what he called “a mighty discussion”. He first
talked about “Wisdom/Word Christology” being “greatly anticipated in the Old
Testament”; he said “The early Church used the Wisdom/Word Christology of
Scripture to relate to the Platonism of the pagan world. This is clear and
reasonable enough, and I believe it is all Shea was driving at.”
So right away we have someone who seems to know something
that most people don’t know about, and right away we have an attempt to minimize the
disagreeable nature of Mark Shea’s motives. He also questions my motives for
challenging Shea. “Don't you think you're overdoing this a bit much?”
The conversation continued a bit, but I knew I was dealing
with “a professional” when he dropped the little quip, “Could you give me your favorite anticipations of Wisdom/Word
Christology in the Old Testament (outside Proverbs and Psalms)? Just
interested. This is one of my favorite topics. I just finished reading
Skarsaune’s ‘Incarnation: Myth or Fact.’”
Oskar Skarsaune is a Norwegian New
Testament scholar, the author of several works on early
Christianity. I’ve not read him, but I’ve seen his name in Larry Hurtado’s
work, “Lord Jesus Christ”. Hurtado noted that Skarsaune had surveyed “the
Christian use of the Old Testament in the second and third centuries”. His work
has also appeared in the theological journal Themelios,
for example. Skarsaune’s name was dropped in such a casual way that it seemed
to have been an effort to try to impress me or maybe catch me off guard.
The disingenuous nature of “Philip Jude’s” motivations became
fully clear to me, however, when I got home last night, and followed his “electron
trail”. His immediate profile link goes to a blog entitled A Heart of Flesh. There he quotes liberally from Augustine and Aquinas, as well as Charles Spurgeon and Charles Wesley.
At the bottom of some earlier posts is the signature @
Catholic Lane. A click to the link takes you to a reprint of an article by
Philip Primeau. Another click on his name takes you to an Author Archive, and at the bottom is the following attribution: “Philip
Primeau is an associate editor at Catholic Lane. He also blogs at a-heart-of-flesh.blogspot.com.
So there’s our man Philip Jude.
Normally, I don’t go out of my way to find out who anonymous
commenters are. I know folks who prefer to remain anonymous, and I respect their
privacy. But this individual clearly tried to throw me off the trail when he
said “I am particularly fascinated by Logos Christology because it piques the
philosophical (or wannabe
philosophical) dimensions of my intellect.”
He is clearly someone who has studied philosophy. The “wannabe”
comment is an example not only of false humility but of mental
reservation, which was defined in a court document as “a concept developed
and much discussed over the centuries, which permits a churchman knowingly to
convey a misleading impression to another person without being guilty of lying”.
Maybe he did this reflexively, maybe intentionally, but the effect was to try
to persuade me he was some kind of student and no real threat.
But he is a threat. A self-styled “Augustinian” (he also
posted a comment in Steve’s post Judging
God’s Morality), here is the central thrust of his message, which came far
down the comment thread:
I am catholic, by the way.
(Probably obvious by this point.) I certainly hold Scripture in high regard.
Certainly, this is not the case for all of us. Mark Shea seems like a good
enough guy to me, if a little self-righteous.
The Bible might not receive as
much attention among Catholics, but that is because we have a fuller sense of
God's activity among men. The Word did not only become Flesh and Book, but
Eucharist and Sacrament and Church, too.
We trust and love the Bible because
of the Church, which is Christ's body (Colossians 1:24), the communion of
saints (I Corinthians 12), a spiritual house of living stones (I Peter 2:5),
holy Mount Zion (Hebrews 12:22), the "pillar and ground of the truth"
(I Timothy 3:15). Christ did not bother to write down so much as a single word,
but He took the time to establish His church and bequeath it with the power to
represent Him (Matthew 10:40) and judge for Him (John 20:23).
The Bible is not enough. God’s word to man is not enough for
us. We can’t “trust and love the Bible” because it is God’s word spoken to us.
We have to “trust and love the Bible” because of the Roman Catholic Church.
Look at the method
here that he uses. It’s pure bait-and-switch.
I’ve accused Roman Catholics of being dishonest with their approach among
Protestants, and here we have a very clear, living example of that. “Philip
Jude” came here with the unspoken agenda of perhaps “reaching out” and giving
us “Prots” a taste of God’s “fuller” calling – which is something we reject, by
the way. Though Philip can show “Prots” how truly magnanimous he is – doing exactly
what Shea was talking about, “taking the best of whatever we humans come up
with and pressing it into the worship of God” – only Philip Jude is able to
present these wise “Prots”, with a wink and a nod that, even though they were
smart, talented men, they did not possess “the
fullness of the faith”.
Philip Jude is feeding us a line. He is trying to sell
Christians all that they already have, plus, throw in Rome for “fullness”.
In truth, Philip Jude, the church is Christ’s body – but Rome
is no part of that. True saints may boast of union
with Christ. We believe in the communion of saints – but we are united in
Christ, and not through some artificial structure or Roman-imposed hierarchy. The
church indeed is a spiritual house of living stones, built upon the foundation
of the apostles and prophets. The church is Mount Zion. The church preaches the
truth.
In truth, Philip Jude, Christ’s true church has all of those
things, minus the corrupt doctrines of Rome. In no wise did Christ “establish”
or “bequeath” anything in Rome to represent him. But the wolf in sheep’s
clothing would impose himself upon Christ’s sheep. It is the wolf who will,
contrary to Christ’s commands sit
himself down in a place of honor, and then fabricate
elaborate stories to try to persuade the church that he had been invited all
along. Roman Catholicism, in fact, does not offer “the fullness of the
faith”, but “the fullness of corruption”.
I don’t know if Philip Jude will come back and explain these
things here, or interact with some of the challenges we’ve presented him with, or
if he’ll go back to his own blog and write about how unreasonable some converts
might be. I guess we’ll see.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
The death of chivalry
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2087585/Cruise-ship-Costa-Concordia-sinking-Whatever-happened-women-children-first.html
Two quick observations:
i) Chivalry is a Christian tradition. When Christianity dies, chivalry dies.
ii) If you think this life is all you've got, and it's a choice between your life and the next guy's, then it's not surprising that self-preservation trumps self-sacrifice.
Two quick observations:
i) Chivalry is a Christian tradition. When Christianity dies, chivalry dies.
ii) If you think this life is all you've got, and it's a choice between your life and the next guy's, then it's not surprising that self-preservation trumps self-sacrifice.
People for the ethical treatment of bobbleheads
As any freewill theist will tell you, libertarian freedom is a prerequisite of moral responsibility. Or, to turn this around, if you have libertarian freedom, that makes you a moral agent.
This debate is usually confined to human freedom, but the time is long past due to rectify a grave miscarriage of justice to other much-neglected moral agents. Take bobbleheads. As anyone can see, bobbleheads are moral agents. After all, bobbleheads can either bob up or down, right or left. So they enjoy the freedom to do otherwise. Access to alternate possibilities.
Of course, you always have theological fatalists who contrive ingenuous excuses to deny the empirical evidence that bobbleheads are moral agents. Needless to say, any God who’d violate the freewill of bobbleheads is a moral monster. Worse than Satan.
Unfortunately, the callous attitude of theological fatalists has led to the cruel treatment of countless innocent bobbleheads. It’s common to see bobbleheads left alone on the dashboard of a car with no recreational activities to help them pass the time. Common to see bobbleheads locked in a car with the windows rolled up, no air-conditioning, on a hot summer day, while callous humans play volleyball on the beach.
Common to see underdressed bobbleheads (with nothing more than a grass skirt and a lae) left in the driveway overnight on a snowy December day in Michigan, Minnesota, or Buffalo New York.
This is why we at PETB (People for the Ethical Treatment of Bobbleheads) are working in conjunction with the UN Commission on Nonhuman Rights to draft a convention outlining the civil liberties of bobbleheads.
Judging God's morality
If a person claims he doesn’t “judge God’s morality” it can only be because he is a nominalist. To such a person I ask “What makes God worthy of worship?” The answer must be “just because he’s God.” To that I can only respond “Oh, really? Why, then, do Psalm 106 and 118 (among other passages of the Bible) say to worship God because he’s good? It’s obvious to me that the Psalmist was telling his listeners (and us who read his Psalms) that God is worshipful, whereas “the gods” are not, because our God, the true God, is good. And, according to Psalm 106, God is good because “his steadfast love endures forever.”
Was the Psalmist judging God’s morality? Is someone who obeys him by worshiping God BECAUSE he’s good judging God’s morality? It seems ridiculous to say so.
What I get from the Bible is that God is worshipful because he is good. Yes, also because he is all powerful and holy. But it’s a package deal. Take away goodness and he wouldn’t be worshipful. That’s how I understand Psalm 106 and Psalm 118.
The main reason most Christians don’t consider Mormonism a form of Christianity is precisely because its god is not worshipful. By what standard? By the standard given to us by God himself in Scripture.
The standard of goodness I’m using as the criterion is the one given by God himself—loving kindness and steadfast love. That’s the standard I’m using to judge OTHER so-called “gods.” I’m not “judging” my God, the God of the Bible, at all. I’m simply accepting the standard he has revealed for worshipfulness and using it to rule out worshiping other gods (which, of course, don’t exist as real gods because they’re not worshipful).
There are several glaring problems with this argument:
i) The original question at issue was whether Olson would worship the God of Calvinism if he became convinced that Scripture taught Calvinism. His response was to say that, in that event, he’d reject Scripture.
It is therefore incoherent to say he’s applying a biblical standard. For, if push came to shove, he’d reject the biblical standard. As he himself says, it’s a package deal.
ii) Put another way, he’s not using Scripture as an objective standard or criterion of truth. Rather, he’s only applying the Biblical standard for the sake of argument.
iii) He’s also treating Psalmnodic ascriptions of divine “goodness” as a cipher. The psalmist doesn’t say God would be monstrous unless he gave us libertarian freedom. Olson didn’t get that from Ps 106 or Ps 118.
iv) In addition, the psalmist isn’t merely talking about God, or for God, but from God. By inspiration, God reveals himself to and through the psalmist. The psalmist’s words are ultimately God’s words. So of course this isn’t a case of the psalmist holding God to some independent standard of morality. And by that same token, the psalmist isn’t using that to judge whether or not the God of Scripture is the true God.
v) Finally, the problem with the god(s) of Mormonism isn’t so much their unworthiness but their nonexistence.
The jihadi monster
Let's say (arguendo) Ron Paul is correct in arguing we brought 9/11 on ourselves. American policies led to the jihadis attacking us. We created the jihadis.
However, even if we grant we are culpable for the jihadis' grievances, hatred, and violence against us, I don't see how this implies we should not wage war against the jihadis?
The jihadis are intent on global dominion by Islam. They're funded, they're connected, they're resourced, etc. In short, they have the will and means to carry out their goals. As such, they're an imminent threat to us and our way of life.
Dr. Frankenstein created the Frankenstein monster. But the monster is intent on killing others and the monster is quite willing and able to kill others. Does this therefore mean Dr. Frankenstein is unjustified in stopping the monster he created?
However, even if we grant we are culpable for the jihadis' grievances, hatred, and violence against us, I don't see how this implies we should not wage war against the jihadis?
The jihadis are intent on global dominion by Islam. They're funded, they're connected, they're resourced, etc. In short, they have the will and means to carry out their goals. As such, they're an imminent threat to us and our way of life.
Dr. Frankenstein created the Frankenstein monster. But the monster is intent on killing others and the monster is quite willing and able to kill others. Does this therefore mean Dr. Frankenstein is unjustified in stopping the monster he created?
Monday, January 16, 2012
Are miracles too improbable to believe?
Unbelievers typically say miracles are too “improbable” or “extraordinary” to be credible. But other issues aside, is that an accurate definition of a miracle?
For instance, Christian theology teaches the general resurrection of the dead. According to this doctrine, on the day of judgment the dead will be raised to life. Reembodied. Everyone who ever lived and died will be reembodied.
The only exception will be those who are alive when Christ returns. And even they will undergo a change. They will be immortalized. One way or another, everyone (both the living and the dead) will be physically immortalized–some to be rewarded and others to be punished.
Now unbelievers would presumable classify this as a miracle. They certainly don’t view it as a naturally occurring event. Of course, they don’t believe it will happen, but that’s not the point. Right now we’re discussing the concept of miracle.
Here we’re dealing with an event that’s universal or well-nigh universal. It would affect every single human being.
But if so, then in what sense is it “extraordinary” or “improbable”? Something that happens to everyone is not unusual. Not something out of the ordinary. Rather, something that happens to everyone is normal. Can't get more ordinary than that.
For instance, Richard Carrier says "probability measures frequency." On that definition, the general resurrection is maximally probable.
Moreover, even if the general resurrection isn't actually universal, we could recast the issue in hypothetical terms. Philosophy routinely deals with thought-experiments.
For instance, Richard Carrier says "probability measures frequency." On that definition, the general resurrection is maximally probable.
Moreover, even if the general resurrection isn't actually universal, we could recast the issue in hypothetical terms. Philosophy routinely deals with thought-experiments.
Likewise, how can something that happens to everyone be improbable? If it rained 360 days a year, would we say rain is improbable? Wouldn’t the absence of rain be improbable?
One could say the general resurrection isn’t strictly universal if it only applies to the dead, not the living. But on that view, it’s not the resurrected who are exceptional, but those who aren’t resurrected–assuming the sum total of everyone who lived and died outnumbers the generation that’s alive at the time of the Parousia. The living are in the minority compared to the dead.
In that event, those not raised from the dead would be the anomalous cases–assuming those alive at the Parousia represent a fraction of humanity. In that case, it would be "extraordinary," and thus "improbable," not to be raised from the dead.
In that event, those not raised from the dead would be the anomalous cases–assuming those alive at the Parousia represent a fraction of humanity. In that case, it would be "extraordinary," and thus "improbable," not to be raised from the dead.
Mark Shea highlights Roman Catholicism’s low regard for Scripture
Roman Catholicism claims to have a high regard for
Scripture, but the behavior of Roman Catholics betrays their true attitude.
Par for the course, the Roman Catholic writer Mark Shea has spread
some urban legends that denigrate the Scriptures (HT:
James Swan). And because of the nature of Shea’s readership, such myths
spread among other Roman Catholics who take him at his word. But an analysis of
what he says shows the
bankruptcy of what he says.
The Church has always had the habit
of taking the best of whatever we humans come up with and pressing it into the
worship of God. … St. John cribbed the idea of the Logos from Greco-Roman
platonic philosophy to describe Jesus. St. Paul turned gnosticism on its head
by stealing a gnostic code word to describe Jesus as the “fulness” of God.
He is talking about the words ὁ λόγος (the logos or “the Word”) from John 1:1, 14,
and also the concept of πλήρωμα (“fullness”), Col 1:19 and other references.
Neither of Shea’s statements is true. In fact, both of these concepts have deep
roots in the Old Testament, which led the Biblical writers John and Paul to
embrace these concepts.
As an aside, first of all, John did not “crib” anything – and
nor did Paul “steal” anything. As writers of Scriptures, these men “spoke from
God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). But such is
the low Roman Catholic view of the Scriptures.
Even so, while the λόγος concept was present in Greek
culture, John’s usage of it has its roots in the concept of God’s “Word” in the
Old Testament. Carson says:
However the Greek term [“logos”] is
understood, there is a more readily available background than that provided by
Philo or the Greek philosophical schools. Considering how frequently John quotes
or alludes to the Old Testament, that is the place to begin. There, the ‘word’
(Heb. dabar) of God is connected with
God’s powerful activity in creation (cf.
Gn 1:3ff.; Ps. 33:6), revelation (Je. 1:4; Is. 9:8; Ezk. 33:7; Am 3:1, 8) and
deliverance (Ps. 107:20; Is. 55:1). If the Lord is said to speak to the prophet Isaiah (e.g.
Is 7:3), elsewhere we read that ‘the word
of the Lord came to Isaiah’
(Is. 38:4; cf. Je. 1:4; Ezk 1:6). It was by ‘the word of the Lord’ that the heavens were made
(Ps.33:6): in Gn. 1:3, 6, 9 etc. God simply speaks, and his powerful word
creates…. In short, God’s ‘Word” in the Old Testament is his powerful self-expression
in creation, revelation and salvation, and the personification of that ‘Word’
makes it suitable for John to apply it as a title God’s ultimate
self-disclosure, the person of his own Son.
… the ‘Word’ he is talking about is
a person, with God and therefore distinguishable from God, and enjoying a
personal relationship with him. More, the
Word was God. That is the translation demanded by the Greek structure. …
Here then are some of the crucial constituents of a full-blown doctrine of the
Trinity. [By placing this concept at the beginning of the Gospel], ‘John
intends that the whole of his gospel shall be read in the light of this verse’
(Carson, “The Gospel of John,” 115-117).
The concept of “fullness”, too, appears in multiple places,
notably in Col 1: For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through
him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making
peace by the blood of his cross.”
There are two problems with Shea’s comment (that Paul “stole”
a “Gnostic code word”) to indicate the concept of “fulness”:
1. Gnosticism didn’t yet exist at
the time that Paul wrote Colossians. In fact, this particular “hymn” from
within Colossians, Col 1:15-22, is most likely a pre-Pauline confessional
formula that existed and was used by the church in honor of Christ long before
Paul wrote this letter. (Many such hymns exist throughout the New Testament). Gnosticism
was a second- and third-century force, and Paul wrote Colossians around 60 AD.
So this pre-Pauline hymn was from much earlier than that.
2. In fact, the language used in
verse 19, “God in all his fullness” is a reflection of Isaiah 6:1 and 6:4, in
which God himself “fills the temple”. The verse (a part of a pre-Pauline hymn)
in fact is almost a direct pick-up of the temple language from Psalm 67 17-18: “God
was well-pleased to dwell in [the temple in Zion]…The Lord will dwell [there]
forever … in the holy place”. Beale (“A New Testament Biblical Theology”, pg
544) notes, “In particular, here God’s dwelling in the architectural temple on
Zion now finds its fuller expression in God’s dwelling in Jesus as his end-time
temple. Jesus, as an individual, eschatologically instantiates and
typologically fulfills all that the OT temple represented”.
Of course, Shea’s low regard for Scripture is what causes
him to miss the genuine riches and “fullness” that God has prepared for his
people in Christ, in Christ alone for that matter, which he
misses because his happy Roman Catholic world is genuinely littered with Pagan
accretions which he must buy into as “the total deposit of the Faith”.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Rauser's racism hidden in plain sight
Randal Rauser recently did two back-to-back posts which are ironically interrelated. In his post about “Urinating on corpses…” he even dusted off the My Lai Massacre, which took place well before he was born.
Then he did a subsequent post about “Racism hidden in plain sight,” in which he did a predictable rant about sports teams named after American Indians or Indian tribes (e.g. the Cleveland Indians).
What’s ironic is that Rauser is, himself, a racist. A liberal racist. Of course, liberal racists never recognize their own racism.
i) But before we get to that, Rauser exhibits an odd obsession with the U.S. He acts as if he suffers from a Canadian inferiority complex. Envious resentment of that Behemoth next door.
Why can’t he be a proud Canadian? Canada has lots of magnificent natural scenery, some very impressive cities, a fascinating national history, a vibrant film and TV industry–just to mention of few things an outsider like myself is dimly aware of. So why is he so fixated on the U.S.?
ii) Also, like a typecast white liberal, he presumes to take offense at things that supposedly offend racial minorities. He doesn’t consult them first. He doesn’t let them speak for themselves. He adopts a parental attitude toward racial minorities–as if they’re children who can’t express themselves.
iii) Why does he bring up the My Lai massacre, but says nothing about the Killing Fields of the Khmer Rouge, which was vastly bloodier?
Or why not talk about the Armenian genocide? Or the Burundi genocide? Or the Mongol invasion? Or the Nanking massacre? Why not talk about the Iran-Iraq war? Or the Aztecs? Why not talk about how the Syrian regime is gunning down protesters?
Why not talk about Egyptian men gang-raping a CBS war correspondent?
Why not talk about honor-killings in Canada?
Apparently, Rauser thinks that only white folks are morally responsible agents. He treats non-whites like zoo animals who can’t control their impulses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)