Outreach Report: Reason Rally 2012

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . ."

INTRODUCTION:  That's right folks, you're seeing the photo above correctly and no, its not Photoshopped; it really is an atheist wearing a "Jesus riding a T-rex" suit.  That's about as sophisticated (but not as blasphemous) as the inaugural 2012 "Reason Rally" was.  Here's what the Reason Rally website said about how things were going to go down:

Are we just going to use this opportunity to trash religion?
No. This will be a positive experience, focusing on all non-theists have achieved in the past several years (and beyond) and motivating those in attendance to become more active. While speakers have the right to say what they wish, the event is indeed a celebration of secular values.

This in fact was an opportunity to trash religion in general and Christianity specifically.  Yes, there was the occasional insult directed towards Islam, but for the most part, this was a highly organized rant against the God of the Bible. 

The turnout was pretty good, but not as good as I expected.

Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake?  That doesn't sound very reasonable to me!

Given the fact that most of the atheistic "pastors" and "worship leaders" had such a filthy mouth that I either had to immediately cover my 8 year old daughter's ears or they used so much blasphemy that it would make a sailor blush, I can tell you that this was indeed a flamboyant "trashing" of religion.  But again, that's about as intellectually sophisticated as it got.

ASSESSMENT

Here's a great example of the kind of nonsense I encountered this weekend (and no, I'm not interested in discussing controversies related to Kent Hovind, tax-protesting, or the like; this video serves only as one example of the type of irrationality I regularly encountered when interacting with its participants):




While that type of irrationality was plenteous, we had a great time of outreach:

Sye TenBruggencate of Sinner Ministries.

After being on the streets surrounding the Rally for one-on-one evangelism, tract distribution, and open-air preaching, we then went into the outskirts of the Rally itself and intermingled among the crowd of atheists that the street preachers gathered in order to attempt to have rational dialogue and discussion:

Some of the preachers holding signs were decent apologists whereas others were unprepared to interact intelligently with the unbelievers surrounding them.

Me interacting with a small group at first.

Thankfully, the guys with the big signs drew huge crowds of atheists around them and all you had to do to get your own crowd was to ask some of those on the outskirts of the already existing crowds, "Are you an atheist?" and when they said "Yes" then I asked "Why?"  This was a great way to profitably start a conversation with these folks, though not many of the conversations were profitable thereafter because atheists don't know the weaknesses in their own worldviews very well.

Some of the sign-holders agitated the atheists at times, but it made for a great way to start conversations.

Like many Christians, most young atheists only read the pop-level New Atheists and don't attempt to read and seriously grapple with the many robust criticisms of their own views nor are many of them even aware that there are serious, weighty philosophical criticisms of their views.  Many of them seemed to expect that most Christians are like those associated with the "Westboro Baptist Church" instead of having the ability to offer serious theological, philosophical, scientific, and historical arguments against their views.  Several of the atheists I interacted with said that we were like a breath of fresh air to them simply because we knew what we believed and could defend it adequately.  These types of atheists seemed to really enjoy conversations with us, even after we explicitly told them that they needed to repent. 

Me explaining to an atheist that he is taking Scripture out of context to justify his position.  This drew a huge crowd of people who were able to hear the gospel. 

Many listening to me reason with the unreasonable.

It was heartbreaking to see someone so Hell-bent against God that they had tattooed "unsaved" on their arm. 

I found that trying to video tape any of the interactions resulted in the unbeliever trying to "perform" for the video camera rather than actually grappling with the arguments I was presenting against their position, thus further promoting irrationality.  Therefore, I have no video footage to offer.

The crowds in the perimeter were growing just as steadily as the dialogues were.

OUR APPROACH

I attacked the four areas that skeptics pride themselves on by asking the following simple questions:

1.  Truth - I asked, "What is truth in your worldview?  What's your definition of 'truth'?"

2.  Logic - I asked, "If you believe that only matter exists, (a) how do you account for the immaterial, universal, propositional, immaterial laws of logic given your philosophical materialism apart from an appeal to God and (b) how to you make sense out of our obligation to be rational?"

3.  Science - "How do you answer the problem of induction from a secular perspective?"

4.  Morality - "How do you account for objective morality without God?"

Regarding truth, most atheists responded, "I don't have to give a definition or account of truth to know what's true."  I then responded usually with something like this, "If you don't know what truth is and can't account for it at all, how do you know that Christianity is false and atheism is true?"

Regarding logic, every atheist I interacted with in an in-depth way (which was probably 10-15 people) was completely unprepared to deal with this line of argumentation.  I essentially simplified and used Drs. Welty and Anderson's argument for God from logic.  Most of their rejoinders were of two kinds: (1) the laws of logic are just descriptions of the way humans have evolved to think, and (2) Nominalism - the laws of logic don’t really exist; claims about laws of logic are just convenient fictions.  I refuted both of these by pointing that (1) confuses a description of those laws with the laws themselves, and (2) if the laws of logic don't really exist then they do.  In other words, I pointed out that the laws of logic must exist in order to deny them; i.e., they exist necessarily.

Regarding science, we defined the problem of induction and then asked them if they knew how to answer the problem of induction apart from an appeal to the Judeo-Christian God.  Using arguments from this paper, we showed that they can't make sense out of their scientific investigation apart from an appeal to God.

Regarding morality, we defined what objective morality was, showed that it requires God to make sense out of it, and as expected, most atheists defended moral relativism.  When we showed the self-defeating nature of moral relativism, several atheists became emotional, inconsistent, and/or admitted that it would be okay to torture little girls for fun as long as society agreed to it.  Please read the italicized portion of that last sentence again, its not a typo.  

As expected, the atheists we interacted with were a philosophical and theological mess.  All of the ones we interacted with were clueless about the very worldview they were attempting to critique and every one of them had a "Christian" background.  We lovingly called every one of them to repentance and weaved Scripture in and out of our apologetic discussions.  Paul nailed their predicament 2,000 years ago,

So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, ¹⁸ being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; ¹⁹ and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness. (Eph. 4:17-19)

FUN

Nevertheless, we had some fun by enjoying some sightseeing the day before, some fellowship the night before during the "training time" and when taking breaks from evangelism:

A decent high-definition photo of the Capitol Building.  It was a beautiful day for sight-seeing.

Elissa pondering the tulips as we overlook the National Mall.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution chiseled in stone on the side of this building.

Daddy and daughter enjoying some time together after evangelizing for almost 6 hours straight.

Mommy and daughter gettin' their grin on for the camry!

Bethel World Outreach Church - these were the only facilities we could procure for our training Friday night.

Chewing the fat with Eric Hovind and Mark Spence.

Photo opp with Pastors Jeff Durbin and Luke Pierson of Apologia Church.  Both of these men are ardent defenders of the faith and good friends.

Enjoying Pastor Luke Pierson's manly beard. 

IN CONCLUSION, atheism has nothing to offer and it was further confirmed this weekend.  However, I want to finish on a good note.  The last young man we spoke with was an early twenty-something who said he was as "former Christian".  From a strategic standpoint, we didn't immediately challenge this claim as we sensed that it would have caused him to shut down to further dialogue, but we first listened to him and then asked diagnostic questions in order to show the problems with his worldview using the four categories above.  When challenged, he then started "performing" in front of the other atheists standing around listening.  They then entered the conversation but when we shut them down too, they all became very irrational and this young man picked up on their inconsistencies and irrational behavior and by his body language, you could tell that it made him uncomfortable and embarrassed.  We then closed down those conversations since they were becoming unprofitable and then the young man said, "Hey, why don't we go over here and talk since I'd really like to listen to the next speaker."  This was a sign that he wanted to ask some sincere questions, so we walked over to the edge of the Rally's main crowd while the next speaker began, and the young man began to ask me, "How do you really know that Christianity is true, how do you really know the Bible is God's word?  Why do you believe that?" and as I began to "slice and dice" with apologetics and he said, "No, I don't want to challenge you or put you on the defensive, you see, I used to be a Christian, and I want to really know why you personally and sincerely believe these things."  I essentially gave him this answer,

We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. [1689 LBCF 1:5]

I then explained that when you begin with the correct foundation for all your reasoning, you're not left to "the futility of [your] mind, being darkened in [your] understanding" (Eph. 4:17-18).  He then said, "But I really don't believe in God anymore."  I then said, "I believe you're being sincere as well, but there's a part of you that's agreeing with me right now and saying, 'What's this guy's saying makes a whole lot of sense' and there's another part of you that's saying, 'No, run from this nonsense!'  I know man, I've been there!"  I then explained per Romans 1:19-32, that all people with normally functioning mental faculties intuit God through their own consciences and through the external world.  However, because he went above and beyond in his truth suppression by drinking deeply from the sewage of secularism, those mental faculties that naturally intuit God were now damaged by sin.  I then explained to him that this is the downward spiral of reprobation that God describes in Romans 1:18-32.  At this point his hands began shaking and his jaws were clenching from what appeared to be some measure of conviction of sin.  I then told him, "Many of the people in this crowd in front of you are too far gone.  They have suppressed the truth for 30-40 years and as a result, they have been given over fully to a depraved mind."  I then pointed out that he too was on that path and that he needed to beg the God that he hated for the ability to love Him.  I gave him my ministry card and it was then that I was whisked away by one of the bearded pastors in the photos above.  May God get great glory to Himself in these outreach endeavors and may He move Christians to both support those who are going into the secular mission field and equip themselves to do the work of evangelism in their own little sphere of influence.

Fallen is Babylon!

I’m going to comment on more of Gentry’s preterist reading of Revelation.

Revelation’s main focus of attention (though not its only point) is this: God will soon judge the first-century Jews for rejecting and crucifying his Son, their Messiah. Four Views on the Book of Revelation, 46.

i) This cuts against the grain of mainstream scholarship, which thinks the Roman imperial cult lies behind much of the conflict in Revelation. A conflict between true and false worship.

ii) The only evidence Gentry cites from Revelation itself to support his contention is Rev 1:7. And he interprets that verse preteristically–as having reference, not to the Parousia, but the sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD. So he’s using a controversial interpretation of a single verse to prop up a controversial claim about the “main focus of attention.”

iii) The rest of his supporting evidence comes not from Revelation, but other NT writings or OT writings. But as a rule, when you interpret a writing, it’s best to begin with the writing itself, and–if need be–work out from there.

For instance, there’s no antecedent reason to assume that Revelation is speaking to the same situation as Hebrews. So you can’t simply use Hebrews to interpret Revelation with no further ado.

iv) He says “The ‘coming with the clouds’ language is common prophetic parlance for historical divine judgments on nations” (47), yet he also says “the Second Coming is found in Mt 24:36-46” (46n25). But that drives a wedge between Mt 24:30 and Mt 24:36ff. Is Mt 24:30 (“Then 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”) really describing a different event than Mt 25:31 (“31  “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne”)? What about Mt 24:31 (“31 And 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”)? Does that refer to the fall of Jerusalem rather than the Parousia? Where does Gentry draw the line?

The rider on the white house “bent on conquest” (Rev 6:2-3) represents the victorious Roman march toward Jerusalem to engage the Jewish war in the spring of AD 67 (53).

i) But his interpretation is far more specific than the generic language John uses. And that’s just one example. His historical correlations are arbitrary, for it’s equally possible to come up with different historical correlations. That’s what the historicist school does, as well as many dispensational date-setters.

ii) For instance, some interpreters identify the rider with the Parthians rather than the Romans. Enemies of Rome.

iii) If we do identify the rider with Rome, that would throw emphasis on Romans rather than Jews, contrary to Gentry’s preferred emphasis.

Jumping ahead in Revelation, we come to John’s visionary command to measure the temple and its worshipers (Rev 11:1-2). Again we clearly see Revelation’s focus on Israel: This “holy city” with a “temple” must be in Jerusalem” (65).

Two problems:

i) The passage goes on to say: “for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months.”

How does that single out Jews rather than Romans? Pagan Roman officials who persecute the faithful.

ii) Gentry himself takes the position that this passage predicts the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. But, of course, that was done by the Roman army.

iii) John may also be using temple imagery for the church.

Moving along:

v) He regards the number of the Beast as a numerological cipher for Nero. That’s certainly one possible identification. However:

a) It disregards objections to that particular identification, as well as alternative correlations. Cf. Aune, Revelation 6-16, 770-773; Beale, The Book of Revelation, 718-728.

b) Even if we think it stands for Nero, that doesn’t select for Nero rather than a Nero redivivus figure. So Gentry can’t use that for dating purposes. The Beast may be a type of Nero. 

The seven mountains obviously refer to the famous seven hills of Rome (69).

Two problems:

i) That would shift the alleged emphasis from Jews to Romans. So that undercuts his thesis.

ii) Given the pervasive use of septunarian symbolism in Revelation, the seven hills of Rome may be coincidental. Of course, it’s possible that here’s a case where reality conveniently dovetails with the numerology.

Many suppose the Babylonian prostitute represents the city of Rome because she sits on several hills. The evidence, however, suggests otherwise (74).

Yet he himself made that identification five pages back (see above)!

Revelation designates the prostitute as “Babylon the great” (17:5), that is, “the great city” (17:18; cf. 14:8; 16:19; 18:10,16,21). The first mention of “the great city” is 11:8, which indisputably points to Jerusalem, “where also their Lord was crucified” (74).

Two problems:

i) There’s a false dichotomy here, as if a reference to Jerusalem automatically exempts Rome. Yet a Roman official stationed in Jerusalem ordered the execution of Jesus. And that’s because Jerusalem was under Roman rule. Therefore, it’s not as if Jerusalem ipso facto stands in contrast to Rome.

ii) There’s also a level-confusion. It’s not a choice between the city of Rome and the city of Jerusalem. Rather, the imperial city stands for Roman dominance generally. The fall of Rome isn’t confined to the city of Rome. Rather, that has reference to the loss of Roman jurisdiction.

John’s apparent backdrop for this prostitute (17:1-6; 19:1-2) is an Old Testament text also dealing with Israel–Jeremiah 3 (74).

That fails to take into account the fact that over time, different players fill the same roles.

Of course, with the Neronian persecution currently under way (1:9; 13:5-7), Rome was stained with the blood of the saints. Yet Rome had only recently entered the persecuting ranks of God’s enemies; throughout Acts Jerusalem and the Jews were the main persecutor (75).

Several problems:

i) Many scholars think the persecution in view has reference to Domitian (late dating) rather than Nero (early dating).

ii) If Revelation is prophetic, then there’s no reason to tie it down to persecution that’s concomitant with the time of writing. It can address future persecution as well as present persecution.

iii) Indeed, the apocalyptic imagery is so generic and hyperbolic that there’s no good reason to confine it to a single period.

iv) Many scholars think Revelation was written 30 years later than Acts, at which point Roman policy had hardened against the Christians.

v) Many scholars also think Acts is, in part, an effort to ingratiate the Christian movement with Roman authorities. To demonstrate that Christians aren’t a threat to Rome. But John has a different agenda.

vi) Although 1C Jews could (and did) engage in informal persecution of Christians, the extent and degree of persecution was inherently limited, for they didn’t have the state apparatus or police powers of Rome. 

Photo purported to be first century Mark manuscript is indeed a hoax

Just updating something that came up a while ago here.

Daniel Wallace, Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, who announced to the world that a number of very old New Testament manuscript fragments have been found (including a first century fragment from the Gospel of Mark), recently confirmed a comment from Jason Engwer to the effect that the photograph floating around the internet was indeed a hoax). He says, in a comment on his blog, “Yes, this is a hoax. It’s not even a papyrus manuscript! It first surfaced when an atheist group displayed it as a way to discredit the real finding.”

Hollywood's highway to Hell

So what am I saying? "The Raid: Redemption" failed as a generic success because it simplified its plot too much? Not really. It is a generic success. And yet my heart sank and I asked myself: Is this all they want? Are audiences satisfied with ceaseless violence, just so long as they can praise it for being "well choreographed?" Is there no appreciation for human dimension, meaning, and morality? Westerns were the first Hollywood morality plays, and it was always clear who was good and who was bad. Now it doesn't matter so much, and the cops and robbers in "The Raid" agree with Red Sanders: "Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing."

 

Another quote from my review: "There's obviously an audience for the film, probably a large one. They are content, even eager, to sit in a theater and watch one action figure after another pound and blast one another to death. Have you noticed how cats and dogs will look at a TV screen on which there are things jumping around? It is to that level of the brain's reptilian complex that the film appeals."

 

I can't take this much longer. I can't function like a butcher's scale. Is it enough to spend two hours determining if a film "achieves its generic purpose?" Shouldn't it do more than that? Perhaps provide some humor, humanity, romance, suspense, beauty, strategy, poetry. Not all of those qualities, but at least several of them. "The Raid" didn't even supply a single good-looking publicity still.

 

I've seen some incredibly brutal South Korean films recently, like "The Chaser," that contain enough violence to stun any fan of "The Raid" but also have the advantage of being very good films, with intriguing characters, puzzling plots, and ingenious situations. I watched spellbound. "The Raid: Redemption" is dead in the water. The butcher slams the raw slab on his scale and asks, "How many are you feeding?"

 

These thoughts, some readers inform me, are a function of my age. I'm too old to appreciate a movie like this any longer.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/03/hollywoods_highway_to_hell.html

Roger Ebert is a lapsed Catholic turned atheist. It doesn’t occur to him that the very thing he finds repellent about this film, and its natural constituency, is the logical and inexorable outworking of a secularized society. That’s the residual scum after you drain away Christianity. 

The devil's apprentice

rogereolson says:

This is the Calvinist conundrum I talk about all the time and that no Calvinist (to the best of my knowledge) has resolved satisfactorily. Let me put it this way: If God has sovereignty predestined and rendered certain everything that happens without exception FOR HIS GLORY, then doesn’t doctrinal error glorify God? If so, why fiercely opposed it? The key is “fiercely.” I can understand their answer “Well, God has called us to be his instruments in defeating doctrinal error and our defeating it also glorifies God.” (It doesn’t really make sense to me, but I can at least understand it.) But why fiercely? Why do they seem angry as they go about attempting to defeat doctrinal error (e.g., open theism)? And can it glorify God to use misrepresentation and demagoguery to defeat doctrinal error? I know that happens because I’m been a victim of it and I’ve seen it “up close.” (E.g., “Arminians must say that Christ did not save anyone but only gave people an opportunity to save themselves.”)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/03/part-2-response-to-the-gospel-as-center/comment-page-1/#comment-26550

i) As usual, Olson has blinkers on when it comes to his own position. He constantly inveighs against Calvinism, but never stops to consider obvious–and I do mean obvious–counterexamples to his own objections. For the Arminian God has the wherewithal to greatly reduce doctrinal error without infringing on the libertarian freedom of his creatures. Just take the Arminian/Calvinist controversy. Olson’s God could have inspired St. Paul to compose the The Five Articles of Remonstrance, which would become a part of canonical Scripture. Olson’s God could have inspired Bible writers to rewrite Calvinist prooftexts to make them explicitly Arminian.

More generally, the Angel of the Lord could hold a weekly audience and take questions from the audience. His answers to questions, including follow-up questions, regarding, say, the sacraments, would resolve many theological disputes.

Or God could make everyone a prophet. Make every Christian privy to special revelations. 

None of this would “violate” the libertarian freedom of Christians. Yet it would vastly reduce theological disagreement and doctrinal error. So why doesn’t Olson’s God do more to prevent doctrinal error when it’s within his power to do so consistent with libertarian strictures?

Why does God allow it? The freewill defense won’t work in these cases–even if we grant its key assumptions.

ii) When Olson talks about the Calvinist God doing everything “for his glory,” I don’t know how Olson understands that phrase, so in that respect his question is unanswerable.

iii) He imputes anger to Reformed opponents of doctrinal error. But that may just be Olson projecting. If anything, he seems to be pretty ticked off by Calvinists.

iv) How is it “misrepresentation and demagoguery” to state Arminians must say that Christ did not save anyone but only gave people an opportunity to save themselves?

v) Calvinists can logically oppose predestined doctrinal error because both the error and the opposition to error are means to an end. Error supplies the occasion to oppose error, which can be a worthwhile exercise. Error is not inherently valuable, and opposition to error may not be inherently valuable, but the combination may contribute to a valuable result.

vi) Even at a human level, we often create problems to solve problems. Take chess. Or football. Or hockey. Or poker. Or drama. Or video games. Or recreational math. Or murder mysteries. Or riddles and puzzles. We create conflict to resolve conflict. We create situations which invite competition. Winners and losers. We challenge ourselves.

Suppose Olson came along and said, “Well, if you didn’t have rival football teams, no one would have to lose.”

True, but that misses the point of why people play football (or watch football) in the first place.

So what good can come of combating doctrinal error? I can think of several:

vii) Iron sharpens iron. It forces us to study the Bible more closely and carefully. Notice things in Scripture we were oblivious to before.

viii) It’s one of God’s ways of exposing human folly, and thereby pointing us to our absolute dependence on God’s wisdom.

ix) It’s ironic that Olson thinks Calvinism is Satanic, because I think Olson’s position is Satanic. It reminds me of Satan’s subversive question in Job. Satan thought Job only worshipped God for what he got in return. For the goodies. That if God permitted Satan to afflict Job, then Job would turn his back on God.

9 Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “Does Job fear God for no reason? 10 Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face” (Job 1:9-11).

Well, isn’t that Olson’s philosophy? He follows God only so long as he thinks God is a source of blessing rather than bane. He follows God in good times, but when bad things happen–if he thought for one moment that it actually came from God’s hand, he’d cease to worship God. A fair-weather Christian. He accepts the weal but not the woe. Only his dualism keeps him from outright apostasy.

Supreme Court Justices showing their hands on Obamacare?

The Supreme Court is in the middle of hearing three days worth of arguments over the Obamacare health care law, but today's arguments were over the critical "mandate" question. And it seems as if the questioning from the justices showed what the issues will be.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/03/27/live-blog-obama-health-law-at-the-supreme-court-day-2

To sum up:

It was a typical Supreme Court argument – although the stakes are anything but typical – in that the justices asked tough questions of both sides. Seven justices' votes seem pretty secure: The four liberal justices will likely vote to uphold the law, while three of the conservatives—justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito—appear ready to strike it down.

That leaves Chief Justice Roberts and, especially, Justice Kennedy, the perennial swing vote. Justice Kennedy's early comment that the government carried a “heavy burden of justification” showed considerable sympathy for the challengers. But toward the end, one of his questions suggested that people who don’t carry health insurance are still engaged in the health-care market—which is the central pillar of the government's case.

The ruling is likely to come toward the end of June. For three months, people are going to be chewing over those questions by Justice Kennedy. One of them likely holds the key to the outcome—but which one?

Kennedy was characteristically noncommittal, but he left a clue as to what the discussion might be about:

Justice Kennedy said the mandate would change the relationship between the government and individuals in a "fundamental way," showing skepticism toward Mr. Verrilli's argument that the mandate follows Congress's well-established authority under the Constitution's Commerce Clause....

Justice Kennedy wavered over the assertion that in health care, a bright line could be drawn between those engaged in commerce and those staying wholly outside the market.

"Most questions in life are matters of degree," Justice Kennedy said. The younger, healthier Americans the law seeks to drive into the risk pool are "uniquely proximate" to affecting insurance rates, he said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577307340343548520.html

Adam and abiogenesis

Right now a number of professing Christians are redefining Christian theology to eliminate a historical Adam and Eve as the forebears of the human race. They do this in light of scientific objections.

I’ve addressed that issue before. Now I’d like to make a different point. The objection is one-sided. Even if we assume (arguendo) that Adam and Eve are scientifically problematic, it’s not as if the would-be alternatives are scientifically unproblematic.

For instance, evolution is a theory about biodiversity, not a theory about the origin of life. Given life, evolution postulates a theory of how extant life-forms diversify over time and space. But to my knowledge, evolutionary biologists haven’t made any significant process on a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Nothing beyond just-so stories. Why are there preexistent life-forms to evolve in the first place?

Therefore, it’s not as if we are forced to choose between an “unscientific” Biblical account of origins and a scientific alternative.

There are compromise solutions like theistic evolution. God originates life, then natural selection and random mutation take it from there.

However, it’s unclear why that’s scientific, but Gen 2 is unscientific. For both invoke divine agency to initiate natural kinds of one sort or another. Both invoke divine agency to bridge the gap between organic and inorganic matter.

Another version of theistic evolution has God intervening at key junctures in the evolutionary process to do what a stepwise process cannot (e.g. “irreducible complexity”). Again, though, it’s not clear how that’s scientific, but Gen 2 is unscientific. It’s not consistently naturalistic. It just relocates divine agency.  

Arminians on Adam

I wonder what is meant by “Adam and Eve were historical figures?” What does “historical” mean in that statement? I assume Davis means they were two real people who lived in our time and space. However, “historical” can also mean “factually verifiable” as if archeology could, in principle, at least, find their skeletons buried somewhere. That begins to raise interesting questions such as their ages when created. How old was Adam’s DNA when God created it? Did Adam have a navel? Etc. Go ahead, laugh, but insisting on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 through 3 raises these and a host of other questions. Inquiring minds will want to know. Sure, it’s possible to simply say “We don’t inquire that far.” But people like Barth, who called Genesis 1 through 3 “saga” would say that too and mean “Let’s not inquire into whether Adam and Eve were a literal first couple in a literal garden, etc.” In other words, it’s not myth, but neither is it (i.e., Genesis 1 through 3) history in any ordinary sense. To insist that Christians must believe in a literal human couple named Adam and Eve from which the whole human race is descended raises a host of problems and issues that are best avoided by taking Barth’s route.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/03/part-4-of-response-to-the-gospel-as-center-chapter-4-creation/

Secular catfight

Ehrman's new book has prompted a catfight between unbelievers of various stripes. Ehrman attacking other unbelievers (mythicists). Unbelievers counterattacking Ehrman. Some unbelievers defending Ehrman while other unbelievers attack his defenders. Watch the fur fly:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2012/03/responding-to-richard-carriers-response-to-bart-ehrman.html

The Paul Ryan Budget

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577299720000883712.html

He has ... issued a second budget estimate based on evidence from the 1960s, 1980s and 2000s that tax reform and spending restraint will increase GDP by about 0.5 to one percentage point a year. This means the Ryan budget reduces the debt to GDP ratio to 50% in 10 years from 74.2% this year (and heading higher) and thus steers the U.S. away from the Greek fiscal rocks....

Mr. Ryan is also proposing to cut spending to 19.8% of the economy in 2021 from 24.1% in 2011. That is hardly spendthrift. It will also be hard to pass given the resistance to change in Washington.

But what really matters on spending over the long term is entitlement reform, and on that score Mr. Ryan goes further than any Republican Congress or President since 1995. He understands that without converting Medicare into a market-based program with more choices for seniors, and without devolving Medicaid to the states and repealing ObamaCare, tax increases will soon become the political default option.

The entitlement state wasn't built in a year, and it can only be fixed with reforms that save money over time. Conservatives who really want to limit government should focus on major reform, not on hitting some unlikely balanced budget target in some future year....

Mr. Ryan's budget is hardly a status quo document. It's light years better than the Tom DeLay budgets of the 2000s.

Mr. Ryan is thinking ahead of his critics by focusing on the two most important priorities: growth and reform. Without both, limited government will be nothing more than a tea party slogan and a balanced budget will be nothing more than a tax-increase trap.

A Review Of Bart Ehrman's Book On Jesus' Existence

J.P. Holding just wrote a review of Bart Ehrman's new book on the existence of Jesus.

Instantaneous recreation

20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.

 

51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality (1 Cor 15:20-23,51-52).

Young-earth creationists subscribe to a kind of instantaneous creation, although that's staggered over six days, inasmuch as God instantly made things, but in stages. Serial instantaneous creation.

Critics of young-earth creation regard this as artificial. An ad hoc face-saving device to harmonize their chronology with the scientific evidence.

I’m not going to debate that particular issue, which I’ve discussed on other occasions. Instead, I’d note that in the myopic debate over Biblical protology, it’s easy to overlook a comparable situation in Biblical eschatology.

One of the things that will occur when Jesus returns is the instantaneous glorification of Christians who are alive at his coming. Sickly Christians will be restored. Elderly Christians will be rejuvenated.

Odds are, some Christian women will be pregnant at the Parousia. By implication, babies in the womb will be instantaneously glorified. Mother and child will both be glorified in situ. Although they were conceived in a fallen world, the babies will be born into what looks like an unfallen world. A fallen world that’s restored during their gestation. They will have no direct experience of sin. At most, their glorified Christian parents can tell them what life was like under the curse.

And it seems to me that that’s analogous to mature creation or apparent age. But in this case, instantaneous recreation rather than instantaneous creation. 

Preterist vs Futurist Debate in the Works

http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=5674

Muslim priorities

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9162051/Woman-died-after-Muslim-nurse-refused-to-help-as-he-was-praying.html

"Evangelical" preterism

I’m going to quote and comment on a major plank of Ken Gentry’s case for preterism:

The closer we get to the year 2000, the farther we get from the events of Revelation. This claim, as remarkable as it may sound, summarizes the evangelical preterist view of Revelation. “Preterism” holds that the bulk of John’s prophecies occur in the first century, soon after his writing of them. Though the prophecies were in the future when John wrote and when his original audience read them, they are now in our past (37).

The inspired apostle John clearly informs his original audience nearly two thousand years ago that they should expect the prophecies to “take place” (Rev 1:1) in their lifetime (41).

That is, a number of the historical, geographical, and political allusions in the letters show that John does in fact, have in view the specific churches he addresses. He would be taunting them mercilessly if he were discussing events two thousand or more years distance (42).

The preterist understanding of Revelation is rooted in sound hermeneutical and theological principles–and receives surprising historical verification. It takes seriously the temporal remarks of Revelation (1:1,3; 22:6,10,12), observes carefully Revelation’s historical setting (chaps. 2-3)… (91).

The weaknesses of futurism include the following: It almost totally removes the relevance of Revelation from John’s original audience, especially at a time of their great suffering (92).

C. Marvin Pate, ed. Four Views of the Book of Revelation (Zondervan 1998).

i) In this post it’s not my primary intention to present or defend my own interpretation of the same data. Rather, I’m going to mainly consider if preterism succeeds on its own terms.

That said, I will make one simple observation: The temporal marker in Rev 1:1 (“quickly”) is an allusion to Dan 2:28. As such, the significance of the temporal marker is relative rather than absolute. It’s not something to be understood in isolation, but in contrast to its Danielic counterpart.

What John has done is to update Dan 2:28. He’s substituted “quickly” (or “shortly,” “soon”) for “latter days.” That’s because Daniel was writing in the 6C BC whereas John is writing in the 1C AD.

The point of this comparative usage is that Daniel, back in the 6C BC, wasn’t writing in the latter days. The latter days hadn’t arrived.

Therefore, this is John’s way of telling his audience that, unlike Daniel, they now are living in the latter days. In other words, John’s temporal marker (“quickly”) is a synonym for “latter days.”

Consider two different statements:

a) These things will happen when the latter days arrive.

b) When will these things happen in the latter days?

(a) Gives you the general timeframe. These things will happen sometime during the latter days. But it doesn’t specify when they will happen within that latterday timeframe. Just that they will happen at some point in the course of the latter days. It could be sooner or later within that laterday timeframe. It’s a mistake to confuse (a) with (b).

ii) But my primary concern is to consider how well preterism solves the problem it poses for itself and rival positions. Gentry doesn’t think futurism (or idealism) can do justice to the data he cites. But unless his alternative has greater explanatory power, it fails on its own grounds. So I’m going to measure preterism by its own yardstick.

iii) Gentry says the futurist interpretation renders the prophecies of Revelation irrelevant to the 1C generation of readers. But by parity of argument, the preterist interpretation renders the prophecies irrelevant to later generations. If what was future to them (the original audience) is past to us, then they are anticlimactic to us. That’s passé. Not something we look forward to. Not something that changes our current situation.

iv) Gentry says “I do believe Christ will come personally, visibly, and gloriously to end history with the resurrection of the dead and the great judgment of all humanity…the Second Coming is found in Mt 24:36-25:46 and Rev 20:7-15. (46n25).”

a) Yet the Olivet Discourse uses similar, stock eschatological language and imagery. So it’s unclear how Gentry can interpret Revelation preteristically, but Matthew futuristically.

b) Even more to the point, if he generally interprets Revelation preteristically, but makes an exception for Rev 20:7-15, which he interprets futuristically, then why stop there? Seems like he’s arbitrarily carving out an exception for Rev 20:7-15. But how does he draw the line? If he can construe Rev 20:7-15 futuristically, why can’t amils and premils interpret other prophecies in Revelation futuristically?

v) Gentry says “The original audience…should expect the prophecies to ‘take place’ (Rev 1:1) in their lifetime” (41).

Isn’t that an overstatement? What if one or more church members of the seven churches died before 70AD (Gentry’s terminus ad quem)? Wouldn’t their situation be analogous to futurism?

vi) Gentry says futurism “almost totally removes the relevance of Revelation from John’s original audience, especially at a time of their great suffering.”

But how is consigning the fulfillment to 70 AD relevant to their suffering? Christians were persecuted by Rome before 70 AD, and they were persecuted by Rome after 70 AD. Indeed, persecution intensified over time.

How does the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD directly (or even indirectly) improve the plight of persecuted Christians living in Asia Minor? After 70 AD came and went, how was their situation any better in 71 AD than it was in 69 AD? What changed?

If anything, wouldn’t that worsen their situation? As long as Judaism was a religio licita, and the Roman authorities associated Christianity with a sect of Judaism, it enjoyed a measure of protection (e.g. Acts 18:12-16). But once Judaism fell into official disfavor (i.e. the Roman sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD), wouldn’t Christians be even more vulnerable? Wouldn’t that aggravate their legal jeopardy? 

On the Origin of Everything

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=4&pagewanted=print

DO PEOPLE WHO COMMIT SUICIDE AUTOMATICALLY GO TO HELL?

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/03/do-people-who-commit-suicide-automatically-go-to-hell/

Choice and certainty

http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2012/03/choice-and-certainty.html

The end of seminary

Christian seminaries and Bible commentaries are now obsolete. Sorry, Alan, but that includes the Jesus Bible Institute. We now have a one-stop-shopping source for understanding Holy Writ:

http://www.zondervan.com/Cultures/en-US/Product/ProductDetail.htm?ProdID=com.zondervan.9780310950813&QueryStringSite=Zondervan

Extraterrestrial

I was toying with one way to model the hypostatic union. Like all analogies it has its limitations.

One common theme in SF stories in the alien who assumes human form. A body swap. He transfers his consciousness to a human host. Takes possession of a human brain and body. (These scenarios always presuppose something akin to interactionist Cartesian dualism.)

There are two basic variants on this theme. In one case you have hostile aliens who do this as a form of espionage. It's a prelude to invasion and conquest. They want to learn how humans think, feel, and react to probe human weaknesses. 

The hostile aliens have no genuine sympathy for humans. They only assume a human viewpoint for strategic and tactical reasons.

Sometimes this backfires. Some aliens go native. Switch sides. They come to truly empathize and identify with the human experience. They may fall in love with a human man or woman. The outsider becomes an insider.

They are viewed as traitors by their loyal comrades and superiors. Hunted down.

In another case you have friendly aliens who are more like explorers and cultural anthropologists. They are genuinely curious about what it's like to be human. Understanding humans from the inside out rather than the outside in. To experience a viewpoint other than their own, as a form of intellectual enrichment.

But, in general, aliens don't cease to be alien. They retain their memories. They retain an alien indexical viewpoint intact. But they also acquire a new and different indexical viewpoint. They simultaneously experience two perspectives rather than one, in a dialectical, inside/outside relationship.

Alan Culpepper, in his Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, classifies Jesus as a static character because (according to Culpepper) Jesus never changes. And there's some truth to that. In John's Gospel, Jesus always knows who he is and what he has to do.

However, it's simplistic to say Jesus is a static character. Jesus qua God is immutable, but Jesus qua God-man is subject to "character development." In some respects that's analogous to an alien who assumes human form. He retains his divine indexical perspective intact, but acquires a human indexical perspective. Jesus qua human is a dynamic character, and Jesus qua God-man is also a dynamic character, in a qualified sense (consistent with the immutability of the divine nature). The Reformed model of the communicatio idiomatum (over against the Lutheran).

Defining away the Bible

“Blessed the one who seizes your children and smashes them against the rock” (Ps. 137:9). Reading a passage like that one, it’s easy enough to leap to a condemnation of fundamentalism.  (As should be clear from the following, I don’t use the word “fundamentalism” invidiously, but merely as shorthand for Bible literalism/inerrantism.) But earlier this weekend, I was reminded of the original reason I personally was attracted to fundamentalism — of the kind Carter is rejecting — a few years ago, and left the Catholicism of my youth to travel in that direction. I was leafing through the new edition of the Oxford Catholic Study Bible and saw some of the types of assertions that were commonplace when I was a boy: “Some aspects of the [Exodus] story cannot be historical.” “Many of the stories of David and Solomon are either legendary tales or creations of the Biblical writer.” You get the idea. The problem with this is that it is dramatically corrosive of the foundations of Jewish and Christian religious faith, as historically understood. If we reduce either of these religions to some metaphysical or ethical essence (an attempt commonly referred to, usually invidiously, as gnosticism), there is somewhat less of a problem; but even then, the problem remains that one is basically trying to interpret the religion against the grain of its original claims. Judaism and Christianity are historical religions, claiming specific intersections of the divine and the human. If these are “myths” in the religious-studies-department sense, these are intended to be myths of a very specific kind: true myths, ones that actually took place in the real world of history. But if these assertions are false, how trustworthy can the overall literary work, and the faiths based on it, be?

The most common argument I encountered among Catholics was that most of the problems were in the Old Testament, and that this should not affect my faith in the New Testament (and thus in the Church): an attitude that one might call neo-Marcionism. (Which I would summarize, with a certain degree of hostility — and, no doubt, unfairness — as follows: “The part of the book about some fellow named Moses crossing a lake is pure fanciful invention, but the part about some other fellow named Jesus rising from the dead is sober historical fact.”)  

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/294348/jimmy-carter-s-bible-michael-potemra

Apollo 8: first humans travel to the moon

Everyone remembers the first men to walk on the moon. These were the first men to travel to the moon; the first to leave earth orbit. I love how the astronauts give credit where credit is due.

I'm Your Huckleberry