Did God Really Command Genocide?

http://www.mandm.org.nz/2014/09/did-god-really-command-genocide-a-new-book-by-copan-and-flannagan.html

The Gospels' Many And Significant Agreements On Jesus' Childhood

A recent book by Peter Enns was discussed on the latest edition of the Unbelievable? radio program. Enns was on the program with David Instone-Brewer. One of the issues that came up was the historicity of the infancy narratives. Enns, Instone-Brewer, and the host, Justin Brierley, referred to how different the accounts in Matthew and Luke are, and not much was said about agreements between the two. Brierley referred to how the narratives are "almost two completely different stories".

Here's an article I wrote last year that gives thirty examples of agreements between Matthew and Luke regarding Jesus' childhood, including some that are of an unusual nature or meet the criterion of embarrassment. I also discuss some of the reasons why it makes sense for the two sources to differ to some extent. The agreements between Matthew and Luke are often underestimated, while their differences are overestimated, and all three participants in the Unbelievable? program furthered that misconception.

Bigger picture

Brittany Maynard has made headlines by choosing to commit suicide.

I don't think she was right to have committed suicide, but I can appreciate some mitigating factors in her life.

At the same time, she's not the bigger picture. She's just the cause célèbre du jour for euthanasia.

In fact, she became a witting pawn in the ethical debate when she cast her lot with the pro-euthanasia side. For example, see this article.

It might likewise be instructive to compare Maynard's story with the stories of other people who have been diagnosed with GBM but didn't decide to euthanize themselves. For instance, here are some GBM stories from MD Anderson in Houston, Texas (which is arguably the world's best cancer institute).

Truth and fiction

"It's also important to remember that it is anachronistic to attribute to the evangelists the desire to convince 20th and 21st century skeptics. The problems of their time were not the problems of our time. Nobody was doubting that, e.g., the disciples claimed that they personally met Jesus after he rose from the dead. Nobody was trying to argue that these accounts had heavy infusions of legend or 'mutual storytelling.' Modern skeptical criticism was unknown and no author would have tried to counter it by writing non-historical material in realistic style."

Couldn't you take that one step further by noting that, as a matter of fact, apocryphal Gospels, apocryphal Acts of this or that Apostle, &c. were clearly *not* written in a realistic style?

Posted by steve hays | November 4, 2014 2:23 PM

Couldn't you take that one step further by noting that, as a matter of fact, apocryphal Gospels, apocryphal Acts of this or that Apostle, &c. were clearly *not* written in a realistic style?

Absolutely, and an important empirical point. The difference is vast.
And there's more: Notice how many issues that we find cropping up in Acts and the Pauline epistles do _not_ appear in the gospels. They simply are not addressed. Only a few decades after the events of Jesus' life, there were hot topics seething, yet nobody puts it into Jesus' mouth to address these topics! How easy it would have been to have Jesus say something more specific about the inclusion of the Gentiles and what rules they will have to follow, yet all we find are _general_ predictions in Jesus' parables and sayings of the eventual inclusion of the Gentiles. Nothing at all about whether they will have to keep kosher or be circumcised. Other examples could be given. The gospels are almost uncannily time-bound and space-bound in an extremely narrow period--those particular years in 1st century Palestine. This is a strong argument for their faithfulness to what Jesus actually said and what actually happened.

Posted by Lydia | November 4, 2014 2:34 PM

Dignity is something different than putting an end to your own life

Atheist Jeff Lowder weighs in on the Maynard case:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2014/11/04/catholic-church-if-euthanasia-a-mortal-unforgivable-sin-brittany-maynard-is-in-hell/

According to Jezebel.com, an official with the Vatican told an Italian news agency that Maynard had committed a “reprehensible” act. 

Before proceeding any further, let's quote a fuller version of what the Vatican official said:

“We don’t judge people, but the gesture in itself is to be condemned,” said Monsignor Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, head of the Pontifical Academy for Life, which is responsible for ethical issues in the Catholic Church.
“Assisted suicide is an absurdity,” Carrasco de Paula told the Italian news agency ANSA. “Dignity is something different than putting an end to your own life.”
“Killing yourself is not a good thing; it’s a bad thing because it says no to life and to all that means in relation to our duty in the world and to those close to us,” the ethicist said.
Carrasco de Paula said assisted suicide was also dangerous because it offered a potential “solution” for a society that sought to abandon the sick and quit paying the costs of their illnesses.
http://www.religionnews.com/2014/11/04/vatican-ethicist-dignity-brittany-maynards-physician-assisted-death/

Speaking for myself, I think what Maynard did was wrong, but given the attenuating circumstances, I wouldn't say it was "reprehensible." Of course, this is an English translation. The Italian may have a different nuance. Also, to claim that someone with terminal brain cancer said "no to life" misses the point. However, I agree with everything else he said. 

Continuing with the report:

The Vatican’s stance isn’t surprising, given that Catholics consider suicide a mortal and unforgivable sin. 

That is the logic of the traditional Catholic position, although Rome has backpedaled on the eternal fate of suicides. 

Earlier this year, a high-ranking assistant to Pope Francis, Archbishop Antonio Mennini, advocated against legalizing assisted suicide in the United Kingdom, saying it would “open a Pandora’s Box.” 

Well, Mennini is just stating the obvious.

Nor are they the first group to suggest that Maynard didn’t have the right to die at the time of her choosing: various American pro-life groups started with that line even before she died.

Imagine that! You had prolife groups who discouraged her from killing herself before she killed herself–as opposed to, say, discouraging her from killing herself after she killed herself. But it rather seems to me that if you wait until after the fact, that's a tad too late. 

The underlying implication here is that these groups believe Maynard is in Hell.

i) What evidence does Anna Merlan (or Jeff Lowder) have that that's what these groups believe? To begin with, how did Anna Merlan go from the traditional Catholic moral theology to prolife groups generally? Is she unaware of the fact that many prolifers are evangelicals rather than Roman Catholics? Likewise, what evidence does she have that prominent opponents of euthanasia like Wesley J. Smith believe Maynard is in Hell?

ii) I'd like to take the opportunity to clarify a theological confusion which Merlan (and Lowder?) seems to suffer from. People don't go to hell for committing hellbound sins; rather, hellbound people commit sins. 

It's not a particular sin that damns you. It's not as if people are heavenbound unless and until they commit a damnable sin. Rather, people are hellbound unless and until they are regenerated and justified. 

But Life News’ Steven Ertelt is using her passing to accuse Compassion & Choices, the assisted suicide advocacy group that helped Maynard make her videos, of “exploiting” her, writing that they and other death with dignity groups “were essentially pushing her to kill herself.” (boldface mine)

i) To begin with, Life News is no more or less using her passing than Anna Merlan or Jeff Lowder. 

ii) In addition, had she backed out at the last minute, that would undermine the assisted suicide advocacy groups. She's worth more to them dead than alive. So the allegation seems entirely plausible to me.

Because Brittany made her plight (and her choice) public in order to advocate for the right to death with dignity, I can think of no better way to honor her than to dedicate this post to her and her cause. 

Nothing quite like the self-importance of atheism. Proudly planting its little flag in the shifting sand dune of existential nihilism. 

And since this is a philosophy of religion blog, I think it’s especially useful to highlight the religious opposition to Euthanasia. In fact, off the top of my head, it seems as if all or virtually all of the opposition to Euthanasia comes from religious groups. 

That's because, unlike atheists, we don't consider human beings to be adventitious collections of particles. 

(If anyone knows of any counterexamples, please let me know in the combox.) Brittany’s life and death are an especially tragic combination of many aspects of the problem of evil: 

You can't have evil without good, and you can't have good without God. So the argument from evil is self-refuting. 

(1) the tragic nature of her story (see: the atheistic argument from triumph and tragedy);

i) "Tragedy" is a presupposition of Biblical theism–not an evidence to the contrary. It's not as if Biblical theism is utopian in the here and now. Moreover, tragedy is offset by eschatology. 

ii) Conversely, how can a collection of particles experience tragedy? 

(2) the gratuitous (and apparently morally random) biological pain caused by her condition if allowed to progress until death (see: the atheistic argument from the biological role of pain and pleasure); 

In what sense is biological pain gratuitous? Pain serves a biological function. A warning signal. 

and (3) the so-called “soteriological problem of evil” (i.e, the problem of reconciling God’s perfectly moral, loving nature with the eternity of Hell, including the impossibility of escape). 

As if Christian theologians and apologists don't have answers to boilerplate objections to hell. 

If Brittany did not feel God’s comforting presence during the end of her life — and I have no idea if she did or not — her story would also be an example of another atheistic argument at the intersection of arguments from evil and arguments from hiddenness: the argument from divine silence during tragedies. 

i) To begin with, was she even a Christian? There's no promise that unbelievers will feel God's comforting presence at the end of life. 

ii) In addition, Jeff has a bad habit of burning straw man without a fire permit. He attacks an abstract generic theism. But it's not as if Biblical theism predicts for a life devoid of tragedy. Just the opposite. Likewise, it's not as if Biblical theism promises every believer (much less unbeliever) a comforting death. So that doesn't count as evidence against Biblical theism, for it's not inconsistent with Biblical theism.  

Finally, if there are religious groups which do support Euthanasia, then the argument from ethical confusion applies. In fact, if there is sincere ethical disagreement among theists regarding Euthanasia and IF Euthanasia is not objectively morally wrong, then ethical disagreement becomes an additional, independent instance of the problem of evil for theists. We would then have a situation where, if theism were true, a perfectly loving God allowed theists who, in this hypothetical situation, wrongly believed Euthanasia was morally wrong and that belief contributed to Brittany’s suffering. And that state of affairs is more probable on naturalism than on theism. This last point is not hypothetical. Before her death, Brittany spoke about the emotional toll the criticism of her choice took on her.

According to physicalism, human beings aren't even capable of consciousness. For instance:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/12/opinion/sunday/are-we-really-conscious.html

A Scientific Case for the Soul

I don't care for the section on evolution, but other than that, this is a useful analysis:

http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Mind-Body%20Problm/Scientific%20Case%20for%20Soul.pdf

Letting go

I'm going to venture some comments on the Brittany Maynard case–and related issues. I'd draw a couple of distinctions:

i) You can find fault with someone, but still make allowance for extenuating circumstances.

ii) You can find fault with someone's behavior without necessarily faulting them. 

If somebody spikes the punch, resulting in guests losing their inhibitions and indulging in risky behavior, like balancing on the ledge of a fourth-story window, you can fault their actions without faulting them personally. It's precisely because they're in a state of diminished responsibility–through no fault of their own–that they are engaging in risky behavior.

Of course, there's a wonderful opportunity for the church to minister to the desperately ill. 

Likewise, you have edifying stories of Christian hospice nurses to care for the dying. 

Losing your mind is a paradox. People naturally few losing control. It's frightening to feel your mind slipping away. 

But if you truly lose your mind, then by definition it doesn't bother you. Once it's gone, you're in no position to be cognizant of what you lost. And so long as the prospect bothers you, you haven't lost it. If it's absent, you lack the presence of mind to know it. 

Another problem is that we really don't know what people who die from brain cancer or dementia experience. Since they don't come back to tell us, we don't know how much they were still aware of at the end. 

There are, of course, reported cases of comatose patient's diagnosed in a PVS who wake up and say they heard everything doctors, nurses, and visitors said in their hospital room. 

There are certain dilemmas. For instance, the elderly may take drugs which both prolong life and preserve or enhance the quality of life. For instance, a patient may take a blood-thinner to reduce the risk of stroke. The point is not necessarily to extend life, but to reduce the chance of a debilitating stroke. But the effect is to extend life, and extending life often exposes an elderly patient to other debilitating illnesses to which the elderly are prone (like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's). 

In the past, many people dodged those bullets by simply dying before the age they become susceptible to these ravaging diseases.

If she was, say, a childless widow with no close relatives, or estranged from her brothers or sisters, then that might be a mitigating factor. 

LIkewise, before the age of sedation, where they spend their final days or weeks screaming in pain, that might be an extenuating circumstance. 

But when people have loved ones, it's important for their loved ones to follow through to the bitter end. Their loved ones need to have that level of commitment. They need to face death and dying. They need to face the "indignities" of terminal illness or degenerative conditions.

There's some merit to soul-making theodicies. They aren't the whole solution to the problem of evil, but they're an important component. 

We're creating a eugenic culture, like those utopian/dystopian SF movies where everyone is terminated at the age of 30 (or whatever) so that no one must face the indignity of physical and mental decline. Everyone is healthy and youthful.  

There are several complex issues. Do we have a standing duty to let nature take its course? 

To a great extent, medical intervention is about not letting nature take its course. Impeding nature, reversing nature, redirecting nature. 

Of course, "nature" is ambiguous in this context. There's "nature" in the sense of letting things happen all by themselves.  

Then there's a normative conception of nature. What nature is supposed to be like. Proper function. Restoring nature. 

Medical intervention frequently interferes with the letting nature take its course to restore proper function. 

So, there's a sense in which medical science does and doesn't let nature take its course.

Is there a duty to die of brain cancer? Is there a duty to go through the whole process? Is there a duty to die of starvation–in the absence of food?

Do we have a duty to hang on? Or is it sometimes okay to let go? 

I don't think there's a uniform answer to that question. 

For instance, a husband and/father might starve himself to feed his wife and kids. 

I'm not sure there's an intrinsic or even general duty to become mentally or physically incapacitated, if that puts you at the mercy of uncaring strangers. 

Take elderly Europeans who are being exported to E. Europe and Asia:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/26/german-elderly-foreign-care-homes

You can imagine the abuse many of them will suffer. 

Of course, that can be a false dilemma. Choosing between elder abuse and suicide shouldn't be the only two alternatives. 

One objection to suicide is that we should just trust God. There is, of course, a sense in which that's always true. However, that can be taken fatalistically. Do nothing. Leave it in God's hands. 

Yet medical intervention isn't just a case of trusting God, but doing something about one's condition. Like the famous quip: Trust in God and keep your powder dry.

There's the question of what we can trust God for. We should trust his promises, but what has he promised? What can we expect from him?

Both in Scripture and experience, not every pious life has a happy ending–this side of the grave. Many of the faithful suffer calamity. It's not as though, if you just trust God, things will work out for the best in this life.

Euthanasia raises additional issues that suicide does not. 

i) If suicide is wrong, then euthanasia compounds the wrong by implicating a second-party. 

ii) Asking a second-party to euthanize you may put unfair pressure on them. It shifts the onus from you onto them. 

iii) Once it becomes a patient's "right," then doctors will be required to euthanize patients upon request. Liberals are intolerant of conscience-clauses. 

iv) It also changes the doctor/patient dynamic. Instead of trusting your doctor, you may fear telling him your symptoms in case that will be used against you. 

I'm not saying suicide or euthanasia is wrong in all cases. Just sketching the ethical complications of euthanasia, above and beyond suicide.

Chattel slavery

I've been responding to some village atheists over at Brian Godawa's movie blog. For now I won't repost the whole exchange. Rather, I'll confine myself to some "offending" passages of Scripture which they cite. 

steve hays

on November 3, 2014 at 1:03 pm said:

i) To begin with, you don’t even grasp the nature of a law code. You act as if laws automatically condone whatever they regulate.

However, laws sometimes, or oftentimes, regulate behavior the lawmaker may frown on. However, it’s futile to outlaw some kinds of conduct, because the ban would be unenforcible. Indeed, some prohibitions backfire by creating a new criminal underclass to supply the banned goods and services.

By contrast, regulating certain kinds of conduct may be more enforceable, and it mitigates the worst abuses.

Likewise, outlawing every evil creates a new evil–the evil of a totalitarian state. So some laws settle for the lesser evil principle.

Laws are often compromises in that respect. Is that a novel notion to you?

ii) Regarding Lev 24:44-46: Israel was in no position to prohibit surrounding nations from selling slaves. They’d be sold to someone or another regardless. It’s a question of whether they will be sold to pagans or Jews.

They are better off with Jewish masters, inasmuch as slaves enjoyed some legal protections under the Mosaic law code.

ii) Exod 21:20-21 is the opposite of chattel slavery. The master is liable to punishment if he abuses the slave. In context, he may well be subject to the death penalty. The passage you quote is a deterrent to abusive behavior. It puts the master in legal jeopardy.

iii)The ear-piercing ceremony has reference to voluntary enslavement. That’s the opposite of chattel slavery. Are you oblivious to the context? Are you copy/pasting quote-minded verses from some village atheist website? Is that your problem?

iv) Exod 21:7-11 is the opposite of chattel slavery. She has civil rights.

Moreover, the background for that passage presumes a situation in which a father has too many children to support. He lacks the financial wherewithal to feed them all.

The alternative to “slavery” is starvation. Are you oblivious to subsistence conditions in the ancient Near East? Selling minors into conditional slavery was better than death by malnutrition.

Furthermore, she’s not sold to foreigners. The master must be very careful how he cares for her, because her father and brothers are in a position to monitor her treatment and exact revenge if their family member is dishonored. Are you unaware of that honor code?

v) As for Eph 6:5, what do you expect Paul to say? Should he incite Christian slaves to defy their Roman masters? What do you think happened to insubordinate slaves under Roman law? Did you even bother to think that far?

This is how runaway slaves might be punished under Roman law: “He could be scourged branded, mutilated, or fitted with a metal collar, perhaps even be crucified, thrown to beasts, or killed. J. Fitzmyer, The Letter to Philemon (Doubleday 2000), 28.

steve hays

on November 3, 2014 at 7:46 pm said:

The Mosaic law contains provisions for indentured service. You simplemindedly reduce everything to “slavery.”

The OT doesn’t have chattel slavery. Slaves were never mere property of the master, to dispose of as he sees fit. He wields absolute power over his property.

By contrast, OT “slavery” was never chattel slavery. “Slaves,” “indentured servants,” &c. had certain rights and protections.

In the case of indentured service, it was contractual. LIke enlisting in the army. If you enlist in the army, you forfeit certain freedoms you had as a civilian in exchange for the compensatory benefits. You trade freedom for security.

steve hays

on November 3, 2014 at 8:45 pm said:

“I am laughing so hard right now I can barely type…”

Because you can’t rebut my arguments, you gesticulate and make funny faces. I appreciate your dilemma.

“I stop at a foundation that can be demonstrated to exist. That’s not ad nauseam. People exist…Until we get to you what you demand there to be. (ad hoc).”

Since you don’t understand the nature of explanation or the onus of your own claim, I’ll have to walk you through it.

You are making a claim about objective moral standards. That requires your explanation to terminate with something that is, indeed, an objective moral standard. Unless and until you can do that, you’re left with an infinite regress. Posting an arbitrary stopping point like “your emotions” isn’t an objective moral norm.

Appealing to something that exists is not the same thing as demonstrating that objective moral norms exist. Rocks exist. That’s not a moral norm.

Unlike you, there are secular philosophers who at least understand that distinction. There are secular philosophers who candidly admit that atheism leads to moral fictionalism, relativism, and/or nihilism. You’re not even a sophisticated atheist.

“They have emotions like empathy and compassion”

And they have emotions like envy, hatred, and revenge. Take the Hutu/Tutsi massacres.

“Really? God says it’s ok to beat them and they can even die if they linger and suffer for a few days.”

i) I began by explaining the nature of a law code to you. You blow right past that explanation. Yet you offer no rebuttal.

ii) The fact that laws permit some things doesn’t mean it’s “okay.” It just means penal codes don’t attempt to outlaw all wrongdoing.

iii) Do you just lack reading comprehension? If the slave dies, the master will be punished. In context, that may well be a capital offense.

iv) Laws must also make allowance for what’s provable. It has to be the kind of injury that an ancient Jewish judge would be in a position to attribute to the master. There have to be witnesses. Who threw the first punch?

Penal codes don’t address some forms of wrongdoing because they are unprovable. Is that a novel concept to you?

“Source please?”

The fact that you ask for the source either shows that you lack elementary reading comprehension, or else you didn’t read the full text. Instead, you’re just copy/pasting digests spoonfed to you from some village atheist website.

Go back to the beginning of the chapter [Exod 21]. V2. It deals with the case of an indentured servant. He has a 6-year contract. He’s free after six years of service.

And the end of his 6-year contract, he can indenture himself for life of his own accord. That’s up to him.

In context, it’s unmistakably voluntary. How did you miss that? Are you unable to understand what the text says? Or did you not read the full text because you rely on quote-mined excerpts from a secondhand source?

“Again, Source please?”

You can start with John Currid analysis.

“and on and on. That’s ‘ad hoc’. Yup.”

Calling my explanations “ad hoc” doesn’t make them ad hoc. If you think they’re ad hoc, you need to present a supporting argument to substantiate your classification. Otherwise, your dismissal is unintelligent.

Slave trade

There is no biblical command to buy or sell slaves. Let's consider the question of whether it's intrinsically wrong to buy slaves.

Suppose there's a slave market. If you could, you'd abolish the slave market. But that's not within your power. At least, not in the short-term. 

So how do you respond to the status quo? Since slaves are going to be sold anyway, to someone or another, is it intrinsically wrong for you to buy slaves? 

Now, someone might object to the principle that if it's going to happen anyway, there's nothing wrong with me doing it too. And I agree that, as a general principle, that's morally unreliable. 

Notice, though, the question at issue is not: since other people are selling slaves, I might as well sell them. Rather, the question at issue is: since other people will buy slaves no matter what I do or don't do in that respect, are there circumstances under which it would be permissible, or even commendable, for me to buy them?

Our intuitive reaction typically depends on what examples spring to mind. From what I've read, there are millions of street kids around the world. It wouldn't surprise me if some street kids are sold into child prostitution, or even child sacrifice. For instance:

In Brazil we lived and worked in the Spiritist capital of the world [Sao Luis, Maranhao] where the sacrifice of children and the black market dealing of their body parts is still a common practice.  

http://20schemes.com/2013/should-we-let-them-live-thinking-about-halloween-in-the-schemes/

It's possible that's an urban legend. However, it may not be coincidental that, from what I've read, Brazil has huge numbers of street kids. So it might well be easy to procure a street kid for child sacrifice. Tragically, there's ready supply of unwanted, untended kids. 

If you were a wealthy Christian, would it be wrong for you to buy as many as you could afford–to rescue them from child prostitution, sweatshop labor, or child sacrifice? Presumably, that would be the right thing to do. So the answer depends, in part, on the motivation. 

However, a further objection might be what you buy them for. Are you buying their freedom? Or do they become your slaves instead of someone else's slaves? In my example, the wealthy Christian wouldn't buy them to enslave them. 

There is, however, another twist. In the past, masters were sometimes forbidden by law from freeing their slaves. In that situation, a master can't emancipate his slaves even if he wants to. 

I suppose one alternative would be to treat them like freemen, like hired hands, even if they were still technically enslaved. In a fallen world, we have to be ingenious. 

Runaway slaves

15 “You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16 He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him (Deut 23:15-16).

i) This is an interesting passage in debates over Biblical "slavery." Some commentators think it's confined to foreign runaway slaves. Ancient Israel had no extradition treaty with neighboring states to return runaway slaves. 

ii) That's one possible interpretation. However, the text itself doesn't specify that qualification. So if the restriction exists, it must be implicit. The commentaries I've read which restrict it to foreign runaway slaves don't explain why they think it's about foreign runaway slaves rather than runaway slaves in general. 

Perhaps, though, this is their assumption: If it was about runaway slaves generally, then that would undermine other OT laws regulating "slavery." It would render them unenforceable. In that respect, it would conflict with other OT laws regulating "slavery." Therefore, it must be about foreign runaway slaves. 

iii) Apropos (ii), the OT attitude towards slavery is, at best, grudgingly ambivalent. It is permitted under some circumstances, but that's viewed in the jaundiced light of Joseph's enslavement as well as the enslavement of Israel in Egypt. In addition, you have the reenslavement of Israel, as a punitive measure, in the Assyrian deportation and the Babylonian Exile. So slavery always has those invidious connotations. 

iv) It may well be that the Mosaic law has no concern with protecting slavery. Given slavery, it will regulate slavery to mitigate the evils of slavery. But it has no problem with simultaneously subverting the practice. Making slavery impractical. 

The Mosaic law never commands slavery. At best, it's merely tolerated. 

v) One possible objection to that interpretation is that not all forms of "slavery" are evil. Indentured service isn't evil. So we wouldn't expect the Mosaic law to sabotage "slavery" across the board, including morally unobjectionable forms like indentured service. 

vi) Apropos (v), if Deut 23:15-16 allowed an indentured servant to simply walk off the job, with no fear of recrimination, does that harm a morally acceptable practice? On the one hand, the master loses the benefit of his debt servant. However, he already benefited from that arrangement. And if the debt servant leaves before his contact expires, the employer no longer has to provide for his upkeep. No longer has to provide free room and board. So it's not as if a runaway slave is defrauding him. The debt-slave gets something in exchange for his labor. If his labor terminates, for whatever reason, he loses the compensation. It seems to be a wash for both sides of the transaction. 

So the more radical interpretation may well be correct. This may apply to runaway slaves in general. 

Atheism is a fairytale for people afraid of the light

"Statements by scientists are not always statements of science," said Prof Lennox. "Stephen Hawking said, "religion is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark". I said, "atheism is a fairy story for people afraid of the light". 

"Neither of those statements proves anything at all. They're all reversible. What lies behind all these delusion claims is the Freudian idea of wish fulfilment [that we believe what we hope to be true.] This works brilliantly providing there is no god. But if there is a god, then atheism is wish fulfilment." 

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/ten.quick.responses.to.atheist.claims/41439.htm

How to ruin an otherwise good apologetic

(Or, “on the need to get things straight”, along with a true account of the history of the Doctrine of the Immaculate Reception of Mary).

Jesus said, “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak….”

Here’s one way that works:

This recent article by Eric Davis at The Cripplegate site illustrates what I mean. Of course, it’s a long, thorough article that makes dozens and dozens of good points. But it gets a fact wrong:

She is sinless, having bypassed receiving a sin nature. Therefore, she was not in need of Christ’s saving work,...

While much of the article is spot-on correct, a Roman Catholic will point out that this particular statement is incorrect, and then all other Roman Catholics will have an excuse to disbelieve everything else in the article. So no matter how great the article is, the “see-no-evil-hear-no-evil” Roman Catholic converts have a reason (they think – but really it’s an excuse) to ignore the rest of it.

I know, the article wasn’t even about that! It’s a terrible way to think about things, but that’s the way that Roman Catholic converts think.

Because in fact, Roman dogma does allow that she WAS in need of Christ's saving work (just differently from all the rest of us).

Here is what should have been said by the Cripplegate author:

But what about the claim that Mary of Nazareth was conceived without sin? This too is an extraordinary claim and so it too requires extraordinary proof. But when we examine Scripture, we see no evidence that anyone thought Mary was conceived without sin, nor any evidence that she was exempted from Adam’s curse. While there are traditions about her sanctity from the womb and throughout her life, the church is mostly silent on the issue of her conception until the middle ages, and even then most theologians either didn’t see how it was possible for Mary to be conceived without sin or they outright denied it. The list of those opposed to the doctrine reads like a Who’s Who of the medieval church: Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Anselm of Canterbury, just to name a few.

But then in the early 1300s, two English Franciscans (William of Ware and Duns Scotus) came up with a way to overcome the objections that the doctrine was a “superstition” (so Bernard) or that it could not be reconciled with the uniqueness of Christ’s redemption (so Aquinas). William used the argument from conveniens (Latin for “convenience”), which used the formula, potuit, decuit, fecit: God could do it, it is fitting that He would do it, therefore He did do it. Since Mary’s Immaculate Conception was both possible for God and fitting (on the grounds of the medieval supposition that never too much can be said of Mary), then it follows that God must have preserved Mary from contracting original sin, and so her conception was “immaculate” (stainless).

Scotus, for his part, theorized how God was able to preserve Mary from Original Sin without denying her need for redemption. The eternal God, who sees all things as present, must have applied the merits of the redemption to Mary before the redemption actually took place. Thus Mary’s redemption was by exemption. Instead of grace taking away the power of original sin after contracting it, she was graced by not contracting it in the first place.

By all means, continue talking about Roman Catholicism. But by all means, be careful with how you present it.

HT for the OP: Bnonn Tennant

Defending penal substitution

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2014/11/simon-gathercoles-new-book-on-penal-substitution/

Theology on the fly

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/philosopher-laszlo-bencze-on-the-popes-recent-statement-on-evolution/

William Ames and the Christian life

http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2014/11/william-ames-and-christian-life.html

Unexplained allusions: The sons of thunder

http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2014/11/unexplained_allusions_the_sons.html

Shell Beach

Catholic apologists argue for a church that only exists on paper. A shell corporation with P.O. Box. Like renting a mailbox. If you go to the address, you will find the One True Church® at a UPS store in North Dakota. 

The church Catholic apologists argue for is two steps removed from reality. They resort to Counter-Reformation era prooftexts from Scripture and the church fathers. Now, those prooftexts never did demonstrate what they were quoted to prove. But in the past, that was one step removed from reality. For in the past, the Catholic establishment at least believed in the presuppositions underlying the prooftexts. They believed in the historicity of the Bible. They believed in the traditional authority of the canonical books. They believed the traditional church historical narrative. 

However, the church which Catholic apologists argue for is now two steps removed from reality, inasmuch as the Catholic establishment no longer even believes the underlying presuppositions of the traditional prooftexts. The modernists won that fight. 

So the church which Catholic apologists argue for is like Shell Beach, in Dark City. A tattered, yellowing poster on a brick wall. That's it. There is no corresponding place.  

Parsing "baptism"

My main objective in this post is to make a linguistic point about "baptism" in the NT. But for completeness' sake, I will review some related issues before getting to the main point. 

i) Sacramentarians believe in baptismal regeneration and/or baptismal justification. This includes Roman Catholics, Anglo-Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, and Campbellites (e.g. Everett Ferguson, Jack Cottrell). In the case of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, this depends the authority of the church to dictate the interpretation of Scripture. In the case of Protestants, this involves methodological errors. 

ii) Sacramentarians don't understand the basic nature of symbolism. A symbol stands for what it symbolizes. Therefore, you can impute to the symbol what is literally true of what it signifies. Take the OT sacrificial system. Animal sacrifice emblemized the principle of vicarious atonement and penal substitution. From that, some Jews probably inferred that sacrificial animals could actually atone for sin. But, of course, that's not true. That confuses the symbol with what it stands for. 

Even if the NT attributes saving benefits to the sacraments, this doesn't means the sacraments are in fact the source of saving benefits. For the NT would characterize the sacraments is precisely the same way even if that's merely what they represent. For that's the nature of symbolic representation. 

iii) The Bible often uses food and water as theological metaphors. The fact, therefore, that some NT passages use such imagery doesn't presume that this is referring to the sacraments. 

iv) Although the NT sometimes attributes saving benefits to the sacraments, it often promises the same saving benefits apart from the sacraments. For instance, it indexes such benefits to faith in Christ. That confirms the point that the ascription of saving benefits to the sacraments is symbolic. They illustrate divine grace. 

v) Now to the main point. Because the meaning of "baptism" (as well as the theology of baptism) is controversial, English translators of Scripture traditionally avoid prejudging the question by simply transliterating the Greek nouns and verbs rather than rendering them into English synonyms. 

However, because the word "baptism" is used in almost every Christian denomination as a technical term for water baptism, for the rite of initiation or church membership, that conditions us to associate the word "baptism" with the Christian sacrament whenever we read the word "baptism" in the NT. That constant linguistic association in church practice becomes the subconscious default meaning when we read the NT. 

As a result, sacramentarians find more occurrences of water baptism in the NT than may actually be there. So when we read the NT, we should make a conscious effort to bracket that linguistic conditioning. "Baptism" doesn't have a presumptive meaning in NT usage. Rather, that's to be determined on a case-by-case basis. 

vi) There are explicit references to water baptism in the Gospels and Acts. In the Gospels, some of these refer to John's baptism–which is the precursor to Christian baptism. But even in the Gospels, "baptism" doesn't always denote water baptism. In Mk 10:38-39 and Lk 12:50, it's a metaphor for persecution or judgment. It trades on the imagery of drowning.

Likewise, the Gospels refer to "baptism" by fire. That, too, is figurative.  

vii) Although Acts contains several references to water baptism, the first reference is to Spirit-baptism (Acts 1:5). That's both backward-looking and forward-looking. It looks back to the contrast between John's baptism, by water, and the fiery "baptism" which Christ confers, which is a metaphor for imparting the Holy Spirit. And it looks forward to Pentecost, when the Spirit descends.

Interestingly, Joel's description uses an aqueous metaphor: the "outpouring" of the Spirit. One question is the precise nuance of this image. Does it trade on water as a cleansing agent? Washing away one's guilt? A metaphor for the remission of sins? Or does it trade on water as rain? A downpour which revives parched land after a drought? A metaphor for new life? Given the agricultural prelude in Joel, it probably signifies spiritual renewal or spiritual empowerment.   

viii) Mt 28:19 is a locus classics of baptism. However, that doesn't specify water baptism. So that's not something we can just assume. It's something we ought to exegete.

Could it refer to Spirit-baptism? One objection to that interpretation is that it makes reception of the Spirit contingent on apostles transmitting the Spirit, as if it's a power which they discharge. So I think water baptism makes more sense. 

ix) More ambiguous are some Pauline references (e.g. Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 12:13; Gal 4:25-26; Eph 4:5). Do these denote water baptism, Spirit-baptism, or something else?

Baptists tend to construe Rom 6:3-4 (and Col 2:12) as a reference to the Christian sacrament because they think that interpretation bolsters immersion as the proper mode of baptism. However,  I think the up-and-down imagery trades on the comparison with burial and resurrection (i.e. to be lowered into the ground, to rise from the grave) rather than baptism. I think it's a mistake to use Rom 6:3-4 as a prooftext for the mode of baptism. Of course, it could still refer to water baptism, but that apologetic agenda shouldn't drive the interpretation.  

I happen to think immersion is the normative mode of baptism. But I think narrative passages furnish better evidence for the mode.    

x) Attempts to defend one interpretation or another (i.e. water baptism, Spirit-baptism) are often circular inasmuch as commentators will construe one Pauline passage in relation to other Pauline passages. But that assumes the other passages refer to the same thing, which is the very issue in dispute! 

If it refers refers to Spirit-baptism, we might render the verb or noun by "saturated" in the Spirit (or something along those lines). 

xi) Let's take some specific examples:

Commenting on Eph 4:5, Hoehner thinks it refers, not to water baptism, but functions as  a baptismal metaphor for union with Christ in his death and resurrection. And he cites Rom 6:1-11, 1 Cor 10:2; Gal 3:27, and Col 2:12 to corroborate that interpretation. Ephesians, 518. 

Commenting on Gal 3:26-29, Thielman says:

The reference to putting on Christ is metaphorical, and so the reference to baptism is best understood as metaphorical also. Ephesians, 258-59. 

Commenting on 1 Cor 12:13, Fee argues for Spirit-baptism rather than water baptism, in part because there's no reference to water, as well as Semitic parallelism. To "drink" the Spirit is clearly figurative. 

He also refers to agricultural metaphors (Isa 32:15; 44:3). God's Empowering Presence, 179-80.

xii) My purpose is not to settle on the correct interpretation of these passages. The point, rather, is that "baptism" in NT usage isn't necessarily a technical term for the Christian sacrament. It's a mistake to read the NT through that filter. That preconditions the reader to perceive something that may not be there. 

We should treat "baptism" as a neutral word, a placeholder, the meaning of which must be determined in context. And in some cases, there may be insufficient textual clues to nail down the identification. 

“Dismantle the Papacy”? “Pope Francis” may be an ally in this effort

I would see this as a positive, though incomplete, “development”.

With the current pope, the “school of Bologna” is convinced that it has a clear road ahead:

The leaders of the “school of Bologna” have a very ambitious new project in the works: a history of the movement for Christian unity aimed at a thorough reform of the Catholic Church, starting with the dismantling of the papacy in its current form. They believe they have an ally in Pope Francis….

ROME, November 3, 2014 – At the end of October, Pope Francis received a delegation of Old Catholic bishops of the Union of Utrecht.

Numerically this is a very small group, but it is the bearer of a model of Church that pleases not a few progressive Catholics. It recognizes a primacy of honor for the pope, but it does not accept that he is infallible or has jurisdiction over the bishops. It has its bishops elected by a synod composed of clergy and laity. At Mass it gives Eucharistic communion to all, as long as they are baptized in one of the various Christian confessions. It administers collective absolution of sins. It allows second marriages for the divorced.

It also advocates a return to the early faith and recognizes as fully ecumenical only the first seven councils, those of the first millennium, when the Churches of West and East were still undivided….

They couldn’t dismantle it enough for my liking.

First, note that these are “Old Catholics” – those who refused to accept “papal infallibility” at Vatican I. I don’t think there should be a “primacy of honor” – not one that was acquired so dishonestly.

Second, my hopes for this type of dismantling, and the hopes of “not a few progressive Catholics”, would be quite different. They would see it as “license”, whereas I would hope to see it as an admission on the part of Rome that it had overstated its own importance and had thus harmed Christianity for centuries.

Third, I would want to see an actual repentance from the papacy of itself.

And of course, as I’ve written, it is a myth that “the Church” was “undivided” in the first 1000 years.

One of the most significant, Protestant-like “divisions” in the early church may be found in the simple designations of "The School of Antioch" or "The School of Alexandria," both of which held differing views of Scripture, and later, of the person of Christ. This manifested itself in “The Great Schism,” a schism of church governments of “The Church of the East,” the separation of the Church of Alexandria, etc.

Samuel Hugh Moffett, in his work, "A History of Christianity in Asia," describes this "Great Schism" this way:

What finally divided the early church, East from West, Asia from Europe, was neither war nor persecution, but the blight of a violent theological controversy, that raged through the Mediterranean world in the second quarter of the fifth century. It came to be called the Nestorian controversy, and how much of it was theological and how much political is still being debated, but it irreversibly split the church not only east and west but also north and south and cracked it into so many pieces that it was never the same again. (pg. 169)

This is an ugly memory for the “Greco-Roman” church -- it is a far larger and messier divide than the 1054 schism between the Roman and Orthodox churches. It makes a lie of the “unified church” claims of today's Roman Catholic apologists. It is the clearest example that there never was a governmentally-unified church -- especially not “under the papacy” -- ever in the history of the church.

See also A History of the Interpretation of Matt 16:18.

Tuesday is Election Day. Here are some House Races to Watch

Over the last 20 years, I’ve observed that the economy seems to be best when there’s a Democrat president and a Republican congress. It happened with Clinton in the late 1990’s – he could demagogue, but “he couldn’t get anything done”. And the late 1990’s saw the only federal budget surplus since about the 1950’s. These next two years promise to deliver good economic times. The same dynamic is in effect. Plus lower-cost energy is rippling through economy like the Kennedy and Reagan-era tax cuts.

With that said, it seems as if Republicans are poised to make gains in both the House and Senate.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/11/03/house_races_to_watch_on_tuesday_124537.html

During last year’s contentious government shutdown, Democratic Party-aligned Public Policy Polling released a batch of surveys suggesting Democrats could win control the House in 2014, thanks to GOP-directed backlash over the 16-day debacle. They needed a net gain of 17 seats to establish a majority, and “such a pickup would be well within reach,” according to the PPP’s Jim Williams.

Several analysts were bearish on that scenario early on, however, and Princeton professor Sam Wang cautioned that a lot could happen over the next year to change the state of play.

Indeed, the landscape has changed. Rather than bracing for losses, Republicans are set to pick up House seats tomorrow. The Rothenberg Political report, updated on Oct. 29, projects a Republican gain of between five and 12 seats. The next day, Larry Sabato’s “Crystal Ball” estimated Republicans will pick up nine seats. Earlier this month, the Cook Political report suggested four to 10 seats.

Should the GOP win 13 seats -- a plausible, though unlikely, scenario -- Republicans would have their biggest majority in the lower chamber since 1932. Picking up nine seats would give them their biggest majority since 1946.

RCP’s Battle for the House map shows Republicans projected to win 228 seats to Democrats’ 181 seats, with 26 races too close to call. Even if Democrats won every tossup race, they still couldn’t take the gavel from Speaker John Boehner’s hand.

There are several explanations for the stability of Republican dominance in the House, which election analyst Nate Cohn called “the biggest paradox in American electoral politics.” ...

Read more...