mortality and the western mindset

Posted on September 28, 2013 by christopher fisher

There is a very interesting article on the blog Experimental Theology in which the author discusses the difference between educated Western sensibilities and those of prison inmates.

I’ve read some of the most scandalous passages in the bible to men in prison or with the poor and, for whatever reason, they haven’t blinked an eye. With liberal, educated audiences such passages would completely hijack the conversation…

This threw me for a loop at first. I’d get to some passage in the bible that had something horrible in it and I’d wait, hunkered down and prepared, for the inevitable barrage of questions and outrage. And nothing would happen. On the margins, at least in my experience, people seem perfectly comfortable with the blood and the violence and the wrath. The Old Testament God isn’t much of a scandal in these social locations.

It could be that these inmates are just desensitized (like the author wonders) but it could also be that the modern intellectual crowd has accepted as norms those concepts that only exist due to our privileged lives.

In her thesis A Life Unlived, Barbara N. Scarfo says of ancient Rome:

In his 1966 study on the age structure of the Roman population, Hopkins hypothesized that the life expectancy at birth fell in the age range of twenty to thirty years, an estimate that was later supported by the work of Parkin and Scheidel. Furthermore, it has been suggested that if an individual survived the critical period of childhood, then it was likely that they might live to at least middle age, approximately 40 to 50 years.

Compared to a developed society in the modern world, whose infant mortality rate is approximately less than 10 per 1000, the numbers that have been suggested for the Roman population are noticeably more severe. These rates have been the subject of debate among scholars who study ancient demographic patterns; however, it seems that the numbers differ only slightly from source to source. With the assumption of life expectancy at birth of 25 years, Hopkins estimates that about 28% of all newborn babies did not survive to the age of one year. Furthermore, he suggests that approximately 50% of children did not survive past the age of 10.

Imagine a world in which 50% of children did not live past the age of 10. Combine this with roving bands of barbarians, plagues, pillaging armies, starvation, and just the brutal work environment, and it is a wonder any human being has survived to the present. The past was unimaginably miserable. Needless to say, the modern notion that life is precious and really must be protected at all costs is a modern notion.

Today, we rightly ask if God was justified to drown babies in a worldwide flood, just as we ask if America was justified to kill babies with an atom bomb during World War 2. The questions should be asked, but we should also remember, we are living in a amazingly, fantastical place and time. Our riches might bias our intellectual conclusions.

Posted in God, Greek History, History, Human Nature, Morality, Standard of Living, Theology | 1 Comment

neglected verses – John 2 15

Posted on September 26, 2013 by christopher fisher

Joh 2:15 When He [Jesus] had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables.

The picture of Jesus that most Christians embrace is one of love, smiles, and kindness. But this is neglecting the fact that Jesus literally whipped people in the temple. A grown man fashioned a whip, overturned tables, and drove other grown men out of the temple district. We really need to understand what this is saying and what it tells us about Jesus. Not all violence is wrong, and Jesus was no pushover.

Posted in Bible, Church History, Gnostics, History, Jesus, Neglected Verses, People, Theology | 1 Comment

who would Jesus bomb

Posted on September 26, 2013 by christopher fisher

LewRockwell has an interesting article basically asking “Who would Jesus bomb?” I never understood those who used that phrase as a rhetorical device. Of course they believe the answer should be “no one”, but this is ignoring basic Christian doctrine.

Christianity claims that Jesus is God. Paul states that the fullness of God was in Jesus (Col 2:9). So if Jesus is God, and God destroyed various peoples, cities, and individuals in the Old and New Testament, then we can populate a brief list of people Jesus would bomb.

Sodom and Gomorrah
Canaanites
The rebellious Israelites at Mount Sinai
Tyre
Egypt
Amalekites
Ananias and Sapphira

The list goes on (for a more complete list, see “How many has God killed?”). But the striking thing about this list is that some of the instances are flat out land grabs. God commanded Israel into war to take land. And God coupled this with a command to take no prisoners:

Deu 20:16 “But of the cities of these peoples which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive,

This leads to an interesting incident in which wise pagan princes, to spare their people, deceive the Israelites into taking the princes’ people as indentured servants. How does the Bible report this event? With hostility! Israel failed their duty to clear the land.

Jos 9:3 But when the inhabitants of Gibeon heard what Joshua had done to Jericho and Ai,
Jos 9:4 they worked craftily…
Jos 9:6 And they went to Joshua, to the camp at Gilgal, and said to him and to the men of Israel, “We have come from a far country; now therefore, make a covenant with us.”…
Jos 9:8 But they said to Joshua, “We are your servants.” And Joshua said to them, “Who are you, and where do you come from?”
Jos 9:9 So they said to him: “From a very far country your servants have come, because of the name of the LORD your God; for we have heard of His fame, and all that He did in Egypt…
Jos 9:14 Then the men of Israel took some of their provisions; but they did not ask counsel of the LORD.
Jos 9:15 So Joshua made peace with them, and made a covenant with them to let them live; and the rulers of the congregation swore to them.
Jos 9:16 And it happened at the end of three days, after they had made a covenant with them, that they heard that they were their neighbors who dwelt near them…
Jos 9:18 But the children of Israel did not attack them, because the rulers of the congregation had sworn to them by the LORD God of Israel. And all the congregation complained against the rulers.
Jos 9:19 Then all the rulers said to all the congregation, “We have sworn to them by the LORD God of Israel; now therefore, we may not touch them.
Jos 9:20 This we will do to them: We will let them live, lest wrath be upon us because of the oath which we swore to them.”

It is clear that God tasked Israel to clear the land, a scorched earth policy. It is also telling that once Israel made the truce, they did not renege on their end although the oath was made under false pretenses. Begrudgingly, Israel accepted willing servants rather than kill them all. This is not the picture LewRockwell.com would have us believe.

In short, there are plenty of people whom Jesus would bomb. Total War was not invented by Sherman or Creative Assembly, but by God. When Jesus says “turn the other cheek”, he is not setting government policy. He is not saying for the government to let murderers kill again or for thieves to steal double. He is talking to individuals.

That being said, the LewRockwell article is directed towards Syria, and I don’t believe Jesus would bomb Syria. But that does not mean he would never bomb anyone.

Posted in Bible, God, Jesus, Morality, People, Theology | 6 Comments

hitler rants against open theism

Posted on September 24, 2013 by christopher fisher

The latest offering from realityisnotoptionalTV:

Posted in Augustine, Bible, Calvinism, Figures of Speech, God, Omnipresence, Omniscience, Open Theism, Plato, Plotinus, Theology | 1 Comment

recession economics

Posted on September 23, 2013 by christopher fisher

EconLog posted one of their most informative posts today. Bryan Caplan writes on why wages do not decrease during a recession (i.e. why employers favor layoffs). Markets in everything. It appears that there is an internal business market for equity among workers. Workers expect raises, and moral suffers when there are none or when the reverse happens. Whereas layoffs are passing inconveniences to those who retain their job, a pay decrease would cause a productivity drop even in those who are able to keep their jobs:

Question: OK, so why don’t nominal wages fall for given workers at given jobs?

Answer: Because almost all employers realize that nominal wage cuts are terrible for morale – and bad morale is bad for worker productivity.

Question: Why don’t they cut wages, then fire workers who slack off?

Answer: Because labor productivity heavily depends on trust and reciprocity. Firing can deter specific offenses, but can’t make workers broadly promote their employers’ interests. Plus productivity is much easier to observe at the group level than the individual level.

Question: Why don’t they cut wages, then fire workers who slack off?

Answer: Because labor productivity heavily depends on trust and reciprocity. Firing can deter specific offenses, but can’t make workers broadly promote their employers’ interests. Plus productivity is much easier to observe at the group level than the individual level…

Question: Doesn’t this suggest that the better-paid employees were underpaid?

Answer: Absolutely. Internal horizontal pay equity norms depress pay for good workers and inflate pay for bad workers.

Question: Is that the whole story?

Answer: No. Lay-offs are bad for morale if they drag on, or if workers see no light at the end of the tunnel. But a big quick wave of lay-offs, followed by reassurances of job security for everyone remaining, only hurts morale for a few weeks or months. Many employers sweeten the deal by using the cost savings of lay-offs to fund raises for remaining workers!

The whole post is worth a read. When leftists claim that businesses are only in business for profit, it should be understood that the businesses are forced to play the juggling act of worker productivity, equity, morality, reputation and profit. While they care about profit, they are forced to consider what workers believe is right and fair. The wages that are set are not arbitrary, and, as the text states, sometimes more productive people are harmed because of the moral values of equity of their less productive counterparts.

Posted in Econ 101, Economics, Human Nature, Labor | Leave a comment

the gnostic view of God

Posted on September 22, 2013 by christopher fisher

From the Gnostic manuscript, The Sophia of Jesus Christ:

The Savior said: “He Who Is is ineffable. No principle knew him, no authority, no subjection, nor any creature from the foundation of the world until now… For he is immortal and eternal. Now he is eternal, having no birth; for everyone who has birth will perish. He is unbegotten, having no beginning; for everyone who has a beginning has an end. Since no one rules over him, he has no name; for whoever has a name is the creation of another.”

(BG 84, 13-17 adds: He is unnameable. He has no human form; for whoever has human form is the creation of another).

“And he has a semblance of his own – not like what you have seen and received, but a strange semblance that surpasses all things and is better than the universe. It looks to every side and sees itself from itself. Since it is infinite, he is ever incomprehensible. He is imperishable and has no likeness (to anything). He is unchanging good. He is faultless. He is eternal. He is blessed. While he is not known, he ever knows himself. He is immeasurable. He is untraceable. He is perfect, having no defect. He is imperishability blessed. He is called ‘Father of the Universe'”.

This manuscript was touted as part of Holy Scriptures by various Gnostics (a broad term). Notice how differently it reads from the other books of the Bible. As maybe an interesting side note, this is how I would imagine the Calvinists would rewrite the Bible if they had the opportunity.

Posted in Calvinism, Gnostics, God, History, Theology | Leave a comment

why are calvinists so scared of the Bible

Posted on September 20, 2013 by christopher fisher

The Bible is the word of God. Although some of it represents personal letters or open letters, a vast majority of it contains historical narrative. Literally, these are stories of actual events.

When people speak to one another, such as in letter form, they might use a figure of speech like “today was the best day ever”. In personal conversations this statement might be just a general statement; it might be in context of something or might just be a bridge comment to express some sort of connecting thought. But when people are writing out events, any idiom they use will still describe the events they are recording. These idioms also must be readily understood by their readers. In other words, historical narratives describe events even if using idioms. In the Bible, those events involve God as an actor.

This poses an acute problem for the Calvinist. God is described in many narratives of events portraying actions that the Calvinist wishes to deny. Getting a Calvinist just to detail the events described in the Bible is like wresting a greased pig. They don’t want to do it. They inherently know that words, even idioms, have to mean something, and that “something” will undermine their theology.

Forget what the verses means, forget figurative possible interpretations. The Calvinist will refuse to detail the actual events themselves. One prime example is 1 Kings 22:

1Ki 22:19 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.
1Ki 22:20 And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
1Ki 22:21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.
1Ki 22:22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
1Ki 22:23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

Try to get a Calvinist just to give a summary of the events. What do the verses detail happening? They will not do it. Instead they want to talk about word definitions in the text or “anthropomorphisms”. But when pressed just to give a brief summary of what the text says, they will not utter a peep. They inherently know that if they detail out the text in narrative form, then they will undermine their entire view of God. All their eggs are in one basket, so they just claim the text does not mean what it says and try to focus on other parts of the Bible.

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, Figures of Speech, Open Theism, Theology | 11 Comments

advice from an experienced street preacher

Posted on September 20, 2013 by christopher fisher

In this video, street preacher Jesse Morrell shares some life lessons from his 10 years of street preaching. Jesse is an expert in dealing with human beings (especially belligerent ones). Although the video is geared towards relations with the police, he highlights key attributes of human nature.

The prime theme of this video is that people respond to incentives. One such way is that people become instantly nicer when they know they are being recorded (skip to the 12:40 mark for this observation and 13:40 for a funny story). When people are recorded, they begin to think about how their actions might affect them in the future. They also will not try to lie at a later date about the events in question. In other words, they become more honest. Recordings inspire honesty.

A written debate is a written recording to which the same principle applies. It makes a lot of sense why some people refuse written debates. They are scarred of being recorded and not being able to respond to legitimate questions. A recording lasts forever. Recently I have been dealing with an arrogant Calvinist pastor who is scared to death of a written debate. This is because he knows that if his words are in writing, they can be examined and questioned. He knows I would call him out on the parts of the Bible he would just like to ignore. If there existed a conversation in which he was called out with specific criticisms, his inability to respond would not fare well for his image in the church. One indicator of his intellectual prowess is that his prime evidence for his Platonistic view of God is the “eyes of the Lord” being everywhere. Do the members of his church know that “eyes of the Lord” refer to angels elsewhere? The pastor knows, but I doubt the members of his church ever will. Why would he volunteer to record himself being called out?

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, Econ 101, Economics, Human Nature, Theology | Leave a comment

comparing to God

Posted on September 20, 2013 by christopher fisher

To what extend do we understand Isaiah’s writings about God being incomparable? From Act and Being:

But we find also, earlier in the chapters attributed to this prophet, apparent support for the negative theology. The question is repeated: ‘To whom then will you compare God? What image will you compare him with?’ (Isa 40.18) ‘”To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?”, says the Holy One’ (v. 25). The form of the questions might clearly expect the answer, ‘Nothing’, and yet the whole of the passage is set in the context of a revealed theology of creation in which affirmations of a wholly positive kind are made about God’s power as it is manifest in creative action. The God of this writer is known though his redemptive historical action, and it is this which founds Isaiah’s confidence that God is Israel’s goel, or next of kin, the word that has come to be translated ‘redeemer’ and so to form the basis for a whole theology of God’s holy love.

Even when God is attributed claims of incomparability, it is in the context of positive action, positive theology.

Posted in Bible, God, Open Theism, Theology | Leave a comment

misquoted verses – the eyes of the Lord

Posted on September 18, 2013 by christopher fisher

When Calvinists turn to verses to support their understanding of God, one of the first to which they turn is Proverbs 15:3:

Pro 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, Keeping watch on the evil and the good.

The Calvinists claim the “axiomatic” meaning of this verse is not only that God knows everything, but also that He is everywhere. But is that what the verse means or even implies?

Proverbs is an interesting book of the Bible. It is not a narrative, such as Genesis or Exodus. We do not find God speaking or telling people about Himself. Instead we find general sayings (“proverbs”). In America, we have our own proverbs such as “Don’t count your eggs before they hatch.” Some of our proverbs even contradict each other:

“If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again”
“Don’t beat your head against a stone wall”

While the first proverb is stating that we should continue to do something until it is done, the second proverb is saying not to try something that is not working. In the same fashion, sometimes the Proverbs of the Bible contradict each other:

Pro 26:4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes.

How can both be true? The atheists mock Christians with these “contradictions”, and there are several contradictions in Proverbs. The truth is that the statements should be read as proverbs, not overriding rules. To make it clear, the book of Proverbs is literally a book of proverbs. Proverbs have meaning, and Proverbs 15:3 seems to mean that people should account for their actions, because God will know what they do.

So looking at the verse:

Pro 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, Keeping watch on the evil and the good.

The Calvinist seizes upon this verse and makes it into a center piece of their theology. Why not use God’s own testimony about Himself? If Calvinists were forced to do that, they would show up to discussions empty-handed. But even besides this unhealthy focus on a stray statement in a book of sayings, does this verse even imply what the Calvinist would have it imply?

Does it imply that God is everywhere? If God literally had to watch every person every moment of the day, would that necessitate that He had to be everywhere? When people are at a football game, the announcer might proclaim “now let’s turn to our ‘eye in the sky’”. They are referencing, not their own eyes but that of a camera. People at home can see events happening although they themselves are not even present. God does not have to be present to know something.

Does the verse imply that God knows everything? If God watched every person at all times (we will even grant that God cannot forget things, like He claims to do in Jer 31:34) does He have to know everything (like which rocks on a barren island were blown over by wind)? This verse specifies exactly what the eyes are watching: “people’s activities”. Of all the verses in the Bible which reference “eyes of the Lord”, not one is about God watching anything other than people. Another thing to note, even if this explains God knows everything, it is limited to current events. The verse does not imply in any sense that God knows future events.

So not only do Calvinists have to explain how Proverbs 15:3 should not be taken as a proverb, they also have to explain how it implies their definitions of omnipresence and omniscience.

On top of this, Calvinists also have to argue that the word “every place” means literally “every place”. Elsewhere in the Bible “every” is definitely an idiomatic expression meaning “a whole lot”. We see Bezaleel was filled with God in “every” manner of workmanship.

Exo 31:2 See, I have called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah:
Exo 31:3 And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,

Did Bezaleel know every skill set to ever exist?

Moses gathers “all” the people together.

Exo 35:4 And Moses spake unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing which the LORD commanded, saying,

So no one, not a single elderly or toddler Israelite, missed out of Moses’ speech to the millions of Israelites?

In Genesis, a spring waters the “whole” face of the ground:

Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Does this mean that every square inch of every piece of land was watered?

The word “all” rarely means “all”. Usually, it means “a whole lot”. But Calvinists here take “all”, not as meaning “every place” but instead they make it mean “every square inch of every place”. They extend the meaning of “all” further than the text to fit their theology! Then they claim that those who do not think “all” means “all” are guilty of maligning the text.

An acceptable figurative interpretation of this text could mean “general surveillance”. It would be like saying “the eyes of the government are in every house”. This would not mean that the government knows everything (every action of every human being). It would just indicate general surveillance, like the current NSA scandal.

But the interesting thing about this verse, if taken literally, it states that God has eyes. The Calvinist in no way believes God has literal eyes. They want to take that as figurative. To put this in perspective, Calvinists take one word (“eyes”) from the sentence, and want to take it figurative and then want to take another word (“every”), and make it literal. Then they criticize those who take the natural meaning that this is a proverb and both “eyes” and “all” are figurative.

But assuming that the Calvinist was correct, and that “the eyes of the Lord” were everywhere, the Calvinist still needs to define what exactly are the “eyes of the Lord”. They want to take this figuratively. They want it to mean “God’s physical placement and general knowledge”. How “eyes” means either, is beyond me. Two additional possible figurative meanings (besides “general surveillance”) is that “eyes” means recording devices or that “eyes” means angels. Angels is the most probable of all three.

The Bible is filled with references to “the eyes of the Lord”. Here are two very strange references:

2Ch 16:9 For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth…

Zec 4:10 For who has despised the day of small things? For these seven rejoice to see The plumb line in the hand of Zerubbabel. They are the eyes of the LORD, Which scan to and fro throughout the whole earth.”

In the first text, God’s eyes are said to “run” to and fro. In the second text, the eyes are “the seven” and “they” scan to and fro. If God’s eyes were everywhere, why is there a “to and fro” motion? Zec 4:10 is also paralleled in Zec 3:9:

Zec 3:9 For behold, the stone That I have laid before Joshua: Upon the stone are seven eyes. Behold, I will engrave its inscription,’ Says the LORD of hosts, ‘And I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.

The “seven eyes of the Lord” seem to be angels, messengers. In Revelation 5:6, the verse might be referencing Zec 3:9 in which it describes “seven eyes” as “seven Spirits of God sent out into all the Earth”:

Rev 5:6 And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent out into all the earth.,

More evidence that 2Ch 16:9 and Zec 4:10 are referencing angels is that they both use the term “to and fro”. In Job 2, this is used in reference to Satan. The scene is in heaven where God is sitting with his angels, and Satan stops by. God literally asks Satan where he has been:

Job 2:2 And the LORD said to Satan, “From where do you come?” Satan answered the LORD and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.”

Satan was traveling on earth. Did God track him the entire time? Face value reading would say no, although God might have just been getting him to confess. But then the chapter ends with Satan and God betting on Job. God did not seem to be tracking Satan when Satan was going “to and fro”.

Another reference to angels going “to and fro” is in Zechariah 6 (the same book and same context of the original quoted verse). To be clear, in the same book of the Bible, the “eyes of the Lord” are said to go “to and fro” and angels are said to go “to and fro”.

Zec 6:5 And the angel answered and said to me, “These are four spirits of heaven, who go out from their station before the Lord of all the earth.
Zec 6:6 The one with the black horses is going to the north country, the white are going after them, and the dappled are going toward the south country.”
Zec 6:7 Then the strong steeds went out, eager to go, that they might walk to and fro throughout the earth. And He said, “Go, walk to and fro throughout the earth.” So they walked to and fro throughout the earth.

This book also numbers the eyes “seven”. Does God have seven eyes? Are these seven eyes “everywhere”? The natural understanding of “eyes” in these verses is “angels”, of which seven have some sort of status or authority.

So Calvinists would have a hard time arguing that “the eyes of the Lord” cannot be understood as angels in Proverbs. Angels are shown to communicate with God and sometimes even brainstorm actions for God to take (1Ki 22:20). They are his eyes. Within Proverbs itself, “the eyes of the Lord” are said to record things:

Pro 22:12 The eyes of the LORD preserve knowledge, But He overthrows the words of the faithless.

This is not at all the picture that the Calvinist would have as to how God gains his knowledge. The verse states that the “eyes” preserve the knowledge. But the Calvinist believes God just inherently has all “knowledge”. So what does this verse mean to the Calvinist in light of Proverbs 15:3? Does the Calvinist interpretation of Proverbs 15:3 hold in Proverbs 22:12?

Or are these verses better understood to mean “messengers” (“angels”). This would be no different than an American understanding of this word. If you are in an ancient kingdom sitting in a bar and someone says “be careful what you say, the eyes of the king in this place”. This would be an acceptable figurative use of the word “eyes”.

In summary: Even if this verse was not a proverb, Calvinists have to explain why “every place” is not a common idiom and instead should be taken literally. Even if they explained that “every place” means all places, they still need to show it means “every square inch of every place”. Even if they did that, they need to explain why “eyes” are not literal in spite of the fact that “every place” is literal. Even if they did that they need to show that this verse means the same things as God “being every place” and “knowing all things”. Even if they did that, they still need to show that this verse means “God knows things in the future”. Even if they did that, they still need to explain why “eyes” is a feature of God’s essence instead of an idiom meaning “angels”, as used elsewhere in the Bible.

With this cascading list of reasons which question the Calvinist’s translation; one has to wonder why the Calvinist is obsessed with this particular verse. Is this the best verse they have, an obscure proverb in a list of sayings? Is this how God wants us to figure out His essential nature, by fleeting references in general lists of sayings? Why don’t the Calvinists ever quote God’s own testimony about Himself? If Calvinists are that adamant on this one verse with such little evidence, what other basic errors are they making? If one of their strongest verses might actually be evidence against their position, how strong is their position? Something smells strange in the state of Denmark.

Calvinists sure have their work cut out for them. Platonism is not easy, folks.

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, Figures of Speech, God, Jesus, Misquoted Verses, Omnipresence, Omniscience, Open Theism, People, Theology | 5 Comments