Christ - Ideal or Reality?

The Christmas season seems to be a tough season for me.  As I talk to more and more people, I come face to face with the reality that Christmas brings out the selfish, greedy, indulgent, self-centered thinking of many people.  A recent Facebook post I saw had taken the opportunity to turn the idea of being able to lie to your kids about Santa as proof that we can simply tell our kids that gay couple are alright because they have love (I don't link it here because why would I want to give it any more places to exist?).  This post appeared on an alleged Christian's page.  I specifically say alleged because I have come to doubt the reality of belief in almost everybody I meet that claims to be a Christian.  I have no idea whether or not they are true Christians and more likely than not they are better people than I am.  But the thing I've realized is that many people tend to be fonder of the IDEA of God or Jesus rather than actually believing the reality of God's existence.  Really, when these people say they believe it is really saying, “I like the general idea of it, so I accept that position.”  However, the position is excepted on the condition that they don't have to actually believe it (which would impact their life).

I find this idea of the Christian idealist to be the most common person I meet claiming to be a Christian.  The problem is I have no idea who is sincerely chasing Christ and just failing as a sinner or who is the person attached to the idea – I don't think there is any way to tell without really getting to know the person, but even then we can't look inside their heart to see their true intentions.

  

With that said though, something strikes me; certain things flat out contradict the very thing you say to believe and so accepting those positions means you really can't believe that which you say.  Gay marriage is one of those things that is so blatantly against the Bible, one cannot possibly believe that Christ is who He claims to be and still support gay marriage as a Christian.  One cannot possibly believe Christ is who He claimed to be an still believe the only thing that matters in life is the nice car, nice cell phone, and whatever little thing fills you with happiness aside from Christ.  Materialism is a sign of those who see themselves as the center of the universe and therefore cannot be serving Christ.  Liberalism and its pursuit of murder of children, gay marriage, the suppression of religion, and conformity to social morals is against Christ and therefore supporting liberalism means you are NOT supporting Christianity.   I find that people that claim to be Christians yet support these opposing views are simply NOT Christians at all (doesn't mean they don't live better lives than me), but somebody who got attached to the idea of God rather than believed in God. 

How can you judge them, you know you aren't supposed to judge? How can I? Simple, because I know some things are mutually exclusive.  You cannot be an atheist and a Christian.  You cannot support gay marriage and serve Christ.  Simple.  But I'm not supposed to judge right?  You see though, I'm not judging here, I'm simply stating the conclusion of the truth claim.  Liberals try to find ways to reinterpret the scripture to fit their belief system but that just shows the point, they serve liberalism and not Christ. Jesus himself says you cannot serve two masters.  The idea of serving your own belief system and making it to say what you FEEL it should, means that you are serving YOURSELF and not Christ.  These are not judgments, they are simply observations based on basic rational thought.  Though I could defend being judgmental in certain circumstances, I don't even have to offer any justification for a simple statement of truth – if the two claims are mutually exclusive then one cannot accept the position of one claim and yet hold the other to be true as well. 

Christmas is a reminder that I am a disgusting sinner in need of a savior and that God graciously provided one.  I see the darkness is the people around me, everywhere I look.  It's not the unbelievers that make me sick; it's those claiming to be Christians while clearly serving the wrong master.  This Christmas season, I find myself trying to look at the mirror and make sure that I am not attached to an idea.  This Christmas, I want to find that I BELIEVE and that I'm not stuck in the pursuit of an idea – my own ideas especially.  It isn’t my goal to condemn the world, but rather to make sure we have some rational thought.  We must understand that one cannot accept all positions equally.  Naturally, if some beliefs are to be accepted others are rejected in the same action.  It is sometimes worth looking at our lives to see if maybe we've compromised a bit and have started to embrace the IDEA of God rather than the REALITY of Him.

Atheism - The "Neutral" Enemy

Is Atheism neutral?  This question arises because within politics it is often easy to find people on both sides, liberals and conservatives, that believe atheism is a neutral position.  Part of the problem comes from the effective re-branding of atheism.  The atheist movement has made an intentional effort to redefine atheism as a simple lack of belief in a deity.  This watered down definition is not really what it means to be an atheist however.  Noe-atheism, as it is called in some philosophical circles, tries to include everybody that simply lacks a belief in god.  When we talk atheists though, what we really mean are those who reject the existence of God or a god.  We don't mean the person that hasn't considered the question; we mean the person who has considered it and concluded positively that there is no god of any sort. 

This definition is important because it contains the direct answer as to whether atheism can be neutral at all.  If somebody has already drawn a conclusion then they are NOT NEUTRAL.  Most politicians or political groups that go out to try to eliminate religious belief in politics do not just lack a belief.  They have taken a position against God and rejected all religious belief.  Of this belief, the 1828 edition of the Webster dictionary has this to say, “Atheism is a ferocious system that leaves nothing above us to excite awe, nor around us, to awaken tenderness.” Do we want leaders who have rejected our belief system?  This is what gets me, politics is precisely where belief SHOULD be expressed.  Leaders should lead based on BELIEFS.  The atheist REFUSES TO BELIEVE there is a God.  It’s not scientific.  It’s not the default belief. Most of all, it IS NOT NEUTRAL.

  

So what's the point of this?  I guess the more I look at the world, the more I see believers getting sucked into the mentality that leaders should govern outside of their religion.  The assumption has become that the atheist position is not only neutral, but also the default.  These so called believers need to be slapped because this is total nonsense.  First off, as pointed out atheism cannot be neutral (I also touch on it in my other post: Is Religion Bad?).  Second, all these believers need to realize the default position is belief.  Look at the history of the world, look at the primitive tribes that exist today, look at the studies of belief, and look at the kids of the world.  BELIEF IS DEFAULT.  Atheists always try to act like belief is learned and that atheism is the natural way.  This however is complete false!  A quick look at primitive tribes or study of ancient history shows that the default has always been BELIEF in a deity.  We might learn our particular religious belief system, but we don’t have to be taught to believe.  G.K. Chesterton covered this in his book Orthodoxy, in the chapter “The Ethics of Elfland.”  Dr. Alvin Plantinga also discusses the idea of a properly basic belief frequently – he actually lists belief in God as properly basic.  My point is Christians need to wake up and stop acting so dumb about atheism.  Understand that to be an atheist is to REJECT the Christian view.  It doesn’t mean the person that never considered your position, but rather the person that considered and chose to reject belief in God.  This is an opposing view to Christianity, not the pre-Christian belief.  Those who lack belief need to be educated.  Those who rejected it need to be opposed.

When we vote for leaders, when we encounter laws, we need to reject the liberal view that religion should be separate.  Religion should permeate politics!  Governing should be done based on a belief system other than atheism.  The U.S. government cannot promote a single religion, so why do we not get up in arms when they promote the religion of atheism?  People need to be educated that atheism isn't a neutral position; it is the partner of liberalism, the enemy of conservatives, and in direct opposition to Christianity. 

That Dang Pope!

Sorry for the long delay in writing, I’ve just been very busy with work.  I couldn’t find time in my day to write anything for the blog.  Though there were a number of things on my mind like the government shutdown, the future of conservatism, and what we should aim for as conservatives in a liberal society, I just couldn’t find the hours in a day to write about any of them.  Now that the shutdown is over, I actually wanted to address another issue completely different than those I just mentioned – the Pope.

See, right now the Pope is highly controversial among Catholics and has caused quite a stir.  Some conservatives want his head while many liberals are cheering him as if he fighting for their cause.  Now, as a non-Catholic I have found that I tend to come in with a slightly different view of him.  Pope Francis has been in the media quite a bit and many of his statements seem to have been flaunted as a change in Catholic teaching.  However, what the liberals would like the Pope to say and what the Pope is actually saying are two different things.  Francis has sparked a lot of debate and I hear many conservatives bashing him as completely stupid for even talking.  So let me breakdown my perspective a little.

First though, let’s address the media.  As most people with half a brain know, the media is completely sold out to liberalism.  The news is just a propaganda machine trying to bend everything in a way that promotes liberalism.  Liberals are absolute idiots, they’re never going to embrace logic yet try to argue with logic until they get destroyed and then they argue emotions.  As far as liberals are concerned, debates are over: evolution, global warming, gay marriage, and even religion.  They are over because the liberals are so smart they don’t even argue, don’t follow science, logic, reason, or intelligent process and instead just say the arguments are over.  This approach is surprisingly effective because the news (along with essentially every TV show, except Last Man Standing, is liberal) promotes the idea that the argument is over and just doesn’t ever talk about the other view, ever.  So whenever there is a story about the Pope on the news we need to understand as non-Obamaholics that each story comes in the context of EXPANDING THE LIBERAL AGENDA.  Meaning, most likely the news will use words to skew the story, take out of context the quotes, and have some sort of bash on conservative values – very slyly over course.  If you’re a conservative and mad at the Pope because of something you heard on the news, you’re misinformed. 

However, some conservatives are well aware of the worthless news and have decided the Pope is an idiot because he even talks and should be aware that the liberal media will decimate whatever he says.  I find this a bit disturbing because it gives MORE power to the media! Should the Pope really be holding his tongue because the liberals will try to change it to fit their agenda?  Set the Pope aside for a second and ask yourself if all conservatives should be quiet in order to not give the liberal media something to talk about.  Living in fear of being taking out of context gives all the power to the liberals and we as conservatives have done their job for them.  Conservatives should be celebrating that at least the Pope is still a news story!  Make no mistake; liberals can’t wait till there are no conservatives to talk about and bad mouth.  Remember, the only compromise a liberal knows is where the other party talks, looks, eats, acts, thinks, and votes the same as them.  The Pope is a story because HE IS NOT one of them and the liberals want to make him like them. 

The second thing to take into consideration is that the Pope has successfully brought the debate forward.  Gay marriage and women’s roles have actually been talked about again and people have had the opportunity to EXPLAIN the conservative view.  For a long time the conservative view has been described by everybody else EXCEPT the conservatives.  Liberals have defined what we believe and others have accepted.  “The church hates homosexuals.” “Christians believe just being gay is a sin.” “Christians think they’re so much better than everybody else.”   When the liberals define the conservative view, then the real conservative view can never win.  All the attention the Pope has drawn has given an opportunity for conservatives to actually talk about what the REAL conservative view is.  Conversation has actually surfaced and the time for educating the liberals and other “conservatives” has started because of the Pope.  Mention “Christian” or “Catholic” and you automatically have images flood into people’s minds – many images that have been defined and establish by the LIBERALS and are therefore completely distorted.  We can win every debate against liberalism because conservatism is simply a better, rational, logical, and intelligent view of the world but many conservatives have succumb to the liberal view and have accepted the liberal media’s position that the debate is over.  Because of the focus on the Pope we have been given the opportunity to educate the world, liberals and conservatives alike, on the real beliefs of conservative Christians.  THIS IS A GOOD THING!

A third thing to realize is that the Pope has attempted to be more Christ like and less Pharisee like VISUALLY.  It’s not to say other Popes where Pharisaical, but rather that Pope Francis is specifically trying to change the IMAGE that is perceived when viewing the Pope .  Many of the conservatives remind me of the Pharisees who had their own understanding of how things should be and were unwilling to see any differently.  They held so tightly to THEIR PERSONAL beliefs that many missed the very thing they were looking for.  Often times these conservatives get so focused on their way that they believe they personally know better than everybody else.  By making many of the drastic or more subtle changes, the Pope has moved into a ministry that is much more Christ like than acting loftier and higher than everybody else.  Focusing on the poor, emphasizing love, and walking among the crowds is very much a shift in style and a great attempt at changing the PERCEPTION that exists among people.  How effective it will be in the long run remains to be seen, but the contrast is clear when compared to some previous Popes, especially those in recent memory of the people.  He has to find a way to be on the level with people because stories of the smuggling millions of dollars in or spending millions on lavish living continue to pop up.  How do we educate people and change the perception WITHOUT doing something different? I think people need to really appreciate what the Pope is trying to do, whether or not it is successfully achieved.  People expect the Pope to be in a palace.  People expect extravagance.  People expect the Pope to not talk about anything controversial.  However, what has this done for the message of Christianity and what has this done to establish the Christian attitude of serving people?  Something NEEDED TO CHANGE!  We don’t want to sacrifice CONSERVATIVE VALUES, but we need to find a way to express CHRISTIAN VALUES that effectively represents the message of Christ while at the same time shatters some of the views that the liberals have so effectively instilled in the minds of the people.

I’m not here to defend the Pope in everything he does or says.  My main point is that all this attention is good and it gives conservatives a real opportunity to educate people.  Liberalism is the enemy of reason and logic, but most of all it is the enemy of conservative Christian values.  We need to take advantage of this time to use these conversations to spread the real conservative message and dispel the liberal implanted ideas.

Is Religion Bad? (PART 2)

The second failure of the anti-religion group is its failure to understand religion.  To shed some light on this, I grabbed the definition from dictionary.com.  Here it is:

re·li·gion 

noun

1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. The life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. The practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

With that understanding in place, take a look at these groups.  Notice that they all tend to be a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.  Atheism rejects the superhuman agency, but does contain its own moral code.

Notice, the subjective view takes some things from the religion group and then rejects other while adding its own.  Obviously, there can be numerous things added to the lists here and many additional subjective views offered which all contain different lists.  I think that is pretty clear.

The “Outsiders” Test

Why does this matter?  It matters because people think they can ESCAPE religion by believing what they want to believe.  However, all they have done is created a new box of beliefs “concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe…containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.” You haven't abandoned religion!  All you succeeded in doing was creating a new religion!

John Loftus, an atheist, terrible debater and woefully stupid man, described what he called the outsider test.  Essentially he suggests that if you look at Christianity from the outside, you would abandon it embrace atheism.  This pathetic view ignores the fact that one is always an INSIDER to some view! There is no way to outsider test OBJECTIVELY because it will always be done in terms of an INSIDER to another belief system.  A person is always an INSIDER – ALWAYS!

Unfortunately, nobody can ever be truly objective because they always have some sort of subjective interpretation involved in the processing (it doesn't mean that if we understand our biases that we can't try to set them aside – but this is very difficult due to the impact of our worldview).  The idea of being an “outsider” and therefore seeing an objective view of is pure fantasy.  With my own experiences through Christianity, when I do the “outsiders” test on atheism (after all I am an outsider to it), it appears to be ludicrously stupid, naïve, ego-centric, hedonism.  So which “outsider” perspective is right?

For those agnostics who think they live on the outside of religion, they don't.  They have just chosen a softer and more cowardly religion.  It tries to find a box where relative understanding somehow equates to leaving every religion alone because God is bigger than that.  But by choosing this path, they have inversely shrunk God to the tiniest and most impotent being available.  Agnostics live in a religious box, where they think God lets “good” people go to heaven and doesn’t send people to Hell that don’t believe in him.  However, God doesn’t appear to have a standard for what is good, because the agnostic can’t decide what a good person is.  God also doesn’t appear to be good, because now he lets people that don’t care about Him go to heaven as well.  It’s only those that agnostic deems evil that would suffer some sort of punishment.  What does all of this equate to? A RELIGION! You are yet another insider with another biased opinion, offering your relative god based on your subjective understanding.

The Relevance of Religion

What about those that play the ecumenical card and act soft hearted and say, “Religion just isn’t needed.” If religion is not needed, then YOUR RELIGION is not needed either.  Your understanding of the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe are IRRELEVANT!  So the ecumenical (cowardly) agnostic believes that HIS OWN VIEW IS WORTHLESS by rejecting all religion as wrong.  If he believes himself to be right (that all religion is wrong) then in fact he cannot truly believe ALL religion to be wrong, because he believes HIS religion to be right!  Therefore he is NOT ecumenical at all is completely exclusive, arrogant, and judgmental!  The agnostic is therefore a liar and a fraud.  His belief cannot exist within the self-defeating nature of its stupidity or it exists at the cost of the agnostic being exposed as a self-absorbed, arrogant, liar.

Picking certain aspects of religion that you like while rejecting others is simply creating your own religion that defines a moral subset based on your subjective views of morality.  However, your own religion is powerless and holds no merit because it is ONLY based on your SUBJECTIVE views – making your entire belief system relative in nature.  Truth is objective in that something either is or is not true.  If Christianity is TRUE then all other religions are FALSE.  It is the nature of truth.   To be picking parts that you like of each and trying to apply them to yourself and saying others should do the same – is to say, that YOU have found the TRUTH and others are wrong.  However, if you don’t think others should do the same and accept that others could come to different conclusions, then you are saying that you in fact believe that WHICH IS FALSE.  For if others could have differing views than you and be right - then a square is not a square indeed. 

There is no exception here.  A person is always an insider to a certain view.  The question is whether or not that view is true.  A partially true belief is in reality a false belief.  Just as a square is a square, truth is truth – you can’t have three sides and it still be a square.  If all religions are wrong, your religion is wrong.  If your religion is right, then all other religions are wrong (technically speaking they would have to CONFLICT with your view in some way – which we assume they do otherwise why not be in that religion?).  So rather than think religion is judgmental because it rejects other views, stop being so naïve and understand that if something is TRUE it must necessarily EXCLUDE certain other possibilities.  EVERY RELIGION by nature must be exclusive of other views – it's not judgmental, it’s the nature of truth.  Even your own pathetic, subjective, religion that you established IS EXCLUSIVE toward other religions and points of view if you believe it to be true.  Christianity doesn't condemn because it's judgmental – it condemns because it is TRUE.

---

On another note, if you get a chance please offer prayers for the family trying to adopt (posted on the right) and pray for the little girl.  If you feel up to it, you can always help donate as well.

Is Religion Bad? (PART 1)

Due to an influx of people talking about how religion is the bane of Christ and that loving God doesn’t require a religion; I felt it was time to address this thinking.  I guess before I lay out the errors of this thought process I should at least summarize the thought process.

Essentially people come to this conclusion from two paths. 

1.  In one path, people determine that Christ was against religion based on his opposition to the Pharisees and Jews in general.  People assume that Jesus was trying to expose religion as restrictive and he therefore was attempting to set people free from the rules of religion.
2. The second path comes more so from the ecumenical people that believe a pseudo agnostic view that there is a God (perhaps even the Christian God), but that he is ambiguous and cannot be known through any single religion.  Obviously the two paths approach God from a different way, but they both draw that conclusion that religion is bad and God doesn't require religion (or even want it)! 

Unfortunately, this lofty thought process of the ambiguous God embraced through a personal relationship free of religion is utterly stupid.  The first and greatest weakness is that the inevitable conclusion from such a view is a god who fits OUR personal view.  So rather than an objective greatness, we have a subjective impotence.  Why? Because WITHOUT clear definition of who God is and what His character and nature are like then each person is the arbiter of who God is.  This is because something that is true is OBJECTIVE.  If you believe a square is round, then you are WRONG!  Your belief is wrong, because a square is objective.  It isn’t whatever you imagine it to be.  GOD IS OBJECTIVE!  If God exists then God is by necessity, OBJECTIVE!  Why is DNA evidence so effective or fingerprinting a tool that is still used today? Because they identify a person on an objective level.  Creating an idea of who you think God is and what He is like is creating a SUBJECTIVE god.  By disregarding the teachings of a religion, you are essentially saying God isn't who they say He is but who YOU say He is – and that is a purely subjective.

FOR THOSE WHO ATTEMPT TO BE AGNOSTIC

Now the natural question would be, “But people know people differently.  One man might think one a villain while the other think him a hero.  Isn't that subjective?”  Now granted, most people actually wouldn't think that and instead would run away insulting you for being a “head-thinker.”  However, let's assume somebody actually did take half a second to think and asked that question, what is the answer? Well, it comes two fold I guess.  Perception isn't reality, but only a subjective interpretation of what is there.  Grass is orange when perceived through my eyes, because I am colorblind.  So HOW we perceive a person does not mean that is WHO the person really is.  There must be a standard with which to measure a person, but that standard CANNOT be subjective and relativistic because then it cannot be a standard with which to measure EVERYBODY.  If the measurement cannot be applied to all, then it CANNOT be OBJECTIVELY applied to one!  Assuming no religion has got it right, means that we most likely don't have it right as well.  Therefore, the standard with which the agnostic assumes to measure with is subjective if they believe ONLY themselves to have it right (by saying that others are wrong), because if the standard was objective then that would mean the agnostic was almost certainly wrong in his belief as well and therefore there TRULY must be a religion that got it right.  Agnostics are cowards in thinking because they don't accept the subjective nature of their view and yet the only truth they want to accept is that all religions got it wrong.  The truth of agnosticism is that it is not ecumenical at all, but an arrogant ignorance that places their understanding that ALL GOT IT WRONG as the only the truth yet somehow reject the implications of the self-defeating nature of the creed they proclaim.

The second part would be that if God is changing then God cannot be trusted because He could change and could become weaker, less powerful, less loving, evil, and the world would suffer the consequences of those changes; therefore, God must be IMMUTABLE and therefore if something was true of Him ever it is TRUE OF HIM STILL.  Meaning, if God was ever good, God is still good.  Unlike a person who can change and making our perception the person might change.  God MUST BE immutable and therefore He does not change, only our perception of Him.  So our subjective perception cannot be the measure of God’s objective person-hood.

Let's examine the concept a little more.  For instance, imagine God had no hand in creating the universe and it was pure, unadulterated chance.  Now as time goes on God changes and begins creating ex nihilo.  Well now things would just start popping into existence within the existing universe and science would be baffled.  What if God was evil?  Would people be crying out why do good things happen to some people?  With a simple role reversal it is easy to see our perceptions fail us and that if God is anything He is immutable.  A changing god, whether or not we give him the attributes of the Christian God, would (given an infinite amount of time) become the Christian God.  If it is possible for Him to become the Christian God, then He would ALWAYS remain the Christian God, because the Christian God is IMMUTABLE!  Therefore, if God IS changing, then given an infinite amount of time God WILL BECOME UNCHANGING!

FOR THOSE AGAINST RELIGION

This is important because it reinforces that which we learn from RELIGION.  Religion teaches us about who God is.  Based on WHO HE IS, we find WHO WE ARE, objectively!  Our objective position is based on the objective God.  Defining our worth, position, status, righteousness, based on OUR own understanding or perception is simply relativistic.  If however, we define our worth, position, status, and righteousness on an OBJECTIVE reality then we find our TRUE and OBJECTIVE answer to who we are.  Christianity as a RELIGION is important because it seeks to find the objective standard with which to measure.  Unfortunately, most people are appalled by the results of such measuring and appeal to the relative measuring of their subjective perceptions.  When a person says, “I don't know why God would condemn a good person to Hell.” they are simply reflecting THEIR OWN PERCEPTION of what is good and also what a good god would act like.  Now the Christian church comes in and measures that same person with an OBJECTIVE standard and people cry out that the church is judgmental.   Why? Because when the measure is our own, we can shape it how we see fit and change how we see ourselves.  When we measure objectively, there is no lying and there is no shifting.  We land where we land and we cannot argue it. 

The doctrines that develop through religion (the perceived “rules” of religion) are the protection against irrelevance.  It is by necessity that doctrines exist.  If a person rejects certain doctrines from a religion, they reject the authority of that religion.  Religion without authority is impotent and therefore falls into relativism.  Doctrines serve as barriers or fences to prevent relativism from taking over.  Every religion needs doctrines in order to survive. Rejecting the “rules” of religion is nothing more than embracing your own relativistic rules that make you the arbiter of truth.  Those who are Catholic and reject the church’s teaching on women priests, abortion, divorce, or homosexuality reject Catholicism entirely.  Because if you don’t accept those doctrines you don't accept the authority of those doctrines.  Without that authority, you practice relativism.  Those protestants who reject the Bible's teaching about homosexuality are in fact REJECTING the Bible as a whole!  If it doesn't have authority on that issue, then YOU become the ultimate authority and therefore the Bible is SECONDARY TO YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING!  This is why doctrines are important.  This is why religion demands these “rules.”  Because the consequence for rejecting them is a self-ordained, relative to you, subjective understanding of the universe, God, and humanity, that bends to the whim of each individual.

It is a false belief to think the doctrines hinder religion and therefore religion hinders our relationship with God.  Doctrines are there to define that which is OBJECTIVE and to lead us away from our subjective understanding, short sighted perceptions, and relativistic understanding of God.  Religion is the tool to lead us to the OBJECTIVE REALITY, GOD.

 

 

Presuppositions: Let's suppose I'm Right

After recent discussion with some people, it has come to light that people don't seem to understand presuppositions.  This becomes an issue when in a discussion with somebody, when sharing a view, or in a debate.  So because of this I decided it would be good to write a brief article about presuppositions.

What is a presupposition? It is to pre-suppose a certain idea to be true (or more technically, an implicit assumption).  It's not a bad thing, and often times not a conscious thing, but it can be a hindrance when trying to share with others.  A presupposition can lead to a belief that you suppose to be fact, but in reality it is just a belief.  We could even call them simple beliefs or basic assumptions.  With any discussion there needs to be some agreement otherwise there can't even be a discussion.  (Often times in debates I feel like no progress is made because there are too many presuppositions involved that one party takes for granted while the other party tries to expose them.)

Alright, so that explains the essence of them, but let me provide an example.  When somebody says something like, “Well I was there and I saw it, so I do know.”  This simple statement assumes a lot.

It presupposes there is such a thing as knowing.

It presupposes perception can be trusted.

It presupposes that you have a mind.

It presupposes that there is reality.

It presupposes that the whole world is not in your head.

You could keep listing out a bunch of presuppositions for this one statement.  As you can see, a simple statement ASSUMES A LOT.  Now, people might say, “Well, you have to assume those things otherwise you're just unreasonable.”  But that statement, in itself, assumes - it assumes there is something that is reason (or rational might be a better word) and it assumes we all share it.  This doesn't make the statements above any less true, it just shows we have to assume certain things in our communication.  We might not even realize we are assuming these things.  The other important note is that even though we find most of these statements true by default, some philosophers or want-to-be philosophers don't find all the above statements true.  So even though we assume that things are basic and accepted, it doesn't mean we are correct in that assumption - some people do not accept these basic assumptions.  I truly believe the people opposed are wasting their time because at some point you have to assume something in order to communicate with others, but nevertheless I need to be aware of the person's presuppositions in order to effectively communicate with them.  Something like solipsism makes it impossible to progress a conversation, so knowing the person is a solipsist would save you a massive headache later.  

Nevertheless the point remains that we assume so much when we make statements that sometimes it is our presuppositions that are actually blocking discussion.  A religious person and an atheist cannot debate science unless they agree on the presuppositions involved.  Without such agreement, an argument can't even begin to develop because people will just keep expressing beliefs and never realize the other person is disagreeing because they don't even agree with the things being presupposed. 

This topic comes up because of a recent debate I had.  To the other individual I was simply playing games because I kept pointing out that he was simply stating a belief, not a fact.  Now, the point isn't about him, but that it completely blocked communication because an argument could not even be made because there was no agreement on the presuppositions.  Rather than produce a fruitful debate where people can learn, it ends up going nowhere because people don't realize how much they assume about their position.  I can honestly say most debates make no progress and run in circles because of a lack of understanding of what each person assumes to be true when they begin.

Understanding presuppositions is really simple.  Seeing what somebody is assuming when a statement is made, doesn't always seem to be.  I find that in life, work, or debate people often don't understand the weight carried by simple statements. 

Caricatures of Belief: Immature Beliefs Guiding "Mature" People

After a long vacation for Memorial Day weekend, I'm now back and ready to write again.  Over the weekend I listened to some Catholic radio talk shows (I know, boring right? It was a long drive and it wasn't actually a bad station) and it made me think about the difference between the image that comes to mind and the reality of the entity.  You see, so many of us have been raised with stories and even teachings about different ideas or theories, but so few of us ever actually investigate them.  This is true of atheists, Christians, villagers in a third world country, or basically any culture and society.  Certain ideas are passed down and images painted of a view that effectively distorts our ability to communicate with somebody from that way of thinking.  It's very apparent in the Catholic and Protestant circles.  Images of Catholics often involve people worshiping Mary and nuns smacking kids with rulers.  Now, these images and many others have been ingrained in the Protestant to a point that makes it very difficult to overcome and actually have communication.

If a Protestant hears a Catholic mention Jesus for some reason they are shocked and act as if somehow that Catholic has moved toward Protestantism by simply discussing Jesus.  The images formed from stories from long ago, some probably completely based on nothing but fairy tales and others maybe loosely on some incidents that became much bigger in the telling than they were in reality, have so overcome the mind of the Protestant that communication is a barrier.  I will say that this goes both ways though, as recent conversations with Catholics have shown that often what they believe of Protestants is not what Protestants (in general – if there is such a thing anymore for Protestantism) believe. 

Now, I'm not sure if there are other ways to break through these false beliefs that hinder communication, but I know what helped me.  For me, it was a matter of continually asking “why” until the answers began to surface and more questions that needed answers came with them.  Continually seeking out answers led to a deeper understanding of the reality of Catholicism versus the distorted caricature that I knew as Catholicism.   Now I probably haven't overcome all of the misconstrued stories surrounding Catholicism, so I'm not the perfect example of openness.  I have however spent a lot of time discussing beliefs with Catholics and asked many probing questions to get beyond the barriers that hinder us from communicating and finding the reality of the belief system.  Unfortunately, most people will probably not seek answers due to the whole stigma about intelligence and rational thought that permeates Protestant churches (see my other article here).

When you look out at the world around you, you will notice these caricatures everywhere.  The liberal media has done it effectively with conservatives.  Even conservatives turn on conservatives buying into the lies painted by the liberals.  Catholics do it to Protestants, lumping everybody into the one big Protestant lunatic bin.  Because of the prevalence of these falsities breaking through these distortions is a difficult task.  It is possible but it ONLY happens when people decide to ask questions of their OWN beliefs first.  A liberal will not be convinced by a conservative until a liberal asks the hard questions of LIBERALISM and then the lies they've been told of conservatism will be exposed.  The strongest Catholics I know are those who have questioned Catholicism, put it to the test (and some even embraced Protestantism for a period of time) and then after much investigation understood Catholicism on a deeper and more intimate level than ever before.  Most people will not take that step however; they will always scrutinize the other view and never investigate their own.  Perhaps this has to do with world views.  Maybe it's the idea that you have to be intelligent to understand answers to questions.  Or maybe, it's a fear from exposing oneself to the harshest critics and reality that comes from being the person to scrape your own beliefs across the coals.  Whatever the answer, it will take more than accepting the images as reality to communicate effectively.

Leviticus in Perspective: An article by Mark Bonocore

The following is an article written by a friend of mine, Mark Bonocore.  As a brilliant thinker, a Catholic, and a good historian, he provides insight into the nature of the Biblical laws of Leviticus and why some applied then that do not apply now.  I asked him to supply a solid and comprehensive article that would discuss the historical context and shed some light on the whole Old Testament law.  The following is an argument made by a liberal against a conservative, Dr. Laura, and Mark's response to the liberal.  I think it is a good read to educated yourself with a little Biblical context.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liberal Argument against Dr. Laura's Position:

Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses sex advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that as an observant Orthodox Jew homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned in any circumstance. ......(WELL, IF THAT'S THE CASE, ...)

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? She's 18 and starting University. Will the slave buyer continue to pay for her education by law?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female,provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? ....Why can't I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should this be a neighborhood improvement project?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Would contact lenses help ? (What about laser vision?).
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Mark Bonocore's Response:

So, this woman is arguing that, if we're going to observe Lev 18:22, we might as well observe all these other ridiculously "out of date" things too. However, such an argument is rooted in a misunderstanding of Leviticus and the nature of that book. 

So, what is Leviticus? Simple stated, in rabbinical language, Leviticus is a "hedge." ...that is, a barrier or higher standard of legal "righteousness," set up by God/Moses in order to stop the Israelites (who were semi-pagans at the time) from violating the heart of the Divinely-revealed Law: The 10 Commandments. And, based on this understanding, each of your friend's citations above were established to prevent the pre-Christian proto-Jews from violating the righteousness of a corresponding Commandment.

For example, ... Sacrifice was called for in Lev. 1:9 because the animals that the Israelites were commanded to sacrifice were the very same animals that their pagan neighbors (the Egyptians and the Canaanites) worshiped as gods. Thus, it helped to support the Commandment: "I Am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me." ...Because you were sacrificing these "gods" rather than worshiping them.

Similarly, Lev 25:44 permitted the Israelites to own slaves from other nations, yet not from their own nation (the chosen Covenant people of God), so as to underscore the importance of the Covenant between God and Israel: "I Am the Lord your God Who brought you up out of Egypt." ...where they were slaves.   And this was a radical innovation, since every nation on earth at the time owned slaves from among their own people.

Also ... Exodus 21:7 refers to concubinage ...a common practice at the time, which was actually an aspect of Semitic legal (non-Sacramental) marriage.  In other words, in the ancient Middle East, even marriage was merely a matter of ownership.  The man owned his wife as a piece of property, just as he likewise could own a concubine.  The only difference between marriage and concubinage was that marriage granted more privileges to the wife than those enjoyed by a mere concubine.    In essence, sons born to a wife had the necessary right to inherit property, whereas sons born to a concubine did not.   What's more, Exodus 21:7 does not command anyone to sell their daughter into slavery; rather, it merely acknowledges that this practice existed (since, again. women were regarded as property in the ancient Middle East), and it provides a moral code for protecting their female slaves from harm. In other words, they were not to simply be let free (where they could be raped or killed by bandits while returning home), but returned to their families; and also provided for, and not abused. So, Exodus 21:7 is pro-woman (by Bronze Age standards), not anti-woman.

As for Exodus 35:2, disrespecting the Sabbath was deemed worthy of death because it was a violation of the Covenant relationship with God, which leads to spiritual death. Thus, this instruction was given to underscore the integrity of "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy."  Religious obligation was taken very seriously in ancient times.   People did not treat their gods (or God) as flippantly as we do today. 

As for Lev 11:10, Lev 21:20, and Lev. 11:6-8 ... These were Semitic health codes equated with membership in a tribe --in this case, the Israelites (the Covenant people of God).  Thus, one observed them in order to remain a part of the Covenant people.   Those who belonged to this people did not eat pork or shellfish, etc.   Avoiding such things was an intrinsic part of your cultural identity, and it signified your membership (and your right to membership) in the tribe.   It meant that you belonged.   SSSooo, for the Jews, a common, Middle Eastern cultural moray took on spiritual and moral significance. If one ate shellfish or pork (which were both often diseased and unhealthy to eat in Bronze Age Palestine), or if one did not quarantine oneself when it came to eye diseases and other contagious illnesses, then one was not only excluding oneself from the tribe, but also excluding oneself from the Chosen People --that is, from the special Covenant that this people enjoyed exclusively with God, and thus from salvation itself!    Ergo, the legal prescriptions against such things.

...And the same was true for Lev. 19:19 and Lev. 20:14, which were similar violations of the tribe's property and peaceful inter-family relationships. And, again, if you excluded yourself from the tribe, in this case, you were excluding yourself from the Covenant of salvation.

As for Lev.19:27 ... This was a similar prohibition because it separated your tribe (the Covenant people) from the cultic customs of your pagan neighbors. This again, within the culture of the day, served to promote the integrity of the tribe (the Chosen nation).

Also, Lev.24:10-16 forced one to treat the Commandment "You shall not take the Lord's Name in vain" seriously.   As I said above, piety and religious obligation were taken seriously by ancient peoples.   The gods (or the God of Israel) were real to them, not just cultural niceties. 

And, lastly, Lev. 15:19-24's prohibition, making a menstruating woman "unclean," was a guard against the Commandment "You shall not commit adultery."  Why?  Because, in the days before effective contraception, if you wanted to sleep with your buddy's wife, this was the time to do it ...when she couldn't get pregnant.  Yet, if you made her "taboo" (under the punishment of God) and separated her from the tribe (i.e., from all men who might like to sleep with her), then you were eliminating what Catholics call "the near occassion of sin" --that is, the opportunity and the temptation to commit adultery, and you were thus promoting the Commandment.

And that brings us to Lev 18:22, which is also a legal "hedge" to protect the very same Commandment --"Thou shall not commit adultery."  Why?  Because, unlike us, the ancients were pretty sensible people and knew that homosexuality could not be legitimized or replace heterosexual marriage.  For goodness sake, one could not have children with a homosexual lover; one could not, therefore, establish a family or clan with this person; and so, if one was a farmer or herdsman, etc., one would end up doing all the work himself (because he'd have no children to help him), and most likely starve in the winter time.  And so, as any sensible person must admit, homosexuality produces no "fruit."  Thus, almost all ancient homosexuals also had wives    And since this was the case, homosexuality by nature was (and is) adulterous ...that is, it is an activity one participates in outside of marriage and in violation of marriage. And thus it violates the Commandment, intrinsically.   This is why it was considered sinful to the ancient Jews, and this also touches on why it is sinful for modern Catholics.   The Catholic Christian Faith teaches that ANY sexual activity outside of a marriage covenant is objectively sinful.    And we likewise define marriage according to natural law and biological reality.   Marriage is essentially the mating of a human male and a human female, the biological purpose of which is obviously to produce offspring.   This is the biological purpose of mating in any animal species.  And while the production of offspring is obviously not the only benefit of marriage, it is central to the thing itself.   A man and a woman can mate.   Two men, or two women, cannot.   Rather, according to biological reality, homosexuality is an obvious disorder.  It is a biological dead-end, and an intrinsically selfish activity.  It is essentially an act of "communal" masturbation, not mating or marriage (rationally defined).   And if our modern age viewed sex in a mature and rational way --that is, if we recognized what sex actually is (a biological act of mating and reproduction), and NOT something that exists merely for pleasurable recreation, then every rational person would agree that homosexual activity is intrinsically disordered and that marriage between homosexual lovers is impossible. 

Thus, Leviticus' prohibition against homosexual activity still stands today, since (just like fornication and other extra-marital sexual activities) it is just as much a violation of marital intimacy and holiness today as it was in the Bronze Age. That's why the prohibition is given ...to be a "hedge" around an even greater call to righteousness.    As a very wise priest once said, ... "Homosexual activity, heterosexual fornication, or good ol' fashion adultery ...one of them will put you in hell as easily as the next." In other words, all sex outside of marriage is a sin causing damage to the human person. This is the Judeo-Christian Tradition: the tradition our civilization is founded upon.