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. 

The Indifferent Christian: Destroying Christianity from Within

I have been thinking about the idea of same-sex marriage and why it has been so successful within the Christian church.  It's interesting that it has gained ground within the church at unprecedented speeds.  I feel it shows a symptom of a massive problem within the church.  There are two primary reasons for this growth of an anti-Biblical, morally wrong, view:

•          Indifference, because the person associates gay marriage as an individual decision and irrelevant to the church.
•          Relativism, because the person believes that religion is supposed to lead us to happiness.

 The problem with indifference is that it allows liberalism to advance without opposition.  When Christians start ignoring issues due to a lack interest it drives liberalism.  Why? Because liberalism isn't indifferent and it continues to push anti-religious views at all times.  People that take no position are not playing neutral ground; in fact they are helping advance secularism.  The only thing that stands in the way of liberalism is conservatism. Christianity is by design, conservative.  It defines dogmas, doctrines, and moral laws that stand as a hedge against secular ideals.  Not only is the Christian supposed to defend conservatism, Christianity is supposed to push out into the rest of the world in an attempt to eliminate secularism.  Liberals advance secular ideals, trying to remove the hedge established by religion and eradicate religion.  Therefore, Christians need to sustain that barrier and offer a defense against the advance of liberalism. 

 

Indifference makes a Christian fail in their responsibility to share God with others.  Since the line is drawn in the Bible that a person is either for or against God, meaning there is no neutral ground to play, a Christian is commanded to go out into the secular world and share the word of God.  It is not in order to allow people to live how they want and believe in God, but rather to transform people and their way of life into a way that conforms to God.  This is what liberals hate – that Christians think others need to change.  However, Christians are not required to force the change, but rather to share the truth.  Changing things in a person's life is a matter of the individual submitting to the God and being obedient to Him.  It is not a matter of doing things to be religious, but rather believing (and therefore becoming religious) and THEN doing things as a result of that belief.  Each side is trying to conform the other, so don't be fooled, but the liberal does all things in the pursuit of the destruction of moral law and Christians share the message out of love and then the individual conforms because of their love for God and His moral law.

 

Liberalism tries to impose liberalism on everybody by putting down every other belief system.  It is not the liberal way to believe all views are equal and should be tolerated; in fact, true liberalism only wants to have people that embrace all the same liberal ideals.  Watch the liberals explode on a Christian about trying to impose their views on others, but then watch the same liberal talk about how Christians refuse to accept others.  It is obvious that not all views are tolerated because the liberal doesn't tolerate the Christian.  But they don't stop at condemning the Christian; liberals attempt to paint Christians as intolerant, oppressive, ignorant, and not belonging anywhere in the public circle.  The liberal assaults Christianity every opportunity they get and seek to silence the Christian voice from being heard.

 

So when the indifferent Christian comes along and offers no voice, then the only voice heard is liberalism and the liberal has achieved their goal.  Silence from Christians is the ultimate liberal goal and when they don't even have to work for it, Christianity fails and liberalism succeeds.  I know a lot of Christians have refused to vote or refused to speak out against political views because they believe that Christians shouldn't be in politics.  But the ignorance of this indifferent position is astounding!  If Christians aren't involved in politics and if Christians don't fight for a voice in the public arena, then liberalism wins without a fight.  There is no right to complain about the direction of the country, the problems of your government, or a law that limits religious freedom (like same-sex marriage), if you do not participate in trying to stop it.

 

My quote at the top of my blog from G.K. Chesterton states, “Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up” captures one side effect of indifference.  The more Christians don't offer a voice, the more barriers that were established to protect Christianity are torn down.  After all the fences are torn down because worthless Christians would not offer not opposition to the removal of these fences, then WE ARE GUILTY of the fall Christendom, not the liberal.  Indifferent Christians are responsible for the destruction Christianity, because by refusing to take a side, they actually surrendered to liberalism and its quest to silence the voice of Christian reason. 

 

The fences that were put up were done to protect the integrity of Christianity.  Being indifferent to these positions is the same as agreeing that they should be removed.  Christians have been indifferent long enough; the result of it can be seen in the watered down, irrelevant Christianity that takes no position that is different than the secular view of the liberal.  Divorce, abortion, same-sex marriage are all issues where too many Christians were indifferent and have resulted in a Christianity that is just as much secular as the society that we are supposed to change.

Retreat of the Christian: Agree to Disagree

For those who have ever debated with protestants, and wasted hours running around putting out all the little fires set, and then came to the final closing of the debate (most likely very heatedly), the next topic  will be very familiar.  Whether it comes on specific points during a discussion or as the closing statement, there is sure to be a point where the whole, “Let's just agree to disagree” mentality will come out.  Many times it will be explicitly stated, but not always.  Sometimes the whole attitude of that thinking is just left floating about.

Essentially, what this says is that were both human and it's not important that we don't have agreements on doctrine as long as we both love God.  In fact, even though we might disagree on the Trinity, on grace, and salvation, on faith, on baptism, and any other topic you want to pick, it's not important because “We both love God.” 

This retreat to try to avoid argument tends to come from being afraid because maybe a topic has become too heated or maybe a glaring error has been exposed.  A Christian might somehow assume that arguing is ungodly (but there truly is a time and place for it) and therefore we can all just agree to disagree as long as we love God.  There is a thread of truth to the idea, but it depends on if the person truly does love the one True God – which is hard to know given that they disagree on aspects of His nature, His work, and His role.  The Bible often mentions the idea of “worshiping . . . in truth.”  However, if there isn't agreement on any of the fundamentals, it seems it is a dangerous thing to really leave a person with, “As long as they love God.”  If they don’t believe in the Trinity, is it still the same God?  If they don't believe that once saved, always saved, is it still the same God as you believe?  If they believe Jesus was a good prophet, philosopher, and teacher but that his death did nothing for us, is it still the same God?  If they believe that faith saves with works of righteousness, is it the same God? (Now, I'm not saying I accept all those views above, because in fact I reject some of the views from that list, but I want to show how agreeing to disagree is just plain stupid.) 

Agreeing to disagree makes a person back off from truth as if it is solely relative and not objective.  If anybody is free to disagree with your view because it is only relative then your view is irrelevant.  So by accepting the terms of agreeing to disagree, the person is actually putting their own view as irrelevant.  Relative views are only relevant to the individual and therefore do not apply to everybody else.  Therefore, if my view of God is relative, then it isn't important if we disagree because my view only is applicable to me as an individual. 

Now somebody might say, “That's not what I mean by agree to disagree.  I simply mean we can still be friends and live in harmony without agreeing on this topic.”  Unfortunately, when dealing with theological positions the opposition is to something with eternal ramifications.  This raises another question to the believer, “Shouldn't the person out of love for others at least debate vigorously to defend their view rather than surrendering?” Two views that are opposed on critical issues cannot simply live in harmony.

The point not being that opposing views cannot allow people to live in harmony, but that CERTAIN views naturally prevent it.  Look at same-sex marriage, it is something where those opposed and those in support cannot simply agree to disagree because the views are mutually exclusive.   In cases like this, there cannot be peace while the opposing views exist.  Therefore, one must fight for their cause until it is lost.

Another aspect of this agreeing to disagree is that often times it is even within the same church body.  So it is alright for a church to be divided on every aspect of Christianity, as long as they love God even if that God is viewed in two completely different and even contradictory ways?

The biggest problem with this view however, is that it forces people into an acceptance position.  Rather than take a hard stance against certain views, it seems to retreat.  Christians are scared of taking an absolute position on any matter.  Even more so, they're worried about imposing their views on others as if that is some sort of sin.  Now I myself am against stupid picket signs and people on the side of the road shouting at others, but I'm not against a Christian taking a stand.  It isn't if same-sex marriage is a political issue and not a religious issue.  The very nature of it makes it more religious than not, but Christians have backed off from the attack, taking positions about just letting them be because we aren't in a position to judge. 

This whole mentality of cowardice comes from a continual embracing of the great humility impersonator, “Let's just agree to disagree.”  Christians out of fear of coming across as judgmental have retreated to the full acceptance of all.  Years of continually retreating from strong opinions have left Christianity in a state of impotence on the verge of irrelevance.  Atheists and liberals celebrate this retreat from hard positions because it strengthens their hard views which they will not back down from while Christianity runs and hides.

It's time for Christianity to stand up for objective truth.  Reject the relativist mentality.  Quit trying to leave politics alone.  Christianity isn't meant for just an individual, but for a whole world.  We cannot simply agree to disagree.  

Weaknesses of the Protestant Approach to Debate (Part 2)

The second major weakness that Protestants bring to a debate is a rejection of history due to the fallibility of men.  Now, normally a halfway intelligent Christian will appeal to some historical figures and quotations to try and support their personal view.  However, as the real context of the writings are revealed or as the opponent shows how those views are shared and there is no real disagreement with history, then the Protestant moves to a position of rejecting history because men are all fallible.  All historical men are fallible and as such could have got it wrong.  These people insist and that the Bible is clear and everybody else for the past 2000 years missed it.  In fact, when a Protestant is pressed on their views might even claim that IT’S POSSIBLE that even the disciples got it wrong because, after all, they were just fallible men.

Protestants often throw this argument out as the coup de grâce, thinking that somehow by throwing history out they have created a stronger argument.  After all, if history can be so easily rejected, then the historical support for the Catholic view, or an opposing view, is made irrelevant.  (Mind you, actual intelligent Protestants would never be so brazen in the rejection of history.  William Lane Craig would not be seen throwing out all of history to support some view, nor would C.S. Lewis. However, as found in my other article, here, many Protestants shun logic and intelligence and prefer to embrace ignorance.)

Why this rejection of history is weak:

Now this is an extremely poor way to approach debates.  It makes a protestant spend time trying to defend some position historically and then mid argument, attempt to reverse course and reject all historical people as simply fallible men.  The argument isn't weakened because they claim all men as fallible; it is weakened because by making this claim so adamantly they are inadvertently claiming that they are the only infallible man.  I say inadvertently because the protestant by laying claim to the errors of others is at the same time claiming to be in a position to see the errors of others and is able to correctly discern, without error, what the true meaning or true doctrine is.  This produces a question though,  “If I can't trust C.S. Lewis who spent most of his life studying and researching (before and after his conversion), how can I trust the ignorant Protestant who rejects intelligence, abhors people who study, denies logic, and yet asserts his view as correct and mine as wrong?”  Even more astounding is that the people that paved the way for the church, secured the Biblical writings and assimilated them, and were in agreement for 1500 years, oppose this Protestant's view and the only defense offered is that they were fallible men.  If those who should have known best, and were trusted enough to determine which books were the inspired Word of God, defined doctrines like the Trinity, and were responsible with other doctrines to defend against heresy, cannot be trusted, then why in the world should the person  who claims to be ignorant and fallible be trusted?

The constant campaigning for ignorance and fallibility should lead any rational individual to conclude that your view should also be rejected, because you're ignorant and fallible and don't even attempt to improve it.  For those basking in the fallibility of men and rejection of history, what reason is there to believe that your conclusion is anymore correct than all the other people you claim to have got it wrong?

How to remedy this weakness:

There is no easy solution for this problem.  The reason this weakness arises is because of the weakness of the person debating.  By being so ignorant (or at least by trumpeting their ignorance as some sort of desired trait) and opposed to rational thought they refuse to spend time reading and researching.  To remove this weakness a person must be able to use history and the great minds from the past (and present) to support their view.  Achieving this requires spending time researching and studying various writings available.  It isn't enough to just make sure that one doesn't go down the path of history rejection, because if your opponent knows more about Church history than you, then you will be in a weaker position.  A better historical understanding can provide a better Biblical context, and that provides a way for a better Biblical interpretation.  Those who attempt to understand the Bible apart from history, truly lack the ability to offer solid Biblical understanding.

A Protestant needs to be able to argue history with history - demonstrating why certain views should be accepted or why certain sources should not be trusted.  This is a problem for a lot of Protestants because they insist that intelligence is evil.  So rather than studying they criticize.  Rather than learning they remain stagnant.  And when the next debate arises, they will repeat the same lines and walk away at the same point.  Resolving the weakness of “They're all just fallible men” really means the person must overcome their rejection of logic and reason.  It is not enough to simply know history; one must build a foundation for their view that doesn't depend on the denying of relevance of history.  Humanity is a chain of historical figures, and their accomplishments and failures led us to where we are today.  Neglecting the people of history and refusing to understand even the basic path to our current state is not only weak, but exceptionally dangerous for the future of the church.