I was checking out some new (to me) webcomics during a break at work. I found myself at an apparently dead webcomic with the URL "dord.horse". The domain appears to be abandoned, but the URL was intriguing enough to get me to look up whatever it used to be there. I found the following permalinks on the internet archive. (It seems the site was intended to be read from bottom to top, and these links seem to represent chronologically adjacent comic pages).
https://perma.cc/D5EB-24WC
https://perma.cc/GX4S-6FMR
https://perma.cc/NH5E-JY5H
The webcomic is about two solar-power-generating satellites in a huge network. The satelites have gained, or "were given" sentience by "the makers", and so they kill time with conversation. Occasionally in the conversation, the satellites talk about their theories about what happened to the makers. A part of the conversation which I found particularly interesting was where one of the satellites proposes that the makers upgraded their consciousness continually until they transcended reality, "bootstrap[ing] themselves to godhood". The satellite continues to suggest that, perhaps the dull existence of the satellites is a test, and that if a satellite behaves well then the makers will upgrade the satellite's consciousness into the same postreality that the makers have achieved. The second satellite responds with, "Didn't the makers used to have a word for believing in an untestable hypothesis?"
The first word that came to my mind on reading that was, "religion". That's a word that might be used to describe belief in an untestable hypothesis. I think the comic does an interesting job of making such beliefs appear silly, but there's an irony in it and I can't tell if the author included this intentionally or not. The satellites proceed with all their conversations about the makers on the hitherto unproven assumption that the makers existed. It seems like a natural assumption for satellites to make, because they represent a rather complex arrangement of metals and minerals, and the reader knows that arrangements such as those do not appear naturally. They have inexplicable memories of the activities of the long-gone makers, but in other comics they express that the memories are unreliable, and may have been imagined. There's no reason offered for their assumption that the makers existed.
If we found a set of satellites such as these, orbiting a planet, we would immediately assume that they were built by a higher species. In the same way, if Neil Armstrong found a Rolex watch on the moon, the natural assumption would be that Neil was not the first man on the moon.
Only, consider our actual experiences, in real life. We have explored a planet in space. And we didn't just find a Rolex watch or a group of sentient satellites. We found a group of sentient factories, which produce more factories like themselves, which in turn produce Rolex watches and satellites alike. We found something much more complex on that planet than the machines depicted in that comic. And rather than assuming that it was built there by a higher species, we assumed that the particles forming these great machines just fell into place randomly, by accident. And we berate and mock anyone who supposes otherwise.
We, ourselves, are the factories producing more like ourselves, and we discovered others like us on our own planet. It's imminently ridiculous to ignore the possibility that we were put here by an intelligent designer, or to bar people from academic discussion who consider the available evidence about our origins with the possibility of our own intelligent design as a premise.
...But I'll stop there before I get too carried away. If I go much further then I think I will have to discuss the nature of a proof, and why a belief in God is prerequisite for provability in general, and discussing that will require me to dive into the same epistemological topics which I have already discussed ad nauseam in prior posts on this blog. On the topic of espistemological methods, though, my quote today is from the end of book 5 of The Republic (I offer the conclusion here -- read the rest of The Republic to get the argument). I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Plato for, at length, demonstrating the ridiculousness of the the many arguments I've thus-far heard from atheist 'philosophers' about epistemology. Here Socrates is discussing a related topic with Glaucon.
"
[Socrates]Yes; and we had before agreed that anything of this kind which we might find was to be described as matter of opinion, and not as matter of knowledge; being the intermediate flux which is caught and detained by the intermediate faculty.
[Glaucon]Quite true.
Then those who see the many beautiful, and who yet neither see absolute beauty, nor can follow any guide who points the way thither; who see the many just, and not absolute justice, and the like,–such persons may be said to have opinion but not knowledge?
That is certain.
But those who see the absolute and eternal and immutable may be said to know, and not to have opinion only?
Neither can that be denied.
The one love and embrace the subjects of knowledge, the other those of opinion? The latter are the same, as I dare say you will remember, who listened to sweet sounds and gazed upon fair colours, but would not tolerate the existence of absolute beauty.
Yes, I remember.
Shall we then be guilty of any impropriety in calling them lovers of opinion rather than lovers of wisdom, and will they be very angry with us for thus describing them?
I shall tell them not to be angry; no man should be angry at what is true.
But those who love the truth in each thing are to be called lovers of wisdom and not lovers of opinion.
Assuredly
And thus, Glaucon, after the argument has gone a weary way, the true and the
false philosophers have at length appeared in view.
I do not think, he said, that the way could have been shortened.
"
Tuesday, January 29, 2019
Sunday, January 13, 2019
I want to write about theonomy today, with the border wall in-mind because it's a hot topic, and because I keep hearing the notion that Christians should side with Republicans (i.e. Trump) on border security, or that border security is somehow a Biblical mandate.
Here's the TLDR: The Bible outlines a complete government system in its first half (and was, as such, used as the law book for an actual nation for a few thousand years). It does not have any direct civil instructions either to establish a secure national border, or to let everyone through. However, it does have very clear moral commands about being kind to sojourners, and helping needy people in general.
Having read through the Bible a couple of times, my understanding is that God's expectation on Israel was that they would accept sojourners into their land liberally, be hospitable, apply the same laws for the native born and for the foreigner, and trust God (rather than walls, explicitly if my memory serves) for their own defense. I'm going to do some Googling, and see if the internet can change my mind.
[Googling]
OK, I did some Googling to try to find and understand Biblical arguments in favor of strong border control. I put links to all the sites I've just read near the bottom. I'm going to do my best to resist the urge to rant about how dismissive they are about the relevance of the entire OT to us today (even though that was the main point of at least one of the posts I put below). Instead, I'll just share the verses I found, and try to give face-value interpretations of their actual relevance to border security, with the assumption that you know my arguments for the continuity of OT rules, and the precise limitations on their relevance to us today.
Acts 17:26, paralleled in Deut 32:8, says that God divided up mankind into nations, and appointed times and boundaries for their land. This verse is used by almost every site in favor of strong border security. It doesn't actually say anything about border control, it only mentions borders themselves. Some websites suggest that, since God designated the borders, we should respect them by "defending" them [by restricting travel across them?]; but the same verse says that God also designated times for the inhabitants to change, so who's to say that God isn't changing the inhabitants of the land, and that our "defense" of the border isn't disrespectful to God's plan for change? Anyway, the verses are not really usable in an argument in favor of closed borders over open borders, or vice versa; because the verses only advocate the existence of borders without mentioning anything about restriction of travel across them.
Some sites also mentioned verses where the Bible details the specific locations of borders in the OT, (such as Joshua 15:3-4); again I don't see anything in these verses which advocates any kind of border control. It's only making geographic delineations between places and people groups.
Numbers 20:14-21 talks about how Israel didn't push through Edom when Edom said "you can't pass through here". One of the sites I read, (Renew America -- I name them here only because I'm going to take significant space on this point), claims that, since Israel turned away when it was rejected, Israel was demonstrating Edom's "moral right" to decide who is given permission to enter. I agree that every land owner has the right to choose who will enter their land, but the Biblical government isn't, in itself, a land owner.
Let's be clear: Edom was not a Biblical government, operating under the Law of God (given through Moses). Land in the Bible is divided into tribes, and owned by individual families in those tribes. So, there are only two ways for traffic across the national border to be limited in a Biblical government.
The first way is that the government could muster troops to militarily block the border from an invading army -- but the Biblical government has no command from God to establish a standing army. In fact, one time when David tried to take a census of the fighting men between wars, (afaict during a time of peace), the Bible says it was an evil thing (1 Chron 21). A Biblical government musters troops by gathering men from among the people on-the-spot, without promise of pay. It's an activity which requires the immediate, willing participation of every soldier involved. In Deut 20, it says that after gathering up the troops, they should all be given the option to go back home freely in case they just planted a vineyard, or they're afraid, or they just had kids, or they just don't want to participate, and anyone who wants to leave should be allowed. And if the battle must be fought, then it is fought by willing persons and with the help of God. All that said, we know that sojourners and invading armies are categorically different things.
The second way that border traffic can be regulated in the context of a Biblical government is by the authority which individual land owners near the border have over their own personal property. Individual land owners in the context of a Biblical government have the civil right to refuse to allow people on their land. Now, that said, remember that Renew America called it a land owner's "moral right" to refuse access to their land. The wording here is important. it's not actually a land owner's "moral right" to refuse access to their land; it's their "civil right". The difference is important. God gave us civil laws to judge in matters where we have authority, and he gave us moral laws without prescribing any civil penalty for them. We are to obey the moral law or else be judged by God. So, if a consensus can be reached among border land-owners to close down the border, they may do it. The question is not simply whether the decision to reject immigrants is our God-given civil prerogative, because if we were actually trying to adhere to God's civil laws then there would be no legislative process in America (the Bible would be the law). The question is about whether it is the moral duty of our government to allow or reject immigrants.
Let me give an example to demonstrate the principle at work here: If I own food, but my neighbor does not, my neighbor may not steal food from me. It is my food. (Proverbs 6:30-31). If my neighbor asks for my food, there is no civil (human-government) penalty prescribed anywhere in the Bible for my refusal to give it to him. However, there are explicit commands in the Bible to share the food willingly (Deut 15:11), and it is thus a moral obligation for me to do so. If I don't do so, I face no human penalty, but I face the wrath of God (Matt 25:31-46). And, on the other hand, if I willingly give, I receive the blessings of God (Prov 19:17, 22:9, Isa 58:10) Furthermore, (and I'm getting ahead of myself a little here) the Bible even goes so far as to offer rules about people who enter other people's vineyards unannounced to glean food, with the implicit (but plainly evident) note that it is permissible for them to do so (Deut 23:24-25).
The point I'm making with that is, just because I have the legal right to do something (and every human must allow for my decision as long as it is permitted by the law), that does not mean that I have the moral right to do something. And, in fact, the only potentially applicable moral indictment in the Bible is that we should be hospitable to all strangers and foreigners (Deut 10:19, Heb 13:2 and others).
OK, let's move on to the next passage used in favor of strict border control. Romans 13:1-4 is cited to say, rightly, that governments are God's servants with the responsibility to protect their citizens from wrongdoers. However, again, the parameters around how that protection is to be carried out are very clearly described in the OT, and they are not clearly described in any different way in the NT, so we do not say, "if it isn't clearly repeated in the NT then it's void", or we lose a lot of really important moral commands which are issued only in the OT and not repeated in the NT, and not to mention, the Bible explicitly tells us not to interpret it that way (Mat 5:17-20) [resisting the urge to talk more on this].
Next one, Romans 13 is cited by one website with the words, "the chapter where the Apostle Paul tells us how individuals should obey the laws set forth by God's duly selected government leaders -- meaning, of course, even illegals". Well fine, but Romans 13 also defines "duly selected government leaders" in that passage as leaders who "promote good and terrorize evil", so we need to define good and evil before we can use that passage to support closed borders. The passage does not advocate blind obedience to all laws. (That Washington post author has obviously never read Samuel Rutherford).
The last one I saw that might be worth mentioning was "give to Caesar what is Caesar's". First of all, just because something belongs to Caesar, doesn't mean that Caesar is a good government, and this debate exists because we have the power to change our laws for the better. Second, that passage was actually talking about paying taxes to Rome, which is something that Israel would not have had to do if they would have been obedient to God in the first place, because then they would have had God's protection from Rome. So, if you're going to depend on Caesar's protection, and if you're going to use Caesar's coins, then you're under Caesar's thumb. The coins never really belonged to Israel anyway -- they only denoted value inasmuch as they were Caesar's coins.
And, unless I missed something, those are the only real passages I saw advocating strict borders. I think that the source below, "biola", gives a fair evangelical discussion about the importance of immigration in scripture. I won't dive into it, because I don't have much else to add to what they said. The Bible seems to have no explicit command either to control the borders or not to control them, but it has several commands about being hospitable to foreigners. (see the link from Open Bible).
And, in general, I think we should be relying on God to protect us, rather than the apparent strength of our physical armies. (1 Sam 17, 2 Chron 16:7). If you read through Kings and Chronicles, (I'm using the whole books as reference now) and look at all the times when the Bible says that the land had peace and prosperity, it generally gives the reason why they were successful. It doesn't say that they had peace because of their strong military defense, or prosperity because of their careful border control. It says they had peace and prosperity because their King loved God and executed God's Laws in the land, so God protected them. This might seem naive or unrealistic if you don't think that God is real, or if you don't think that He is actively involved in our lives today... but I really believe that it's not the military strength of a people which enables it to defend its borders. If a nation submits itself to God, then God promises that He will defend it (Jeremiah 18:7-10). And He demonstrated that over and over in history. I really believe that a nation can be completely surrounded by hostile enemies with large armies, having for itself no physical defense at all, and yet remain in perfect, tranquil security, because that nation is submissive to God.
Sources:
For Closed Borders:
Renew America: The Bible and Borders
Religion News: What would Jesus do? Help the Dreamers and secure the border
Bible Mesh: The Bible and National Borders
The Aquila Report: Open Borders and the Bible
The Washington Times:The Biblical Case for Closed Borders
For Open Borders:
biola: Borders & The Bible
Open Bible: Immigration
I want to conclude with a practical note. If we were to open the border in America, today, I think it would be a disaster. The Bible is a complete system -- you have to commit to all of it or it won't work. If America conformed all the rest of its laws to the Bible, (establishing stronger local governments, quicker justice, better judicial processes, more philosophically well-grounded conditions for citizenship, fairer and more ideologically consistent benefits for citizenship, very different tax laws, very different processes for government aid, clearer and better parameters for extradition, more actualized individual ownership of property -- all of which might be topics for later blogs), then I propose, even from a practical perspective, ignoring God's supernatural protection, that we wouldn't need national border regulation at all. The other laws account for sojourners in good ways. We shoot ourselves in the foot by having laws which just don't work when applied to everyone in our borders at once.
"There is a certain people dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom who keep themselves separate. Their customs are different from those of all other people, and they do not obey the king's laws; it is not in the king's best interest to tolerate them."
Here's the TLDR: The Bible outlines a complete government system in its first half (and was, as such, used as the law book for an actual nation for a few thousand years). It does not have any direct civil instructions either to establish a secure national border, or to let everyone through. However, it does have very clear moral commands about being kind to sojourners, and helping needy people in general.
Having read through the Bible a couple of times, my understanding is that God's expectation on Israel was that they would accept sojourners into their land liberally, be hospitable, apply the same laws for the native born and for the foreigner, and trust God (rather than walls, explicitly if my memory serves) for their own defense. I'm going to do some Googling, and see if the internet can change my mind.
[Googling]
OK, I did some Googling to try to find and understand Biblical arguments in favor of strong border control. I put links to all the sites I've just read near the bottom. I'm going to do my best to resist the urge to rant about how dismissive they are about the relevance of the entire OT to us today (even though that was the main point of at least one of the posts I put below). Instead, I'll just share the verses I found, and try to give face-value interpretations of their actual relevance to border security, with the assumption that you know my arguments for the continuity of OT rules, and the precise limitations on their relevance to us today.
Acts 17:26, paralleled in Deut 32:8, says that God divided up mankind into nations, and appointed times and boundaries for their land. This verse is used by almost every site in favor of strong border security. It doesn't actually say anything about border control, it only mentions borders themselves. Some websites suggest that, since God designated the borders, we should respect them by "defending" them [by restricting travel across them?]; but the same verse says that God also designated times for the inhabitants to change, so who's to say that God isn't changing the inhabitants of the land, and that our "defense" of the border isn't disrespectful to God's plan for change? Anyway, the verses are not really usable in an argument in favor of closed borders over open borders, or vice versa; because the verses only advocate the existence of borders without mentioning anything about restriction of travel across them.
Some sites also mentioned verses where the Bible details the specific locations of borders in the OT, (such as Joshua 15:3-4); again I don't see anything in these verses which advocates any kind of border control. It's only making geographic delineations between places and people groups.
Numbers 20:14-21 talks about how Israel didn't push through Edom when Edom said "you can't pass through here". One of the sites I read, (Renew America -- I name them here only because I'm going to take significant space on this point), claims that, since Israel turned away when it was rejected, Israel was demonstrating Edom's "moral right" to decide who is given permission to enter. I agree that every land owner has the right to choose who will enter their land, but the Biblical government isn't, in itself, a land owner.
Let's be clear: Edom was not a Biblical government, operating under the Law of God (given through Moses). Land in the Bible is divided into tribes, and owned by individual families in those tribes. So, there are only two ways for traffic across the national border to be limited in a Biblical government.
The first way is that the government could muster troops to militarily block the border from an invading army -- but the Biblical government has no command from God to establish a standing army. In fact, one time when David tried to take a census of the fighting men between wars, (afaict during a time of peace), the Bible says it was an evil thing (1 Chron 21). A Biblical government musters troops by gathering men from among the people on-the-spot, without promise of pay. It's an activity which requires the immediate, willing participation of every soldier involved. In Deut 20, it says that after gathering up the troops, they should all be given the option to go back home freely in case they just planted a vineyard, or they're afraid, or they just had kids, or they just don't want to participate, and anyone who wants to leave should be allowed. And if the battle must be fought, then it is fought by willing persons and with the help of God. All that said, we know that sojourners and invading armies are categorically different things.
The second way that border traffic can be regulated in the context of a Biblical government is by the authority which individual land owners near the border have over their own personal property. Individual land owners in the context of a Biblical government have the civil right to refuse to allow people on their land. Now, that said, remember that Renew America called it a land owner's "moral right" to refuse access to their land. The wording here is important. it's not actually a land owner's "moral right" to refuse access to their land; it's their "civil right". The difference is important. God gave us civil laws to judge in matters where we have authority, and he gave us moral laws without prescribing any civil penalty for them. We are to obey the moral law or else be judged by God. So, if a consensus can be reached among border land-owners to close down the border, they may do it. The question is not simply whether the decision to reject immigrants is our God-given civil prerogative, because if we were actually trying to adhere to God's civil laws then there would be no legislative process in America (the Bible would be the law). The question is about whether it is the moral duty of our government to allow or reject immigrants.
Let me give an example to demonstrate the principle at work here: If I own food, but my neighbor does not, my neighbor may not steal food from me. It is my food. (Proverbs 6:30-31). If my neighbor asks for my food, there is no civil (human-government) penalty prescribed anywhere in the Bible for my refusal to give it to him. However, there are explicit commands in the Bible to share the food willingly (Deut 15:11), and it is thus a moral obligation for me to do so. If I don't do so, I face no human penalty, but I face the wrath of God (Matt 25:31-46). And, on the other hand, if I willingly give, I receive the blessings of God (Prov 19:17, 22:9, Isa 58:10) Furthermore, (and I'm getting ahead of myself a little here) the Bible even goes so far as to offer rules about people who enter other people's vineyards unannounced to glean food, with the implicit (but plainly evident) note that it is permissible for them to do so (Deut 23:24-25).
The point I'm making with that is, just because I have the legal right to do something (and every human must allow for my decision as long as it is permitted by the law), that does not mean that I have the moral right to do something. And, in fact, the only potentially applicable moral indictment in the Bible is that we should be hospitable to all strangers and foreigners (Deut 10:19, Heb 13:2 and others).
OK, let's move on to the next passage used in favor of strict border control. Romans 13:1-4 is cited to say, rightly, that governments are God's servants with the responsibility to protect their citizens from wrongdoers. However, again, the parameters around how that protection is to be carried out are very clearly described in the OT, and they are not clearly described in any different way in the NT, so we do not say, "if it isn't clearly repeated in the NT then it's void", or we lose a lot of really important moral commands which are issued only in the OT and not repeated in the NT, and not to mention, the Bible explicitly tells us not to interpret it that way (Mat 5:17-20) [resisting the urge to talk more on this].
Next one, Romans 13 is cited by one website with the words, "the chapter where the Apostle Paul tells us how individuals should obey the laws set forth by God's duly selected government leaders -- meaning, of course, even illegals". Well fine, but Romans 13 also defines "duly selected government leaders" in that passage as leaders who "promote good and terrorize evil", so we need to define good and evil before we can use that passage to support closed borders. The passage does not advocate blind obedience to all laws. (That Washington post author has obviously never read Samuel Rutherford).
The last one I saw that might be worth mentioning was "give to Caesar what is Caesar's". First of all, just because something belongs to Caesar, doesn't mean that Caesar is a good government, and this debate exists because we have the power to change our laws for the better. Second, that passage was actually talking about paying taxes to Rome, which is something that Israel would not have had to do if they would have been obedient to God in the first place, because then they would have had God's protection from Rome. So, if you're going to depend on Caesar's protection, and if you're going to use Caesar's coins, then you're under Caesar's thumb. The coins never really belonged to Israel anyway -- they only denoted value inasmuch as they were Caesar's coins.
And, unless I missed something, those are the only real passages I saw advocating strict borders. I think that the source below, "biola", gives a fair evangelical discussion about the importance of immigration in scripture. I won't dive into it, because I don't have much else to add to what they said. The Bible seems to have no explicit command either to control the borders or not to control them, but it has several commands about being hospitable to foreigners. (see the link from Open Bible).
And, in general, I think we should be relying on God to protect us, rather than the apparent strength of our physical armies. (1 Sam 17, 2 Chron 16:7). If you read through Kings and Chronicles, (I'm using the whole books as reference now) and look at all the times when the Bible says that the land had peace and prosperity, it generally gives the reason why they were successful. It doesn't say that they had peace because of their strong military defense, or prosperity because of their careful border control. It says they had peace and prosperity because their King loved God and executed God's Laws in the land, so God protected them. This might seem naive or unrealistic if you don't think that God is real, or if you don't think that He is actively involved in our lives today... but I really believe that it's not the military strength of a people which enables it to defend its borders. If a nation submits itself to God, then God promises that He will defend it (Jeremiah 18:7-10). And He demonstrated that over and over in history. I really believe that a nation can be completely surrounded by hostile enemies with large armies, having for itself no physical defense at all, and yet remain in perfect, tranquil security, because that nation is submissive to God.
Sources:
For Closed Borders:
Renew America: The Bible and Borders
Religion News: What would Jesus do? Help the Dreamers and secure the border
Bible Mesh: The Bible and National Borders
The Aquila Report: Open Borders and the Bible
The Washington Times:The Biblical Case for Closed Borders
For Open Borders:
biola: Borders & The Bible
Open Bible: Immigration
I want to conclude with a practical note. If we were to open the border in America, today, I think it would be a disaster. The Bible is a complete system -- you have to commit to all of it or it won't work. If America conformed all the rest of its laws to the Bible, (establishing stronger local governments, quicker justice, better judicial processes, more philosophically well-grounded conditions for citizenship, fairer and more ideologically consistent benefits for citizenship, very different tax laws, very different processes for government aid, clearer and better parameters for extradition, more actualized individual ownership of property -- all of which might be topics for later blogs), then I propose, even from a practical perspective, ignoring God's supernatural protection, that we wouldn't need national border regulation at all. The other laws account for sojourners in good ways. We shoot ourselves in the foot by having laws which just don't work when applied to everyone in our borders at once.
"There is a certain people dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom who keep themselves separate. Their customs are different from those of all other people, and they do not obey the king's laws; it is not in the king's best interest to tolerate them."
Tuesday, December 4, 2018
Just found this band, and I can't stop listening to this album:
Today I wrote another non-rhyming poem. I'm calling this one "Submission".
----------------------
Like a stalk of wheat,
I wait for the harvest.
Cut down by the reaper,
I learn how true love is expressed.
Though my sheaved body cracks in the heat,
I know this chaff will be taken from me.
Will I be scattered
making many more like me?
Will I be crushed
into something beautiful?
Willingly I die, knowing
the reaper was also the sower.
------------------------
Being loved by an infinite being is not exactly an easy thing to accept. God is constantly behaving in ways which we don't understand; especially by choosing not to enable us to understand it. Nonetheless, there's no doubt that it is indeed love, and that it is indeed for our good.
"It's nobody's strong point. It's not even its own strong point!"
Today I wrote another non-rhyming poem. I'm calling this one "Submission".
----------------------
Like a stalk of wheat,
I wait for the harvest.
Cut down by the reaper,
I learn how true love is expressed.
Though my sheaved body cracks in the heat,
I know this chaff will be taken from me.
Will I be scattered
making many more like me?
Will I be crushed
into something beautiful?
Willingly I die, knowing
the reaper was also the sower.
------------------------
Being loved by an infinite being is not exactly an easy thing to accept. God is constantly behaving in ways which we don't understand; especially by choosing not to enable us to understand it. Nonetheless, there's no doubt that it is indeed love, and that it is indeed for our good.
"It's nobody's strong point. It's not even its own strong point!"
Thursday, November 29, 2018
Can't help myself today after reading this article, by Pulpit and Pen, which comes really close to presenting legitimate criticisms of Apologia Church, but seems to preferentially spend words misrepresenting Jeff Durbin.
Don't get me wrong, I am the last person on earth who has any right to criticize someone for wasting words on unworthy topics; it's the misrepresentation that bothers me. I don't think we should misrepresent our friends or our enemies if we can help it. The truth is always best, even if it means truthfully divulging the actual content of beliefs with which we disagree.
I went to Apologia Church for a while, and so I hope I don't poison the water when I say I quite like Jeff, and I find his ministry and theology to be generally agreeable. I do disagree with him on a few adiophoral points (about eschatology and politics, mostly), but for the record, I don't personally see a problem with Christians drinking alcohol together as long as it does not lead people to sin. The difference between medicine and poison is the dose, right? You get a little alcohol whenever you use vanilla extract; there's nothing wrong with it. Scripture plainly allows alcohol, but draws the line at drunkenness.
The argument made in the article is that "most consider [alcohol] a vice". I don't know what weight P&P puts on the word "vice", but I think it's fair to say that there's a difference between partaking in something which "most" consider to be a vice, and partaking in sin. Again, scripture draws the line at drunkenness, so any distinctions prior to drunkenness are left to the conscience of each person. The question, then, is, 'has Apologia caused someone to sin by drinking'? P&P gives the example of White's son-in-law. I happen to know a little about that story -- details which I'm fairly certain P&P does not know -- because I was attending the church at the time. I do not believe that White's son-in-law's actions were a result of either Apologia's tattoo-fundraiser or the beer-flights which the article references over-and-over. And I think it's very insensitive of them to use the event as an attack on Pittman; what if White's daughter reads P&P's article? The only legitimate example I see of Apologia potentially causing someone to sin is when P&P heard about Apologia's ministry and then judged it in a way contravening Romans 14:3b.
And to answer their quote from Ryan Denton (who I've never heard of), let me give a quote from Martin Luther: "Whoever drinks beer, he is quick to sleep; whoever sleeps long, does not sin; whoever does not sin, enters Heaven! Thus, let us drink beer!"
But on to the misrepresentations in the article. I don't want to spend much more time picking apart the article, so I'll just give a few. One should be enough, really.
First, they evidence that they haven't really kept up with Jeff's teachings by saying, "Durbin claimed only several years ago to hold to theonomy". I mean.... try several weeks ago! When was the last time these guys listened to any of Jeff's sermons? There're tons of them on youtube!
Second, They say that Apologia is not confessionally reformed. That's a surprising statement, since all the kids in the church are memorizing Piper's Baptist Catechism, and when I was attending, Jeff introduced nearly every sermon and communion by describing the church as one which adheres to the 1689 Baptist confession. I get that they don't mention 1689 on the website, but does that really matter? Really?
Third, they say "Durbin seemed to agree with Robert Jeffress last year that there are many saved Roman Catholics". I mean, wasn't there some context to that statement? Jeff Durbin regularly preaches on why Catholicism is wrong. I used to think Catholics were saved, until I listened to Jeff! Not surprisingly, the link for P&P's reference on this point was to one of their own articles. But even if we only look at what P&P actually did quote from Durbin in their article, how does the clause, "despite the Roman Catholic church", add to the meaning of that sentence? It seems like an important clause to me. I have to give credit where credit is due, though -- they used the word "seemed", which basically means they have no idea what Jeff actually meant, and everything after that word is an extrapolation intended to support their prior points.
In any case, P&P and JD Hall are primary reasons why I intentionally do not categorize my blog as a polemics journal, Christian news outlet, or really anything else if I can help it. What I write here are just my thoughts -- mine alone. I'm sure P&P does plenty of good when they're not skipping the first two steps of Matthew 18:15-17 (which, in a sense, is what I've just done). The world needs more Christians writing good things about Christianity online, so God bless and sanctify us all.
"Durbin again made headlines when..."
Thursday, November 15, 2018
This week, I caught myself remembering things I regret from when I was young. I couldn't stop thinking about it, and so I wrote another non-rhyming poem to blow off steam. Since I suppose poems should be named, I'll call this one, 'Slow to Speak'.
--------------------------------
A bat hangs sleepily below the frame of a window, decorated with etchings of false gods. Here, midway up the towering walls of a weathered castle, the bat is gently stirred by a cool wind, alleging a lack of security here.
This structure is haunted by the ghost of a nameless king, who impersonates a thief, taking things which are already his. And, though the walls are here and there preserved by invisible tapestries, depicting a tragic beauty, she is only ever an unseen image on the wall.
If words alone could build shape back into that cloth, then the sound of it might echo against those otherwise flat and colorless threads, but there are no meaningful sounds here; only wind. The bat learns nothing, sees nothing, fails to perceive the safety just beyond these easily surmountable barriers, and prepares to leave.
Black, featherless wings beat chaotically against a wind that ebbs and flows like an oncoming tide. Looking for shelter, it passes a bird, whose eyes search the ground. The bat passes a statue of a dog with a gift in its mouth. The oncoming horizon seems to grow taller, but the bat pushes forward, determined not to ask, "was that place better than this?". It has never wandered far from home, and it never will.
Humble raindrops transform the bat into a heavier creature, which falls slowly toward a small and well-hidden residence. The bat waits hungrily for quiet, its senses battered by loud calls from a great shepherd, driving dark grey sheep with quick strokes of his rod and staff.
--------------------------------
I might come back and edit this, because I don't feel 100% content with it.... but for now, I'm thinking I'll go ahead and post it here just to finalize the process of releasing these thoughts.
--------------------------------
A bat hangs sleepily below the frame of a window, decorated with etchings of false gods. Here, midway up the towering walls of a weathered castle, the bat is gently stirred by a cool wind, alleging a lack of security here.
This structure is haunted by the ghost of a nameless king, who impersonates a thief, taking things which are already his. And, though the walls are here and there preserved by invisible tapestries, depicting a tragic beauty, she is only ever an unseen image on the wall.
If words alone could build shape back into that cloth, then the sound of it might echo against those otherwise flat and colorless threads, but there are no meaningful sounds here; only wind. The bat learns nothing, sees nothing, fails to perceive the safety just beyond these easily surmountable barriers, and prepares to leave.
Black, featherless wings beat chaotically against a wind that ebbs and flows like an oncoming tide. Looking for shelter, it passes a bird, whose eyes search the ground. The bat passes a statue of a dog with a gift in its mouth. The oncoming horizon seems to grow taller, but the bat pushes forward, determined not to ask, "was that place better than this?". It has never wandered far from home, and it never will.
Humble raindrops transform the bat into a heavier creature, which falls slowly toward a small and well-hidden residence. The bat waits hungrily for quiet, its senses battered by loud calls from a great shepherd, driving dark grey sheep with quick strokes of his rod and staff.
--------------------------------
I might come back and edit this, because I don't feel 100% content with it.... but for now, I'm thinking I'll go ahead and post it here just to finalize the process of releasing these thoughts.
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
So I have three topics I want to touch on today; I don't expect this to be a long blog, but you never know, right?
Here's what I'm listening to right now:
-----1-----
First, the current state of the epistemological argument I've been working on: I drafted a speech, and I was thinking that if I could get that speech past my wife and my pastor, with their blessing, then I would ask the ASU atheist society for an audience to really test it in full by delivering it and then taking questions or challenges. My typical testing grounds for arguments has been YouTube comments, but it's hard to get a full argument out in those comments, because if you say too much then the other person won't read it, and if you say too little then they'll easily forget that the point you're making in this comment is logically tied to the points you made in earlier comments.
Anyhow, I wrote a speech, got it spellchecked by my mom (my mom was a professional English teacher, so she's really good for that.). After having her check version 1, I delivered version 2 to my wife for feedback. She said that it needs a slideshow, and that it comes across as disorganized. She told me to rewrite it so that it is more relatable, and present every point in terms of the relationship between its premises and conclusions. I'm still working on version 3, which will have my wife's advice worked into it.
-----2-----
Up next, I've been listening to the news a lot lately. They've been talking about Chinese re-education camps for Muslims. It's a pretty tragic situation over there. The Chinese government seems to feel threatened by the potential for Muslims to radicalize in their land. In any case, one of the broadcasts had an interview with a man from Kazakhstan who grew up in China with his Muslim family. The man described the re-education camps and the unpleasantness therein, and his life after he got out. (He was released after a suicide attempt). He said that, having been "re-educated", he has not given up Islam, but has become thoroughly, and in some instances which he described from his recent history, senselessly hateful towards all Chinese people. I guess that's a small picture of the imminent future if China doesn't submit to the Prince of Peace. Those who live by the sword will die by the sword.
A segment of the interview which I thought was interesting was when they talked about the kinds of things that the Chinese forced the Muslims to chant in the camp. They included some miscellany about how wonderful the communist party is, and a few statements about the role of religion. One such statement stood out to me, a familiar proverb, "religion is the opiate of the masses". I thought about that a lot since I heard it. I can't imagine that the Chinese government really believes that statement, since they're hoping to prevent religious radicalization.
In fact, the more I thought about it, the more ridiculous the statement seemed to me. "Religion is the opiate of the masses". Whoever said that must have been completely ignorant about religious history, religious psychology, the weight of human conviction, and really, psychology in general. I mean, where was the "opiate of the masses" during the Sumerian Wars, or the Jew's conquest of Canaan, or Sennacherib's campaigns, or the Roman persecutions, or Muhammad's conquests, or the Crusades, or the Reformation, or the Inquisition? When will ISIS realize that what they've been taking is actually an opiate? Maybe they're just suffering withdrawals! Maybe ISIS has too many atheist members. We just need to give them their religious fix and then they'll calm down. [/sarcasm] It's a laughable sentiment entirely!
The only time when religious people have ever been settled and relaxed was when they lived in a land whose laws did not conflict with their religious convictions -- for example, if they live in a land whose government was founded on principles which they believed to be fundamentally rooted in consideration for their own religious values. For example, Christians in the west.
Who said that anyway? [Googles it]. It was Karl Marx! Ha! That explains a lot.
-----3-----
Last item on my list, the recent elections in AZ. Well, me and Chowon did some research on the candidates and I voted based on what we thought was best for our ideals, our way of life, and for Arizona as a whole. In the end, I voted for a mix of democrats and republicans. I thought I was weird, because the country seems so polarized. But in the end, the people who won the vote were a mix of democrats and republicans. Hmmmm.... in order for that to happen, a significant group of people in Arizona would have to have voted for a mixture of democrats and republicans! If everybody voted either "all red" or "all blue", then I suppose all the winning candidates would have been from the same party (whichever party had more people voting). But it looks like a significant group of people voted somewhere in the middle.
I'd like to suppose this means that the party binaries, which are the entire context of all discussion on the news, do not actually represent a significant majority of Americans, or that a significant portion of Americans are not being really thought about by the news. That is, the many Americans who think for themselves and don't vote just along one party for the sake of that party's name. Praise God for those people!
But while both parties are throwing mud at each other, it's this group of people in the middle who get hit. At this point, I don't suppose it's profitable to advocate the establishment of a "third political party", necessarily. Rather, I advocate a complete restructuring of the electoral process in light of modern technological advancements. I realize that people are afraid that if computers govern things then the elections will get hacked... but a lot of resources have been put towards hacking bitcoin, for example, and it's still pretty secure. The point I intend to make by that reference to bitcoin is that electronic elections aren't really all that insecure if they're done right.
The way it's done now, I feel like the electoral college is an aristocratic filter through which all our votes are cast and ultimately depreciated. That said, I do not necessarily advocate a pure popular vote for president. Rather, at this point, I advocate more transparency and segmentation at the local level. A more complicated government, maybe, but one which empowers a plethora of tiny local governments, and where land is not the dividing apparatus. I don't have time to go into detail about the government model which I currently advocate here, but I suspect the changes which I advocate are radical enough to be rejected by most Americans.
"Falls like oil down Aaron's beard"
Here's what I'm listening to right now:
-----1-----
First, the current state of the epistemological argument I've been working on: I drafted a speech, and I was thinking that if I could get that speech past my wife and my pastor, with their blessing, then I would ask the ASU atheist society for an audience to really test it in full by delivering it and then taking questions or challenges. My typical testing grounds for arguments has been YouTube comments, but it's hard to get a full argument out in those comments, because if you say too much then the other person won't read it, and if you say too little then they'll easily forget that the point you're making in this comment is logically tied to the points you made in earlier comments.
Anyhow, I wrote a speech, got it spellchecked by my mom (my mom was a professional English teacher, so she's really good for that.). After having her check version 1, I delivered version 2 to my wife for feedback. She said that it needs a slideshow, and that it comes across as disorganized. She told me to rewrite it so that it is more relatable, and present every point in terms of the relationship between its premises and conclusions. I'm still working on version 3, which will have my wife's advice worked into it.
-----2-----
Up next, I've been listening to the news a lot lately. They've been talking about Chinese re-education camps for Muslims. It's a pretty tragic situation over there. The Chinese government seems to feel threatened by the potential for Muslims to radicalize in their land. In any case, one of the broadcasts had an interview with a man from Kazakhstan who grew up in China with his Muslim family. The man described the re-education camps and the unpleasantness therein, and his life after he got out. (He was released after a suicide attempt). He said that, having been "re-educated", he has not given up Islam, but has become thoroughly, and in some instances which he described from his recent history, senselessly hateful towards all Chinese people. I guess that's a small picture of the imminent future if China doesn't submit to the Prince of Peace. Those who live by the sword will die by the sword.
A segment of the interview which I thought was interesting was when they talked about the kinds of things that the Chinese forced the Muslims to chant in the camp. They included some miscellany about how wonderful the communist party is, and a few statements about the role of religion. One such statement stood out to me, a familiar proverb, "religion is the opiate of the masses". I thought about that a lot since I heard it. I can't imagine that the Chinese government really believes that statement, since they're hoping to prevent religious radicalization.
In fact, the more I thought about it, the more ridiculous the statement seemed to me. "Religion is the opiate of the masses". Whoever said that must have been completely ignorant about religious history, religious psychology, the weight of human conviction, and really, psychology in general. I mean, where was the "opiate of the masses" during the Sumerian Wars, or the Jew's conquest of Canaan, or Sennacherib's campaigns, or the Roman persecutions, or Muhammad's conquests, or the Crusades, or the Reformation, or the Inquisition? When will ISIS realize that what they've been taking is actually an opiate? Maybe they're just suffering withdrawals! Maybe ISIS has too many atheist members. We just need to give them their religious fix and then they'll calm down. [/sarcasm] It's a laughable sentiment entirely!
The only time when religious people have ever been settled and relaxed was when they lived in a land whose laws did not conflict with their religious convictions -- for example, if they live in a land whose government was founded on principles which they believed to be fundamentally rooted in consideration for their own religious values. For example, Christians in the west.
Who said that anyway? [Googles it]. It was Karl Marx! Ha! That explains a lot.
-----3-----
Last item on my list, the recent elections in AZ. Well, me and Chowon did some research on the candidates and I voted based on what we thought was best for our ideals, our way of life, and for Arizona as a whole. In the end, I voted for a mix of democrats and republicans. I thought I was weird, because the country seems so polarized. But in the end, the people who won the vote were a mix of democrats and republicans. Hmmmm.... in order for that to happen, a significant group of people in Arizona would have to have voted for a mixture of democrats and republicans! If everybody voted either "all red" or "all blue", then I suppose all the winning candidates would have been from the same party (whichever party had more people voting). But it looks like a significant group of people voted somewhere in the middle.
I'd like to suppose this means that the party binaries, which are the entire context of all discussion on the news, do not actually represent a significant majority of Americans, or that a significant portion of Americans are not being really thought about by the news. That is, the many Americans who think for themselves and don't vote just along one party for the sake of that party's name. Praise God for those people!
But while both parties are throwing mud at each other, it's this group of people in the middle who get hit. At this point, I don't suppose it's profitable to advocate the establishment of a "third political party", necessarily. Rather, I advocate a complete restructuring of the electoral process in light of modern technological advancements. I realize that people are afraid that if computers govern things then the elections will get hacked... but a lot of resources have been put towards hacking bitcoin, for example, and it's still pretty secure. The point I intend to make by that reference to bitcoin is that electronic elections aren't really all that insecure if they're done right.
The way it's done now, I feel like the electoral college is an aristocratic filter through which all our votes are cast and ultimately depreciated. That said, I do not necessarily advocate a pure popular vote for president. Rather, at this point, I advocate more transparency and segmentation at the local level. A more complicated government, maybe, but one which empowers a plethora of tiny local governments, and where land is not the dividing apparatus. I don't have time to go into detail about the government model which I currently advocate here, but I suspect the changes which I advocate are radical enough to be rejected by most Americans.
"Falls like oil down Aaron's beard"
Friday, September 14, 2018
Time for more bullets. Today I'm going to give points related to the means of delivery for the special revelation.
Briefly, I'll give the reason that I believe Christianity is the superior Abrahamic religion. First, the Jewish prophesies say that the Jews will be blind to their messiah, and in spite of texts such as Daniel 9, which defined that the messiah would arrive within 100 years of the destruction of their temple (which happened in 70 AD), they are still waiting for the messiah. Second, Muhammad said to measure his teachings for validity against the teachings of Jesus, because he taught that Jesus was a true prophet and no true prophet may issue even one single false word from God. Well, Jesus disagrees with Muhammad on some pretty important points, so without getting into the textual criticism and the history of the books, Muhammad summarily invalidates himself.
Really enjoying this song right now:
14.
Q. Special revelation must have been communicated in a way which is exempt from potential for human fabrication.
E. People are not perfectly trustworthy. The testimony can't be entirely dependent on a few dudes in the woods who say they saw God and wrote a book about it. The method has to be more broad than just revealing it to one small group of invested individuals.
15.
Q. Special revelation must have been confirmed by a supernatural sign.
E. I hesitate to use the word "supernatural" because the source has its own nature, so since nothing is really above the nature of the source, nothing truly fits the face-value definition of the word "supernatural". What I mean by this is that the revelation should be confirmed by some proof that the source is above our nature, to demonstrate that it is capable of doing things which we are not able to do. The goal, then, of this point is that the source first communicate to us that it satisfies the prior points, and then demonstrate that to us by exercising its prescriptive governance on the universe.
16.
Q. The method for delivering special revelation must have included direct, verbal communication from the source.
E. We've already established that special revelation must be delivered externally in addition to its derivation from necessity. Vision and dream-type prophetic encounters are useful without words, but they are too abstract to deliver concrete, qualitative information about the source's character which can be retransmitted from person to person without deviation from the initially intended meaning. Special revelation is important, so we need it to be spelled out for us, and words have the unique quality of being limited to their lexical domain, enabling communication with objectively similar interpretations. (If I didn't firmly believe that this was the case, I wouldn't bother communicating with words.)
17.
Q. The primary contents of the verbal communication, and the record of the signs, must be available today in a form which inherently demonstrates the supernatural origin of the information while satisfying #14.
E. It's not necessary that the source continually deliver new, direct communication, as long as the record of prior delivery satisfies the points for validity above.
18.
Q. The contents of special revelation must be accessible for anyone who desires to know the source.
E. The revelation doesn't have to be known by everyone, but it has to be available to everyone. Anyone who desires to learn it must be able to acquire access to it, and everyone who seeks it must succeed in finding it. However, it is not necessary that everyone aware of the information accepts it, because (in the context of this discussion) it only serves the purpose of relatably validating the qualities and existence of the ultimate source whose qualities and existence can otherwise be derived in theory (i.e. utilization of the general revelation does not depend on acceptance of the special revelation). Furthermore, it does not have to be the case that every person has immediate means to access the information, but the source may (and must) by prescription enable each person who genuinely seeks the information to find it.
-----------
I think these points really drive home the personal nature of the source. With that, I think we're down to basically just a few options, and to the best of my knowledge we are left only with the mainstream sects of the Abrahamic "Book" religions. (Maybe soon, in another post, I'll describe how these religions are presently able to satisfy #14, #15, and #17. That information I think isn't directly relevant to the study, so I won't include it in this series.) I am content with the way that #18 rules out the possibility of some unknown tribal religion out there being the true religion, and it highlights the question for Christians about people groups unreached by the gospel.
To touch that in one paragraph, it is the case that God decrees every aspect of everything, and God is honest, and so when God said "you will find me when you seek me with your whole heart", and "I will call them my people who are not my people", and "the foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord...these I will bring to my holy mountain", he did not exclude anyone from the promise. Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that there may be very large people groups with no inclination to seek after God, as it was written, "the Lord looks down...and finds no one who seeks after God" (Psalm 14:2-3).
The I don't know enough about Islam to identify why the differences between the God of Judaism and the God of Islam are representative of essential qualities necessary for intelligibility; I have never done a careful comparison of those two religions with one another, because I believe them both to be misguided on account of the comparisons I've done between them and Christianity. The trinity is useful as an explanation for how God fulfills parts of His own revealed plan, it fits the Biblical evidence, and it works well as a demonstration of God's relatability, but I do not yet know how to present it as a self-justifying fact, without presenting it as a comparison against the failures of nontrinitarian religions. Likewise, the Son of God appeared too late in history to act as "the" relatable revelation for the first humans, but the prophesies about him make him a good means to satisfy conditions for self-evidence in modern records of the prior revelations without needing continued, direct, verbal interaction from God. However, I have not yet reached the point where I can derive why it is an absolutely necessary condition for intelligibility.
I can see that there is a road which will take me to that place, but it is going to take a lot of time meditating to derive information from our current points before I can articulate it well; and that's time I haven't spent yet. It could be months or years before I've completed this last step... So unless God blesses me with insight in the very near future, I'll suspend the series with this post, and return to my normal pattern of blogging until I have made substantial progress.
To touch that in one paragraph, it is the case that God decrees every aspect of everything, and God is honest, and so when God said "you will find me when you seek me with your whole heart", and "I will call them my people who are not my people", and "the foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord...these I will bring to my holy mountain", he did not exclude anyone from the promise. Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that there may be very large people groups with no inclination to seek after God, as it was written, "the Lord looks down...and finds no one who seeks after God" (Psalm 14:2-3).
The I don't know enough about Islam to identify why the differences between the God of Judaism and the God of Islam are representative of essential qualities necessary for intelligibility; I have never done a careful comparison of those two religions with one another, because I believe them both to be misguided on account of the comparisons I've done between them and Christianity. The trinity is useful as an explanation for how God fulfills parts of His own revealed plan, it fits the Biblical evidence, and it works well as a demonstration of God's relatability, but I do not yet know how to present it as a self-justifying fact, without presenting it as a comparison against the failures of nontrinitarian religions. Likewise, the Son of God appeared too late in history to act as "the" relatable revelation for the first humans, but the prophesies about him make him a good means to satisfy conditions for self-evidence in modern records of the prior revelations without needing continued, direct, verbal interaction from God. However, I have not yet reached the point where I can derive why it is an absolutely necessary condition for intelligibility.
I can see that there is a road which will take me to that place, but it is going to take a lot of time meditating to derive information from our current points before I can articulate it well; and that's time I haven't spent yet. It could be months or years before I've completed this last step... So unless God blesses me with insight in the very near future, I'll suspend the series with this post, and return to my normal pattern of blogging until I have made substantial progress.
As it stands, though, I think we've done a good job ruling out other religions so far: the source can't just be a component internal to humans (humanism); it can't just be nature (Darwinism); it can't be "logic itself" (rationalism); it can't be polytheistic (Hinduism, some paganism); it can't be capricious (Greek-Roman and Egyptian gods); its revelation can't depend on modern prophets who disagree with one another (Mormonism); its revelation can't have been essentially lost for any period of time, only to be restored by some jerk in a suit (Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses); the source can't be impersonal (Deism); it must be omniscient, unable to be tricked, and omnipotent, #8 (many tribal religions); and it can't be illogical (Hinduism again). The source definitely fits into the category of religious thought, and I can't think of any other religions satisfying all these except the Abrahamic ones.
Briefly, I'll give the reason that I believe Christianity is the superior Abrahamic religion. First, the Jewish prophesies say that the Jews will be blind to their messiah, and in spite of texts such as Daniel 9, which defined that the messiah would arrive within 100 years of the destruction of their temple (which happened in 70 AD), they are still waiting for the messiah. Second, Muhammad said to measure his teachings for validity against the teachings of Jesus, because he taught that Jesus was a true prophet and no true prophet may issue even one single false word from God. Well, Jesus disagrees with Muhammad on some pretty important points, so without getting into the textual criticism and the history of the books, Muhammad summarily invalidates himself.
I've talked about parts of my epistemology with my brothers in Christ, but I've never articulated it this fully. As far as I know, this work of thought is original to myself... When I finish the posts on Abrahamic religions, I'm going to rewrite my points in a shorter, presentation format (with a slideshow maybe). I'll present this to my pastor and ask him to help me by correcting my mistakes and sharpening or challenging my points. Then, if he blesses my argument, I'll also ask for his blessing on a plan to schedule a meeting with the ASU Atheist Club and present the argument to them for feedback. If my pastor blesses it, and if the Areopagites will hear me, then I'll definitely post their best criticisms/derisions here.
"Then what advantage has the Jew?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
