Choose Your Beliefs

The Seven Areas of Knowledge

noreply@blogger.com (Lowell Ballard) — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 02:08:00 +0000

One critical area that seems to be lacking in traditional education is teaching people how the various areas of knowledge fit together. So, here is an attempt to systematically categorize all the areas of knowledge. There are other ways to categorize this information (such as the Dewey Decimal System, for example), but this is the way to categorize knowledge that currently makes the most sense to me. By using these categories it makes the educational process more understandable.

The Seven Areas of Knowledge

1. Language

How to compute (logic) and communicate qualitative information.

* Listening - Decoding verbal words and phrases into their related "thought" * Speaking - Encoding a "thought" into their related verbal word or phrase

* Phonics & word recognition - decoding written letters into mental "words"
* Handwriting & Spelling - encoding mental words into written letters
* Reading - decoding written sentences and paragraphs into "thoughts"
* Grammar & Composition - encoding "thoughts" into written sentences and paragraphs.
* Research - Methods of actively searching for some information
* Presentation - Actively disseminating in some format (speech, book, tape, video, web site, etc..)
* Logic - Using valid rules to determine previously unknown, qualitative information from information that is already known.

2. Math
How to compute and communicate quantitative information

* Philosophy of math
* Arithmetic - counting
* Algebra - translating relatively uniform qualitative information into quantitative information
* Geometry - translating quantitative information into 2D or 3D space for visual (or auditory or any of the other five senses) communication and computation
* Calculus - translating relatively non-uniform qualitative information into quantitative information and using shortcuts to handle the information more easily
* Statistics - taking into account a range of uncertainty when exact information is unknown
* Computational Math - the methods used by calculating machines to efficiently solve a math problem

3. History
The study of qualitative information recorded about events in the past.

* Human recorded record (i.e., oral, written, pictorial, audio, videographic, etc..)
* Archaeological record

* Geological record
* Astronomical record

4. Observational Science
The study of quantitative information recorded about events in the past.

Observing and Measuring the following areas:
* Earth Sciences
* Physics
* Chemistry
* Geology/Oceanography/Meteorology
* Astronomy
* Life Sciences
* Plants
* Animals
* Humans
* Social Sciences
* Psychology
* Economics
* Geography

* Political Science

5. Philosophy/Theology
Determining qualitative patterns and trying to predict likely future occurrences

* Nature of the designer

* Origins
* How best to handle current issues

* Predicting likely future events
* Possible other creations/creatures (heaven, angels, etc..)
* What is valuable to do

6. Theoretical Science

Determining quantitative patterns and trying to predict likely future occurrences

Determining patterns and predicting events in the following areas:
* Earth Sciences
* Physics
* Chemistry
* Geology/Oceanography/Meteorology
* Astronomy
* Life Sciences
* Plants
* Animals
* Humans
* Social Sciences
* Psychology
* Economics
* Geography

* Political Science

7. Technology

Using qualitative and quantitative information to do something useful

The 14 sub-areas of technology:

* Food
* Clothing
* Shelter
* Transportation
* Communication
* Education
* Medicine
* Management, Law and Government
* Financial
* Computing
* Recreation, Art and Music
* Martial Arts, Security & Military
* Career
* Interpersonal Relations

Relations between the Seven Areas of Knowledge

Math and Language - Some people think math computes and language communicates, but as defined here math can be used to both compute and communicate quantitative information and language can be used to communicate and compute qualitative information. When we "compute" qualitative information it is called "Logic".

History and Observational Science - As defined here, "History" records qualitative information. Observational science observes quantitative information and as soon as it is recorded that information is part of the past. So both history and observational science are dealing with records of past events.

Philosophy/Theology and Theoretical Science - Philosophy/Theology theorize about qualitative information whereas theoretical science theorizes about quantitative information. One mistake is that people mix up theoretical science with technology. Because they know technology works they assume a particular theoretical interpretation of observational science must be correct, but that is not always the case.

Quantitative areas - Math, Observational Science and Theoretical Science are all mainly quantitative areas of knowledge

Qualitative areas - Language, History and Philosophy/Theology are all mainly qualitative areas of knowledge

Goal of all knowledge - The goal of all knowledge is to do something of value, which by definition is the broad definition of "technology". Technology in this definition is not just electronics and other equipment, but also includes methods of using qualitative knowledge to do something useful.

Music and art - They have been traditionally given higher status because they use mediums that have few boundaries, so people can be creative with few restrictions. But in my view people can be creative in any technology, with each technology putting varying levels of restriction on their creativity. Therefore, I don't think art or music should get a special status above other technologies
.

Enlil, Enki and Genesis

noreply@blogger.com (Lowell Ballard) — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 05:31:00 +0000

I recently went through a video course called "Between the Rivers: The History of Ancient Mesopotamia". I also read a few books containing the primary sources from the time of the Babylonians and earlier in Mesopotamia. Though Egyptologists may disagree, Mesopotamia, in particular the Sumerians, seems to be the oldest civilization for which we have records. It has Eridu, the earliest city we have records for. It has the Akkadian empire (conquered by Sargon) which is the first empire we have records for. And it has the city of Ur, which was the city that Abraham left likely around 2000 B.C. during the Ur III dynasty. So, if the early history in Genesis is at all historical then there

should be at least some similarities from the writings from Sumeria and the writings in Genesis.

All writings from early Mesopotamia relating to history seem to be considered as being totally mythical. There doesn't seem to be a separate genre of early historical writings from Mesopotamia like there is for later periods. But embedded in the early myths we would expect at least some remnants of history, distorted but handed down over time. Lets see what we find.

Here are the relevant quotes from various Mesopotamian accounts relating the history of man. While there may be some conflicting myths, in general we can Identify some Mesopotamian gods with the characters in Genesis:

Enlil (and also An)- the creator God who sends the flood, has the tablets of destiny
Enki/Ea - Satan, who helps mankind escape Enlil, he is the father of Marduk (who is later Zeus in Greece) who takes the tablets of destiny and replaces Enlil as the head of the gods
Ninmah - Eve, who chooses good or evil for her descendants
Ziusudra/Utanapishtim - Noah, who builds a boat and takes animals to escape the flood

1. Enlil controls everything

From Hymn to Enlil (Harps that once, P101-102)

Compare to Psalm 95:2-4 and Psalm 69:34

"Enlil - his orders august into the far yonder, his words holy, his unalterable utterances decisive into the far future...", "Heaven and Earth bowed of themselves down to him, and all the gods of high descent humbled themselves before him, loyally awaited for their part instructions."

2. Enlil controls the destiny of the earth

From Myth of the Storm God Zu

Compare to Acts 4:26-28 and Romans 8:28-30

"Also the omens of all the gods he (Enlil) controlled, ..., His eyes behold what Enlil does as sovereign. The crown of his sovereignty, the robe of his divinity, The tablet of destinies belonging to his divinity... "

Note: all the kings down until Babylon went to Enlil's temple to be crowned king

3. Enlil separates heaven and earth

From Song of the Hoe

Compare to Genesis 1:6-7

"Not only did the lord make the world appear in its correct form -- the lord who never changes the destinies which he determines: Enlil, who will make the human seed of the Land come forth up from the earth -- and not only did he hasten to separate heaven from earth, and hasten to separate earth from heaven, but, in order to make it possible for humans to grow in Where Flesh Came Forth he first suspended the axis of the world at Dur-an-ki."

4. The first people were made from clay

From The Harps that once... P156

Compare to Genesis 2:7

"When you have drenched even the core of the Apsu's fathering clay imma-en and imma-shar can make the fetus bigger, and when you have put limbs on it may Ninmah act as your birth-helper..."

5. Enki was considered to be wise and crafty

From The Harps that once... P155

Compare to Genesis 3:1

"Enki... the ingenious and wise one, skillful custodian of heaven and earth..."

Note: Two of Enki's symbols are a goat and a double helix snake, his compassion disarms the stern wrath of his brother Enlil, see http://en.wikiped

ia.org/wiki/Enki

6. Enki and first woman chose Good or Evil for descendants

From The Harps that once... P158-159

Compare to Genesis 3:1-6

"Enki and Ninmah were drinking beer and began to feel good inside. Ninmah said to Enlil: "As for the build of men, what makes it good or bad is mine affair, whichever way my turn of heart, I am making the decision about mode of being, good or bad." (The result was that many offspring were deformed, possibly a reference to sin)

7. A snake takes away eternal life

From Gigamesh P99

Compare to Genesis 3:13-15

"Its name shall be "Old Man Grown Young", I will eat it myself, and be again as I was in my youth! At twenty leagues they broke bread, at thirty leagues they stopped for the night. Gilgamesh found a pool whose water was cool, down he went into it, to bathe in the water. Of the plant's fragrance a snake caught scent, came up [in silence], and bore the plant off."

8. Eve driven out of Eden

From The Harps that once... P 165

Compare to Genesis 3:23-24

"I am one lamenting. ... I am one driven out of my house, at my beer-pouring party... I am become one lingering outside, cannot enter at wish! Now I cannot dwell under heaven, cannot dwell on earth, cannot in the country get out of your sight. Where you dwell not, in a house I shall build, I shall not hear your voice. Where you live not, in a city I shall build, me myself despairing silense will fill. "My city is destroyed, my house wrecked, my children taken captive. I am a fugitive driven out of Ekur (the temple of Enlil), I myself, even, have not escaped out of your hands!"

9. "Sons of God" took any women they wanted

From Epic of Gilgamesh tablet 2

Compare to Genesis 6:1-4

"For Gilgamesh, the King of Broad-Marted Uruk, open is the veil of the people for choosing. He will have intercourse with the 'destined wife,' he first, the husband afterward. This is ordered by the counsel of Anu, from the severing of his umbilical cord it has been destined for him."

10. Man's thoughts were continually evil so God decides to wipe out Mankind

From Story of Atrahasis

Compare to Genesis 6:5-7

"The country was as noisy as a bellowing bull. The God grew restless at their racket, Enlil had to listen to their noise. He addressed the great gods, 'The noise of mankind has become too much, I am losing sleep over their racket. Give the order that surrupu-disease shall break out. (A God who can hear thoughts might refer to hearing evil thoughts continually as man being "noisy")

11. Noah saves animals, gives sacrifice, has seemingly endless life

From The Harps that once... P149-150

Compare to Genesis 6:13-8:22

"All the evil winds, all stormy winds gathered into one and with them, then, the flood was sweeping over the cities of the half-bushel baskets for seven days and seven nights. After the flood had swept over the country, after the evil wind had tossed the big boat about on the great waters, the sun came out spreading light over heaven and earth. Ziusudra then drilled an into the interior of the big boat. Ziusudra, being king, stepped up before Utu kissing the ground opening in the big boat. And the gallant Utu sent his light before him. The king was butchering oxen, was being lavish with the sheep Barley cakes, crescents together with...he was crumbling for him juniper, the pure plant of the mountains, he filled on the fire and with a ...clasped to the breast he... You here have sworn by the life's breath of heaven the life's breath of earth that he verily is allied with yourself; you there, An and Enlil, have sworn by the life's breath of heaven, the life's breath of earth. that he is allied with all of you. He will disembark the small animals that come up from the earth! Ziusudra, being king, stepped up before An and Enlil kissing the ground. And An and Enlil after honoring him were granting him life like a god's, were making lasting breath of life, like a god's, descend into him. That day they made Ziusudra, preserver, as king, of the name of the small animals and the seed of mankind, live toward the east over the mountains in mount Dilmun."

12. Noah telling the story of the flood

From Gilgamesh

Compare to Genesis 6:13-8:22

"Gilgamesh spoke to Utanapishtim (Noah), the Faraway: "I have been looking at you, but your appearance is not strange--you are like me! You yourself are not different--you are like me! My mind was resolved to fight with you, but instead my arm lies useless over you. Tell me, how is it that you stand in the Assembly of the Gods, and have found life!"

Utanapishtim spoke to Gilgamesh, saying: "I will reveal to you, Gilgamesh, a thing that is hidden, a secret of the gods I will tell you! Shuruppak, a city that you surely know, situated on the banks of the Euphrates, that city was very old, and there were gods inside it. The hearts of the Great Gods moved them to inflict the Flood. Their Father Anu uttered the oath (of secrecy), Valiant Enlil was their Adviser, Ninurta was their Chamberlain, Ennugi was their Minister of Canals.

Ea (Enki), the Clever Prince, was under oath with them so he repeated their talk to the reed house: 'Reed house, reed house! Wall, wall! O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubartutu: Tear down the house and build a boat! Abandon wealth and seek living beings! Spurn possessions and keep alive living beings! Make all living beings go up into the boat. The boat which you are to build, its dimensions must measure equal to each other: its length must correspond to its width. Roof it over like the Apsu.

I understood and spoke to my lord, Ea: 'My lord, thus is the command which you have uttered I will heed and will do it. But what shall I answer the city, the populace, and the Elders!' Ea spoke, commanding me, his servant: 'You, well then, this is what you must say to them: "It appears that Enlil is rejecting me so I cannot reside in your city, nor set foot on Enlil's earth. I will go down to the Apsu to live with my lord, Ea, and upon you he will rain down abundance, a profusion of fowl, myriad(!) fishes. He will bring to you a harvest of wealth, in the morning he will let loaves of bread shower down, and in the evening a rain of wheat!"'

Just as dawn began to glow the land assembled around me- the carpenter carried his hatchet, the reed worker carried his flattening stone,... the men ...The child carried the pitch, the weak brought whatever else was needed. On the fifth day I laid out her exterior. It was a field in area, its walls were each 10 times 12 cubits in height, the sides of its top were of equal length, 10 times It cubits each. I laid out its interior structure and drew a picture of it. I provided it with six decks, thus dividing it into seven levels. The inside of it I divided into nine compartments. I drove plugs to keep out water in its middle part. I saw to the punting poles and laid in what was necessa
ry. Three times 3,600 units of raw bitumen I poured into the bitumen kiln, three times 3,600 units of pitch ...into it, there were three times 3,600 porters of casks who carried vegetable oil, apart from the 3,600 units of oil which they consumed and two times 3,600 units of oil which the boatman stored away. I butchered oxen for the meat, and day upon day I slaughtered sheep. I gave the workmen ale, beer, oil, and wine, as if it were river water, so they could make a party like the New Year's Festival. and I set my hand to the oiling. The boat was finished by sunset.

The launching was very difficult. They had to keep carrying a runway of poles front to back,

until two-thirds of it had gone into the water. Whatever I had I loaded on it: whatever silver I had I loaded on it, whatever gold I had I loaded on it. All the living beings that I had I loaded on it, I had all my kith and kin go up into the boat, all the beasts and animals of the field and the craftsmen I had go up. Shamash had set a stated time: 'In the morning I will let loaves of bread shower down, and in the evening a rain of wheat! Go inside the boat, seal the entry!' That stated time had arrived. In the morning he let loaves of bread shower down, and in the evening a rain of wheat. I watched the appearance of the weather-- the weather was frightful to behold! I went into the boat and sealed the entry. For the caulking of the boat, to Puzuramurri, the boatman, I gave the palace together with its contents.

Just as dawn began to glow there arose from the horizon a black cloud. Adad rumbled inside of it, before him went Shullat and Hanish, heralds going over mountain and land. Erragal pulled out the mooring poles, forth went Ninurta and made the dikes overflow. The Anunnaki lifted up the torches, setting the land ablaze with their flare. Stunned shock over Adad's deeds overtook the heavens, and turned to blackness all that had been light. The... land shattered like a... pot. All day long the South Wind blew ..., blowing fast, submerging the mountain in water, overwhelming the people like an attack. No one could see his fellow, they could not recognize each oth
er in the torrent. The gods were frightened by the Flood, and retreated, ascending to the heaven of Anu. The gods were cowering like dogs, crouching by the outer wall. Ishtar shrieked like a woman in childbirth, the sweet-voiced Mistress of the Gods wailed: 'The olden days have alas turned to clay, because I said evil things in the Assembly of the Gods! How could I say evil things in the Assembly of the Gods, ordering a catastrophe to destroy my people!! No sooner have I given birth to my dear people than they fill the sea like so many fish!' The gods--those of the Anunnaki--were weeping with her, the gods humbly sat weeping, sobbing with grief, their lips burning, parched with thirst. Six days and seven nights came the wind
and flood, the storm flattening the land. When the seventh day arrived, the storm was pounding, the flood was a war--struggling with itself like a woman writhing in labor. The sea calmed, fell still, the whirlwind and flood stopped up. I looked around all day long--quiet had set in and all the human beings had turned to clay! The terrain was as flat as a roof. I opened a vent and fresh air (daylight!) fell upon the side of my nose. I fell to my knees and sat weeping, tears streaming down the side of my nose. I looked around for coastlines in the expanse of the sea, and at twelve leagues there emerged a region of land. On Mt. Nimush the boat lodged firm, Mt. Nimush held the boat, allowing no sway. One day and a second Mt. Nimush held the boat, allowing no sway. A third day, a fourth, Mt. Nimush held the boat, allowing no sway. A fifth day, a sixth, Mt. Nimush held the boat, allowing no sway. When a seventh day arrived I sent forth a dove and released it. The dove went off, but came back to me; no perch was visible so it circled back to me. I sent forth a swallow and released it. The swallow went off, but
came back to me; no perch was visible so it circled back to me. I sent forth a raven and released it. The raven went off, and saw the waters slither back. It eats, it scratches, it bobs, but does not circle back to me. Then I sent out everything in all directions and sacrificed a sheep. I offered incense in front of the mountain-ziggurat. Seven and seven cult vessels I put in place, and into the fire underneath I poured reeds, cedar, and myrtle. The gods smelled the savor, the gods smelled the sweet savor, and collected like flies over a sheep sacrifice.

Just then Beletili arrived. She lifted up the large beads which Anu had made for his enjoyment: 'You gods, as surely as I shall not forget this lapis lazuli around my neck, may I be mindful of these days, and never forget them! The gods may come to the incense offering, but Enlil may not come to the incense offering, because without considering he brought about the Flood and consigned my people to annihilation.' Just then Enlil arrived. He saw the boat and became furious, he was filled with rage at the Igigi gods: 'Where did a living being escape? No man was to survive the annihilation!' Ninurta spoke to Valiant Enlil, saying: 'Who else but Ea could devise such a thing? It is Ea who knows every machination!' La spoke to Valiant Enlil, saying: 'It is yours, O Valiant One, who is the Sage of the Gods. How, how could you bring about a Flood without consideration Charge the violation to the violator, charge the offense to the offender, but be compassionate lest mankind be cut off, be patient lest they be killed. Instead of your bringing on the Flood, would that a lion had appeared to diminish the people! Instead of your bringing on the Flood, would that a wolf had appeared to diminish the people! Instead of your bringing on the Flood, would that famine had occurred to slay the land! Instead of your bringing on the Flood, would that (Pestilent) Erra had appeared to ravage the land! It was not I who revealed the secret of the Great Gods, I only made a dream appear to Atrahasis, and thus he heard the secret of the gods. Now then! The deliberation should be about him!'

Enlil went up inside the boat and, grasping my hand, made me go up. He had my wife go up and kneel by my side. He touched our forehead and, standing between us, he blessed us: 'Previously Utanapishtim was a human being. But now let Utanapishtim and his wife become like us, the gods! "

13. Long life removed from mankind a few generations after the flood

From Gilgamesh P XLV

Compare to Genesis 9:28 and Genesis 11:10-26

"After the assembly had made the Deluge sweep over... Ziusudra, one of mankind, still lived!... From that time we swore that mankind should not have life eternal."

"After the Flood had swept over... when the gods An and Enlil... had not sent down from heaven (once more) kingship, crown and even city, and for all the overthrown people had not established (once more) mattock, spade, earth-basket and plough, the things which ensure the life of the land, then a man spent one hundred years as a boy, free of duties, another hundred years he spent, after he grew up, (but still) he performed no task of work."

14. Changing of one language into many

From Harps that once...

Compare to Genesis 11:1-9

"Once upon a time, there was no snake, there was no scorpion, There was no hyena, there was no lion, There was no wild dog, no wolf, There was no fear, no terror, Man had no rival. In those days, the land Shubur-Hamazi, Harmony-tongued Sumer, the great land of the me of princeship, Uri, the land having all that is appropriate, The land Martu, resting in security, The whole universe, the people well cared for, To Enlil in one tongue gave speech.

Then the lord defiant, the prince defiant, the king defiant, Enki, the lord of abundance, whose commands are trustworthy, The lord of wisdom, who scans the land, The leader of the gods,

The lord of Eridu, endowed with wisdom, Changed the speech in their mouths, put contention into it, Into the speech of man that had been one."

Note: Eridu was the first known city and it had a large Ziggurat, Enki, who opposed Enlil in the Sumerian flood story, was the patron god of Eridu, and there are correspondences between "Eridu" and "Babylon", See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eridu#Possible_location_of_Tower_of_Babel

Note: the first successful large city was Uruk. One myth tells of how the plans for building civilization were stolen from Eridu and taken upstream to Uruk, See http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/esp_sumer
_annunaki16.htm

15. World replaces creator God with polytheism

From Harps that once... P171

"Enlil was passing through Kiur, and as Enlil was passing through Kiur the fifty great gods, and the seven gods of formulating the decisions, were seizing Enlil in Kiur: The sex offender Enlil will leave the town! The sex offender Nunamnir will leave the town! Enlil, in accordance with what has been decided about him, left town. Enlil was walking along, Ninlil was following..."

16. Hammurabi was a follower of a creator god

From Code of Hammurabi

"When lofty Anum, king of the Anunnaki, and Enlil, lord of heaven and earth, the determiner of the destinies of the land, determined for Marduk, the first-born of Enki, the Enlil functions over all mankind, made him great among the Igigi, called Babylon by its exalted name, made it supreme in the world, established for him in its midst an enduring kingship, whose foundations are as firm as heaven and earth - at that time Anum and Enlil named me to promote the welfare of the people, me, Hammurabi, the devout, god-fearing prince, to cause justice to prevail in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil, that the strong might not oppress the weak, to rise like the sun over the black-headed people, and to light up the land. Hammurabi, the shepherd, called by Enlil, am I; the one who makes affluence and plenty abound; who provides in abundance all sorts of things for Nippur-Duranki; the devout patron of Ekur; the efficient king, who restored Eridu to its place"

17. Four males and four females come out of water

From Egyptian Creation Myths

Flood related myth from ancient Egypt:

The oldest of the Egyptian creation myths was that eight gods, fo
ur male and four female, were created out of water. That would fit well with the flood story since four men and four wome
n came out of the ark. Each of them lived much longer than their descendants and had tales of a more populated world that was lost, so they could have seemed like Gods with eternal life to their descendants.

Note about Terah and Abram and Ur

Depending on the specific dating, Terah and Abraham may have left Ur during the Ur III dynasty. If so Ur may have been the thriving capital city of Mesopotamia at the time. The first king of Ur rebuilt the major Ziggurats in Nippur (to Enlil), Ur, Uruk and Uridu (the first known Ziggurat). And the second king of the Ur III dynasty wrote arrogant things about how great he was and he declared himself to be a god. He was the second king in history to do that. The first king to declare himself to be a god was told in a dream by Enlil that he would have some kind of disaster. That king destroyed the temple of Enlil and his Akkadian empire was taken over and destroyed some time not too long after that (during the reign of the next king).

So, if the chronology I am using correctly dates Abraham's life (somewhere around 2000 B.C.,), the dates could match up with him leaving Ur possibly during the Reign of Shulgi, who was the second king to declare himself a God. At that point it would make sense that God might abandon Mesopotamia and create a new nation that recovers the true history of the creator God and the flood.

Also, it is interesting that Ur and Haran (where they originally went) both have the same patron god of the Moon. The new testament says Terah and Abraham were actual polytheists who were called out of that society rather than pure monotheists out of step with the culture. Abraham would have seen, and likely visited many times, the Zigurat pictured here. The timeline also suggests it may have been built during the lifetime of Terah, Abram's father.

Since Shulgi declared that writings be re-written in a new format, there would have been many scholars at this time re-writing older texts. It is possible that Terah and Abraham may have learned about more accurate histories than were popularly known at the time and so they came to reject the mythologies that had come to surround their history.

From The Harps that Once Page xii "The majority of works we possess seems to have come down to us in a form given them slightly later, during the period of the Third Dynasty of Ur, some of the rulers of which - notably Shulgi - were much concerned to preserve extant older literary works and to encourage the creation of new ones".

Summary:

These correlations do not prove that the ancient history listed in the Bible is accurate. One could just as easily argue that the history in Genesis is a cleaned up version of Sumerian myths, which may be the reason why churches do not teach people about these correlations in Sunday School. But at least it can be said that a best guess at pulling history out of the earliest myths is consistent with what we would expect if the Bible history in Genesis is true. Perhaps that is part of the reason why the Book of Genesis has stood the test of time and today over half of the world's population (including Christians, Muslims and Jews) honor the book of Genesis.

The Trinity of Management

noreply@blogger.com (Lowell Ballard) — Sat, 18 Sep 2010 23:48:00 +0000

After becoming a manager I spent a few years learning the various management methodologies and recommendations. I've been certified in project management, attended the Dale Carnegie Course, read most all of what Steven Covey has written and attended Franklin/Covey classes, I've been certified as a Help Desk manager, plus I have been training and certified in the most common IT management frameworks (such as ITIL and COBIT). Basically I have looked for most any information that would seem to help me in my career as an IT manager. But, after looking at the various information, recommendations and frameworks concerning how best to manage, I started to question how all these various recommendations actually fit together. Managing shouldn't have to be that complex. So, I started trying to simplify and combine the various recommendations to boil them down to the essentials of how to manage effectively.

Best Practices

The first core concept I came to is that, regardless of how we manage, the goal is always to get to some idealized set of "best practices" for performing each of our functions. Even though we may never actually get there or we may be mistaken about what is "best" in a given situation, getting to a set of "best practices" is still the goal.

The concept of "best practices" goes by many names. If there is no force behind them we call them suggestions, recommendations, or models. If we put social pressure behind them they are called etiquette. If we put law enforcement behind them then they are called laws. But these are all just different forms of "best practices".

Willingness to Sacrifice Yourself

The concept of "best practices" seemed obvious from the list of hundreds or even thousands of recommendations that the various management literature recommends. But just teaching and

knowing the recommendations is not enough to be effective. We need to actually put the recommendations into practice to be effective. Now we naturally do things that give us an immediate reward, so those kinds of tasks do not even need to be managed. But what we do not do naturally are the things that bring some pain or hardship up front in order to gain a greater reward later. So, a big part of management seems to be the art of getting people, including yourself, to want to do the painful things up front to get a reward later. To do that requires the willingness to sacrifice short term benefits to obtain long term gain, so the willingness to make self sacrifices seems key to be willing to implement "best practices".

Right Attitude (Motivation)

But what causes us to be willing to make the needed sacrifices? To do that we need to have the correct attitude/motivation. The best model I have heard for how we motivate ourselves and others is to convince people that a particular goal is valuable and worth the cost of obtaining the goal, and then to show a believable path for getting there which builds hope of actually being able to obtain the goal.

The Trinity

It was at that point that I realized that reducing management theory to core concepts in this way reflects the core attributes of the Trinity. God the creator gave us laws and practices which, even if they don't seem to us to be best, by definition they must be the best if he is an all powerful, good creator. So God is the author of the concept of "best practices". But that apparently wasn't enough for mankind to live rightly so Jesus came and sacrificed himself to uphold the truth of what he taught, including that he was God's son, while at the same time submitting to the religious and legal authorities. As disciples of Jesus we have committed ourselves to also sacrificing ourselves to uphold truth and to determine and do what is right. So, a key attribute of Jesus is the willingness to make self sacrifices to support what is right. But apparently even that wasn't enough for the first century followers of Jesus to boldly sacrifice themselves to do what is right. They needed the Holy Spirit to motivate them to be willing to sacrifice themselves. So, there you have it. God is the giver of best practices, Jesus sacrificed himself rather than compromise truth and the Holy Spirit gives the right attitude/motivation to the disciples of Jesus. So the key attributes associated with the Trinity are also the key attributes of effective management, especially self management.

Engineering Trade-offs

You might ask why there is problems with the world if God is an effective manager. The reason is that the common Utopian concept of a "perfect" world of freedom without any pain does not actually exist, even for God. Apparently God values freedom of choice and where there is true freedom of choice there are also bad choices being made. So, by definition, in a world with freedom of choice there also has to be the problems associated with bad choices. Also, God is not required to make everything work perfectly, so it appears, according to the Bible, that after man chose not to follow God He changed the world somewhat to not work perfectly, likely to cause us to desire the perfect world which we do not currently have.

It appears that the Christian God is an excellent manager (as we would expect). So it would make sense that western, historically Judeo-Christian world has advanced the art of management, invention and industry more than any other civilization.

So, when you are confronted with a management problem, either at work or on a personal level, I think you will find that the resolution can be categorized as either to determining/implementing best practices, being willing to sacrifice something that up until now you have been holding on to, or having the appropriate attitude/motivation to get to your goal.

666: The Number of Solomon

noreply@blogger.com (Lowell Ballard) — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 01:53:00 +0000

The book of Revelation in the Bible is mostly relaying what the writer of the book saw in a vision. Even though this vision seems like a irrational dream, we still need to interpret it using the same method we use to interpret any writing: determine what the author was trying to communicate to the intended audience.

Most all of the images in the book of Revelation are referring to similar images in the Old Testament, so it seems the author of the visions was trying to cause the intended audience to think about each of the old testament visions and what they were referring to. Places where it says things like "to him who has understanding..." seem to indicate that some of the audience would understand the references whereas others would not. Perhaps those who would understand this reference to "666" would be those who knew and understood its reference in the Old Testament.

The "666" quote in Revelation 13 & 14:^"15And it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed. ¹⁶And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, ¹⁷and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name. ¹⁸Here is wisdom Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six."

Note that "666" is "the number of a man", so the question naturally arises: "Who is that man?". While the passage could have more than one intended reference, at very least the passage would evoke in the educated Jewish reader any significant instances of that number in the old testament. So lets take a look at those references.

Old Testament References to "666"

There are two references where "666" is mentioned as part of a list of people returning from Babylon:

Ezra 2:12 -14 : ... ¹²the sons of Azgad, 1,222; ¹³the sons of Adonikam, 666; ¹⁴the sons of Bigvai, 2,056;...

Neh 7:17-19 : ...¹⁷the sons of Azgad, 2,322; ¹⁸the sons of Adonikam, 667; ¹⁹the sons of Bigvai, 2,067;...

Since there is no reference to anything historically significant done by the sons of Adonikam and it is unclear whether 666 or 667 people from this family returned from Babylon, this seems to be a chance instance of where there was a group of 666 or 667 people and that probably doesn't relate to the book of Revelation.

The only other reference to "666" in the Bible is in two passages describing the same events, one in Chronicles and one in Kings:

2 Chr 9:13-14;9:22-28¹³Now the weight of gold which came to Solomon in one year was 666 talents of gold (about 50,000 pounds of gold), ¹⁴besides that which the traders and merchants brought; and all the kings of Arabia and the governors of the country brought gold and silver to Solomon.... ²²So King Solomon became greater than all the kings of the earth in riches and wisdom. ²³And all the kings of the earth were seeking the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom which God had put in his heart. ²⁴They brought every man his gift, articles of silver and gold, garments, weapons, spices, horses and mules, so much year by year. ²⁵Now Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots and 12,000 horsemen, and he stationed them in the chariot cities and with the king in Jerusalem. ²⁶He was the ruler over all the kings from the Euphrates River even to the land of the Philistines, and as far as the border of Egypt. ²⁷The king made silver as common as stones in Jerusalem, and he made cedars as plentiful as sycamore trees that are in the lowland. ²⁸And they were bringing horses for Solomon from Egypt and from all countries.

So, Chronicles shows how Solomon gathered gold and horses, but doesn't mention anything about Solomon in a negative light (such as having multiple wives and honoring other gods). To see the full picture of what happened we have to look at the book of Kings:

1 Kings 10:14-15;10:23-27;11:1-13
¹⁴Now the weight of gold which came in to Solomon in one year was 666 talents of gold, ¹⁵besides that from the traders and the wares of the merchants and all the kings of the Arabs and the governors of the country.... ²³So King Solomon became greater than all the kings of the earth in riches and in wisdom. ²⁴All the earth was seeking the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom which God had put in his heart. ²⁵They brought every man his gift, articles of silver and gold, garments, weapons, spices, horses, and mules, so much year by year. ²⁶Now Solomon gathered chariots and horsemen; and he had 1,400 chariots and 12,000 horsemen, and he stationed them in the chariot cities and with the king in Jerusalem. ²⁷The king made silver as common as stones in Jerusalem, and he made cedars as plentiful as sycamore trees that are in the lowland...¹Now King Solomon loved many foreign women along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, ²from the nations concerning which the LORD had said to the sons of Israel, "You shall not associate with them, nor shall they associate with you, for they will surely turn your heart away after their gods." Solomon held fast to these in love. ³He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away. ⁴For when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away after other gods; and his heart was not wholly devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. ⁵For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians and after Milcom the detestable idol of the Ammonites. ⁶Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, and did not follow the LORD fully, as David his father had done. ⁷Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable idol of Moab, on the mountain which is east of Jerusalem, and for Molech the detestable idol of the sons of Ammon. ⁸Thus also he did for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods. ⁹Now the LORD was angry with Solomon because his heart was turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, ¹⁰and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; but he did not observe what the LORD had commanded. ¹¹So the LORD said to Solomon, "Because you have done this, and you have not kept My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you, and will give it to your servant. ¹²"Nevertheless I will not do it in your days for the sake of your father David, but I will tear it out of the hand of your son. ¹³"However, I will not tear away all the kingdom, but I will give one tribe to your son for the sake of My servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen."

So, it seems that Solomon increased in military might, inter-married with rulers of other countries, gathered up lots of wealth, and he honored other Gods from countries around him rather than exclusively honoring the creator. Interestingly, those are the key things a world ruler would need to do to gain power and maintain peace. But how does that compare to what the Pentateuch says a king of Israel should do?

What the Creator says kings should/should not do

Deut 7:14-20 :

¹⁴"When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, 'I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me,' ¹⁵you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman. ¹⁶"Moreover, he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor shall he cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, since the LORD has said to you, 'You shall never again return that way.' ¹⁷"He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself. ¹⁸"Now it shall come about when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests. ¹⁹"It shall be with him and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, by carefully observing all the words of this law and these statutes, ²⁰that his heart may not be lifted up above his countrymen and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, to the right or the left, so that he and his sons may continue long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel.

So, Solomon was the wisest and most powerful king of his time, but he disregarded what the Pentateuch said he should not do as king. Basically, he thought he knew a better way to rule than the one given by the designer and creator of the universe, and his methods were seemingly successful. So, that fits very well with as an illustration of a coming set of future world leaders, who believe that they need to use various methods of obtaining power in order to maintain peace.

Why don't students of the Bible see this seemingly obvious connection?

I think people don't focus on this connection because of the common view that "Evil" is the opposite of "Good". Many people would say Solomon is described as wise and good and so he couldn't possibly be the intended reference concerning a coming world leader who is considered by the Bible to be evil. But in fact normally the goal of someone who is "Evil" is actually trying to be better and smarter, not worse and more destructive, than what the creator designed. For example, Hitler thought he was helping the evolution of European races by getting rid of inferior individuals and races. People who kill unborn babies think they are helping young mothers be more successful in the formative years of their lives. Eve thought it would be best to eat the fruit rather than follow God's recommendation. And, most likely, Satan himself thinks he can do better than the creator's way. So, evil normally starts out thinking that

it is working to do better than the method that the creator designed, but very bad things are caused by evil people as the unintended result of their belief system (the "necessary evil" to get to their Utopian system).

Here is a test. Which one of these pictures pictures evil and which one pictures good? The answer is that we can't know by looking. Many times good can look like evil (such as tough law enforcement and capital punishment) and many times evil can look like good (such as government subsidies, which steal from one person to give to another, and interfaith prayer), "for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. (2 Cor 11:14)"

Summary

So, if this interpretation of the "666" reference is correct, then apparently it implies that a set of world leaders will arise that will seem to be as wise and respected as Solomon.They will work to bring peace and prosperity to the world. Of necessity, they will amass wealth, build a strong military, and promote inter-religious cooperation (and possibly intermarry with other powerful families). They will also, at some point, limit the ability to buy or sell as yet another means of necessary power and control. In the end they will end up believing that they need to kill those who do not honor the laws of their government above conflicting laws given by the creator.

So, don't be looking for a world leader who looks evil. But rather keep a look out for world leaders with true wisdom, but who value peace and safety more than they value either truth or the one true designer/creator (who is the only one who can actually guide us into truth and peace).

The Path

noreply@blogger.com (Lowell Ballard) — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 06:32:00 +0000

My son made the five minute video above for a student video contest. It discusses his journey evaluating the various beliefs at the end of his home education years and beginning of college.

Speaking in Tongues - Understanding the Meaning

noreply@blogger.com (Lowell Ballard) — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:55:00 +0000

The concept and practice of "speaking in tongues" is very interesting to read about and to experience. I will argue that Christians from both sides of this issue do not study Paul's writings carefully enough on this subject to understand what Paul is actually trying to communicate. There is one main passage in the Bible on this subject and five supporting passages. Lets take a look at what the Bible actually says and think through what Paul is mostly likely trying to communicate.

The Five Supporting Passages - Four involving known languages/foreigners and one involving "groaning"
I will highlight in red the parts that refer either to a known language or foreigners who would likely speak a different known language.

Acts 2:1-13
1 When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance. 5 Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, "Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 "And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? 9 "Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs--we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God." 12 And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, "What does this mean?" 13 But others were mocking and saying, "They are full of sweet wine."

So, clearly in this passage "tongues" refers to speaking a different language in order to communicate with foreigners. Interestingly, in a sense this ability temporarily makes up for God creating/separating the different languages at the Tower of Babel. At the tower of Babel God was trying to keep people from banding together to rebel from what He said to do (to disperse throughout the world). After the death of Jesus, God was apparently working to communicate the message about Jesus to all those nations/languages to give them the opportunity to believe and follow Jesus.

Acts 10
²⁸And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean. ³⁴ Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, ³⁵but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him. ⁴⁴While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. ⁴⁵ All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. ⁴⁶For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, ⁴⁷ Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" ⁴⁸And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

This passage is less clear on whether tongues is always used to communicate in a known language, but in this case as in the previous case there are foreigners present who would need to communicate and who are being added to the group of early Christians. Also, the phrase "just as we did" seems to imply that this experience was of the same kind as in the previous passage and there is no indication that the tongues were not understandable by those who were present.

Acts 19
¹It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. ²He said to them, Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." ³ And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, Into John's baptism." ⁴Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." ⁵When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. ⁶And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. ⁷There were in all about twelve men.

Again this passage is unclear whether the tongues were necessarily understandable or not. But since they were "speaking in tongues and prophesying", that seems to indicate that the tongues were understandable since prophesying implies a transfer of information. At very least there is no indication to the contrary.

Mark 16:14-20 (Note: Some reliable early manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20, so this section may have been added later by a scribe as a summary of what was said in the other books, or it might have been removed by scribes thinking it was an erroneous addition...)^[14Afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen. ¹⁵And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. ¹⁶"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. ¹⁷"These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; ¹⁸they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover." ¹⁹So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. ²⁰And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed. And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.]

This section mentions speaking in tongues but does not comment further and it may or may not have been in the original writings. So this section does not seem to give us any more useful information on the subject.

Romans 8: 18-27 (phrases mentioning "groaning" and prayer highlighted in red)

¹⁸For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. ¹⁹For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. ²⁰For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope ²¹that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. ²²For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. ²³And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. ²⁴For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? ²⁵But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it. ²⁶In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; ²⁷and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

So, apparently here is a case of the Holy Spirit "groaning" and God understanding the pain that is trying to be communicated because He "knows what the mind of the Spirit is". So, this leaves open the possibility that some unintelligible "groanings" between a man and God are substitutes for actual speech. But note that in this case no actual communication to God is necessary since, as Paul says, He already knows what is needed.

But also note that since Jesus clearly has said that prayer should be in private (a passage that is widely disregarded in most all modern churches and home groups...) this is not a practice that Paul is advocating should occur in church.

The main passage on Speaking in Tongues
As seen above, at least one of the supporting passages clearly says that the tongues were speaking in foreign languages that were understandable by foreigners and at least one of the passages talk about "groaning" as part of private prayer. But none of the five supporting passages have any indication that tongues were used in public when no one present at the time understood what was being said. So, a valid question is whether tongues is always used to communicate to others or whether there is any situation where tongues is used in a groups setting for some other reason than communication. Now lets take a look at the main passage to answer that question.

One key to understanding the Corinthians passage on speaking in tongues is to understand that Paul is responding to a list of questions he received in a previous letter. To see this, take a look at the introductory statements to the surrounding passages:

1 Cor 7:1 "Now for the matters you wrote about:" (concerning married life)
1 Cor 7:25 "Now concerning virgins"
1 Cor 8:1 "Now concerning things sacrificed to idols"
1 Cor 12:1 "Now concerning spiritual gifts"
1 Cor 16:1 "Now concerning the collection for the saints"

So, it appears that from 1 Corinthians chapter seven on Paul is mostly answering questions that he had received in a previous letter from the church leaders at Corinth.

The passage in Corinthians is by far the longest on this subject. It seems at first reading to be discussing two types of "speaking in tongues", one type where others understand what is being said and another type where no one else seems to understand what is being said. But lets take a look to try to understand what Paul is trying to communicate.

Since Paul is responding to a previous question, to fully understand his response it would be helpful to try to infer the question he was responding to.

Dear Paul: What about Tongues that no one understands?
Here is my best guess at the question that the Corinthian church leaders had written to ask Paul which he was trying to answer in this passage in Corinthians. While somewhat of a guess, the question listed below does correlates to the answer that Paul gives and also, given normal human nature, we should have expected this situation to arise as some point.

I would suggest that the question might have been something like this:

Dear Paul,
Some of the most dedicated people in the Corinthian church became aware of how at Pentecost the apostles were miraculously given the ability to tell foreigners about Jesus in their own language. So, they asked God to give them the same ability. And some of the people also believe that this ability to speak in another tongue is a gift from God that all committed Christians should be able to do.

The problem is that when they began speaking in what they thought was a foreign language no one is able to understand them. So, some in the church now say that perhaps the foreign language is a genuine one but no one is there who speaks that particular language. So in that case the gift would be valid but no one is able to interpret in order to verify the authenticity of the gift. Others say that maybe the language is actually the language of angels and not of any foreign country at all, so we shouldn't expect anyone to be able to interpret. So, again the gift would be valid, but unverifiable. But still others say that God has not given them the gift of speaking a foreign language all and that they are presumptuously assuming God has given them this ability when He hasn't. So they insist those who are not speaking in a true foreign language have been led astray and should be kicked out of the church, similar to how false prophets were dealt with in the old testament.

So, what should we do about these people who say God has given them the gift to speak in another language but no one understands them and no one can interpret what they are saying? The people involved seem to be some of the most sincere and motivated people in the church and they affirm that Jesus is their lord. But unfortunately this issue seems to be splitting the church.

Sincerely,
Leaders of the Corinthian Church

Paul, recognizing that these were just sincere Christians wanting the miracle of speaking in different languages but not receiving the desired miracle, identified himself with them. He affirmed the desire to speak in tongues and he did not try to argue whether a specific instance of tongues was or was not valid. Instead, he said that if no one understands what they are saying (i.e., the miracle of speaking a foreign language isn't present) they should only try speaking a foreign language at home, not in public, or at least quietly to themselves. And he also implied that speaking a foreign language was the least of the abilities that God gives and so people should desire the other abilities more than just speaking a foreign language.

What I think many people miss is how thoughtfully Paul handled this issue. It would be natural for some of the more motivated people to desire the gift of speaking in a foreign language and any other ability that God might give them. But the only way they would be able to use the gift would be to start trying to talk in a different language. So, it seems natural that this question would arise just from our knowledge of human nature. And far from being the fringe of the church attempting to speak in other tongues, the core of the church, the most motivated, would most likely be the people who would want that gift.

Even those who believe that most instances of speaking in tongues today are actually other real languages have to admit, since Paul says that "not all speak in tongues", that at least some instances of speaking in tongues is a result of this natural desire to try receive good gifts from God even when God isn't giving out that particular gift at that time. And they would have to admit that there is no good way to be able to discern between an experience coming from God and the person just trying unsuccessfully to speak another language.

So, there was no way that Paul or the Corinthian church could prove a negative. If some people believed they were speaking another language, how could Paul have proved them wrong? They could always say that it was just a different language that no on in the room understood. So, instead of Paul trying a futile attempt to say they were wrong, instead Paul emphasizes that they should not do that in the church and that they should seek the more important gifts, ones that would help others.

Note how Paul handled this situation very, very tactfully and avoided a possible split in the church. Now let's see what Paul actually said. I will highlight in purple the few sections that seem to say that speaking in tongues doesn't need to be understood by someone else. I will highlight in red the areas that say that tongues should be understood by someone else, or areas that discourage speaking in tongues and I will add my commentary in parentheses in blue.

1 Cor 12-14
^12:1Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware. ² You know that when you were pagans, you were led astray to the mute idols, however you were led. (there is no information transfer with mute idols) ³Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit. (so both Christians who speak with tongues and those who do not both have the Holy Spirit) ⁴Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. ⁵And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. ⁶There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. ⁷But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; ⁹to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, ¹⁰ and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. (so the ability to speak in another known language was apparently considered a separate ability from being able to understand another language)

¹¹But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills (so apparently God doesn't give the ability to speak or understand other languages to everyone, but only to who he wills). ¹²For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. ¹³For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. ¹⁴For the body is not one member, but many. ¹⁵If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. ¹⁶And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. ¹⁷If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? ¹⁸But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. ¹⁹If they were all one member, where would the body be? ²⁰But now there are many members, but one body. ²¹And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." ²²On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; ²³and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, ²⁴whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, ²⁵so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. ²⁶And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. ²⁷Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it. ²⁸And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues (note that tongues is last on the numbered list and is therefore likely implied to be the least important). ²⁹All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? ³⁰All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? (This reply implies that some were saying that all Christians should have the ability to speak in tongues and Paul is refuting that idea) All do not interpret, do they? ³¹But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still more excellent way. (While not prohibiting tongues, Paul is minimizing their importance and asking the Corinthian church to focus their efforts elsewhere)

^13:1If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. ²If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. ³And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing. ⁴Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, ⁵does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, ⁶ does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; ⁷ bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. ⁸Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. (having Love for others is more important than receiving special abilities from God) ⁹For we know in part and we prophesy in part; ¹⁰but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.¹¹When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. (implies focusing on "spiritual gifts" for their own sake is something a mature Christian should move away from, toward focusing on Love for others and desiring the abilities to help others) ¹²For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. ¹³But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

^14:1Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.²For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. (this is the only place in this passage where Paul says that tongues are not understandable, but read on to see whether he is recommending that as a public practice in the church or not) ³But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. ⁴One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. ⁵Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying. ⁶But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching? ⁷Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp? ⁸For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? ⁹So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. ¹⁰There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning. ¹¹If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me. ¹²So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church. ¹³Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. ¹⁴For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. ¹⁵ What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. ¹⁶Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? ¹⁷For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified. ¹⁸I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; ¹⁹however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue. (so the key for Paul is being able to give information to others, whether someone is really speaking another language is not important. The key is being able to get the information across, which requires a real language)

²⁰ Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature. ²¹In the Law it is written, "BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME," says the Lord. ²²So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; (to tell foreigners who aren't Christians about Jesus) but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe. (to tell believers and nonbelievers how God wants them to change their lives) ²³Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? (i.e., why wouldn't they just use their normal language??) ²⁴But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; ²⁵ the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you. ²⁶ What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation Let all things be done for edification. ²⁷If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; (there is no indication that both the tongues and the interpreter are both abilities given by God, but rather the tongue is likely a special gift but the interpreter is someone who normally knows the language, or vice versa) ²⁸but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. ²⁹Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. ³⁰But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. ³¹For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; ³²and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; ³³for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. ³⁴ The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. ³⁵If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. ³⁶Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? ³⁷ If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. ³⁸But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. (both sides of the debate are likely to reject the Biblical instruction here. People against tongues are likely to split the church to maintain the purity of doctrine while those supporting tongues are likely to split the church saying they are more spiritually connected to God than those who do not speak in tongues. But Paul upholds the primacy of rationality while not splitting over an unprovable debate about whether someone trying to speak another language is actually from God or not) ³⁹Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. ⁴⁰But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.

Summary of the main passage talking about speaking in tongues
So, here is a summary of what Paul seems to actually be saying:

Don't split the church over debating whether someone is actually speaking a real language or not
Different people are given different gifts, not everyone speaks in other languages
Speaking in tongues is probably the least important of the gifts that God can give you
Having love is more important than being able to speak in tongues
If no one understands, have them do their speaking to themselves at home or to themselves
Speaking "groanings" to God in private when you are in pain is O.K. because God already knows what you need (communicating information is not necessary in that case)
Any gifts God gives you should be used to help others rather than just yourself
Paul's view is the authoritative view on the subject

So, here is a summary of what Paul was most likely trying to communicate. It appears that speaking in tongues/interpreting were meant to be special gifts to be able to tell foreigners about Jesus and to understand their responses. When the most motivated of the Corinthians tried to have the same gift, without the same need to communicate with foreigners, various views about what was happening sprung up in the Church. Paul, in characteristic fashion, broke through the surface arguments and went straight to first principles in order to solve the dilemma. He affirmed that those trying to speak in tongues were in fact highly motivated Christians while at the same time he affirmed the primacy of communicating information. The alternative was to take sides in a debate that was unprovable and therefore ultimately un-winnable.

Interestingly, if today's church leaders understood Paul's argument here that would bring back together the charismatic/pentecostal and the more rational/theological based groups in the church. And this passage is a case study for any negotiator in how to go to first principles to resolve a dispute without giving up truth and at the same time maintaining the honor and dignity of both sides of the dispute.

Secular research about speaking in tongues
The technical term for tongues that no one else understands is "glossolalia". William J. Samarin studied modern day speaking in tongues and determined that it could not be a real language, either known or unknown for the following reasons:

"...the syllable string did not form words, the stream of speech was not internally organised, and – most importantly of all – there was no systematic relationship between units of speech and concepts. Humans use language to communicate, but glossolalia does not. Therefore he concluded that glossolalia is not "a specimen of human language because it is neither internally organized nor systematically related to the world man perceives".

On the basis of his linguistic analysis, Samarin defined Pentecostal glossolalia as "meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance, believed by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead".

Felicitas Goodman, a psychological anthropologist and linguist, studied a number of Pentecostal communities in the United States, Caribbean and Mexico; these included English, Spanish and Mayan speaking groups. She compared what she found with recordings of non-Christian rituals from Africa, Borneo, Indonesia and Japan. She took into account both the segmental structure (such as sounds, syllables, phrases) and the supra-segmental elements (rhythm, accent, intonation), and concluded that there was no distinction between what was practiced by the Pentecostal Protestants and the followers of other religions.

Free Will and Determinism are the Same

noreply@blogger.com (Lowell Ballard) — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:48:00 +0000

I have been wanting to write on this topic for awhile now, but had more important posts to work on. But tonight I googled "Choose Your Beliefs" and found a post named "You Cannot Choose Your Beliefs". In a sense I agree but on the surface that sounds contradictory to the name and purpose of my Blog. So, I thought I should explain how Free Will and Determinism (or alternatively Pelagianism and Calvinism) are not just compatible, but actually they are two perspectives describing the exact same concept. This is a first rough draft which I will clean up over the next few weeks, but I wanted to go ahead and post it to motivate myself to get this one done. This concept is key to having a rational view of who God is and to resolve some common misconceptions that lead to unnecessary debate.

The difference between free will and determinism is just a matter of perspective. If someone knows/controls a situation then to that person the situation is predetermined. If someone else does not know how a situation is controlled then to that person there is no determinism and everything involves free choice.

For example, if someone knows the way to the airport, was able to put in your mind the desire to go there and they put a roadblock in the way that causes a detour, that person will both know and cause you to take a certain path and they will know ahead of time where you will go. But from your perspective you will have made the free choice to go to the airport down the direct path, but an obstacle in the way will cause you to choose to take an unplanned detour. So, both perspectives of determinism and free will are true depending on how much knowledge of a situation a person has.

Another illustration is what happens when we roll dice. To the casual observer it looks like the result of the dice throw is pure random chance. But to someone who both knows and controls all the forces on the dice during the throw, including the forces exerted by our hands, the air, the surface of the table, etc.., that person can both know and control the result of the dice throw.

Now, just because someone can fully control every aspect of a dice throw doesn't necessarily mean that they actually do control every aspect of a particular throw. Logically they could know all the forces without directly causing each and every force. So, someone with the ability to control all forces on a dice throw could either actively and directly "cause" a certain result or they could passively and indirectly "allow" a certain result and we would not be able to tell the difference.

So, the debate between determinism and free will is just a matter of the perspective and ability of control that the observer has. From God's perspective, everything is fully controlled and known, either actively or passively on His part. So, ultimately the determinism perspective is the most accurate one since God's perspective is the most accurate perspective. But from man's perspective, it is as if everything is free will and nothing is controlled (unless God tells us what he is controlling beforehand). So, the only option man has is to act as if everything is free will and nothing is predetermined, unless God tells us what is predetermined (because only He knows).

The problems occur when people try to mix the two perspectives. It is a fallacy to talk about something being determined when from our perspective everything is free will.

So, here are some examples of mixing the free will perspective with the determinism perspective and getting confused:

If God actually controls everything and to us it just looks like we have free will, then is it right for God to Judge us for our actions?
From God's perspective he created some people to do good and some to do badly, and as creator he has the right to honor those he created for good and to separate out those he created to choose badly. But that is from God's perspective, not ours, so we can't think that way.

From our perspective we have no idea who was created to do good and who was created to do badly. So, from our perspective some people freely choose good and others freely choose badly and are judged based on their choices, and that is true from our perspective.

So, from God's perspective he has the right to do what he wants with what he created. From our perspective it is right for God to reward those that choose well and separate out those that choose badly. Both are perspectives are true and the only time people get confused is when they try to combine the two perspectives at the same time.

Then does that mean that God causes evil and pain?
From our perspective the two sources of pain are 1. man's bad choices and 2. God caused the world to not work quite right after man decided not to follow him (in order to cause men to desire a world that works correctly).

From God's perspective, yes, he does cause, either directly, or more likely, through passive acceptance, evil and pain which are apparently necessary for a greater purpose to be achieved.

But again, since we are human we can only take the first perspective since everything looks to us as free will choices.

What is Time?
One idea that many people hold is that "God is outside of time" or "God created time". But to discuss that idea we must agree on the definition of what "time" is and separate that concept from the concept of "clocks".

"Time" is man's observation of change. Websters says time is a "...measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues". But all periods can in theory be measured against other periods, so any time there is an action, process or condition, even for God, then time exists. To say that time did not exist is to say that no change could have occurred at all.

A "clock" is "a device... for indicating or measuring time". Note that clocks do not need to exist for time to exist. For example, if the sun and moon did not exist, the passing of years and months (time) would not stop.

To say that God is somehow "outside of time" is therefore to say that God could never "do" anything. Yet every time God speaks, creates or even thinks anything that means that God is going through "time".

If you look at the passages concerning the "beginning of time" in the Bible, in all cases at least some translations do not translate it to say that time was "created". I would suggest that those passages are actually referring to either the creation of our standard clocks, the Sun, Moon and Stars, or that God is eternal rather than having a beginning or end.

TULIP

In theology, the concept most closely related to determinism is called Calvinism and a competing concept is called Pelagianism. Calvinism is usually defined by five concepts listed by an acronym called TULIP:

Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin) - From God's perspective, all mankind was created to choose badly and then some be redeemed from their depravity, but from man's perspective in theory each person could choose to do right all their life (though no one ever does).

Unconditional Election - From God's perspective he can choose who he wants to make follow him, but from man's perspective those who God chooses to put in the new Jerusalem are those who decide to follow him

Limited Atonement - From God's perspective, he knows who he created to choose good so atonement looks limited, but from man's perspective, we don't know who will choose good so atonement looks unlimited.

Irresistible Grace - From God's perspective, whoever he created to do good will, without fail choose to follow God so grace looks irresistible, but from man's perspective we have to the choice to follow God or not and we have the choice to resist

Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved) - From God's perspective he knows and controls who will be "saved" in the new Jerusalem so it looks to him like every one he has chosen will persevere, but from man's perspective we do not know who was chosen so to us it looks like some people turn away.

So, I can agree that from God's perspective TULIP is the most correct. Therefore, I can say I hold to a full five point Calvinist view. But I can also agree that from man's perspective (the only perspective that is valid to work with in this life) we have full 100% free will and the TULIP concepts makes no difference to us whatsoever (unless we know what the Creator has chosen to do, which is very rarely if ever the case). So, I can say that I am actually a Pelagian, which is normally considered an opposing view to Calvinism.

So, when you lift your little finger it is most accurate to say that, either actively or passively, God caused you to lift you little finger. But that is from God's perspective and that mode of thinking is useless to us. From our perspective you lifted your little finger by your own free will, and we get mixed up if we try to live our life as if we can see from God's perspective.

Doesn't Quantum Mechanics prove Free Will?
Quantum Mechanics does not show that the world at its core is only probabilistic. The uncertainty is in our ability to know where something is at any given time rather than the uncertainty and probabilistic nature being inherent to nature itself. That mistake in reasoning leads many physicists to the belief in the Schrödinger's Cat paradox, which logically cannot be true. That is why you will find Physicists who study Quantum Mechanics who also promote different forms of mysticism, such as the physics who have spoke at the Theosophical Society or those on "The Secret" video.

The closest I have found to this concept of Free Will and Determinism both being different perspectives of the same concept is called Compatibilism. But even Compatibilism doesn't seem to match what I am saying because I am saying that the differences between total free will and total determinism are just a matter of differing perspectives and both are fully true. Compatibilism on the other hand seems to try to somehow mix the two, when I would argue the two perspectives cannot be mixed at all.

The Many Definitions of Contemplative Prayer

noreply@blogger.com (Lowell Ballard) — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 03:23:00 +0000

When discussing the concept of Contemplative Prayer, sometimes called "the discipline of silence", the discussion many times leads to a question of what the term "Contemplative Prayer" actually is intended to mean. At one extreme, some will say that Contemplative Prayer is no more than trying to not think about the issues/concerns of the day in order to focus attention on God (i.e., not much different than regular prayer). And others will say that Contemplative Prayer is like regular prayer, except you are quiet and listen for an extended time in order to give God a chance to speak back to you, since they say prayer should be a two way conversation. At the other extreme, some will say that Contemplative Prayer is emptying the mind of all thought and emotion so that you can experience union with God directly, and that this practice, along with acts of service, can bring unity and peace between the world religions and people groups (as opposed to "belief systems" and "practices/rituals" which divide religions and people groups).

With such a wide variety of meanings infused into the term "Contemplative Prayer", I thought it might be helpful for discussion to compile a sampling of the meanings and expectations various leaders pour into the term. I will use Green to indicate definitions that I think are rational and in keeping with mainstream historical Christianity. I will use Red to indicate definitions that seem to be mystical and that are more in keeping with the practices of the mystics, either the ancient Catholic mystics or Hindu, Buddhist or other eastern mystics.

From a Google definition search (religioustolerance.org):
Contemplative prayer: This is an ancient Christian practice that was suppressed by the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages and is rejected by many conservative Protestants today. It consists of a wordless form of prayer in which one simply exists in the presence of the Holy Spirit.

The definition from Wikipedia:
In Christian mysticism, Contemplative prayer can refer to:

repetitive chanting, breathing in a controlled manner or silent concentration to quiet the thoughts and feelings and commune with a spirit that some believe to be God.
infused contemplation: a divinely originated, general, non-conceptual, loving awareness of God; a pure and unmerited gift
acquired contemplation: for which the believer could strive with the help of grace
Centering prayer, which is sometimes called contemplative prayer, although "It is not contemplation in the strict sense, which in Catholic tradition has always been regarded as a pure gift of the Spirit, but rather it is a preparation for contemplation."

The Science of Spirituality's Definition:
They believe that Contemplative Prayer is the same practice, regardless of the religion a person holds:

Definitions from leading proponents of Contemplative Prayer

Please note: For those leaders who have Red in their quotes, let me say that I believe in every case their goals and motives are good. I understand the desire to try to find better ways of doing things than what is common in contemporary society. But I also believe that those methods and belief systems will, over the long term, cause a devaluing of rationality, truth and making distinctions, even more than the concept of "truth" is devalued in contemporary society today.

Thomas Merton:
"Contemplative consciousness is a trans-cultural, trans-religious, trans-formed consciousness … it can shine through this or that system, religious or irreligious" (Thoughts of the East, P34)

"It is a glorious destiny to be a member of the human race, ... now I realize what we all are .... If only they could all see themselves as they really are ...I suppose the big problem would be that we would fall down and worship each other ... At the center of our being is a point of nothingness which is untouched by sin and by illusions, a point of pure truth ... This little point ...is the pure glory of God in us. It is in everybody." (Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander, 1989 edition, P157-158)

"I see no contradiction between Buddhism and Christianity ... I intend to become as good a Buddhist as I can." (David Steindl-Rast, "Recollection of Thomas Merton's Last Days in the West", Monastic Studies, 7:10)

Richard Foster:
"Thomas Merton has perhaps done more than any other twentieth century figure to make the life of prayer widely known and understood" (Spiritual Classics, P17)

"There are those who feel that the Christian idea of meditation is synonymous with the concept of meditation centered in Eastern religion. In reality they stand worlds apart. Eastern meditation is an attempt to empty the mind; Christian meditation is an attempt to empty the mind in order to fill it" (Celebration of Discipline, 1st edition, 1978, P15)

"Christian meditation has nothing to do with emptying our minds"... "Contemplation goes beyond words and symbols and concepts to the reality the words and concepts describe...; Contrary to much current thinking, contemplation has nothing to do with making our minds blank or having honey-sweet thoughts. As we have observed, its chief aim is to encounter Christ..." (Spiritual Classics, P10, 13, Joyce Huggett, edited by Richard Foster)

Note that, just like when we sleep or when we are focused on one task, all mystics do fill the mind with something, whether they can recall the memory of their thoughts/emotions or not. So that is not the issue. The issue is whether we should be using our mind to think rationally, or whether we should be clearing our minds in an attempt to try to get away from rational thinking...

So, for example, here is one of the forms of Contemplative Prayer that Richard Foster has promoted :
"A fourth form of meditation has at its objective to bring you into a deep inner communion with the Father... In your imagination allow your spiritual body, shining with light, to rise out of your physical body. Look back so that you can see yourself lying in the grass and reassure your body that you will return momentarily... Listen quietly, anticipating the unanticipated. Note carefully any instruction given. With time and experience you will be able to distinguish readily between mere human thoughts that may bubble up to the conscious mind and the True Spirit which inwardly moves upon the heart." (Celebration of Discipline, 1st edition, 1978, P27)

Dallas Willard:
"Now because silence is such a radical thing and it does mean that you give up control of your situation, you can see what a tremendous impact that would have on the American church, in their services, in their meetings of various kinds. Suppose they practice silence in some of their meetings, that would actually give a place for God to break in... And you know that is the way God is, he more or less waits for us to get tired of running things then he is glad to help." (Be Still DVD)

"Genesis began as an oral tradition of narrative stories passed down from generation to generation….These stories [gradually] took on theological meaning….Over time [they] were written down and collected together (Gen 12-50), and a prologue (Gen 1-11) was added….Borrowing from other creation accounts…stories with parallels to ancient Near Eastern religious narrative and mythology were reshaped with monotheistic intent….These strands of varied materials were gathered and edited into the written text…" (Renovare Spiritual Formation Study Bible, Dallas Willard General Editor)

So, if the beginnings of the Bible were ancient polytheistic myths that were reshaped with monotheistic intent (rather than the polytheistic myths being an offshoot of accurate monotheistic history), then Christianity already has much in common with the eastern religions and the Bible may not be fully reliable. You can see why experiencing God directly might be considered by some as a more pure form of "knowing" God than studying the Bible.

Thomas Keating:
"[Contemplative Prayer]... is a process of inner transformation, a conversation initiated by God and leading, if we consent, to divine union. One’s way of seeing reality changes in the process. A restructuring of consciousness takes place which empowers one to perceive, relate and respond with increasing sensitivity to the divine presence in, through, and beyond everything that exists." (Open Mind, Open Heart, P4)

Father Thomas Keating describes "Centering Prayer" which, as defined earlier, is preparation for Contemplative Prayer:

Thomas Dubay:
Father Thomas Dubay has a 13 part video series called "Contemplation: Union with God" which has the most in depth discussion of Contemplative Prayer that I have found. His definition of contemplative prayer is as follows:

Contemplative Prayer is not:
1. a monastic exercise
2. a sterile intellectualism
3. inner introspection
4. an impersonal state
5. exalting in nature
6. visions and revelations
7. strong emotional feelings about God
8. thinking about Biblical concepts (discursive meditation)

Contemplative Prayer is:
1. being alone with the supreme Alone in a wordless presence to Him
2. meeting in mystery with the hidden God, listening to the silent word of God speaking in us
3. an experience of the indwelling Trinity
4. a knowing, loving immersion in the divine beauty of God
5. a waiting and thirsting for God
6. simply living the greatest of all the commandments
7. a divine invasion, the infinite enters our timed existence
8. reliving Jesus prayer in solitude
9. being quenched at the fountain
10. a small gentle transformation into the divine likeness, by seeing God as he really is
11. the beginning of eternal life here on earth

Contemplative Bible Reading... Small Group Discussion Guide by NavPress (The Navigators):
"Your aim is to let go of issues and agendas that occupy your thoughts and move your mind instead to God... The important thing is that your spine is straight... It is most important to relax the muscles in your throat... Slow down your breathing... praying the first phrase as your breathe in, praying the second phrase as you breathe out... Pray also that as you open yourself to the spiritual world that you will be protected from evil... Focus on God: you can do this by means of an image such as meeting God on the road and talking to him. As you inhale pray "Lord Jesus Christ" and as you exhale pray "Have Mercy". It may be helpful for you to find the right place. There is something about "sacred space"."

Summary:
So, it does seem that there is more than one meaning being used for this term, Contemplative Prayer. In fact, with the wide variety of meanings there seems to be something here for people who come at this subject from almost any perspective.

If you are concerned about Christians you know who never seem to grow out of their problems and you want a new "reformation" of discipline in the Christian church, but you don't want to focus on the Bible passages that point out people's "sins" and tells them that they need to change, then instead you can teach them Contemplative Prayer and hope that experiences during that practice will motivate them toward change.

If you think this is a strange practice and have never heard of the Contemplative Prayer movement until now, then you don't have to worry about doing anything, at least until this teaching comes to your doorstep (as it came to mine)...

If you are wanting to do something to make yourself feel more "spiritual" but you don't want to go into Eastern meditation, you can use the milder, more orthodox definitions of the term. Then later, when you are ready, you have the option to start changing your thinking to use the "deeper meanings" of the same term.

If you think there is nothing wrong with Christians using meditation practices from other religions and are wondering what all the fuss in about, Contemplative Prayer will finally give your beliefs and practices more respectability within evangelical Christianity.

If you are someone who places a higher value on truth than peace and you are eager for a battle where you will be an outsider and an underdog (like the reformers in the decades around the reformation), this is one good opportunity that can keep you busy.

If you want to insure that peace and harmony are maintained (in opposition to those previous people who place a higher value on truth than peace), then you can support the more orthodox definitions of Contemplative Prayer and allow people to continue peacefully using the term Contemplative Prayer, with each person pouring in the meaning that they are most comfortable with. Most people will start out using the milder meanings in any case, so why bother to split hairs over the meaning of the term.

And finally, if you are a Hindu or Buddhist who has felt that Christianity has devalued what your faith has to offer, this practice of Contemplative Prayer should at very least bring an understanding and appreciation of the meditation practices that have been categorically rejected by Protestant Christianity in the past. One of the major walls between Protestant Christianity and Hindu or Buddhist practices may finally be removed.

So, by having multiple meanings for the same term, the practice of Contemplative Prayer can make itself attractive to a large section of society. But since this post is about defining our terms, here is one more definition you may want to understand:

Obfuscation: To be evasive, unclear or confusing; mystification; intending to conceal the truth by confusion

Understanding Paul Through Speed Limits

noreply@blogger.com (Lowell Ballard) — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:13:00 +0000

One of the key concepts required to understand the Christian belief system is what Paul was trying to communicate concerning Christianity and it's relationship to law. A good modern day analogy to help illustrate what Paul was saying might be helpful: the concept of speed limits.

The Problems with Speed Limits
Speed limits are good. They save lives. But focusing only on the speed limits themselves misses the point and can be a substitute for actually doing our greater duty as citizens, causing us to act inappropriately at times.

Also, in order to receive your drivers license you likely had to sign a document saying that you would obey all traffic laws, including the speed limits, at all times. Yet, many times you have broken that promise by going one or two miles an hour above the speed limit. So, rightfully you have violated your agreement and you should go to the DMV and turn in your license. Just because you have not been stopped by the police does not nullify the fact that you are a law breaker and deserve jail or at least to have your license revoked.

Road planners study the best ways to decide how fast you should go. They weigh all the various issues and choose the appropriate maximum speed for the area, considering that you could crash and/or kill someone (including children). So, the speed limits are likely better information than you could come up with. But the speed limits are fixed for all times and all situations. They cannot reflect the nuances of weather, whether children are around or not, etc... So, the posted speed limits are never the most optimal speed. Sometimes you should be able to drive faster safely, and other times to be safe you should drive below the limit. So, at best, speed limits are a best average guess at what a good speed should be in most situations.

The Correct Attitude Toward Speed Limits
People have many different attitudes toward speed limits. Which one of these attitudes do you normally take?

1. I should do whatever it takes to never break the speed limit (normally driving significantly below the limit)
2. I should go below the limit but it is O.K. if I go over a little from time to time
3. I should go right at or just a little below the speed limit
4. I should go right at the speed limit as much as possible, not over but not normally below either
5. I can go right at or a little above the speed limit
6. I can go up to five miles above the speed limit (since police generally will not give tickets for that)
7. It is O.K. if go any speed as long as I don't get caught

Which one of these attitudes do you practice? Which one is the right answer? The right answer from the perspective of Paul is "none of the above".

Answer: Study the best ways to decide how fast you should go, weigh all the various issues and go the appropriate speed for the situation, considering that you could crash and/or kill someone (including children). Don't worry about getting a ticket, rather worry about doing what is best in all situations.

Note that this is a much higher standard than any of the seven options above. And it calls people to be more thoughtful and rational rather than blindly following standards. So, if you were shocked to understand that you were a law breaker before and deserved jail, now, even more shockingly, you find that you are supposed to live to an impossibly high standard. What hope do you have of meeting this higher standard if you couldn't even meet the simple speed limit standard?

The speed limits can be of great help to you in deciding what speed to go, since the road planners have already gone though the work of trying to determine the best speed. But we have already noted that the speed limit can only be a best guess and cannot be the best actual speed for every given situation.

Speed Limit Enforcement and Grace
The goal of the police is to get people to follow the rules in order to reduce problems to society. Speed enforcement is really only intended for those people who at some point want to break the speed limit. If they see that you actually intended to follow the rules, they will many time give you grace, unless your actions encourage others to break the rules. And they will generally not pull people over unless they are going five or more miles an hour above the speed limit.

But grace can be abused. On our highways many times it is socially acceptable, and even expected, to go well above the posted speed limit. And allowing society to accept law breaking in one area of life can cause the same thought processes to flow into other areas of life. A dilemma for road planners is whether to raise the speed limits, allowing a greater number of more severe wrecks, or should they lower the speed limits, causing the vast majority of people to break the law. One answer to that dilemma may be to keep the best speed limit but raise the penalties significantly. That would keep most people from breaking the law and it would keep down the number of severe wrecks.

Specific applications of the best attitudes towards speed limits
Analysis of some specific situations helps clarify this nuanced view of law.

What would the person do in an area where there are no speed limits? Some people would want to go much faster than posted limits, without thinking about how they might hurt other people.

What about an area where the speed limit seems too low? A good citizen will judge the risk and benefits of going against the speed limit. If they go above the speed limit they will willingly accept a ticket or jail time for that choice. Also, they will take into account that, even if they normally follow good practices concerning speed limits, they also need to take into account how they will be encouraging other, less conscientious people to break the speed limits when they should not do that. In these cases, it seems prudent, after doing what we can to get the speed limit changed, to accept and follow the speed limit as an example to others who may not understand the specific issues involved (and taking into account that you may be incorrect in your assessment of the speed limit being too low).

What about an area where the speed limit seems too high? A Christian will again in this case evaluate what should be the speed limit and if they should go lower they will do that. And just as they would work to get low speed limits raised, they should work to get speed limits that are too high lowered.

What about in emergencies, like when going to the hospital when someone is dying? If a life is in the balance then the driver needs to balance the benefits of getting to the hospital sooner with the risks of hurting others in getting there. If the risk is low and the benefits are high, then it seems morally acceptable to break the speed limit laws, though the driver should be willing to pay the ticket if they are pulled over.

What if you don't remember the speed limit? Sometimes I forget what the speed limit is. If I did not understand the first principles of what the speed should be, then I may not know how fast I should go. But if I understand the first principles, then I will be more likely to go a correct speed even if I do not remember what the speed limit actually is.

The Problem with Laws and Rules in general
The old testament, and governments in general, intend for people to understand the meaning of laws from first principles. The ten commandments are not the ten most important laws, but rather they are ten summarized categories of the other laws. Unfortunately, for some people the laws of the old testament (and the laws of their state) became the focus in and of themselves and the first principles behind the laws were sometimes neglected (Mat 23:23). Jesus and Paul affirm that law is good, but they point people back to the first principles behind the many laws (Mat 5:17-18, Rom 3:31).

It is true some laws are symbolic or may apply to a specific cultural situation but even the symbolic laws show us how important symbolism is to a culture. We should work to translate symbolic laws into appropriate symbolism for our culture today (such as laws against flag burning).

The Correct Attitude Toward Law and Rules in general
People have many different attitudes toward laws, and rules in general. Which one of these attitudes do you normally take:

1. I should do whatever it takes to never break a rule of any kind.
2. I should be careful to not break rules but it is O.K. if I break the rules from time to time
3. I should try to get away with as much as possible, with out breaking the actual rules themselves
4. I can break the rules that no one really cares too much about, as long as I try to keep the rules people care about
5. It is O.K. to break any rules as long as I don't get caught

In the old testament it at first seems that it was expected a person should obey laws at all costs, that was like answer number one. And in early Israel people did what is right in their own eyes (and that was not considered good) like answers 2 though 5.

So, which one of these attitudes do you practice? Which one is the right answer? The right answer from the perspective of Paul is "none of the above".

Answer: Study the the needs of society and decide what the best laws should be, weighing all the various issues and doing the appropriate thing in each situation, considering the effects you could have on others (including children). But since you may not have fully studied the issues and/or you may not fully know what is going on in a given area, laws are likely better information than you could come up with, so you should normally be happy to submit to a given law. Don't worry about getting punished for breaking the law, rather worry about doing what is best in all situations.

Note that this is a much higher standard than any of the five options above. And it calls people to be more thoughtful and rational rather than blindly following standards. So, if you were shocked to understand that you were a law breaker before and deserved punishment (like some of the wording in the old testament), now you are supposed to live to an impossibly higher standard. What hope to you have of meeting this higher standard if you couldn't even meet the simple standard of following the various laws?

Law and Rule Enforcement vs Grace
Is god, or governments for that matter, just waiting to pounce on us if we break the rules? No. They would rather us obey and hope for our reformation into people who will obey.

Is God, and governments for that matter, waiting to isolate us if we continually, willing want to do things that hurt others? Yes. While that is not their first choice, if we continually hurt others then at very least we need to be separated from society.

The new testament, and the goal of government in general, is like the person who is free to understand the situation, look at the laws, rules, etiquette, etc.. and then do the appropriate thing, which is almost always to follow the given law or rule. The problem with western society today is that many people interpret laws, rules, etiquette, etc.. to say that they are free to decide what we should do on their own, but without regard for either the rules or first principles.

The Christian view of laws and rules prepares us to live in a good society. If all people understand and strive to follow rules appropriately, that in and of itself would make a society much closer to being like Heaven...

Specific applications of the best attitudes towards laws and rules
Analysis of some specific situations helps clarify the Paul's' view of law.

What would the people do who lived when there was no laws written down? People would do what was right in their own eyes. That would be good only if they fully understood the first principles and were motivated to make an informed decision in each case. But normally that is not the case.

What about laws/rules that don't seem just? Normally a Christian should obey the laws but if a law is considered potentially unjust, then a Christian will judge the risk and benefits of going against the law. If they go against a particular law, then they must be willing to accept the punishment for disobeying that law. Also, they will take into account that, even if they normally try to do what is right, they also need to take into account how they will be encouraging other, less conscientious people to break the laws. In these cases it seems prudent, after doing what we can to get the law changed, to accept and follow the law as an example to others who may not understand the specific issues involved (and taking into account that you may be incorrect in your assessment of the law being unjust).

What about laws/rules that seem to be too permissive? A Christian will again in this case evaluate what should be the law and if they should go do more than the law requires then they will do that. And just as they would work to get an unjust law overturned, they should work to get laws that are too permissive to be more restrictive.

What about in emergencies, when it seems breaking laws may be a good thing to do? If a lives are in the balance then the person needs to balance the benefits of breaking a particular law with the risks of hurting others by breaking that law. If the risk is low and the benefits are high, then it seems acceptable to break a particular law, though the person should be willing to pay the price for breaking that particular law.

What about the good person who doesn't know the laws? All of us break some laws at times, but it our commitment to honestly try to follow the laws of the state that makes us a good citizen, not the fact that we actually attain perfection in following all the laws. But we do have a responsibility to know the state we are under and to know the laws that state requires. To expect to be a considered a good citizen while following the laws of a different state is no reasonable.

Billy Graham believes that good people from all religions go to Heaven. That is theoretically true, but the problem is the definition of who is "good". God considers a person "good" when they follow all of His laws appropriately. The problem we have seen is to really follow any given set of laws is an unattainably high standard. So, the "good" people from other religions that Billy Graham thinks should go to the Christian Heaven can not actually exist. If their religions are true, then perhaps they go to Nirvana, or whatever their religion believes happens after death. But if Christianity is true and they are not following the Christian God and His laws, then they cannot be considered part of Christian society, either before or after death.

How to understand Paul's attitude towards laws
Paul was well educated. He understood that many seeming dilemmas are caused by a lack of understanding of the first principles underlying the concepts of law and grace. So to resolve the perceived problems Paul points the reader back to first principles: love your neighbor. In doing that he is not nullifying the concept of law. On the contrary, he is fully supporting the concept of law.

Note that the same concepts apply to all the various forms of "law", including rules, best practices, etiquette, standards, etc.. All are different forms of the general concept of "law".

We should honor and be grateful for good laws, since they are the out workings of our caring for each other. We should work to change inappropriate laws, since they are not fulfilling their intended function. And we should strive to follow good laws, even when we can get away with not following them and/or when there is a personal cost involved with following a particular law.

We should break laws where necessary to follow higher first principles. But that should only be done in extreme circumstances where the letter of the law is not performing its intended function, and where breaking the law will not encourage others to break the laws when they should not.

Regardless of the correctness of our actions (such as rushing someone who is dying to the hospital), we should gladly accept law enforcement without expecting grace, because law makers many times are not able to make distinctions between when a law should be broken or when it should not be broken. To do so would make an unwieldy law (like the tax code...). Be grateful when grace is extended to you and do not use it as license to break the laws.

Teach your children and others the full concepts of law and grace and how they relate to each other. This is not an ancient or abstract concept, but one that can have a profound affect on how we live our lives.

New Health Craze Sweeps India

noreply@blogger.com (Lowell Ballard) — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:44:00 +0000

Scientific research has shown that antioxidants are extremely beneficial to health, possibly even helping prevent some forms of cancer. Wine has been found to be a significant source of antioxidants, as is unleavened bread. So many secondary schools and private Hindu colleges in India now offer a service to ensure that their students are able to take advantage of these health benefits in what is called "communion time". Some Hindu fundamentalists have objected saying that this is no more than western religion encroaching on their schools. But cooler heads have prevailed, with more moderate Hindus suggesting that students recite "do this in remembrance of Krishna" to ensure that this regimen is not at all related to Christianity.

We asked the Director of Nutrition at a leading private Hindu college whether he had concerns about this practice. From the email response: "I see no danger of our Hindu students becoming Christians. Besides I have been taking grape juice for years for the antioxidant benefits and I have no desire to become a Christian". It was unclear from the response why grape juice and bread was not just added to the lunch menu rather than being dispensed in communion time.

Reaction from a leading Christian college has been mixed. Some professors have seen this as an opportunity that will facilitate the evangelization of India. Others insist that "communion time" is a powerful spiritual discipline that, even though historically it has been associated with Christianity, can also be used by Hindu devotees to help in their spiritual formation. Still others insist there is no spiritual connection to the ritual itself, so it can be secularized and used by Hindus solely for the health benefits.

Respected Christian leader Dr. Tony Campolo was asked whether this might be common ground for the evangelization of Hindus. He said No it is not. "[But] ...if we are looking for common ground, can we find it in mystical spirituality, even if we cannot theologically agree?". We also asked evangelist Rev. Billy Graham what impact this could have on the future of the evangelism in India. Rev. Graham said "[Some good Hindus] ...may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their heart that they need something that they don't have and they turn to the only light that they have and I think that they are saved and they are going to be with us in Heaven".

We asked a spokesman from a leading Christian graduate school whether the Bible would commend the use of communion by other religions. The spokesman said "from my contemplative meditation and Lectio Divina, I feel that God is saying to me, even though this may look like a western religious practice, when Hindus do communion time it is purely a Hindu practice having nothing at all to do with Christianity. Besides, many conservative Christian leaders have been blessed by using eastern spiritual techniques for years. It is about time that we return the favor".

Your Family Tree is Actually a Family Diamond

noreply@blogger.com (Lowell Ballard) — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 01:08:00 +0000

Many times people trace their family tree back to royalty or famous people and are somewhat proud to find who they are descended from. But the broader truth of the matter is more amazing than most people imagine. Ask yourself this question: How many people (i.e. positions in your family tree) do you think you have in 1100 A.D. (about 900 years ago)?

Your Ancestors
You can calculate the answer. If you assume 30 years to be an average generation, then every 300 years (10 generations) you have 1024 ancestors (2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 g-grandparents, and so on up to 10 generations) and every additional 300 years multiplies the effect. So, 600 years ago you had about one million places in your family tree chart and 900 years ago, 1100 AD, you had approximately one billion ancestors in your family tree! And if any one of those ancestors had died before having children, you would not be here today.

Now you may say, wait a minute that is too many ancestors, there must be a miscalculation. In 1000 A.D. there was only an estimated 310 million people alive and it is estimated that there wasn't a billion people in the world until 1804. The difference is that you have people who are related to you in more than one way. It is true that if you draw out your family tree, you will have around one billion slots to fill 900 years ago, but some individuals will fill many of the different slots.

What can we understand from this? Basically, it appears that when you go back 900 years or more, it is probably more accurate to say you are related to whole people-groups, i.e., most everyone in any group that intermarried. For example, if you have English royalty in your ancestors, it is probably more accurate to say that you are related to most of England at the time. You only have the records of the royalty in your ancestry because royalty were the only ones we have kept records that far back for.

Your Descendants
Now the same math works for the future as well as the past. If your descendants average two descendants every generation of 30 years, in 900 years you will have approximately one billion descendants, but of course you will be only one of their one billion ancestors and you will likely be in their family tree in more than one slot. And the interesting thing is, now that births are fully recorded in most countries, 900 years from now your descendants will probably have all those slots filled in their one billion entry family tree. They may even have pictures and biographies of many of their one billion ancestors.

Think of the shape of your full family tree. We call it a "tree" because that is the only part of the diagram that we know. Our actual family "tree" is in the shape of a diamond with an upside down tree on the bottom of the diamond, i.e., the shape you see at the start of this post (time goes from the top to the bottom, the number of your relatives is the width between the two lines). The first humans (either Adam and Eve, or the first "human" mutations, depending on your beliefs) are at the top where the two lines meet, you are where the bottom lines cross and your descendants are the area between the two end points of the lines at the bottom of the drawing. We think of our ancestors as a tree shape because that is the portion of people we know back "up" the diamond a little way. We don't have records back to the time when the tree shape starts converging back into a diamond shape.

At this point you may be thinking: that is quite interesting but what is the practical application of this knowledge. Here are some ways this can change your ways of looking at the world:

1. When you study early history, if you understand that you are related to whole nations and people groups, that makes the history much more interesting.
2. In trying to influence your descendants, to leave a lasting legacy you must leave them something that will influence your descendants over time more than all their other ancestors, otherwise you and your memory will be lost in a mass of ancestors in just a few generations.
3. Try to influence society at large rather than just your kids, since in 900 years your descendants will most likely be most of society itself. And if you don't have kids you can have the same affect by working to influence society and other people.

So, you are truly part of the human race. In history and in the future ( if you have kids) you are related not just to individuals, but to people-groups.

Could Speed of Light in Intergalactic Space be different?

noreply@blogger.com (Lowell Ballard) — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:56:00 +0000

Here is a thought. Is the speed of light the same in intergalactic space? The measurements of the speed of light seem to always be near stars, either on our end or near the star on the far end. The speed of light is a function of the permittivity and permeability of free space, both of which are derived experimentally and are not calculated from first principles. Could their values turn out to make the speed of light higher in parts of the universe that are not near any matter?

Could the constant speed of light have to do with how it is constant in matter? So the constant speed of light near earth would work for just the same reason speed of light is constant, but at a different speed, in glass and water. Gravity or some other force of nearby matter would be working on a large scale just like it works near atoms on a small scale.

Has anyone actually suggested that as a possibility? If not, why wouldn't that work?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space

Even in classical physics it was realized [13][14] that the vacuum must have a field-dependent permittivity in the strong fields found near point charges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity

Vacuum permittivity (also called permittivity of free space or the electric constant) is the ratio D/E in free space.

8.8541878176… × 10−12 F/m (or C2N-1m-2),
c (or c0) is the speed of light in free space.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_%28electromagnetism%29

Permeability varies with magnetic field. Values shown above are approximate and valid only at the magnetic fields shown. Moreover, they are given for a zero frequency; in practice, the permeability is generally a function of the frequency. When frequency is considered the permeability can be complex, corresponding to the in phase and out of phase response.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergalactic_space#Intergalactic_space

The density of the Universe, however, is clearly not uniform; it ranges from relatively high density in galaxies (including very high density in structures within galaxies, such as planets, stars, and black holes) to conditions in vast voids that have much lower density than the Universe's average. The temperature is only 2.73 Kelvin [14]. NASA's COBE mission(Cosmic Background Explorer) measured the temperature as 2.725 +/- 0.002 K.

Logical Positivism and Cosmology

noreply@blogger.com (Lowell Ballard) — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 02:14:00 +0000

When I went through a course on Relativity, the professor said that relativity was at its foundation based on the philosophy of logical positivism (i.e., the only meaningful discussion is of observations, no discussion of a larger reality is meaningful), which seems to preclude larger discussions of cosmology. I also understand that Logical Positivism was the leading philosophy of science until the 1980s, but after that Realism became the more accepted philosophy of science.It seems like some of the contradictions of relativity and quantum mechanics could be explained if we took a realist interpretation of the formula (that they correctly predict measurements, but are from only a limited perspective of a external reality). Of course we would be reopening the questions of why the measured constant speed of light is always measured the same and Bell's experiments. But would that be less acceptable than to accept the contradictions implicit in the logical positivist interpretations of Relativity (like the twin paradox) and Quantum Mechanics (like Schroedinger's Cat)?So, in discussions of cosmology, shouldn't we be working to remove any logical positivist assumptions from our discussions? Specifically, isn't the changing of time and space a logical positivist concept (those concepts would be valid when predicting measurements, but not when discussing overall cosmology). And isn't the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (that the world is probabilistic in reality) a logical positivist concept as well?Time and space seem like abstract human concepts which use clocks (uniformly repeating phenomena) and rulers (uniformly spaced phenomenon) to compare with other phenomena. I can see how rulers and clocks can be affected by the world, but it seems like the concepts of time and space should not be entangled with specific clocks and rulers in discussions of cosmology.And even if our measurements of small phenomena give us a probabilistic answer, isn't that a limitation of our measures rather than an actual view of the world itself? Or alternatively, are we measuring the probability of a particular event occurring rather than proving that reality is, in and of itself, probabilistic?Maybe I am missing something here, but I can't think of what it is. Maybe the constant speed of light and Bell's experiments are so compelling that we just have to accept the contradictions, but I am not convinced. Am I off track and missing something here? Is there other evidence that I am not considering?

The Book of Mormon: "I Know" versus "I Believe"

noreply@blogger.com (Lowell Ballard) — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:14:00 +0000

We home school our kids. So to teach them about LDS (Mormon) beliefs and history we visited many of the Mormon historical sites. We visited Palmyra, NY (Hill Cumora), Kirtland, OH, Navoo, IL, Carthage, IL, Independence, MO, and Salt Lake City, UT. We also asked the local Mormon missionaries to visit and discuss LDS beliefs. If you have ever talked to LDS missionaries or gone to a Mormon historical site you will likely have heard someone tell you "I know the Book of Mormon is true", because they asked God and He gave them a feeling that it was true. But can they honestly say that they "know the Book of Mormon is true"?

The summary statements from the video "Journey of Faith: The New World", do still sum up the situation well. There are possibilities, but no actual conclusive evidence in support of the Book of Mormon has been found to date.

But of course the same could be said of any belief system. If we have objective, conclusive evidence about something (evidence that is convincing to a reasonable skeptic) then we say we "know" something is true. But if we do not have that objective, conclusive evidence then we say that we "believe" something is true. So, by definition, no belief system has objective, conclusive proof for their beliefs. Many religions have strong feelings and experiences which support their beliefs, but feelings and experiences are not grounds for saying you "know" something is true.

Joseph Smith believed the Battle of Cumora was in New York

Here is one question to consider. How would a 19th century person interpret the discussions in the Book of Mormon concerning the Nephites and the Lamanites and where they lived? It seems clear that readers of that day, including Joseph Smith, interpreted the Book of Mormon to be saying that the Nephites and Lamanites lived in North and South America rather than in the north and south parts of central America. But DNA evidence and travel time issues seems to prohibit the possibility that the North American Indians were Lamanites (and therefore Israelite descendants). So even if evidence of civilizations in central America at about the right time is found, it would still be a problem that Heavenly Father did not reveal to Joseph Smith the correct interpretation of the Book of Mormon concerning the location of the Hill Cumora and about the North American Indians being the descendants of the Lamanites. Every Mormon should watch the video "DNA and the Book of Mormon" and then compare what is said to the rebuttals from FAIR and FARMS (The Maxwell Institute), the two leading Mormon Apologetics groups. True beliefs can only be strengthened when tested.

I've studied both Mormon and anti-Mormon literature. Many of the reasons people dismiss Mormonism are either not valid or are not conclusive. But two seemingly valid issues to consider are: 1. Is what Joseph Smith's mother wrote in her biography concerning his father's dreams and Joseph Smith Junior's stories accurate? and 2. if Heavenly Father was originally a man and all his ancestors were once a man too, then who was the first God, how did he get there and what did each God create?

Joseph Smith's Mother's Biography

In the original 1853 edition of Joseph Smith's History by his mother, Lucy Mack Smith, two passages seem to say Joseph Smith Junior and his father had information from the book of Mormon before the gold plates were actually found. Read the dream that Joseph Smith Senior had starting on page 55 of the 1908 edition of her biography and compare it to the same vision listed in the Book of Mormon in 1st Nephi Chapter 8. You must agree that both Joseph Smith Senior's dream and Lehi's dream listed in the Book of Mormon are so similar that it is highly likely they are both referencing the same dream. You can take the position that Heavenly Father gave both Joseph Smith Senior and Lehi the same dream 2450 years apart, but you have to admit that another logical possibility is that Joseph Smith Junior knew of his father's dream and added it to the book of Mormon.

Then also see the passage on page 85 of the original 1853 edition of Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith... (his mother's biography) which says:

"During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode, their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them."

Note that was before Joseph Smith Junior found the plates. So, logically, either God was giving him detailed information about the historical habits of the ancient North American Indians or Joseph Smith made up the stories and then recorded them in the book of Mormon.

How many God's have there been and what did they create?

According to the fifth LDS President, Lorenzo Snow, the LDS church teaches "As man now is God once was, and as God now is man may become". If our Heavenly Father was originally a man and all his ancestors were once a man too, then who was the first God and how did he get there (I'm not convinced by the infinite regression of Gods concept). And related to that is what exactly did Heavenly Father create, was it the universe, our galaxy or just our solar system. The official LDS Gospel Principles book says that He created the universe, but if that is the case, then what is left for the other Gods to create (I don't buy the multiverse concept)? See D&C 132:19-2 2 where it says men may become Gods.

A Change of Debtors is not Forgiveness

The historical Christian concept of the value of Jesus's sacrifice is that he paid our debt and then forgave us if we are willing to follow him. This concept of complete forgiveness up front seems to be in stark contrast to other religions, where some form of good works is required in order to be acceptable to God. Yet the LDS concept of the value of Jesus's sacrifice seems to be different than the historic Christian concept in this key area. The LDS concept seems to be that God was going to put us in jail (or give us spiritual death) for non-payment, but Jesus paid our debt so that we will instead repay him the full debt, but he will spread out the payments so that we can afford the repayment schedule. See the parable from Elder Boyd K. Packer, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, written in the official Gospel Principles Chapter 12.

Good People with Important Questions to Answer

I like the Mormon people I have met. They were surprisingly open and honest, even concerning the hard questions listed above. So it is good to try to get past common stereotypes and fear of people who believe differently. It is also important for each of us to take a look at the hard questions concerning our beliefs. So if you are LDS (or Community of Christ) then I hope you will do that with the questions listed above. And, even though they may not think so, atheists and agnostics have hard questions about their beliefs that they should look squarely in the face as well. So Mormonism is not the only belief system that has hard questions to answer.

For example, atheists and agnostics should consider the apparent design of physical constants. And since the human brain has the most complexity per square inch of anything we know of, does that imply the purpose of the universe may be to support human life? And can a good human society ultimately result if there is no external source of value for humanity? Also, we should consider the future implications of evolution, if it is true, such as future super-humans and that some form of social Darwinism (not racial) actually would seem to be a good thing for society in the long run (if evolution is true). So, Mormons are not the only ones who need to consider the hard questions about their beliefs.

We all look at the evidence and basically bet our lives on our best guess as to what we think is ultimately true. Family, friends, relationships and society are strong forces that usually sway people one way or another, which is why most people stay in the belief system of the social group they belong to. But ultimately we should ruthlessly follow truth, wherever that search may lead.

Answers to Religulous Questions

noreply@blogger.com (Lowell Ballard) — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:18:00 +0000

I went to see the movie Religulous some time ago. As a conservative Christian, I actually thought probably 90% of the approximately 167 issues raised in the movie were valid points or honest questions. But I also came away feeling that the other 10% were somewhat deceptive and/or designed to shut down discussion rather than to consider the issues objectively (that kind of content, of course, was likely included to make the movie more interesting, since the movie was intended to make fun of various religious beliefs and practices). I agree with Bill Maher that much in Christianity and religion in general is deserving of ridicule, as Isaiah ridiculed those who worship wooden idols. But I also came away thinking that a few nights of honestly searching the Internet for answers should have come up with better answers than many of those offered in the movie.

In any case, the Religulous movie does highlight some important questions that need to be addressed and answered in an easy to use format. And in some cases I'm not convinced that the popular answers are at all satisfactory, at least to me. But I didn't hear any question or insinuation in the movie which didn't have an answer that I was comfortable with believing. So, I think specifically answering all of Bill Maher's questions from the movie in one place is a beneficial (though long...) exercise and that is what I have tried to do in this post.

This was a much longer task than I first thought (167 assertions), so I didn't have as much time as I would have liked to research all the questions. There are probably more thorough answers out there to many of these particular questions and I will add and make more changes as I get time in the future. But I did think it was worth getting this full framework of discussion published so that all the issues can be addressed in one place and so it can be demonstrated that there is no assertion in the movie that does not have a reasonable answer of some kind.

Note that if you want to link to a particular answer in this post you can link to it using "http://www.chooseyourbeliefs.com/2008/12/answers-to-religulous-questions.html#27" but then replace the "27" with either the number or letter of the answer you wish to link to.

Please note that I will be answering the claims against Protestant Christianity only. Catholics, Mormons, Muslims and Scientologists are better equipped to defend their own beliefs (assuming their beliefs are defensible, I will link to their posts in defense of their beliefs as I find them). It is also interesting to me that the only faiths that Bill Maher did not ridicule, or even mention, were the eastern faiths (Hindu, Buddhist, etc..). But of course a pantheist faith (everything is God) is very similar to Mr. Maher's practical atheist beliefs (there is no God). To say something is everywhere is pretty close to saying it is nowhere. And I assert that his viewpoint is one of being a "practical atheist" because every agnostic (doubter) has to live their life with the practical assumption that one of the belief systems is true, even if they have no way of knowing what is true. And for most agnostics the belief system they choose to live their life by seems to be atheism.

Here are the main web sites related to the movie:
http://www.lionsgate.com/religulous/
http://disbeliefnet.com
http://www.billmaher.com/
http://therealbillmaher.blogspot.com/2008/10/religulous.html

I will list and answer the main points at issue first, then go through each point as listed chronologically in the movie, referencing these main points where appropriate:

Main Points Answered

Faith and Reason
A. Faith does not mean to suspend reason and in fact reason requires faith
All deductive logic requires initial premises which are held by inductive belief rather than reasoned out through logic. Also, our everyday existence requires us to act on both belief and reason in order to function. For example, there is no way to know for sure that an elevator isn't about to fail and fall to the ground, but we step on elevators all the time. We reason that they haven't failed very often, so they are unlikely to fail for us, which may be 99.9999% true. But it is belief that bridges the gap from 99.9999% to be effectively 100% and allows us to step on the elevator. So, faith and reason are intertwined and we can't get away from using both.

B. Doubt (Agnosticism) still requires effectively practicing a faith
We all have to live our life based on foundational assumptions that we can not (or at least do not take the time to) prove. In fact, each of us use faith in something every minute of our lives. I have faith that my house will not fall down, that the elevator I step in will not fall, that Mars is still there, etc.. when I have no direct first hand evidence that any of those beliefs are accurate. Instead I rely on probability based on what I see happening to other people and based on what I am told by "experts". So, we all have lots of faith, the question is what is appropriate to put our faith in.

If I have doubt that I can ever know something in particular, and if my life choices would change depending on the answer to the question that I cannot know, I still have to choose which way to live my life. Basically, even if the answer is a toss up, I still have to throw the dice and make a choice. So, someone who calls themselves agnostic still has to live there lives either as if no god exists or as if some form of god exists. Doubting doesn't get around the fact that we have to make choices to live our life based on some religious (or non-religious) assumptions, even if we think there is no way to make a good choice. So, even agnostics, in practice, have to choose their beliefs.

C. God is hiding himself, like a billionaire might hide his wealth when looking for a mate
It seems that the main plot of the Bible is how to give free choice while still ending up with a society where people always will choose what it right. If God were to display his power in front of us we would naturally want to submit out of fear, if for no other reason. But it seems God wants to give people the ability to choose whether to follow him or not, without intimidation. That way we each can determine for ourselves whether we want to follow God, without being influenced by his power. That would seem to be similar to a billionaire looking for a mate. They would be prudent to temporarily hide their wealth from potential mates so that they will not want to marry just for the wealth. In the same way, God is hiding himself from us in order to give us a more truly free choice, in a way the angels never had. See Is 45:15 and Psalm 10:1,4

D. There are good logical reasons to believe in God
The Bible says that we can know God exists because that is evident in the design of nature (Rom 1:18-22). But if a Creator exists, then man would need to submit to the Creator. So, Humans have a conflict of interest when it comes to determining whether God exists or not. In many cases people choose to believe that something can be created from nothing (a logical impossibility unless you redefine the term "nothing") rather than believe in something that has always existed and has the power to create everything else.

Law and Justice
E. Just laws and strong governments are better than libertarianism
Libertarianism says that people should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt other people. But the problem is that some acts benefit people in the short term but then hurt those same people and others in the long term, and other things seem good at first glance but actually have a devastating effect on people and others.

I don't feel like I need to regulate my kids to tell them not to touch a hot stove. They will only do that once and the pain they will get will not kill them. But if I have a bathtub full of boiling water, I do need to restrict them from getting anywhere near the bath tub, since one slip could severely affect them or even end their lives. And I don't let my kids eat candy all the time because I know candy tastes good at first but isn't good for them in the long term. So, there are some areas where complete freedom is desirable, but there are other areas where external limitations benefit people more than they hurt people.

Also, we are social creatures by nature so many things that we think only affect individuals actually can affect society. Even in the case where someone only kills themselves and thinks they are not harming anyone else, someone else has to bury them and dispose of their assets.

So, rules, laws, commandments, best practices, recommendations, rules of etiquette, etc.. seem to be necessary from outside sources in cases where we may be in danger of having problems occur and do not know it, or where we may be drawn to an initial benefit that hurts us and/or others later. And whether something should be enforced by law or only be recommended, like etiquette, depends on the social compact that is agreed upon by the majority in the society. That social compact should seek for the greatest good for the most people rather than going to the lowest common denominator.

Critiques Of Libertarianism

F. God's laws and morality makes sense
If God's laws were actually followed then many of the problems of the world would go away. The Bible includes a direct welfare system (no government overhead) where the recipients still had to work for their wages. It had a limit on lifetime borrowing that would keep debt from being passed from one generation to the next (something that would have benefited our next generation...). Israel was never taught to seek to dominate the world like some of their neighbors did (Egypt, Persia, Greece and Rome), but rather they were taught to do what it takes to keep their society together and maintain their high standards (a teaching which has served them well for several thousand years).

And the strict punishments listed in the Bible were likely more moral than our current laws, in aggregate. Which is more "caring", having some harsh laws such as the death penalty that no one breaks, or having lenient laws such as prison and fines that millions of people have to pay? Because of our backgrounds, we assume that if there was a harsh penalty that lots of people would be paying that penalty. We can't conceive of a society where almost everyone obeys the laws... So, part of the problem in American society is that we have been so "caring" that we have come close to giving up the concepts of strong law and justice as being foundational to a good society.

God and the Death Penalty

G. "Judging" is necessary and good
"Do not judge" is just one of the Biblical concepts that has been taken out of context and made to mean almost the opposite of what was intended. Look at what the author is saying in Mat 7:1-5. Actually they are saying, don't be hypocritical when you judge. First judge yourself with the same standard, then judge others.

"Judging" is required and good. That is why one book of the Bible is called "Judges"... If we are to refrain from making judgments, how can we discriminate between good and bad in any area of life?

1 Cor 6:1-5 Christians should be able to be wise judges of other Christians
John 7:24 Judge with righteous judgment
The cult of “Do not Judge”

Reliability of the Bible
H. The Bible is more reliable than any other book that old
The Bible has more transcripts than any other book of that time period. The transcripts agree on the essentials of the Christian faith. Other contradictory books were written decades or centuries later and have an obvious bias based on who wrote them (usually gnostics).
1 Peter 1:16 - some where eyewitnesses
Luke 1:1-4 - the writer talked to the eyewitnesses and was careful to relay the truth of the eyewitness accounts.
Craig-Ehrman debate on Resurrection of Jesus
Is the Bible Reliable

I. Just because something is mentioned without comment in the Bible doesn't mean that it is recommended or supported by the Bible.
The Bible relates much history without comment. The assumption is that the reader is a person who is familiar with other parts of the Bible who therefore would be able to make their own judgments about what is good or bad. So, just because the Bible tells of something bad that happened does not necessarily mean that the Bible approves of what happened.

J. The Bible is accurate where it touches on natural science
We talk about how the sun rises and the sun sets without implying that the sun is going around the earth. Similarly, the Bible talks from an earth centered perspective without contradicting anything in science. Also, the Bible talks about many of the natural concepts that we study using the scientific method today.

Scientific Accuracies of the Bible
Science or the Bible?
Creation: Science Confirms the Bible Is True (Video)

K. If a creator God exists, then He should likely be able to do anything that is logically doable, even "miracles"
The definition of miracles is something that is unexplained and isn't repeatable. So, by definition, miracles can not be analyzed by the scientific method, which requires repeatability. It would seem to be much easier to change things that already exist than to create things out of nothing. So, if a creator God exists who made everything, then it would seem that God should also be able to do anything He wanted to. And the things that He did which He did not set to repeat on queue would naturally be called miracles. So, if a creator God exists that intervenes sometimes with this world, then we would expect miracles to occur.

L. If something the Bible says sounds wrong, it may be our understanding that is incorrect.
For most of us, the Bible explains many concepts that we did not understand before reading the Bible. So, when we come upon something that doesn't seem to make sense, then we should give the Bible the benefit of the doubt. Also, since God, almost by definition, can do whatever He wants, we can't necessarily use the improbability of an occurrence to discredit the reliability of the Bible.

Specific Questions relating to Bible accuracy
M. The Jesus story is not a copy of the story of other gods
This is an area where Bill Maher really should have done his homework...
Doesn't the religion of Mithra prove that Christianity is false?
links between Krisha and Jesus
Why December 25th?
Aren’t there some striking parallels between the Jesus and Horus stories?

N. Homosexuality is not natural, marriage is natural and is the foundational organization
The evidence of a genetic predisposition to being gay is sketchy at best. But, even if there were a predisposition in some people, that does not make the behavior any less problematic. If people have a predisposition to anger or depression, it does not mean that we should allow them to become violent or depressed without working to end the inappropriate actions.

Marriage is supposed to be "one adult male and one adult female sharing everything for life". Many heterosexuals have given up on the "for life" part, substituting instead the concept that the marriage contract is only valid as long as "love" exists. Now we are considering giving up the "male and female" part of the definition. In the future some may rethink the "adult" and the "one" concepts as well. Maybe the Mormons previous views on polygamy will become more in vogue in the future... But, the point is that the reason for marriage is to make a stable unit to bring up children and to protect the married couple themselves. Society has incurred a significant cost already as the concept of marriage has changed, which is why the proposed additional changes seem to not be as big of a problem as it once would have been.
Lev 18:22-24, Lev 20:13, Gen. 19:4 -13, Jude 7, 2 Peter 2:6, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, 1 Tim 1:8-10, Rom. 1:26-28
Ex-gays?: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation
Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems
Homosexual Theology

O. Significant problems with believers and the church (and the existence of evil in general) do not disprove the existence of God, in fact the Bible warns there will be such problems with the church.
In fact, most of what Paul writes is addressing problems in the church.

Why we are here, why there is evil
P. God has an overall goal that is best, even though it includes terrible evil and problems. Free choice requires evil to exist.
Love seems to require free choice because it cannot be coerced. But free choice implies the ability to choose badly, especially for people who will live on (after death in our case) for the foreseeable future. So, giving Adam and Eve free choice would seem that over the long term, they and their descendants would tend to choose badly in most every way imaginable. Evil would seem to be caused as a byproduct of love and free choice. So, how would you resolve that dilemma? It appears that God's answer was first to pay the price and show the way of how to live without choosing wrong: by sacrificing yourself. Then ultimately, he allows free choice but separates out those who choose to follow him (i.e., and choose what is right) from those who ultimately choose to follow themselves. That way he can have a city with people who still have free choice but that will also choose right, even for the foreseeable future.
Salvation misses the point

Truth and Religion
Q. Just because some religions are untrue does not mean all are untrue, and in fact at most only one can be true in their core beliefs
It is not rational to believe that contradicting concepts are each true in the same way, so more than one religion (each of which contradict each other) cannot be true. But that does not mean that none of the religions are true, you just have to evaluate all of them (including atheism) and choose the one that you think is most likely true.

R. The search for truth in religion is not detrimental to humanity. - The search for truth is always a good thing because we have to first accurately understand the world around us before we can even hope to make good choices. The problem is not with the search for truth but rather when people believe they have found truth but are actually believing something that is not true. Truth by it's very nature is exclusive. There can be only one item that is true (and good) but there can be thousands of competing items that are false (and harmful).

S. Christianity is better for society than atheism - Christianity has similar benefits as government, except it can cause people to focus on their internal motives better than the state can. Also, our living under our government is only temporary, while we live, but living under the government of God goes on forever. So, Christianity gives transcendent value to law, justice and morality.

Each issue listed in order discussed in the movie

1. I hate prophesy (assumes prophesy is never true) - K, It is right to hate false prophesy, which is what the overwhelming majority of prophesies are. But if there is a God who can fully control the present world, He would be able to know the future by his complete control of the present. So, if an all controlling God exists, then it would be expected that He could know the future and could tell some people.

2.Religion is detrimental to the progress of humanity - R, False beliefs can be detrimental, but true beliefs are, of course, beneficial. And even in religions that may be false, self sacrifice, good attitudes, and submission to proper authority are some of the key attributes that most of those religions work to obtain in their followers, which should be seen as beneficial to society.

3. Religion is selling an invisible product - D,

4. People will make up any story and cling to it - A,

5. They believe that on Sunday they are drinking the blood of a 2000 year old god - That is a reference to the Catholic belief in transubstantiation, a belief that most Protestants do not agree with.

6. They call me the seeker (music) - B, Doubting is not true "seeking", A true seeker understands their failure to be what they should be - "I won't get what I'm after until the day I die."

7. Circumcision was strange when first introduced - L, Circumcision would have likely been seen as an appropriate symbol that people would naturally remember any time they considered relations outside of appropriate natural boundaries.

Our Lady of Mercy Church - Park Ridge, NJ (Bill Maher’s Sister Kathy Maher and Mother Julie Maher, at the Maher’s childhood Church)

8. Church was boring - O, Many churches are boring. Learning and following concepts in the Bible may be hard work, but doing that is not boring.

9. Required birth control is a good reason to leave Christianity - F, Most Protestant Christians allow birth control. But, following God sometimes requires us to give up that which may look like something good. Birth control enabled the sexual revolution of the 1960s and the disintegration of a large percentage of marriages, causing more abortions and single parent families. So, the Catholic church may have a valid point about the social problems associated with birth control and the related attitudes towards children and marriage.

Truckers Chapel/Truck Stop Ministries - Raleigh, NC - Reverend Joe Copeland

10. "Original Sin" is not in the Bible - 1 Cor 15:21-22, Rom 5:12-21, The concept of "Original Sin" is in the Bible at least in the sense that if Adam had not sinned, his descendants would not have died.

11. The "Immaculate Conception" is not in the Bible - This is a Roman Catholic view that is not held by Protestants.

12. Virgin Birth is only in two of the Gospels - Matt 1:18-25, Luke 1:1-4,26-38, Is 7:8-8:4 The verse in Isaiah is referring to Maheer-shalal-hash-baz, but Jesus is also referred to by this verse since a little later in Is 9:2-6 it also refers to a future son but that doesn't seem to be fulfilled back in old testament times. Also, note that Mary would likely not go around telling everyone about the virgin birth since most people would not believe her and there would have been no way to prove the virgin birth. Note the verses that imply that Mary and Jesus were keeping some things about Jesus to themselves:

Mat 1:19 Joseph initially planned to keep the virgin birth a secret and not marry Mary, but he changed his mind and married her, but he may still have kept the virgin birth a secret
Luke 2:19, 51 Mary treasured and pondered these things in her heart
Mat 8:3-4 Jesus sometimes wanted people he healed to keep it a secret from being general knowledge

The only people it would make sense to tell would be people who already believed he was the messiah. And it is possible that he didn't even tell the disciples. If that is the case then it is possible that some of the Gospel writers only found out about the virgin birth by talking with Mary herself. Luke said he did careful research in compiling his book, so it would make sense that he would talk to Mary and get the whole story.

So, it may be that Matthew and Luke interviewed Mary for their books whereas the other two writers did not. Note that the other two writers not only did not mention the virgin birth but did not mention Jesus' birth or childhood at all. That is at least one plausible answer to the question of why two of the gospel writers did not mention the virgin birth.

Another possible, related, answer might be if Mark and John were trying to be more evangelistic and did not want to start off their gospels with a miraculous event that was unverifiable.

The virgin birth could not have been parthenogenesis reproduction, like that found in some animals on rare occasions. Since the female only has female chromosomes, Jesus would have to be a female.

13. Popes are not in the Bible - That is a Catholic belief that Protestants do not share.

14. Response: Shroud of Turin had female blood from a male figure - I can't find any references to this and so this is obviously incorrect.

15. Response (Copland): Christianity... it's a faith thing - A, Yes, but we choose what we believe in based on the probabilities of it being true versus the probability of it being not true. So, we still should be able to articulate in a convincing way why we choose to believe Christianity.

16. Response: Changing from Satanism to Christianity is proof that God exists - Just because someone switches their beliefs to Christianity does not make it true.

17. Drugs and Prostitution are O.K. - E, Individual and social problems are caused by drug abuse and Prostitution.

18. Response: What if we are right and you are wrong (hedge your bets) - Chosen beliefs should be determined based on which set of beliefs is more likely to be true given the evidence, regardless of the benefits or drawbacks of accepting those beliefs.

Quote: "Yea, you could be right. I don’t think it is very likely. But yes you could be right because my big thing is I don’t know. That is what I preach. I preach the gospel of “I don’t know”. That is what I am here promoting, doubt. That is my product. The other guys are selling certainty. Not me. I’m on the corner with doubt."

19. Doubt is different than religion - B, Doubt is a belief system, too, that requires someone to live as if one of the other belief systems were true, and that chosen belief system is usually Atheism.

Carnegie Institution Auditorium - Washington, DC - Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute

20. It hasn't been proven that Jesus existed - H, All we have is historical literary evidence, but we have more literary evidence that Jesus existed than any other ancient person.

21. The Bible writers were not eye witnesses, nobody who wrote the gospels ever met Him - H, 1 Peter 1:16 - some were eyewitnesses. In Luke 1:1-4 the writer talked to the eyewitnesses and was careful to relay the truth of the eyewitness accounts. So, Bill Maher assumes the Bible is not accurate in what it is saying in order to prove his point that the Bible is not accurate...

22. The Bible doesn't tell us what Jesus was doing as a young man - I'm not sure why that matters since it would likely be a typical Jewish upbringing.

23. The Gospels are not history - H, The gospels claim to be accurate history.

24. The people who wrote the new testament read the old testament and made the prophecies fit - H, Perhaps, but no evidence is given other than the assumption that prophecies cannot come true. In fact this is an admission that Jesus' life did fulfill prophecies listed in the old testament...

25. The Bible is fictitious - H,

26. The Bible texts don't match - H, No discrepancies change the core doctrines, and you would expect some discrepancies from different eyewitnesses.

27. Important items, like the Virgin Birth, are not in all four gospels - The claim of virgin birth is not something that people would broadcast or that could be proven. So, it would seem natural that this would not be a widely known assertion. See my more in depth answer under item 12

28. "..being without faith is something that’s a luxury for people who are fortunate enough to have a fortunate life" - A fortunate life allows people to not have to think through the hard questions of life, but even fortunate people will unfortunately die one day. So, in that sense no one is fortunate...

29. How could smart people... believe in the talking snake.. - K,L, Obviously, the snakes of today do not have vocal cords or the mental ability to be able to talk. But we do have other evidence in the Bible that bad angels can inhabit animals, and there may have been ways to communicate without normal speech (but that is just speculation). The point is, that if the Bible is true and God created everything, even something as unlikely as this cannot be ruled out.

30. How could smart people... believe in... people that live to 900 years old... - K,L, Why do we live only 80-100 years now? It is not inconceivable that in a different environment with a better genetic makeup that men might live longer, like some animals.

31. How could smart people... believe in... the virgin birth. - K,L, How can scientists believe the universe created itself out of nothing? How can scientists believe in the twin paradox and the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics? It seems that religion has no corner on believing what seems to be unbelievable. Also, see my analysis of the virgin birth under item 12.

32. Religion turns into burning people alive, really evil s..t - O, So do ideologies of all kinds, not just religion.

33. Televangelists seeking money discredits Christianity (video clips) - O,

34. What do you think it says about religion and how serious it is if you can be a minister at 10 - O,

Ezra Conference Center - Raleigh, NC - Jeremiah Cummings Amazing Life World Outreach

35. Rock Stars are similar to religious figures, they both dress in elaborate costumes that get people's attention (fine clothes) - O, The clothes shouldn't matter one way or another, but the message should matter.

36. Response (Cummings): When he was born they brought him gold, Jesus was not poor - There is no indication that Jesus had any significant money.

37. Response (Cummings): Jesus dressed very well, he wore fine linen - There is no indication that Jesus' clothes were any better than anyone else.

38. Response (Cummings): Jesus does not preach against rich people - He does say that it is harder for a rich man to enter heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. But, then he says that with God it is possible for them to be saved.

39. Response (Cummings): Now things like houses and cars and clothes and money, they come as a result of my seeking God first - Money comes from bringing value to others. The problem with giving money in the Christian context is that the money is given based on the givers requirement to give, not necessarily how much value they are getting from the Church. So, in that case the pastor should be regulated by the church to not abuse the money they receive.

40. (Cummings) Turn your passion to God and see what happens (video of a terrorist blowing a car up) - O,

41. St. Paul only owned the clothes on his back - There is no indication of that.

42. The Bible doesn't have much morality because Lot (a good person) offered up his daughters to be raped instead of angels -I,

43. God hates fags (video) - O, No he does not, but he does think that homosexuality is an "abomination". Lev 18:22-24

44. Response: The Bible isn't against Homosexuality, that is what the Bible means to say - Lev 18:22-24, Lev 20:13, Gen. 19:4 -13, Jude 7, 2 Peter 2:6, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, 1 Tim 1:8-10, Rom. 1:26-28

Calvary Assembly Exchange Ministries – Winter Park, FL - Pastor John Westcott

45. Man wrote the Bible, Nature made Gay people, The Gay Gene has been found - N, See Homosexual Theology for a discussion of the evidence for a "Gay Gene". But even if there is a genetic predisposition in some people, that does not make the behavior any less problematic. If people have a predisposition to anger or depression, it does not mean that we should allow them to become violent or depressed without working to end the inappropriate actions.

American University biology lab, Washington, DC - Dr. Dean Hamer, author of The God Gene

46. All of the prescriptions against homosexuality come from the old testament.
Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. If it is so important, why didn’t he ever bring it up? - He didn't need to since the society which He was in already agreed that this was a condemned practice.

47. But what is your explanation for the millions and millions of people around the world who are leading homosexual lives, have no interest in anyone of the opposite sex… - N, Actually, there is indication that most homosexuals have at least some interest in bisexuality.

48. Gay people are secure in themselves - N, Sometimes people act secure when inside they are not.

49. Gay people are happy, they are called Gay, some of them look positively thrilled - N, Sometimes people act secure when inside they are not.

50. Christians should not judge Gay people by saying they are "people who are really incomplete in who they are as men or women" - G, The Bible isn't against judging. It is just against judging incorrectly.

51. You can tell people are Gay because they look Gay (good looking, neat, Little Richard) - N, Looks and actions may also make someone think they are gay, so the looks may be a contributing factor to the action, rather than an indication of a genetic predisposition.

52. When he was 17 and was dumped and sad, he was very vulnerable - thought a force was out there that was communicating through song lyrics or numerology, You make up an imaginary friend who loves you and who is sympathetic with you and has a plan for you. He didn't have to love me, he just had to be working for me, like an agent - O,

Liturgical Apostolate Center - Boston, MA - Steve Burg, Ex-Jew for Jesus

53. Highly unlikely coincidences after prayer are not evidence for God - C,

54. Believing Santa Claus flying around the world in one night is ridiculous, but one man hearing everybody murmuring to him at the same time, that I get. - K,

55. If Heaven is a better place, why don't you kill yourself - P, Our place is on earth, either this earth or the new earth talked about in Revelations. A common misconception is that our final destination as Christians is Heaven, when actually that is a temporary location and our final location is on the new earth. So, we are made to stay in this world, and killing ourselves would be sending us prematurely to the holding place just to return to the new earth.

56. Jonah could not have lived inside a big fish for three days - K, Whales and big fish have swallowed animals whole as large as people, so even without miraculous intervention the story of Jonah is physically possible.

57. Response (Berg): if you don't believe in miracles, that doesn't mean they do not exist - K,

58. Two things that are completely incompatible are Christianity as Jesus taught it and Nationalism -

59. Response (John McCain): The constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation -

60. A lot of books for the founding fathers that explicitly say that we are not a Christian nation -

Jefferson Memorial – Washington, DC - Ray Suarez author of The Holy Vote: The Politics of Faith in America

61. Jefferson took out all of Jesus' Miracles and all the verses that talk about Jesus' divinity -

62. In Jefferson's age fewer people went to church less often -

63. 16% of Americans are unaffiliated with any religion from a pew poll -

Senate Office Building - Washington, DC - Senator Mark Pryor Democrat from Arkansas

64. Response (Senator): Why is faith good? Faith has a way of softening people, for example Jesus is very forgiving -

65. Jesus also said: If a man does not abide in me he is cast forth as a branch and withers and is gathered and thrown in the fire and burned. -

66. Response (Senator): We’ll let God sort out all the details at judgment day -

67. Are the ten commandments really the ten most moral teachings? That is not really a wise list of ten. - Actually when you understand the purpose of the 10 commandments and the purpose of the three groupings of commandments within the 10, then they make sense as a universal framework from which to interpret all other laws.

Commandments 1-3 and 5 concern respecting authorities. In the theocracy of Israel, the two authorities were God (and His representatives) and Parents. If Israel followed other gods (in that society they would have made idols for the other god), or said they followed the one true God but did not follow his commandments (taking on His name in vain), then they would lose the foundational reason why they decided to follow the Mosaic laws in the first place.

The 4th commandment, keeping the Sabbath day holy, insures that people have time to think and reflect on creation and how to maintain a "very good" world. If people are tired out from working all the time, they never will have the time or energy to learn about laws or to think about self discipline and the larger goals of life.

Commandments 6-8 concern maintaining boundaries between people. People have a right not be be murdered, to have a life long monogamous partner of the opposite sex, and a right to keep the property they make or trade for. These are the foundations of Criminal and Civil law.

The 9th commandment, "Do not bear false witness against your neighbor", is the foundation of law enforcement since reliance on witnesses is a pre-requisite for valid judgments concerning law enforcement.

The 10th commandment, "Do not covet...", is the last commandment for a good reason: it is the only one of the ten commandments that talks about attitude rather than just actions. Attitudes are the source of action, so the main focus of these laws is not the laws themselves, but to get the right attitudes that cause people to understand the reason for these laws in the first place and the desire to follow them.

The more summarized form of the ten commandments is: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:36-40). That reflects the two major themes of the 10 commandments: to give authority and others their rightful place in creation.

68. First four are all about just worshiping God and that he is a jealous God. - Worship is giving value and honor where honor is due. In a sense, we worship whatever we assign value to, but what we call "worship of God" is to give Him ultimate value and honor. As for God being "jealous", the head of any government is "jealous" of other governments taking over the leadership of their people.

69. Only two that are really laws are don’t steal and don’t kill. Why is this the wisest group of ten, it doesn't include Child Abuse, don’t torture, rape? It doesn't include a lot of things that I think if we were making a list today we would include. - The ten commandments are a framework that does in fact include, in concept, the laws that are listed as missing. Rape involves committing adultery. Murder is the extreme case of abuse and so is easy to list in a summary. Child abuse and torture need to be defined, otherwise people could claim abuse when any force is used, so those are not appropriate for a summary framework of laws.

70. Response (Senator): Society is so different today and our culture is so radically different - As a framework for all the following Mosaic laws, the 10 commandments are a very good summary, encapsulating all the key concepts of the legal system itself. And, if you understand that they were written for a theocracy and you translate the concepts to a democracy, then the 10 commandments are still the best summary of a legal system around.

Note that you can summarize down to fewer commandments, or you can expand the summary to more line items, or even to hundreds or thousands of laws and each would be valid. The question is how much of a summary of the legal system you want to have. The legal system could be summarized in one commandment: "do what is right", but of course to have meaning that needs to be expanded, which is why our legal system is so complex.

71. Can you think of anything else we still cling to from the bronze age. - yes, we still farm, eat, have transportation, communicate, write, etc... And, yes, we still have a legal system similar in concept to what Israel had.

72. Murder is against the law in every country in the world - Yes, so is honoring the government and other authorities, and respecting the rights and property of others, just as summarized in the 10 commandments.

73. Wouldn't we have come to that even without religion - Yes. A true "Religion" is only listing what is actually true and "natural", it is just that the things we do not understand we give the label "supernatural". If we understood those things we would label them as "natural".

74. There has been more killing in the name of our god - O, Killing only occurs when people can't control others to get what they want in other ways. Cain killed Abel because he wanted God to be happy with him the same as with Abel, but, irrationally, he thought killing was the best way to get that. The Bible shows that people should be given free choice, since God gave Adam and Eve free choice. People kill in the name of their god because they want others to follow their god and they can't think of any other way to get that to happen. But that same thing also happens with people wanting others to follow their philosophy, like Fascism and Communism.

It is interesting that the Bible does not say to kill others that do not believe in the God of Israel. The killing in the Bible seems to be to clear out the land from the influence of other governments, to respect the rule of law and to protect the innocent from how law breakers would change their society.

75. Response (Senator): More primitive cultures were constantly at war.

76. The modern nations are constantly at war too (video) - He mixes up national war and individual murder.

77. Response (Senator): Waffles on creation/evolution. - K,

78. It worries me that people are running my country who believe in a talking snake. - K,

79. Response (Senator): You don’t have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. -

Creation Museum, Petersburg, KY - Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis

80. Response (Ken Ham): In a nutshell we are saying the Bible is true, from Genesis to Revelations. - K, H ,

81. Response (Ken Ham): If you believe in evolution the woman had to come from an ape woman. -

82. Response (Ken Ham): Dinosaurs lived with humans. -

83. Response (Kirk Cameron): To be able to reason with people, learn to circumnavigate or go around the person’s intellect - Go to 19:50 and watch to 23:30 into the video to see this clip in context

84. It would have to be an enormous conspiracy going on between scientists of all different disciplines in all different countries to have such a consensus (for evolution). -

85. Response (Ken Ham): Man is a sinner. Man is in rebellion against his creator. All these scientists are sinners. -

86. Response (Father Coyne): John Paul said Evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis, Cur rent Popes Statement on Evolution -

87. Response (Ken Ham): Why is man coexisting with Dinosaurs important to your salvation or your morality. If we don't believe one part of the Bible, why should we believe the rest of the Bible - S,

88. Response (Father Coyne): Modern science came to be later than when the Bible was written so there can not be any science in scripture. The scriptures are not teaching science. - E, Just because the scientific method was delineated later, does not negate the fact that, if it is a true account given from God himself, the Bible should be accurate in it's natural history (science). That would still be the case even if the text was "dumbed down" to be able to discuss the subject with people who didn't know about the scientific method.

St. Raphael’s Parish Center, Raleigh, NC - Father George V. Coyne Director Emeritus Vatican Observatory

89. Response (Father Coyne): It is very hard for me to accept not just a literal interpretation of scripture but a fundamentalist approach to religious belief. Fundamentalist belief is kind of a plague. It presents itself as science but it is not - S, If the Bible isn't accurate about natural history, why should we believe it when it talks about other topics. And if the genesis story was not meant to be taken as history, what other parts of the Bible should not be taken literally either? Jesus thought Adam and Eve were literal people.

90. God is working in ways we sometimes do not understand. Isn't that a cop out? He is God. Are you God? - L,

91. Got thrown out of the Vatican - tactic of not notifying before showing up -

92. Flying nun reference - mixing of fiction and nonfiction -

93. Does that look like anything, like anything Jesus Christ had in mind – the Vatican. Response: If I were the boss I wouldn’t be living there. -

Vatican (Father Reginald Foster, Senior Vatican Scholar and Principal Latinist for the Pope)

94. Response (Foster): Roasting in Hell. That is all gone. That's all finished. - That is an interesting new change in Catholic doctrine...

95. Response (Foster): Jesus wasn’t born on Christmas. These are all nice stories you know. - Agreed, the date was chosen to overlap an existing pagan festival. But that doesn't have any bearing on whether Jesus actually existed or not.

96. Response (Foster): Jesus was sixth on the list who people pray to in Italy. Looks like it isn’t monotheistic. Talk about cafeteria Catholics. - O,

97. Response (Foster): You can’t convince people. Let people die with their stupid ideas. - If I had that idea, I wouldn't be writing this blog... The Bible seems to indicate that we should put forward what we believe to be true to people, then if they decide to believe otherwise, that is their prerogative.

98. Analogy: A space man zaps a virgin who has a son who is also him who goes on a suicide mission - The flaw in this analogy is that the "space man" actually created the earth and the virgin. And there is no such thing as a suicide mission since everyone gets raised again after they die, for judgment.

A better analogy might be a rich king creates a stadium and has his people try out to see who are worthy citizens to live with him in his royal city. His standards are extremely high, so it turns out that none of his people are making the grade. So he sends his son to sneak into the stadium and show the people how to do it. His standards are so high that the his son actually dies doing what is right, and the people who want to make the grade also have to be willing to die. But the king can bring people back to life, so actually no one comes to an end because of these tests (but he lets them think they will come to an end to see who will be willing to die).

99. If when you were a kid they transposed the Bible stories with fairy tales you would know the difference as an adult? If they told you Jack and the Bean Stalk was religion and that a man lived in a whale was a fairy tale quote. Would you be defending the one and not the other? - The difference here is whether the story is true or not and that is what he is trying to establish, so this argument assumes the result it is trying to prove

100. Eve being made out of a rib. -

101. Jesus is just alright with me - music - It is a little dangerous to have someone dress up like Jesus because people might assume they are saying what Jesus would say. The real Jesus would probably have had better answers...

Holy Land Experience - Orlando, FL - Employee Acting as Jesus

102. Why doesn’t he just obliterate the devil and therefore get rid of evil in the world? Response (Jesus Actor): He will. - P,

103. What is he waiting for? Response (Jesus Actor): A day is like a thousand years for God. He is so far beyond any of our ways. - P,

104. What was the holocaust, why was that good? Response (Jesus Actor): God has a plan for that. It is like explaining to an ant how a TV works. - P, We will all die, it is just a matter of how.

105. Wicked witch sounds when public relations coordinator comes - It is polite to let people know when you will be shooting a video on their property, but of course they were probably afraid that they would not be let in since the video is somewhat adversarial to Christian beliefs.

106. No other gods before me, that's not moral, it is just something a jealous God would do. That seems so un-godlike. I know people who have gotten over jealousy. - That is moral. Think of it like when one government says if you want to keep being a citizen, it will not allow you to work for a competing government within it's borders. The term jealous has a broader meaning than being implied here.

107. (Jesus Actor) It's two sides of a coin. He is a just God and He's also a merciful God. There are books of the Bible about God wiping out people. His ways are higher than ours -

108. (Jesus Actor) God put this God sized hole in your life, you can fill it with drugs, sex, anything you want, it is not going to fill it.. Can I try? You can try if you want, but you will end up hurting yourself and damaging yourself and burning yourself out.

109. I thought Christ was about not judging people, isn't that a judgment there? You don't even know me but you are saying I have a hole in my heart. Response: No, I'm saying anyone in general - G,

110. If I was God I would create people without the hole to begin with. - That is like saying if I were an automaker I would make a car that gets a million miles to the gallon and you never need to change the oil and that it could fly to work as well. The hole is there by design and it is a little presumptuous to think that, if there is a Creator, we can recommend a better design. And as a corollary: thinking we could make a better design is not good evidence that there is no Creator. If you can actually make a better design rather than thinking you could, that might be better evidence that no Creator actually exists...

111. (Jesus Actor) Have you ever had a little small voice in the back of your mind say some things. That's not God, that is you - Agreed, if there is no objective way, at least to that individual, to determine whether it is God speaking to you or whether it is just yourself, we have to make inference to the most likely cause which is just our own thinking.

112. (Jesus Actor) Holy spirit is like the wind - Agreed, but that is not evidence that God exists.

113. It’s a monotheistic religion, but there is three of them. Space God and sends himself on a suicide missions, he's God, he has a kid, he’s a single parent, it’s just silly. - See the answer and better analogy on item 98.

114. Your bio was something that was going around the Mediterranean for at least a 1000 years before Christ -

115. 1000 BC Krishna: carpenter, born of a virgin, baptized in a river - There are no credible links between Krisha and Jesus

116. 600 BC Persian God Mithra: Born December 25th, performed miracles, resurrected on the 3rd day, the lamb, the way, the truth, the light, the savior, messiah - Doesn't the religion of Mithra prove that Christianity is false? - The short answer is no. Many of the concepts associated with Mithra were post-Christian, and they were all post-Judaism. Since the concepts ascribed to Jesus can be directly derived from the old testament, there are no grounds to say these concepts were derived from Mithra worship, and in fact the opposite could be the case.

117. Response (Jesus Actor): I don't go by that, I go by the word of God - Good, but not good enough... We need to be able to give an answer for why we believe the Bible is true, which includes external proofs as well as internal proofs that the Bible is accurate and true.

118. Many of the gods were born on December 25th (So the story of Jesus was copying others) - Why December 25th? - Because the Christian church wanted to overlap a day that the pagans already used to worship another god, to make it easy for them to switch to Christianity. So, there is a good reason why the birth of Mithra and Jesus are celebrated on the same day. They were hoping that the celebration of Jesus' birth would replace the celebration of Mithra.

119. Horus: Egyptian God similarities list on screen - Son of Osiris, virgin mother, Aup the Baptizer, beheaded, temped in the desert, crown of thorns, walked on water, Asus means Lazarus, crucified and raised - Aren’t there some striking parallels between the Jesus and Horus stories? In short, the answer is,"no." Bill Maher's team should have done some more homework here...

120. (Jesus Actor) What if you are wrong and this isn't all made up? -

121. Believing in Jesus with the virgin birth and the dove and the snake that talks in the garden is like believing in Scientology -

122. Religions have to get crazier to keep up - K,

123. Religion is a neurological disorder. There are some very specific changes in the brain when people are meditating or praying or even speaking in tongues - First. in 1 Cor 14 Paul is arguing that people should seek to do better things rather than to try to speak in tongues. If the foreign tongues were actually understandable that would be profitable but, since that is not the case here, Christians should desire to do better things with their time and energy. Also, the practice of "centering prayer" is not really prayer at all but a controversial practice (in protestant Christianity) of clearing the mind, similar to what Buddhists do in their meditations. So, none of these practices studied are recommended by most protestant Christians (though the practice of centering prayer is growing).

Protestant Christians have historically recommended rational practices such as prayer and Bible study (assuming God exists and the Bible is accurate) rather than irrational practices such as clearing the mind and practicing rituals to improve our standing with God.

Secondly, Dr. Newberg only says that these practices show neurologically different patterns. He never says that belief is a neurological disorder. Also, other activities may have different neurological patterns associated with them as well. So, this is the worst kind of slander and should be strongly rejected. Once a point of view is defined as a disorder, then it becomes acceptable to force that viewpoint out of the marketplace of ideas and to even have social or legal pressure applied to "fix" the disorder. The Jews and others had to first be reduced to some sort of "problem" that needed to be fixed before the holocaust could take place. Lets not go down that road again...

Grand Central Station - New York, NY (Dr. Andrew Newberg, MD, author, Why We Believe What We Believe) co- founder of the Center for Spirituality and the Mind

124. (Karta) You must be on a certain level of holiness to deserve the land of Israel - (Protestant Christians generally do not agree)

Neturei Karta - Monsey, NY - Rabbi Yisroel Weiss, Anti-Zionist

125. God rested on the 7th day so man has to - the Christian belief is that the sabbath day is a benefit for man, not an imposed ritual. It is like arguing for a 40 hour work week instead of a 60 hour work week so that there is time for study, fellowship and getting refreshed.

126. Keep the sabbath day holy: can’t use electricity, you can't drive – 39 types of specific actions that cannot be done on the Sabbath: start a fire, planting, plowing, tying a knot, untying a knot, building, destroying so as to build - (Protestant Christians generally do not agree.)
Mat 23:23-28 Says it is good that they want to follow the law in minute details, but in many cases they miss the main, internal points of the law in order to focus on these minor external points of the law. The fact is that no Jewish person can keep the whole law in every detail all their lives, which is why the temple sacrifices were required and, eventually, Jesus' "once and for all" sacrifice.

Institute for Science and Halacha (Rabbi Shmuel Strauss; Rabbi Levi Halperin, Director of the Institute)

127. (Strauss) If there is a loophole, it is because it is to be used in a situation of need - Not necessarily. A loophole may not have been intended, but rather showed up because of an overly rigid interpretation of what was intended by the original writer.

128. Why am I going to these lengths to please God who has taken away my legs to begin with? - P, God has greater goals in mind which require this short term pain and suffering. Just because God thinks there is a greater good to allowing this suffering does not mean that he likes the individual suffering.

129. How do we define crazy? If we define mental illness as anyone who hears a voice talking to them, then anyone who has heard the voice of God is crazy. - There has to be some objective way to verify, at least to the individual, that any "voices" in their head are accurate and from God.

130. Mother who killed her children after hearing the voice of God - She was not objectively verifying whether the voice in her head was good or not. A Christian would normally reject voices if they told them to do things that were against what was taught in the Bible.

131. Abraham killing his son - Abraham would have been doing evil if there were not some way to objectively verify that the voice was coming from God and that God was trustworthy. The Bible does not specifically say how Abraham knew the voice was from God, but there must have been some way to objectively verify that.

132. Jesus was nuts (for talking to God). Moses talked to a burning bush. That guy is a cuckoo. - That assumes that God wasn't actually talking to them, so these statements are assuming what they are trying to prove.

133. (Miranda) Jesus had children descendants to Puerto Rico. No hell, devil or sin. How do you get this Job? Two tall and strong angels. - O, Mat 24:23-25 The Bible says there will be false Christs.

Growing in Grace Ministry - Miami, FL (Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda)

134. Why did God choose you? He is the descendant of Jesus. Jesus had a wife and has descendants. I thought the second coming was the reincarnation of the Christ himself - O,

135. It seems that if God wanted to communicate something to the world, He’s all powerful, He would just talk to the whole world. It always seems that He picks out a prophet in private and tells them, "O.K., you’re the prophet." And you go tell the rest of the world, so we just sort of have to take it on faith, we just sort of have to believe you. - C, If God just told the whole world many people would follow him because of His power and not because they actually want to do what is right. Part of the test of this life is following God without seeing His full power.

136. (Miranda) If I discovered that I was Satan in person I would do a good job too, because I would be faithful to my calling -

137. I wasn't born skeptical. I was still making deals with God when I was 40. I said if you make this problem go away I will quit smoking, and I won't go back on it because I would be going back on a deal with God. I’m kind of glad I had God in my life. - If God doesn't exist, then that was silly even if the results were good. So, the main question is still whether God exists or not.

Sensi Coffee Shop / Seed Shop (Ferre van Beveren, Cannabis Ministry)

138. Maybe the Dutch are so tolerant that they are now tolerating intolerance. It is all religious fundamentalists. - Note that by using the term "religious fundamentalists" it also implicates Christians and Jews who have not demonstrated the same level of religious violence in this generation as a portion of the Muslims have.

139. Theo Van Gogh assassinated. His film was deeply offensive to Muslims. - If God exists, He has also given us the freedom to choose whether to follow him or not.

140. (Rapper) Anyone worrying about what I am saying should get involved in the debate. You are allowed to dissent, that is a right.

Quote: But is that a right in Islam, to dissent? Was that a right for Salmon Rushdie (and his novel Satanic verses)? Salmon Rushdie was there to provoke, insult, and he did it intentionally. But, should he die for that? It's easy for you to say things kind of in black and white. It's more complex than that. There is emotions and passions and philosophy involved. All you have got to say is that it is wrong for someone to have to suffer a death threat for writing a book. But, apparently, it is more complicated than that. But, you want that protection for yourself. I'm willing to discuss them in terms of facts and not fictions. When you disagree with me it is a fiction. You have the truth and I have the fiction. You don't see a fundamental hypocrisy for you asking for the right to dissent and somebody else getting a death threat. No, because my dissent is to stop the madness. (his song talking about terrorism being O.K.)

London subway/tube station (Aki Nawaz, a/k/a Propa-Gandhi, Rapper)

141. Dutch parliament member wants, Geert Wilders, to outlaw Islam in Holland. Islam is a violent religion, the Koran is a violent book and Mohamed was a violent prophet. Do you think Islam wants to take over the world? They don't even make a secret about it. - Protestant Christians would like the whole world to be Christian, too. But, most think the Bible says that will not happen. And, in fact the world will reject true Christianity. But, in any case, the Bible doesn't say anything about taking over the world using force like the Quran does.

Recently Geert Wilders was charged with "insulting Islam" in Holland, and if convicted may spend two years in jail for creating a movie called "Fitna". See it on Youtube in two parts, part 1 and part 2.

The Hague/Parliament (Geert Wilders, Dutch Parliament Member)

142. Gay Muslim bar - Turkmani has an HIV infection and suffers from severe mental problems, which three times per month has to be treated by several physicians.

Habibi Ana (Muslim Gay Bar/Jimmy Turkmani)

143. Is Islam a threat to Dutch values? No, Islam is preaching above all, peace and peace and peace. (Clips of Muslims preaching violence). - See, Obsession, the Movie

Part 1 of 2:

Part 2 of 2:

144. And yet it is involved with a lot of war and violence. Yea, it is just all politics. Nothing to do with religion.

145. There seems to be a lot of passages that say the infidel is not the equal of the believer, the infidel will die in hell, don't feel bad about hating the infidel. No? Boy I've got a lot of bad information. -

146. What did you think when you read those passages? I explain those passages within the time they emerged. -

147. I think they are just in a state of denial to an outsider. Islam conquered most of the known world in one century -

Al-Aqsa Mosque, Temple Mount, Dome of the Rock (Dr. Muhammad Hourani, PhD, Coordinator, Center for Peace and Reconciliation)

148. The Kaba, this stone came from paradise. It is black and there are no other black stones around. Does it make any difference that we now understand what a meteor is? -

149. Women in your culture seem not to be as equal to the man as they are in our culture. The women have a special corner -

150. Mohammad never went to temple mount, that is a historical fact. Muslims have to accept every word in this story. - (Agreed by Protestant Christians)

151. Why can’t the people of the different faiths get along. Is it not because it has been conquered many times? - O,

152. Giant naked man on the side of a hill, is there a religion that maintains it? Believing in mysticism is similar to kneeling and fasting -

Cerne Abbas (Giant of Cerne) – Dorset, England

153. Because of the power of religion to divert man to destructive courses, the world actually could come to an end. -

Verses quoted on screen:
Rev 1:3, 16:16 The time is near and the place is called Armageddon
Surah 3:151 Soon we will cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers
Surah 55.26 All that is on earth will perish
Rev 6:12 There was a great earthquake... The sun turned black... the whole moon turned blood red and the stars in the sky fell to earth
Rev 9:6 During those days men will seek death, but will not find it;they will long to die but death will elude them
Hadith Sahih Muslim 41:6903 The last hour will not come unless there is much bloodshed
Rev 22:21 The grace of the lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen.
Surah Al-Fatihah 1:2-4 Praise be to Allah... master of the day of judgment

154. If you believe the world is going to come to an end, perhaps any day now, does it not drain ones motivation to improve life on earth while we are here? -

Final Monologue:
"Plain fact is religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having key decisions made by religious people, by irrationalists, by those who would steer the ship of state, not by a compass, but, by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken. George Bush prayed a lot about Iraq, but he didn’t learn a lot about it.
Faith means making a virtue out of non-thinking. It’s nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith and enable and elevate it are intellectual slaveholders keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction.
Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don’t have all the answers to think that they do. Most people would think it’s wonderful if someone says, "I’m willing Lord. I’ll do whatever You want me to do." Except, that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions, and limitations and agendas.
And, anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die. I promise you you they don’t. How can I be so sure? Because I don’t know and you do not possess mental powers that I do not.
The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble. And that’s what man needs to be considering that human history is just a litany of getting sh.t dead wrong.
This is why rational people, anti-religionists must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And, those that consider themselves only moderately religious, really need to look in the mirror and realize the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price.
If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence and shear ignorance as religion is, you’d resign in protest..
To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife with the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy of their billions of their fellow travelers.
If the world does come to an end here, or wherever, or, it lives into the future decimated by the effects of a religion inspired nuclear terrorism, let’s remember what the real problem was. That we learned how to precipitate mass death before we got past the neurological disorder of wishing for it.

That’s it. Grow up or die."

Issues from quote:
155. Religion must die for mankind to live - Nazism and Communism had even greater potential to end life as we know it on the planet, and those are not religions. So, what we would need to say is "Any significant ideologies must die for mankind to live". But, Ironically, to do that would take a strong world government that severely managed the education and thinking of the world's population. Interestingly, that is in opposition to Mr. Maher's political beliefs.

156. People who believe religion should not be political leaders - The last monologue assumes that religion is the same as irrationality. Everyone would agree that political leaders need to be rational, but he has not made his case that all religious people are also irrational.

157. Faith makes a virtue of non-thinking - Actually, that is not true. All reason starts with assumptions. The difference with religious faith is that it starts with seemingly unverifiable assumptions that could only be revealed in the past through books or other means. Both science and religion have their foundational beliefs that are unverifiable.

158. Faith keeps mankind in bondage to fantasy and nonsense - Yes, for the faiths that are not true, that is the case. But, if any of the faiths are true, then they actually free people rather than put them in bondage.

159. Faith has spawned much lunacy and destruction - Agreed. Faith and reason are powerful tools. If they are used to find truth, then they are a great benefit. If they are used to support falsehoods, then they can cause great destruction.

160. Bad people lead the willing faithful to do bad things - But, normally, the leaders of the faithful think they are doing a good thing. They don't think of themselves as being bad.

161. No one knows what happens when they die because Bill Maher does not know - Yes, that is something that would have to be revealed by God, which is what the western religions have claimed that God has done.

162. The only appropriate attitude on the big questions is doubt because doubt is humble - Doubt isn't necessarily humble, it can also be prideful. If you have already decided that there is no way you can be convinced of something, then that is just as prideful as someone who is convinced of their position. The only appropriate attitude on the big questions is to find truth wherever that may be and commit to rational debate.

163. History is a litany of getting things wrong - Agreed. That is why America was founded based on religious freedom, so that we would not make the mistakes of Europe after the middle ages. So, we should learn from the past and all support the marketplace of ideas, not shutting down discussion of any religious beliefs because we disagree with them.

164. Anti-religionists must assert themselves - Yes, every viewpoint should enter the marketplace of ideas. But, atheists can be just as dogmatic and narrow minded as religionists can be.

165. Solace and comfort of religion comes at a terrible price - Solace and comfort in atheism under communism came at a terrible price as well. The key is to determine what is true and stick to that.

166. You should quit Religion because of it's bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence and shear ignorance, to do otherwise makes you an enabler - We should work hard to find truth wherever it is.

167. Let’s remember what the real problem was. That we learned how to precipitate mass death before we got past the neurological disorder of wishing for it. - Predicting Armageddon does not mean that people wish for Armageddon.

Contemplative Prayer Taught To My Kids

noreply@blogger.com (Lowell Ballard) — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 06:15:00 +0000

It seems that I can't keep up with writing blogs for all the various ways that the Christian Church is being undermined with Hindu mysticism. I was minding my own business and another blog topic was thrust in my path yesterday afternoon...

We have been attending a different church recently, but some of our kids were sick last week end so I let one of our teenagers go to the Sunday morning youth meeting at the church where we are still members. This is a good church that on paper at least is theologically sound and they have a strong heart for evangelism. So by most measures this is a very sound, evangelical church.

My son brought back the sermon notes on the left (from the youth class) which talked about the "30 day silence" challenge. Here is their definition of how to improve prayer: "Find a quite place. Pray that God will reveal Himself. Sit quietly. Clear your mind, don't try to think. There is no time limit. Cross your legs in the lotus position". Well, I added the part about crossing your legs, but you get my point. Put it in a Christian context and it is "prayer". Put it in a Hindu context and it is Hindu meditation. The Christian movement that this comes from is apparently called "Contemplative Prayer" or "Centering Prayer".

The core difference here is that in Christianity prayer is thinking or talking information, but in Hinduism it is usually clearing the mind. Also, meditation in the Christian context is thinking through information, whereas in the Hindu context meditation usually is again clearing the mind. Though Hinduism is very broad, sometimes including most every possible practice, Hinduism in its most common form and Christianity still have opposite concepts of how one reaches enlightenment. Hinduism, in its most common form, seeks for us to realize, usually through clearing our minds, that we are one with Brahman and to detach from pain and pleasure in order to be released from samsara. In contrast, Christianity seeks for us to realize, through reason and study, who God is and what he wants from us. And Christianity seeks for us, through self sacrifice, to reduce real hurting for ourselves and others and to enjoy true pleasure as God designed it. So, Christianity and Hinduism are very much opposites. They can only be seemingly merged when Christian terms are instead infused with Hindu meanings. See Christian Answers for the New Age for a more in depth analysis than I can do here.

To see what a pro-contemplative prayer web site says, see Contemplative Outreach. Note that they believe in the "Indwelling Trinity" rather than just the Holy Spirit and they do not seem to mention any concept of repentance. In short, they are promoting Hindu concepts in Christian terms. For a site that shows how contemplative prayer is making inroads into the Christian church, see the Lighthouse Trails Research Project.

If I wanted my kids to learn contemplative prayer, I would take them to the meditati on class which meets every Sunday at 11 AM at the local Theosophical society. They could perhaps even go to the Gong Bath and Singing Bowl classes (at the local Catholic Franciscan order) to help them meditate better. Or instead, maybe I will wait for the Evangelical Christian version: the Organ Bath (give it time, someone will come up with a "Christianized" alternative). I'm not casting dispersions on the Theosophical Society. They are acting in keeping with their beliefs (which I do not share). But Christians who, without thinking through the issues, teach children to "clear their mind" during "prayer" are not in keeping with the Christian teachings they say that they are committed to. And Hindus and Buddhists who try to infuse Christian terms with Hindu meanings (in a Christian context) either do not know the difference or they are being disingenuous.

Dr. Ron Carlson - Eastern Philosophy Expert - Video

Rebuttal of Psalm 62 verses Dr. Lutzer used to support contemplative prayer

John MacArthur vs Doug Pagett video debate on Christian Yoga

"My Gosh" - Acceptable Christian Profanity

noreply@blogger.com (Lowell Ballard) — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 04:19:00 +0000

I was trying to figure out the best word to describe when Christians use God's name without really thinking about how they may be disrespecting God, either through what is called "Minced Oath s" or using actually meaningful words. Some of the terms this could go by are:

Profanity - irreverent language, blasphemy
Cursing - to swear profanely
Cussing - cursing
Expletives - an interjectory word or expression, frequently profane
Interjections - the utterance of a word or phase expressing emotion
Swearing - to use profane language
Vulgarity - the quality of lacking taste and refinement
Blasphemy - impious utterance concerning God

So, the terms "Profanity" and "Blasphemy" would seem to apply equally well. Note that I am concerned here about people who actually believe the creator God does exist and that He therefore should be respected. If you do not believe that God exists then of course disrespecting his name should probably not be a problem for you (other than possibly to not offend others who do believe in a Creator).

Categories of Vulgarity
There seems to be four main categories of vulgarity commonly used:

1. words relating to excrement ("potty words")
2. words related to acts of procreation and related body parts
3. words grouping and insulting people by race or other characteristic
4. words disrespecting God and His name

Interestingly, most Christians do not have as much of a problem with the first three categories of vulgarity, or at least they understand that what they are saying is inappropriate. But many Christians have a significant problem using words that, knowingly or unknowingly, may disrespect God. So, in this post I am mainly concerned with the fourth category, words that potentially disrespect God.

Christians potential disrespect for God's name has lead to the society at large more strongly disrespecting God's name in many cases. From a Dec 2000 Poll from the BBC, almost half of the respondents did not even think that using God's or Jesus's name flippantly was considered profanity. And a full 80% thought it was either not profanity or mild profanity, less worse than racial or procreation related vulgarity. But if the Creator God actually exists then you would expect that using his name flippantly would be much worse than any other kind of profanity.

Categories of Disrespect
So, what words could be disrespectful to God and how are they categorized? I will list the initial terms/phrases and their derivative "minced words".

1. God's Name as an Interjection (pain, surprise, fear, anger)
"God": "Gosh", "Golly", “Goodness”, "Egads”, ”Man”, "Dear God"
“God Almighty”: “Gosh Almighty”, "Goodness Gracious"
"Jesus": "Jeez", “Gee”, “Jeepers”
“Christ”: “Criminy”, ”Crikey”
“Jesus Christ”: "Gee Whizz", “Jimminy Cricket”, “Jeepers Creepers”, “Judas Priest”, “Gee Willikers”, ”Jeezy Peezy”, “Jumpin Jehosaphat”
"Holy Christ": "Holy Cow", “Holy Cr.p”, “Cr.p”, "Holy Sh..", "Holy Smokes", “Sh..”, ”Shoot”
(related) "Holy Mother of God": "Holy Moly", "Holy Mackerel"

2. Christian Condemnations (pain, surprise, fear, anger)
“May God Damn you to Hell”: ”Darn you to Heck”,"Darn You", “Dang”, “Gosh Darn”, “Dad Gum”, “Dog Gone”, “Dag Nabit”, "Gall Dang it"
"Go to Hell": “Hell”, "Heck”, "Bloody Hell"
“Go to Damnation”: "Damnation", ”Tarnation”
“God rot it”: ”Drat”

3. Christian Expressions of Surprise
“Oh, My God,...?”: “My Word”, “Oh, My”, “My Goodness”, "O.M.G." (possibly from what Jesus said on the Cross, "My God, Why have you forsaken me?")
"Oh, My Lord,...?": "Oh, My Lands"
“Good God,...?”: “Good Grief”, “Good Golly”, “Good Gosh”, "Good Gravy", "Good Night"
“Good Lord,...?”
“Oh, My Heavens...?”: “Heavens to Betsy”, ”Heavens”
“What the Hell?”: “What the Blazes”, “What the Heck”, "What the...", "What in the world?", "What on earth?"

4. Asking to do something for God
”For God’s sake”: “for Gosh sake”, ”For Pete's sake (St. Peter)”
“For the Lords sake”: “for Lands sakes”
“For Christ’s sake”: “For crying out loud”
“For the love of God”: "For the love of Pete (St. Peter)"
“For the love of Christ”

5. Christian Oaths
“By God”: “By Golly”, “By George”, ”By Jove”, “By Gum”,

6. Other Minced Words
“God’s Hooks (nails on the cross)”: “Gadzooks”
"Raising Hell": "Raising Heck", "Raising Cain"
"Mother of God"
"God Bless You": "Bless You"
"God help us"
"Lord help us"
"God have mercy"
"Lord have mercy"

7. Other Trivializing Sayings
god-forsaken
god-send
sinfully delicious foods
Angel's Food (Sponge Cake), Devil's Food (Red Velvet Cake), Deviled Eggs (Stuffed Eggs)
Jokes with God, Jesus or Heaven in it

The Relevant Bible Passages
There are quite a few Bible passages that talk about how we should control what we say. Some seem to actually be talking about making sure we use sound doctrine and rational arguments (2 Tim 1:13, Tit 2:7-8). The most often quoted passage that is related does apply, but the primary application seems to be in keeping oaths and honestly following God:

Ex 20:7 7 "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.

The most conclusive passage concerning honoring God's name seems to be:

Luke 11:2 And He said to them, "When you pray, say: 'Father, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come.

Here are some other relevant passages:

Mat 12:30-37 If you continue to believe and say the Holy Spirit is evil, then you are actually the one who is evil and will be treated accordingly; 36 "But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. 37 For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." (This passage has to do with calling good evil, but mention "careless words").

Mat 5:21-22 21 "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' 22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." (This one seems to rule out Christian condemnations (category 5) when directed at other people).

Mat 5:33-37 33 "Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.' 34" But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING. 36 "Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 "But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil. (No oaths or vows invoking a higher power, rather just promise saying yes you will do something).

Eph 5:11-13 11 Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; 12 for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret. 13 But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light. (Some things should not be spoken about, and euphemisms may be appropriate).

Eph 5:1-5 1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; 2 and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma. 3 But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; 4 and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. (This likely refers to the other three types of vulgarity).

Mat 15:17-20 17 "Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated? 18 "But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. 19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. 20 "These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man."

James 5:11-12 11 We count those blessed who endured You have heard of the endurance of Job and have seen the outcome of the Lord's dealings, that the Lord is full of compassion and is merciful. 12 But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but your yes is to be yes, and your no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment.

James 3:1-12 1 Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment. 2 For we all stumble in many ways. If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body as well. 3 Now if we put the bits into the horses' mouths so that they will obey us, we direct their entire body as well. 4 Look at the ships also, though they are so great and are driven by strong winds, are still directed by a very small rudder wherever the inclination of the pilot desires. 5 So also the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it boasts of great things See how great a forest is set aflame by such a small fire! 6 And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by hell. 7 For every species of beasts and birds, of reptiles and creatures of the sea, is tamed and has been tamed by the human race. 8 But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; 10 from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way. 11 Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water? 12 Can a fig tree, my brethren, produce olives, or a vine produce figs? Nor can salt water produce fresh.

Prov 10:31-32 31 The mouth of the righteous flows with wisdom, But the perverted tongue will be cut out. 32 The lips of the righteous bring forth what is acceptable, But the mouth of the wicked what is perverted.

Col 3:8 8 But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.

Eph 4:29-32 29 Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear. 30 Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. 32 Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.

Psalm 141:3-4 3 Set a guard, O LORD, over my mouth; Keep watch over the door of my lips.
4 Do not incline my heart to any evil thing, To practice deeds of wickedness With men who do iniquity; And do not let me eat of their delicacies.

Mal 1:6-8 6 " 'A son honors his father, and a servant his master Then if I am a father, where is My honor? And if I am a master, where is My respect?' says the LORD of hosts to you, O priests who despise My name. But you say, 'How have we despised Your name?' 7 "You are presenting defiled food upon My altar But you say, 'How have we defiled You?' In that you say, 'The table of the LORD is to be despised.' 8" But when you present the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? And when you present the lame and sick, is it not evil? Why not offer it to your governor? Would he be pleased with you? Or would he receive you kindly?" says the LORD of hosts.

Isaiah 57:15 15 For thus says the high and exalted One Who lives forever, whose name is Holy, I dwell on a high and holy place, And also with the contrite and lowly of spirit In order to revive the spirit of the lowly And to revive the heart of the contrite. (His name is Holy)

Also, note that the Jews have historically had a high reverence for Gods name.

How Should We Then Speak?
The Bible passages do seem to indicate that there is a significant problem here. So, what is the solution? Here are my suggestions:

1. Only say words that have meaning, that you understand and mean what you say
2. For the other three groups of vulgarity, use euphemisms for procreation and excrement words, and be respectful of all groups of people.
3. Practice articulating your thoughts well. Consider taking a speech or debate class.
4. Find some other way to increase your self respect (accomplish something you feel is valuable).
5. Learn a new vocabulary for strong emotion. Find new words to use in each of these categories:

5.1 Surprise
5.2 Pain
5.3 Fear
5.4 Anger
5.5 Emphasis
5.6 Demonstrate authority
5.7 Strong rebuke
5.8 Strongly promise
5.9 Strongly ask

And above all, if you have used those phrases regularly in the past, don't forget to apologize to God for not treating his name with respect. I'm sure, at least in American society, God would be happy to hear people finally turning and giving him the respect that is due Him.

Christian Body Modification

noreply@blogger.com (Lowell Ballard) — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:26:00 +0000

Please note as your read this that I have friends and family who have tattoos and/or body piercings, so this isn't a judgment about their worth as individuals. But we shouldn't have to accept something as a being right just because others that we care for and respect believe it to be acceptable. We must not give up the ability to choose our beliefs on our own from first principles.

Also, please be aware that the question of tattoos and body piercings may really come down to a question about how we should interpret and interact with laws/rules such as the clear prohibition on tattoos in Leviticus (discussed in more detail below). So, ultimately you may want to see my entry on how most people misunderstand Paul's views on law and the old testament. See my post called "U nderstanding Paul from Speed Limits".

My oldest son is a freshman at a Christian college this year. His martial arts instructor that we have gone to for years. and who we respect, has a large cross tattooed on his back. So my son has jokingly said in the past that he would like to get a tattoo knowing that we would disapprove. In an IM the night before last he said that he had talked with one of his instructors and that they said that it is O.K. for Christians to get tattoos and that the Bible doesn't say anything bad about body modification.

I told him that he is an adult now and out of the house, so we would not give him any problems if he did decide to get a tattoo. But I asked him to wait and see this blog post before he makes his decision. So, Noah, here it is...

Tattoos are just one form of the broader topic of "body modification" or "body ar t", which includes body piercing. Take a look at the list of body modifications in the link above. Can you honestly say that some tattoos and piercing are O.K. but that the other listed forms of body modifications are not acceptable? Do you really have a defensible position as to why some body modifications are O.K. and others aren't?

One problem most people have with arguing against body modifications is that they try to accept some modifications as O.K. and then exclude others as not O.K. without a clear distinction. So, if a mother pierces her ears then on what basis, other than social preference, does she have to argue against her daughter piercing other parts of her body? Or if you let your kids put on stickers, draw on themselves or use temporary tattoos, how much different is a permanent tattoo? Also, we wear pictures and word on our clothing, so why not wear pictures and words directly on our skin?

The Bible does list at least two acceptable forms of body modification: Circumcision of a Jewish person whose life is being committed to God and the piercing of the ear of someone who volunteers to freely work as a slave for life.

Interestingly, both are meant to signify submission and slavery to a master for the rest of their lifetime, with a body modification that will last for the rest of their lifetime. And both were performed at significant life changes: eight days after birth and after deciding to stay a slave for the rest of your life. So, while these are an acceptable body modification, they only justify modifications that would symbolize that you are committed to be a slave for life. Also, circumcision is totally unseen (hopefully) and having one pierced ear is a minimal

modification, and neither adds a symbol or picture to the body.

Rebecca was given nose rings by Abraham's chief servant, but she was still in a polytheistic culture (Genesis 24). His goal was to convince here to come back and marry Isaac, so his gifts may say more about how the polytheistic culture valued nose rings than how the future Jewish culture would value nose rings.

When Jacob's family wanted to set themselves apart to the Lord, earrings are specifically mentioned as items that they put off (Gen 35:2-4).

It was the custom of Ishmaelite men to wear gold earrings (Judges 8:24), but that implies that the Israelite men did not wear gold earrings.

The Israelites melted their earrings and jewelry after leaving Egypt (Ex 35:21-23) to melt down to make items for the temple (and, of course, earlier for making the golden calf, Ex 32:1-4), so it would likely have been fashionable for Israelite women in the early years of Israel to not wear gold jewelry.

The reference in Revelations 19:11-16 to what appears to be writing on the body is obviously figurative:

¹¹And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. ¹²His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. ¹³He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. ¹⁴And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. ¹⁵From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. ¹⁶And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS."

- If this is a reference to a literal tattoo on Jesus, then he also has a literal sword in his mouth
- If he actually had a tattoo of his name on his body, how could he keep others from knowing that name?
- If the name was on his robe which is clothing, the reference to his thigh may be to clothing over his thigh

Trimming hair is not actually a "body" modification, unless possibly you are trying to make some artwork or something symbolic out of shaving parts of your hair. But in any case, hair modification doesn't have the permanency that tattoos or piercings can have.

In Lev 19:27-32:

²⁷' You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard. ²⁸'You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD. ²⁹'Do not profane your daughter by making her a harlot, so that the land will not fall to harlotry and the land become full of lewdness. ³⁰'You shall keep My sabbaths and revere My sanctuary; I am the LORD. ³¹'Do not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God. ³²'You shall rise up before the grayheaded and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the LORD.

Even if you can reason away the clear statement not to have tattoos as being only applied to that particular culture, you have to ask yourself whether the underlying concept still applies today or not. So, look at the surrounding prohibitions and requirements and ask yourself, are tattoos today associated with the good things listed or the prohibited things?

harlotry - a tattoo in a given location in slang is called by some a "tramp stamp", so some tattoos can be associated with the general concept of "harlotry"
reverence - are tattoos associated with reverence? The statistics below say that tattoos are still associated in most peoples mind with rebellion rather than reverence
honor the aged - most older family members would likely counsel against getting a tattoo, so tattoos are associated with a disregard of the recommendations of most of our grandparents

So, even today, tattoos are associated with the negative aspects of the surrounding prohibitions and therefore would seem to still apply to our culture in a similar fashion to how it applied to the culture of the day when the prohibition was written.

Tattooing is painting over an existing work of art

Most people getting tattoos assume the body is a blank pallet that they will be putting art on. But actually, the body in totality is already an amazing work of art. Think about the attributes of a work of art: symmetry, blending of shades without abrupt boundaries, both form and functionality, communicates through scenery and not symbols etc.. Before painting over an existing work of art, we must make sure that the new artwork is an improvement over the old.

To do that, the tattoos should maintain the symmetry (the same artwork on both sides of the body), blend into the colors of the body, only use earth tones, not include symbols/words, etc..

Look at things you would consider God's works of art. The human form, a sunset, a mountain, etc.. Compare that type of art to the tattoo you are considering getting. Basically, when you get a tattoo you are saying that your choice of design is better than God's design for your body.

Tattooing is still associated with non-Christian behavior

While in an idealistic world, people would judge others by their character and not by things such as tattoos, in the real world people only have a short time and little information to decide what someone's character actually is. So, all of us use fallacious reasoning daily to make quick decisions where we don't have the time or information necessary to make logically valid decisions. So, if a Christian gets a tattoo, they need to understand that by necessity the tattoo will be one point of information that people will use to make their initial judgement about their character.

History of tattoos around the world

Insofar as the initial cultural (or subcultural) use of tattoos predates the widespread popularity of tattoos in the general population, tattoos are still somewhat associated with rebellion and anti-Christian behavior.

Over half of those without a tattoo (54%) do believe that someone with one is more rebellious, almost the same as those who thought this in 2003 (57%).

And over one-third (36%) of those with a tattoo say having it makes them feel more rebellious

Also, one-third of those without a tattoo (32%) say people with tattoos are more likely to do something most people would consider deviant

Those with a tattoo may think it makes them look attractive, but actually those people without a tattoo do not agree, as just under half (47%) say people with tattoos are less attractive (up from 42% who felt this way in 2003) and two in five (39%) of those without one say people with a tattoo are less sexy. And about one-quarter of those without tattoos say those with tattoos are less intelligent (27%) and less healthy (25%).

Listen to some people who have gotten tattoos then regretted it for the rest of their lives:

20% Too young when I got the tattoo
19% Permanent (marked for life)
18% Don’t like it
16% They fade over time
12% Location (too hard to hide)
11% Poor choice/picked the wrong tattoo
10% Was stupid/dumb thing to do
9% Poorly done/doesn’t look professional
7% Cost too much to remove
7% Ugly/doesn’t look good
3% Personality changes/doesn’t fit my present lifestyle
5% Other

Consider the psychology and reason that you are considering getting a tattoo

Any action we take is designed to fulfill a need or desire. For what reason are you considering getting a tattoo. Here are some likely options:

1. To look like someone you respect

2. To make yourself stand out from the crowd

3. To make your body look better

4. To show bravery, having done something that others fear doing

5. To show other that you are willing to break rules/traditions

6. To show that you make decisions that are different than your parents

7. To show that you are a man/women and no longer a boy/girl

For boys, that is the role that the beard is supposed to play
8. To attract a mate

9. To market to others that you are a Christian (if you use a Christian symbol)

10. To scare others away from causing you problems

11. To improve a poor self image

12. To shock people

Do you want the tattoo somewhere where people will usually not see it (private areas, stomach, back, etc..), where people will see it sometimes (upper arm/shoulder, neck line, etc..), or where they will always see it (face, forearms, etc..)?

A study of "at-risk" (as defined by school absenteeism and truancy) adolescent girls showed a positive correlation between body-modification and negative feelings towards their body and self-esteem; however, it also illustrated a strong motive of body-modification as the "search for self and attempts to attain mastery and control over the body in an age of increasing alienation."

How Tattoos Make People Feel
When presented with eight different personal characteristics, majorities say that compared to not having a tattoo, having one makes them feel no different. This is especially true when attributed to being healthy, athletic or intelligent, where more than nine in ten with tattoos say it makes no difference in how they feel. Over one-third (36%) of those with a tattoo, however, saying having it makes them feel more rebellious, up from 29 percent who felt this way in 2003, and three in ten (31%) say the tattoo makes then feel sexy. One in five (19%) each say having the tattoo makes them feel attractive and strong.

Historically, societies that became Christian stopped using tattoos

Historically, a decline in traditional tribal tattooing in Europe occurred with the spread of Christianity. However, some Christian groups, such as the Knights of St. John of Malta, sported tattoos to show their allegiance. A decline often occurred in other cultures after European efforts to convert aboriginal and indigenous people to Western religious and cultural practices which held tattooing to be a "pagan" or "heathen" activity. Within some traditional indigenous cultures, tattooing takes place within the context of a rite of passage between adolescence and adulthood.

You don't own your body... it is owned by God.

Also, your future spouse will have ownership of your body as well, so you should wait and get the approval of your future spouse. If you can say that you will limit your potential future wife to those people who approve of their husband having a tattoo, then fine. But if you may marry someone who may disapprove of your tattoo, then out of concern and love for your future spouse, you should wait to make sure they approve before getting a tattoo.

Jews and Muslims generally agree that God does not approve of tattoos.

Tattooing and piercing is not natural. No animals tattoo or pierce themselves.

Using Christian tattoos as a substitute for doing truly hard things to follow God

Christians who get a Christian symbol tattooed on themselves may think they are honoring God by the tattoo. But many times Christians avoid the hard work and risk of doing the hard things for God then substitute something quick and easy so they can satisfy their conscience and feel that they have done something good.

By getting a Christian symbol as a tattoo you may think that you are doing more than other Christians would be willing to do. When you think about your self image, you may say to yourself "I am a strong Christian because I have a Christian tattoo, that is proof." But getting a tattoo doesn't prove you a strong Christian. Figuring out what God probably wants and doing that, regardless of the consequences, is what will give you proof of being a strong Christian.

Tattooing and piercing can cause some medical problems

See the FDA publication Think Before You Ink: Are Tattoos Safe?

Infections that could be transmitted via the use of unsterilized tattoo equipment or contaminated ink include surface infections of the skin, herpes simplex virus, tetanus, staph, fungal infections, some forms of hepatitis, tuberculosis[1 4] and HIV.

People with tattoos are nine times more likely to be infected with hepatitis C, according to a study by Robert Haley, MD, chief of epidemiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. Hepatitis C is spread by infected blood and infected needles, which is the virus' connection with tattooing.

Allergic reactions to tattoo pigments are uncommon except for certain brands of red and green. People who are sensitive or allergic to certain metals may react to pigments in the skin with swelling and/or itching, and/or oozing of clear fluid called serum. Such reactions are quite rare, however, and some artists will recommend performing a test patch.

After initial injection, pigment is dispersed throughout a homogenized damaged layer down through the epidermis and upper dermis, in both of which the presence of foreign material activates the immune system's phagocytes to engulf the pigment particles. As healing proceeds, the damaged epidermis flakes away (eliminating surface pigment) while deeper in the skin granulation tissue forms, which is later converted to connective tissue by collagen growth.

...may have complications, such as allergies to the pigments, formation of scars, granulomas and keloids, skin cracking, peeling, blistering and local infection. The use of unsterilized tattooing instruments may infect the patient with serious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis.

When getting a tattoo, the equipment rapidly and repeatedly drives the needles in and out of the skin, usually 80 to 150 times a second.

Tattoos are permanent, the message you want to convey may not be

Tattoos will fade over time

In the long term (over decades) the pigment tends to migrate deeper into the dermis, accounting for the degraded detail of old tattoos. Sixteen percent of people regret their tattoo because they fade over time.

You may encourage others to go farther

When you are a grandfather, as you sure you will want to be explaining your tattoo to your grandchildren? And what if you have kids that want tattoos for perhaps less noble reasons than you do now? What if they want more severe body modifications? They will argue the you thought modifying your body was O.K. for your reasons, so their modifications should be O.K. too. Also, tattooing can encourage those who cut themselves. What kind of example are you being to those people who may go farther in this direction than you did?

Will there be tattoos in the New Jerusalem?

Those Christians living when Christ returns will have their bodies transformed. Do you think when you go into the New Jerusalem that your new heavenly body will still have the tattoo or piercings? If not, why would God erase an improvement to your body? If you think that you will not keep your modifications in the New Jerusalem then do you really think God prefers you to have the body modifications in the first place?

The person getting the tattoo has to justify why this is good, since the default is not to have a tattoo.

The same justification for getting a tattoo can be used for the second one, third one, etc.. The increase in self esteem only lasts for awhile, then you may want to get more body modifications over time.

This is an expenditure of money that can best be used elsewhere. Give the money instead to help fund surgeries for kids with disfigured faces rather than adding art to your body. Even if you think this is an improvement to your body, is improving your body really the best use of your time and money? Where is your focus and desire? Where your treasure is, there is where you heart is (Matthew 6:19-21).

Why not get a henna temporary tattoo first to try it out? It is interesting that most people who get a tattoo don't try temporary tattoos first. What other permanent change do people make without trying it out for awhile first?

Are you sure you understand all the meanings associated with your design? Some people interpret designs differently, so you may be projecting an unintended meaning.

The Wheaton College Yoga Class

noreply@blogger.com (Lowell Ballard) — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 03:57:00 +0000

The Initial Encounter
My wife and I are overweight, so we were thinking that this new school year we would take an aerobics class to Christian music at the Christian college where I work. So, on Monday evening my wife went to the gym to get more information on the class we wanted to join. It turns out that the class we were interested in is actually a Hatha yoga class.

The class is called "Renew" on the college web site and is described as "invigorating stretch and light weight work while incorporating Scriptural meditation for a holistic workout experience". But on the flyer at the gym (at the left) it is called a yoga class (at the same time and location). The student at the desk confirmed this was a yoga class and made the case that the yoga class was in a Christian context and it was just exercise, so there was nothing to be concerned about.

As far as calling the class "yoga" on the flyer, I applaud the person who decided to call the class what it is. Surely they were aware of the controversy that this kind of class could cause at an institution such as Wheaton and it takes a certain courage to be honest in the face of potential controversy (something I am quite aware of in writing open and honest articles for this blog). It would be easy to avoid this conversation by changing the name of the class and saying it isn't yoga but rather something else instead (something that I hope does not happen in response to this article). So, I applaud the honesty since that is necessary before a discussion like this can take place.

This is the first time that I have been personally confronted with a Christian organization that I highly respect offering yoga classes, so I am in the process of researching yoga and it's relation to Christianity. And I am actually glad that this discussion is raised here, since I have been repeatedly impressed by the wisdom and humbleness of the faculty and staff of Wheaton College, and I am confident in the college's ability to come to a well reasoned and biblical position on this issue. So, I checked out three Yoga videos and ordered the best selling yoga book as listed on Amazon.com (Light on Yoga) as well as the recent Articles on Yoga and Christia nity from the Christian Research Journal. I also found a Christianity Today article supporting Yoga use by Christians (interestingly Christianity Today is located in Wheaton next to the Aldi grocery store where I shop, so I see their building every time I go to the grocery store). But most importantly, I looked at the Bible verses that seem to have the most to say about this kind of question. I'll update the blog as I finish my research, but I think my conclusion is becoming clear, so I can't help but share what I have found so far.

Agreement with the Pro-Yoga Argument
First, let me agree with the basis of the common pro-yoga arguments. I do agree that yoga moves in and of themselves are harmless and likely useful, much as some eastern martial arts moves seem to be the best moves available, even if they might have had a mystical link in their origin. After all, there are up to 908 yoga moves in some references, so "Hatha yoga" can pretty much cover almost any exercising and stretching you could possibly do. But I have two objections to yoga and to understand the objections better, first you need a little background about yoga.

What are the Hindu Beliefs about Yoga
Of the six original schools of Hinduism, only two are active today, Vedanta and Yoga. Yoga is actually a general term including various forms, all with the goal of stilling the mind and becoming unified with "Brahman". But the term "Yoga" as used today in the most western English speaking countries actual refers specifically to "Hatha yoga":

From looking at Wikipedia, here is a rough breakdown of the classification of Hindu practice:
1. Vedanta, opposing Vedic ritualism in favor of mysticism and following Hindu gods.
1.1 Vaishnavism - Followers of Vishnu
1.2 Shaivism - Followers of Shiva
1.3 Shaktism - Followers of Shakti, thought to be Brahman
1.4 Smartism - Followers of derivations of the vedic texts
2. Yoga, a school emphasizing meditation closely based on Sankhya
2.1 Raja Yoga - more focused on the mind and meditation
2.1.1 Yama - Code of conduct - self-restraint
2.1.2 Ni yama - religious observances - commitments to practice, such as study and devotion
2.1.3 Asana - integration of mind and body through physical activity
2.1.4 Pranayama - regulation of breath leading to integration of mind and body
2.1.5 Pratyahara - abstraction of the senses, withdrawal of the senses of perception from their objects
2.1.6 Dharana - concentration, one-pointedness of mind
2.1.7 Dhyana - meditation (quiet activity that leads to samadhi)
2.1.8 Samadhi - the quiet state of blissful awareness, superconscious state
2.2 Raja Yoga - from Bhagavad Gita
2.2.1 Karma yoga: The yoga of right action
2.2.2 Bhakti yoga: The yoga of love and devotion
2.2.3 Jnana yoga: The yoga of knowledge and wisdom
2.3 Hatha Yoga - focuses first on the body in order to ultimately bring the mind into union with Brahman, traditionally came from Lord Shiva, Raja Yoga categories are sometimes listed under Hatha yoga as well
2.3.1 Asanas - postures (84 traditional with 10 listed as most important; 9 08 or more variations have been cataloged), naturally brought out by kundalini during meditation
2.3.2 Mudras - poses, symbolic gestures
2.3.3 Pranayamas - controlled breathing
2.3.4 Meditation - turning attention to a single point of reference
2.3.5 Moral disciplines
2.3.6 Shat kriyas - purification procedures
2.3.7 Nadis - channels that carry life energy (prana) that connect at special points called chakras
2.3.8 Chakras - seven energy centers along spine
2.3.9 Kundalini - unconscious, instinctive force; sleeping serpent coiled at the base of the spine; the goal of yoga is to awaken kundalini

To best understand yoga, we should go to the original sources. The oldest references to yoga in general are in the vedas. A discussion of yoga in general is found in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. More commonly used references are in the Bhagavad Gita. Here is what the Bhagavad Gita says about yoga (yoga in general, not specifically Hatha yoga).

Those references are for yoga in general. Here are three original references specifically discussing Hatha Yoga:
Hatha Yoga Pradipika
Gheranda Samhita
Shiva Samhita

A key question we need to answer is what parts of Hatha yoga are compatible with Christianity and what parts should we be aware of as indicative of a Hindu belief system. When your yoga class gets off the topic of stretching and exercise and starts talking about the following, then you know you are going beyond exercise and entering into Hindu philosophy and belief: becoming closer to God, controlled breathing, focusing on one item of thought, energy flows in the body, energy centers, or awakening an instinctive force.

Comparing "Christian Yoga" with Hindu Yoga
Now that we have a better understanding of the Hindu concept of yoga, lets compare that to what Christians believe about Hatha yoga. From the Christianity Today article mentioned previously:

"...yoga has never had any negative influence on me, and it doesn't trigger any harmful religious impulses. Just the opposite is true. The three hours a week I spend doing yoga not only make me more flexible, tone my muscles, and relax me. They also draw me closer to Christ. They are my bodily-kinetic prayer."

So, this article isn't arguing that Christianized Yoga is religion neutral. Rather it is arguing that the meditation inherent in yoga can be used to "draw people closer to Christ" and is a form of "prayer" and that yoga will trigger helpful "religious impulses".

"My natural response to any deep-breathing exercises is an emotionally felt love of God. Soon after I take off my socks and do a couple of poses, spontaneous prayers soar to Christ. Give me five minutes of yoga, and my mind immediately goes to the metaphor of God's spirit being as omnipresent and as necessary as the air."

Why would stretching make someone think of God as omnipresent and like air? Could it be that, in addition to stretching, the Christian doing yoga is also thinking in a pantheistic mindset, but then converting that mindset into Christian terms?

"In the same way that measured breathing is essential to yoga, the Spirit—which in both biblical Greek and Hebrew also means breath—is indispensable to my soul. Breathe in. Breathe out. Holy Spirit in. Anything that's not from God out. Come Holy Spirit. Renew my mind. In. Out. Thank. You. As I twist my body into places it hadn't been before, I can't help but pray this. Why fix what ain't broke?"

If yoga is only stretching and exercise, why is measured breathing essential? And why does the practitioner relate breathing to "renewing their mind". Again the concept of God the Holy Spirit seems to be more pantheistic here, obtained by exercise and breathing rather than study and submission to what God wants you to do. And it is interesting to note the parallel between the fact that the practitioner "can't help but pray" and the Hindu concept of instinctual Kundalini.

Note that Biblically we become "closer to Christ" by learning what He taught and submitting to his example, not exercising and relaxing. We do prayer by saying intelligent sentences to God, not by relaxing our mind during exercise and stretching.

"The closest any of my gym's several yoga teachers get to religious utterances is by bowing and saying "Namaste" at the end each class, which can be translated as "The soul in me honors the soul in you" or "The image of God in me honors the image of God in you." I like it! It just reminds me that, as C. S. Lewis put it, there are no mere mortals."

Yes, that is one selective meaning for Namaste. Other meanings are definitely pantheistic. And if that is the case why not say what you mean rather than saying a foreign word with multiple meanings, including meanings that are in opposition to Christian belief. One of the key methods that cults use to win converts and support from Christianity is to use the same words as Christians do but then pour different meanings into them.

By the articles own description there does seem to be some Hindu concepts creeping into the "Christianized" version of yoga. Compare the previous list of Hindu concepts in yoga to the "Christianized" concepts listed above: draws closer to God, controlled breathing is essential, extra focusing on breathing, and spontaneous prayer. The only Hindu concepts that seem to be missing are the energy channels and energy centers, which clearly have to be rejected on anatomical grounds (or spiritualized). So, there does seem to be significant inclusion of Hindu concepts into "Christian" yoga exercises.

Also, note that from the results of a 2003 Harris Poll, 80% of Americans believe in the resurrection of Jesus, but 21% of those self proclaimed Christians also said they believe in Reincarnation. So, the mixing of Hindu and Christian concepts in our society is happening at a significant rate that should not be ignored. If you aren't convinced of that, see Christian Yoga Magazine.

But even if, in a given situation, the instructor was meticulous to insure that there was no mixing of Christian and Hindu concepts, I still would have two objections to "Christianized yoga".

One Pragmatic Objection
My first objection is a practical one. I have all of my boys, who are home schooled, take martial arts. But we specifically looked for a martial arts school that chooses the best m oves from all the various martial arts methods available. So, what they do there is based on what seems to actually work the best in a street fight rather than just following one ancient eastern school of martial arts thought and tradition.

So, I would argue that the best Christian approach to Yoga would be to choose a comprehensive set of moves systematically and medically, rather than just following ancient Hindu traditional moves. Some of the moves might be the same, but we would be doing them based on what is best for our body rather than doing something out of tradition that might not be the best possible option (some of the advanced yoga moves do not seem to increase health). It is interesting to me to consider that many people who might like the concept of Christian yoga also are likely against following many Christian rituals, such as from the Catholic tradition. Yet they follow yoga traditions without the same concern because they are getting a health benefit from the ritual.

One Biblical Objection
My second, and more important, objection comes from the Bible. The closest correlation in the Bible I can find seems to be the question of whether Christians should eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols (and the pro-yoga article listed above seems to agree with that assessment). It is interesting that supporters of Christian yoga use this passage to support the use of yoga, when in actuality Paul is arguing against Christians eating meat sacrificed to idols (the parallel that relates to doing yoga). Again, it is amazing to me how people can read a passage and take part of the message and omit the conclusion and the reason for the whole passage.

Look and decide for yourself:

Acts 15:19-20,28-31 - Abstaining from meat sacrificed to idols was considered a minimal, basic requirement for all Christians.

1 Cor 8 & 10 - The core passages on the topic. It seems like some in the Corinthian church were arguing that they should be allowed to eat meat sacrificed to idols, since idols are not real. Paul agrees that idols are not real, but argues that they should still not eat meat sacrificed to idols unless they do so unknowingly (and don't ask if you don't know).

Acts 21:25 - Chronologically after the first letter written to the Corinthians. This is a quick mention, and reconfirmation, of the disciples decision that gentile Christians should at least abstain from meat sacrificed to idols

Rev 2:14-16 - To the church in Pergamum: "14 But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols..." "16 Therefore repent; or else I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of My mouth".

Look at the specifics of the response from Paul on the subject in Corinthians:

8:1-2,7 - Knowledge that eating meat sacrificed to idols is O.K. makes people decide this issue arrogantly, when they should decide this issue based on love (so they shouldn't do it).
8:4-8 - We know idols are nothing, so eating meat sacrificed to idols in theory is O.K.
8:8-13 - Eating meat sacrificed to idols can be a stumbling block for others, so do not do it
10:12-14 - Turning to idolatry is a real temptation even if you think you are a strong Christian, therefore flee idolatry
10:16-20 - Just as Christians sharing communion links us together, eating meat sacrificed to idols causes us to share in the idolatry
10:22 - Eating meat sacrificed to idols provokes God to jealousy
10:23 - All things are lawful, but not all things edify
10:24-30 - If you don't know whether something has been sacrificed to idols, don't worry about it
10:32 - Eating meat sacrificed to idols would be an offense to the disciples
10:32-33 - Don't eat things sacrificed to idols because it may cause your brother to stumble

So, the short answer from the Bible: if you are a Christian, even if it is considered technically O.K., still don't eat meat sacrificed to idols...

The short answer from the Christianity Today article was "In other words, yoga is like the meat that had been offered to idols. Can I put it on my sandwich?" She then quotes some of the verses listed above and says: "As for me, put that meat on my sandwich! Yummy! Thank you, Jesus!"

Do you see any discrepancy there???

If the Bible had a passage on Yoga, what would it say?
In case you aren't getting the full view of what Paul is trying to say, let me replace the concept of meat sacrificed to idols with the concept of Yoga and Hinduism in the relevant passages (NASB translation). Note that this is not a direct parallel and I would argue that doing yoga is actually more concerning than eating meat sacrificed to idols. Hinduism is very broad and includes pantheism (everything is God, including you) as well as polytheist (many gods). Hatha Yoga is considered one method to help you realize your own godhood, so in a sense it is a physical ritual/sacrifice to yourself as God. So, eating meat sacrificed to idols is eating the leftovers of a ritual/sacrifice, but doing yoga is actually participating in the ritual/sacrifice but then assigning it a different meaning.

With that caveat in mind, please take a look at how the passages on eating meat sacrificed to idols would likely look if it were talking about yoga (italics denote places changed to refer to yoga and hinduism):

Here is some background on the first letter to the Corinthians. The first letter to the Corinthians seems to include responses to a few questions/issues that were raised to Paul. So, Paul probably got a letter from the Corinthians saying that they know idols are nothing, therefore they should be free to eat the meat sacrificed to idols (with yoga being the parallel). Therefore Paul's agreement with the apostles was a mistake and should not be binding on them. This issue ran the risk of separating the gentile Christians from the Jewish Christians. It could have become the first great split in the church, but notice how skillfully Paul handles the question.

Chapter 8:
1 Now concerning yoga, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies.
2 If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know;
3 but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.
4 Therefore concerning the practice of yoga, we know that there is no such thing as Hindu gods in the world, and that there is no god but one.
5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,
6 yet for us there is but one god, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
7 However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to Hindu gods until now, practice yoga as if it were honoring Hindu gods; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8 But exercise and stretching will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not stretch, nor the better if we do stretch.
9 But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.
10 For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, doing yoga in a yoga class, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to do yoga?
11 For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died.
12 And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.
13 Therefore, if exercise causes my brother to stumble, I will never do stretches again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.

Chapter 10:
19 What do I mean then? That yoga is anything, or that Hindu gods are anything?
20 No, but I say that the way Hindus do yoga, they offer to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons.
21 You cannot exercise in a Christian way and exercise for demons; you cannot stretch in a Christian way and stretch for demons.
22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than He, are we?
23 All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable All things are lawful, but not all things edify.
24 Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor.
25 Exercise in any way that is done in the normal gym class without asking questions for conscience' sake;
26 FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD'S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS.
27 If a Hindu invites you to exercise with them in a general exercise class, exercise in any way that is set before you without asking questions for conscience' sake.
28 But if anyone says to you, "That move is a Hatha yoga move," do not do those exercises, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience' sake;
29 I mean not your own conscience, but the other man's; for why is my freedom judged by another's conscience?
30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?
31 Whether, then, you exercise or stretch or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
32 Give no offense either to Jews or to Hindus or to the church of God;
33 just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved.

Note that this is the same tact that Paul takes with the Corinthians concerning "speaking in tongues" later in the book. Basically his response is that, even if it is technically O.K. it is best to do something else that helps others instead.

Read the passage for yourself and decide if this is a valid parallel between a Christians eating meat sacrificed to idols and Christians doing Hatha yoga. If so, then the answer is clear. For which ever reason you choose, whether you think this does in fact link you to Hinduism or whether you think it is only exercise, the answer is still the same. Paul says if you are truly a Christian and know you are doing Hatha yoga then do not do it... If you can make the case that I am misapplying what Paul wrote, that is one thing. But if you are a Christian and you agree the parallel is valid then you have only one option available to you.

Mahariji's "Knowledge" and it's relation to Yoga
Last year, after receiving an email from Elan Vital, I went through two of their six keys towards "knowledge". The six keys are the introductory sets of videos working towards learning Mahariji's "Knowledge". "Knowledge" seems to actually be four meditation techniques that are somewhat related to Hatha Yoga. Listening to Prem Rawat (Mahariji) is somewhat like listening to some of the Christian and management training tapes I have been through, but it is very repetitive and takes many hours of watching videos to get through all six keys in order to get to the "Knowledge" level. To be persistent enough to get though all six keys with all the repetitiveness pretty much assures someone getting to the Knowledge level must idolize Mahariji (in this case, literally). "The peace is inside of you"... At least in the first two levels, that must have been said at least many dozens of times and he discussed breathing a fair amount. I mention this in this post because I could make a case that most of what Mahariji says is actually quite helpful if you assume you are looking inside to the Holy Spirit, and that his "Knowledge" is just another form of Hatha yoga which is also acceptable to Christians. Christians could learn from the parts of Mahariji's yoga ("knowledge") to help them find peace and relax and then translate the pantheistic concepts into Christian terms. If I accepted the pro-yoga arguments then it seems like that might be acceptable for Christians. Listen to what a former Hindu, now a Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias whose yearly conference meets at Wheaton College, says about Yoga.

Local Yoga Alternatives in the Wheaton Area
If you live in the Wheaton, Illinois area and want to take a yoga class, then I would suggest going to the source and taking either the class at the Chicago Hindu Temple or the Theosophical Society in Wheaton. I am not saying that to cast dispersions on those two societies, both of which I have visited in the past to better understand their beliefs and practices (which I do not share). What I am saying is that at least at those locations there is no conflict between yoga and their beliefs. And, given that the Hindu gods do not exist and we are not really gods, there isn't really that much difference between what they do there and what Christians do in a Christian yoga class (though the Christian class may meditate on the Bible or say Bible verses and the Christian class would omit the mystical beliefs about the benefits of yoga). The terms the Hindu temple and Theosophical society use in their yoga classes could be mentally "translated" to refer to Christian concepts. And they probably openly accept Christian participation and Christian meditation since in their belief system Christianity is one of the many, though longer, paths to enlightenment.

In Summary: A Suggested Christian Response to Yoga
Since yoga does have some physical benefits, Christians should have the freedom to obtain those benefits. But it is clear from reading Paul's letters that we need to make sure to not be seen as participating in the rituals of other religions in any way. The current Christian response to yoga seems to be to add the reading of Bible verses or to listen to Christian music, or to relate the stretching moves to Christian meanings (in the same way Hindus may relate the moves to mystical meanings). Those are noble attempts to separate out the physical benefits and replace Hindu philosophy with Christian meaning. But none of those methods address the core issue. You cannot put new wine in old wine skins. The Hindu concepts still bleed through the Christian veneer.
Instead, I would argue that we should evaluate all forms of stretching, gymnastics, isometrics, weight training, etc.. from first principles, i.e. from our body mechanics and what would anatomically give us the best physical benefit for all our body. Then when we do those sets of moves, even if some of them are the same as yoga, we will know we are doing the best for our bodies rather than doing things that may not be best but were derived from old traditions. For one such attempt, see the Royal Canadian Airforce Exercise Plans.

That is the true meaning of Christian freedom. We are free to look into the first principles that underlie the laws and rituals that have been handed down to us. We can give a more well thought out and nuanced approach that fulfills the appropriate goals of the laws and rituals of the past. So, putting a Christian face on a non-Christian tradition does not live up to the high calling we have as Christians. We can and should do better. Hindu wisdom and inclusiveness, where it differs from Christian beliefs, will not prevail against the Christian emphasis on truth, reason and true freedom.

Chuck Swindoll and Questions of Language

noreply@blogger.com (Lowell Ballard) — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 02:33:00 +0000

I just watched Chuck Swindoll in person last night speaking to the students of Wheaton College. He is an excellent speaker and I have listened to him for years. He mentioned that this has been a tough year for him, so I thought I would search to see the problems he had been wrestling with. The only thing I found was questions about some of his language and illustrations. See the article called: Chuck Swindoll Dropped from Radio Network for “Crude, Vulgar, From the Gutter” Language

The Question at Issue
The question at issue here is one I have wrestled with recently at my church. How much should we go along with social norms in order to relate to society and influence them to do better versus how much should we strive for a high level of purity and lead by example?

This is not an academic question for me. I have eight kids, we home school and we do not watch TV. So one of the major external influences on the habits my kids learn is from the church.

My Answer
My answer is that we have decided to attend two churches. One church is excellent in that it teaches kids to act properly and respectfully (mostly home schooled families like ours go there). The other church is excellent in that they attract non-Christians and those in need of Christian growth (they have a good youth outreach and church for homeless on Sundays).

In a way, that is like what Young Life does. They have Young Life meetings for non-Christians, then Campaigners meetings for Christians.

One of the main problems with the church in our society is that Christians mostly do not stand out from good non-Christians any more because we don't make distinctions between the two groups (I'm sorry to say that if someone attends church and believes in theory that Jesus is God, but is not committed to actually doing all that He says, then they are not Christians).

The words used by Dr. Swindoll, while technically vulgar, are today not generally considered vulgar by a large segment of Americans. So, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with Dr. Swindoll sporadically using "common" terms accepted by a large segment of society as a demonstration that Christians have freedom to talk using the common vernacular.

But I do have two problems with that tact. One is that the forum he said it in. Since that forum was intended for Christians and not non-Christians there should be no need to use such common terms in order to "connect" with the listening audience.

The other problem is that if he continues to use that common language over time, he will lose the ability to lead by example to more pure use of language. He may be using only minimally vulgar words, but other could use that as precedent to speak in even more vulgar terms.

When Paul talks about "becoming all things to all people" in 1 Cor 9:19-23, he is specifically talking about how he handles the interaction of law and grace with Jewish Christians and Greek Christians. So that verse should not be used to justify going to the least common denominator in our increasing secular society in order to reach non-Christians.

This is just one instance of the larger question of what the Church should be and how it should relate to society.

Salvation Misses the Point

noreply@blogger.com (Lowell Ballard) — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 03:09:00 +0000

For many Christians the focus of Christianity is forgiveness and salvation through Jesus. But, when considering the whole plot of the Bible, if we focus only on salvation then we are missing the point. Jesus and salvation are indeed the climax of the plot of the Bible. But to understand the overall point of the Bible we need to focus on the problems identified at the beginning of the story and the goal that God is apparently working to reach at the end of the story.

The Plot of the Bible
God is the ultimate engineer and he has set things up to be as good as possible. But of course there are always logical/engineering trade offs to be made. God created mankind and set up the structures needed for a "good" society, i.e. a place where people only do "good" things. And the designer is the one who determines what is "good".

Garden of Eden and the New Jerusalem
There were only two people back then, so of course the setting was a country "garden" setting. Things were very good. There were no dishes or laundry to do. But as those people had descendants then of course the setting would have changed to be more of a city setting, but still very good. We see that the ultimate destination for those who follow the designer is the "New Jerusalem", which is talked about in terms of being the restored Garden of Eden.

Free Choice and a Good Society
The problem is that apparently the best of all possible worlds includes giving humans the ability to have free choice (at least from the human perspective). To give humans free choice includes the likelihood that they will make some bad choices. And over an extremely long period of time it becomes more and more likely that people make bad choices causing a bad society as a result. So, how could God engineer a world that includes both free choice and where people only make good choices? How would you deal with these seeming irreconcilable goals?

The world doesn't work quite right any more
Apparently God's answer was to start out by giving everyone free choice knowing that they would eventually choose badly. Then when bad choices were made (choices that went against what God said was best), God changed the world to no longer work perfectly so that humans would constantly be reminded that we rely on the designer/sustainer for everything in the world around us. If everything worked perfectly, it would be easy to forget that God created and upholds everything and there would be no problems to cause us to strongly desire God to correct the problems.

The Problem of Pain
So, the problem of pain comes from two sources: from the bad choices of humanity and from God's changing the world to not work quite right. The good news is that both issues will apparently be resolved in the New Jerusalem.

The Answer is Sacrifice
How does God allow free choice (from our perspective) and still have everyone in society always choose rightly over the long term? The missing piece of the puzzle seems to be self sacrifice. When people choose wrongly, they are basically saying that their interpretation of what is best is more accurate than the interpretation of the designer of the world. So, by allowing pain and death in the world, God has also given us the ability to make sacrifices to help others and to do what is right. The sacrifice of Jesus is important because he sacrificed himself to show us the way of self sacrifice. Mankind owes God everything but people were unwilling/unable to sacrifice themselves, so Jesus sacrificed himself and paid the debt the we were unwilling/unable to pay. Someone who is willing to ultimately sacrifice themselves to do what is right will be able to live indefinitely without choosing badly, thereby enabling a good society to endure over the long term.

The Necessity of Hell
The Bible says that people who choose to follow themselves will be separated out and sent away from those people who are willing to sacrifice themselves to follow God. People assume Hell is a place of externally imposed torture by God because of the passages that imply extreme pain for those in Hell. But it seems that a place without the influence of people following God and his laws, where the residents are more free to openly follow their bad choices, and a place that God may make work even less perfectly than the current world does (since He has no obligation to make the world work perfectly for those who arrogantly think they could design the world better), that place would inherently be a very painful place to live (IS 57:20-21). So, the two existing sources of pain in this life could be intensified in Hell rather than having an external source of torture, though the net result could be like torture.

It will be a good thing when God separates out those who don't want to follow him from those who do, since they would actually prefer to not be under God's leadership. So, people in Heaven will not need to mourn for those in Hell because, while the people in Hell will strongly desire both the goodness of Heaven and the ability to not follow God's design, if they had to choose between the two they would still choose to not follow God over the long term. That is in stark contrast to those in Heaven who would always choose to follow God, even when His design does not seem to make sense at first. Therefore, as very painful as Hell is, people will be there by their own free choice. There will be no need to mourn for their choice.

So, bad choices by some people are an inevitable result of free choice and to create a New Jerusalem, where only good choices are made, requires a hell to put people who don't want to always choose to follow God's definition of what is "good".

The Point of This Life
So, the point of our existence is to be what God created: people who choose rightly and have a good society. Evil, pain and hell seem to be engineering trade offs that are required in order to have both free choice and a society where people always choose rightly.

Salvation and forgiveness are needed to get us to the place where, somehow, we will ultimately choose rightly forever while still having free choice. By being willing to follow Jesus and give up everything, even to death, to do what is right, we are demonstrating that we somehow will have what it takes to choose rightly in the New Jerusalem. It is our decision to have the faith to follow Jesus, not our actions, that make us the kind of people who can go there without messing up the place. But the end results of our faith is that somehow our actions will be changed so that we will always make good choices in the New Jerusalem.

So, the point of this life is not really salvation in and of itself, though that is a necessary part of this life, but rather the point of this life is preparation for us to live together in a society (the New Jerusalem) as God has designed it. Salvation and forgiveness may be the key to the door, but it is not the house we live in. To understand the plot of the Bible and this life we need to focus on how we were created, why we are here and where we are ultimately going.

The Scam of Matching Gifts

noreply@blogger.com (Lowell Ballard) — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 05:10:00 +0000

There is a method of fund raising called "matching gifts" where one giver says "I will give X amount of dollars if others will give the same amount within a given time period". A variation of matching gifts says "If others will give X amount of dollars within a given time, I will give three times that amount". Another variation is something like: if you pay the shipping of $20, we can ship $1000 of supplies to needy people.

Psychological Manipulation
While this is a common method of fund raising that seems culturally acceptable, it is little more than a psychological ploy to trick people into giving more. Because of the worthiness of the given charity we overlook this manipulation and call it acceptable.

Are there really people out there that are so cold hearted that they say to themselves and the world "this is a very good charity, so I want to give X dollars" but then if the matching funds are not raised they decide that the charity is no longer worthy of the gift? Not at all.

Now, I would understand if there were a large project, such as a building, that someone wanted to give to but would want to give only if the project went forward. So, I could see a donor honestly saying they they would want to give $1M towards a $2M building project, but only if the organization was able to raise the additional $1M in order for the project to go forward. It is possible that may have been how the "matching gifts" concept was initially deemed socially acceptable, but note that is not the situation in the vast majority of cases today (there is no project that will not go forward a specific gift is not matched).

Actually, at least as it is normally practiced today, people and companies who give matching fund gifts know perfectly well what they are doing. They want people to feel like if they give say $20, that they have effectively given some larger amount. That way people are more likely to give and more funds will be raised.

The Lottery Connection
That psychology is not far removed from the psychology of the lottery, which many states use now to raise funds for good causes such as education. Because of the lack of knowledge of statistics and heavy advertising of large wins, people are effectively tricked into giving their money away to the lottery. The lottery is effectively a tax on the statistically illiterate. I would feel much more comfortable with the lottery if the chances of, say, getting hit by lightning (one estimate being 1 in 700,000) were listed at the checkout so buyers could make a statistically informed choice. Just as the lottery artificially inflates in the buyer's mind the chances of their winning a large amount, matching gifts artificially inflates in the givers mind the amount they are effectively giving.

So, it is amazing to me that people who rightfully condemn the lottery as unethical turn around and use methods like "matching funds" to psychologically manipulate people into giving more. And they use the very same reasoning of "if we raise more money we can do more good, so please don't worry about this little issue of the methods we use. It is only marketing".

I say, tell the people what you can do with the money they give. Don't make them feel they have given more than they have. These are generous people and the least a fund raiser can do is to be straight and honest with them. Ethical marketing: Yes. Psychological manipulation: No.

Why is the Trunk Hollow?

noreply@blogger.com (Lowell Ballard) — Sun, 11 May 2008 05:39:00 +0000

I just finished listening to a live symposium at Wheaton College on how the evangelical church has changed since 1968. The consensus seemed to be a mixed report card, perhaps summarized by the statement, as best I can recall it, of "the tree trunk is more hollow now, but the branches and leaves are flourishing", which somewhat reminds me of Rev 3:1-6. The discussion talked about how the focus on truth, doctrine and missions has declined and for many has been replaced by a focus on a combination of things such as entertainment and individual achievement.

The Physics Connection
In reflecting on what was said, it seems to me that the issue may be that many Christians are not convinced that they have the ultimate truth about the cosmos and that other beliefs do not. In fact, that concept seems to be thought of in the broader society as the core problem with Christianity, as seen for example in Oprah's discussions that truth is not exclusive to only one set of beliefs.

And in fact, science, especially physics, seems to have proved something different for the origins of man than what Jesus seemed to believe was the origins of man. And if that is the case, maybe Jesus was a very good example and moral teacher with an excellent understanding of a supreme purpose/law, but a fallible one whose teachings we should apply or not apply based on the situation and our understanding of a higher moral law.

Are Creationists the Problem?
I think the most telling part of the symposium is when one of the questioners, an alumni of Wheaton, talked about how she learned about evolution in her classes. She then discussed how young earth creationism can be seen as the biggest barrier to intellectuals giving respect to the evangelical church. She went on to say that was especially a problem in the home school movement, since the large majority of home school families believe young earth creationism (many home school families, such as my own, do not want evolution taught uncritically to their kids in a public school for fear their kids might put two and two together and reject the Bible as a myth and possibly reject any ultimate value to life in general). To their credit, the panel did not say anything positive or negative on the issue, but did say something like this is a debated area with many issues. Note that this is not an isolated view from one questioner. I have read a report that at least one CCCU college president (The CCCU is the coalition of protestant Christian colleges where all faculty/staff must be Christians) has expressed the same frustration that young earth creationist beliefs might be the biggest impediment to the acceptance of Christianity by society.

As a home school father working (as staff, not faculty) at Wheaton, with an Electrical Engineering undergraduate degree (I've studied applied physics) and who has spent a significant amount of time studying the problems in the young earth - old earth debate, I felt compelled to comment. Basically, there is no way around it. I am the kind of person the questioner feels is anti-intellectual and is hurting the church.

I agree that Young Earth creationism has two main beliefs that don't seem, at least to my satisfaction, to have sufficient rigorous theoretical support yet. Those questions are: How do we see distant stars and why is there more than expected products of radioactive decay, neither of which should be the case in a young earth scenario given the current scientific consensus. Note that both of these are physics questions and both are actively being worked on by scientists who hold to young earth creationism.

Physics Has Blind Faith Too
But on the other side of the equation are the things that people have to believe if they accept the current scientific consensus, such as the twin paradox and Schrodinger's cat, both of which seem to be based somewhat on a Logical Positivist view of the world (the totality of what we see/measure is to us reality rather than being an imperfect view of an underlying reality that we may not be able to fully access). Look up those two paradoxes and see if you have enough faith to believe that our perspectives actually affect reality. What would you think if a preacher taught the Schrodinger's cat concept from a pulpit? And what does that say about where you are grounding your belief system? If that isn't eye opening, other physics theories such as imaginary time and multiverse come to mind when discussing how young earth creationist theories may be junk science, but science with a naturalistic assumption is truth that should be taught and believed uncritically.

Physicists: The New Priesthood
Note that competing religious beliefs are grounding their core theologies on physics. That is why the Theosophical Society has physicists from Fermilab come speak and the beliefs of the Temple of Set can be described by their local Chicago spokesperson as relating to multiverse theory, a theory of origins and the cosmos derived from physics. So, in my mind, the key debate and discussion in the marketplace of ideas is currently focused on the outcome of highly theoretical debates in physics and the philosophy of science. The intellectual debate of origins/values has shifted from theology to physics.

So, I think the questioner was right on point that the Young Earth/Old Earth debate is the intellectual center of the recent past and likely future changes in evangelicalism and Christianity at large. Intelligent Design, which I think most people in both the old earth and young earth camps agree with (and which is explicitly supported as a concept in the Bible), has been making some excellent strides but it supports almost any belief system, including a pantheist/polytheist world view.

In defense of Wheaton College science classes on the issue creation/evolution, when coming to work for Wheaton two years ago I checked out from the library the textbooks that were used to teach the subject in the science classes (you can do the same for most college by looking at their online bookstore and ordering the relevant books through inter-library loan). As a young earth creationist myself, I found that they fairly covered the creation/evolution issues, including the problems with both positions. And from a theological perspective, I appreciate that the college recognizes that at least a belief in a literal Adam is a requirement to keeping Christian theology from collapsing like a house of cards (here is the reasoning: if a real Adam is actually a myth, then Jesus taught about at least some myths rather than being 100% true and there would be no "fall of man" for Jesus to "save" us from).

The Burden of Proof
So, on one hand, I disagree with the questioner's implication that the church should shun young earth creationism, more than it already does, in order to not be ridiculed by intellectuals. But I do agree that the responsibility is on young earth creationist physicists to find a theory that satisfactorily answers the two physics questions listed above.

There are some interesting possibilities but we are not quite yet at a place where young earth physics theories of origins can go head to head with the scientific consensus in physics. Of course it took around a thousand years for instruments to be developed to allow Ptolemy's accurate formulas to be reinterpreted and replaced by a new cosmology that was not based on measurements from a human, earth centered perspective. But judging by the strides in Intelligent Design and flood geology (Mt. Saint Helens) as well as knowing some of the philosophical assumptions that go into current interpretations of physics formulas, I am hopeful that young earth creationism will not have to wait that long to answer those last two key questions. And if that happens, the trunk of the tree will begin to fill in.

The Purpose of this Blog

noreply@blogger.com (Lowell Ballard) — Fri, 09 May 2008 05:31:00 +0000

This blog is my entry into the marketplace of ideas on the topic of belief. My main target audience is my children and their descendants so I am telling them in a direct manner what I think about sometimes controversial subjects. But you can look in and comment too.

My Family Legacy
Our true legacy in the long term is those concepts and ideas that we leave to our descendants which win out over competing ideas in society. To understand more of what I am saying, try to guess how many descendants you will have in 900 years, assuming two children in each family. See my post called "Your Family Tree is Actually a Family Diamond" to find out the answer and to understand better why I am making this blog.

I will not generally talk in this blog about the positions I hold which are common. There are plenty of books and web pages to talk about generally held beliefs and my descendants would surely encounter the commonly held beliefs. Rather, I will talk about the concepts and issues I hold that go against the most commonly held beliefs of the American society in which I live.

Buyer Beware
So, if you read this blog enough you will likely find things you disagree with and/or that make you feel uncomfortable. But of course the only blogs which are valuable to you are the ones with ideas that you do not hold or information that you do not have. So, please think through what I am saying and if I am making a logical or factual error, please let me know (and be nice, please).

Also, please note that I will be writing headlines and including pictures designed to try to make the topics interesting and that will encourage people to read the posts. I will try to document my posts with links where appropriate, but this is not a formal scholarly work. So please understand that I am trying to be accurate and respectful of all beliefs while at the same time expressing the beliefs I currently hold in an interesting way. If you consistently hold opposite beliefs from mine I would suggest setting up a blog of your own. Then when your descendants eventually intermarry with my descendants, they can choose their beliefs by comparing our blogs :)

P.S. If you like the layout of this blog, I used default "Rounders3" template at blogger.com and then extended the width using these instructions. I was quite happy to find the instructions to increase the width. Some flag gifs are courtesy of 4 International Flags