Today I celebrated Eid among Ahmadiyya men at the mosque in Milpitas, CA (they made vegetable biryani just for me!). The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community was founded in the late 1800's in colonial India by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who claimed that he was the Messiah promised by all the major world religions.
Ahmadis are derided as a few things by exclusivist non-Ahmadi muslim clerics, but this neat little video is the first interesting thing I've heard from non-Ahmadi muslims in their debate with Ahmadis.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad once prophesied that rival Messiah claimant John Hugh Piggot will not withdraw his Messiah claim and will die in the lifetime of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and that that death will demonstrate the truth of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's claim and the falsity of John Hugh Piggot's claim. This death prophecy was published in the Ahmadiyya newspaper the Ahmadiyya Gazette. Contrary to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's death prophecy, John Hugh Piggot died nineteen years after Mirza Ghulam Ahmad died - demonstrating, according to the maker of the video, that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's claim to be a prophet was wrong.
It's things like this that make me think religions should rely more on revelation through intuition ("Inner Light", etc.) and less on revelation through prophets. Death prophecies are too easy to falsify, and dangerously so.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Workfare, WPA, etc.
Online comments like this reinforce my impression that the rugged individualism and relative economic conservatism of the everyday American is not in the least bit laissez-faire. What Americans dislike is not gov't involvement; what they dislike is gov't benefits for free. The saying I learned in Christian elementary school was "A man who does not work shall not eat." The saying was not "Tax dollars shall not be used to guarantee a minimum standard of living to anyone willing to work."
I use the phrase "Roosevelt Republican" to describe the political beliefs I had during highschool and the first half of college. I think my gf at the time might have been a Roosevelt Republican too, because she expressed resentment that so many people get money without working for it, and said that a New Deal-style jobs program would be a better kind of gov't assistance. A couple years after I graduated from college, a Facebook friend expressed a similar sentiment about the idea of bringing back the W.P.A. If anyone is to get assistance, he said, it should be for doing socially-productive things like building infrastructure.
I remember that back in the early days of the Tea Party, the San Jose Mercury reported that some of the Tea Party activists were older folks who were distraught with the poor quality of services they were getting from gov't assistance programs. In March of this year, the Wall Street Journal reported: "Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security 'unacceptable.'"
Today's conservatives are confirming the charicature of a Reagan clone who cuts schools, public sector jobs, library hours, collective bargaining privileges - everything except the military. And yet, I imagine that if a known and popular conservative had demanded a jobs program, a whole lot of red-blooded American men and women might have more than heartily jumped onto the bandwagon. And demanded that it be restricted to native-born U.S. citizens.
I use the phrase "Roosevelt Republican" to describe the political beliefs I had during highschool and the first half of college. I think my gf at the time might have been a Roosevelt Republican too, because she expressed resentment that so many people get money without working for it, and said that a New Deal-style jobs program would be a better kind of gov't assistance. A couple years after I graduated from college, a Facebook friend expressed a similar sentiment about the idea of bringing back the W.P.A. If anyone is to get assistance, he said, it should be for doing socially-productive things like building infrastructure.
I remember that back in the early days of the Tea Party, the San Jose Mercury reported that some of the Tea Party activists were older folks who were distraught with the poor quality of services they were getting from gov't assistance programs. In March of this year, the Wall Street Journal reported: "Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security 'unacceptable.'"
Today's conservatives are confirming the charicature of a Reagan clone who cuts schools, public sector jobs, library hours, collective bargaining privileges - everything except the military. And yet, I imagine that if a known and popular conservative had demanded a jobs program, a whole lot of red-blooded American men and women might have more than heartily jumped onto the bandwagon. And demanded that it be restricted to native-born U.S. citizens.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
From a FB thread on Banning Circumcision
Dustin Gray: Calling it "genital mutilation" is incorrect. I suggest you look up the word "mutilation."
Me: I would ... like to hear a definition of mutilation that excludes cutting away pieces of someone else's flesh with neither their express nor implied consent.
Dustin Gray: @ Isaiah Sage; Sure, will you accept one from wordnet?
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=mutilation
(n) mutilation (an injury that causes disfigurement or that deprives you of a limb or other important body part); (n) defacement, disfigurement, disfiguration, mutilation (the act of damaging the appearance or surface of something) "the defacement of an Italian mosaic during the Turkish invasion"; "he objected to the dam's massive disfigurement of the landscape"
Again, I understand why the term "genital mutilation" better fits your narrative, but that does not make it an accurate or effective term. If you feel as though the facts of your argument are not persuasive enough, opting for more aggressive terminology does not strike me as a good way to go about improving it.
Instead of defending the use of an inaccurate (yet satisfying) term, why not approach it the problem reasonably: is it a beneficial medical procedure or is it pointless?
The consent issue confuses me and seems to be besides the point. Neonates are incapable of giving consent. Should we not perform and medical procedure that may result in the loss of some part of their body? What if the newborn REALLY wanted a lotus birth (where the umbillical cord is not cut off, and is allowed to fall off naturally)? By your own logic wouldn't that be belly button mutilation?
Me: The wordnet definition does not exclude removing the foreskin from a newborn boy. You're assuming that the foreskin is not an important part of the body, but it is. I treasure mine, and I empathize with men who resent having been deprived of theirs. http://www.youtube.com/user/TLCTugger#p/u/14/aZ2ZyxyZJrk.
Consent is very relevant here. Whether a procedure is a beneficial medical procedure is really only relevant when (as you point out about newborns) the patient is presently incapable of giving consent. If you are a libertarian, Dustin Gray (though I don't know if you are), you would oppose any medical treatment of an adult against his express denial of consent, even if it were beneficial to him. So (and again, this is assuming you're a libertarian) you wouldn't boil everything down to medical beneficience vs. pointlessness. The medical beneficience of a procedure on a baby is necessary because it establishes *implied* consent.
The benefit of a medical procedure has to be substantially high to form implied consent. It has to be necessary to address an immanent threat of death or serious bodily injury or disfigurment, or - if the threat is not immanent - it has to have serious numbers behind it, like the decreased infant mortality rates that result from the innoculation of infants. Claims about the medical benefits of circumcision are too dubious to establish implied consent.
Your example about belly button mutilation vs. lotus birth is clever and very worth considering, but cutting the umbelical cord is only a little analagous to infant male circumcision. When a baby boy is circumcized, he is more or less permanently deprived of something from which he could have derived much sensual pleasure as an older boy and as an adult. When a baby's umbelical cord is cut, he is deprived of something that would have fallen off two to three days after birth anyway. Yes, I do think a lotus birth is more in-line with libertarian principles; but "belly button mutilation", as you suggest I call it, is nowhere near as invasive and nowhere near as presumptuous as cutting off a baby boy's foreskin.
Me: I would ... like to hear a definition of mutilation that excludes cutting away pieces of someone else's flesh with neither their express nor implied consent.
Dustin Gray: @ Isaiah Sage; Sure, will you accept one from wordnet?
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=mutilation
(n) mutilation (an injury that causes disfigurement or that deprives you of a limb or other important body part); (n) defacement, disfigurement, disfiguration, mutilation (the act of damaging the appearance or surface of something) "the defacement of an Italian mosaic during the Turkish invasion"; "he objected to the dam's massive disfigurement of the landscape"
Again, I understand why the term "genital mutilation" better fits your narrative, but that does not make it an accurate or effective term. If you feel as though the facts of your argument are not persuasive enough, opting for more aggressive terminology does not strike me as a good way to go about improving it.
Instead of defending the use of an inaccurate (yet satisfying) term, why not approach it the problem reasonably: is it a beneficial medical procedure or is it pointless?
The consent issue confuses me and seems to be besides the point. Neonates are incapable of giving consent. Should we not perform and medical procedure that may result in the loss of some part of their body? What if the newborn REALLY wanted a lotus birth (where the umbillical cord is not cut off, and is allowed to fall off naturally)? By your own logic wouldn't that be belly button mutilation?
Me: The wordnet definition does not exclude removing the foreskin from a newborn boy. You're assuming that the foreskin is not an important part of the body, but it is. I treasure mine, and I empathize with men who resent having been deprived of theirs. http://www.youtube.com/user/TLCTugger#p/u/14/aZ2ZyxyZJrk.
Consent is very relevant here. Whether a procedure is a beneficial medical procedure is really only relevant when (as you point out about newborns) the patient is presently incapable of giving consent. If you are a libertarian, Dustin Gray (though I don't know if you are), you would oppose any medical treatment of an adult against his express denial of consent, even if it were beneficial to him. So (and again, this is assuming you're a libertarian) you wouldn't boil everything down to medical beneficience vs. pointlessness. The medical beneficience of a procedure on a baby is necessary because it establishes *implied* consent.
The benefit of a medical procedure has to be substantially high to form implied consent. It has to be necessary to address an immanent threat of death or serious bodily injury or disfigurment, or - if the threat is not immanent - it has to have serious numbers behind it, like the decreased infant mortality rates that result from the innoculation of infants. Claims about the medical benefits of circumcision are too dubious to establish implied consent.
Your example about belly button mutilation vs. lotus birth is clever and very worth considering, but cutting the umbelical cord is only a little analagous to infant male circumcision. When a baby boy is circumcized, he is more or less permanently deprived of something from which he could have derived much sensual pleasure as an older boy and as an adult. When a baby's umbelical cord is cut, he is deprived of something that would have fallen off two to three days after birth anyway. Yes, I do think a lotus birth is more in-line with libertarian principles; but "belly button mutilation", as you suggest I call it, is nowhere near as invasive and nowhere near as presumptuous as cutting off a baby boy's foreskin.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Independent Baptist Newspaper Reacts to ABC 20/20 Report
Shelton Smith, the editor of the independent fundamental baptist "Sword of the Lord" newspaper, has written an article in the May 13, 2011 issue of his paper in which he denounces the ABC 20/20 report on sexual abuse within some IFB churches as libelous and not representative of the broader IFB movement. I was unable to find the complete online text of Smith's article, so I am reproducing it below. One response to Smith's article can be found here. Another is here. I might eventually post my own response.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"ABC 20/20 Report Slams Independent Baptists"
By the EDITOR
Independent Baptists are not perfect people, and our churches are not perfect churches; but when there is a cause for criticism, we would hope that, whatever the complaint, the critic would deal with it in a fair and honest way. It is especially important, when the media get involved, that the issues are dealt with factually. When a newspaper or a television network reports a story in such a way that they become the story, then you know that something has gone wrong.
When ABC Network aired their 20/20 report on April 8, they picked up a couple of isolated stories and proceeded to tear into all independent Baptists as though everyone so identified is a scoundrel and involved in a cult.
Elizabeth Vargas, the network reporter, seemed intent on smearing all independent, fundamental Baptists. Perhaps we misread her intentions, but I don't think so.
Thirteen years ago, while Dr. Chuck Phelps [no close relation to Fred Phelps, pastor of Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas] was pastor of a New Hampshire church, a man who was an active member of the church was accused of a sexual crime.
In a telephone interview with the SWORD OF THE LORD, Dr. Phelps, who is now a pastor in Indianapolis, Indiana, told us:
Dr. Phelps has set up a web site (drchuckphelps.org) on which he has provided full disclosure of the matter. He said to us, "We did the best we could do; there was no cover-up."
He also indicated that he gave all this same documentation to the ABC reporter, but she chose to side with a few folks who are angry at him and at the church.
The Vargas report went so far as to accuse independent fundamental Baptist (IFB) churches of providing an authoritative climate that promotes the abuse of women and children.
She spoke in a demeaning way about dress standards, beliefs about loyalty to a church and a strict, literal interpretation of the Bible.
Apparently it is okay with the reporter and her network if they are authoritative in their reporting.
Apparently it is deemed just and fair to take some incidents of sexual abuse (which all of us would condemn loudly) and demonize every IFB church in the country.
In response to the bashing that the ABC report gave, Dr. Jeff Amsbaugh (pastor, Grace Baptist Church, Columbia, Georgia) wrote:
1. Independent Baptists by definition are "independent." There is no network, and many independent Baptist camps and colleges shy away from other independent Baptist camps and colleges. In the 20/20 episode, those of the Hyles camp of fundamentalism were linked with those in the Bob Jones network. Yet, these two streams of independent Baptists would rarely endorse each other. Therefore, to imply, as ABC did, that all camps of independent Baptists are in cahoots with one another and networked into some type of cultic structure is simply not true.
2. To the degree that ABC was accurate in its reporting any cover-up of sexual misconduct by Baptist ministers and churches, it should be applauded. Those who are guilty of sexual misconduct and those who cover up such deviancy should be exposed, even if they are members of our movement - indeed, especially because they are members of our movement. We should not allow the deviants within our movement to define us. The must be exposed in order that the reputation of the movement may remain above reproach.
3. To the degree that ABC was inaccurate in its reporting and blindly accepted the word of disgruntled church members without investigating the veracity of the accusations, it should be condemned. Proper journalism demands hearing both sides of the matter before rushing to meet a broadcast deadline. If ABC improperly slandered any godly minister or ministry, it should be held accountable.
Another definitive report has been written by Dr. Charles L. Surrett. Dr. Surrett is the academic dean of Ambassador Baptist College (Lattimore, North Carolina) and pastor of Emmanuel Independent Baptist Church (Kings Mountain, North Carolina).
On Friday, April 8, 2011, the ABC television network broadcast, on their weekly 20/20 program, a journalistic view of independent fundamental Baptist churches. The conclusion they were trying to reach is that the doctrines of IFB churches lead to physical and sexual abuse and that such churches should be considered to constitute a cult.
As a college-level teacher of logic, I noted several ways that the fundamental rules of Aristotelian logic were broken by the network and the hostess..., Elizabeth Vargas.
One such rule is that "evidence should be presented as failry and completely as possible." The fallacy which breaks that rule is called "special pleading," which is intentionally presenting favorable evidence to one's case, while at the same time purposely omitting unfavorable evidence. It is commonly practiced in courtrooms, where attorneys for one side of the argument present only that evidence which is favorable and attempt to suppress evidence that is unfavorable. This is acceptable in the courtroom, because the whole truth should come out, if both sides do their jobs properly.
However, when ABC's case was presented, it was totally one-sided, with a great deal of evidence that did not favor their argument being completely ignored. This may be sensational journalism, but it is not fair to present our nation with such a slanted view of those who call themselves independent fundamental Baptists. It is neither fair to the IFB churches and constituents nor fair to the general public....
[T]he current concept of the term "cult"...should be examined to see if IFB churches qualify. There is no "living leader," except for the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and IFB churches could hardly be blamed for following Him! Since these churches follow a Bible that is ancient, their doctrines cannot be called "new" or "strange and mysterious." They do not live in communes, nor do they require people to contribute all their possessions. Their "exclusive religious truth" is not of their own subjective invention but is extended to all who will accept the Bible as authoritative. Although there are some that demand more from their members than do others, it is not even close to the truth to assert that all IFB churches "command absolute obedience." Each individual local church should be judged upon its own merits. Therefore, since IFB churches do not have any of the characteristics of a cult, it is dishonest and unfair to label them as such.
ABC seemed content, rather than using any clear standards for defining a cult, to allow a small group of people in a room to verbalize that they think IFB churches constitute a cult. Without any real evidence, then, the assessment of an extremely small minority is taken as an indictment against hundreds of thousands of people. Merely stating that some think IFB is a cult does not make it so! But then, that is another fallacy, called "begging the question."
Dr. Surrett's essay is produced in full on the web site of Dr. Phelps.
Let's Set the Record Clear and Straight!
1. IFB churches are not given to the abuse of women and children. To the contrary, we preach and promote their full avalue and worth. We want them to be treated like royalty. If someone is being abused, no one in IFB circles would tolerate it.
2. IFB churches are full of law-abiding, God-fearing, patriotic citizens. We love our country. We salute our leaders, and we obey the law.
3. IFB churches are Bible-believing churches. Criticize us if you please, but, yes, we make a big place for the Bible and its teachings.
4. IFB churches do have a strong leadership structure, as does the ABC television network for whom Ms. Vargas works. Does she have people in charge of her department? I suspect she does.
5. IFB churches are not perfect! The pastors and the people are human (like TV reporters). Humans sometimes make mistakes or misjudgments. What may seem at the time to be good judgment may not look so sharp later on.
Our churches are not perfect, but we do not tolerate evil, even if someone in our leadership does it.
6. Accusations against others must always be handled with care. There are cases (lots of them), where accusations were falsely made by someone with a grievance or an agenda.
What may appear to be just accusation on the surface may prove to be totally false after an investigation has been done.
7. Legal counsel should be sought immediately when any such issues arise. Pastors and churches can turn to Christian legal groups for coaching. Groups like Lighthouse Legal Ministries, Christian Law Association, the Rutherford Institute, Liberty Counsel, the Alliance Defense Fund and others are available.
8. Preachers, including some IFB men, do sometimes make foolhardy statements. Some of the cutesy statements that are thought to be humorous in a friendly crowd may not seem so funny on YouTube or on a network expose.
Having a loose tongue when teaching or preaching can bring trouble to your doorstep.
If you are prone to pop off in the pulpit you may be setting yourself up for heartache and creating an embarrassment for the rest of us too.
But a preacher here or there who says something foolish does not constitute cause for a blanket indictment of the entire IFB movement.
9. IFB pastors and churches will report sexual abuse and other criminal matters. We do not claim special privilege when there is a crime or the accusation of a crime. We will call the local authorities when there is cause for concern.
We will not enable predators or perpetrators. We will neither shield them nor defend them.
A zero-tolerance policy is the mindset we have on such things.
10. IFB churches are not a new way of having church. We are Baptist in the historic sense of the word.
The fact that we do not have a headquarters and a hierarchy does not disenfranchise us and strip us of our legal rights.
11. IFB churches are given to fellowship that is characterized by loving, caring and compassionate interchange with each other. You'll not find any place on the planet where everybody is treated with more respect than at an IFB church.
12. IFB churches are not located in compounds behind high walls and locked gates. Everyone comes voluntarily, and everyone can leave voluntarily. There is no coercion of anybody.
Of course, we don't want you to leave. We love you, and we like having you with us. But should you decide to leave there are no bars on the windows.
Because we care about you, we will try to talk you into staying. But if you want to leave, the door is always ajar. You can leave if you choose to do so. Anyone who suggests anything to the contrary just doesn't have a grasp of reality!
Conclusions
We believe Dr. Phelps and the church in New Hampshire got a raw deal from ABC News.
We know for sure that the blanket condemnation of all IFB churches was a piece of very "yellow journalism."
We pray for any and all who may have had a crime or other abuse committed against them. People who commit such acts should be in jail. Churches should be especially supportive for victims or alleged victims.
We pray for the ABC network and its reporter, Elizabeth Vargas. They have erred on this, but we can pray they will yet tell the real story of IFB churches.
We understand that in these days we are apt to be thrown under the bus by media and others. It hurts, but we will not quit. We are saddened by such biased reporting, but we will not lose heart. We will press on!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"ABC 20/20 Report Slams Independent Baptists"
By the EDITOR
Independent Baptists are not perfect people, and our churches are not perfect churches; but when there is a cause for criticism, we would hope that, whatever the complaint, the critic would deal with it in a fair and honest way. It is especially important, when the media get involved, that the issues are dealt with factually. When a newspaper or a television network reports a story in such a way that they become the story, then you know that something has gone wrong.
When ABC Network aired their 20/20 report on April 8, they picked up a couple of isolated stories and proceeded to tear into all independent Baptists as though everyone so identified is a scoundrel and involved in a cult.
Elizabeth Vargas, the network reporter, seemed intent on smearing all independent, fundamental Baptists. Perhaps we misread her intentions, but I don't think so.
Thirteen years ago, while Dr. Chuck Phelps [no close relation to Fred Phelps, pastor of Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas] was pastor of a New Hampshire church, a man who was an active member of the church was accused of a sexual crime.
In a telephone interview with the SWORD OF THE LORD, Dr. Phelps, who is now a pastor in Indianapolis, Indiana, told us:
When this happened thirteen years ago, I called the police and notified other appropriate authorities. I was told to sit tight an dlet them handle it. The did not deal with it immediately. When there are unproven charges against someone, you had better be careful what you say and do, lest you get sued for slander and defamation.
Dr. Phelps has set up a web site (drchuckphelps.org) on which he has provided full disclosure of the matter. He said to us, "We did the best we could do; there was no cover-up."
He also indicated that he gave all this same documentation to the ABC reporter, but she chose to side with a few folks who are angry at him and at the church.
The Vargas report went so far as to accuse independent fundamental Baptist (IFB) churches of providing an authoritative climate that promotes the abuse of women and children.
She spoke in a demeaning way about dress standards, beliefs about loyalty to a church and a strict, literal interpretation of the Bible.
Apparently it is okay with the reporter and her network if they are authoritative in their reporting.
Apparently it is deemed just and fair to take some incidents of sexual abuse (which all of us would condemn loudly) and demonize every IFB church in the country.
In response to the bashing that the ABC report gave, Dr. Jeff Amsbaugh (pastor, Grace Baptist Church, Columbia, Georgia) wrote:
1. Independent Baptists by definition are "independent." There is no network, and many independent Baptist camps and colleges shy away from other independent Baptist camps and colleges. In the 20/20 episode, those of the Hyles camp of fundamentalism were linked with those in the Bob Jones network. Yet, these two streams of independent Baptists would rarely endorse each other. Therefore, to imply, as ABC did, that all camps of independent Baptists are in cahoots with one another and networked into some type of cultic structure is simply not true.
2. To the degree that ABC was accurate in its reporting any cover-up of sexual misconduct by Baptist ministers and churches, it should be applauded. Those who are guilty of sexual misconduct and those who cover up such deviancy should be exposed, even if they are members of our movement - indeed, especially because they are members of our movement. We should not allow the deviants within our movement to define us. The must be exposed in order that the reputation of the movement may remain above reproach.
3. To the degree that ABC was inaccurate in its reporting and blindly accepted the word of disgruntled church members without investigating the veracity of the accusations, it should be condemned. Proper journalism demands hearing both sides of the matter before rushing to meet a broadcast deadline. If ABC improperly slandered any godly minister or ministry, it should be held accountable.
Another definitive report has been written by Dr. Charles L. Surrett. Dr. Surrett is the academic dean of Ambassador Baptist College (Lattimore, North Carolina) and pastor of Emmanuel Independent Baptist Church (Kings Mountain, North Carolina).
On Friday, April 8, 2011, the ABC television network broadcast, on their weekly 20/20 program, a journalistic view of independent fundamental Baptist churches. The conclusion they were trying to reach is that the doctrines of IFB churches lead to physical and sexual abuse and that such churches should be considered to constitute a cult.
As a college-level teacher of logic, I noted several ways that the fundamental rules of Aristotelian logic were broken by the network and the hostess..., Elizabeth Vargas.
One such rule is that "evidence should be presented as failry and completely as possible." The fallacy which breaks that rule is called "special pleading," which is intentionally presenting favorable evidence to one's case, while at the same time purposely omitting unfavorable evidence. It is commonly practiced in courtrooms, where attorneys for one side of the argument present only that evidence which is favorable and attempt to suppress evidence that is unfavorable. This is acceptable in the courtroom, because the whole truth should come out, if both sides do their jobs properly.
However, when ABC's case was presented, it was totally one-sided, with a great deal of evidence that did not favor their argument being completely ignored. This may be sensational journalism, but it is not fair to present our nation with such a slanted view of those who call themselves independent fundamental Baptists. It is neither fair to the IFB churches and constituents nor fair to the general public....
[T]he current concept of the term "cult"...should be examined to see if IFB churches qualify. There is no "living leader," except for the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and IFB churches could hardly be blamed for following Him! Since these churches follow a Bible that is ancient, their doctrines cannot be called "new" or "strange and mysterious." They do not live in communes, nor do they require people to contribute all their possessions. Their "exclusive religious truth" is not of their own subjective invention but is extended to all who will accept the Bible as authoritative. Although there are some that demand more from their members than do others, it is not even close to the truth to assert that all IFB churches "command absolute obedience." Each individual local church should be judged upon its own merits. Therefore, since IFB churches do not have any of the characteristics of a cult, it is dishonest and unfair to label them as such.
ABC seemed content, rather than using any clear standards for defining a cult, to allow a small group of people in a room to verbalize that they think IFB churches constitute a cult. Without any real evidence, then, the assessment of an extremely small minority is taken as an indictment against hundreds of thousands of people. Merely stating that some think IFB is a cult does not make it so! But then, that is another fallacy, called "begging the question."
Dr. Surrett's essay is produced in full on the web site of Dr. Phelps.
Let's Set the Record Clear and Straight!
1. IFB churches are not given to the abuse of women and children. To the contrary, we preach and promote their full avalue and worth. We want them to be treated like royalty. If someone is being abused, no one in IFB circles would tolerate it.
2. IFB churches are full of law-abiding, God-fearing, patriotic citizens. We love our country. We salute our leaders, and we obey the law.
3. IFB churches are Bible-believing churches. Criticize us if you please, but, yes, we make a big place for the Bible and its teachings.
4. IFB churches do have a strong leadership structure, as does the ABC television network for whom Ms. Vargas works. Does she have people in charge of her department? I suspect she does.
5. IFB churches are not perfect! The pastors and the people are human (like TV reporters). Humans sometimes make mistakes or misjudgments. What may seem at the time to be good judgment may not look so sharp later on.
Our churches are not perfect, but we do not tolerate evil, even if someone in our leadership does it.
6. Accusations against others must always be handled with care. There are cases (lots of them), where accusations were falsely made by someone with a grievance or an agenda.
What may appear to be just accusation on the surface may prove to be totally false after an investigation has been done.
7. Legal counsel should be sought immediately when any such issues arise. Pastors and churches can turn to Christian legal groups for coaching. Groups like Lighthouse Legal Ministries, Christian Law Association, the Rutherford Institute, Liberty Counsel, the Alliance Defense Fund and others are available.
8. Preachers, including some IFB men, do sometimes make foolhardy statements. Some of the cutesy statements that are thought to be humorous in a friendly crowd may not seem so funny on YouTube or on a network expose.
Having a loose tongue when teaching or preaching can bring trouble to your doorstep.
If you are prone to pop off in the pulpit you may be setting yourself up for heartache and creating an embarrassment for the rest of us too.
But a preacher here or there who says something foolish does not constitute cause for a blanket indictment of the entire IFB movement.
9. IFB pastors and churches will report sexual abuse and other criminal matters. We do not claim special privilege when there is a crime or the accusation of a crime. We will call the local authorities when there is cause for concern.
We will not enable predators or perpetrators. We will neither shield them nor defend them.
A zero-tolerance policy is the mindset we have on such things.
10. IFB churches are not a new way of having church. We are Baptist in the historic sense of the word.
The fact that we do not have a headquarters and a hierarchy does not disenfranchise us and strip us of our legal rights.
11. IFB churches are given to fellowship that is characterized by loving, caring and compassionate interchange with each other. You'll not find any place on the planet where everybody is treated with more respect than at an IFB church.
12. IFB churches are not located in compounds behind high walls and locked gates. Everyone comes voluntarily, and everyone can leave voluntarily. There is no coercion of anybody.
Of course, we don't want you to leave. We love you, and we like having you with us. But should you decide to leave there are no bars on the windows.
Because we care about you, we will try to talk you into staying. But if you want to leave, the door is always ajar. You can leave if you choose to do so. Anyone who suggests anything to the contrary just doesn't have a grasp of reality!
Conclusions
We believe Dr. Phelps and the church in New Hampshire got a raw deal from ABC News.
We know for sure that the blanket condemnation of all IFB churches was a piece of very "yellow journalism."
We pray for any and all who may have had a crime or other abuse committed against them. People who commit such acts should be in jail. Churches should be especially supportive for victims or alleged victims.
We pray for the ABC network and its reporter, Elizabeth Vargas. They have erred on this, but we can pray they will yet tell the real story of IFB churches.
We understand that in these days we are apt to be thrown under the bus by media and others. It hurts, but we will not quit. We are saddened by such biased reporting, but we will not lose heart. We will press on!
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
I Re-took the Belief-O-Matic Quiz
I was not a little surprised that Reform Judaism got the top spot. My impression of Reform Jews is that they're a bunch of pantheist hip wannabes, and there is absolutely no room in my beliefs for pantheism. Maybe I just unfairly perceived them. Anyway, I coveted Jewishness when I was a kid, so maybe it isn't so outlandish that both Reform and Orthodox Judaism got the top spots. I was not surprised by Sikhism, Islam, and Liberal Quakerism being high on the list, and in fact I've been very interested in all three (but for conversion purposes, I was only interested in Liberal Quakerism). Baha'i does not merit a comment from me.
My scores are below. If you want to take the quiz to see what your best religious fit is, it's right here.
My scores are below. If you want to take the quiz to see what your best religious fit is, it's right here.
The top score on the list below represents the faith that Belief-O-Matic, in its
less than infinite wisdom, thinks most closely matches your beliefs. However,
even a score of 100% does not mean that your views are all shared by this faith,
or vice versa.
Belief-O-Matic then lists another 26 faiths in order of
how much they have in common with your professed beliefs. The higher a faith
appears on this list, the more closely it aligns with your thinking.
1. Reform Judaism (100%)
2. Orthodox Judaism (87%)
3. Sikhism (86%)
4. Baha'i Faith (84%)
5. Islam (84%)
6. Liberal Quakers (81%)
7. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (74%)
8. Jainism (72%)
9. Unitarian Universalism (71%)
10. Orthodox Quaker (63%)
11. Mahayana Buddhism (60%)
12. Hinduism (58%)
13. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (54%)
14. Theravada Buddhism (54%)
15. Seventh Day Adventist (51%)
16. New Thought (51%)
17. Neo-Pagan (50%)
18. Scientology (49%)
19. Jehovah's Witness (47%)
20. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (47%)
21. New Age (46%)
22. Secular Humanism (42%)
23. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (41%)
24. Eastern Orthodox (39%)
25. Roman Catholic (39%)
26. Taoism (36%)
27. Nontheist (32%)
Friday, February 11, 2011
Hiatus
I should have done this in August. This will be my last post on this blog until May. I apologize for any inconvenience or displeasure this may cause any of the three or four of you.
But before I go, I must say Congratulations to the people of Egypt. Hopefully they can get the elections pushed forward. Seven months is a long time to wait under military rule.
I guess this is where I'm supposed to paste a powerful quote on continuous struggle, but I lack the time to find anything.
But before I go, I must say Congratulations to the people of Egypt. Hopefully they can get the elections pushed forward. Seven months is a long time to wait under military rule.
I guess this is where I'm supposed to paste a powerful quote on continuous struggle, but I lack the time to find anything.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Market Anarchism, Judgment-Proof Defendants, and Heathianism
If we were to redraw the political spectrum, it would be useful to classify it according to political or social "efficacy" - the strength of the system's positive or negative incentives which confront the individual. The more the individual's actions may be manipulated by the institutionalized relations, the more "efficacy" there is. Post-structuralism and Primitivism would be on the far left, with the least efficacy, and tyrannical, draconian, totalitarian states would be on the far right, with maximum efficacy. ("Maximum efficacy", here, does not mean that the system "works" or is productive, but rather that the typical risk-averse individual cannot possibly refuse the offers that the system does make - we could also call this "total non-refusability", if we don't mind sounding ungraceful).
The ideal "state" would maximize both freedom and efficacy, and would probably be a bit left of the middle of this spectrum. People with my political persuasion believe that this perfect balance can be achieved with competing Private Defense Agencies or Dispute Resolution Organizations that people would voluntarily subscribe to and may choose to unsubscribe from. Competition between these agencies would theoretically lead towards the best services at the lowest prices, and would provide a minimally-violent form of law enforcement. All crimes can be treated like torts, and instead of arresting, jailing, and imprisoning offenders, we could charge them a lot of money.
Protecting the poor against the rich wouldn't bee too much of a problem, since tort claims can be sold to people or groups who have more resources to sue. The prospect of making bank off of rich defendants offers the incentive to compensate poor claimants in exchange for their cause of action.
One of the problems that market anarchists spend a lot of time addressing is the judgment-proof defendant. If your perpetrator is dirt poor, then your cause of action is not marketable. PDA's, DRO's, Anglo-Saxon-style "hundreds", or other kinds of liability insurance groups can cover the costs of their members' wrongdoing and increase their offending members' rates. If the costs of continuing to cover a member's wrongdoing greatly excedes the benefit of his payments, the insurance company can drop him. The prospect of living in an anarchist world without coverage is supposed to be the implicit offer you can't refuse that incentivizes you to live peacefully. Once you lose your coverage, you supposedly have a very powerful incentive to sign some kind of probation contract so that you can get coverage immediately on the condition that you stay in a supervised environment.
But being judgment-proof would be a very sticky situation. When you aren't covered it would probably be very hard to get a job with someone who is covered (DRO's would demand that their subscribers make their business partners get coverage too, or at least offer them lower rates if they do), and when you don't have a job you can't make your payments. Given that people who lost their coverage are a real liability, options for them to reintegrate into "respectable" society would be limited, and quite a few of them may find it easier to just scrape by without any formalized structure to incentivize them to acquiesce to the conventional rights notions ("When you ain't got nothin' you got nothin' to loose"). Add to that mix the immigrant and migrant populations who would be too poor to afford conventional coverage and who would be moving around alot, and you have what a capitalist would call an entrepreneurship opportunity.
(Sure, the greater economic freedom in anarchy would lead to increased economic opportunity for the underserved, but that's a two-sided coin. Greater economic opportunity attracts more people who could use it, and that means a lot of poor people. Were it not for this, we could speculate that the occasional tortfeasance from a judgment-proof defendant would be so rare that the victim's DRO could compensate the victim at no noticeable cost to the DRO. But that might be more of a religious hope than a market outcome.)
The success of market anarchism would depend very much on whether low-cost and effective security and dispute resolution options are extended to excluded and underserved communities. These options may take the form of ecclesiastical courts, the ever-present matriarchal Latina, or - yes - gangs. One of the difficulties is that since migrants and vagabonds aren't settled down in any one community, they wouldn't have much of a reputation for security and dispute resolution providers to work off of. (Impunity for killing blacklisted people would not be much of an option, since killing the wrong person can make things volatile, besides being a wrongfull killing.) If market anarchism cannot fill this coverage gap, then there would be less of an incentive structure for poor people, and market anarchism would be further left on the efficacy spectrum than the social justice types would prefer.
The options that fill the coverage gap would probably be "public options" in security, which would assume contractual privity whether or not the plaintiff or defendant signed any contract or consciously and deliberately gave any indication of assent. This is tacit consent based on territory, and if this reminds you of the presumptiousness of tacit consent used in social contract theory, then you're thinking on my level.
If security and compensation options for underserved communities are not self-sufficient (and they probably won't be), the resources to fund them would have to come from somewhere else - possibly another DRO. We could fantasize that in a world where there are numerous DRO's and PDA's, the DRO's and PDA's would constantly try to one-up each other to provide appropriate services to the underserved. But it would be more likely that the different security companies would try to one-up each other in providing the appearance of appropriate services to the underserved - if their paying members demand that kind of charity in the first place, which they probably won't since it would mean higher premiums for them and they would rather subscribe to the company that charges lower premiums and doesn't provide that charity. This could mean that there would be little incentive to provide the formal services that would incentivize people in low-to-no income areas to refrain from agressing, and that would mean lower efficacy.
I think this worry would be widely shared among the populace of a freshly-decentralized region. And because of this common worry, there may be a significant consumer demand for jurisdiction based not on contract, but on territory. I admit that this is ironic. But we see it all the time today. If people could, they would defer onto everyone else the cost of their goodwill. That's what welfare is. And if they think this goodwill can benefit them, as welfare could in a "veil of ignorance" sense, then they would probably approach security services under the presumption that a local monopoly on police would reduce crime in an entire area and make one's own neighborhood and city safer than would competing police who cannot be forced to provide free services. Prospective security company subscribers would place more demand on a more municipal system, even though the lower amount of competition may mean higher fees.
I have earlier speculated that the formation of the functional equivalent of states is totally possible and even "legitimate" under pure Rothbardian capitalist anarchism. Just think of the water - the dissolution of the state in California could (and likely would) result in privately-held aqueducts that run from the Delta all the way down into the Central Valley, and they would likely demand in their adhesion contracts that all water-users along those aqueducts subscribe to one single DRO (doesn't Hayek or someone have a word for the state's intrusions creating more need for the state?). In my knee-jerk love for all things small, I recently suggested that the anarchist legal community adopt a 20 square mile ceiling on both contiguous property and contiguous jurisdiction. But if the concerns I raise earlier in this post turn out to have real merit, then maybe land monopolies should be accepted not just as real world capitalist phenomena that non-capitalist free marketeers should always strive to break up, but as institutions that people should accept and try to work with. Maybe free market left-libertarians should propose a mutualist cooperative model of the Heathian estate (which would, honestly, just be a mini-republic).
I already have rebuttals and qualfications, but I should stop now and give those in a later post.
The ideal "state" would maximize both freedom and efficacy, and would probably be a bit left of the middle of this spectrum. People with my political persuasion believe that this perfect balance can be achieved with competing Private Defense Agencies or Dispute Resolution Organizations that people would voluntarily subscribe to and may choose to unsubscribe from. Competition between these agencies would theoretically lead towards the best services at the lowest prices, and would provide a minimally-violent form of law enforcement. All crimes can be treated like torts, and instead of arresting, jailing, and imprisoning offenders, we could charge them a lot of money.
Protecting the poor against the rich wouldn't bee too much of a problem, since tort claims can be sold to people or groups who have more resources to sue. The prospect of making bank off of rich defendants offers the incentive to compensate poor claimants in exchange for their cause of action.
One of the problems that market anarchists spend a lot of time addressing is the judgment-proof defendant. If your perpetrator is dirt poor, then your cause of action is not marketable. PDA's, DRO's, Anglo-Saxon-style "hundreds", or other kinds of liability insurance groups can cover the costs of their members' wrongdoing and increase their offending members' rates. If the costs of continuing to cover a member's wrongdoing greatly excedes the benefit of his payments, the insurance company can drop him. The prospect of living in an anarchist world without coverage is supposed to be the implicit offer you can't refuse that incentivizes you to live peacefully. Once you lose your coverage, you supposedly have a very powerful incentive to sign some kind of probation contract so that you can get coverage immediately on the condition that you stay in a supervised environment.
But being judgment-proof would be a very sticky situation. When you aren't covered it would probably be very hard to get a job with someone who is covered (DRO's would demand that their subscribers make their business partners get coverage too, or at least offer them lower rates if they do), and when you don't have a job you can't make your payments. Given that people who lost their coverage are a real liability, options for them to reintegrate into "respectable" society would be limited, and quite a few of them may find it easier to just scrape by without any formalized structure to incentivize them to acquiesce to the conventional rights notions ("When you ain't got nothin' you got nothin' to loose"). Add to that mix the immigrant and migrant populations who would be too poor to afford conventional coverage and who would be moving around alot, and you have what a capitalist would call an entrepreneurship opportunity.
(Sure, the greater economic freedom in anarchy would lead to increased economic opportunity for the underserved, but that's a two-sided coin. Greater economic opportunity attracts more people who could use it, and that means a lot of poor people. Were it not for this, we could speculate that the occasional tortfeasance from a judgment-proof defendant would be so rare that the victim's DRO could compensate the victim at no noticeable cost to the DRO. But that might be more of a religious hope than a market outcome.)
The success of market anarchism would depend very much on whether low-cost and effective security and dispute resolution options are extended to excluded and underserved communities. These options may take the form of ecclesiastical courts, the ever-present matriarchal Latina, or - yes - gangs. One of the difficulties is that since migrants and vagabonds aren't settled down in any one community, they wouldn't have much of a reputation for security and dispute resolution providers to work off of. (Impunity for killing blacklisted people would not be much of an option, since killing the wrong person can make things volatile, besides being a wrongfull killing.) If market anarchism cannot fill this coverage gap, then there would be less of an incentive structure for poor people, and market anarchism would be further left on the efficacy spectrum than the social justice types would prefer.
The options that fill the coverage gap would probably be "public options" in security, which would assume contractual privity whether or not the plaintiff or defendant signed any contract or consciously and deliberately gave any indication of assent. This is tacit consent based on territory, and if this reminds you of the presumptiousness of tacit consent used in social contract theory, then you're thinking on my level.
If security and compensation options for underserved communities are not self-sufficient (and they probably won't be), the resources to fund them would have to come from somewhere else - possibly another DRO. We could fantasize that in a world where there are numerous DRO's and PDA's, the DRO's and PDA's would constantly try to one-up each other to provide appropriate services to the underserved. But it would be more likely that the different security companies would try to one-up each other in providing the appearance of appropriate services to the underserved - if their paying members demand that kind of charity in the first place, which they probably won't since it would mean higher premiums for them and they would rather subscribe to the company that charges lower premiums and doesn't provide that charity. This could mean that there would be little incentive to provide the formal services that would incentivize people in low-to-no income areas to refrain from agressing, and that would mean lower efficacy.
I think this worry would be widely shared among the populace of a freshly-decentralized region. And because of this common worry, there may be a significant consumer demand for jurisdiction based not on contract, but on territory. I admit that this is ironic. But we see it all the time today. If people could, they would defer onto everyone else the cost of their goodwill. That's what welfare is. And if they think this goodwill can benefit them, as welfare could in a "veil of ignorance" sense, then they would probably approach security services under the presumption that a local monopoly on police would reduce crime in an entire area and make one's own neighborhood and city safer than would competing police who cannot be forced to provide free services. Prospective security company subscribers would place more demand on a more municipal system, even though the lower amount of competition may mean higher fees.
I have earlier speculated that the formation of the functional equivalent of states is totally possible and even "legitimate" under pure Rothbardian capitalist anarchism. Just think of the water - the dissolution of the state in California could (and likely would) result in privately-held aqueducts that run from the Delta all the way down into the Central Valley, and they would likely demand in their adhesion contracts that all water-users along those aqueducts subscribe to one single DRO (doesn't Hayek or someone have a word for the state's intrusions creating more need for the state?). In my knee-jerk love for all things small, I recently suggested that the anarchist legal community adopt a 20 square mile ceiling on both contiguous property and contiguous jurisdiction. But if the concerns I raise earlier in this post turn out to have real merit, then maybe land monopolies should be accepted not just as real world capitalist phenomena that non-capitalist free marketeers should always strive to break up, but as institutions that people should accept and try to work with. Maybe free market left-libertarians should propose a mutualist cooperative model of the Heathian estate (which would, honestly, just be a mini-republic).
I already have rebuttals and qualfications, but I should stop now and give those in a later post.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Life Expectancy of the Palestinians
The World Bank's 2008 estimate of life expectancy in Israel was 81 years from birth. The estimate for life expectancy in the Palestinian Territories was 73.5 years.
This really surprised me when I read it. The life expectancy of Egypt was 70.1 years, and the life expectancy of Jordan was 72.7 years. I'm not saying that Egypt and Jordan are especially free and prosperous countries - current events show that these societies have their discontents. But a people buckling under the weight of apartheid are expected to live longer than their neighbors?
It very well may be that these figures are like this because the World Bank got them before Israel's galavant into Gaza. I say new estimates are past due.
It would be really neat to learn the differences between the life expectancy of residents of the West Bank and those of Gaza. My guess is that Gazans' life expectancy would be noticeably lower than that of their compatirots in the West Bank. Anyone with more recent estimates is welcome to give me a link.
This really surprised me when I read it. The life expectancy of Egypt was 70.1 years, and the life expectancy of Jordan was 72.7 years. I'm not saying that Egypt and Jordan are especially free and prosperous countries - current events show that these societies have their discontents. But a people buckling under the weight of apartheid are expected to live longer than their neighbors?
It very well may be that these figures are like this because the World Bank got them before Israel's galavant into Gaza. I say new estimates are past due.
It would be really neat to learn the differences between the life expectancy of residents of the West Bank and those of Gaza. My guess is that Gazans' life expectancy would be noticeably lower than that of their compatirots in the West Bank. Anyone with more recent estimates is welcome to give me a link.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Gun Control
I'm very concerned by ongoing calls to ban or strictly regulate the individual ownership of firearms, mostly because it betrays a pathological naivity on the part of most people making these calls (not to say that there aren't any naifs on the gun rights side).
Last night a lady stood before a reform Jewish congregation in Santa Monica and encouraged congregants and visitors to sign her petition to remove the gun show loop hole. She then said it was non-violent. I wonder if she thinks the officers enforcing that law will be armed. If they will be, well, there's a propensity for violence. Defensive violence, maybe, but it's still violence. And if we're going to allow for some defensive violence, why allow only one particular class to use it?
I always wonder if people who want to ban individual ownership of firearms want to also ban police and military ownership of firearms. That might be nice, if it were ever to happen. But it probably won't. Even in the UK, where the police don't cary firearms, there still are SWAT teams and other special units who do cary and use firearms, and there is a military, whose members - yes - cary firearms. To be fair, there are far fewer gun related deaths in the UK than there are in the US - something which I admit here.
There is one consequentialist consideration which I didn't mention in my earlier post, and that is disparities of power. The state has a much greater capacity to inflict lethal violence than its subjects do. Banning individual ownership of firearms exacerbates that power disparity. This doesn't always result in totalitarianism. Or rather I should say not every case has resulted in totalitarianism yet. What we can say is that the classic cases of totalitarianism (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia) involved weapons control - or, what Anthony Gregory calls victim disarmament.
People who think the U.S. would be significantly different should take a hint from Oscar Grant, Waco, internment camps, and any other incident from that long list of abuses by the U.S. government. A government that abuses an armed populace can't be trusted to rule a disarmed populace. Of course, the biggest problem is that the government is too powerful to begin with. But until the government's destructive capacities are rolled back, and they never will be, I would say that individual residents of this country should be allowed to keep armor-piercing weapons (though, no, we hardly ever are allowed such a privilege).
Last night a lady stood before a reform Jewish congregation in Santa Monica and encouraged congregants and visitors to sign her petition to remove the gun show loop hole. She then said it was non-violent. I wonder if she thinks the officers enforcing that law will be armed. If they will be, well, there's a propensity for violence. Defensive violence, maybe, but it's still violence. And if we're going to allow for some defensive violence, why allow only one particular class to use it?
I always wonder if people who want to ban individual ownership of firearms want to also ban police and military ownership of firearms. That might be nice, if it were ever to happen. But it probably won't. Even in the UK, where the police don't cary firearms, there still are SWAT teams and other special units who do cary and use firearms, and there is a military, whose members - yes - cary firearms. To be fair, there are far fewer gun related deaths in the UK than there are in the US - something which I admit here.
There is one consequentialist consideration which I didn't mention in my earlier post, and that is disparities of power. The state has a much greater capacity to inflict lethal violence than its subjects do. Banning individual ownership of firearms exacerbates that power disparity. This doesn't always result in totalitarianism. Or rather I should say not every case has resulted in totalitarianism yet. What we can say is that the classic cases of totalitarianism (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia) involved weapons control - or, what Anthony Gregory calls victim disarmament.
People who think the U.S. would be significantly different should take a hint from Oscar Grant, Waco, internment camps, and any other incident from that long list of abuses by the U.S. government. A government that abuses an armed populace can't be trusted to rule a disarmed populace. Of course, the biggest problem is that the government is too powerful to begin with. But until the government's destructive capacities are rolled back, and they never will be, I would say that individual residents of this country should be allowed to keep armor-piercing weapons (though, no, we hardly ever are allowed such a privilege).
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Getting Saved
From a status update by a FB friend (and former heartbeat from when I was in 6th grade):
First, and most obviously, you are to belive in God. Not just any god, but a God who has very specific things in mind for each human. This God wishes eternal happiness for each human, but also has set up a scheme where each human will likely be damned to eternal misery (which born again Christians can try to define as mere separation from God, but prefer instead to describe as a bottomless firey pit).
This has funny implications about justice. For just living a less than perfect life which would typically last no longer than 90 years, an unsaved human spends an eternity in hell, which again is usually described as a place of actual torment, and not mere separation from God. Accepting the solution offered by the God who put together this arrangement means accepting that it is just to punish someone with an eternity of torments for sins they committed in a less than 90 year life. Even if the person lived long and wickedly, with constant and cruel sin, the the gravity of the sin divided by the gravity of the punishment evens out to a big fat zero.
You are to believe that this place of eternal torment is the only possible place God can send you, and that places like - oh, purgatory - are simply not options that the omnipotent God will make available.
Included in the beliefs I mentioned above is a non-reincarnation, or linear, view of the afterlife and the world. You don't come back. Once you die you immediately go to where you're destined to go, or you stay in the ground until the trumpet blows, but you don't come back.
You are to believe that your wickedness which condemns you to an eternity of torments can be suddenly washed away (or covered up) by Jesus' death.
You are to believe that since you are so wicked, it is only by the grace of God that you can get saved, and that nothing you do can get you saved - unless of course we're talking about your act of praying to accept Jesus' death as a payment for your sins, since the sufficient grace of Jesus' payment is insufficient to cover you unless you accept it.
You are to believe that a life in awareness of Christ's payment does not constitute faith, that salvation requires the act of accepting Christ's payment, and that this act is not some inefficacious religious ritual or human effort that Paul refers to as a "work".
You are to believe that once you're saved, you're set, and that anything you do, no matter how bad, is covered. If for some reason you thought you were saved but incorrectly believed that you can loose your salvation, you should pray the sinner's prayer again one last time just to "make assurance" of your salvation. Or if after getting saved you committed a sin that is so grave it puts you in doubt of the authenticity of your salvation, you can pray the sinner's prayer again just to make for sure for sure.
All of this and much much more is to be conveyed in the couple minutes it takes to read the Roman's Road.
"Getting saved" is a funny thing to write about. Not because it takes a lot of gall and balls to talk about it with strangers and with people you know don't want to hear about it, but because "getting saved" involves accepting or affirming a very very large package of numerous specific beliefs.I believe in Jesus Christ and have accepted Him as my personal Savior. One FB user has challenged all believers to put this on their wall...In the Bible it says, if you deny me in front of your peers, I will deny you in front of my Father. This is...simple... If you love God and you are not afraid to show it, re-post this as I have.. :)
First, and most obviously, you are to belive in God. Not just any god, but a God who has very specific things in mind for each human. This God wishes eternal happiness for each human, but also has set up a scheme where each human will likely be damned to eternal misery (which born again Christians can try to define as mere separation from God, but prefer instead to describe as a bottomless firey pit).
This has funny implications about justice. For just living a less than perfect life which would typically last no longer than 90 years, an unsaved human spends an eternity in hell, which again is usually described as a place of actual torment, and not mere separation from God. Accepting the solution offered by the God who put together this arrangement means accepting that it is just to punish someone with an eternity of torments for sins they committed in a less than 90 year life. Even if the person lived long and wickedly, with constant and cruel sin, the the gravity of the sin divided by the gravity of the punishment evens out to a big fat zero.
You are to believe that this place of eternal torment is the only possible place God can send you, and that places like - oh, purgatory - are simply not options that the omnipotent God will make available.
Included in the beliefs I mentioned above is a non-reincarnation, or linear, view of the afterlife and the world. You don't come back. Once you die you immediately go to where you're destined to go, or you stay in the ground until the trumpet blows, but you don't come back.
You are to believe that your wickedness which condemns you to an eternity of torments can be suddenly washed away (or covered up) by Jesus' death.
You are to believe that since you are so wicked, it is only by the grace of God that you can get saved, and that nothing you do can get you saved - unless of course we're talking about your act of praying to accept Jesus' death as a payment for your sins, since the sufficient grace of Jesus' payment is insufficient to cover you unless you accept it.
You are to believe that a life in awareness of Christ's payment does not constitute faith, that salvation requires the act of accepting Christ's payment, and that this act is not some inefficacious religious ritual or human effort that Paul refers to as a "work".
You are to believe that once you're saved, you're set, and that anything you do, no matter how bad, is covered. If for some reason you thought you were saved but incorrectly believed that you can loose your salvation, you should pray the sinner's prayer again one last time just to "make assurance" of your salvation. Or if after getting saved you committed a sin that is so grave it puts you in doubt of the authenticity of your salvation, you can pray the sinner's prayer again just to make for sure for sure.
All of this and much much more is to be conveyed in the couple minutes it takes to read the Roman's Road.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
What Are the Scots?
Last night at a New Years party my gf asked me "What religion are the Scots? Anglican?" I said the largest group and the national church are (yes, groups are plural) the Church of Scotland, so the Scots "are" Presbyterian.
A summary of the religious identity of the Scottish people can be found here - again, at Wikipedia. At the 2001 census 65% of the Scottish population were some kind of Christian. The groups with the greatest number of people claiming some kind of allegiance to them were the Church of Scotland, with about 42% of the Scottish population, and the Roman Catholic Church, with about 16%. Since no denomination claims a majority of the Scottish people, I think it's unfair to say that "the Scots" as a single people "are" anything. (This seems even more true when we consider that the numbers we're talking about are nominal religious identities - what people merely claim to be - and not how they practice or whether or not their churches officially recognize them as practicing members of the church.)
Of course, by the same reasoning I can say that the English are not Anglican, since only 22.2% of the English people claim to be in the Church of England (the Church of England recognizes only 1.7 million as practicing members of the church).
A summary of the religious identity of the Scottish people can be found here - again, at Wikipedia. At the 2001 census 65% of the Scottish population were some kind of Christian. The groups with the greatest number of people claiming some kind of allegiance to them were the Church of Scotland, with about 42% of the Scottish population, and the Roman Catholic Church, with about 16%. Since no denomination claims a majority of the Scottish people, I think it's unfair to say that "the Scots" as a single people "are" anything. (This seems even more true when we consider that the numbers we're talking about are nominal religious identities - what people merely claim to be - and not how they practice or whether or not their churches officially recognize them as practicing members of the church.)
Of course, by the same reasoning I can say that the English are not Anglican, since only 22.2% of the English people claim to be in the Church of England (the Church of England recognizes only 1.7 million as practicing members of the church).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- Isaiah
- I am a part-time philosopher and a former immigration paralegal with a BA in philosophy and a paralegal certificate from UC San Diego.