There is No Neutrality

Michael Bull rails against atheists who complain about religious instruction in schools, because their naturalistic philosophy is supposedly neutral.

But as usual, they are blinded by their pride.

In the mean time, our culture itself is eroding, and its all a great mystery why the West is crumbling.

Some quick points from the article:

  • An atheist’s faith relies on their rationality.
  • Our “secular” culture results in great pragmatic wisdom. This has been a blessing in many ways, but if pragmatism is the greatest virtue, you also open the door to horrors unimaginable.
  • When it comes to the tough questions, secular culture is bankrupt.
  • True progress requires the Word of God and the Spirit of God.
  • Our problem is that we want the Word of God to be provable before we act on it. We don’t want to rely on faith.

An Act of “Christian” Terrorism? Not Even Close.

Once again we have the worshipers of Reason being unreasonable. The fundamentalist who killed 76 people in Norway is being regarded as another example of the horrors of religion when not kept private. See, Christians commit acts of terrorism too. Just like Muslims. They might as well be exactly the same.

Of course, the only basis for calling him a Christian is the guy’s Facebook profile, which is about as deep as most people looked. They see a piece of ice floating on the water, and then have faith that it is actually the tip of an iceberg 300 feet tall. They don’t have to actually look, though.  After all, they have reason and science on their side by default, so they don’t have to engage in any actual freethinking.

Breivik was a fundamentalist, no doubt. But as this article points out, he was an Enlightenment fundamentalist.

 In an on-line manifesto, Breivik makes it clear that he is not a “fundamentalist Christian.”  He prefaces one comment with, “If there is a God…” and says that science should always trump religion.  So in terms of religious convictions, he sounds more like Richard Dawkins than Jerry Falwell.

The article is insightful, and I encourage you to read it, as it also highlights one of the key problems with our culture: desiring the fruit of the tree (Christendom), while wanting to do away with the root and tree itself (Christ).

Citizens in Colonies of Heaven

This is a re-post of a previous article with minor edits. I actually still agree with most of what I wrote 4 years ago, which is weird.

“But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.” Philippians 3:20,21

This passage seems short and simple, but is pregnant with underlying meaning and first century cultural undertones. With our twenty-first century eyes, we typically read this as meaning that our true home is in heaven, and that we should always be longing to return to our true home. Christianity is simply the road-map to get us to the correct destination. All other guides lead to Hell.

But Paul was not a westerner living in the United States, nor were his readers. Nor did they live after the Enlightenment, which loves to force every concept into some sort of dualism. So what meaning could the word “citizenship” have in the time period?

What was the most popular and well-known form of citizenship during the first century, of which Paul himself had attained?

In the Gentile world to which Paul directed his preaching, the power of Rome overshadowed all walks of life, especially in Phillipi, so it is not unreasonable to think that the context here is Roman citizenship. Add the fact that Phillipi was a Roman colony founded by Augustus, planted permanently with Roman military veterans, and was referred to as a “miniature Rome,” and the case stacks up that Paul wrote to a Romanized city filled with Roman citizens.

So what did this citizenship mean? In the rich diversity of the Empire, with it’s sprawling colonies, certainly it did not mean that a Roman citizen longed to return once and for all to the mother city, Rome, and that the ultimate goal of their lives, was to reach that glorious place. A proposal like that sounds silly.

What it did mean, however, was that a citizen could call on the power of Caesar to intervene, as Paul did when he was on trial. It also meant that if there were ever any problems in a colony, or that Caesar’s authority was questioned, that he (or a representative) would come down from Rome (usually at the head of a legion or two) to reestablish Roman rule and authority. Likewise, Roman citizens were to exude Roman values, to essentially carry Rome wherever they went. Leaven for the land.

Here we have a more plausible meaning for the passage. Jesus, the true lord and king of the world, coming to complete the work the church has undertaken since his resurrection, and finally, once and for all, reestablishing the authority of the Father over all of creation. But in the process, the creation itself will be renewed into a “new heavens and new earth”, of which the Spirit was a down payment.

After all, simply “going to heaven when you die”, seeking to escape the good creation of the one true God, would really be no different than the Platonic view of the world, which most pagans held anyway. There’s nothing inherently controversial about that view. But the message that Jesus is Messiah, the lord of all the earth, and to him every knee should bow, including that of Caesar, would turn a few heads, I imagine.

So why do we want to escape an earth that Jesus has in subjection, and will renew (along with our bodies) when he comes again?

The early Christians were not persecuted because they wanted to escape their bodies and leave the world. Who cares if they did that? Good riddance, some would say. They were persecuted because they were odd, peculiar, and stood in direct defiance to Caesar’s authority, claiming another king.

In the same way, our loyalty should not be to any governments of man, nor their agendas of power and death. We tolerate them, and respect their God-given authority, but only as the parodies and shadows they are of the true King. They need to be reminded that they eventually have to report to upper management.

Begin telling people that your allegiance is to another King. That you have a citizenship that trumps your obligations as a citizen of any government on earth. That you reject their claim that there is no authority above them.

You are a citizen of heaven. Act like one.

Can You Trust Their GPA?

Higher education is the next bubble to pop, with rising costs and people with large debt and almost nothing to show for it. And then there is the additional question of the value of the actual education, whenever the football and basketball games are over. Taken even further, can you even trust the GPA they received?

This professor decides to stop pursuing cheating in his classes. Why? It’s not worth it. The incentives are twisted.

Not only I paid a significant financial penalty for “doing the right thing” (was I?) but I was also lectured by some senior professors that I “should change slightly my assignments from year to year”. (Thanks for the suggestion, buddy, this is exactly how I detected the cheaters.)

Suggestions to change completely the assignments from year to year are appealing on the first sight but they cause others types of problems: It is very difficult to know in advance if an assignment is going to be too easy, too hard, or too ambiguous. Even small-scale testing with TA’s and other faculty does not help. You need to “test” the new assignment by giving it to students. If it is a good one, you want to keep it. If it is a bad one, you just gave to the students a useless exercise.

I also did not like the overall teaching experience, and this was the most important thing for me. Teaching became annoying and tiring. There was a very different dynamic in class, which I did not particularly enjoy. It was a feeling of “me-against-them” as opposed to the much more pleasant “these things that we are learning are really cool!”

Will I pursue cheating cases in the future? Never, ever again!

He also spent 45 hours dealing with his cheating cases.  That is over 30% more time than he spent lecturing.

This professor is actually taking steps to be more creative in his assignments to make cheating impossible. But how many will take the effort to do this? And as he mentions, that is not possible with all types of assignments.  It’s hard to teach the writing of database queries without some standard exercises that are tried and true.

Here are some of his suggestions to mitigate the damage, however:

  1. Public Projects, where risk of embarrassment is too high.
  2. Peer Reviewing, where the only grade they receive is given by the class.
  3. Competitions.

The secular bastions of the one key Enlightenment virtue, “education,” are crumbling. I’m reminded of this C.S. Lewis quote:

We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and then bid the geldings to be fruitful.”

Just a Series of Chemical Reactions

Two Oregon churches were vandalized, with “Praise the FSM” painted on their property. FSM stands for “flying spaghetti monster,” a popular internet meme for some atheists. The Friendly Atheist decided to raise some money for the clean-up to help out the churches.

The clip below is from Fox and Friends with both Pastor John Bluebaugh and Hemant Mehta of the Friendly Atheist discussing the situation and its aftermath.

The real motivation for this action is revealed as Hemant squeezes in the last word in the segment.

“You don’t need Jesus to be good.  It’s possible to be good without God and I think the people on my website chipping in show that.”

Yes, people can do good things without Jesus.  However, they need to steal ethics from some other realm in order to make that claim. It’s like a man with no taste buds trying to pass himself off as a food critic.  He can shovel down the food just like everyone else, but when asked if that bite of that steak tasted good, he has to lean over to his brother, who happens to have taste buds, to get the answer.

Or perhaps he takes a poll, determining what the majority of people think of steak. But then what if the people polled are mostly vegans? Or maybe his brother has a head cold that changes his opinion?

While helping others is always commendable, modern atheists are completely nonsensical when trying to articulate why it is so.  Why is a group of skin-bags full of blood and muscle giving money to another group of skin-bags full of blood and muscle good or bad? It was, after all, just a series of chemical reactions. Why should I care about it more than the chemical reactions that lead a hunk of meat to sit on a couch and watch lights come out of a television?

One more thought: we know the ends don’t always justify the means. But do the means ever justify the ends?