J. W. KRAFT dotcom

The news is filled with reports of the terrorist attack on Mumbai, India.  We do not yet know what the terrorists’ motives are; they could have to do with Kashmir, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, or any number of other hotspots.  One thing that is known is that the assailants are Muslim.  I believe one of the most effective aspects of Islamic terror is that it causes non-Muslims to hate and despise Muslims.  The actions of the terrrorists are reprehensible and I do not defend them at all.  The fate of their victims are horrendous and tragic and not to be belittled in any way.  However, I believe that the ultimate victims of Islam are often forgotten because it i easier to divide the world in to us and them and because we prefer to hate.

The murdered victims of Islamic terrorism are tragic but they are also dead, Islam can harm them no more.  The real victims of Islam are the people who have to live under it.  Much has been made of the plight of women in strict Islamic countries and rightly so; they are some of the most oppressed people on the planet.  I would like to point out however, that Muslim women in less strict and even western countries and even Muslim men have to live everyday of their lives believing in Islam.

Allah is a very distant god.  He would not even speak directly to the prophet Mohammed but had an angel mediate between them.  Muslim men and women spend their lives attempting to fulfill all the requirements to get into Heaven and escape Hell.  One of these is a visit to Mecca.  The Saudi governement places a strict cap on the number who can go to Mecca each year and hundreds of millions of Muslims will never even have the chance. Even completing the requirement is not gaurentee; those who escape Hell do so by the arbitrary descision of Allah. Even Mohammed said “What Allah will do with me, I know not.“   Think of the phychologcal and spiritual oppression of these teemining millions, these are Islam’s real victims.

Liberal and conservative economic models share a common flaw.  For the most part Democrats and Republicans are synonymous with liberals and conservatives but not quite.  The vast majority of Democrats and Republicans take a compromised position on economic policy.  They lean liberal or lean conservative but are unwilling to commit fully.  This is symptomatic of one or more of the following, intellectual laxity, a lack of commitment or belief in the cause, or pandering to voters which in turn shows  a lack of moral character and fortitude.  Socialists and Libertarians tend to be much more consistent in their economic policy views and carry liberal and conservative philosophy much closer to their respective logical conclusions than most members of the two major parties do.  For the sake of this article the terms “liberal” and “conservative” will refer more to the ideals of those philosophies rather than to the mostly inconsistent members of any particular party.

The thing that liberals and conservatives mutually miss or mess up in economic policy is love.  Yes that’s right, love.  I’ll start with the liberals.

Liberals tend to be concerned with the well being of the poor, which is good and loving.  So they begin on the right track but, they forget about love, and so go about it all wrong.  Liberal economic policy in a simplified form is like Robin Hood, take from the rich and give to the poor.  Because the money was not given freely, but rather forced by law, it is not charity. The rich, some of whom are very charitable, resent their money being voted out of their hands and given to the voters.  They feel that the masses have risen up and stolen from them like a pitchfork mob storming the castle.  Because it was not charity (that is, a gift), the poor begin to feel they have a right to it and thus that the rich have stolen from them.  The poor then come to resent the rich.  So liberal economic policy leads to greater mutual class resentment and less love.

Conservative economic policy focuses on what is just.  It is unjust to take a man’s private property so conservatives push for fewer taxes and freer markets.  They count on the market growing when there are fewer restrictions and generally it does.  This they reason, should help the poor in a trickle down effect.  In this model, the poor are an afterthought, not very loving.  The poor resent being an afterthought and the rich assume that the poor are poor because they are either lazy or stupid.  This is not a good way to breed love.

Charity (that is, grace) is the action of love.  Charity and love are two sides of the same coin. Where there is no love, there can be no charity, this is the problem of conservative economics.  Where there is not charity, there can be no love, this is the problem of liberal economics.  So liberals and conservatives take different paths to smothering love as much as possible.  Call me crazy.

This is the eighth article I have written as part of an ongoing debate with Mr. Adrian Thysse on the reasonableness of Christian faith.  It has been a while; I think I am the most inconsistent blogger in the western hemisphere, I apologize for that.

I am honored that you think my logic to be Lewisian. JPWSR is correct to not defend God, and I do not either. God knows, He doesn’t need my help. I am defending the belief in God as being reasonable. God is reasonable by virtue of being the supremely perfect being. He can be nothing else; what is unreasonable is certainly less perfect than what is reasonable.

I already addressed the genocide issue in my comment to “Evil in Society” but I’ll address it further here.

I believe people who take issue with the warfare in the Old Testament and how it was conducted have a flawed understanding of God and who He is. Life and death are in God’s hands. He is sovereign in the universe. The only reason that you and I are here, living, breathing, and having this debate is that God continues to will us both to live*. That is grace. We have no claim on God. We have no right to make any demands. All that we have is undeserved grace from God and this includes life and the continuation of life. If I die before I finish this sentence, it will be because God decided I had finished my mortal life and I could not justifiably complain because my life up to this point has been a gift. It makes no sense to say “God, you owe me more gifts!” God owes me nothing.

God owed the Canaanites nothing. He decided that their time had come, just the same as He has done for every other man, women, hyena, earthworm, virus, and oak tree in history. God did the Canaanites no injustice. On the contrary, God shed much grace on the Canaanites** by sustaining them as long as He did and even in killing them off (it seems likely) by preventing them from further degrading themselves.

Its interesting to me that people often point to the destruction of the Canaanites as evidence that God is unjust but not to Sodom or Gomorrah. The only difference that I can see is that in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, the destruction was visibly an act of God, whereas in the case the Canaanites, God used the Israelites to accomplish the same thing. If God is who He says He is then there is no difference in the two cases.

After a thorough understanding of God’s sovereignty is established, the next question that comes up is often, “why does God allow evil at all?” Thank God He does, and don’t question your good fortune! If He did not allow evil then we would not be here at all. This Earth is filled with evil, you’re evil, and I’m evil. God allows evil because He is loving, merciful, and delights in giving us grace. We also know from the Bible that God will not continue to allow evil forever but that He will restore creation to what He intended it to be. This is further grace, for God is taking evil and undeserved people and restoring them (rather than destroying or punishing them) and allowing them to be part of His newly perfected creation.

The Bible is a love story and God is the greatest lover. Throughout the Bible mankind is portrayed as an unfaithful wife who is constantly whoring herself out. God is portrayed as a husband who would be justified in divorcing us but instead continues to sacrifice Himself in hopes that He will redeem us.

*And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
(Col 1:17 ESV)

**And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”
(Gen 15:16 ESV) (This was 400 years before the wars of conquest. Those were 400 years of continued grace.)

    I have written several times before on truth, the lack of it, the abuse of it, and the blatant disregard of it.  USA Today published an article and an opinion piece that should be of interest to any of my fellow lover’s of truth out there.  This is just downright infuriating.  The articles are both on the lack of truth in the political TV ads from the McCain and Obama campaigns.

If you want my concise paraphrase of both articles here it is, “Neither of the United States presidential candidates seems to have scruples about completely  misleading the American people for their own political gain and McCain is the worse of the two.”  There you go.

There is so much more I could say on this.  I believe this is the inevitable result manifest, of living in the postmodern era.

The fact checking websites,  FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com were heavily cited in both the article and the opinion.  The chart below helps to demonstate how widespread the problem is.

PolitiFact.com… rates candidates’ statements on a six-category scale from “true” to “pants on fire” falsehoods.

Barely true

McCain 22

Obama 14

False

McCain 23

Obama 18

Pants on fire

McCain 6

Obama 1

Source: PolitiFact.com…, a joint venture of the St. Petersburg Times and CQ.

This stuff makes me want to pull my hair out and start lighting things on fire!

The race for the White House is about McCain’s experience and Obama’s charisma and celebrity, or at least it was until Sarah Palin was put on the ticket.  By far the largest legitimate chink in Obama’s armor was his lack of experience.  McCain has found a way to make sure that this is not a campaign issue.  Obama can not attack McCain on his lack of celebrity without exposing the superficiality of his own campaign but McCain could use Obama’s inexperience against him, could that is until he tapped Palin to be his running mate.

Palin’s experience amounts to being governor of Alaska for a whopping 20 months.  Being governor of any state is a tough job but does that qualify you to be president?  Isn’t that like being the mayor of Denver with more parkland?  That’s good resume’ fluff if you want to be vice president of the Red Cross but we’re talking about being VP of the United States, one heartbeat from the White House!

I think Sarah Palin was chosen because McCain hopes she will be able to get people excited, that she will be a celebrity.  So, both candidates  tried to patch up their armor with their VP picks.  Its just that Biden’s experience helps Obama’s campaign and Palin’s inexperience helps Obama’s campaign.  I do give McCain some credit though, if all he wanted was a conservative Obama then he could have put Joel Osteen on the ticket.

What should I put in the picture box at the top?  I’m sick of my vain profile shot.  I never liked the idea of having it there but I didn’t know what else to put there.  I’m not too keen on this pastel green either.  This WP template has good utility but maybe it is time for something else or at least a new picture.  Tell me young padawan, what should I do?  New template or new picture?  What template and what picture(s)?

    This is the seventh article I have written as part of an ongoing debate with Mr. Adrian Thysse on the reasonableness of Christian faith.  This is also the first of the 3rd generation of articles.    The second generation of articles were written as responses to Mr. Thysse’s comments on, The Faith of Reason.  This article is in response to a comment he made on one of those second generation articles. To make it easier to follow, I have cut his comment into sections and placed them in block quotes.

    It has been about a month since my last article and I know I promised to get back sooner.  I do apologize but, this is not the kind of blog that you read to hear about what I’ve been up to so I will not burden you with that.   I do intend to respond to all of Mr. Thysse’s points and for that matter I am also still planning to write an article on Jean-Jacques Rousseau.  I may write another article tomorrow, no promises though.

    I shall be responding to the last part of Mr. Thysse’s comment on Evil in Society.  It appears below.

Evolution neatly accounts for why we are universally horrified by the harming of infants.   -Mr. Thysse

    This is not the case according to Harvard evolutionary psychologist, Steven Pinker.   On November 2, 1997, Dr. Pinker published a now infamous article in the New York Times.  The title of the article was, Why They Kill Their Newborns.  In the article, Dr. Pinker lays out in no uncertain terms and quite convincingly, how the theory of evolution not only explains why, but predicts that women will occasionally kill their own newborn children.

“the emotional circuitry of mothers has evolved to cope with this uncertain process, so the baby killers turn out to be not moral monsters but nice, normal (and sometimes religious) young women.”

     This is in direct contradiction to Mr. Thyss’s statement.   One thing, (in this case, evolution) cannot be the explanation for opposites.  In a similar way opposites cannot both be used as evidence in the same argument.  An attorney would have to be insane to defend his client based on the premises that his client was both at the post office and at the pharmacy at the time of the crime.

    Mr. Thysse’s point that, evolution explains an abhorrence of harming infants and, Dr. Pinker’s point that evolution explains why young women kill their infants are obviously in direct opposition to one another.  Whether they are inferred from the theory of evolution, or used as support for the theory of evolution, a contradiction exists.

      My point in saying all of this is not to slam either Dr. Pinker or Mr. Thysse.  I am sure both of them could produce multiple sources and citations in support of their respective positions.  Dr. Pinker made the list of the 100 most influential intellectuals in the world, he’s a fairly authoritative source in his own right (and if you have been following this article series, you know that Mr. Thysse is better at finding citations and source material than I am.)  This does nothing however, for either of their cases.  Rather, the more source material they could both produce, the greater the depth of logical inconsistency in the Secular Humanist worldview.

    This debate originally centered on how reasonable the Christian worldview is and I admit that I have gotten a little off track with this article.  We will get back to Christianity, soon enough, but I felt that Mr. Thysse’s comment provided an opportunity to examine the reasonableness of Secular Humanism, one of Christianity’s chief rivals.  I expect comments on this one, so fire away!

    This is the sixth article I have written as part of an ongoing debate with Mr. Adrian Thysse on the reasonableness of Christian faith.  Mr. Thysse raised some very potent objections to Christianity in his response to my first article.  This is getting very good!  (and providing me with plenty of blog fodder) I’ll attempt to address his objections below.  Mr. Thysse’s full comment can be read on my first post in the series, The Faith of Reason.  To make it easier to follow, I have cut his comment into sections and placed them in block quotes.

3. The Bible makes it clear that God is not “pure good”. The OT claims He sent forth evil spirits, does it not? Therefore nothing to reconcile.

4. No need for Jesus Christ to lift the burden that He created himself.

I have searched through six or eight translations of the Old Testament and found nothing about God sending out evil spirits.  If you know what passage this is please tell me.  If I had to guess, I would say that this is a case of “evil spirits” being used figuratively.  The Bible is clear that God is not a cosmic Santa Clause,

    For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.”
    (Heb 12:6 ESV)

    The Old Testament is full of episodes in which Israel turns from God, God disciplines them (usually by famine or an invading army), they turn back to God, and He brings them out of whatever predicament they were in.  It is possible that one of these famines or armies was referred to as “evil spirits”.  This would not mean that evil had its source in God. 

Ultimately, your faith is not reasonable (I say this as an ex-Christian). You have faith because is ‘feels’ right for you, but there is no ultimate justification for it.

I am throughly enjoying this debate.  I hope I have been able to show you that I do indeed have justifications for my faith.  There is very little in the story of an innocent man being tortured and murdered in the most painful* and heinous way possible on my behalf that says “feel good.”  C. S. Lewis described himself upon converting from Atheism to Christianity as “the most reluctant convert in all of England.”  Yes, I am glad that the burden of sin in my life has been lifted and that I can be reconciled to God and fulfill my intended purpose but, Christianity was not created as a feel good religion.  It would be easy to create a religion that says that all evil is a societal construct,  if you wanted a feel good religion. 

    I was unaware that you (Mr. Thysse) were a former Christian.  If its not too bold of me to ask, what made you change your mind?  What do you think of Jesus now?

    As always, comment at will!
* The word excruciating was coined to describe the unique kind an amount of pain brought about by crucifixion.  In the Latin it literally means from the cross.

    This is the fifth article I have written as part of an ongoing debate with Mr. Adrian Thysse on the reasonableness of Christian faith.  Mr. Thysse raised some very potent objections to Christianity in his response to my first article.  This is getting very good!  (and providing me with plenty of blog fodder) I’ll attempt to address his objections below.  Mr. Thysse’s full comment can be read on my first post in the series, The Faith of Reason.  To make it easier to follow, I have cut his comment into sections and placed them in block quotes.

2. ‘Evil’ is a societal construct. It does not exist outside of how we define it.

It is true that many actions or inactions are deemed to be evil because of their societal implications.  For example, many cultures have strong traditions and not to observe the traditions would be taken as a malicious attack on the people and culture who hold those traditions. 

    In Japan, a business card is thought of as a representation of the person who gives it out, so there is much ritual in the exchange of business cards.  To take notes on the back of a business card would be very offensive in Japan, it would be seen as blatantly disrespectful to the person who gave it out.  In the United States, a business card is seen as a tool, you are free to do what you please with it. 

    Here in Texas, for a man not to hold the door open for a woman would be very rude.  If it was blatant enough, he would run the risk of being confronted about it, certainly if there were other men present.  To do the same thing in New York would probably go unnoticed. 

    These deeds are all deemed evil in their respective societies because of the implications they carry.  It is fine to write on a business card in the United States because there is no societal implication to it.  The shared implication that all these action-society combinations is mal-intent.   They are all perceived as actions calculated to do harm to innocents.  This is evil.  There may be other things that are evil as well but this is one of them that is universally offensive.  The intentional malicious harming of innocents is considered evil in Japan, Texas, New York, and Timbuktu.  It is not a societal construct.
Fire away with the comments!

    This is the fourth article I have written as part of an ongoing debate with Mr. Adrian Thysse on the reasonableness of Christian faith.  Mr. Thysse raised some very potent objections to Christianity in his response to my first article.  This is getting very good!  (and providing me with plenty of blog fodder) I’ll attempt to address his objections below.  Mr. Thysse’s full comment can be read on my first post in the series, The Faith of Reason.  To make it easier to follow, I have cut his comment into sections and placed them in block quotes.

As to your point that “…Christianity is ultimately reasonable…”:

1. God is not a good explanation for the beginning of the universe. We do try to answer the question, but the origins of the universe is not “a question that you must answer.” Science may not know, but it is more honest to say “We don’t know” then to ascribe it to a God. We are then still left with the question - who created God?

I’m sorry if I came across as “you personally must answer this question, now“.  I merely meant that the origin of the universe is a question to be contended with and that science is incapable of doing this. 

    I think it is more honest to say “we do not know” than to say that “there is no god” as in, the seven on the Dawkins Atheism scale.  There is also a difference in knowing something through deductive logic and knowing through inductive reasoning.  Almost if not, all that we know, we know through induction.  Interestingly, much more emphasis was placed on inductive logic throughout the classical, medieval , renaissance/reformation, and the enlightenment ages.  It is only in the last two-hundred years or so that deduction has eclipsed inductions as the primary means of proving something in philosophy.  But that was a rabbit trail.

    To ask “who created God” is to assume God was created.  The reason you might assume God was created is that we have no experience (baring “supernatural” experiences that some claim to have) with anything outside of nature.  In nature things have beginnings and ends, they are finite.  God is by definition infinite and outside of the scope of nature.  God is supernatural.  It is logically possible that God was created but it is not logically necessary. 

    This is why I believe that the universe must have been created.  It must have had a beginning in something outside of nature because nature by virtue of being natural and following certain natural laws, does not spontaneously create itself.  The big bang points to a finite beginning and some have theorized that there exists a never ending cycle of big bangs and big squishes leading to more big bangs.  This just leads us to an infinite regression of squish, bang, squish, bang, squish, bang, ad infinitum.  This cannot be a natural process because all natural processes have beginnings.  This leads us to a dilemma, either the universe and nature do not really exist at all, or they were created by something outside of nature, something supernatural.

    Admittedly this argument does not immediately lead to the conclusion that that supernatural universe starter was Jehovah, God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.  It does however, lead to the conclusion that there is something other than nature.