Faith, Logic and Reason

I made some people angry this past weekend, with some outraged interlocutors asking how dare I question their Christianity, etc.

 
Well, first off, it’s a debate, not a witch trial, and I am not an inquisitor.

Secondly, I am in no position to question anyone’s legitimacy before God. I am a sinful man humbly working out my salvation "in fear and trembling," but I do enjoy a debate, especially with self-identified Christians who stake out a position in direct opposition to something printed in the Bible in black and white.

The Bible plainly states in many OT and NT passages that homosexuality is a sin, right up there with murder, stealing, adultery, slave trading, prostitution and spreading lies about others. I wrote not to condemn, but to hear how the dissenters justified their position.

I hate to throw more gasoline on the fire, but I have a few final points to make, and as always I invite flaming criticism.

God is Intolerant and He Cares Nothing for Man's Wisdom

Christianity is not Zen Buddhism. God revealed himself and his laws, and asked humans to cooperate in spreading his message. It's not a logic puzzle--it is a list of rules on how to behave so society can grow and prosper. Yes, there is room for debate about such issues as what constitutes a violation of the Sabbath, or how much support should you provide to your parents in their old age, or if God meant those rules for everybody for all time, or for just that one group of people.

Jesus told that one rich man to sell all he had and give it to the poor, but he interacted with other rich people without telling them that. So was it a universal command? Or was it directed just at that man?

But other issues are pretty iron-clad. Adultery ain't right. Yes, in Abrahamic times it went on, sometimes with God's apparent approval, but he issued a pretty clear statement to Moses when he engraved those tablets. There's just no way to make adultery OK.

Jesus was not tolerant

I also want to dispel the myth that Jesus was tolerant. He was not. Go read his words. He loved everyone and was always reaching out, not to pat a sinner on the back and tell them "it's all cool," but to embrace them and pull them back to the bosom of God. He forgave sins that the religious authorities at the time said could not be forgiven so easily, but then he left the repentant sinner with the admonition to sin no more. Inherent in Christ's forgiveness is a rejection of one's sinful ways.

Logic

Various interlocutors brought up logic. OK. It is illogical to impugn the Bible and then use it as a basis for your argument.

A common line of argumentation is to say God gave people boils on their backsides, or ordered the Jews to slaughter their enemies and kill homosexuals, so he's bloodthirsty or crazy, and anyway we don't follow his most murderous laws anymore, just the "civilized" ones.

First off, those are historical accounts of a specific time and place. God did not issue a universal commandment to kill all your enemies or to put homosexuals or adulterers to death. There is no contradiction in God's laws if you understand the context.


Also, such farragoes casts stones upon the attackers' faith and basis of argumentation as well. If God is crazy or bloodthirsty and his book is riddled with error and inconsistency, why are you worshiping him?

Still a sin, but not punishable by death...

Homosexuality and prostitution are mentioned in other places besides Leviticus as sinful and keeping one from entering God’s kingdom, but without the Levitical death penalty. Indeed, Jesus stopped the stoning of the woman caught in adultery, yet he still commanded her to sin no more. 

Using logic and our light of reason, this leads us to conclude that the act is still sinful, but that it is no longer punishable by death, so the death decree must have applied specifically to the Hebrews as they left Egypt and entered into Canaan. Paul’s restatement of these Old Testament prohibitions but without the death penalties further reinforces this conclusion.

Restating a Biblical truth is not a tautology...

FreeThinke accused me of employing tautologies, which was actually a category error on his part. God's laws conform to nature and a right ordering of society, so in a sense they are self-evident. But they are not mathematical theorems to be proved; they are commands from Our Creator. How is "Love your enemies" logical? It is not a tautology to say murder is wrong because God said so. You are simply restating what God has commanded.

Be Brave! Defy your Creator!

"Times have changed," seems to be the other common argument for reinterpreting God's word. Did anyone hear him say "Go ye forth and reinterpret my words based upon eroding human morality!"

Of course not!  This approach is as cowardly as it is specious. It is making God in our own image to satisfy ourselves instead of having the courage to stand up in defiance of Him and his commands.

I'm not making a religious argument here, but an evidentiary one. God doesn't think xyz is a sin anymore? Where is your proof?

How do you know?

Religious arguments rarely get anywhere because religion itself is outside the realm of pure reason, but we nonetheless use logic and inferences to draw conclusions from what we read.  Indeed, parts of the Bible could be wrong (I don't believe so), so I understand people making that point.  

Now, I ask you, which parts?  And what leads you to that conclusion?  Does it shake your faith in other parts?  In God himself?  Do you think it matters?

Now, as a peace offering, I invite you to Read an article by America's Rabbi, Shmuley Boteach:  My Jewish Perspective on Homosexuality

Strong Horse, Dead Horse, Wagging Dogs, Sharpened Razors

As usual, Mark Steyn nails it...

The belated dispatch of Osama testifies to what the United States does well – elite warriors, superbly trained, equipped to a level of technological sophistication no other nation can match.

Everything else surrounding the event (including White House news management so club-footed that one starts to wonder darkly whether its incompetence is somehow intentional) embodies what the United States does badly. (Mark Steyn – OC Register)

Two questions trouble thinking Americans:

1. Why did we get Osama Bin Laden when we did?
2. Is President Obama purposely screwing things up?

We Got Him!
There are many corollaries to the first question: Was Osama already dead, and we just held that knowledge in our back pocket to wait for the opportune time? Did the raid even really happen, or was it faked?  Is Osama still alive?

Al Qaeda answered the last question in the negative, essentially confirming the official story.

“Occam’s Razor is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects” (Wikipedia)

Occam's Razor says the most plausible answer is the official story. Intelligence has been working this for years, and the time became ripe a month or so ago. That doesn't disprove other theories, it's just that this is the most plausible one.

What do you get when you take a community organizer from Chicago...

The second question can also be explained by Occam’s razor. Barack Obama had nothing in his past experience, training, or education that even remotely qualified him to be president, so his poor performance is no surprise.

He compounded our nation’s ills by surrounding himself with pointy-headed intellectuals who share his embarrassing poverty of real-world experience. National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon may be a fine man, but his foreign policy experience consists of being a lawyer on the periphery of US diplomacy. The administration is full of people like him.  No wonder President Obama is screwing everything up.

Hanlon’s Razor also comes to mind…

“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” (Wikipedia)

This paragraph of the Wikipedia article is also instructive…

A practical observation on the risks of stupidity was made by the German General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord in Truppenführung, 1933:

"I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities.

Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!"

I’ll leave it to you to decide if the paragraph fits, and if so, which part.