#and thus must necessarily be anti-Bible

[omegawizardposting]

Just stumbled across a Christian ranting about how Steven Universe is anti-Bible, and, like, yeah, I sure hope so!

[wisdomrays]

TAFAKKUR: Part 294

CELESTIAL REFLECTIONS: Part 2

RELATIVITY

So, in this spirit, let us resume our celestial reflections. Could it be that the six-day creation account found in both the Bible and the Qur’an starts here (i.e., six days for the formation of the Solar System or even our galaxy and not necessarily for the creation of the whole universe)? Which begs the question, are these days necessarily days as we know them? Is it explicitly stated in either of the holy books that a day is necessarily made up of twenty-four hours? The answer is no. Let us review two key verses from each book. Cross-referencing between the two holy books is not unwarranted. Muslims believe that it is the same God who revealed both books.

He Who created the heavens and the earth and all that is between, in six days, and is firmly established on the Throne (of Authority) . . . (Qur’an 25:59)

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Bible, KJV Genesis 1:1)

Reference is made to the creation of “the earth.” There is no compelling reason to assume that the six-day narrative pertains to the creation of the whole universe. Reference may be to the creation of the Solar System or just the Galaxy. Second, there is no particular reason to theorize that the six days are days as we know them now.

Let us ask a simple question here, what is a day? It is the time it takes the Earth to revolve around its axis (24 hours). Given that the Milky Way is a gigantic spiral disk with a bright, central bulge, what would be a day for our galaxy? The time for it to revolve around its axis (galactic center) is estimated to be 225 million years.

It is estimated that up until now the Sun has completed 20 revolutions around the galactic center - that is a time span of 4.5 billion years (the estimated age of our planet); or, if we look at it in another way, 20 days. Six days in this sense, therefore, is equivalent to 1.35 billion years. We must also wonder whether the time it takes the Earth to revolve around its axis has been twenty-four hours since “day one.” Ultimately, time is a relative measurement.

Einstein’s 1905 theory of time and space, Special Relativity, proposed that distance and time are not absolute. The ticking rate of a clock and the length of a “yardstick” depend on the motion of the observer. The closer you approach the speed of light - about 186,000 miles per second or 300,000 kilometers per second - the slower your watch seems to be ticking relative to others. Another way to put it is, the faster you travel through space, the slower you travel through time. Imagine a vehicle capable of such maneuvering - this is, in effect, a time machine.

It may not be very helpful to think about this too much, but if you have seen Paramount Pictures’ 2002 sci-fi movie Clockstoppers, imagine: you, moving at a speed approaching the speed of light, would see everyone else as if they were the ones functioning in “hypertime.” This notion of a “hasty” human attitude is reiterated in the Qur’an; and, the whole idea of time relativity is also suggested several times in the Qur’an. Two examples follow. When looked at in the light of Relativity, these verses make perfect sense and are quite revealing:

Yet they ask you to hasten on the Punishment! But God will not fail in His Promise. Verily a Day in the sight of your Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning. (22:47)

The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years. (70:4)

Further, Relativity posits time and space as being one insolvable unit called space-time, as the fabric of the universe, as it were. As such, time and space as we know them only started from the moment the universe was conceived… with a “big bang.”

THE BIG BANG THEORY

The Big Bang theory (BBT) is the most popular scientific theory on the origin of the universe. Its most popular version, the -inflationary universe,- presented by Alan H. Guth in 1980, postulates that the universe was created some fifteen billion years ago in an escalatory manner from a cosmic explosion of a -Primary Nebula- (singularity) – that is, an infinitely condensed matter - that cast matter in all directions. The theory holds for an initial expansion rate faster than the speed of light8Guth"s inflationary notion came into being in order to account for the fact that if the initial explosion was linear, as held the traditional version of the theory, first theorized by George Lemaitre in 1927, it would not explain the differential interstellar and intergalactic distances. The distances are such that some celestial regions could never have been in proximity at any point in time if the expansion had always simply proceeded at the speed of light9The big bang could not have happened at a particular place in the universe, because before it happened, as the theory goes, there was no universe. Rather, there was nothing, except for the singularity which started it all. Quantum mechanics tries to explain how, before spacetime, subatomic particles in this singularity interacted to produce an unfathomable amount of energy which was the initial spark of creation. It is believed that every particle has its anti-particle (as every matter has its anti-matter) that is a complete opposite (for example, in charge, spin, etc.). When these two antagonists meet, they annihilate each other in a tremendous burst of energy that would humble a nuclear explosion. Einstein"s famous relativity equation E=mc2 (where E denotes Energy, M mass and C the speed of light) suggests that energy and matter are interchangeable. Thus, matter was created from this primary explosion which kicked off a rapid expansion of space, and (we think) space has been expanding ever since. In the early 1920s, Edwin Hubble observed that galaxies were moving away from each other at a rate proportional to the distance between them. As galaxies moved away from us, the light they emitted was red-shifted. That is, light waves shifted to longer wavelengths (a phenomenon known as the Doppler Effect). The faster the object moved, the greater the shift. From these observations, Hubble formulated the Hubble"s Law, which helped cosmologists determine the age of the universe, and proved that the universe was expanding10The Qur'an explicitly foretold this fact: It is We Who have built the universe with (Our creative) power, and, verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (51:47)11The BBT also predicted the existence of residual cosmic background radiation (the glow leftover from the explosion itself). This radiation was discovered in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who later won the Nobel Prize for their discovery.

OMEGA & THE UNIVERSE

If the universe is expanding, then it inevitably emerged from an ever-smaller mass. Go back long enough (to time zero) and you have the singularity that exploded with a -big bang,- By the same token, Einstein"s 1915 theory of General Relativity offers the antithesis scenario for the BBT. If the gravitational force pulling the matter of a massive star inward exceeds that of its gas pressure, it will collapse onto itself creating a -black hole.- Does a similar -black- fate await the universe? In Stephen Hawking's Universe documentary, Hawking contends that the concept can be extrapolated to the whole universe. If the universe has too much matter, it will eventually collapse onto itself under the influence of its own gravitational force. This bleak scenario is called the Big Crunch. By contrast, if the universe has too little matter, it will continue to expand indefinitely stretching ever thinner and colder. This bleak scenario is called the Big Chill. If the amount of matter present (i.e. the average density of our universe) is equal to a certain hypothetical value, the -critical density,- a state of perfect balance occurs, leading eventually (albeit hypothetically) to a static universe. The ratio of the average density to the critical density is known as Omega. In a state of perfect balance, corresponding to a flat geometry of the spacetime -fabric of the universe,- Omega equals one13Now imagine if in the instance following the big bang, Omega was anything but one. The universe would have either quickly collapsed onto itself (Omega >1), or quickly headed to a big chill (Omega <1). This predicament is known as the Flatness Problem. Guth"s inflationary notion again comes to the rescue. It posits that the initial rapid expansion caused spacetime to flatten, forcing Omega toward one, regardless of what its initial value actually was. In other words, even if the pre-inflation spacetime was curved like a sphere (Omega>1) or hyperbolic like a saddle (Omega<1), the initial expansion thrust forced it into flatness (zero curvature). As it stands, we can only detect too little matter in the universe and our best estimates of Omega lie well below one. We have observed that not only is the universe expanding, it is doing so at increasing rates. Is the universal matter being slowly transformed into energy, thus driving us faster toward the Big Chill? To counter this bleak scenario and in their quest for idealism (Omega equals one), scientists are on the look out for some undetectable -dark matter- that would tip the scales. In the final analysis, it is generally believed that the universe is infinite in time and space and is destined to expand forever. But things get murky when we talk about forever. How long is forever? We can conceptualize what eternity means, even though we cannot comprehend it. Can we say the same of God?

THE CONVERGENCE OF PHILOSOPHY, RELIGION & SCIENCE

With this debate of an expanding universe comes the open/closed universe debate, with all its philosophical and scientific controversies. The consensus among scientists is that this is an open universe, expanding and not limited in space. This means that astrophysicists cannot apply the laws of thermodynamics to help decipher the mysteries of the universe, as these only apply to closed systems. Of special interest is the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Increased Entropy), which states: -Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place to becoming diffused or dispersed and spread out.-14Thus, had the universe been closed, the Primary Nebula could not have formed or existed in the first place, unless -someone- had introduced it into the system. Moreover, the mathematical precision that governs the universe certainly defies the Law of Increased Entropy. To admit creation, one has to first admit the existence of a moment when the universe did not exist. Both science (especially the BBT) and religion agree on this point. Science says energy can neither be created nor destroyed (Principle of Conservation of Energy), or simply put, nothing comes from nothing. So, there must have been a master source of energy and matter that started it all: where did the primary nebula come from? I employed the investigation philosophy employed by the fictitious detective character Sherlock Holmes while reflecting on this celestial quandary: when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. I came up with the following argument that vindicates the existence of God: If there is nothing in the universe, then the existence of God is not required. But there is something. And since nothing comes from nothing, there was an original very first something. This very first something is the originator of everything else; and it is a unity. It must be the most supreme something to ever exist because it needs nothing else to originate. And since it was there first, before everything else, before time itself, and its existence is independent of anything else, it will therefore be there after everything else. And since nothing can overwhelm it, it is omnipotent. And since it exists in no defined locality, it is omnipresent. This most supreme something is God, the originator and creator of everything else.

Conclusion

Whether you choose to believe cosmological theories, no matter how skeptical you are, you must concede that there was an originator for everything. The precision and order (and can we dismiss the mesmerizing wonder of the cosmos?) that govern our solar system and sustain the universe is indicative of an omnipotent guardian. In fact, the very laws of physics are clarion proof of order, not randomness. Order needs a maintainer. God gave us ample revelations; His holy books are too accurate to be dismissed as coincidental. Above all, He gave us intelligence, curiosity and the power to reason. The inquisitive mind of the human and our insatiable appetite for knowledge promise magnificent scientific breakthroughs to unimagined realms and dimensions. We have come a long way since the last opposition. But we are still crawling, attempting to decipher the complex and exquisite codes of the universe and life

[ironwoman359]

Can you explain the different beliefs of the different dominations of Christians? Like, the big differences I mean.

Well, I can’t accurately tell you what denomination neccessarily believes what, as I only really have first hand experience with two, but I can tell you what those different beliefs would be. A good way to find out what a specific denomination believes about an issue is ot look at their official website, but also, individual churches and congregations may hold different views than the official stance of the denomination they’re a part of, as many Methodist (i think it was) churches did when the Methodist leadership doubled down on their anti-LGBT stance. With that being said, here are some of the different teachings you may find across denominations:

Catholic vs. Protestant: 

While all Christians believe God to be Sovreign, the Catholic church tends to take reverence for God to the point of nigh unapproachability. When Catholics pray to saints, they are asking the saint to take their petitions before God in their stead, while a Protestant would just ask God directly. When Catholics go to confessional, they are confessing their sins to a priest and asking him to present them before God and ask forgiveness, while a Protestant would confess to God and ask for forgiveness directly. In general, Catholic churches tend to be more ritualistic (though there are protestant churches like that too, lutherans, for instance) and approach God with less familiarity than Protestant Churches. 

Calvinist vs. Wesleyan: 

In Protestant belief, there are two main schools of thought you’re likely to find, Calvinism and Wesleyanism. The differences between them get into very academic langauge that’s sometimes hard to explain, but I’ll do my best to explain. The big stickler of disagreement comes in the ideas of “Unconditional Election ” and “Irresistable Grace.” 

Undoncitional Election refers to the teaching that before God created the world, He in His infinite knowledge pre-selceted those who would be saved from sin and who would be condemed to the just punishment for their sins. 

Wesleyans, on the other hand, believe that Jesus’s atonement was for all people. Yes, God in His omnipotence knows who will and will not accpet His grace, but He still leaves it to the individual’s free will to make that decision. 

Irresistable Grace teaches that to those God has pre-selected for salvation, there is no resisting the call of the Holy Spirit. 

Wesleyans, since they believe that anybody could be saved, that the pull of the Holy Spirit is not irresistable, as humanity has been given the free will to accept or reject salvation. 

Another more minor disagreement between Calvinsim and Wesleyanism is the “once saved, always saved” argument. 

Since Cavlinists believe in Unconditional Election, they also believe in “Perseverance of the Saints,” which is the belief that if you are Saved you cannot ever lose your faith (you also don’t necessarily have to be a Calvinist to believe that once you are saved you can’t ever lose that salvation). 

Wesleyan teachings, on the other hand, state that Salvation can be lost, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith. Aka, someone who once had a strong and steadfast faith would have been saved at that point in their life, but if they lose their faith or walk away from it at some point, they have lost that salvation (though the arms of God are always open to welcome them back). 

The other points of Calvinism and Wesleyanism don’t necessarily contradict each other, and so aren’t worth pointing out, but as you can see the differences are pretty drastic, and it’s easy to see how these different ideas could have sparked different sects of churches.

Communion/The Eucharist: 

There are esentially two views on Holy Communion: that Jesus’s presence in the bread and wine is literal, or that His presence is symbolic. 

For Catholics, they take it to the literal extreme: Transubstantiation, which is the act of changing the substances of bread and wine into the substances of the Body and Blood of Christ. 

Most Protestants who believe in Jesus’s literal presence in the elements do not take it that literally, believing more along the lines of, just as the Holy Spirit is present in the waters of baptism and the water itself is not what’s special, Jesus is present in the elements of communion and it is not the bread/wine itself that is special. 

Then, there is the belief that communion is more a ceremonial remembrance of Jesus’s last supper and a communal declaration of faith.

While I personally don’t believe in Transubstantiation, I think that any of these interpretations of Jesus’s words at the last supper are valid, and that God cares more that the community of believers celebrate the Eucharist together than He does about the minutia of it.

Also some churches practice “open communion” meaning that any believer in Christ regardless of views on the meal may take communion at their church, while others practice “closed communion,” meaning you must either be a member of their denomination or have spoken with the pastor before the sacrament to confirm that your beliefs line up with the church’s before taking communion with the congregation.

Also also most churches have different ages they start children taking communion at, Catholics it’s around 6 years old I think, while I as a Lutheran had to take half a year of catechism classes and be Confirmed before I could start taking it, those classes begin around age 12.  

The Means of Grace

The Means of Grace refers to how salvation is achieved. In this, Calvinists and Wesleyans agree: there is nothing humanity can do to achieve salvation, it is solely through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ that humanity is granted Salvation. This belief is often referred to as “By Grace Alone,” or “Saved by Grace,” as their is nothing that a person could do to achieve Salvation, it’s all through God’s gift of Grace. 

The other view of Salvation is that it is achieved through Good Works, aka, what most non-christians probably think all Christians believe: If you are a Good Person and do Good Things you will go to heaven, but if you do Bad Things and don’t repent, you’ll go to hell. Most Christian theologians will tell you that this is False Doctrine, but there are some who insist that Good Works are a part of Salvation. Most, however, say that this does not line up with the Bible’s teachings.

The counter to Salvation by Works is that Good Works are not a means of Salvation, but rather evidence of it. Yes, a Christain should strive to do good works, because Jesus commanded us to love one another and to help each other, but if you’re doing these things because you think they will save you, you are missing the point. I personally really like the way a VeggieTales cartoon about St. Nicholas put it once, actually. Nick to a nun feeding the poor: “Do you do that to feel happy?” The nun: “Oh, no. I do it because I am happy.”

Other Differences

Baptism: Namely, should you baptize babies? Catholics and Lutherans and others say yes, Nazarenes and Baptists and others say no!

Biblical Inspiration: was the Bible 100% dictated to man by God and thus absolutely flawless (ie, all of the bible is what God said word for word), 100% inspired by God and thus flawless but not dictated directly (ie, the different writers used their own words and voices to write what was inspired to them), Inspired by God but written by man and thus subject to the trappings of humanity and possibly flawed in places? Vote now on your phones. 

Ordination: Who gets to be a pastor? Can women be pastors? Are youth ministers, worship ministers, and other types of minsiters called pastors or are they called something different? 

The End Times: Is the Rapture a thing, or what?

Creation: How literal is genesis exactly?

Queer Issues: A lovely can of worms that no one seems to be able to agree on and which is sometimes the sole reason for a denominational split (The Evangelical Lutheran Chruch of America split into two factions when they disagreed on whether or not gay people should be allowed to be ordained ministers. There’s now one faction of that church that does ordain gay people and one that doesn’t). 

Nondenominational Churches

Some bodies of believers have said “screw that” to all the crazy infinitesimal differences in theology between all the denominatons and said “We are simply Christains.” Now, each nondenominational church will likely have its own stance on each of the issues I’ve mentioned here, they just have chosen not to identify with any larger denomination, and if you’re church hunting and go to a nondenominational church, you’ll probably have to talk to hte pastor/look at their website to find out what they say about all these things. 

Again, for me at the end of the day, I hold my own beliefs about these issues, but concede that for about 95% of them, where you fall doesn’t matter (for me, the lines that I draw are the means of grace and unconditional election; I believe that anyone can be saved and that we are saved by grace alone), what matters is that if you believe in God and have accepted Jesus into your life, you are a Christian, and my sibling in Christ. Hope this answered some of your questions, and again, I’m always happy to provide more clarification/talk about this stuff! (can you tell I enjoyed the theology classes I had to take in college?) 

[vision20revie]

Vision 20 Reviews

Vision 20 Reviews - Groundbreaking New Report on Vision 20 for Eyesight

Vision 20 by Zenith Labs is an eye care supplement that, by its ingredients, tries to protect your eyesight.

Vision 20 is a dietary supplement that helps protect your eyes' lens and retina from harmful blue radiation. This radiation is commonly emitted by phones, gadgets, and other things that have monitors. It uses natural ingredients that are found in nature to keep our eyes from going into eventual decline. It contains carotenoids, which are substances that help keep our eye’s lens, retina, and macula healthy.

This, in turn, gives us an abundance of good eyesight, which is essential in our everyday lives. Vision 20 supplement was inspired by the humble Marigold, whose orange coloration was a clear indication of abundance in carotenoids.

Vision 20 supplement can help us see in different ranges, whether near and far. It can also make us see better during nighttime, which is a clear indication of healthy eyesight. According to the official website, it is used by around 9,000 Americans right now, and the testimonials show that the product works full-time. This latest review will show you the supplement's ins and outs and how it came to be. Vision 20 is based on the Bible, and even though you are an atheist, I suggest you continue reading because these are parts of the Bible that are backed up by scientific facts and data. Without further ado, let us jump into it.

Click to Order Now

Vision 20’s Biblical Relation?

Vision 20 was inspired by the Bible. In the book of Isaiah, a prophet of the same name, helped King Hezekiah by giving him figs. While initially used to treat the boils, this also affected his eyesight. It became blurred as he was consumed by sickness.

King Hezekiah, upon being put and spread upon by mashed figs, not only cured his boils but also improved his eyesight. Why? It is because figs contain high amounts of Retinyl Palmitate, a form of Vitamin A. This has let him see again in not just the spiritual sense

but also the physical sense. This is awesome. Now, we can see how the Bible is relevant even though it is a tool of religion. It is still a historical account, and we know that these document types are dependent on the writer's interpretation. Of course, this makes this Holy Scripture awry the credibility, but it is safe to say that science backs this manuscript up.

Vision 20 Manufacturer

Doctor Ryan Shelton made vision 20. He is currently the Medical Director of Zenith Labs, a company that makes dietary supplements for a living. If we can even observe further, we can see that he is a man of God since he injects lots of biblical sense into his studies.

Zenith Labs comprises health professionals who manufacture a variety of supplements that cater to older people. Other supplements that Zenith Labs make include joint health and anti-aging supplements, which are rich with antioxidants.

Being the head of the whole operation, Shelton is a researcher whose job is to look for progressive, natural health solutions for everyone in the world. While that is a fancy way of saying it, he is a testimony of others' goodwill, having helped hundreds of people already through personal means. Also, being a naturally-inclined researcher, he publishes papers during his pastime. He also puts in dozens of credible sources to the Vision 20 supplement, which means that it should be useful since it was based and made through scientific methods and means. Overall, Doctor Shelton and his team at

Zenith Labs are considered to be reliable, trustworthy, and credible among all accounts. They show their faces in public too, which is a plus sign since they are willing to bet themselves for the product that they made. Now that is commitment and honesty in one.

How Does It Work?

Vision 20 works by bombarding our body with antioxidants and other substances that are beneficial to the eye, such as Lutein, Zeaxanthin, and different forms of Vitamin A. We know that Vitamin A is extremely beneficial for our eyes, so this is a good sign already that this product indeed works. Just take one capsule a day, and you are good to go.

The supplement works by repairing and protecting your eyes against blue light radiation. Now, blue light radiation is commonly found everywhere. It is commonly emitted by technology that we have now. Any monitor that we are looking at right now emits blue light radiation. You might be thinking this is an exaggeration, but don’t you wonder why

your eyes feel tired and itchy after staring at a monitor for long periods? It is because your eyes are being constantly harassed by this radiation that is slowly eating away your eyesight.

Vision 20 takes a step further by protecting your eyes and repairing your eyes with the help of antioxidants found in different sources. Not only does this help our eyes, but it benefits our body as a whole since antioxidants are the essential substances that we need to keep ourselves healthy in the long run. This, in turn, can help us see nearer,

farther, and in the dark. It is beneficial, considering that the sense of sight is one of the most important things that a human must have to live a full, happy, and contented life.

By taking this supplement, you can protect and repair your eyes through natural and organic nutrients. Either these nutrients come from figs or carrots, it does not matter. What matters is the nutrient itself. Dr. Shelton and his team carefully came up with a formula that will help revolutionize your eyesight, and trust me when I say it is useful.

Click to Order Now

Vision 20 Ingredients

Vision 20 is not necessarily made from figs. Looking back, no pun intended, it was figs that made King Hezekiah well again. If we are to look at this from a scientific point of view, figs are antibacterial fruits rich in antioxidants and Vitamin A. They are a well-rounded fruit to begin with. While King Hezekiah in the Bible primarily suffered boils, Dr. Shelton and his team noticed that his eyesight also improved based on the Second Book of Kings' writings.

Channeling his inner scientific side with his religious optimism, Shelton went on to take the critical component that makes figs good for the eyes – Vitamin A. This vitamin, for the knowledge of everyone, has many forms. Thankfully, Shelton is a research buff and has this knowledge in mind. He went for two of the most potent forms of Vitamin A – Retinyl Palmitate and Beta-carotene.

Once getting these facts laid down, he combined support elements for Vitamin A, and the rest is history for this particular dietary supplement. With a backgrounder on how figs and Vision 20 came to be, let us jump into Vision 20 ingredients' specifics.

The main ingredients are:

Retinyl Palmitate is a form of Vitamin A, which is more suited to the cell

regeneration side. It is commonly used to boost the amount of Vitamin A that a person has in his/her body. Vitamin A deficiency is a thing for people with

weakened eyesight, and having regular dosage of this substance can keep your eyes healthy in the long run.

Beta-carotene. Perhaps the most famous form of Vitamin A, is a carotenoid commonly found in many fruits, vegetables, and whole grains! While Retinyl Palmitate is focused on repairing our eye’s integrity, Beta-carotene is focused on making us less sensitive to light changes and preventing our eyesight from

declining faster than you can say eye degeneration. What is more, studies show it can reduce the risk of breast cancer!

These are the two main ingredients, but our bodies do not absorb vitamin A and its several forms. This has been the case for many years, and with increased exposure to blue light radiation, this rate of less absorption is taking a toll on our precious eyesight. This is why Dr. Shelton added Zinc.

Zinc – This mineral encourages our body to absorb Vitamin A. By taking in Zinc, we can increase Vitamin A absorption rate by three times! Other than that, the primary function of this mineral is to repair and maintain our cells and boost our immune system, hasten our healing process, and boost our overall health.

The next ingredients that I will show you are the support ingredients for Vision 20, all put in to make your eyes better by the second.

Lutein – this is also a carotenoid that is usually found in our eye’s macula and retina. These parts of the eye are responsible for taking in images reflected by the lenses of our eyes. Thus, adding Lutein can strengthen it and prevent

age-related macular degeneration (AMD), which is common among old folk. It is also used to treat cataracts and early-stage non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Zeaxanthin – this is the carotenoid that actively fights off high-energy light

waves inside your eye. By adding Zeaxanthin, we have an active contender against the blue light radiation that continually bombards us in this modern world. It is Lutein's partner, whereas Lutein fights of the harmful effects of

oxidization while Zeaxanthin fights off outside threats such as mentioned above.

Lycopene – commonly found in tomatoes, this heart-smart ingredient is a potent antioxidant used to protect cells from oxidization and other related damage.

Lycopene is used in Vision 20 to serve as an antioxidant buffer to regenerate the eye’s degrading cells quickly. With nothing to damage them, they can focus on recovery.

Taurine – people say Taurine is only used to make you smart, but that is not the case otherwise. This amino acid can also help produce more cells, which is beneficial for losing his/her eyesight. Lycopene is the shield, while Taurine is the concrete used to build stuff.

Grape Seed Extract – this extract can boost good cholesterol levels and improve

overall blood circulation. It can also boost your immune system thanks to the presence of Polyphenols. While this seems to have no relation to eyesight

improvement, a study from the Molecular Vision Journal suggests that grape seed extract can also protect your lenses from outside threats.

Bilberry Extract – last but not least, there is the Bilberry. This extract is excellent

for blood circulation, gout, urinary tract infections, and more. It is mainly used as an antioxidant, which means it can fight off eye damage from internal sources.

Click to Order Now

EyeSight Benefits

For one, the Vision 20 supplement has high amounts of antioxidants on it. Why is this the case? It is because Vision 20 also focuses on getting your past eyesight back. Think of it as something that protects and heals at the same time. It is a cool supplement overall. Antioxidants help our cells regenerate and feel young again. By chugging in significant amounts of antioxidants, we only not help our eyes get better, but we also feel better in general since these nutrients will be circulated throughout our whole body.

Secondly, Vision 20 is aimed at making our eyesight crystal clear. Carotenoids such as Vitamin A, Lutein, and Zeaxanthin paired with Zinc can work wonders, and as King Hezekiah’s eyesight got better with vitamin A-rich fruits, yours can be like that too! Overall, Vision 20 gives benefits to our eyes and our whole body as well.

Vision 20 Ingredients Side Effects

With tons of benefits and pros come easily unavoidable cons. We are just going to backtrack a little. The recommended dosage for Vision 20 is one capsule a day. Keep this in mind, as overdosing can undoubtedly show signs of side effects one way or another.

To start, Vitamin A overdose is a nasty thing to have. It is called Hypervitaminosis A.

Isaiah only gave King Hezekiah an ample amount of fig. You should only get an ample amount of Vision 20 too. It can cause bone pain and skin changes. If you do not want

these symptoms, only take the recommended dosage of one a day. We understand that you want your real eyesight back, but please do it in moderation.

Other than this nasty threat, you can also experience other mild symptoms such as

dizziness, headache, nausea, stomach pain, and flu-like symptoms if you overdose. In short, do not overdose, and you will be fine in the long run.

To inform you, too, there is an infrequent side effect from ingesting Lutein and Zeaxanthin. It is not harmful, so it is okay unless you are vain. Your skin can occasionally turn yellow. You should be fine if you are following the recommended dosage. In summary, Vision 20 side effects are only prevalent if you are hard-headed.

Where do you Buy Vision 20?

You can buy Vision 20 right off the Vision 20 official website, which is below.

Official Website of this Eye Care Supplement

There are tons of things to see on their website, and this Vision 20 review just summarized it for you so that you will not have the hassle of going through all those marketing stunts.

How Much Does It Cost Vision 20?

Vision 20 is relatively cheap for an optical dietary supplement of its degree! Typically, each bottle costs a whopping price of $79! This is a shocker, but it is a great supplement to begin with.

However, they are generous enough to give people a discount! Right now, each bottle of Vision 20 only costs $49! That is $30 off than the regular price.

If you feel that $49 is still too much, they also offer 3-bottle and 6-bottle packages worth $117 and $198, respectively. These are super low prices compared to other dietary supplements in the market!

However, shipping is relatively high, at $19.95. If you go for the 6-bottle pack, though, you can have free shipping, so that is cool in its regard. Each purchase of Vision 20 helps a charity named Vitamin Angels, which helps kids overcome their vitamin deficiencies.

Overall Verdict for Vision 20

Vision 20 is one of the best dietary supplements to take if you look for something to make your eyesight better overtime. The blend of the ingredients is outstanding, and it can make your quality of life much better as you get older.

Nevertheless, it is still a dietary supplement and should be taken with a healthy and balanced diet to be fully utilized. Always consult your physician and listen to the professional advice of your doctor. Other than that, always remain vigilant and check the labels first before taking a supplement like this!

Click to Order Now

[lilbitlestrange-blog]

Entry #5 — 666

When you Google “Wicca” or “Witchcraft”; you will notice that “people also search for” Satanism. It’s a common belief that witches worship Satan. Maybe not so much now within covens of modern Wiccan witches; but in the early years of witchcraft; Christians thought Satan gave witches their magic. So there’s that.

I, for one, do not worship Satan, per say. Do I believe in him/it? Yes. Do I participate in ritual orgies where blood gets smeared on my body whilst we chant anti-Christian incantations? No.

I’ve had people tell me “if you believe in the Devil, then you must also belief in God.” — Well.. not necessarily. I don’t belief in one God; I belief in the Universe. Satan isn’t the embodiment of all things evil. If anything Satan is more of a good guy than God is.

Hold your horses before you begin sending me hateful messages —

I’ll tell you why. Satan is in all of us. He doesn’t necessarily have to be a deity to be worshipped. He’s an aspect of our own persona; our own individualism and freedom.

Man created God. Therefore, man doesn’t worship a God, but rather the one that created the idea of a God. A Satanist puts themselves at the centre of their own universe. We are our own God and thus can deliver both love and wrath to those whom deserve it.

Nowadays, when you hear the mention of Satanism, the first connection your brain makes would more than likely be to the Church of Satan and Anton LaVey. I have read the Satanic Bible and I can tell you from the bottom of my heart that no Satanist sacrifices children and virgins to the Devil. Whether any of these sacrifices actually ever happened, pre-LaVey, I can’t be sure of.

And to avoid any debates; “Reactive Satanism” used to be a thing displayed mainly by problematic individuals or groups of people. These persons were rebelling against the Christian society they lived in and did in fact murder animals and humans. Though, personally, I don’t view them as real Satanists; but merely as criminals whom needed something else to take the blame for their vile actions.

Satanism is more a lifestyle rather than a religion. You can’t be converted into a Satanist; you realise you have been one all along.

Do Satanists practise magic? Hell yes. (Don’t you just love the puns?)

“Magic is the change in situations or events in accordance with one’s will, which would, using normally accepted methods, be unchangeable.” — LaVey

Greater Magic focuses on emotional energy like destruction, compassion and sex. This type of magic is mainly used for sexual gratification, personal success, material gain, or if you want to take it to the next level; curse your enemies. Basically, be selfish. As long as what you wish for is realistic.

Meanwhile, Lesser Magic is all about manipulation of circumstances using psychology. And by psychology I mean your own body. Seduction using your good looks, the perfume you wear, the clothes you choose to pull out of your wardrobe; you name it. Use anything your body has to offer to bewitch your object of desire. Sounds fun, doesn’t it? And you don’t even need to sacrifice any virgins!

One of the main things, if not THE main thing Satanism has taught me and I always keep in the back of my mind is “do unto others as they do unto you.” I used to be over-apologetic and I used to care too much about what everyone thought of me. Always wanted to be a good person even when the world treated me like dirt. That was until I read the Satanic Bible and came upon this.. rule, as you must. Treat others the way they treat you, NOT the way you want to be treated. Trust me, it opened so many doors for me.

To conclude this post, I want to include the Eleven Satanic Rules down here. Just… to make you think.

1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.

2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.

3. When in another’s lair, show them respect or else do not go there.

4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat them cruelly and without mercy.

5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.

6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and they cry out to be relieved.

7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.

8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

9. Do not harm little children.

10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.

11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask them to stop. If they do not stop, destroy them

(NO CHILDREN, VIRGINS OR ANIMALS WERE SACRIFICED WHILST WRITING THIS POST)

[gduncan969]

Critical Race Theory, Apocalyptic Science and the Church

​Matthew 5:14 “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden.” 

Ephesians 5:8 “For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light” 

1 Thessalonians 5:5 “You are all sons of light and sons of the day. We are not of the night nor of darkness.” 

1 Peter 2:9 “But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;” 

Last June, my daily newspaper carried an article by Bruce Pardy, a law professor at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario with the interesting title of “Apocalyptic Science”.  As a retired scientist myself and a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, the title intrigued me because it placed together two concepts that in the minds of many, are opposites—science and the bible.  What Professor Pardy meant by “apocalyptic science” is something we are hearing much about these days called “Critical Race Theory” now being widely adopted by governments, institutions, large corporations and media in traditional western societies.  It is an attempt to redress what the theory’s adherents describe as the systemic racism that is inherent in all white people who were raised in traditional western societies.  The theory is now being taught in universities, law-schools and even high schools as true and so our inherently racist thinking and behaviour must be eradicated through an admission of guilt and a willingness to redress both past and present wrongs!  Critical Theory seeks to destroy much of what Judeo-Christian societies are based on and replace it with what is best described as a new form of communism.  While you may simply want to dismiss all this as an ill-informed and in itself, a blatantly racist theory, we need to examine where it is taking our society and how far it has penetrated into the everyday thinking of those in control of our governments and institutions.  It is in that sense the term “apocalyptic science” makes sense because Critical Theory destroys how we have understood “truth” over the last two millenia and it will ultimately end our freedom to worship and serve the Lord because the bible opposes its teachings and so will be judged as hate literature to be eliminated from public discourse.  In the middle of this COVID pandemic, we are constantly being urged to “follow the science” but as we examine the tenets of Critical Theory, we need to ask ourselves whose “science” are we following?” What is this theory, what does it mean and how should we as a believers in Jesus Christ guard ourselves against its impact on our rights and freedoms?  Let’s deal with these in turn. 

Critical Race Theory 

Firstly, Critical Race Theory has its roots in the economic theories of Karl Marx whose theories gave rise to the communist revolutions of the twentieth century and caused the deaths of millions of people.  From these Marxist roots it expanded in the 1930's as the broader “Critical Theory” to include the areas of science and sociology under the writings of the German philosopher, Max Horheimer.  From there, it continued to spread its cancerous influence into much broader areas of society and has now infiltrated our institutions, governments, universities and large corporations.  It has changed laws, educational curricula and ultimately has called into question our understanding of what is “truth”. These changes have received broad acceptance and have led to the new fad of “woke” ideology, a term applied to those who are “alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice” but also a term used to denigrate all others who aren’t! Woke-ism is spreading throughout western society, especially among the young and those who view western culture as corrupt and in need of radical change.  These have also adopted Critical Race Theory to explain society’s perceived ills as seen only through the lens of racial discrimination so that whatever tragedies unfold, whatever actions are taken by the authorities to mitigate these, these are explained in terms of our inherent racial bias.  As a result, it becomes socially acceptable for groups like Black Lives Matter to riot and burn down buildings and to call for the de-funding of the police under the guise of seeking justice.  Any opposition to this viewpoint is dismissed simply as evidence of the opponent’s racism. Today’s  tragedy of the Colorado mass murder was first described in most of the US media as having been committed by a man “who is white” followed by the grossly erroneous assertion that most mass murders are committed by men who are white.  Unfortunately for the media, the culprit is now known to be a Syrian moslem.  Critical Theory allows its adherents to believe that “truth” is a purely subjective concept open to interpretation according to one’s own subjective experience—if you believe it is true, then it’s true for you.  Because of this, the adoption of Critical Theory by those in control presents a much greater danger to the Church than any new wave of COVID-19 or the impending collapse of the world economy because it’s ultimate aim—of which the Church appears to be largely unaware—is to radically change how communal “Truth” is perceived and defined, both in the scientific and biblical understanding of what is true.  In that regard, it strikes at the very heart of the Gospel which defines “Truth” in the Person of Jesus Christ who said (John 14:6) “I am the way, the truth and the life”.  Critical theory is radical in the extreme and would be widely laughed off by any normal thinking person but we no longer live in a society governed by normal thinking people and the centres of power in most of the above-mentioned institutions are already infected with its poison.  We can no longer laugh it off!  Even the 150-year-old Royal Society of Chemistry in the UK, of which I am a lifetime member, now carries comments admitting the racism inherent in white chemists and today, the Church of England announced it may institute a quota for black and minority clergy within its ranks and give anti-racism training to its white clergy following the Archbishop of Canterbury’s apology for the denomination’s “racist past”. Last year, in response to the Black Lives Matter protests,  the archbishop ordered the removal of all statues and memorials in churches and cathedrals linked to the slave trade.  Last year saw the destruction of multiple statues and name changes of multiple institutions, all as a mea culpa act of contrition for being white!  If you are bewildered by this and the insanity of things like the “De-fund the Police” movement or the Woke movement, you are merely seeing the unfolding impact of Critical Theory, especially in its sub-discipline of Critical Race Theory.   

We all grew up understanding that to be accepted as “true”, any theory must be provable by experiment; that is, whatever any theory says is true must be provable by performing experiments that produce the results predicted by the theory (“Theory Guides—Experiment Decides”).  Until that happens, the theory is merely a hypothesis.  Under Critical Theory, this is no longer the case.  Critical Theory holds that truth is a subjective concept that is always tainted by the prejudices and biases of the person holding that truth so as a result, the theory cannot be “proven” in the scientific sense.  This reasoning is applied in Critical Mathematical Theory where 2 + 2 does not necessarily equal 4 because someone else’s “truth” may see that it equals 5 and the difference between the two is merely the difference in each person’s inherent biases.  If your reaction to this reasoning is, “What utter nonsense!” then, according to the theory, you are merely exhibiting your own inherent biases and you need to repent.  Such is the case with Critical Race Theory which holds that racism is systemic among white people whose inherent colour prejudice is so entrenched within them it prevents them from recognizing it and so groups like Black Lives Matter, socialist politicians and much of present day media insist you correct your bad attitude.  Denying that you are a racist is simply taken as proof of your blindness to it and therefore proof of your guilt.  Also, under this theory, justice demands retribution for past wrongs, no matter how long ago these wrongs were committed.  Past sins cannot be forgiven.  Thus, Critical Race Theory has led to the “cancel culture movement” we are witnessing daily on our TV screens where past actions or comments, even in our teenage years, can result in loss of job, status and reputation, with no opportunity to defend yourself. 

How Should the Christian Respond? 

Having to answer to the absurdity of Critical Race Theory is like having to argue the sky is blue but answer it we must if we are to reach the multitudes who believe it.  Answering it is best done not by attacking it but to some degree agreeing with it!  Yes, agreeing with it—in one respect: “truth” is indeed in many cases, subjective.  Scientific truth interprets the physical world around us and gives us the natural laws we were born into—fire burns and water quenches but for the believer in Jesus Christ scientific truth comes crashing down when it meets the spiritual truth of the Kingdom of God.  In Daniel 3:24 - 25 fire didn’t burn: “Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished; and he rose in haste and spoke, saying to his counselors, “Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?”  They answered and said to the king, “True, O king.”  “Look!” he answered, “I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.” and in 1 Kings 18: 33 - 34, 38 water didn’t quench because when Elijah tested the prophets of Baal he said, “Fill four jars with water and pour it on the burnt offering and on the wood.”  And he said, “Do it a second time.” And they did it a second time. And he said, “Do it a third time.” And they did it a third time.  And the water ran around the altar and filled the trench also with water...Then the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench.”   We can avoid Critical Theory’s accusations of our blindness to our racism by stating that our “truth” is not based on our own subjective prejudices but on the One who is the ultimate TRUTH, the sum of all truth who has received us, changed us into his image and enlightened us to all that is right and wrong in this world.  Jesus declared in Matthew 5:14 “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden.”  Paul declares in Ephesians 5:8 “For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light” and in 1 Thessalonians 5:5 “You are all sons of light and sons of the day. We are not of the night nor of darkness.” and lastly, Peter declares in 1 Peter 2:9 “But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.”  Whilst others may be blinded to their prejudices we are not because there is One whose Spirit lives within us and reveals all things to us (1 Corinthians 2:10).  As believers in Jesus, we bring light into other people’s darkness and relief to the confused minds of those ensnared in the pseudo-truth of Critical Race Theory. Our response to all of this craziness in a world going mad is the same as it always has been: the Gospel the Lord Jesus Christ but for it to be effective it must be spoken boldly, lovingly and unapologetically in answer to our accusers.

[annaspoolstra]

Reading Response #4

🔍Thoughts on Emerge pp. 22-29

Throughout the chapter, the author describes how God gave Adam the cultural mandate in Genesis 1:28, instructing mankind to develop a social world and harness the natural world. In order to fulfill this mandate properly, we need to act with pure hearts, seeking to please and glorify God in everything. However, our actions become immoral whenever we dismiss God and/or elevate humanity over God. (I feel like this is all too easy to do, especially when we feel like God isn’t near!) This immorality stems from a vain quest for personal worth. People seek fame and fortune, the world’s temporary solutions to our deep-set hunger to be known and to be secure. But God is the only One who can permanently meet these needs. We can find assurance knowing that God has made us each in His own image, which makes us significant and valuable; we can find security in His unconditional love for us.

I really enjoyed reading this chapter from Emerge because the author’s point is very clear: ultimately, we are to create for the purpose of advancing God’s kingdom, not our own. That seems so simple, and yet I think it’s easy to get tripped up, especially when it comes to our quest for personal worth. Especially with today’s social media, we have to make sure we aren’t just creating for “likes” from other people. I think the author is alluding to the fact that our identity and the intended purpose for our work both play a big role in who we create for: either ourselves or God.

Another point that stuck out to me was how when we create to glorify God, our creative endeavors become acts of worship. I just love that reminder, that our creativity manifests itself in worship to God. :)

🔍Thoughts on Genesis 1:28-29

In verse 28, God blesses Adam and Eve. He then tells them to “be fruitful and increase in number,” and to have dominion over the earth. This is known as the cultural mandate. In verse 29 God provides for their needs, giving them every seed-bearing plant and tree to cultivate and eat from. This shows God’s provision and love for His people.

🔍Thoughts on Genesis 2:15

This tells me that work is something that God has given to us, and therefore shouldn’t carry a negative connotation. Also, gardening is a creative process, and that’s what it sounds like Adam is doing here. So God charged Adam and Eve with creative work.

🔍Thoughts on Matthew 28:16-20

Therefore, I believe that we as Jesus’ disciples have another mission. Not only are we supposed to fulfill the cultural mandate (create community with others and subdue the earth), but also the Great Commission (gather disciples for Jesus). Both of these directly affect our creative endeavors. As Christian artists, we must create for the purpose of glorifying God. Our lives and creative thinking (where we find inspiration, the origin of ideas, etc.) should reflect the changes brought by our relationship with Jesus, and thus set us apart from the rest of the world. In everything we do and  create, we should be reflecting Jesus and what it means to follow Him.

🔍Thoughts on “Art as a Valid Christian Activity”

I was really interested in learning more about the problems dualism causes. According to the chapter, a dualistic view divides the world into sacred vs. secular. The extreme anti-secular Christians, especially back in the day, shunned anything that brought a person pleasure; however, this is not biblical! Discriminating against pleasure is a Platonist mindset, not a Christian one. Instead, we need to recognize that Jesus is Lord over every area of life, including that which brings us pleasure (like art!). The dualistic view of the world categorizes most of culture in the secular category. This limited view is what enables people to go to church on Sunday but not allow God to influence the rest of the week. It’s the reason why art has been looked down on by Christians for centuries, because art is a large part of the culture.

Yet in order to effectively fulfill the Great Commission, we need to engage in the culture so we can connect with people. And art, when used properly, is just as much a form of communication as a sermon is. Ultimately, we first need to listen to the discussions going on in the world before we can establish ourselves as a power and presence there. I think engaging with the culture is absolutely necessary for connecting with other unbelievers. I grew up in a family that doesn’t watch a lot of TV, and our movie collection was mainly all Disney-produced. When I was in high school, I found it challenging at times to connect with my peers because I wasn’t aware of the popular movies, shows, and music. So I would agree that engaging with the culture definitely makes it easier to connect with other people.

One of the reasons why Christian art becomes flat and lifeless, and thus ineffective, is because Christian artists neglect to portray the reality of life. We try to tie up all the loose ends of our life stories to find an overarching meaning, when in fact, the stories are still being told. I loved the examples in the Bible of the endings that were unsatisfactory or even missing altogether. The Bible is effective because it’s real––it doesn’t gloss over anything or airbrush anyone. It’s full of loose threads, but that’s what makes it so relatable. Things don’t always have to be neat and tidy and finished, because that’s not how real life is. Art becomes relatable when it reflects reality, and everyone can relate with loose ends, mixed emotions, and imperfections.

As Christians, we are called to be the salt and light in the world. That doesn’t necessarily mean we need to do anything special; we just need to apply Jesus’ standards in the daily circumstances we encounter. Doing so will inevitably affect how we see and make art. Over time, we will naturally share our Christian story with others through our actions and our creations.

📷Image Above:

https://www.google.com/search?q=art+studio+stock+photo&sxsrf=ALeKk01YW-KtmkEeCQ49-oL3qgrSwGdeEg:1600742579570&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjr4dPm3vvrAhUDvp4KHXCaDgsQ_AUoAXoECAwQAw&biw=1440&bih=789#imgrc=-pv1yJg0mXIPFM&imgdii=k2BU2YD_2oCcxM

[swordandstafforder]

Introduction

Is Halloween just a continuation of Samhain? Are Christians accidental Pagans by participating in things such as trick or treating and dressing in costumes? Should Christians partake in celebrating Halloween?

These types of questions are questions that I seem to be receiving more of the longer I’m in the ministry. Christians seem to be truly confused on the topic of Halloween.

Usually, around this time every year, I share a short article called Concerning Halloween by James B. Jordan. I have always appreciated Jordan’s brief, reasoned defense for why Christians can consider celebrating Halloween. However, this year I wanted to take a stab (Get it?) at writing my own that is a little more contextual to the questions and objections I’ve received. I also want to engage with some of the more recent things I’ve come across over the years as well.

Samhain

So, to begin, we must answer the question: Is Halloween just a continuation of the pagan harvest festival Samhain (Pronounced SOW-IN, not SAM-HAIN)?

The short answer is no.

Samhain was an ancient festival with Celtic origins that marked the end of the harvest year and welcomed in the dark half of the year. It has traditionally been celebrated from October 31st to November 1st.

It was believed by the ancient Celts that during this season the point or veil between the seen and unseen realms became thin. Because of this thinning, this meant that the spirits could easily cross between the realms and could enter our world.

The ancient Celts felt the need to please the spirits that crossed over in order to ensure that their families and livestock did not die during the harsh coming winter. The Celts would offer up food and drink for the spirits, and occasionally an animal was sacrificed to appease them as well. It was also believed that the souls of the departed were believed to revisit their homes seeking hospitality. In some cases, a place setting of food or drink was put on the dining table in anticipation of the visit. Mumming or wearing disguises were part of the festival and involved people going door to door in costume or disguise, reciting verse in exchange for food.

While it is clear that Samhain and Halloween share at least some connection points such as dates, an emphasis on disguises or costumes, and harvest decoration, that’s about all they have in common. No one celebrating Halloween is celebrating for the purpose of welcoming in the dark half of the year. Nor, are they making sacrifices to appease spirits because of the metaphysical belief that the veil between the seen and unseen realms is thin.

All Saints Hallows Eve

So then, if Halloween, as we know it today, isn’t necessarily continuation of Samhain, then where does it find its origins?

The answer, surprisingly, is with Old Mother Church.

Halloween was never a pagan festival. It has always been distinctly Christian. Indeed, even the name “Halloween” is a contraction of “All Hallows Eve” which was the night before “All Saints Day.”

Steven Wedgeworth brilliantly notes this in further detail in his article Halloween: It’s Creation and Recreation. He writes:

“Halloween, as its name should make clear, has a distinctively Christian genealogy. Nicholas Rogers, in his book Halloween: From Pagan Ritual to Party Night (a title more sensational than its text), explains: “…[Samhain] did not offer much in the way of actual ritual practices… Most of these developed in conjunction with the medieval holy days of All Souls’ and All Saints’ Day” (22). The name “Halloween” is, as is well known, a contraction of “All Hallows’ Eve,” the night before All Saints’ Day, but we have to take into account the series of All Hallows’ Eve, All Saints’ Day, and All Souls’ Day to form the entire picture. Each of these days, in slightly different ways, celebrated the Christian departed and established the memorialization of the dead as a key part of Halloween.”

Not only are Samhain and Halloween different in terms of origins (Samhain being of Pagan origins and Halloween being of Ecclesiastical origins), but also the intention behind the practices on the days are different as well. Again, while it is clear that Samhain and Halloween share at least some connection points such as dates, an emphasis on disguises or costumes, and harvest decoration, the intention behind the practices is entirely different. And, that’s important. Intention is always important.

James Jordan in his article Concerning Halloween expands on the intentions behind the practices of the Christian Holiday of Halloween. He writes:

“The Biblical day begins in the preceding evening, and thus in the Church calendar, the eve of a day is the actual beginning of the festive day. Christmas Eve is most familiar to us, but there is also the Vigil of Holy Saturday that precedes Easter Morn. Similarly, All Saints’ Eve precedes All Saints’ Day.

The concept, as dramatized in Christian custom, is quite simple: On October 31, the demonic realm tries one last time to achieve victory, but is banished by the joy of the Kingdom.

What is the means by which the demonic realm is vanquished? In a word: mockery. Satan’s great sin (and our great sin) is pride. Thus, to drive Satan from us we ridicule him. This is why the custom arose of portraying Satan in a ridiculous red suit with horns and a tail. Nobody thinks the devil really looks like this; the Bible teaches that he is the fallen Arch-Cherub. Rather, the idea is to ridicule him because he has lost the battle with Jesus and he no longer has power over us.

(The tradition of mocking Satan and defeating him through joy and laughter plays a large role in Ray Bradbury’s classic novel, Something Wicked This Way Comes, which is a Halloween novel.)

The gargoyles that were placed on the churches of old had the same meaning. They symbolized the Church ridiculing the enemy. They stick out their tongues and make faces at those who would assault the Church. Gargoyles are not demonic; they are believers ridiculing the defeated demonic army.

Thus, the defeat of evil and of demonic powers is associated with Halloween. For this reason, Martin Luther posted his 95 challenges to the wicked practices of the Church to the bulletin board on the door of the Wittenberg chapel on Halloween. He picked his day with care, and ever since Halloween has also been Reformation Day.

Similarly, on All Hallows’ Eve (Hallow-Even ‘ Hallow-E’en ‘ Halloween), the custom arose of mocking the demonic realm by dressing children in costumes. Because the power of Satan has been broken once and for all, our children can mock him by dressing up like ghosts, goblins, and witches. The fact that we can dress our children this way shows our supreme confidence in the utter defeat of Satan by Jesus Christ ‘ we have no fear!”

Once one begins to understand the origins of Halloween, it becomes quite clear that there’s nothing sinister happening here. Subversion and appropriation? Sure. Seeking to view everything, including the seasons in light of the Lordship of Christ? Absolutely. But, accidental paganism? Not a chance. These things are two entirely different beasts, with two entirely different purposes, and two entirely different origin stories.

The Lordship of Christ Over The Seasons

Now at this point, I want to anticipate some arguments I am likely to receive and offer some counter arguments.

Some have argued that while it’s okay for God to mock His enemies, it’s unbiblical for Christians to mock Satan.

However, the problem is that it does not take into account the fact that we have been united to Christ (Rom. 5:1–5), and Christ is Lord over everything, including the seasons and His enemies (Col. 1:15–23). Because of our union with Him, we share in an organic union with Him in the same way that branches share in organic union with the vine (John 15:1–8), and in the same way that the body shares in organic union with the head (Col. 1:18). We are one. Also, because of our union with Him, we also share in His rule and reign. Paul literally tells Timothy that we will reign with Christ (2 Tim. 2:11–13). So then, if Christ mocks His enemies (And He does), then it follows that we share in His mockery of them as well. And, if He is Lord over the seasons (And He is), then it follows that we ought to do all that we can to subvert them for the Kingdom of Light.

A second argument offered (and the most common objection to Christians celebrating Halloween) is that Christians should have nothing to do with anything that may have pagan overtones or connections.

However, there are various problems with this.

The first problem with this argument is that it seeks to abandon things to the Kingdom of Darkness. It gives too much ground to the enemy. This is not the way that Chrisitianity has historically functioned. Because of Christ’s Lordship over everything, Christians have always sought to bring all things under His feet. Even pagan thought, if it could be redeemed.

The way that Christianity has historically done this is through the paradigm of bless, baptize, or burn.

In practice, when Christianity encountered pagan thought that was true, it blessed and accepted it, for all truth is God’s truth. When it encountered pagan thought that could be redeemed and used to extend the Lordship of Christ, it baptized it and accepted it. When it encountered pagan thought that could not be blessed or redeemed, it burned it and did not accept it.

Commenting further on this paradigm in his book Back to Virtue, Peter Kreeft writes, “From the beginning there were three different attitudes on the part of Christians to the pagan world in general. (1) Uncritical synthesis, (2) critical synthesis, (3) criticism and anti-synthesis. Christian thinkers accepted either (1) all, (2) some, or (3) none of the Greek ideals. . . The greatest and mainstream Christians like Augustine and Aquinas, took the second way . . .”

A second issue with this argument is that it simply isn’t what we see in Scripture. It appears that it wasn’t just Augustine and Aquinas who took the second way, but also the Apostles themselves.

The first example I’ll point to here can be found with the Apostle John and his use of the term Logos. If you are unaware, Logos was a greek pagan category that was used by the Stoics. The Stoics believed that there was a Logos which was the ordering principle of the world. The problem however, was that the Logos was unknowable. John, however, in John 1:1–5 baptized this greek pagan category by telling his readers that there is indeed a Logos who is the ordering principle of the world. However, contrary to what the Stoics said, the Logos — who is Lord over all of creation — is knowable because He has revealed Himself by taking on flesh and dwelling among us. His name is Christ Jesus.

The second example can be found with the Apostle Paul addressing the Areopagus at Mars Hill in Acts 17:22–34. In this scene, Paul makes his way to the Areopagus, stands in their midst, and beings preaching to the men of Athens. Paul says as he was passing through considering their objects of worship, he found an altar with the inscription TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Paul, then, took this category of the unknown God, baptized it, and proceeded to tell them that The One whom they were worshipping without knowing was the True God, the Lord of Heaven and Earth — The God of Israel. He then critically synthesizes and quotes a the semi-mythical poet Epimenides and the Stoic philosopher Cleanthes to drive his points home even further. Christ is Lord not only over Hebrews, but the Greeks too. It’s just like their own poets said — “in Him we live and move and have our being, and we are his offspring.”

A third problem with this argument is that engaging with things that may have pagan connections does not make one an accidental pagan. This is just plain superstition.

Lets say for the sake of argument that Halloween is pagan (It’s not, as I’ve already demonstrated).

Even if it were, one cannot accidentally become a pagan anymore than one can accidentally become a Christian. Things just don’t work that way. As I said above, intentions matter.

I hope that after these few examples that it’s clear that if Christians should have nothing to do with anything that may have Pagan overtones or connections, then John 1:1–5 and Paul’s sermon at the Aeropagus would not exist. But, however, they do exist. And, it’s because Christians over the centuries have taken the call to extending the Lordship of Christ seriously. This is a vocation we must pick back up. The crown rights of King Jesus must be proclaimed over every area of life — Even the seasons. And, for these reasons Christians can feel confident in baptizing pagan ideas and concepts they come across for the purpose of extending Christ’s Lordship over every area of life.

Conclusion

So then, that leaves us with the question: Should Christians celebrate Halloween? Ultimately, I believe the answer is a matter of conscience.

Personally, I have no issues celebrating Halloween. Not only do I believe that it’s a practical and effective way of extending the Lordship of Christ over the seasons, but I also believe that it’s also a great way to live a life that’s on mission.

Halloween is one of the last communal holidays we have in our culture. It’s not often that folks from the neighborhood come to our doors anymore. So, we view it as an opportunity to model gospel-hospitality and to ask the question “do you know why we’re celebrating this as Christians?”

This question leads us right into the heart of the Gospel message — That Jesus took on flesh, that He lived the perfect live we could never life, that He died for our sins, that He rose again from the grave on the third day, and that He also vanquished the Kingdom of Darkness by triumphing over His enemies and putting them to open shame.

As people who are united to Jesus, we’re called to take part in this victory. It’s not just Jesus’ victory. It’s ours too!

So with that in mind, lets tell our families the Christian history and meaning behind Halloween. Lets dress up. Lets mock the enemy. Lets sing imprecatory Psalms (Psalm 2 is a good one). Lets remember the great cloud of witnesses made up of the saints that have passed on to the unseen realm before us. Lets model hospitality to our neighbors. And, lets invite them into the celebration too.

Lets be Christians that do what Christians have always done for centuries, which is take ground for the Kingdom.

Happy Halloween.

[verjigorm]

Logical Fallacies Handlist

Fallacies are statements that might sound reasonable or superficially true but are actually flawed or dishonest. When readers detect them, these logical fallacies backfire by making the audience think the writer is (a) unintelligent or (b) deceptive. It is important to avoid them in your own arguments, and it is also important to be able to spot them in others' arguments so a false line of reasoning won't fool you. Think of this as intellectual kung-fu: the vital art of self-defense in a debate. For extra impact, learn both the Latin terms and the English equivalents.

In general, one useful way to organize fallacies is by category. We have below fallacies of relevance, component fallacies, fallacies of ambiguity, and fallacies of omission. We will discuss each type in turn. The last point to discuss is Occam's Razor.

FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE: These fallacies appeal to evidence or examples that are not relevant to the argument at hand.

Appeal to Force (Argumentum Ad Baculum or the "Might-Makes-Right" Fallacy): This argument uses force, the threat of force, or some other unpleasant backlash to make the audience accept a conclusion. It commonly appears as a last resort when evidence or rational arguments fail to convince a reader. If the debate is about whether or not 2+2=4, an opponent's argument that he will smash your nose in if you don't agree with his claim doesn't change the truth of an issue. Logically, this consideration has nothing to do with the points under consideration. The fallacy is not limited to threats of violence, however. The fallacy includes threats of any unpleasant backlash--financial, professional, and so on.

Example: "Superintendent, you should cut the school budget by $16,000. I need not remind you that past school boards have fired superintendents who cannot keep down costs." While intimidation may force the superintendent to conform, it does not convince him that the choice to cut the budget was the most beneficial for the school or community. Lobbyists use this method when they remind legislators that they represent so many thousand votes in the legislators' constituencies and threaten to throw the politician out of office if he doesn't vote the way they want. Teachers use this method if they state that students should hold the same political or philosophical position as the teachers or risk failing the class. Note that it is isn't a logical fallacy, however, to assert that students must fulfill certain requirements in the course or risk failing the class! 

Genetic Fallacy: The genetic fallacy is the claim that an idea, product, or person must be untrustworthy because of its racial, geographic, or ethnic origin. "That car can't possibly be any good! It was made in Japan!" Or, "Why should I listen to her argument? She comes from California, and we all know those people are flakes." Or, "Ha! I'm not reading that book. It was published in Tennessee, and we know all Tennessee folk are hillbillies and rednecks!" This type of fallacy is closely related to the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem or personal attack, appearing immediately below.

Personal Attack (Argumentum Ad Hominem, literally, "argument toward the man." Also called "Poisoning the Well"): Attacking or praising the people who make an argument, rather than discussing the argument itself. This practice is fallacious because the personal character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falseness of the argument itself. The statement "2+2=4" is true regardless if it is stated by criminals, congressmen, or pastors. There are two subcategories:

Abusive: To argue that proposals, assertions, or arguments must be false or dangerous because they originate with atheists, Christians, Muslims, communists, capitalists, the John Birch Society, Catholics, anti-Catholics, racists, anti-racists, feminists, misogynists (or any other group) is fallacious. This persuasion comes from irrational psychological transference rather than from an appeal to evidence or logic concerning the issue at hand. This is similar to the genetic fallacy, and only an anti-intellectual would argue otherwise.

Circumstantial: To argue that an opponent should accept or reject an argument because of circumstances in his or her life. If one's adversary is a clergyman, suggesting that he should accept a particular argument because not to do so would be incompatible with the scriptures is such a fallacy. To argue that, because the reader is a Republican or Democrat, she must vote for a specific measure is likewise a circumstantial fallacy. The opponent's special circumstances have no control over the truth or untruth of a specific contention. The speaker or writer must find additional evidence beyond that to make a strong case. This is also similar to the genetic fallacy in some ways. If you are a college student who wants to learn rational thought, you simply must avoid circumstantial fallacies.

Argumentum ad Populum (Literally "Argument to the People"): Using an appeal to popular assent, often by arousing the feelings and enthusiasm of the multitude rather than building an argument. It is a favorite device with the propagandist, the demagogue, and the advertiser. An example of this type of argument is Shakespeare's version of Mark Antony's funeral oration for Julius Caesar. There are three basic approaches:

Bandwagon Approach: “Everybody is doing it.” This argumentum ad populum asserts that, since the majority of people believes an argument or chooses a particular course of action, the argument must be true, or the course of action must be followed, or the decision must be the best choice. For instance, “85% of consumers purchase IBM computers rather than Macintosh; all those people can’t be wrong. IBM must make the best computers.” Popular acceptance of any argument does not prove it to be valid, nor does popular use of any product necessarily prove it is the best one. After all, 85% of people may once have thought planet earth was flat, but that majority's belief didn't mean the earth really was flat when they believed it! Keep this in mind, and remember that everybody should avoid this type of logical fallacy.

Patriotic Approach: "Draping oneself in the flag." This argument asserts that a certain stance is true or correct because it is somehow patriotic, and that those who disagree are unpatriotic. It overlaps with pathos and argumentum ad hominem to a certain extent. The best way to spot it is to look for emotionally charged terms like Americanism, rugged individualism, motherhood, patriotism, godless communism, etc. A true American would never use this approach. And a truly free man will exercise his American right to drink beer, since beer belongs in this great country of ours.This approach is unworthy of a good citizen.

Snob Approach: This type of argumentum ad populum doesn’t assert “everybody is doing it,” but rather that “all the best people are doing it.” For instance, “Any true intellectual would recognize the necessity for studying logical fallacies.” The implication is that anyone who fails to recognize the truth of the author’s assertion is not an intellectual, and thus the reader had best recognize that necessity.

In all three of these examples, the rhetorician does not supply evidence that an argument is true; he merely makes assertions about people who agree or disagree with the argument. For Christian students in religious schools like Carson-Newman, we might add a fourth category, "Covering Oneself in the Cross." This argument asserts that a certain political or denominational stance is true or correct because it is somehow "Christian," and that anyone who disagrees is behaving in an "un-Christian" or "godless" manner. (It is similar to the patriotic approach except it substitutes a gloss of piety instead of patriotism.) Examples include the various "Christian Voting Guides" that appear near election time, many of them published by non-Church related organizations with hidden financial/political agendas, or the stereotypical crooked used-car salesman who keeps a pair of bibles on his dashboard in order to win the trust of those he would fleece. Keep in mind Moliere's question in Tartuffe: "Is not a face quite different than a mask?" Is not the appearance of Christianity quite different than actual Christianity? Christians should beware of such manipulation since they are especially vulnerable to it. 

Appeal to Tradition (Argumentum Ad Traditionem; aka Argumentum Ad Antiquitatem): This line of thought asserts that a premise must be true because people have always believed it or done it. For example, "We know the earth is flat because generations have thought that for centuries!" Alternatively, the appeal to tradition might conclude that the premise has always worked in the past and will thus always work in the future: “Jefferson City has kept its urban growth boundary at six miles for the past thirty years. That has been good enough for thirty years, so why should we change it now? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Such an argument is appealing in that it seems to be common sense, but it ignores important questions. Might an alternative policy work even better than the old one? Are there drawbacks to that long-standing policy? Are circumstances changing from the way they were thirty years ago? Has new evidence emerged that might throw that long-standing policy into doubt?

Appeal to Improper Authority (Argumentum Ad Verecundium, literally "argument from that which is improper"): An appeal to an improper authority, such as a famous person or a source that may not be reliable or who might not know anything about the topic. This fallacy attempts to capitalize upon feelings of respect or familiarity with a famous individual. It is not fallacious to refer to an admitted authority if the individual’s expertise is within a strict field of knowledge. On the other hand, to cite Einstein to settle an argument about education or economics is fallacious. To cite Darwin, an authority on biology, on religious matters is fallacious. To cite Cardinal Spellman on legal problems is fallacious. The worst offenders usually involve movie stars and psychic hotlines. A subcategory is the Appeal to Biased Authority. In this sort of appeal, the authority is one who actually is knowledgeable on the matter, but one who may have professional or personal motivations that render his professional judgment suspect: for instance, "To determine whether fraternities are beneficial to this campus, we interviewed all the frat presidents." Or again, "To find out whether or not sludge-mining really is endangering the Tuskogee salamander's breeding grounds, we interviewed the owners of the sludge-mines, who declared there is no problem." Indeed, it is important to get "both viewpoints" on an argument, but basing a substantial part of your argument on a source that has personal, professional, or financial interests at stake may lead to biased arguments. As Upton Sinclair once stated, "It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Sinclair is pointing out that even a knowledgeable authority might not be entirely rational on a topic when he has economic incentives that bias his thinking.

Appeal to Emotion (Argumentum Ad Misericordiam, literally, "argument from pity"): An emotional appeal concerning what should be a logical issue during a debate. While pathos generally works to reinforce a reader’s sense of duty or outrage at some abuse, if a writer tries to use emotion merely for the sake of getting the reader to accept what should be a logical conclusion, the argument is a fallacy. For example, in the 1880s, prosecutors in a Virginia court presented overwhelming proof that a boy was guilty of murdering his parents with an ax. The defense presented a "not-guilty" plea for on the grounds that the boy was now an orphan, with no one to look after his interests if the court was not lenient. This appeal to emotion obviously seems misplaced, and the argument is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he did the crime.

Argument from Adverse Consequences: Asserting that an argument must be false because the implications of it being true would create negative results. For instance, “The medical tests show that Grandma has advanced cancer. However, that can’t be true because then she would die! I refuse to believe it!” The argument is illogical because truth and falsity are not contingent based upon how much we like or dislike the consequences of that truth. Grandma, indeed, might have cancer, in spite of how negative that fact may be or how cruelly it may affect us.

Argument from Personal Incredulity: Asserting that opponent’s argument must be false because you personally don’t understand it or can’t follow its technicalities. For instance, one person might assert, “I don’t understand that engineer’s argument about how airplanes can fly. Therefore, I cannot believe that airplanes are able to fly.” Au contraire, that speaker’s own mental limitations do not limit the physical world—so airplanes may very well be able to fly in spite of a person's inability to understand how they work. One person’s comprehension is not relevant to the truth of a matter.

COMPONENT FALLACIES: Component fallacies are errors in inductive and deductive reasoning or in syllogistic terms that fail to overlap.

Begging the Question (also called Petitio Principii, this term is sometimes used interchangeably with Circular Reasoning): If writers assume as evidence for their argument the very conclusion they are attempting to prove, they engage in the fallacy of begging the question. The most common form of this fallacy is when the first claim is initially loaded with the very conclusion one has yet to prove. For instance, suppose a particular student group states, "Useless courses like English 101 should be dropped from the college's curriculum." The members of the student group then immediately move on in the argument, illustrating that spending money on a useless course is something nobody wants. Yes, we all agree that spending money on useless courses is a bad thing. However, those students never did prove that English 101 was itself a useless course--they merely "begged the question" and moved on to the next "safe" part of the argument, skipping over the part that's the real controversy, the heart of the matter, the most important component. Begging the question is often hidden in the form of a complex question (see below).

Circular Reasoning is closely related to begging the question. Often the writers using this fallacy word take one idea and phrase it in two statements. The assertions differ sufficiently to obscure the fact that that the same proposition occurs as both a premise and a conclusion. The speaker or author then tries to "prove" his or her assertion by merely repeating it in different words. Richard Whately wrote in Elements of Logic (London 1826): “To allow every man unbounded freedom of speech must always be on the whole, advantageous to the state; for it is highly conducive to the interest of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing his sentiments.” Obviously the premise is not logically irrelevant to the conclusion, for if the premise is true the conclusion must also be true. It is, however, logically irrelevant in proving the conclusion. In the example, the author is repeating the same point in different words, and then attempting to "prove" the first assertion with the second one. A more complex but equally fallacious type of circular reasoning is to create a circular chain of reasoning like this one: "God exists." "How do you know that God exists?" "The Bible says so." "Why should I believe the Bible?" "Because it's the inspired word of God."

The so-called "final proof" relies on unproven evidence set forth initially as the subject of debate. Basically, the argument goes in an endless circle, with each step of the argument relying on a previous one, which in turn relies on the first argument yet to be proven. Surely God deserves a more intelligible argument than the circular reasoning proposed in this example!

Hasty Generalization (Dicto Simpliciter, also called “Jumping to Conclusions,” "Converse Accident"): Mistaken use of inductive reasoning when there are too few samples to prove a point. Example: "Susan failed Biology 101. Herman failed Biology 101. Egbert failed Biology 101. I therefore conclude that most students who take Biology 101 will fail it." In understanding and characterizing general situations, a logician cannot normally examine every single example. However, the examples used in inductive reasoning should be typical of the problem or situation at hand. Maybe Susan, Herman, and Egbert are exceptionally poor students. Maybe they were sick and missed too many lectures that term to pass. If a logician wants to make the case that most students will fail Biology 101, she should (a) get a very large sample--at least one larger than three--or (b) if that isn't possible, she will need to go out of his way to prove to the reader that her three samples are somehow representative of the norm. If a logician considers only exceptional or dramatic cases and generalizes a rule that fits these alone, the author commits the fallacy of hasty generalization.

One common type of hasty generalization is the Fallacy of Accident. This error occurs when one applies a general rule to a particular case when accidental circumstances render the general rule inapplicable. For example, in Plato’s Republic, Plato finds an exception to the general rule that one should return what one has borrowed: “Suppose that a friend when in his right mind has deposited arms with me and asks for them when he is not in his right mind. Ought I to give the weapons back to him? No one would say that I ought or that I should be right in doing so. . . .” What is true in general may not be true universally and without qualification. So remember, generalizations are bad. All of them. Every single last one. Except, of course, for those that are not.

Another common example of this fallacy is the misleading statistic. Suppose an individual argues that women must be incompetent drivers, and he points out that last Tuesday at the Department of Motor Vehicles, 50% of the women who took the driving test failed. That would seem to be compelling evidence from the way the statistic is set forth. However, if only two women took the test that day, the results would be far less clear-cut. Incidentally, the cartoon Dilbert makes much of an incompetent manager who cannot perceive misleading statistics. He does a statistical study of when employees call in sick and cannot come to work during the five-day work week. He becomes furious to learn that 40% of office "sick-days" occur on Mondays (20%) and Fridays (20%)--just in time to create a three-day weekend. Suspecting fraud, he decides to punish his workers. The irony, of course, is that these two days compose 40% of a five day work week, so the numbers are completely average. Similar nonsense emerges when parents or teachers complain that "50% of students perform at or below the national average on standardized tests in mathematics and verbal aptitude." Of course they do! The very nature of an average implies that! 

False Cause: This fallacy establishes a cause/effect relationship that does not exist. There are various Latin names for various analyses of the fallacy. The two most common include these types:

Non Causa Pro Causa (Literally, "Not the cause for a cause"): A general, catch-all category for mistaking a false cause of an event for the real cause.

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (Literally: "After this, therefore because of this"): This type of false cause occurs when the writer mistakenly assumes that, because the first event preceded the second event, it must mean the first event caused the later one. Sometimes it does, but sometimes it doesn't. It is the honest writer's job to establish clearly that connection rather than merely assert it exists. Example: "A black cat crossed my path at noon. An hour later, my mother had a heart-attack. Because the first event occurred earlier, it must have caused the bad luck later." This is how superstitions begin.

The most common examples are arguments that viewing a particular movie or show, or listening to a particular type of music “caused” the listener to perform an antisocial act--to snort coke, shoot classmates, or take up a life of crime. These may be potential suspects for the cause, but the mere fact that an individual did these acts and subsequently behaved in a certain way does not yet conclusively rule out other causes. Perhaps the listener had an abusive home-life or school-life, suffered from a chemical imbalance leading to depression and paranoia, or made a bad choice in his companions. Other potential causes must be examined before asserting that only one event or circumstance alone earlier in time caused a event or behavior later. For more information, see correlation and causation. 

Irrelevant Conclusion (Ignorantio Elenchi): This fallacy occurs when a rhetorician adapts an argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion and directs it to prove a different conclusion. For example, when a particular proposal for housing legislation is under consideration, a legislator may argue that decent housing for all people is desirable. Everyone, presumably, will agree. However, the question at hand concerns a particular measure. The question really isn't, "Is it good to have decent housing?" The question really is, "Will this particular measure actually provide it or is there a better alternative?" This type of fallacy is a common one in student papers when students use a shared assumption--such as the fact that decent housing is a desirable thing to have--and then spend the bulk of their essays focused on that fact rather than the real question at issue. It's similar to begging the question, above.

One of the most common forms of Ignorantio Elenchi is the "Red Herring." A red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument from the real question at issue to some side-point; for instance, “Senator Jones should not be held accountable for cheating on his income tax. After all, there are other senators who have done far worse things.” Another example: “I should not pay a fine for reckless driving. There are many other people on the street who are dangerous criminals and rapists, and the police should be chasing them, not harassing a decent tax-paying citizen like me.” Certainly, worse criminals do exist, but that it is another issue! The questions at hand are (1) did the speaker drive recklessly, and (2) should he pay a fine for it?

Another similar example of the red herring is the fallacy known as Tu Quoque (Latin for "And you too!"), which asserts that the advice or argument must be false simply because the person presenting the advice doesn't consistently follow it herself. For instance, "Susan the yoga instructor claims that a low-fat diet and exercise are good for you--but I saw her last week pigging out on Oreos, so her argument must be a load of hogwash." Or, "Reverend Jeremias claims that theft is wrong, but how can theft be wrong if Jeremias himself admits he stole objects when he was a child?" Or "Thomas Jefferson made many arguments about equality and liberty for all Americans, but he himself kept slaves, so we can dismiss any thoughts he had on those topics."

Straw Man Argument: A subtype of the red herring, this fallacy includes any lame attempt to "prove" an argument by overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying the arguments of the opposing side. Such an approach is building a straw man argument. The name comes from the idea of a boxer or fighter who meticulously fashions a false opponent out of straw, like a scarecrow, and then easily knocks it over in the ring before his admiring audience. His "victory" is a hollow mockery, of course, because the straw-stuffed opponent is incapable of fighting back. When a writer makes a cartoon-like caricature of the opposing argument, ignoring the real or subtle points of contention, and then proceeds to knock down each "fake" point one-by-one, he has created a straw man argument.

For instance, one speaker might be engaged in a debate concerning welfare. The opponent argues, "Tennessee should increase funding to unemployed single mothers during the first year after childbirth because they need sufficient money to provide medical care for their newborn children." The second speaker retorts, "My opponent believes that some parasites who don't work should get a free ride from the tax money of hard-working honest citizens. I'll show you why he's wrong . . ." In this example, the second speaker is engaging in a straw man strategy, distorting the opposition's statement about medical care for newborn children into an oversimplified form so he can more easily appear to "win." However, the second speaker is only defeating a dummy-argument rather than honestly engaging in the real nuances of the debate.

Non Sequitur (literally, "It does not follow"): A non sequitur is any argument that does not follow from the previous statements. Usually what happened is that the writer leaped from A to B and then jumped to D, leaving out step C of an argument she thought through in her head, but did not put down on paper. The phrase is applicable in general to any type of logical fallacy, but logicians use the term particularly in reference to syllogistic errors such as the undistributed middle term, non causa pro causa, and ignorantio elenchi. A common example would be an argument along these lines: "Giving up our nuclear arsenal in the 1980's weakened the United States' military. Giving up nuclear weaponry also weakened China in the 1990s. For this reason, it is wrong to try to outlaw pistols and rifles in the United States today." There's obviously a step or two missing here.

The "Slippery Slope" Fallacy (also called "The Camel's Nose Fallacy") is a non sequitur in which the speaker argues that, once the first step is undertaken, a second or third step will inevitably follow, much like the way one step on a slippery incline will cause a person to fall and slide all the way to the bottom. It is also called "the Camel's Nose Fallacy" because of the image of a sheik who let his camel stick its nose into his tent on a cold night. The idea is that the sheik is afraid to let the camel stick its nose into the tent because once the beast sticks in its nose, it will inevitably stick in its head, and then its neck, and eventually its whole body. However, this sort of thinking does not allow for any possibility of stopping the process. It simply assumes that, once the nose is in, the rest must follow--that the sheik can't stop the progression once it has begun--and thus the argument is a logical fallacy. For instance, if one were to argue, "If we allow the government to infringe upon our right to privacy on the Internet, it will then feel free to infringe upon our privacy on the telephone. After that, FBI agents will be reading our mail. Then they will be placing cameras in our houses. We must not let any governmental agency interfere with our Internet communications, or privacy will completely vanish in the United States." Such thinking is fallacious; no logical proof has been provided yet that infringement in one area will necessarily lead to infringement in another, no more than a person buying a single can of Coca-Cola in a grocery store would indicate the person will inevitably go on to buy every item available in the store, helpless to stop herself. So remember to avoid the slippery slope fallacy; once you use one, you may find yourself using more and more logical fallacies.

Either/Or Fallacy (also called "the Black-and-White Fallacy," "Excluded Middle," "False Dilemma," or "False Dichotomy"): This fallacy occurs when a writer builds an argument upon the assumption that there are only two choices or possible outcomes when actually there are several. Outcomes are seldom so simple. This fallacy most frequently appears in connection to sweeping generalizations: “Either we must ban X or the American way of life will collapse.” "We go to war with Canada, or else Canada will eventually grow in population and overwhelm the United States." "Either you drink Burpsy Cola, or you will have no friends and no social life." Either you must avoid either/or fallacies, or everyone will think you are foolish.

Faulty Analogy: Relying only on comparisons to prove a point rather than arguing deductively and inductively. For example, “education is like cake; a small amount tastes sweet, but eat too much and your teeth will rot out. Likewise, more than two years of education is bad for a student.” The analogy is only acceptable to the degree a reader thinks that education is similar to cake. As you can see, faulty analogies are like flimsy wood, and just as no carpenter would build a house out of flimsy wood, no writer should ever construct an argument out of flimsy material.

Undistributed Middle Term: A specific type of error in deductive reasoning in which the minor premise and the major premise of a syllogism might or might not overlap. Consider these two examples: (1) “All reptiles are cold-blooded. All snakes are reptiles. All snakes are cold-blooded.” In the first example, the middle term “snakes” fits in the categories of both “reptile” and “things-that-are-cold-blooded.” (2) “All snails are cold-blooded. All snakes are cold-blooded. All snails are snakes.” In the second example, the middle term of “snakes” does not fit into the categories of both “things-that-are-cold-blooded” and “snails.” Sometimes, equivocation (see below) leads to an undistributed middle term.

Contradictory Premises (also known as a logical paradox): Establishing a premise in such a way that it contradicts another, earlier premise. For instance, "If God can do anything, he can make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it." The first premise establishes a deity that has the irresistible capacity to move other objects. The second premise establishes an immovable object impervious to any movement. If the first object capable of moving anything exists, by definition, the immovable object cannot exist, and vice-versa.

Closely related is the fallacy of Special Pleading, in which the writer creates a universal principle, then insists that principle does not for some reason apply to the issue at hand. For instance, “Everything must have a source or creator. Therefore God must exist and he must have created the world. What? Who created God? Well, God is eternal and unchanging--He has no source or creator.” In such an assertion, either God must have His own source or creator, or else the universal principle of everything having a source or creator must be set aside—the person making the argument can’t have it both ways.

FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY: These errors occur with ambiguous words or phrases, the meanings of which shift and change in the course of discussion. Such more or less subtle changes can render arguments fallacious.

Equivocation: Using a word in a different way than the author used it in the original premise, or changing definitions halfway through a discussion. When we use the same word or phrase in different senses within one line of argument, we commit the fallacy of equivocation. Consider this example: “Plato says the end of a thing is its perfection; I say that death is the end of life; hence, death is the perfection of life.” Here the word end means "goal" in Plato's usage, but it means "last event" or "termination" in the author's second usage. Clearly, the speaker is twisting Plato's meaning of the word to draw a very different conclusion. Compare with amphiboly, below.

Amphiboly (from the Greek word "indeterminate"): This fallacy is similar to equivocation. Here, the ambiguity results from grammatical construction. A statement may be true according to one interpretation of how each word functions in a sentence and false according to another. When a premise works with an interpretation that is true, but the conclusion uses the secondary "false" interpretation, we have the fallacy of amphiboly on our hands. In the command, "Save soap and waste paper," the amphibolous use of "waste" results in the problem of determining whether "waste" functions as a verb or as an adjective.

Composition: This fallacy is a result of reasoning from the properties of the parts of the whole to the properties of the whole itself--it is an inductive error. Such an argument might hold that, because every individual part of a large tractor is lightweight, the entire machine also must be lightweight. This fallacy is similar to Hasty Generalization (see above), but it focuses on parts of a single whole rather than using too few examples to create a categorical generalization. Also compare it with Division (see below).

Division: This fallacy is the reverse of composition. It is the misapplication of deductive reasoning. One fallacy of division argues falsely that what is true of the whole must be true of individual parts. Such an argument notes that, "Microtech is a company with great influence in the California legislature. Egbert Smith works at Microtech. He must have great influence in the California legislature." This is not necessarily true. Egbert might work as a graveyard shift security guard or as the copy-machine repairman at Microtech--positions requiring little interaction with the California legislature. Another fallacy of division attributes the properties of the whole to the individual member of the whole: "Sunsurf is a company that sells environmentally safe products. Susan Jones is a worker at Sunsurf. She must be an environmentally minded individual." (Perhaps she is motivated by money alone?)

Fallacy of Reification (Also called “Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness” by Alfred North Whitehead): The fallacy of treating a word or an idea as equivalent to the actual thing represented by that word or idea, or the fallacy of treating an abstraction or process as equivalent to a concrete object or thing. In the first case, we might imagine a reformer trying to eliminate illicit lust by banning all mention of extra-marital affairs or certain sexual acts in publications. The problem is that eliminating the words for these deeds is not the same as eliminating the deeds themselves. In the second case, we might imagine a person or declaring “a war on poverty.” In this case, the fallacy comes from the fact that “war” implies a concrete struggle with another concrete entity which can surrender or be exterminated. “Poverty,” however is an abstraction that cannot surrender or sign peace treaties, cannot be shot or bombed, etc. Reification of the concept merely muddles the issue of what policies to follow and leads to sloppy thinking about the best way to handle a problem. It is closely related to and overlaps with faulty analogy and equivocation.

FALLACIES OF OMISSION: These errors occur because the logician leaves out necessary material in an argument or misdirects others from missing information.

Stacking the Deck: In this fallacy, the speaker "stacks the deck" in her favor by ignoring examples that disprove the point and listing only those examples that support her case. This fallacy is closely related to hasty generalization, but the term usually implies deliberate deception rather than an accidental logical error. Contrast it with the straw man argument.

‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy: Attempting to stack the deck specifically by defining terms in such a narrow or unrealistic manner as to exclude or omit relevant examples from a sample. For instance, suppose speaker #1 asserts, “The Scottish national character is brave and patriotic. No Scottish soldier has ever fled the field of battle in the face of the enemy.” Speaker #2 objects, “Ah, but what about Lucas MacDurgan? He fled from German troops in World War I.” Speaker #1 retorts, “Well, obviously he doesn't count as a true Scotsman because he did not live up to Scottish ideals, thus he forfeited his Scottish identity.” By this fallacious reasoning, any individual who would serve as evidence contradicting the first speaker’s assertion is conveniently and automatically dismissed from consideration. We commonly see this fallacy when a company asserts that it cannot be blamed for one of its particularly unsafe or shoddy products because that particular one doesn't live up to its normally high standards, and thus shouldn't “count” against its fine reputation. Likewise, defenders of Christianity as a positive historical influence in their zeal might argue the atrocities of the eight Crusades do not “count” in an argument because the Crusaders weren't living up to Christian ideals, and thus aren't really Christians, etc. So, remember this fallacy. Philosophers and logicians never use it, and anyone who does use it by definition is not really a philosopher or logician.

Argument from the Negative: Arguing from the negative asserts that, since one position is untenable, the opposite stance must be true. This fallacy is often used interchangeably with Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (listed below) and the either/or fallacy (listed above). For instance, one might mistakenly argue that, since the Newtonian theory of mathematics is not one hundred percent accurate, Einstein’s theory of relativity must be true. Perhaps not. Perhaps the theories of quantum mechanics are more accurate, and Einstein’s theory is flawed. Perhaps they are all wrong. Disproving an opponent’s argument does not necessarily mean your own argument must be true automatically, no more than disproving your opponent's assertion that 2+2=5 would automatically mean your argument that 2+2=7 must be the correct one. Keeping this mind, students should remember that arguments from the negative are bad, arguments from the positive must automatically be good.

Appeal to a Lack of Evidence (Argumentum Ad Ignorantium, literally "Argument from Ignorance"): Appealing to a lack of information to prove a point, or arguing that, since the opposition cannot disprove a claim, the opposite stance must be true. An example of such an argument is the assertion that ghosts must exist because no one has been able to prove that they do not exist. Logicians know this is a logical fallacy because no competing argument has yet revealed itself.

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact (Argumentum Ad Speculum): Trying to prove something in the real world by using imaginary examples alone, or asserting that, if hypothetically X had occurred, Y would have been the result. For instance, suppose an individual asserts that if Einstein had been aborted in utero, the world would never have learned about relativity, or that if Monet had been trained as a butcher rather than going to college, the impressionistic movement would have never influenced modern art. Such hypotheses are misleading lines of argument because it is often possible that some other individual would have solved the relativistic equations or introduced an impressionistic art style. The speculation might make an interesting thought-experiment, but it is simply useless when it comes to actually proving anything about the real world. A common example is the idea that one "owes" her success to another individual who taught her. For instance, "You owe me part of your increased salary. If I hadn't taught you how to recognize logical fallacies, you would be flipping hamburgers at McDonald's for minimum wages right now instead of taking in hundreds of thousands of dollars as a lawyer." Perhaps. But perhaps the audience would have learned about logical fallacies elsewhere, so the hypothetical situation described is meaningless.

Complex Question (Also called the "Loaded Question"): Phrasing a question or statement in such as way as to imply another unproven statement is true without evidence or discussion. This fallacy often overlaps with begging the question (above), since it also presupposes a definite answer to a previous, unstated question. For instance, if I were to ask you “Have you stopped taking drugs yet?” my hidden supposition is that you have been taking drugs. Such a question cannot be answered with a simple yes or no answer. It is not a simple question but consists of several questions rolled into one. In this case the unstated question is, “Have you taken drugs in the past?” followed by, “If you have taken drugs in the past, have you stopped taking them now?” In cross-examination, a lawyer might ask a flustered witness, “Where did you hide the evidence?” or "when did you stop beating your wife?" The intelligent procedure when faced with such a question is to analyze its component parts. If one answers or discusses the prior, implicit question first, the explicit question may dissolve. 

Complex questions appear in written argument frequently. A student might write, “Why is private development of resources so much more efficient than any public control?” The rhetorical question leads directly into his next argument. However, an observant reader may disagree, recognizing the prior, implicit question remains unaddressed. That question is, of course, whether private development of resources really is more efficient in all cases, a point which the author is skipping entirely and merely assuming to be true without discussion. 

To master logic more fully, become familiar with the tool of Occam's Razor.

[cancatervation]

word vomit re: the mess Australians are in re: marriage equality

Hello and welcome to a thought dump from a person in a loving, nearly 17-month-old same sex relationship. I often tell myself I’m above making these basic sorts of posts and yet here I am!!!!!!!

To begin: I am sympathetic to those who take the position that marriage as an institution is bad. Marriage has traditionally been used to objectify and disenfranchise women. It has been used as a tool to promulgate the false idea of “family values”. It reinforces the incorrect notion that gender is binary. It has been used to validate certain forms of relationship and not others. It has turned into a consumerist mess that, when you remove yourself from the supposed romance for a minute, looks like a whole lot of waste. Relatedly, it has and will continue to amplify the most grotesque aspects of white wealth.

Yet I am also sympathetic to the idea that the institution of marriage is not immutable. It has changed and has the capacity to change again. “Marriage” can represent something as ostensibly simple as making a commitment to another consenting person that you do and will love them and you want to be with them forever, through good times and bad. What you do from thereon out is up to you.

Of course, you can love your partner without the wedding, certificate and legal status. But when you do love your partner and can’t ever hope to have those things it feels like there is a circle and you are not allowed to stand in it. It feels demeaning and rude. It is as though your relationship is not important, as though the love you feel for your partner is not as worthy of validation as the love a heterosexual person feels for their partner.

I don’t believe marriage equality will be the massive catalyst that transforms notions of queer identity such that us non-straight people will all become dull conformists, facsimiles of the people that have hated and marginalised us for so long. Frankly this is already happening and anyone who’s been privy to the racism and sexism that pervades much of the white gay community will know this well.

What I do think is that marriage equality will make it easier for queer people to prove the existence of their relationship to certain organisations. I think it will mean that young queer people will feel more confident about expressing their sexuality to others, including their families. I think it will start positive conversations and might assist with addressing LGBTQI health issues or promoting trans rights or developing high school programs to deal with bullying of queer students or any number of other things affecting this community that have been pushed to the background because this matter apparently can’t be dealt with quickly and efficiently. Marriage equality has imperfections, but I think it will do more good than bad, and so I think we should have it.

Briefly, to dispel some myths that apparently require dispelling to members of the Australian media and commentariat:

Some people marry to have children. That is fine, though silly if it is their only reason. Some people marry for other reasons. That is fine also. Some people who cannot have children get married. Having children is not, and never has been, the sole purpose of marriage. A person can have children without being married, or even without a partner. Further, people in same-sex relationships are able to have children, and have been doing so for some time.

A child that does not have a “mother” and a “father” is no worse off than a child that does. There is no evidence that suggests this to be the case. A person’s parenting style should not be informed by traditional notions of gender.

LGBTQI people are not paedophiles. I can’t believe I have to write that.

Marriage equality will not be a “stepping stone” to bestiality, incest or child marriage. The Marriage Act specifies that a marriage must be entered into voluntarily. There is no suggestion that this should ever change. Marriages between a person and an animal, child, toaster, garbage bin, et cetera, are not between two consenting individuals and thus should never be lawful.

“Marriage has always been between a man and a woman so that’s the way it should be” is a line many politicians have trotted out over the last decade or so. I consider this to be an incredibly close-minded argument. It has already been established that the function of marriage in society has changed over time, and so the idea that it can change again should be considered uncontroversial. Further, amendments to the Marriage Act which stipulated that marriages in Australia were to be between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others were made only thirteen years ago, so to suggest that it’s “always been this way” is farcical.

“Marriage equality is forbidden by the Bible” is an argument that holds no merit. One does not have to read or understand the Bible to get married in Australia. Further, 30% of Australians selected “no religion” when asked about their religious beliefs in the 2016 census. To suggest that laws not be enacted because of certain interpretations of religious texts willfully ignores the nature of the Australian electorate - one that is increasingly disinterested in religion.

Further to this, it is a myth that marriage equality necessarily diminishes freedom of religion. In fact, the marriage equality bill put forward by renegade LNP members last week contained broad concessions to religious celebrants with respect to Australian anti-discrimination laws.

“Marriage equality doesn’t affect many people and is not important” is an untruth. Marriage equality will affect many LGBTQI Australians who may currently be in relationships, or who may enter into one in the future. It will also impact their families, friends, colleagues and allies. As I’ve also mentioned, it might open up the floodgates for broader societal change. Conversely, if it really were true that marriage equality is a fringe issue, then why not let it be law and do away with all the endless hand-wringing?

All this is really prelude, because the existence of majority support for marriage equality in Australia is long established and uncontroversial and I can’t imagine anyone reading this is suddenly having their eyes opened and is changing their mind. What has me writing this post is the absurd position Australians find themselves in at present, namely one where our government intends to poll Australian voters using the postal service as to whether or not marriage equality should be enshrined in our law.

Why is this course of action bad? Well, *clears throat*:

The postal plebiscite forms will be sent out it in mid-September and must be submitted by early November. That’s a couple of months of bigoted knobs expressing hateful views in the media, trying to influence your vote, while you have the ballot paper sitting on your kitchen table. A couple of months of LGBTQI people enduring discussion about the legitimacy of their relationships at home, at work, at school, in bars, on the tram, everywhere. A couple of months of extreme stress and anxiety that need not occur.

Voting in the postal plebiscite will not be compulsory, so who knows how many people will even bother to vote, and who knows how many votes the government is expecting for it to have any influence on their decision making.

The voting will be done by post. Post is not the communication method of choice for young people in Australia. People may miss their ballot papers if they have moved to a new house recently or don’t look at their mail properly. Australia Post has proved itself time and again to be unreliable.

The voting will be counted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, rather than the Australian Electoral Commission, the authority that one would expect to be equipped to deal with something like this. Why this is, I have absolutely no idea.

Perhaps most significant: even if millions of votes come in with an overwhelming majority, the government is still not bound to enact legislation to allow marriage equality. If the “yes” vote were to achieve a majority, a marriage equality bill will be put forward to be debated in parliament, and members will be permitted to follow their conscience when voting, rather than align with their party’s position. This is literally something that could happen if there were no plebiscite at all.

I know of no valid reason as to why marriage equality cannot be dealt with immediately by members of parliament. Members of parliament introduce bills, debate them, and make laws all the time. That is, indeed, the function of parliament.  There was no plebiscite to change the Marriage Act in 2004. There is no reason why all eligible Australian voters need to have a say on this particular issue.  The government’s justification for the plebiscite is that it had promised one on marriage equality prior to the most recent federal election, and so it has no mandate to debate the issue in parliament without a plebiscite first. This is an extraordinary position to maintain, given that anyone who tried to argue that the last federal election was a pseudo-marriage equality plebiscite would likely be laughed at, and that there are myriad instances of the current government’s inability to keep its own election promises. 

It will cost lots of money. Currently the estimate is $AUD122 million. (!!!!!!) $122 million spent on an opinion poll that may ultimately have no bearing on a decision that must be made by members of parliament. What a fucking crock.

I really am just so, so tired, so fed up with the contempt shown for rainbow families, so frustrated by the meddling and dilly-dallying led by members of parliament, who happen to have no vested interest in this law, projecting their own prejudices on us daily and being cheered on by disciples of Rupert Murdoch. This relentless saga is but one of the examples of extraordinary incompetence of this government. I know, deep down, that the law will change eventually and that I won’t have to huff and puff on this issue any longer. But what about people in same-sex relationships with dying family members who want to see their relatives marry? Or what about people in same-sex relationships who are terminally ill and have always wanted to marry their partner? What about queer school kids who will now have to endure bigoted opinions every day from broadcast media, which filter down to their families and their peers? What effect will that have on their mental health? What about all the other things this government is doing badly, like failing to tackle the housing crisis or listen to indigenous people? What about the fact that the Australian government is locking people up in concentration camps in remote foreign islands and barely batting an eyelid when they start dying? When does all that end?

[schoolcalidity]

Origins of the Gog and Magog In Ezekiel and the Old Testament

The names are mentioned together in Ezekiel chapter 38, where Gog is an individual and Magog is his land.[1] The meaning of the name Gog remains uncertain, and in any case the author of the Ezekiel prophecy seems to attach no particular importance to it.[1] Efforts have been made to identify him with various individuals, notably Gyges, a king of Lydia in the early 7th century BCE, but many scholars do not believe he is related to any historical person.[1]

In Genesis 10 Magog is a person, son of Japheth son of Noah, but no Gog is mentioned. The name Magog is equally obscure, but may come from the Assyrian mat-Gugu, "Land of Gyges", i.e., Lydia.[6] Alternatively, Gog may be derived from Magog rather than the other way round, and "Magog" may be code for Babylon.[a][7][8]

The form "Gog and Magog" may have emerged as shorthand for "Gog and/of the land of Magog", based on their usage in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible.[9] An example of this combined form in Hebrew (Gog u-Magog) has been found, but its context is unclear, being preserved only in a fragment of the Dead Sea Scrolls.[b][10] In Revelation, Gog and Magog together are the hostile nations of the world.[11][3] Gog or Goug the Reubenite[c] occurs in 1 Chronicles 5:4, but he appears to have no connection with the Gog of Ezekiel or Magog of Genesis.[13]

The Biblical "Gog and Magog" possibly gave derivation of the name Gogmagog, a legendary British giant.[d][14] A later corrupted folk rendition in print altered the tradition around Gogmagog and Corineus with two giants Gog and Magog, with whom the Guildhall statues came to be identified.[15]

Ezekiel's Vision of the Sign "Tau" from Ezekiel IX:2–7. —Mosan champlevé panel, mid-12th century. The Book of Ezekiel records a series of visions received by the prophet Ezekiel, a priest of Solomon's Temple, who was among the captive during the Babylonian exile. The exile, he tells his fellow captives, is God's punishment on Israel for turning away, but God will restore his people to Jerusalem when they return to him.[16] After this message of reassurance, chapters 38–39, the Gog oracle, tell how Gog of Magog and his hordes will threaten the restored Israel but will be destroyed, after which God will establish a new Temple and dwell with his people for a period of lasting peace (chapters 40–48).[17] "Son of man, direct your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince, leader of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy concerning him. Say: Thus said the Lord: Behold, I am against you, Gog, the prince, leader of Meshech and Tubal ... Persia, Cush and Put will be with you ... also Gomer with all its troops, and Beth Togarmah from the far north with all its troops—the many nations with you."[18] Internal evidence indicates that the Gog oracle was composed substantially later than the chapters around it.[e][19]Of Gog's allies, Meshech and Tubal were 7th-century kingdoms in central Anatolia north of Israel, Persia towards east, Cush (Ethiopia) and Put (Libya) to the south; Gomer is the Cimmerians, a nomadic people north of the Black Sea, and Beth Togarmah was on the border of Tubal.[20] The confederation thus represents a multinational alliance surrounding Israel.[21] "Why the prophet's gaze should have focused on these particular nations is unclear," comments Biblical scholar Daniel I. Block, but their remoteness and reputation for violence and mystery possibly "made Gog and his confederates perfect symbols of the archetypal enemy, rising against God and his people".[22] One explanation is that the Gog alliance, a blend of the "Table of Nations" in Genesis 10 and Tyre's trading partners in Ezekiel 27, with Persia added, was cast in the role of end-time enemies of Israel by means of Isaiah 66:19, which is another text of eschatological foretelling.[23] Although the prophecy refers to Gog as an enemy in some future, it is not clear if the confrontation is meant to occur in a final "end of days" since the Hebrew term aḥarit ha-yamim (Hebrew: אחרית הימים) may merely mean "latter days", and is open to interpretation. Twentieth-century scholars have used the term to denote the eschaton in a malleable sense, not necessarily meaning final days, or tied to the Apocalypse.[f][24] Still, the Utopia of chapters 40–48 can be spoken of in the parlance of "true eschatological character, given that it is a product of "cosmic conflict" described in the immediately preceding Gog chapters.[25]

Jewish knew very well who those where and indeed they came from The North: Midrashic writings[edit]The anti-Roman Bar Kokhba revolt in the 2nd century AD looked to a human leader as the promised messiah, but after its failure Jews began to conceive of the messianic age in supernatural terms: first would come a forerunner, the Messiah ben Joseph, who would defeat Israel's enemies, identified as Gog and Magog, to prepare the way for the Messiah ben David;[g]then the dead would rise, divine judgement would be handed out, and the righteous would be rewarded.[36][37]The aggadah, homiletic and non-legalistic exegetical texts in the classical rabbinic literature of Judaism, treat Gog and Magog as two names for the same nation who will come against Israel in the final war.[38] The rabbis associated no specific nation or territory with them beyond a location to the north of Israel,[39] but the great Jewish scholar Rashi identified the Christians as their allies and said God would thwart their plan to kill all Israel.[40]

Josephus: The 1st-century Jewish historian Josephus identified the Gog and Magog people as Scythians, horse-riding barbarians from around the Don and the Sea of Azov. Josephus recounts the tradition that Gog and Magog were locked up by Alexander the Great behind iron gates in the "Caspian Mountains", generally identified with the Caucasus Mountains. This legend must have been current in contemporary Jewish circles by this period, coinciding with the beginning of the Christian Era.[h][44] Several centuries later, this material was vastly elaborated in the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius and Alexander romance.[45]

Land of "Gog i Magog", its king mounted on a horse, followed by a procession (lower half); Alexander's Gate, showing Alexander, Antichrist, and mechanical trumpeters (upper left).[41][42][43]—Catalan Atlas (1375), Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale.

Abraham Cresque - Bibliothèque nationale de France

(Detail) Catlan Atlas (1375) Showing land labeled "Gog i Magog", with a procession headed by its king mounted on horse, followed by his people. Above these are shown Alexander the Great and the Antichrist (upside down), and the mechanical trumpeters whose sounds were powered by wind.[1]

[delwray-blog]

THE BIBLE AND ISRAEL'S GUILTY PAST

The Bible is emphatic that God ordained the Jewish people as His vehicle to bring Jesus into the world to redeem all who trust in Him. The Bible is also emphatic that, despite Israel's rejection of Jesus, God will someday obtain national righteousness from Israel, and a remnant will "look upon Him" whom their fathers pierced John 18:37. During the thousand years of righteousness under Christ's rule, Israel will give their Messiah the praise and honor due to Him. Yet, because Israel has not yet experienced such a change of heart, but rather, opposes Christ and his followers, our Lord and New Testament Scriptures warn Christians to be suspicious of the "whited sepulchers" of a religion based on the teachings of those who killed Christ, the Pharisees. Christ said, "beware of the leaven (teachings) of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy." Mark 8:15 Paul said of the Jews, "beware of the concision." Philippians 3:2  He also said of the Jews, that "from the standpoint of the gospel" they are enemies for your sake. Rom. 11:28 Are today's Jews still guilty of the murder of Jesus Christ? Jews today are guilty only if they support those leaders of Judaism who had Christ crucified. The Pharisees! Scripture teaches no one is guilty of the sins of another. We all enter the world innocent of the misdeeds of our parents. This includes every Jewish child. Yet the Bible also teaches we can become guilty of the sin of another by sympathy with it. Christ said the Pharisees were guilty of the murder of Abel and all righteous blood from the beginning of the world. Mat. 23:35 Why? Because the Pharisees persecuted righteousness. Had they been present in the time of Abel, they would have murdered Abel. Thus, according to Christ, it is possible to become spiritually guilty of a sin, such as murder or adultery, even without physically committing the act. The will is there. All that is lacking is the opportunity. Modern or rabbinic Judaism is a product of those very Pharisees whom Christ excoriated, and who ultimately had Him crucified. The authoritative Universal Jewish Encyclopedia explains: "The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent without a break through all the centuries from the Pharisees. Their leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a great deal is still in existence. The Talmud is the largest and most important single piece of that literature.." The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Article on "Pharisaism," p. 474 If a Jewish child is born into an orthodox Jewish family, he innocently enters a religious system entirely obedient to those who masterminded the crucifixion of Jesus. The Pharisees and their vast, rambling "anti-bible", the Talmud, possess greater authority for religious Jews than does the Old Testament. As the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia confirms: "Thus the ultimate authority for orthodoxy is the Babylonian Talmud. The Bible itself ranks second to it in reality, if not in theory." Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, "Authority" p. 637. What does the Talmud teach about Jesus? It says He seduced and deceived the people. He was a bastard, his mother Mary being a whore. He practiced sorcery and enticed His race to apostasy. He was a fool. He was stoned, burned, decapitated and strangled in His death. He was excommunicated for the thought of seducing a woman and in His shame fell down and worshipped a brick. He is now in hell, languishing in boiling hot excrement. The Talmud is emphatic that it was necessary to kill Jesus because He was "one of the three worst enemies of Judaism." A false prophet who seduced and deceived the people. Is the modern Jew guilty of the death of Christ? The answer is simple. If he agrees with the Talmud that the Pharisees did the right thing by having Jesus crucified, then that Jew today is as guilty as the Jewish mob that sided with the Pharisees 2,000 years ago, shouting "Crucify Him, crucify Him." Mark. 15:13. If, however, the modern Jew disassociates himself from loyalty to the Pharisees and their claims against Christ, then he is free from any guilt. Unfortunately, amid the shock waves of Mel Gibson's "Passion," many evangelical Christian leaders are rushing forward to absolve all Jews of any spiritual guilt concerning the crucifixion. Such pandering not only makes God's law of none effect, it attempts to free the Jews from a burden of guilt they themselves invited. To hasten the crucifixion of Christ, the Jewish leaders said, "His blood be upon us and upon our children." Mark. 27:25. All adult Jews who still support the Pharisaic system which crucified Christ are thus linked in spiritual guilt with those who actively accomplished the act. Of course, anyone, such as a gentile Satanist, who approves of the crucifixion, or a Christian who becomes apostate Heb. 6:6, is spiritually guilty of crucifying Christ. Rabbinic Judaism however, because it constitutes the "synagogue of Satan" Rev. 2:9 uniquely incurs blame for Christ's death upon all Jews who give themselves to it. During the past century, Jewish apologists, for purposes of ecumenical harmony with Christians, have referred to Jesus in such terms as "a great teacher." Such a description is found nowhere in rabbinic Judaism's most sacred repository of authority, the Babylonian Talmud. Rabbinic Judaism, despite efforts to whitewash it, remains of all great religions (including Islam) the most vehemently opposed to the claims of Christ. To be a religious, observant Jew is to embrace the Talmud and its blasphemous opinion of Christ. Someday, the Bible teaches, a remnant of Jews out of the Great Tribulation will believe on the One their fathers crucified. Yet for the present, the church must heed Christ's warning to "Beware of the leaven (teaching) of the Pharisees." Matt. 16:6. In other words: Beware of Judaism. Paul also warns the church, referring to unbelieving Jews as "enemies" Rom. 11:28 "...who both killed the Lord Jesus and prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men." 1 Thess. 2:15 The Jews were given transcendent spiritual light, first at Sinai, and then through their prophets. When they rejected that light, they were plunged into incredible darkness. While individual Jews may not necessarily be held guilty of such apostasy, the fact is Jewish leadership and institutions remain formidably opposed to Christianity. Moses warned the Jews that if they rejected God's law, they would be cursed above all nations. Deut. 28:15. They not only rejected God's law but crucified its giver, Jesus Christ. Christ said that the House of Israel, after its rejection of Him, would be left desolate. Luke.13:35. Today, no evangelical leader has the privilege of removing guilt from Jews who still reject their Messiah and embrace the teaching of His murderers. Christ has both a long-standing love-affair and quarrel with the Jewish nation. He will settle that quarrel someday on His own terms, at last, obtaining faith, obedience, and righteousness from what Scripture repeatedly describes as a "stiff-necked people." Such a people now control Hollywood and America's media. They dominate Congress. They dictate America's foreign policy in the Middle East. They are the fountainhead of anti-Christian activity and legislation, including so-called "anti-hate" laws which strip Christians of free speech. In short, they are more determined than ever that Christ will never prevail. Yet in the end, Christ will have righteousness from His people, the Jews. "They will look on Him whom they pierced and they will mourn ... as one mourns for an only son." Zech. 12:10.

What the Babylonian Talmud teaches about Christ? What does the Talmud teach about Jesus? It says He seduced and deceived the people. Git.56b-57a. He was a bastard, his mother Mary being a whore San.106b. He practiced sorcery and enticed His race to apostasy. San.43a. He was a fool. San.67a. He was stoned, burned, decapitated and strangled in His death. San. 106b, Git.57a. He was excommunicated for the thought of seducing a woman and in His shame fell down and worshipped a brick. San.107b. He is now in hell, languishing in boiling hot excrement. Git.56a. The Talmud is emphatic that it was necessary to kill Jesus because He was "one of the three worst enemies of Judaism." Git.56a; a false prophet who seduced and deceived the people. Git.56b-57a.

[somos-rosas]

The Christian too often is greatest obstacle to Christian love. This because the demands of Christian love as articulated by Jesus and his closest followers, challenge the very foundations of  the society that makes it possible for the church to thrive. The other thing is that Christian love is a revolutionary force, demanding more of the believer than mere kindness, but the destruction of the conditions that lead to the inhumanity of man/woman towards man/woman. Moreover, the greatest obstacle to love itself is the oppressive and exploitative capitalist society we live in. In the end, the greatest enemies to Christianity are not the non believes, atheists or agnostics but capitalism and racism. Love, at the end of the day, is a level of consciousness that recognizes the oneness of humanity. At the same time it is a web of complex and intimate human bonds. Love, rather than the antithesis of social being manifests it. Love is not transcendent, but concrete and human. It is about people and the transformative power inherent in people. Sexual and romantic love (individual manifestations of love) must always be measured against the larger collective and all embracing love of humanity  and the struggles for freedom and justice. The problem and contradictions of romantic and sexual love (which are two sides of the same coin) is not those forms of love themselves, but the society within which they exist. So often condemned to fail because they are sabotaged by a society which says that the highest good is the individual and her or his wellbeing. Thus romantic love fails because it is undermined by a society which gives it little space to flourish and grow. In an anti-love, exploitative, thing-oriented, war-directed society and culture, Christian, romantic and sexual love are corrupted and cheapened. And this is not because people are necessarily insincere about love, but because the culture they live in bears down upon them making love difficult and in many cases impossible. Because it is human and social, it is part of society. Without struggle against a society that cheapens love, romantic and sexual love is more often than not a sham and fraud. The promise of flying your lover to the moon, turns out being a one way trip into a living hell, a prison of never to be fulfilled expectations. Many people incorrectly believe that love is transcendent and above society. For most, love is viewed as an escape. In the existential sense an escape from the responsibility to free society from the chains of racism and exploitation. Love is this never neverland, a paradise, where the proverbial Alice discovers her Wonderland. I call this love as escapism .

The essence of Christian morality and for that matter the Christian life, and its magnificent spiritual and philosophical contribution to the world (the Good News, if you will), is Love. God is Love, the Bible teaches. However, the Christian Church rather than struggle to help people realize love, by upholding the current system and usually being quiet about injustice, turns out being an obstacle to love in general and Christian Love in particular. To Love in the Christian sense is to serve, to struggle to overturn all forms of injustice. to be a Christian is therefore to be a freedom fighter, a revolutionary. Anything else is a distortion of the meaning of Jesus' life and the Christian call to love your neighbors as you would yourself. In the end most Christians are not Christians at all, they are American nationalists seeking justification for living in an unjust world while doing nothing to change it.

For me love is first and foremost a revolutionary impulse, a commitment to struggle for freedom and to change society; it is an investment in humanity as such and Black humanity in the first place. My lover is my comrade, my associate in the long journey towards a better world and better humanity. Sexual love is not the end, but a means by which we deepen bonds of ideology, morality and commitment. I love you because we love freedom; I love you because we love humanity; I love you because we hate capitalist exploitation, racism and imperialist wars. Without struggle, romantic love is an empty vessel. Without struggle, romantic love turns into a prison of disappointments, a house that is not a home, a series of proclamations and high sounding claims that cannot be fulfilled. Lastly, the crisis of love, both Christian and sexual in our society, and especially among black people, is in the end the crisis of capitalism and its cheap morality. Capitalist propaganda insists that either in the transcendent Christian love or the escapist romantic love we can find fulfillment in a decadent society. This is one of the Big Lies of our time. To paraphrase Frederick Douglass, Without struggle there cannot be Love. She/He who wants Love without struggle wants the crops without the rain, or the sea without its mighty roar.

-Dr. Anthony Monteiro

[trinitiesblog]

Kimel’s review of What is the Trinity – Part 2

In part two of his review Fr. Kimel says “Once upon a time … there was a unitarian God,” by which he means: suppose that at first only the Father existed, as biblical unitarian Christians think. He then gives a thumbnail sketch of how a unitarian Christian looks at the whole sweep of Scripture. This is all well and good. But then things get silly:

And for three centuries the Church was faithful to its mission and the revelation of the one God. But then the it abandoned the truth, embraced the heretical doctrine of tri-personal divinity, and began to violently persecute the followers of the one God.

This is not my view, and I don’t think this narrative should commend itself to biblical unitarians.

For one thing, any biblical unitarian is going to think that in certain ways mainstream Christianity began to veer away from the apostolic path even before 381. In those years we have the evolution of the one bishop system, the system then progressively getting in bed with the government of the Roman empire, increasing cults of Mary and the saints, the triumph of logos theory and the integration of various Greek philosophical views into Christian theology, the valorization of virginity and the denigration of sex, bishops taking on the roles of secular judges, simony, creeping anti-semitism, the idea that Christians must escape to some nonphysical life and occasional denunciations of belief in resurrection as wrongly “Jewish,” various speculations about the saving power of baptism and how there can be no forgiveness for post baptism sins, ideas about eternal conscious torment, the idea that bishops of big cities should be more powerful than other bishops, and the idea that there can be no salvation outside of this bishop-run network or organization. So there is a lot going on in these years, and it’s not like the transition from unitarian to trinitarian theology just strikes like lightning, out of the blue on a sunny day. A lot of these things are now rejected by most Christians. Others have long been objected to by many or most Protestants.

What’s worse, on a traditional catholic understanding of heresy it is impossible that the Church should go into heresy! (Perhaps this is part of his point?) Heresy is what is taught by a heretic. A heretic is a baptized catholic who persists in teaching something even after the hierarchy tells him to knock it off. By definition, what the hierarchical church decides to teach cannot be heresy, on this traditional understanding of heresy. But perhaps he means to use the term “heresy” in a modern Protestant sense, where means something like a teaching that contradicts an essential teaching of the faith (or something which is so important that its denial results in damnation).

It is not my view that most trinitarians are guilty of heresy in this sense. As I explain in this talk, I think what is essential to the gospel is very minimal. And as far as I know, Fr. Kimel, the Baptists down the street, the Catholics down the other street, and I all agree on, say, what Peter preaches in Acts 2. If you add to these beliefs other speculations that don’t necessarily fit well with them, that may cause various problems, but nonetheless you still have those saving beliefs. In my view, you thus have saving faith.

Perhaps the reviewer is assuming that just as a traditional trinitarian thinks any unitarian theology is heresy, so a unitarian must think that any Trinity doctrine is heresy. But this is not so. Some of us are more reticent about declaring minority theories to be “heresy.”

Our reviewer ends his lampooning of the unitarian narrative as follows:

The knowledge of the one God was lost to the Church for 1400 years, but in his grace God eventually raised up the erudite scholar and Anglican priest Samuel Clarke. Clarke read the Scriptures with fresh and unbiased eyes and rediscovered the biblical truth of the divine unicity. In 1712 he published the fruits of his scholarship, one of the great works of Christian theology: The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity. Sadly, this important work has been ignored by trinitarian Christians, such is the Satanic power of tradition and dogma. But a new day is dawning. God is restoring the Church to its original unitarian foundation.

The thing about Trinity theories is that no matter how elaborate  they become, people still pick up the Bible and end up thinking along unitarian lines. So no, the revelation that the Father is the one true God never has really been lost. It’s more like an official marginalization. But the texts are what they are, and so unitarian theology keeps popping back over and over again. I assume Fr. Kimel knows that Clarke was very far from being the first in modern times to discover unitarian theology in the NT. A large number of such people in the 16th and 17th centuries made this discovery, perhaps most famously the Socinians, originally the Minor Reformed church in Poland. Our knowledge about unitarians in medieval times is practically non-existent, but most likely there were fewer (consistent) unitarian Christians then, as there were fewer people reading the Bible, as we say, “for themselves.”

As recent trinitarian theologians have often lamented, in everyday life and even in much of their devotional life and worship, the majority of Christians in trinitarian churches are in fact unitarian in their thinking, or nearly so. For a great many people all the metaphysical fireworks pretty much boil down to this: sometimes they think that Jesus just is God himself, and sometimes they think God is someone and Jesus is someone else, that is, that they are two different beings. When pressed on this serial inconsistency, they will then jump around between different speculations, such as that Jesus and his Father are two of the three parts of God, or that they are two of the three aspects or personalities of God. Or, the favorite: it’s a mystery!

Two things are right in Fr. Kimel’s statement above. Clarke’s work is a neglected masterwork that repays careful study, whether you agree with it or not. Also, I think that a new day is dawning. There are quite a few people out there who have discovered that New Testament clarity on these topics is much preferable to tradition-based confusion. The steady drip of whistleblowers is becoming a thin stream.

Why did St Athanasius and the Cappadocians concoct the unprece­dented and theologically revolutionary homoousion, and how could they have believed they were faithfully continuing the apostolic tradition, when even their great teacher Origen, according to Dale Tuggy’s reading, appears to have taught otherwise? 

Well, let’s get the basic history right. Those gents did not of course “concoct” the newfangled language in question. Rather, that language was adopted for a practical reason, and then strangely some catholic leaders decided to rally around the new language and claim that it was all important. It’s an interesting question why this happened, but it’s a question that presses on everyone, not simply on the unitarian.

As to Origen, he was widely idolized, if I can put it that way, in the fourth century, although not universally. He had big fans on both sides of the Nicene controversy. On the Nicene side, the Cappadocians. On the other side, the famous church historian Eusebius and quite a few others. He was demonstrably a subordinationist unitarian, though, though some persist in spinning him as proto-Nicene, or nearly so.

Fr. Kimel, after noting my basic account of how this controversy was forcibly ended by Theodosius I, asks,

How does one prove the assertion that the Trinitarian faith triumphed across the Empire, century after century, because—and principally because—of state coercion? Tuggy offers no substantiation.

There’s quite a lot of complex history here I did not get into. This extinction of so-called “Arian” Christianity took a long time in some places, and happened by fits and starts. At first, the proverbial feces hit the fan, and Theodosius in 383 invited the “heretics” back to another synod try to work things out in a more peaceful manner. But this didn’t work out. It is not in dispute that considerable force was applied. Bishops were deposed, churches were seized, the non-Nicenes were forced to worship in the open air outside the city of Constantinople, where they had been before the majority. Granted, a longer and more detailed historical account is desirable. But not in a blog post or in a short, popular book.

Kimel asks,

Is it not at least possible, nay probable, that the Nicene faith ultimately triumphed because it provided a superior theological explanation for the eucharistic life of the Church and the soteriological claims of the gospel? …Emperors do not always win.

Quite true. Emperors did not always get their way. Imperial declarations about doctrine or official religious policy were far easier to write than to enforce, and many pronouncements against the traditional pagan religion went unenforced, according to historians. Still, in this case, though it took a while, and longer in some places than in others, the non-Nicene voices were silenced. Moreover, after Augustine, there was in place an ideology that justified coercion in religious matters by the state. The tradition chose persecution over religious tolerance, and this took quite a long time to be undone.

Now if you want to come along after all this and say that surely it was really the power of their arguments that led to the triumph of trinitarian theology, I’m not sure what to say. Had they been so confident in the power of their arguments, they could have been patient, and hoped that “Arian” theologies would just naturally fade away, as I take it the gnostics largely had by that time. But the Nicene side was glad to have imperial power smash their enemies and install them in power, and when they went along with these developments, they closed off the possibility of any demonstration of the amazing powers of their arguments or explanations.

And for the rest of history, trinitarian institutions have as a rule used their power to prevent rival views from being discussed or openly advocated for. This tradition is very alive at present. I know learned and godly unitarian Christians who were excluded from graduate school, or who could not find a publisher for their (excellent, learned) book, because of their minority viewpoint on the Trinity. (And no, I’m not talking about me.) Part of the way the mainstream traditions survive, in my view, is to close ranks and sort of de-legitimize any dissenting questions. It’s a rough way of operating, yes, and it is not the way of those confident in the obvious superiority of their explanations or arguments.

Perhaps we can agree on this, though. Despite all of this bad behavior, if there is some convincing argument from the Bible or Christian experience or reason (etc.) for “the Trinity,” then so be it. Let’s hear it then. Pointing out intolerance and power-plays would not be any kind of refutation of such an argument. Fr. Kimel keeps alluding to such an argument, but I don’t know what he thinks it is, really, other than it’s something to the effect that only “the Trinity” can explain (Orthodox?) church practice (and experience?). That’s going to need some filling out, if it is going to go beyond mere assertion.

Still, pointing out the power-plays is not irrelevant. It does not seem to be the way of Jesus and the apostles. They dealt with false teachings by public refutation, by persuation.

I also find it odd that Tuggy would cite Philoponus and Abelard, neither of whom were condemned for teaching unitarianism but rather tritheism. At this point one might be excused for thinking that for Tuggy just about any stick is good enough to beat catholic Christianity with. I kept waiting to hear about Galileo’s house arrest.

This last comment is completely unfair. I’m not beating anyone with a stick, but am sticking strictly to demonstrable historical facts. What is the Trinity does not have a lot of rough polemical edges, unlike this review. About Philoponus and Abelard what I had said was:

From time to time, in the centuries that followed, some thoughtful trinitarian would venture to clarify what the statements must mean. [The footnote cites John Philoponus and Peter Abelard as examples], but was typically denounced and condemned as a heretic by his fellow trinitarians.

Of course I am not holding them up as unitarian martyrs, because neither one was a unitarian! My point, which was clear enough, was that the trinitarian mainstream is not only intolerant of dissent, but is also intolerant of sympathetic and careful attempts at clarification by trinitarians! Those two, in their respective days, were leading philosophers, who were theorizing about the Trinity in the attempt to show how it is coherent. This continues in the present day, although the consequences are far less dire for the theorists, thanks to modern religious tolerance. Nowadays they usually get nothing worse than mild mockery and being ignored.

Fr. Kimel then, happily, agrees with what I say in the book about pre-Nicene catholics who hold to a two-stage logos theory. I make the point that outside of monarchian catholic circles, the two-stage view seems to have been standard before Origen.

Against this, he objects with the case of Irenaeus.

Yet Tuggy fails to mention that many scholars contest the claim that Irenaeus is accurately described as a two-stage logos theorist. Tuggy notes the dispute on his blog but not in his book. I judge this to be a misleading and tendentious omission.

Well, that’s pretty harsh isn’t it? If there is an exception to the general rule, then so what? In fact, I find Irenaeus to be unclear on this issue. That’s about all I have to say about it for now. He goes on to assert that Irenaeus is not, in contrast to Justin Martyr and others, motivated by the platonic concern to as it were protect God from direct interaction with the material creation, which necessitates an intermediary, in the form of this second divine being, the Logos. I’m not sure that’s right…

Kimel suggests that Irenaeus posits no subordination of Son and Spirit to the Father.

As Anthony Briggman plausibly notes, Irenaeus must likely believed that the Word and Spirit were ontologically equal to the Father, “else a gradation of divine being would exist within the Godhead. Irenaeus’ conception of divinity has no room for such a subordinationist understanding of the Godhead, for it would bring his position uncomfortably close to the celestial chain of being advocated by some of his opponents” (Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit, p. 122).

Kimel then quotes a long passage from Irenaeus that I don’t think is to the point. The thing is, there are clear passages that show that for Irenaeus the Son is less great than the one God, who is the Father. Saith Irenaeus,

… ye presumptuously maintain that ye are acquainted with the unspeakable mysteries of God; while even the Lord, the very Son of God, allowed that the Father alone knows the very day and hour of judgment, when he plainly declares, “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, neither the Son, but the Father only.” [Mark 13:32] if, then, the Son was not ashamed to ascribe the knowledge of that day to the Father only, but declared what was true regarding the matter, neither let us be ashamed to reserve for God those greater questions which may occupy which may occur to us. (Against Heresies II.28.6)

For if anyone should inquire the reason why the Father, who has fellowship with the Son in all things, has been declared by the Lord alone to know that hour and the day, he will find at present no more suitable, or becoming, or safe reason than this (since, indeed, the Lord is the only true Master), that we may learn through Him that the Father is above all things. For “the Father,” says he “is greater than I.” [John 14:28] The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge; for this reason, that we, too, as long as we are connected with the scheme of things in this world, should leave perfect knowledge, and such questions, to God, and should not by any chance, but we seek to investigate the sublime nature of the Father, fall into the danger of starting the question whether there is another God above God. (Against Heresies II.28.8, ANF I p.402)

As with any author, we interpret the obscure by the clear. It is clear here that Irenaeus thinks that the Father knows more than the Son. So this is what present-day theologians would call “ontological subordination.” Notice that there is no two-natures caveat (i.e. the Son is ignorant “in his human nature” but knows all “in his divine nature”).

And notice at the end of the second passage that he assumes the identity of the Father and the one God; he’s a unitarian.

In sum, the reviewer wants to take issue with my historical narrative. He reasonably asks for more of the relevant history, specifically immediately following the initial crackdown in 380-381. He suggests that the case of Irenaeus is a big problem for the story, but it is not. What stands unrefuted is my point that there simply are no known trinitarians in the 2nd and 3rd centuries (to leave aside the first half of the 4th c.) that is to say, no believers in a tripersonal God, where the “Persons” are equally divine and somehow together amount to the one true God.

It is a real historical problem to explain how mainstream Christian theology went from unitarian to trinitarian. I describe some steps in this progression in this little book, but do not give a full account. There are still some (later) steps (c. 360-380) in the process that I need to get clearer about before attempting to tell that whole story.

But I dare say that this fact of historical change is more of a problem for the trinitarian. I can tell a story about how things slowly got more and more off-track, due to human speculations and other systemic problems. The trinitarian, so long as he thinks that the Bible obviously implies the Trinity, is stuck with a terrible problem, which is that as best we can tell, no one made this deduction for about three centuries. Clear implications are more or less immediately grasped by competent readers. In contrast, foreign schemes that are imposed upon a text are all the more likely to occur after a significant delay, and after some sort of intermediate steps.

http://trinities.org/blog/kimels-review-of-what-is-the-trinity-part-2/

[scrawnydutchman]

In Defense of Religion (and Spirituality in General)

It seems superfluous to outright state the obvious as a beginning of this post, but Religion has always been a taboo subject, especially in modern times. Many highly respected writers and social commentators, not the least of which being Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Penn Jillette and the late George Carlin, have contributed to shifting people’s perception of being faithful to what many other authors have penned as the rising age of Atheism. None of these men are the originators of course, there are many other philosophers from earlier times who could be considered responsible for that, first example coming to mind being Friedrich Nietzsche, famous for coining the phrase “God is dead and we have killed him.” Of course it doesn’t help that people are very polarized in our day and age, not just with faith but in politics as well. It just seems like we’re getting more and more divided all the time. Contrary to what we all believe however, this division isn’t a result of us being intolerant of just how different we are. In truth it’s a result of us being more alike then we would care to admit. Many like to attribute violent and extreme behavior to a corrupt or poorly established doctrine as a means to reinforce their own stance to themselves, but in my honest to God perception of the whole thing it just seems like everybody is suffering from the same hypocrisies and negative effects of confirmation bias and they fail to even realize it.

Now, as the reader has likely gathered from the title, this post will be coming to the defense of religion, but before doing so I want to make one thing perfectly clear; this is not meant to convert you. If you’re a proud Atheist or Muslim or Christian or Buddhist or whatever you identify with, I hope you find happiness and solace in the path you’ve chosen, and if not may you find it wherever else you look. What this post IS meant to do is address commonly made points for the fallacies within their logic, mainly points Anti-theists make against believing in God, so they’ll see a bit more of themselves in people they disagree with and perhaps have an easier time allowing people to be who they want to be. Because while I don’t want to push any opinion on which faith is true on you, the stance I DO uphold without shame is that any thought provoking discussion for the way the universe works is worth indulging, to engage with others and to consider things one may not have considered otherwise. The points I will address and counter are as follows:

1. Religion is overly violent and encourages prejudice and hatred.

2. Religion is non-progressive, holding back scientific research as well as social and political issues.

3. What reason to people have for believing in God anyway?

1A. I will concede that faith has an ugly history behind it. One need look no further then the Crusades, Galileo, and the recent ISIS attacks to confirm this. It’s unfortunate that people use their worldviews which ironically preach peace and kindness towards fellow man to such horrid ends as such. However, contrary to what many may believe, this justification of negative action doesn’t come from a refusal to rationalize. It actually comes from the opposite; rationalizing violent impulse through teachings of scripture to the point of practically having internal debate with one self to fulfill these actions without harming one’s conscience. Basically it’s researching not for the sake of learning the truth, but for the sake of proving that you are right. This is what’s known as confirmation bias: You’ll research so long as you can find the answers you’re looking for regardless of whether they’re credible or not, and then dismiss any counter evidence brought forward to you either entirely or you’ll provide some half hazard counter argument. It’s why there are people in the world who think vaccines cause Autism; they’ll keep digging until they find something that agrees with them.

Non religious based pieces of literature can provoke the same violent responses in unforeseeable ways too. The murderer of John Lennon claimed that the statement he was making in Lennon’s murder was J.D. Salingers Catcher In the Rye. Where in the book about an adolescent Holden Caulfield having a mental breakdown about the pressures of growing up condone murder? I have no idea. But surely because the novel compelled Mark Chapman to shoot John Lennon it ought to be banned so that nobody is ever influenced like that again, right? Is this information to be locked away forever because of an unfortunate tale it is tied with? Many have thought so, but I was still able to read it in high school and I turned out fine, if only a little opinionated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_David_Chapman

Some of the works of the founding fathers of Atheism and Nihilism have similar stories behind them. Enter the German Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, previously noted for the phrase “God is dead and we have killed him” as a symbol for a rising age in which man no longer needs the alleged illusion of God to encourage righteous behavior. Beyond that, another famous theory of Nietzsche that has been carried on into our pop culture is the idea of the Ubermensch, roughly translated into English as the “Superman”. Essentially Nietzsche spoke of a superior man among men who was psychologically superior in many ways. One who took pride in his greatness, one that made great breakthroughs, one that will be misunderstood and thus held back against the masses and one that took living life to the fullest into his own hands. One such man would be a leader among a herd of naturally inferior people and make innovations propelling society forward. Some regimes of later centuries took this idea of a superman very seriously, but perhaps not in a way Nietzsche may have anticipated.

Nietzsche’s sister, Elizabeth, reedited his works so as to be integrated into Fascist Ideology. The Ubermensch essentially went from meaning one who was gifted and inherently great in ways not achievable by normal people, to meaning an entire race of superior people who had every right to bear all races below them in chains. This is how Nietzsche became something of a hero to the Third Reich. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuQzE2YYPNE (skip to 34:40)

Not only that, but he was also the personal hero of former Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, who adopted Nietzsche’s mentality of the superman and applied it to his own protest against religious belief, as Denis Mack Smith describes, “ In Nietzsche he found justification for his crusade against the Christian virtues of humility, resignation, charity, and goodness”. Mussolini was gifted the complete works of Nietzsche on his 60th birthday by Adolf Hitler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini#Religious_views section 7.1: Atheism and Anti-Clericalism.

I bring this all up merely to demonstrate that, while Atheism cannot be defined as a religion and is rather the absence of one, it is still built on a principle one must abide by in order to be considered an atheist; that being, the disbelief in God until he is undeniably been proven to exist. And it also has founding fathers that propel it into the mainstream with texts and documents influencing our current culture and it’s ideals such as Nietzsche. But as just discussed, such documentation can and has been reused to rationalize ill intent and hatred towards those who are different, not unlike how the Bible and the Quran have been interpreted.. So my question to atheists is:

If it isn’t considered fair to judge followers and readers of Nietzsche based on the actions of the Nazi’s or Mussolini or other negative examples of the lack of faith including Stalin, why then is it fair to judge all modern day Christians or Muslims based on the negative examples that they have? 

Fact of the matter is, no ideology is perfect because no single person was ever perfect, Ubermensch or otherwise. Anyone can take a simple principle in belief and warp it for malicious intent. “These Christians are slowing down our progression with their bogus beliefs. We ought to ostracize them and take them down”. The truth is, some people are malicious and power hungry and will find whatever justification they need for their actions; it really doesn’t matter where that justification comes from. And it’s no real service to say “they aren’t real Christians” or “they aren’t real Feminists”. They aren’t products of misunderstanding the source, they are the embodiment of the sources fundamental flaws. Atheism is not immune to this phenomenon; the 20th century is proof of that. But that said, every ideology is capable of inhibiting positive examples to society as well. For every King Henry the 8th there’s an Oscar Romero, for every Benito Mussolini there’s a Stephen Hawking, for every Osama Bin Laden there’s a Muhammad Ali.

2A. Religion is also often credited for being non progressive. Holding back scientific advancement, denying what has been proven to be fact or at the very least more securely rooted in evidence then anything the church preaches, and holding back the civil rights of people such as Homosexuals on the merits of a book they are at no obligation to follow in the first place. Once again, I concede that faith has an ugly history. Galileo was unfairly prosecuted for proving the earth is not in fact in the center of the milky way, and many people are of the opinion that evolution is a fallacy, the earth is only a few thousand years old and it is even flat. But is it fair to say religion has made NO contributions to the advancement of science, therefore isn’t compatible with it? Not necessarily true.

For starters, let’s look at one of the most widely accepted theories for the beginning of the universe among Atheists and otherwise: The Big Bang. The theory that at one point there was nothing. All there ever was was a focal point of extremely high density and temperature from which the universe expanded and continued to expand. This theory was originated by Belgian scientist Georges Lemaitre, in what he referred to as a “Cosmic Egg”. He was a professor of physics, and astronomer . .  .. and a roman catholic priest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhLQ_b3bKdI

Lemaitre’s theory has since then been expanded on and praised as a monumental innovation of modern science, even prompting Albert Einstein to say  "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened." I find it very ironic how the modern view of religion is so often associated as anti-science when one of the most prominent theories of our time originated from a holy man.

There are other examples of highly influential religious scientists such as Copernicus, Roger Bacon, Pascal, just to name a few. But rather then go on that long tangent my only point was that while religion can unfortunately be used as a means to justify dismissal of what may be proven to be verifiable fact, therefore reaffirming confirmation bias, it’s not like one is incapable of indulging in scientific advancement as WELL as spirituality simultaneously. One does not necessarily have to compromise one for the other. The same goes for being an activist on social issues such as the rights of Homosexuals. Bishop Desmond Tutu has been a prominent activist for such issues for years, and was awarded several awards including the nobel peace prize in 1984

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Tutu

One does not need to compromise his faith to be an advocate for rights and for advancement. In fact, I would argue that advancement can only truly happen by considering all possibilities and allowing people the opportunity to go about those possibilities how they choose. Which brings me to my final counter.

3A. So why even believe in God in the first place? I’ll allow any believer to answer for themselves, but as of this last point it’s going to solely be an opinion piece and nothing more. The way I see it is, there is a 50/50 chance God exists. Either he does or he doesn’t. So as long as this is the most we know, until further notice we might as well just choose which ever thesis suits us best. For myself, I’m fascinated and intrigued by nearly every world religion and philosophy I come across, namely Hinduism, because it promotes the idea of God being everywhere and coming to everyone with infinite manifestations, thus any pursuit for spirituality and higher understanding is a noble one (I don’t necessarily agree that’s 100 percent true in every case but I appreciate the open minded nature of it). I often research other faiths and take my favorite parts of them and apply them to my own life. Some call that cherry picking, which it is, but I don’t consider that a bad thing. Ultimately nobody on planet earth thinks exactly the same way. There are as many worldviews as there are people, and almost as many versions of God. The more we encourage open discussion and freedom to expression between each other, the closer we will become, the more enlightened we will be and, afterlife or no afterlife, we will have lived our time on earth to the very fullest. 

I think of it as a giant game of roulette; only one round, you gotta bet all your chips. Everybody’s got their “lucky number” to which they abide by because of a long history of winning with that number, and while they may technically only have a 1 in 38 chance of winning just like everyone else . . . I can’t deny that’s still a chance. Myself, I prefer to divide my chips across the board and dabble in a little bit of everything, just to play the game safe. Whatever I get in return is good enough for me.

I was inspired to write this up not because I’m an expert, because in truth I’m not. I’ll admit I’m very biased myself. But if I can encourage open discussion, encouragement to understand and the contentment of people choosing what’s right for them, I’ll take the risk of embarrassing myself. My life has been touched very positively with religion. My mother is a devout catholic and she’s one of the strongest and most compassionate people I know in the whole world. My ex was a Buddhist who took it up during one of the hardest moments of her life and it helped her push through. There’s no way in hell I’m invalidating that. God or no God, afterlife or no afterlife, you can’t argue with results. So by all means; go out and hug a Muslim. Give a Christian a high five, take a Mormon out to lunch, meditate with a Buddhist, and be the nicest and most pleasant religious friend your atheist buddy ever had. If we do right by ourselves and we do right by each other, there would be no need for a heaven . . we’d already be there.

(Last line shamelessly ripped off from the Simpsons).