I think the deal with the Ten Commandments monument in Alabama is getting kinda silly.
"What this federal judge [Thomson] has said is that we cannot acknowledge God," Moore told Fox News earlier Friday. "My battle is not with the justices of the court, my colleagues, my battle is with the federal government, who has come in and told us how to think, who we can believe in."Not exactly. The judge said you had the move the monument to a less public area. I don't agree with his reasoning or his conclusion, but he certainly didn't tell you what to think or who to believe in.
On Friday, about 100 protesters moved from the steps of the judicial building to a sidewalk in front of the federal courthouse, where Thompson works. Some ripped to pieces and burned a copy of Thompson's ruling. Demonstrators also held a mock trial, in which Thompson was charged with breaking the law of God.God's law to do what? Display the Ten Commandments in front of all courthouses? The melodrama really isn't convincing anyone; I guarantee it."We hold you, Judge Thompson, and the United States Supreme Court in contempt of God's law," said Flip Benham, director of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue.
Thompson's order gave the option of moving the monument to Moore's office. But Khan said she asked Moore during a deposition about moving it to his office and he said the monument was too heavy.That's just amusing, because I understand the monument is quite large.
An organizer of pro-Moore demonstrations, Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition, said Friday the demonstrations will continue.Well, that's in the best civil-disobedience tradition (which I don't particularly approve of, in general).He said five protesters will kneel in front of each of two exits from the building to keep the monument from coming out.
"Our message is clear. We are going to peacefully block the way if they try to move it," Mahoney said.
One of the demonstrators, retired Birmingham school teacher Murray Phillips, said she knows the monument will probably be gone from the rotunda soon.This is the problem. You tried to do something that was obviously going to be completely ineffectual. Not only was it ineffectual, but it's making you (and me, and God) look silly. Now, I happen to agree with the protesters' position: I don't think the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment should be interpreted (through the 14th Amendment) as forbidding state governments from establishing religion. The 14th Amendment does project the Free Exercise Clause onto the states, but it's not clear that the Establishment Clause fits into the same framework. Nevertheless, that's the law."I'm upset, but I'm not surprised. At least I am going to be able to say to my grandchildren that at least I tried to do something," Phillips said.
We need to ask ourselves: what are these protesters trying to accomplish? They are pushing symbolism over substance. Just as the Moonies want to get rid of crosses in an effort to promote "religious unity", these Christians want to erect (or maintain) a monument to promote Christianity. In both cases, however, they've got the cart before the horse.
Putting up a monument to the Ten Commandments isn't going to convince anyone of anything. It's not going to lead anyone to Christ. It will only accompish two things (which are probably these protesters' true goals):
1. It will reinforce the protesters' self-righteousness, and give them a feeling of having "done something".
2. It will irritate, annoy, and rankle the non-Christians who face it.
Both of these motivations are built on pride, and neither one of them is spiritually profitable. First of all, Christians should not pursue political agendas merely to make ourselves feel good and powerful. Sure, it can be satisfying -- and that satisfaction is based on a lust for power and validation.
Secondly, irritating, annoying, and rankling non-Christians is not an effective way to show them God's love. I imagine we all know people that piss us off, and as they become more and more bothersome we tend to listen to them and care about them less and less. I'm not saying that we shouldn't stand up for what is right, but I am saying that forcing kids to pray in school or prohibiting gay people from having sex isn't going to have any spiritual benefit, for anyone.
These types of protest are a troubling waste of time and energy. The more confrontational you become, the more resistance you will face. In order to be effective ambassadors for God, we need to be subtle and enticing. Jesus never forced anyone to listen to him, and we don't need to either. On the contrary, Jesus lived under a far more oppressive government, and he made absolutely zero effort to reform it. Why? Because change begins in the heart, not in the courthouse.
The message of God's love and justice is compelling, and more often than not we Christians are responsible for its ineffectiveness. Some people will listen, and some will not, but we are not called to do any convincing or coercing. That's the Holy Spirit's job; he works on the hearts of men and women, calling them to God. We are only messengers.
Justice Moore and his supporters are defending a *graven image*
I reckon nine out of ten ain't bad
That's pretty absurd. A monument with the Ten Commandments "graven" on it isn't an idol, and they aren't worshipping it.
I couldn't have said it better. Okay, maybe I could have, but this was much easier. Good post, Mikey.
Absurd back at you. Read the commandment, forget the modern interpretations that pretend it's about idols, and realize that it forbids all representational art. A very primitive magical mindset (like that underlying voodoo dolls) wrote that commandment. Of course, it may be absurd of me to expect people to be objective about their own faith
Brett, the very premise of that comment is utterly hypocritical. First, you claim that the commandment should be obeyed in the sense of ignoring "representational art," then you call the religion that the commandment belongs to "a very primitive magical mindset." Second, you say that it's "absurd...to expect people to be objective about their own faith," in which case you would lack the objectivity to recognize the immaturity in your placing the concept of spiritual laws in general in the same category as voodoo dolls. Can we also "not expect" you to be objective about your own anti-religious mindset? Should we dismiss your ideas, since they're only rooted in a pretense of objectivity that springs from a hostility to faith in general?
Logic is logic, Brett. If you claim that Michael's having a belief system obscures his ability to be logical, you'll have to apply the same to yourself and to everyone with any interest in commenting, because thinking people have paradigms, and I'd think it rather difficult to analyze something as an entirely non-thinking creature.
That said, your preaching against mindsets would be less misplaced if it wasn't wrapped up in the preaching of your own. As Michael is well aware, that's not a "real argument" at all.
Do none of my critics recognize a jest when they read one?
No, Candace, I did not say the commandment should be obeyed, especially seeing no one does. Most of us recognize that no sin inheres in representational art, which is why so many have been at pains to interpret the commandment as prohibiting idolatry alone. Some believers, incidentally, have a most idolatrous relation to scripture; that cannot be gainsaid.
My intention was to indicate a weakness in the Decalogue that demonstrates its primitive origins; it cannot be called a rigorous system of thought. Beyond that, I hoped to inspire some laughter. It seems I had too high an opinion of my readers.
I never criticized anyone, least of all Michael, personally. You, however, were very quick to label me as immature. Who's the hypocrite?
I am not anti-religious, either, though I see no difference between a faith one might profess and one which said professor would dismiss as superstition. The attempt to elevate one's own arbitrary belief over others' by purring "spiritual" will never fool me. I did not exclude myself from the comment about objectivity, either, as you seem to believe.
Believers rarely doubt their own opinions. Why are they so quick to demand the non-believer do so?
All that being said, when those people of faith of whatever nature quit trying to rule others against their wills (and to be clear, I'm not accusing any of the good company here of such) then faith will no longer be a subject of ridicule. In short, when believers eschew insulting non-believers, they will deserve the respect they demand.
Your understanding of the commandment is incorrect. If you read Exodus and Leviticus you will see instances of God directly commanding the Israelites to create various sorts of representational art. An example:
Exodus 25:10-21
10 "Have them make a chest of acacia wood-two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high. 11 Overlay it with pure gold, both inside and out, and make a gold molding around it. 12 Cast four gold rings for it and fasten them to its four feet, with two rings on one side and two rings on the other. 13 Then make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. 14 Insert the poles into the rings on the sides of the chest to carry it. 15 The poles are to remain in the rings of this ark; they are not to be removed. 16 Then put in the ark the Testimony, which I will give you.
17 "Make an atonement cover of pure gold-two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. 18 And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. 19 Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. 20 The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. 21 Place the cover on top of the ark and put in the ark the Testimony, which I will give you.
Michael, I'm not surprised one wit that one part of the Bible contradicts another. It was written over centuries, by who knows how many authors.
The Ten Commandments are found in Exodus 20. The passage I just pasted for you is 5 chapters later -- about 3 pages. It was written at the same time, by the same guy. Even if you don't believe that God had anything to do with inspiring it, I imagine that you'll conceed that a human being could manage to be consistent from one page to the next.
Whoever told you that "graven images" has ever meant "all representational art", under any set of cultural assumptions, was wrong.
I have little doubt the passage was rewritten any number of times, if only by people who thought they were copying previous version; interpolations are in no way out of the question. You cannot say with any certainty that passages close to one another were written by the same person, so I in no way concede your point. Of course, I can't prove otherwise, but our contradictory claims are a wash, and offer neither of us certainty. You are in no position to make the claim you do here.
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."
That's pretty straightforward. No representations, pictorial or sculptural. Yes, it does contradict the passage you posted above. No one told me this; I can see it for myself, and assuming the translation is not completely off the mark, I am not wrong. Let's learn Hebrew!
The Bible is a poor prop for faith, I submit; it is inconsistent and contradictory, which is no surprise--it is many books not one.
I see you find the evidence of your own eyes inconvenient. That's your prerogative
Well if you want to pull fantastic possibilities out of thin air to try to discredit the Bible, that's up to you. It's possible that the entire universe came into existence 5 seconds ago and our memories are just illusions based on the initial configuration of our brains. You can't prove it's not true! Therefore, all rational thought is pointless. It's trivially easy to come up with absurd possibilities that aren't disprovable; so what?
The point of the "graven images" commands seem pretty clear, if you consider the pagan theology that surrounded Israel at the time. Every other people had a statue to worship, claiming that it was their "god". Coming out of Egypt probably left the Israelites pretty confused about the whole matter, and so God had to set them straight.
Similarly, consider all the rituals involved with the animal sacrifices and the temple purification. Consider the ceremonial uncleanliness ascribed to women on their period (to separate the Israelites' worship from the pagan fertility gods, &c.). Consider the specific food allowances and prohibitions. The point of all of it was to set Israel's worship of God apart from the pagans around them. At that time, they probably weren't even monotheistic yet.
Just because you claim one thing and I claim another -- and we can't prove either -- doesn't mean that "it's a wash". Your arguments are arbitrary and don't have any basis in logic, history, or fact. You simply examine the surface, and then project your beliefs and prejudices onto what you see. It's not necessary to learn Hebrew to understand the history and context of the passages, or to understand their true meanings. Even if you were to learn Hebrew, you'd have to trust the books and people who taught it to you. Hundreds of people have been involved in translating these passages over the years, independently, and for the most part there's no controversy over the correct meaning.
Likewise, I don't understand your point that the Bible is many books. That's obviously the case -- but so what? It was written by a great many people, over the course of 1600+ years, and it's remarkably self-consistent. You can pick out certain passages and make nitpicky arguments, but to what end? None of it has substantial theological implications.
Studying Hebrew may not be a valuable use of your time, but you might do well to study some of the history of how the Bible was compiled and translated over the centuries.
Anyway, I can't convince you. The purpose of this post was to illustrate the pointlessness of trying to "convert" people; we don't convert anyone, that's God's job. We can only present the evidence. There's no set of facts or opinion that I could lay out to you that would change your mind by force.
Your original post gave me to understand you wished believers and non-believers to get along. Your responses to my posts indicate otherwise.
All believers assert fantastic possibilities as undeniable truth. "Go to the mirror, boy!" (Pete Townshend)
Many of your points in paragraphs two and three above are cogent. They do not refute my understanding of the prohibition of representation in any way, however.
No believer has any business accusing non-believers of absurdity. All believers have given up on logic. I do not recognize it in your arsenal. When a believer finds all arguments supporting his belief system, he is indulging in projection constantly. In fact, most of your criticisms of my views apply to your comments to me. "Go to the mirror, boy!"
Two contradictory, unprovable propositions are indeed a wash. They are not knowledge.
Your assertion that knowing the original language would be useless astounds me--it is the only weakness in my argument; if the original actually says something not reflected in the English version I am quoting, my understanding is indeed mistaken. "It was subtle of the Lord to learn Greek when he wished to become an author--and not to learn it better." (Friedrich Nietzche) Our earliest versions of the New Testament are written in very unlearned Greek, which considerably undermines its pretensions as the one and only word of God. While it is not necessary to learn the original tongues to have some understanding of the texts, such knowledge can only deepen that understanding.
There is indeed much controversy over the correct meaning of ancient Hebrew texts.
The Bible is not very consistent, as even a cursory reading indicates, and my point about the long history and many hands in its composition was simply to explain its inconsistency. To point to it as the one and only word of God is to indulge in a form of idolatry.
I have studied the history of the Bible's compostion and transmission. You cannot assume I haven't because I don't accept your evaluation of its value.
A graduate degree does not make one rational, as your remarkable career indicates. That I disagree with you in no way demonstrates that you are being rational and I am not.
There is little difference between a Christian and myself in one regard: the Christian rejects all religions except for one; I take it one step further.
My opinion is that all religions' claims to be speaking for the highest power are false, along with their historical claims to divine revelation. I also believe that no one's life is the better for believing in a falsehood. That's my metaphysical position.
My political position is that all individuals have the right to conduct their lives as they see fit. If an individual wishes to live according to religious principles, by all means I want him to do so, and I hope his life is the happier for it, though the constant controversy such a decision requires makes me doubt it will be. He should, however, leave professors of other faiths and unbelievers to live their lives as they see fit, which is why the government of a free country should be neutral. The presence of Bibles in every courtroom in the country betrays, as one example among many I could adduce, very bad faith in this regard.
All best
Brett
By the way, I know you mean well, and are doing what you think is best. Believe it or not, most people do.
If you read the earlier post that I linked to, "Can it be proven that God exists?" you would realize that I'm not asserting anything as undeniable truth. I readily acknowledge that my beliefs cannot be proven. In fact, very few things in this universe can be proven in such a fashion so as to compel acceptance, but my beliefs do line up reasonably and rationally with all such knowledge.
I disagree with much of what you assert as facts, but I don't think there's much point in discussing it any further, because you're already quite convinced. Your opinion is quite clear: "No believer has any business accusing non-believers of absurdity."
So what purpose is there for me to continue the discussion? You think that anyone who believes as I do is fundamentally irrational. Why do you even bother?
I bother for the same reasons you do: I don't want my views to die out from silence, nor do I want my opponents to enjoy the smug comfort they derive from what I believe to be errors, as long as they feel they must constantly air their convictions.
I also bother because I believe religion to be more harmful than good; it attempts to subordinate the individual to the collective, and the mind of man to arbitrary irrationality. What good it has to offer can be supplied by reason and philosophy without reference to divine authority.
As I said before, we're not that different. I assume you enjoy controversy, which is why you raise controversial issues published form. I like controversy, too.
Many people hate controversy; those individuals can avoid it (at least with me) by not raising such issues. I rarely do; I do respond to those who bring them up.
My apologies for erroneously painting you with the absolutist brush; you cannot deny that many believers do so. I am a native of the Bible Belt; I have much experience with such people.
I think the crux of your argument is based on three incorrect assumptions about religion - or at least Christianity:
1) >>I also bother because I believe religion to be more harmful than good; it attempts to subordinate the individual to the collective
While there is relevance and value in the "body of Christ," meaning the collection of Christian believers who make up the Church, ultimately the Christian's experience is completely and absolutely personal. It is one person and one person only's relationship with God and Christ that is important. There is no subordination of individual - just the opposite, the individual and the individual's relationship is the bottom line.
2)>>and the mind of man to arbitrary irrationality.
I'm assuming you consider man's devotion to an unseen, unproven God to be irrational - is that correct? If so, then you're probably right. Praying to idols is irrational. But to a Christian, God is not unseen, not "unproven". Believing in the concept of faith supplies a proof beyond normal rational logic - it takes logic to a different level. Not necessarily a superior level, but different.
To everyone around him, Elwood Dowd is an irrational crackpot, but just because no one else sees Harvey, he's no less real or rational to Elwood.
3) >>What good it has to offer can be supplied by reason and philosophy without reference to divine authority.
I think you underestimate the "good" religion has to offer, and overestimate the potential of reason and philosophy. Reason and philosophy cannot define comfort, cannot define mercy, cannot define forgiveness, cannot define sacrifice. They cannot define courage, honor, loyalty, humility or compassion. They cannot define good, and cannot define evil. They cannot define love.
I think all people understand these concepts to a degree, but where the concepts come from - where they derive their strength and wisdom - is not from reason and philosophy, but from somewhere else.
Reason, philosophy and logic can attempt to make sense out of the disorder of the universe, but it's not the universe.
Quite right Barry, thanks. As I say two posts up, there is no satisfactory economic model for altruistic behavior, and yet altruism is required for the stable supression of free-riders. There are a lot of papers on the subject, especially in artificial intelligence, and it's a fascinating problem that has so far proven intractable for reason and philosophy.
(Altruism being an umbrella term for love, compassion forgiveness, &c., when clearly not in theimmediate interest of the actor.)
Faith is not built of logic, so is not threatened by it.
Logic is not built of faith, so is not threatened by it.
This is two ships passing in the night, neither one effecting the other. How many times have we seen this, these USELESS arguments. I suppose everyone has to do go through this exercise at least once.....
Whoa there, Nelly! The Ten Commandments pre-date Christianity by a few thousand years, and the majority of the ten are found in the foundational beliefs of many (not most or all) world religions. So, this monument is not by any means an exclusively Christian piece.
And while we're at it, what about all of the state capitols with mythological symbols from Greek and Roman religious tradition? Are we going to sanitize them of their religious symbols as well? What I am proposing is known in journalism as the slippery slope theory, but if we're really going to have justice for all in its purest form, how can we justify having ANYTHING which might bear religious overtones for someone else?
Stop the madness already!
The slippery slope argument isn't particularly persuasive; we draw lines all the time that are somewhat arbitrary, and yet quite workable -- such as the age we allow people to vote.
The real problem is that's impossible to create a religiously neutral environment. Although its adherents may not recognize it, secular humanism is as much a "religion" as Christianity; it's an unprovable system of belief. By refusing to acknowledge secular humanism as a "religion", its followers are able to push it into public education, government, &c.