I highly encourage you to take a listen to Tuesday’s Dividing Line. Dr. White went over, as Mr. Wright demanded on Hannity and Colmes a while back, one of Dr. James Cone’s books. It’s truly amazing (and sad) the amount of heresy the man manages to pack into 10-15 pages.

Centuri0n quotes Phillip Jensen, from a recent 9Marks podcast:

“You can’t preach the Gospel to people you are afraid of.”

Cent’s comments: “That, my friends, is a statement that ought to change the way we view the “culture” discussion.”

Steve Camp, in later comment: “Sure you can. But you cannot preach the gospel with power if you do not live in the fear of God.”

So, whatcha think? I tend to go with cent, personally.

Just watch.

Is up, at Kingdom of Heathen.

Go check it out.

I think it important to remember that the internet is a medium which propogates a special kind of wave quite well–ideas. It is also a medium which does not propogate another kind of wave at all (like a sound wave in a vacuum)–emotional appeals.

Even arguments which attempt to present an emotional appeal do not find the sort of resonance that *personal* emotional appeals find (eg face-to-face). That is one interesting thing I’ve noted about theist versus atheist websites, and the apparently disproportionate representation of atheism on the web in general. I am not claiming that the speaker’s emotions do not come through in their writing. What I am claiming is that the power of eliciting an emotional response in your reader is rendered virtually null via writing compared to personal proselytizing, sermons, and evangelism in general.

That is, the amount of intellectual material on *individual* websites (versus orgs and groups) representing atheism seems overrepresented in proportion to the % of people who espouse atheism. Conversely, the amount of intellectual (versus evangelizing, emotional appeals, etc) material on Christianity (again, among individual sites) is underrepresented by stats.

You’ll find all kinds of Xian “apologists” (yes those are sneer quotes), but you’ll also find that they are nearly all united in “defending the faith” from skeptics and the arguments of atheism *to minister to other Xians!* Nearly all the articles on sites that address creationism, atheist logic, etc., are explicitly addressing an audience of Xians.

Admittedly, a few amateur Xian apologists have taken their best arguments to the WWW for the purpose of evangelism, but I would put forth my observation that they are beset on all sides by the ideas of the godless, a chorus composed of ever more voices. I think the web has helped more atheists to “come out” and to realize they *are* atheists than *anything* positive it has done for religion, because religions are stripped of their most powerful tool–the emotional, personal appeal to repent and join the fold. The web helped me to address the things that kept me quagmired in liberal Xianity for years, and then deism, and then agnosticism. I could’ve gone to libraries, sure, and still could, to find books and arguments (i have a bookshelf that is now stocked with and growing with atheist literature). But the WWW has provided a “crystallization” effect for atheists–with a seeded center like the RA site, more and more doubters and freethinkers find what they need: not companionship and comfort, but food for thought.

People who are critical of *any* ideas may come across as unhappy…but I would rather be *perceived* as unhappy than *be* gullible.

Thinking Freely, on the Raving Atheist’s comment section

I find it interesting that emotional appeals are thought to be the centerpiece of evangelism. I was always taught that an emotional “conversion” was not likely to be real, or lasting.

They make some good points about the differing signal-to-noise ratios between atheist and Christian apologists, however. I’ve found the same myself. Even with internet apologetics, the roster seems awfully small – the ones who cater to skeptics smaller still.

Am I wrong?

I took some heat from Mumon earlier, in the comments to my recent post about humor.

The problem, of course, did not revolve around the central issue of the post. Mumon usually tries to take a look from another angle, that I didn’t cover. He’s right though. I didn’t cover it, and that was for a reason. This post. The last one spoke about what was not funny. This post, on the other hand, I’ll talk about what IS funny – as well as address the questions Mumon raises.

First, Mumon’s questions/objections.

To start with, he zeroed in on the NASB’s slightly misleading use of the word “silly”, in Ephesians 5:4. The King James uses ‘foolish”, while the newer ESV does the same. I say only “slightly”, because the word silly doesn’t mean what he thinks it does. To quote Inigo Montoya… “You keep using that word… I do not think it means what you think it means”.

The word “foolish” has a much more negative connotation (in slang) than “silly” – it also reflects an attitude of conscious rejection of it’s antithesis, rather than a playful, bantering fun-loving spirit. (However, in formal English, they are synonyms)

Silly, in standard English, can be a term of mild disapproval – someone who tends to frivolity, for instance. But it has a more derisive meaning ,as well. “a lack of wisdom or good sense; foolish”. To lack wisdom, by any standard, is simply not a good thing. It does not mean “having fun” – it means “lacking wisdom”, in the formal sense of the word. Now, in modern English slang, silly means simply to be playful. This is not the meaning of the word in the original Greek, however.

The word, in greek, is Morologia – which means “foolish talking”. However, it’s not as ambigious as all that. The root words for this compound word are lego and moroß.

lego is, basically, “to speak”. moroß is foolish – or, impious/godless. It’s not precisely blasphmeous, per se – that is covered in another word in that verse – but, it is clearly “foolish” – as in lacking wisdom – that is addressed. Unwise speech.

So, I’ll leave it there.

Secondly, he was a bit of a smart aleck.

To my question: Why can’t I keep from laughing at what is crass, or ribald?

He answered:

You answered the question yourself: because evidently, you find them funny.

My question, I suppose, is different – and more to the point. Why do I find them “funny”? The incongruity of certain situations are, indeed, funny – the subject matter, however, is not. It’s not right, and it’s not what I should be laughing at. The answer is simple. I’ve let myself be trained, by repetition, that the crass and ribald, when related in the form of a joke, are “ok”. While if I heard them related as a story, I would not think so. In the slightest. In other words… you missed the entire point of the post. It was relating something that I’ve rediscovered about our culture – that if something we would consider to be wrong is covered over by the veneer of humor… it’s suddenly “ok”. How many comedies have set records for the most risque scenes… by making jokes out of them? How is it George Carlin makes his money again? Oh, yeah. Taking everything people consider wrong, and making jokes out of them. Nah, noone really does that, do they? Pssst. That is the bedrock for 90% of today’s humor on TV and movies – just media in general.

That isn’t ok, and it isn’t funny. It’s a sham. It’s camoflauge for sin, using the pattern of humor to hide it. That’s the tricky part. In other words, it’s possible to take your sense of humor more seriously than your dislike for sin – and your duty to imitate God, by being Holy, as He is Holy. THAT is the problem.

This is a key difference – and why I’m a Buddhist: if one can be mindful of the intent and attitude behind one’s activities, one doesn’t need them to be prescribed or proscribed by anyone else.

And I might also add that certain teishos- Dharma commentaries- contain some of the 7 words you can’t say on TV, and to good effect.

You can be mindful of the same in Christianity – but you cannot attempt to justify wrongdoing by hiding behind “oh, I meant it as a joke”. That’s why we’re told not to do it. So, I suppose you’re right.

That is a key difference, and not one I’d recommend.

And lastly…

You’ll be “free from the body of this death” soon enough; I hope you appreciate what you sense while you’re around, but mindfully…

I know; your mileage varies…

There is plenty of humor in the world without resorting to humor which portrays sin as “just a laugh”.

Which is the point of this post.

So, after that long preamble…

Only a clever human can make a real Joke about virtue, or indeed about anything else; any of them can be trained to talk as if virtue were funny.

Jokes about sin are easy. Everyone sins, and does it daily. Everyone wants to laugh at their own sin, and laugh at others. Otherwise, we’d have to take them seriously, wouldn’t we? Much easier to just laugh at them, isn’t it?

Among flippant people the Joke is always assumed to have been made. No one actually makes it; but every serious subject is discussed in a manner which implies they have already found a ridiculous side to it.

If you treat your sin as if it is a joke, pretty soon you’ll treat it as a joke, too. Imagine that. Repetition becoming habit? The devil, you say!

But, seriously now.

The joke – the humor – the fun… all of that is completely satisfactory. All of that is completely normal, and as much a part of human existence as any other could be. It’s the subject matter that, well.. matters. Paul says this:

Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.

Now, contrast that with Titus 2:

Likewise urge the young men to be sensible; in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us.

Get the picture? It’s like momma always said: If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything at all. Except, in this case… it’s “if you can’t laugh at something nice – don’t laugh at all.”

That doesn’t mean don’t laugh. It means don’t laugh at things you shouldn’t laugh at.

What are things you can laugh at? The same things most people laugh at. The absurdities of life. The funny things your kids do. The funny things you do. When I say funny, I mean those things that strike you as absurd – as unlikely – as, well, funny. Your dad wearing a bucket on his head, and talking like Darth Vader. Your kids telling you all about an imaginary friend named “cup” – because he just made him as he was talking to you, and that was the first thing he saw.

Life. Life is fun. Life is, thus, funny. Sin, however, is not life. Sin is death. Sin is what caused death, is causing death, and is the cause of all death. Sin is NOT funny. God, even, is funny. He was pretty hilarious dresing down Jonah for worrying more about a pitiful plant than the city of Ninevah, for example. Or when, instead of striking down Nebuchadnezzar for his hubris in declaring himself to be a god… he struck down his mind, and reduced the most powerful man in the world to a grass-chomping quadruped.

That’s funny. Or, saving his three favorites from a fiery death in that same king’s furnace… and not even a hair on their head is singed, and their clothes look brand new. It’s strange, it’s not exactly normal. It’s funny. Imagine the look on Nebuchadnezzar’s face, when he sees these three young men he condemmed to die, walking out this insanely hot furnace. The look HAD to be priceless. Or, the look on Jonah’s face, when he realizes he’s been vomited up by a whale on the shores of Assyria – exactly where God told him to go in the first place. Just imagine that mental picture. Jonah shudders to his feet, amazed to be alive, and looks up and down the beach. Looks at himself. Looks towards Ninevah. Oh, man. That look must have been great. Hah!

We are funny beings. We think time is ours. We get ticked when we are inconvenienced, and we have “lost time”. It wasn’t ours to begin with. We get annoyed when things take too long, or we’re “cheated” out of time we “deserved”. It’s ridiculous. Laughing at ourselves is key, sometimes.

Laugh. Have fun. Be joyful. Rejoice in what God has given you, and what amuses you. Just don’t be amused at things which have no business being amusing.

Get it? Good.

I was reading… a post by Blestwithsons, which discusses humor.

I was struck by a line from the Screwtape Letters – which I should have remembered, and kept in the forefront of my mind recently.

Humour is for them the all-consoling and (mark this) the all-excusing, grace of life. Hence it is invaluable as a means of destroying shame.

I know this, and am often convicted (fleetingly) by my reaction to the type of humor which is found in a job such as mine – where the employee pool is made up, overwhelmingly, of rough, lower-class to lower-middle class males.

In short, innuendoes, foul language, crass speech… all of that. In fact, I’m often tempted to it myself. In short, I’m being an absolutely despicable witness to my peers at work.

There are several people at work who absolutely delight in “one-upping” the worst jokes of everyone else. In a way, they are very genuinely funny. They have excellent comic timing, their delivery is great… but their subject matter is as bad as anything I saw in the military.

I admit… when it goes on, I laugh just as hard as anyone else, once they start in on it. In hindsight, I’m sickened by it. Just the other day, my pastor was speaking on Ephesians 5- where it tells us:

But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks

Coarse jesting… zing! Filthiness… zing! Ribald jokes, and obscenities, in short. I’ll take it a step further, and go along with what I was thinking about earlier. Laughing at those things eliminates any sense of shame about them. It’s encouraging it, and affirming it. I’m ashamed.

I’m supposed to be an imitator of God, not of the world. I’m going right along with it… and I’m no different than anyone else there, God help me. True, I don’t initiate the jokes, or tell them myself. That doesn’t matter, and that excuse won’t fly. Holiness is the aim – not some simple “I didn’t actually do it…” That’s an excuse that children make, when they try to get out of being involved in wrongdoing they encouraged, but didn’t perform.

It’s wrong, and I cannot engage in it. I cannot encourage it. I cannot even laugh at it.

A thousand bawdy, or even blasphemous jokes do not help towards a man’s damnation so much as his discovery that almost anything he wants to do can be done, not only without the disapproval but with the admiration of his fellows, if only it can get itself treated as a Joke. […] Any suggestion that there might be too much of it can be represented to him as ‘Puritanical’ or as betraying a ‘lack of humour’.

As Screwtape finishes…

Only a clever human can make a real Joke about virtue, or indeed about anything else; any of them can be trained to talk as if virtue were funny.

I call myself an apologist? I should be ashamed of myself. I know I can manage to be funny without being crass. I do so all the time. Why can’t I keep from laughing at what is crass, or ribald? Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?

I won’t end on that note, however much I’d like to, in an orgy of self-flagellation. It’s so much more cathartic.

Paul says more than that.

Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hasset you free from the law of sin and of death.

You can read the rest of Romans 8 here, which finishes the thought. I’m comforted by it, and I understand it. I’m just ticked at myself for falling into it.

Time to pray, confess, and ask the Lord for forgiveness. Then, ask the Spirit for those nudges as I go through my day tomorrow. Hopefully, I’ll be a better reflection of my Lord.

Because, really. It just isn’t funny. It’s the equivalent of “following the crowd”. However… “Be Holy, as I AM Holy.”

Yes, Lord.

Posted originally as one of the opening entries on this blog. I’m pressed for time, as you may have noticed, and I feel bad just letting this blog sit here. Some of you may not have seen this one…

So, enjoy.

Atheism

Definition:
Dictionary.com

Quote:

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Language origin: Greek

“a” (negative, negator) – “theos” (god) = “No God”

Antithesis:

Theism – Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. (Dictionary.com)

Self-definitions

* “An atheist is someone who believes and/or knows there is no god.”
* “An atheist lacks belief in a god.”
* “An atheist exercises no faith in the concept of god at all.”
* “An atheist is someone who is free from religious oppression and bigotry.”
* “An atheist is someone who is a free-thinker, free from religion and its ideas.”

Reasons:

1. Lack of Evidence

Example:

The supporting evidence isn’t good enough for him to affirm God’s existence. (agnostic?)

2. Illogical

Example:

Says there is evidence contrary to God’s existence.

3. Non-Issue

Example:

Lack belief in God the way they lack belief in invisible space snails in orbit around Saturn.

Common Presuppositions

(NOTE – NOT universally adopted. The ONLY common belief is a belief that God does not exist.)

1. There is no God or devil.
2. There is no supernatural realm.
3. Miracles cannot occur.
4. There is no such thing as sin as a violation of God’s will.
5. Generally, the universe is materialistic and measurable.
6. Man is material.

7. Generally, evolution is considered a scientific fact.
8. Ethics and morals are relative

Example Argument

God is supposed to be all good and all powerful. Evil and suffering exist in the world. If God is all good he would not want evil and suffering to exist. If He is all powerful then He is able to remove all evil and suffering. Since evil and suffering exist, God is either not all good (which means he is not perfect and not God), or he is not all powerful (and limited in abilities and scope). Since either case shows God is not all good and powerful, then He does not exist.

Mission: Prove a negative, absolute statement

Your mission, should you choose to accept it – is to state that there is absolutely no god, and that the concept of god is absolutely false -then, to prove this statement: NO GOD =1

First, we have to make a couple definitions. A CANNOT be A and NOT A, at the same time.

To say there is NO God is an absolute statement. So, if you say that there is NO God, No God = NOT A. If you say that there IS a God, God = A. A cannot be A, and NOT A at the same time, remember. So, the mission is to prove that A =/= A – but A = NOT A.

If A = god, and NOT A = No god

A cannot be A, but MUST be NOT A, in order for NOT A to be true.

NOT A and A are not equal, and cannot have the same value – so, we must accept that NOT A =/= A.

In order for NOT A to be a true statement. A MUST be false. In order for NOT A to be accepted true, the axiom of “A =/= NOT A” MUST be accepted – thus, absolutes must be accepted, in order for there to be NO god. No is an ABSOLUTE statement – thus, A MUST be false, and it MUST be accompanied by a proof, for the statements GOD = A , and NO GOD = NOT A, to be logically true.

So, since we’ve established that “No God”, and “God” are mutually exclusive – we’ll move on.

“No God” is a negative value – so, the mission is to prove a negative. God cannot exist, and there must be proof of God’s non-existence – or there is still a possibility of A equaling A.

To prove that A = A, however, is still pretty hard. It’s an axiom, like 0=0, or 1=1. To prove that God = A, requires that Not A also be proven false. So, on the other side, we’re also stuck.

But, we’ve proven that it’s impossible to “prove” God’s existence, or non-existence – and, we HAVE proven the existence of absolutes. So, it’s now possible to use absolutes in our argument,s henceforth. A, forever after, CANNOT also be NOT A – thus, unless you invalidate absolutes altogether, and thus, any scientific method, you’re stuck with absolutes as an axiom. So to accept that A cannot be NOT A did absolutely nothing but prove absolute exist. So, let’s move on.

So, here’s the next question – if a statement is unprovable – how can it be absolute?

The answer?

It can’t.

So, the basic statement Atheism is founded upon is based upon belief, to put it bluntly – yet contains an absolute statement – which, in order to be undeniably correct, would have to prove a negative – something which has NEVER been done in the history of logical thought.

So, in order to back up that absolute statement saying there is NO god, you would have to prove a negative – but, how do you prove that the negative of something which you say does not exist, does NOT exist – without recognizing it’s existence?

On the other hand, any Religion has only the burden of evidence to bear – not the burden of proof – because all religions are based upon faith in the unprovable – not an absolute statement of fact. If you believe something, you believe IN something. You have no need to prove the non-existence of a thing – you just have to prove a thing exists. Also impossible, but not because of logical impossibility – but factual impossibility. Noone, but the God believed in, can know ALL the facts – so, it’s unprovable. There is evidence, of course – which an Atheist can never have – there CAN be no evidence of the NON existence of something – because there would be nothing to see, if the thing which does not exist – doesn’t exist.

Existence is either believed, or disbelieved – but it is never known, with complete certainly.