Not so sharp after all.

Find article here.




Sharp's Rule: Primer

In an attempt to prove the trinity doctrine, Granville Sharp made up a rule in 1798. It is often called "Sharp's Rule" by trinitarians. It says, in effect, that when two or more words (nouns) in the original Greek New Testament (NT) text are joined by the word "and," they all refer to the same person if the word "the" (the article) comes before the first noun and not before the other noun(s).

For example, if we saw "the king and _master of the slave" in the Greek text of the Bible, it would always mean, according to Sharp, that only one person was being called both "king" and "master." ("King" and "master" are joined by "and" - - only "king" has the article.)

Sharp invented this rule after he noticed this particular construction (sometimes called a "Sharp's construction") was used with "God" and "Christ" in 5 places in the NT. If he could convince others that his "rule" was true, then they would think there was finally (after 1400 years of a "trinity" tradition) absolute grammatical Bible proof (see WALLACE study paper) that God and Jesus are the same "person"!

The 5 "proofs" of Jesus' Godhood according to Sharp are (in the literal wording of the original manuscripts):

(a) Titus 2:13: "of the great God and savior of us Christ Jesus"

τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ

(b) 2 Pet. 1:1: "righteousness of the God of us and savior Jesus Christ"

δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

(c) 2 Thess. 1:12:"the grace of the God of us and Lord Jesus Christ"

τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

(d) 1 Tim. 5:21: "in sight of the God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels"

ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἀγγέλων

(e) Eph. 5:5: "...in the kingdom of the Christ and God"

ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ

Since the first noun ("God" in the first four scriptures) has the article ("the") with it and the following noun ("savior" in the first two scriptures) does not have the article ("the"), then (according to Sharp) God and Christ (the savior, etc.) are the same person!

There are a number of reasons why Sharp's Rule, as applied to these 5 "proofs," is invalid (See the SHARP study paper). One important strike against it is the fact that even many respected trinitarian NT grammar experts and translators have rejected it as a valid rule - e.g., see G. B. Winer; J. H. Moulton; C. F. D. Moule; Dr. James Moffatt (see Titus 2:13; and 1 Tim. 5:21); Dr. William Barclay (2 Thess. 1:12); and Roman Catholic scholar Karl Rahner (2 Peter 1:1).

In vol. 5, p. 257 the respected The Expositor's Greek Testament says: "In the present case [Jude 1:4], however, the second noun (kupiov [“lord”]) belongs to the class of words which may stand without the article .... A similar doubtful case is found in Tit. ii. 13.... Other examples of the same kind are Eph. v. 5 ... 2 Thess. i: 12 ... 1 Tim. v. 21 (cf. 2 Tim. iv. 1) ... 2 Peter i. 1."

For example, examine the following trinitarian Bible's renderings of these "Sharp's Constructions":

2 Thess. 1:12 - KJV; KJIIV; NASB; NAB (1970); MLB; LB; GNB; RSV; NRSV; NIV.

Eph. 5:5 - KJV; KJIIV; RSV; NRSV; LB; MLB; NIV; NEB; REB; GNB; TEV; NAB (`70,'91).

2 Tim. 4:1 - most trinitarian Bibles.

1 Tim. 6:13 - all trinitarian Bibles.

These many respected Bibles, translated by expert trinitarian New Testament scholars, clearly disregard Sharp's "Rule" at these (and other) places and show two persons being spoken of!

Notice Eph. 5:5, for example. Most trinitarian Bibles translate this example of Sharp's Construction: "in the kingdom of Christ and of God" - KJV; NRSV; RSV; NIV; NEB; REB; NAB; Douay; MLB; LB; GNB; TEV; The Amplified Bible; Third Millenium Bible; New Living Translation; New Century Version; God's Word; Holman Christian Standard Bible; Wesley's New Testament; Phillips; and the Webster Bible. This is not the way it would be translated if the two descriptions were of the same person! (At the very least it would be rendered more literally as "the kingdom of the Christ and God.") Instead it clearly shows two persons!

Even trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris notes, in discussing Eph. 5:5, that “It is highly improbable that Paul would introduce a profound, unqualified doctrinal affirmation (Christ is theos) in an incidental manner [such as here], in a context where the assertion is not crucial to the flow of argument.” - p. 262, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

Also, 1 Tim. 6:13 is translated in trinitarian Bibles as: "before (in the sight or presence of) God ... and before Christ Jesus...". Although Sharp's Rule insists that this should be translated to show that it is speaking of the same person, it obviously is not! Most trinitarian grammar experts simply do not believe Sharp's Rule is a valid absolute rule!

Of the many reasons invalidating Sharp's Rule grammatically there are at least two of extreme importance - each of which is conclusive by itself.

(1) Prepositional Constructions (with phrases containing prepositions: "of God;" "in the Lord;" "God of...;" etc.) are known by NT grammarians to cause uncertainty of article usage. That is, if a prepositional phrase (including genitives) is attached to a word, that word may sometimes have the article ("the") and sometimes not have it -- without changing the intended meaning! (See A. T. Robertson, pp. 780, 790, 791; C. F. D. Moule, p. 117; J. H. Moulton, pp. 175, 179-180; et al.)

This means that the NT writers sometimes wrote, for example, "The God of me" (with article) and "_God of me" (without article) with exactly the same intended meaning. The definite article ("the") was ambiguous in such cases.

Therefore any grammatical rules which depend on the presence or absence of the article in the NT Greek must not use as examples those scriptures which use a 'prepositional' construction attached to a word (noun) in question if they are to be used honestly and properly.

But if you examine the 5 trinitarian "proofs" above, you will see that they all use such prepositional constructions: "of us" in (a) Titus 2:13 and (b) 2 Peter 1:1 is a "prepositional" genitive, and even "savior" itself is a genitive in both scriptures and literally means "of savior;" "Lord" in (c) 2 Thess. 1:12 is a genitive and literally means "of Lord" (as rendered in the Modern Language Bible; Living Bible; Good News Bible; Douay Version; New American Bible [1970 ed.]; and Barclay's Daily Study Bible); "Christ" in (d)1 Tim. 5:21 is a genitive and literally means "of Christ" (as in the Good News Bible [and TEV]; New American Standard Bible; Modern Language Bible; Revised Standard Version; and New Revised Standard Version); and "God" in (e) Eph. 5:5 is a genitive and literally means "of God" (as in the King James Version; Revised Standard Version; New Revised Standard Version; Living Bible; New English Bible; Revised English Bible; Modern Language Bible; New American Bible (1970 and 1991); Douay Version; New International Version; Good News Bible; and Phillips translation).

Therefore all 5 Sharp's "proofs" are invalid on the basis of prepositional constructions alone!

(2) New Testament scholars, including noted trinitarian NT grammar experts, point out that the use of proper names ("John," "Moses," "Jesus," etc.) also causes uncertain article usage in NT Greek. (A. T. Robertson, Grammar, p. 791, and Word Pictures, p. 46, Vol. iv; C. F. D. Moule, p. 115; J. H. Moulton [Turner], Vol. 3, pp. 165-167; et. al.)

So not only did the NT Bible writers sometimes use the article and sometimes not use the article with the very same intended meaning with the very same proper name (e.g. "the James" and "James"), but even when a proper name is used as an appositive it also causes irregular article usage with the other associated nouns. - Robertson, pp. 760, 791.

For example, when "Jesus" and "Christ" are in apposition to each other ("Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus"), they are nearly always (96% of the time - see SHARP study paper) written without the definite article in the writings of Paul regardless of "Sharp's rule" or any other grammatical/syntactical consideration!

If we examine the first 4 of the 5 "proofs" above, we see that the proper name "Jesus" is used as an appositive with the word in question in each case! In other words, "Christ Jesus" is the appositive for "savior" in Titus 2:13. This means sometimes "savior" will have "the" with it in such a situation and sometimes it won't (with no change in meaning). "Jesus Christ" is the appositive for "savior" in 2 Peter 1:1, and article usage (or non-usage) with "savior" in the original NT Greek in such circumstances is virtually meaningless. "Jesus Christ" is in apposition to (an appositive for) "Lord" in 2 Thess. 1:12. And "Jesus" is in apposition (at least) to "Christ" in 1 Tim. 5:21. These examples, therefore, are completely invalid as evidence for Jesus being God even if there were actually some validity to Sharp's "Rule" with proper examples! And the 5th example, Eph. 5:5, is incredibly poor in context alone. Even noted trinitarian scholar A.T. Robertson has to admit that the 'evidence' of Eph. 5:5 is doubtful - Word Pictures, Vol. 14, pp. 46 and 543. No objective person could accept it alone as real evidence of Jesus' Godhood!

Some PREPOSITIONAL examples found in NT Greek:

"The God of Abraham and _God of Isaac and _God of Jacob" - Luke 20:37.

"The God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob" - Matt. 22:32.

"James, _slave of God and _Lord Jesus Christ" - James 1:1

"By command of _God savior of us and _Christ Jesus" - 1 Tim. 1:1.

"I am the root and the offspring of David" - Rev. 22:16.

Some PROPER NAME examples found in NT Greek:

"having seen _Peter and _John" (no articles) - Acts 3:3.

"holding fast ... the Peter and the John" (both articles) - Acts 3:11.

"beholding the outspokenness of the Peter and _John" (Sharp's) - Acts 4:13.

"But the Peter and _John" (Sharp's construction) - Acts 4:19.

So we see the Bible writer who is recognized as the most knowledgeable in NT Greek (Luke) showing the great ambiguity of article usage with proper names. If we did not exclude proper names as valid examples, we would have to agree that either Luke believed Peter and John were the same person or that he was completely unaware of Sharp's Rule (or any first century equivalent)!

* * * * *

So, although we can find such constructions as "the king and master of the slave" where the first noun (with the definite article, `the') is the same person as the second noun (without the definite article), there is no grammatical reason that this must always be so. Such constructions as "the boy and girl" and "the President and Vice President" (found in Amendment XX [as ratified in 1933] of the Constitution of the United States of America), which refer to more than one individual, are just as grammatically correct in both English and NT Greek.

Marx's Musings:pros and cons.

The Watchtower Society's commentary on the book of Ezekiel.

A reproduction of the Watchtower Society's article



EZEKIEL, BOOK OF

 

 

 

This remarkable book bears the name of the prophet who wrote it. Ezekiel the son of Buzi, a priest, may have completed writing the book in Babylonia in about the year 591 B.C.E. It covers a period of approximately 22 years, from 613 to about 591 B.C.E.—Eze 1:1-3; 29:17.

The book of Ezekiel is distinguished by visions, similes, and allegories, or parables, and especially by performance of symbolic actions, as when Ezekiel was told by God to engrave a sketch of Jerusalem on a brick and then to stage a mock siege against it as a sign to Israel. (Eze 4:1-17) Other symbolic actions were the joining of two sticks, representing the two houses of Israel (37:15-23), and Ezekiel’s digging a hole in a wall and going out with his luggage, representing the captivity of Jerusalem. (12:3-13) The illustration of Oholah and Oholibah is one of the vivid allegories of the book. (Eze Chap 23) Another notable feature of the book of Ezekiel is the meticulous care Ezekiel took to date his prophecies, giving not only the year of King Jehoiachin’s exile but also the month and day of the month.—1:1, 2; 29:1; 30:20; 31:1; 32:1; 40:1.

Authenticity. Proof of the book’s authenticity is to be found in the fulfillment of its prophecies. (For examples see AMMONITES; EDOM, EDOMITES; TYRE.) Further attesting to the authenticity of this book is archaeology. The noted American archaeologist W. F. Albright wrote: “Archeological data have . . . demonstrated the substantial originality of the Books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Ezra and Nehemiah, beyond doubt; they have confirmed the traditional picture of events, as well as their order.”—The Bible After Twenty Years of Archeology (1932-1952), 1954, p. 547.

The authenticity of the book of Ezekiel is supported by its harmony with the other books of the Bible. Although it is not quoted or cited directly by any of the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures, allusions to some of its statements and similar expressions are, nevertheless, frequent. Ezekiel and Jesus speak of the drying up of a moist tree. (Eze 17:24; Lu 23:31) Ezekiel and Jesus both speak of a judgment of people as sheep and goats. (Eze 34:17; Mt 25:32, 33) The book of Revelation uses many illustrations similar to those in Ezekiel.—Compare Eze 1:28 with Re 4:3; Eze 10:3, 4 with Re 15:8; Eze 12:25 with Re 10:6; Eze 37:10 with Re 11:11.

It is to be noted that among the Chester Beatty Greek Biblical papyri is one codex containing, among other portions of the Bible, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Esther. These are all found in one codex, probably consisting originally of 118 leaves. It is a copy written by two scribes, likely in the first half of the third century, indicating the substantial soundness of the book of Ezekiel as it has come down to us.

Since Jeremiah and Ezekiel were contemporaries, their prophecies have many things in common. (Compare Eze 18:2 with Jer 31:29; Eze 24:3 with Jer 1:13; Eze 34:2 with Jer 23:1.) Daniel and Ezekiel, also contemporaries, have similarities of expression in their writings. Ezekiel, while bound by cords, prophesied about the kingdom of Judah and designated “a day for a year,” each day of the prophecy corresponding to a year in the fulfillment. (Eze 4:4-8) Daniel spoke of a banded tree stump, a prophecy concerning the Kingdom, and specified the time period until removal of the bands. (Da 4:23) Another time prophecy of Daniel was the 70 weeks in connection with the coming of Messiah the Leader, also using a day to symbolize a year in the fulfillment.—Da 9:24-27.

Arrangement of Material. For the most part, Ezekiel’s prophecies and visions are arranged chronologically as well as topically. The four verses of chapter 29:17-20 are placed out of their chronological order (compare Eze 29:1; 30:20), but topically they belong here with the prophecy against Egypt. Up until the tenth month of the ninth year of the first exile, the central point around which Ezekiel’s prophecies revolved was the complete fall and desolation of Jerusalem, with only brief references to the restoration. Such is the tenor of the first 24 chapters. During the siege of Jerusalem, the prophet turned his attention mainly to pronouncing woes upon the pagan nations foreseen by Jehovah God as rejoicing over the downfall of Jerusalem. After arrival of the news that Jerusalem had fallen, the prophet sounds the glorious note of restoration, which is a dominant theme throughout the remainder of the book.—33:20, 21.

The book of Ezekiel reveals that Babylon’s false religion had been introduced into the precincts of Jehovah’s temple, particularly in the form of worshiping the Babylonian god Tammuz. (Eze 8:13, 14) Besides such detestable false worship at Jehovah’s temple itself, the apostate Jews filled the land of Judah with violence. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that in his vision Ezekiel hears the call for Jehovah’s executioners to come with their weapons for smashing and to stand beside the altar in the inner courtyard of the temple. Jehovah then gives them orders to go through the midst of unfaithful Jerusalem and kill off everybody not marked as a worshiper of Jehovah: “Old man, young man and virgin and little child and women you should kill off—to a ruination. But to any man upon whom there is the mark do not go near, and from my sanctuary you should start.” (9:6) Ezekiel reports that Jehovah’s executioners started by killing first the 70 elderly men who were worshiping idolatrous carvings on the wall in a chamber in the inner courtyard. All the women who were sitting at the gate, weeping for the Babylonish god Tammuz, and the sun-worshiping apostates at the temple porch were also killed. (8:7–9:8) The vision of Ezekiel was but a preview of what was about to befall Jerusalem when Jehovah would make her drink the cup of wine of His rage out of His hand by means of His executional servant, King Nebuchadnezzar (Nebuchadrezzar), and his armies.—Jer 25:9, 15-18.

Ezekiel’s prophecies of restoration must have been of comfort to the exiled Jews. In the 25th year of his exile (593 B.C.E.) Ezekiel had a remarkable vision of a new temple of Jehovah, the pattern of which came from Jehovah God himself, and of an adjacent city called Jehovah-Shammah, meaning “Jehovah Himself Is There.” (Eze 40:1–48:35) In the midst of a land of pagan idolatry, it strengthened hope in the repentant Jewish exiles of again worshiping the true God, Jehovah, at his temple.

Ezekiel’s prophecy emphasizes the theme of the Bible, the vindication of Jehovah’s name by the Messianic Kingdom. It points out that while God would permit a long period of vacancy on the throne of David, God had not abandoned his covenant with David for a kingdom. The Kingdom would be given to the One who had the legal right. Ezekiel thereby pointed the Jews, as did Daniel, to the hope of the Messiah. (Eze 21:27; 37:22, 24, 25) Jehovah caused Ezekiel to say more than 60 times that people ‘will have to know that I am Jehovah.’ Ezekiel magnifies the memorial name of God by using the expression “Sovereign Lord Jehovah” 217 times.—Eze 2:4, ftn.

[Box on page 794]

HIGHLIGHTS OF EZEKIEL

  Prophecies regarding the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon and the restoration of a faithful remnant. A central theme is that people “will have to know that I am Jehovah”

  Written in Babylon—most of it during the six years before Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E., and some of it as late as about 591 B.C.E.

Jehovah commissions Ezekiel (then an exile in Babylonia) as watchman (1:1–3:27)

  Given awe-inspiring vision of Jehovah’s glory, along with cherubs having four faces and accompanied by wheels having rims full of eyes

  Serious responsibility as watchman

Warning prophecies against unfaithful Judah and Jerusalem (4:1–24:27)

  Ezekiel is directed to enact Jerusalem’s coming siege by lying before an engraved brick for 390 days on his left side and 40 days on his right, while subsisting on meager amounts of food and water

  The land, including sites used for idolatry, to be desolated; unfaithful people to perish, with a remnant to survive; neither gold nor silver of value in providing escape

  Because idolatrous practices are carried on in temple precincts, Jehovah determines to express his rage, showing no compassion; only those marked by secretary clothed with linen to be spared

  Flight of King Zedekiah and people illustrated by Ezekiel’s carrying out luggage through an opening dug in a wall

  Jehovah’s judgment against false prophets and prophetesses

  Eagle-vine riddle indicates bitter consequences because people turn to Egypt for help

  Judgment of Jehovah to be according to individual action and not, as wrongly claimed, merely for sins of fathers

  Wicked Zedekiah’s crown to be removed, and royal rule in David’s line to cease until coming of the One having the legal right

  Unfaithful Samaria and Jerusalem represented as two prostitutes, Oholah and Oholibah; Jerusalem to receive severe treatment from her former lovers

  Besieged Jerusalem compared to heated cooking pot, and the inhabitants to meat inside

Prophecies against surrounding nations, a number of which Jehovah foresees as rejoicing over Jerusalem’s downfall (25:1–32:32)

  Ammon, Moab, Edom, and Philistia to be desolated

  Tyre to be besieged by Nebuchadnezzar and, in time, to become a desolated site; destruction likened to the sinking of a fine ship with its cargo; Tyrian dynasty to end because of arrogance and treachery

  Egypt to be plundered by Nebuchadnezzar in payment for his services as executioner of divine judgment against Tyre; Pharaoh and his crowd compared to a cedar that would be cut down

Prophecies of deliverance and restoration of God’s people (33:1–48:35)

  Jehovah to regather his people, his sheep, and raise up his servant David as a shepherd over them

  Whereas Edom is to be desolated, the land of Israel is to flourish like the garden of Eden

  As exiles in Babylon, the Israelites resemble dry, lifeless bones, but they are to be raised to life

  The union of two sticks, one representing Joseph and the other Judah, illustrates the bringing back of the exiled people into a unity under God’s servant David

  Jehovah’s restored people to come under Gog’s attack, but Jehovah promises to protect them and destroy Gog’s forces

  Ezekiel is given vision of a temple and its features; a stream flows from the temple to the Dead Sea, where waters are healed and a fishing industry develops; trees along the stream’s banks yield edible fruit and leaves for healing

  Land assignments are outlined; the city “Jehovah Himself Is There” is described

"Hitler's Pope?":Pros and Cons.

Soak the rich:pros and cons.

May privacy R.I.P.:pros and cons.

God:pros and cons

It was clear that Mr. Hitchens had wrong-footed Dr. Craig by pointing out the fact that no catholics(or protestants for that matter) were excommunicated for their roles in the Nazi atrocities.Or that the Russian Orthodox clergy had no scruples about co-operating with the Atheist state of Stalin's Russia.  


One thing I have to say after watching this is that the failure of false religion is probably a much bigger driver of unbelief than the evangelising of the atheist mission.

I found Hitchens Contention that the atheist worldview is more desirable, i.e that not only should a sensible and moral person suspect that theism in general and(what is generally considered) Christian theism in particular is false but that they should hope that it is, thought provoking. Now in a way it's understandable the mainstream denominations of Christendom have portrayed the deity as a heartless brute who oversees a kind of Auschwitz on a cosmic scale only much worse, at least Hitler had the decency to allow his victims the mercy of death.Worse still some denominations hold that most of mankind were foredoomed to this destiny by the creator from eternity. Likely Hitchens would have agreed with Watchtower Society's founder Charles Russell's statement that:a God who would use his power to create men foreknown by him to eternal suffering could be neither wise, just nor loving, his standard would be lower that of many men.Biblically based theism simply does not promulgate any such nonsense.Rather it offers the only hope for a permanent redress of the imbalances/injustices that seem to irk Mr.Hitchens and his ilk.I think even the most militant Atheist/secular humanist would agree that even if at some future time all of the world's nations were to adopt their views,that this would not mean "the end of history",there would still be conflict,there would still be suffering,and such improvements in personal liberty as may accrue would have arrived far too late for billions and of course eventually after this ill fated struggle against chaos all of mankind would eventually go extinct forever.How is this preferable to the biblically based hope of having the self-existent,superhuman creator of man reassert his rightful sovereignty over this planet.As creator the legitimacy of his sovereignty cannot be rightly questioned,being totally self-existent he is free from the ambition and insecurity that exerts a corrupting influence on even the most morally upright of human rulers and he possesses the technology to bring a complete end to all suffering,strife and even death itself.
   My own personal opinion is that even if I myself am not deemed worthy of it,surely,it is a comforting thought that millions of my fellow humans are going to be granted immortality and participate in building the grandest civilisation this earth has ever seen.Don't get me wrong,like the apostle Paul I've got my eyes on the prize but I am not so vain as to imagine that this is all about me and my salvation.There is something much grander in the works here.Surely whether one accepts the premise as true or not,it is preferable that some of our race go on to immortality and an eternal union with the divine than we all perish(perhaps at our own hand) after a futile struggle against chaos.

A line in the Sand? IV

Find article here.

Obama orders closure of Vatican Embassy

It's very hard to deny that the Obama administration isn't fighting a war on Catholics. In his latest move, Obama has ordered the closure of the U.S. embassy to the Vatican away from the Holy See to a more distant compound in Rome, allegedly for "security reasons."

The war between Obama and the Church continues. The outcome is certain.

---

LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) - The Obama administration is announcing that late next year the State Department will close the U.S. Embassy in Vatican City, citing security concerns.

The Daily caller was told in an email from the Department of State, "The Embassy will be moved to the U.S. government compound that currently houses U.S. Embassy Rome and the U.S. Mission to UN Agencies in Rome.  At that point, the U.S. government compound in Rome will house three distinct diplomatic missions with three independently accredited ambassadors working in three separate chanceries.  Our Embassy to the Holy See will continue to operate as an independent mission, and our diplomatic presence will remain one of the largest missions accredited to the Holy See."

This will close a mission that has operated at its current location since 1994.

Former ambassadors to the Holy See are blasting the move. Former Boston Mayor and ambassador, Ray Flynn told the Daily Catholic Reporter, "It's not just those who bomb churches and kill Catholics in the Middle East who are our antagonists, but it's also those who restrict our religious freedoms and want to close down our embassy to the Holy See."

Former ambassadors James Nicholson, Francis Rooney, Mary Ann Glendon and Thomas Melady, also criticized the move.

Nicholson told the Daily Catholic Reporter, the move makes "this embassy into a stepchild of the embassy to Italy."

Catholic League President, Bill Donohue said to the Daily Caller, "You could make a principled argument that for security or economic reasons the embassy needs to be moved, but that assumes the person making the argument has principles. This administration certainly wasn't concerned about the safety of its embassy in Benghazi. And as for the economic argument, this is the most fiscally reckless administration in American history. It's risible to think this administration is concerned about our safety."

If there is a security concern at the Vatican, then State Department officials should share it. If the move is financial, then that too should be stated. However, without an apparently valid reason for the change, Catholics are forced to add this latest point of data to the growing body of evidence that Obama isn't a supporter of the Catholic Church.

The reality is that Vatican security is among the best in the world. Not only is the Holy See situated in the heart of Rome, Italy, a place which takes security and policing very seriously, the Holy Father has an elite security detail of his own. The Swiss Papal Guard is showy, but they are also trained soldiers of the highest moral integrity. Additionally, they are as capable with a rifle as a halberd. The Vatican Corps of Gendarmerie also provides security as well as plainclothes agents. And does not God also watch? But Obama is no man of faith.

Logically, no attack on the U.S. embassy would be of value to terrorists. The Vatican itself is the greater target, the embassy an inconspicuous second compared to the glory of the Vatican. Still, it's all about a literally non-existent security threat.

Nor is the move one of fiscal interest for an administration that has minimal regard for fiscal concerns anyway. Moving the embassy costs much more than leaving it put.

Instead, it's a message, sent to the Catholic Church. Obama has little regard for the venerable institution. That's unfortunate, because he places himself on the losing side of history. Obama is not the first, nor the last of the world's leaders to hold the Church in contempt. However, it should be whispered to him that great men pass, but the Church remains.

Here is a petition you can sign to voice your opposition to this move. 

An oracle? II



What if Christianity actually teaches peace?The confusion is understandable in view of the rather shameful example set by Christendom both historically and(quite frankly) currently see revelation18:24.

 But this uncertainty is easily cleared up by consulting the inspired text itself.

  Matthew5:9NJKV"Blessed are the peacemakers,For they shall be called sons of God."

 

  Matthew26:52NKJV"But Jesus said to him,"put your sword in its place,for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."

 

  Revelation13:10NKJV"He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity;he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword.Here is the patience and Faith of the saints."

 

Manifest Destiny?:The pros and cons

Playing God:pros and cons

9/11:pros and cons

Science or storytelling? II

We are all Martians now, revisited

August 30, 2013

fe

possible ancient water site/NASA

Conditions on Mars were better billions of years ago, so life could have accidentally come from there, a major international conference has been told.
Steven Benner, chemist at the Westheimer Institute for Science and Technology admits that the chances of life accidentally forming on Earth are poor because, according to a BBC News account,

The molecules that combined to form genetic material are far more complex than the primordial “pre-biotic” soup of organic (carbon-based) chemicals thought to have existed on the Earth more than three billion years ago, and RNA (ribonucleic acid) is thought to have been the first of them to appear.

Simply adding energy such as heat or light to the more basic organic molecules in the “soup” does not generate RNA. Instead, it generates tar.

(Remember this for when someone tells you that’s all it took.) He thinks there might have been a better chance on Mars:

The minerals most effective at templating RNA would have dissolved in the oceans of the early Earth, but would have been more abundant on Mars, according to Prof Benner.

He suggests that elements such as boron and molybdenum, “key in assembling atoms into life-forming molecules,” came to Earth via meteorites from Mars:

“The evidence seems to be building that we are actually all Martians; that life started on Mars and came to Earth on a rock,” he commented.

Well, evidence for something is building.

“This isn’t really evidence that life came from Mars, but it is evidence that Steven Benner is very clever,” astrobiologist David Grinspoon told NBC.

Doubtless, Benner is clever.
But how clever do you have to be to sell people a product they very much want to buy? Origin of life researchers are at an impasse and willing to consider any thesis, including pure storytelling. Benner again:

“It’s lucky that we ended up here, nevertheless – as certainly Earth has been the better of the two planets for sustaining life. If our hypothetical Martian ancestors had remained on Mars, there may not have been a story to tell.”

But there sure are stories now. Grinspoon again:

“I think chemists always think they know more than they know, because nature has a lot of possible pathways it can try,” Grinspoon said.

Okay, who exactly is “nature”? Someone who “can try” to produce life? Is that like “god” in lower case? And “a lot of possible pathways” is hardly what we are looking for. Except insofar as they produce research grant and interesting conferences and news stories. Heck, it’s interesting. But it’s a bit much to call it serious science

2)“Impossible” for life to start on Earth? Thus, panspermia theory gains new traction?

September 9, 2013

Posted by NewsunderNews, Origin Of Life

Not, it seems, from fresh evidence but from fresh frustration, according to this National Geographic News article:

A long-debated and often-dismissed theory known as “panspermia” got new life in the past week, as two scientists separately proposed that early Earth lacked some chemicals essential to forming life, while early Mars likely had them.

…

“Basically, we went looking on Mars because the origins-of-life options on Earth just aren’t looking very good,” Benner said.

(We have covered Benner’s hypothesis that the elements boron and molybdenum from Mars were key player here. )

The reemergence of the theory of panspermia is intertwined with progress (or lack of progress) in a long-term scientific quest to find out how life began on Earth, a question that synthetic biology experts such as Benner have been working on for decades. Despite some advances, the field has come up against chemical walls that are proving impossible to climb.

Well, the problem is that the fact that origin of life is considered impossible on Earth doesn’t add to the possibility that it arose on Mars. Some faint suggestions that a Mars origin have been advanced, but Benner adds,

“A panspermia solution, after all, produces another panspermia problem,” he said. “If a Martian microbe did make it from Mars to Earth, maybe it would be as if it landed in Eden. But just as likely, it would quickly die.”

Now that he mentions it, there is little reason to expect life from Mars to just accidentally take root in a quite different atmosphere unless design can be factored in. That is why atheists such as Fred Hoyle and Francis Crick toyed with the idea that intelligent aliens were involved. They understood the problems better than their detractors.
Here’s Steve Benner arguing for Mars:

 

Trying to learn the language of peace in the land of war.

A line in the sand? III

The Watchtower Society's commentary on 1st and 2nd Samuel

Read the watchtower Society's article here

 

 

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

 

 

 

Two books of the Hebrew Scriptures that apparently were not divided in the original Hebrew canon. Indicative of this is a note in the Masora showing that words in First Samuel, chapter 28 (one of the concluding chapters of First Samuel), were in the middle of the book.

Writers and Time Covered. Ancient Jewish tradition credits Samuel with the writership of the first part of the book, and Nathan and Gad with the remaining portion. That these three prophets did write is confirmed at 1 Chronicles 29:29. The book itself reports: “Samuel spoke to the people about the rightful due of the kingship and wrote it in a book and deposited it before Jehovah.” (1Sa 10:25) However, on the basis of 1 Samuel 27:6, where there is reference to “the kings of Judah,” numerous scholars place the final compiling of the books of Samuel sometime after the ten-tribe kingdom of Israel came into existence. If the expression “the kings of Judah” denotes only Judean kings of the two-tribe kingdom, this would show that the writings of Samuel, Nathan, and Gad must have been put into final form by someone else. On the other hand, if “the kings of Judah” simply means kings from the tribe of Judah, these words could have been recorded by Nathan, since he lived under the rulership of two Judean kings, David and Solomon.—1Ki 1:32-34; 2Ch 9:29.

The fact that Hannah and an unnamed “man of God” used the expressions “king” and “anointed one” years before a king actually ruled over Israel does not support the argument of some that these passages date from a period later than indicated in the book. (1Sa 2:10, 35) The idea of a future king was by no means foreign to the Hebrews. God’s promise concerning Sarah, the ancestress of the Israelites, was that “kings of peoples” would come from her. (Ge 17:16) Also, Jacob’s deathbed prophecy (Ge 49:10), the prophetic words of Balaam (Nu 24:17), and the Mosaic Law (De 17:14-18) pointed to the time when the Israelites would have a king.

The historical narrative contained in the two books of Samuel commences with the time of High Priest Eli and concludes with events from David’s reign. It therefore covers a period of approximately 140 years (c. 1180-c. 1040 B.C.E.). As David’s death is not mentioned in the record, the account (possibly with the exception of editorial additions) was probably completed about 1040 B.C.E.

Authenticity. The authenticity of the account contained in the books of Samuel is well established. Christ Jesus himself, when refuting an objection raised by the Pharisees, cited the incident recorded at 1 Samuel 21:3-6 about David’s receiving showbread from Ahimelech the priest. (Mt 12:1-4) In the synagogue of Antioch in Pisidia, the apostle Paul quoted from 1 Samuel 13:14 as he briefly reviewed events from Israel’s history. (Ac 13:20-22) This apostle, in his letter to the Romans, used words from David’s psalm, which passage is found at both 2 Samuel 22:50 and Psalm 18:49, to prove that Christ’s ministry to the Jews verified God’s promises and gave a basis for non-Jews to “glorify God for his mercy.” (Ro 15:8, 9) Jehovah’s words to David at 2 Samuel 7:14 are quoted and applied to Christ Jesus in Hebrews 1:5, thus showing that David served as a prophetic type of the Messiah.

Outstanding, too, is the candor of the record. It exposes the wrongs of the priestly house of Eli (1Sa 2:12-17, 22-25), the corruption of Samuel’s sons (1Sa 8:1-3), and the sins and family difficulties of King David (2Sa 11:2-15; 13:1-22; 15:13, 14; 24:10).

Another evidence of the authenticity of the account is the fulfillment of prophecies. These relate to Israel’s request for a king (De 17:14; 1Sa 8:5), Jehovah’s rejection of Eli’s house (1Sa 2:31; 3:12-14; 1Ki 2:27), and the continuance of the kingship in David’s line (2Sa 7:16; Jer 33:17; Eze 21:25-27; Mt 1:1; Lu 1:32, 33).

The record is in complete harmony with the rest of the Scriptures. This is especially noticeable when examining the psalms, many of which are illuminated by what is contained in the books of Samuel. King Saul’s sending messengers to watch David’s house in order to kill him provides the background for Psalm 59. (1Sa 19:11) David’s experiences at Gath, where he disguised his sanity to escape death, are alluded to in Psalms 34 and 56. (1Sa 21:10-15; evidently the name Abimelech appearing in the superscription of Psalm 34 is to be viewed as a title for King Achish.) Psalm 142 may reflect David’s thoughts while hiding from Saul in the cave of Adullam (1Sa 22:1) or in the cave in the Wilderness of En-gedi. (1Sa 24:1, 3) This is perhaps also the case with Psalm 57. However, a comparison of Psalm 57:6 with 1 Samuel 24:2-4 seems to favor the cave in the Wilderness of En-gedi, for there Saul, as it were, fell into the pit he had excavated for David. Psalm 52 pertains to Doeg’s informing Saul about David’s dealings with Ahimelech. (1Sa 22:9, 10) The action of the Ziphites in revealing David’s whereabouts to King Saul furnished the basis for Psalm 54. (1Sa 23:19) Psalm 2 seems to allude to the attempts made by the Philistines to unseat David as king after his capture of the stronghold of Zion. (2Sa 5:17-25) Trouble with the Edomites during the war with Hadadezer is the setting for Psalm 60. (2Sa 8:3, 13, 14) Psalm 51 is a prayer of David, beseeching forgiveness for his sin with Bath-sheba. (2Sa 11:2-15; 12:1-14) David’s flight from Absalom provides the basis for Psalm 3. (2Sa 15:12-17, 30) Possibly Psalm 7 finds its historical setting in Shimei’s cursing David. (2Sa 16:5-8) Psalm 30 may allude to events in connection with David’s erection of an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah. Psalm 18 parallels 2 Samuel 22 and pertains to Jehovah’s delivering David from Saul and other enemies.

Sections Missing in the Greek “Septuagint.” First Samuel 17:12-31, ; 1Sa 17:55–18:6a does not appear in the Greek Septuagint as contained in Vatican Manuscript No. 1209. Numerous scholars have, therefore, concluded that the omissions are later additions to the Hebrew text. Arguing against this view, C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch comment: “The notion, that the sections in question are interpolations that have crept into the text, cannot be sustained on the mere authority of the Septuagint version; since the arbitrary manner in which the translators of this version made omissions or additions at pleasure is obvious to any one.”—Commentary on the Old Testament, 1973, Vol. II, 1 Samuel, p. 177, ftn.

If it could be definitely established that actual discrepancies exist between the omitted sections and the rest of the book, the authenticity of 1 Samuel 17:12-31, ; 1Sa 17:55–18:6a would reasonably be in question. A comparison of 1 Samuel 16:18-23 and 1 Samuel 17:55-58 reveals what appears to be a contradiction, for in the latter passage Saul is depicted as asking about the identity of his own court musician and armor-bearer, David. However, it should be noted that David’s earlier being described as “a valiant, mighty man and a man of war” could have been based on his courageous acts in single-handedly killing a lion and a bear to rescue his father’s sheep. (1Sa 16:18; 17:34-36) Also, the Scriptures do not state that David actually served in battle as Saul’s armor-bearer before he killed Goliath. Saul’s request to Jesse was: “Let David, please, keep attending upon me, for he has found favor in my eyes.” (1Sa 16:22) This request does not preclude the possibility that Saul later permitted David to return to Bethlehem so that, when war broke out with the Philistines, David was then shepherding his father’s flock.

Regarding Saul’s question, “Whose son is the boy, Abner?” the aforementioned commentary observes (p. 178, ftn.): “Even if Abner had not troubled himself about the lineage of Saul’s harpist, Saul himself could not well have forgotten that David was a son of the Bethlehemite Jesse. But there was much more implied in Saul’s question. It was not the name of David’s father alone that he wanted to discover, but what kind of man the father of a youth who possessed the courage to accomplish so marvellous a heroic deed really was; and the question was put not merely in order that he might grant him an exemption of his house from taxes as the reward promised for the conquest of Goliath (ver. 25), but also in all probability that he might attach such a man to his court, since he inferred from the courage and bravery of the son the existence of similar qualities in the father. It is true that David merely replied, ‘The son of thy servant Jesse of Bethlehem;’ but it is very evident from the expression in ch. xviii. 1, ‘when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul,’ that Saul conversed with him still further about his family affairs, since the very words imply a lengthened conversation.” (For other instances where “who” involves more than mere knowledge of a person’s name, see Ex 5:2; 1Sa 25:10.)

So there is sound reason for viewing 1 Samuel 17:12-31, ; 1Sa 17:55–18:6a as part of the original text.

[Box on page 852]

HIGHLIGHTS OF FIRST SAMUEL

Record of the beginning of kingship in Israel, emphasizing obedience to Jehovah

Written by Samuel, Nathan, and Gad; First Samuel covers the time from the birth of Samuel to the death of Israel’s first king, Saul

Jehovah raises up Samuel as prophet in Israel (1Sa 1:1–7:17)

Samuel is born as an answer to his mother Hannah’s prayer; after he is weaned, he is presented for sanctuary service in fulfillment of Hannah’s vow

Jehovah speaks to Samuel, pronouncing judgment against Eli’s house because his sons Hophni and Phinehas act wickedly and Eli does not rebuke them

As Samuel grows up he is recognized as Jehovah’s prophet

Jehovah’s word against Eli begins to be fulfilled: Philistines capture the Ark and slay Eli’s sons; Eli dies on hearing the news

Years later, Samuel urges the Israelites to abandon idolatry and serve Jehovah alone; Jehovah gives them victory over the Philistines

Saul becomes Israel’s first king (8:1–15:35)

The Israelite elders approach aged Samuel, requesting a human king; Jehovah tells him to listen to their voice

Jehovah directs Samuel to anoint Saul, a Benjaminite, as king

Samuel presents Saul to an assembly of Israelites at Mizpah; not everyone accepts him

Saul defeats the Ammonites; his kingship is reconfirmed at Gilgal; Samuel admonishes the people to remain obedient to Jehovah

Faced with Philistine aggression, Saul fails to obey Jehovah and wait for Samuel’s arrival, offering sacrifices himself; Samuel tells him that because of this his kingdom will not last

Saul defeats the Amalekites, but he disobediently preserves alive King Agag and the best of the animals; Samuel tells Saul he is rejected by Jehovah as king and that obedience is more important than sacrifice

David comes to prominence, and this angers Saul (16:1–20:42)

Samuel anoints David, and Jehovah’s spirit leaves Saul; David becomes a harpist for Saul to soothe him when disturbed

David kills the Philistine champion Goliath, and a deep friendship develops between David and Saul’s son Jonathan

Placed over Saul’s warriors, David gains repeated victories and is celebrated in song more than Saul; Saul becomes jealous

Twice Saul’s attempts to kill David fail, as does his scheme to have David die at the hands of the Philistines while procuring the bride-price for Saul’s daughter Michal

Despite his promise to Jonathan, Saul for a third time tries to kill David, and David flees to Samuel at Ramah

Jonathan unsuccessfully tries to intercede for David with his father; he warns David, and he and David make a covenant

David’s life as a fugitive (21:1–27:12)

At Nob, High Priest Ahimelech gives David food and Goliath’s sword; David then flees to Gath, where he escapes harm by acting insane

He takes refuge in the cave of Adullam and then in the forest of Hereth; Saul has Ahimelech and everyone in Nob killed; Ahimelech’s son Abiathar survives and comes to David

David saves Keilah from Philistines, but afterward he leaves the city to avoid being surrendered to Saul

The men of Ziph reveal David’s whereabouts; he narrowly escapes capture

David has the opportunity to kill Saul but spares his life

Samuel dies

Abigail’s wise intervention prevents David from shedding blood in the heat of anger

David spares Saul’s life a second time and takes refuge in Philistine territory

The end of Saul’s reign (28:1–31:13)

Saul assembles an army against Philistine invaders

Jehovah will not answer Saul’s inquiries because of his disobedience, so Saul consults a spirit medium at En-dor

In battle with Philistines, Saul is severely wounded and commits suicide; his sons Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchi-shua are slain

[Box on page 854]

HIGHLIGHTS OF SECOND SAMUEL

Record of David’s kingship—the blessings he experienced, as well as the discipline he received when he sinned

Originally part of one scroll with First Samuel; the portion in Second Samuel was completed by Gad and Nathan by the end of David’s life in about 1040 B.C.E.

David becomes king and rules from Hebron (2Sa 1:1–4:12)

David mourns the death of Saul and Jonathan; he takes up residence at Hebron and is anointed king by the men of Judah

Abner makes Saul’s son Ish-bosheth king over the rest of Israel; fighting breaks out between the rival kingdoms

Abner defects to David but is killed by Joab

Ish-bosheth is murdered; David orders the execution of the assassins

David rules as king over all the tribes of Israel (5:1–10:19)

David is anointed as king over all Israel; he captures the stronghold of Zion and makes Jerusalem his capital city

The Philistines invade twice but are defeated each time

David attempts to bring the Ark to Jerusalem; the attempt is abandoned when Uzzah dies trying to steady it from falling

His second attempt succeeds when the Ark is transported in the proper way

David expresses to Nathan his desire to build a temple for Jehovah; Jehovah concludes a covenant with him for a kingdom

David sins with Bath-sheba; calamity comes on him out of his own house (11:1–20:26)

The Israelites go to war against Ammon; David commits adultery with Bath-sheba, whose husband Uriah is serving in the army; when efforts to conceal his sin fail, David arranges for Uriah to die in battle and marries the widowed Bath-sheba

With skillful use of an illustration, Nathan reproves David for his sin and announces Jehovah’s judgment: Calamity will come out of his own house, his own wives will be violated, the son from Bath-sheba will die

The child dies; Bath-sheba, pregnant again, gives birth to Solomon

David’s son Amnon rapes his half sister Tamar; David’s son Absalom, Tamar’s full brother, avenges her by having Amnon killed; then he flees to Geshur

Absalom, having gained David’s full pardon, starts scheming against his father; finally he has himself proclaimed king at Hebron

David and his supporters flee Jerusalem to escape from Absalom and his partisans; in Jerusalem, Absalom has relations with ten of David’s concubines; Absalom’s forces pursue David and suffer defeat; Absalom himself is killed contrary to David’s specific orders

David is restored as king; the Benjaminite Sheba revolts, and David gives command of the army to Amasa to put down the rebellion; Joab kills Amasa and takes charge; Sheba is killed

Closing events of David’s reign (21:1–24:25)

David hands over seven sons of Saul to Gibeonites for execution so that the bloodguilt of Saul’s house toward them can be avenged

David composes songs of praise to Jehovah, acknowledging him as the source of inspiration

David sins in ordering a census, resulting in death for about 70,000 from pestilence

David buys the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite as the site of an altar for Jehovah

On axioms,theism and atheism

Find article here.

It seems that one of the pivotal issues in reasoned thinking about design-related questions — and in general – is the question of self-evident first, certain truths that can serve as a plumb-line for testing other truth claims, and indeed for rationality. (Where, the laws of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle are foremost among such first principles. And where also, some ID objectors profess to be “frightened” that some of us dare to hold that there are moral truths that are self evident.)

Where of course, self-evident does not merely mean perceived as obvious to oneself, which could indeed be a manifestation of a delusion. Nay, a self evident truth [SET] is best summarised as one known to be so and to be necessarily so without further proof from other things.

That is, a SET is:

a: actually true — it accurately reports some relevant feature of reality (e.g.: error exists)

b: immediately recognised as true once one actually understands what is being asserted, in light of our conscious experience of the world (as in, no reasonable person would but recognise the reality that error exists)

c: further seen as something that must be true, on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial. (E.g. try denying “error exists” . . . the absurdity is rapidly, forcefully manifest)

I think Aquinas has a few helpful words for us:

Now a thing is said to be self-evident in two ways: first, in itself; secondly, in relation to us. Any proposition is said to be self-evident in itself, if its predicate is contained in the notion of the subject: although, to one who knows not the definition of the subject, it happens that such a proposition is not self-evident. For instance, this proposition, “Man is a rational being,” is, in its very nature, self-evident, since who says “man,” says “a rational being”: and yet to one who knows not what a man is, this proposition is not self-evident. Hence it is that, as Boethius says (De Hebdom.), certain axioms or propositions are universally self-evident to all; and such are those propositions whose terms are known to all, as, “Every whole is greater than its part,” and, “Things equal to one and the same are equal to one another.” But some propositions are self-evident only to the wise, who understand the meaning of the terms of such propositions . . . .

Now a certain order is to be found in those things that are apprehended universally. For that which, before aught else, falls under apprehension, is “being,” the notion of which is included in all things whatsoever a man apprehends. Wherefore the first indemonstrable principle is that “the same thing cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time,” which is based on the notion of “being” and “not-being”: and on this principle all others are based, as is stated in Metaph. iv, text. 9.

In short, we have two facets here, First, standing by itself a SET has an objective character and is a first principle, a point of certain knowledge. But, that brings up the second aspect: we need to understand it, that we may grasp it. And, that may well fail, primarily by way of ignorance, secondarily by way of commitment to a contrary ideology that makes it difficult or nearly impossible to acknowledge that which on the actual merits is self-evident.

How can we address the problem?

By understanding the significance of how rejecting a SET ends in absurdity. Which may be by outright obvious logical contradiction, or by undermining rationality or by being chaotically destructive and/or senseless. Moral SETs are usually seen as self evident in this latter sense.

For instance, by way of laying down a benchmark, let us take the SET that has been so often put here at UD, by way of underscoring vital moral hazards connected to evolutionary materialism (which entails that there are no objective foundations for morality, as many leading Darwinists have acknowledged on the record), to wit:

MORAL YARDSTICK 1: it is Self-Evidently True that it would be wrong to kidnap, torture, rape and murder a child. With corollary, that if such is in progress we are duty-bound to intervene to save the child from the monster.

It will be observed that essentially no-one dares to explicitly deny this, or its direct corollary. That is because such denial would put one in the category of supporting a blatant monster like Nero. Instead, the tendency is to try to push this into the world of tastes, preferences, feelings and community views. Such a view may indeed reflect such, but it is more, it asserts boldly that here is an OUGHT that one denies being bound by, on pain of absurdity. Which of course, further points to our world being a reality grounded in an IS adequate to sustain OUGHT, i.e. we are under moral government.

But, that is not all.

Let us again note Dr Richard Dawkins on the record, in Scientific American, August 1995:

Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This lesson is one of the hardest for humans to learn. We cannot accept that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous: indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose [--> It escapes Dr Dawkins that we may have good reason for refusing this implication of his favoured ideological evolutionary materialism] . . . .

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference [--> As in open admission of utter amorality that opens the door to nihilism] . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. [“God’s Utility Function,” Sci. Am. Aug 1995, pp. 80 - 85.]

This is right in the heart of the science and society issues that rage over Darwinism and wider evolutionary materialist origins thought. Where, let us again remind ourselves, we must frankly and squarely face how Dr Richard Lewontin went on record also:

. . . the problem is to get [people] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth [[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident [[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . ] that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [[--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . .

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [[--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [[--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [From: “Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997. Bold emphasis and notes added. ]

These are smoking gun admissions as to the nature, prior commitments [viewed as self evident!] and consequences of evolutionary materialist ideology, regardless of whether or not it is dressed up in the proverbial lab coat.

And, just as it is legitimate to confront a priori materialist impositions on the methods and conclusions of origins science it is equally in order to raise serious questions on the moral implications of such ideologies and the way they irreconcilably conflict with yardstick cases of self evident moral truth.

Let us look back at that child.

S/he has no physical prowess to impose his or her will. S/he has no eloquence to persuade a demonic Nero-like monster to stop from brutally despoiling and destructive sick pleasures. S/he is essentially helpless. And yet, our consciences speak loud and clear, giving an insight that this ought not to be done, yea even, if we see such in progress we ought to intervene to rescue if we can, how we can.

Is that voice of conscience delusional, a mere survival trait that leads us to perceive an ought as a binding obligation where there is no such, or it is merely the threat of being caught by superior state power or the like?

We already know from great reformers that the state can be in the wrong, though often that was taught at fearsome cost. (Nero’s vicious persecutions being themselves evidence in point.)

And, if one is imagining that a major aspect of mindedness is delusional, where does that stop? In short, once the premise of general delusion of our key mental faculties is introduced we are in an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds. if we say we identify delusion A, who is to say but this is delusion B, thence C, D, E and so forth?

Plato’s Cave of shadow shows projected before life-long prisoners and confused for reality. Once the concept of general delusion is introduced, it raises the question of an infinite regress of delusions. The sensible response is to see that this should lead us to doubt the doubter and insist that our senses be viewed as generally reliable unless they are specifically shown defective. (Source: University of Fort Hare, SA, Phil. Dept.)

So, we see the cogency of UD’s own WJM as he has argued:

If you do not [acknowledge] the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not [admit] the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If you do not [recognise] libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not [accept] morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place.

In short, resort to dismissing key mental capacities as general delusion is a morass, a self-refuting fallacy. (Which is different from, whether one may be in specific error and even a great many may be in specific error. Indeed, if we look at the original Plato’s Cave parable, it side-steps that by pointing to the one man who is set free and recognises the apparatus of manipulation for what it is, then, having been led to see more widely, returns to try to help, only to face the power of a mass delusion rooted in an evident error that is clung to.)

Instead, we should respect the general capacity of our mental faculties, recognising their strengths as well as limitations, and how playing the general delusion card is self referentially incoherent and absurd.

There is absolutely no good reason to assume or brazenly assert or insinuate that our insight on moral yardstick 1, is delusional. We have instead every good reason to hold that we are morally governed, with conscience as a faculty of mind that serves that government, though it may be dulled or become defective or may be in error on specific . (Much as is so for vision and hearing, etc.)

So, let us follow up:

1 –> Per MY # 1 etc., we see — on pain of absurdity if we try to deny — that there are self-evident moral truths, entailing that we are under the moral government of OUGHT.

2 –> Where by MY # 1, the little child has moral equality, quasi-infinite worth and equal dignity with us as fellow human beings, a status that immediately is inextricably entangled with that s/he has core rights that we OUGHT to respect: her or his life, liberty, personhood, etc.

3 –> So, we are under moral government, which requires a world in which OUGHT rests on a foundational IS that can bear its weight.

4 –> And, I am very aware of the dismissals of “foundationalism” out there, on closer inspection we can readily see that our worldviews and arguments are invariably dependent on finitely distant start points on which the systems of thought or reasoning must stand:

A summary of why we end up with foundations for our worldviews, whether or not we would phrase the matter that way}

5 –> So, also, we confront the challenge that - there is just one serious candidate for such a reality-foundational IS that can bear the weight of OUGHT: the inherently good eternal Creator God, whose precepts and principles will be evidently sound from . . . moral yardstick self evident truths.

6 –> Where also we can highlight the framework of such truths in the context of civil society and government, by citing a pivotal historical case or two. First, that when he set out to ground the principles of what would become modern liberty and democracy, John Locke cited “the judicious [anglican canon Richard] Hooker” in Ch 2 Sect 5 of his second essay on civil government, thusly:

. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man’s hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [[Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [[Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.]

7 –> Less than a hundred years later, this was powerfully echoed in the appeal to self evident moral truths in the US Declaration of Independence of 1776:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That [--> still, held self-evident!] to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government [--> right of judicious reformation and innovation, if necessary backed by the right of just revolution in the face of unyielding tyranny when remonstrance fails and threats or actual violence manifest in "a long train of abuses and usurpations" indicates an intent of unlimited despotism . . . ], laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . .

8 –> Those who would therefore seek to poison the well and the atmosphere for discussion on such matters, need to first pause and soberly address these historically decisive cases.

_______________

Therefore, the amorality of evolutionary materialist ideology stands exposed as absurd in the face of self-evident moral truths. Where, such moral yardsticks imply that we are under government of OUGHT, leading onward to the issue that there is only one serious explanation for our finding ourselves living in such a world — a theistic one. END