I debated whether or not to make this a Biblical entry, but I decided against it. I think this concept applies regardless of whether one believes in the teachings of the Bible or no.

But first, a short vent: I think I'm going to write a book someday called something like 100 Things People Think The Bible Says That It Doesn't. Included in the list will be "God helps those who help themselves," Eve ate an apple[1], Jonah was swallowed by a whale, Satan's name as an angel was Lucifer[2], and "Cleanliness is next to Godliness."

And now the bigger vent, triggered by discussions with my wife: I hate the terms "clean cut" and "really a good kid".

I understand that the first term came about to mean someone who wasn't rebellious, but sometimes, rebellion is a good thing, and sometimes the rebellion is internal. And rebellion is not the only possible vice out there, nor does not having a beard make you any closer to God.

People often use the clause, "He's really a good kid," with the quite disruptive kids in my wife's class. Generally, they really mean, "He's clean cut." Translation: "He doesn't make me feel uncomfortable, because he looks clean and non-rebellious."

Why is our stupid culture so fixated on the outward appearance? They claim to (rightly) hate hypocrisy, yet it runs rampant regardless of one's religious background.

It seems to me that not a small number of those clean cut, "good" boys in high school and college were A) disrespectful of women, B) proud about stupid, immature things, and/or C) overly concerned with pointless, unimportant matters -- all very godly things in every religion I've looked into and also generally encouraged among atheists as well. Um, no.

This all reminds me of a certain rabbi who once said, "Woe to you, whitewashed tombs...."

Tags: anti-favorites, biblical, hypocrisy
Current Location: Our aparment
Current Mood: sick
Current Music: silence

The other day, my wife was asking me about what a talent is. My guess is that most of you would answer to yourselves, "It is a natural gift or ability." But she obviously knows that; she was asking rather about what a "talent" referred to in the Parable of the Talents found in the Gospel of Matthew. I explained that a talent was a unit of currency. I then made a guess that our English term "talent" derived from the common interpretation that the parable was referring to not wasting ones natural abilities.

Later on, I looked up the etymology of "talent" and it seems I was correct in my guess.

I'm not sure how to word my question, but can anyone think of any other words whose origin is the morals of stories? That is, are there any other words that had one meaning, were used metaphorically in some widely known tale, and finally came to take on the metaphorical meaning so strongly that the original meaning of the word was near forgotten?

I'm sure there must be some others, right?

Tags: biblical, etymology, questions
Current Location: Remsen Hall, Johns Hopkins University
Current Mood: eating
Current Music: some awful country, blech!!! (coworker's)

I have written a lot about origins, on various aspects of evolution, creationism, and intelligent design. To summarize these entries and state my views, it is crucial to define things, because a major reason for all the controversy stems from a lack of doing so.

First, the term evolution refers to at least 4 different things:

• Astronomical Evolution -- the very-strongly-supported theory that the solar system and galaxies, etc., came about via small changes over large periods of time as opposed to always having been in their present state.
• Microevolution -- the directly-observed fact that organisms will change traits due to random mutations over multiple generations.
• Macroevolution -- the strongly-supported theory that organisms change from less complicated species to more complicated species due to mutations over multiple generations, as opposed to always having existed in their present state.
• Abiogenesis -- the theory/hypothesis that life arose from non-life due to random formation of complex biochemical molecules from simpler molecules.

Also, we should state that Darwinism, the Theory of Natural Selection, only applies to micro- and macroevolution. And in this sense, the terms are entirely semantic, because the definition of species is very arbitrary.

Second, there is no connection between the theory of the Big Bang and biological evolution. It is entirely possible for one to have occurred without the other.

Third, intelligent design is not creation science. Intelligent design simply states that there is evidence of design in evolution.[1]

Three-and-a-halfth, creationism is not creation science.[2]

Fourth, science is incapable of speaking for certain about origins because it is an historical question. Science is based on observations; because the past cannot (usually) be directly observed or "postdicted", it cannot be used with certainty in that area.

Fifth, one's views on origins -- like any other belief or knowledge -- becomes a matter of faith.


Let's start with astronomical evolution: Here are the traditional views:

Atheistic Evolutionists: The universe began with the Big Bang.

Six-Day Creationists: The universe began when God created it on Day 1.

The problem with the traditional atheistic evolutionist view is that it gives no explanation for how the Big Bang happened. But this is not a scientific issue and so then not a problem at all; it is an historic issue. A deist would say that God, being eternal, created the universe at the Big Bang. An atheist would say that the universe is eternal and cyclical. I believe the former view, being a deist. Now there are many kinds of deists. Creationists are deists too, yet many of them reject the Big Bang. I have spoken many times on how I do not see why they do this. I see no inconsistencies at all with the Genesis account and the Big Bang. A careful reading of Genesis indicates that the universe was created before the famous Six Days.

(Now, sure, God, being God, could do things however He wanted. He could make the stars only appear to be billions of years old. He could have created their light in transit. This is possible, but it seems to overcomplicate things for no reason, and it seems rather deceptive. [Some argue that if Adam could be created as a grown man, why couldn't the stars have been created to look old? My reply is that Adam was not created running. It's not that the stars could not be created old; it's that why would they have been created with their light already in transit?])

Moving on, few people deny microevolution anymore, so I shall skip it.

But what of macroevolution? Is it not the same thing as microevolution? Yes. It is highly likely that all the cats in the world evolved from a single cat. Does this conflict the Bible? In what way would it? Again I see no conflict. What if all the carnivorous mammals descended from one animal? What about this? Does this conflict with the Bible? Who knows? The Bible is not clear as to what animals were around back then? The only conflict the Bible has with macroevolution is common descent. The Bible seems to indicate that there were different varieties of animals to start with. After that, evolution could proceed "without conflict".

Now I see various possibilities:

• Evolution never occurred at all, accept for minor changes within species. (The evidence against this is extremely high.) If so, science is completely wrong, and once again, God appears deceptive.
• Evolution began from a common ancestor. If so...
  • ...either the Bible is a big lie,
  • ...or else the Genesis passages about animals and a Fall of a single man and woman were never meant to be treated as historic or scientific accounts but solely as a monotheistic mythology. (But this seems contrary to the whole of the Bible.)
• Evolution began from a variety of starting points, different kinds of animals. If so, there is little conflict with science and the Bible. (Except that there is some strong evidence for common descent, in that we share certain deletions and "useless/leftover" DNA with other primates and rodents.)

Currently, I lean toward this latter view, though, as I said in the parentheses, there is scientific evidence against this view. Why not then choose the 2nd option, that of common descent? Well, common descent would still require an initiation, I believe, as I state below.

Finally, we have abiogenesis. Here is where science has nothing but pitiful guesses. In this area, it is almost entirely a leap of faith. Now, does this prove the existence of an Intelligent Designer? No, unfortunately for IDers, it does not. But it also does not look good for atheistic abiogenesis-wishers. Is this proof that God created life in Six Days? Not at all. Once again, that is an historic question. And to answer that question, first one has to trust in the validity of the Bible and then one has to interpret the texts. As I have stated many times, I don't personally believe that the Six Days were meant to be taken as literal days. I argue this from textual criticism, not from science. Yet I do not believe in abiogenesis -- I've seen no evidence for it at all. One only needs to believe in abiogenesis if one does not believe in a creative God.

Basically, I have no idea, nor do I think it matters. I think the evidence for life without a God is very slim. In this respect, I am an IDer. But I do not think ID is a science at all. It is a philosophical answer to a why question and does not answer any how questions. ID is not science. I am not a creation scientist, because I think creation science is terrible science. And I think creation scientists misread their sacred texts and ignore the fact that the Bible indicates that the world follows different rules now then it did then. Thus, science is even more useless for proving a six-day creation. So then, the way I see it, science and the Bible both agree that the Big Bang occurred. And the Bible allows for what science claims occurred to the first group of animals. But the period of time between Genesis 1:3 and the Flood will forever be an area that science cannot venture.

---

(Click here for a list of my full entries on origins.)
(Click here for a list of my full entries on creationism.)
(Click here for a list of my full entries on evolution.)
(Click here for a list of my full entries on Intelligent Design Theory.)

Tags: abiogenesis, astronomy, biblical, creationism, evolution, intelligent design, origins, science, summaries
Current Location: Our apartment
Current Mood: tired
Current Music: silence

One of the common arguments given for why homosexuality is morally wrong is that it is unnatural. Those who are against this notion, wanting to accept homosexuality as morally neutral like heterosexuality, are quick to point out that this argument is absurd, for homosexuality exists quite abundantly in nature.

Sadly, those who hold that the Bible is authoritative oftentimes claim that the apostle Paul himself makes this same argument that homosexuality does not exist in nature. (He does not, as I will explain shortly.)

However, the argument is only absurd if one takes one of the definitions of "natural". There are at least two definitions for "nature". The one involves the physical realm in which all of us, along with the animals and plants and all of outer space, are a part. The other, however, is not so defined.

na•ture n 1 a : the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : ESSENCE

Anyone trying to argue that something is morally wrong because it does not exist among the animals is going to fail miserably. But there is an entirely different concept for which we use the word natural, that is, nature does not always involve genes or the laws of physics. The other definition of "nature" is a more philosophical one. If I say that it is against John's nature to have given that candy to that child, I am saying that something about John's essence is inherently opposed to generosity; John is not generous.

The one definition is a very physical definition; the other is a very metaphysical definition.

Unfortunately, the common world view of the day is that there is no metaphysics, only physics; nothing has an essence outside of being made up of physical atoms. For a positivist/naturalist, the nature/essence of someone or something is simply the natural/physical make-up.

What the apostle Paul was arguing was that it is metaphysically not in the essence of being a male to have sex with other males. (And in the Greek, as I have hinted previously, there are two words for the two senses of what we call "nature". The physical sense -- especially the not artificial or man-made sense -- is expressed by αυτοφυης autophues; the metaphysical term is φυσις phusis. Paul uses the latter.)

Such an argument implies a Designer and a purpose for humanity and masculinity, which positivism/naturalism denies. It is foolish, then, for the holder of the first world view to argue within his or her view using arguments that fundamentally rest on that world view. You cannot win an argument when the two sides do not even share the same starting points.

Tags: animals, biblical, definitions, deism, ethics, logical flaws, nature, philosophy, world views
Current Location: Our apartment
Current Mood: okay
Current Music: Peter Gabriel

One of my pet peeves is when people, speaking or writing about Biblical texts, say something such as, "The Greek word used in this passage is [usually blatantly mispronounced word], which literally means..." and then go on to say or write a whole paragraph.

Hello!? (perfect spot for an interobang...) Do you not know what literally means? Greek and Hebrew are not some super-special languages of paragraph precision. All you do when you say such a thing is to admit, "I have no idea whatsoever about linguistics, nor can I read Greek or Hebrew; I am only repeating incorrectly something I read once and thought was cool or otherwise fit perfectly with the twist I wanted to give to this passage."

And then the rest of the uneducated leave thinking, "Wow! this passage has so much more meaning to me now." *sigh*

No, Greek and Hebrew are just as ambiguous as any other language out there -- sometimes more so, sometimes less so. All languages have strengths and weaknesses. Usually, a literal translation gives less information, because a word alone never conveys all the meaning of what is said or written.

Tags: anti-favorites, biblical, definitions, ignorance, linguistics, precision, translation
Current Location: JHU Milton S. Eisenhower Library
Current Mood: annoyed
Current Music: silence

And without further ado, Lhynard returns to his public entries with a bang...!

This post is inspired by a series of book reviews by jeltzz on the book Marriage: Sex in the service of God and the comments from him and izaaksmom there and has been percolating[1, 2] in my mind for some time now. My (wonderful, beautiful wedding) kept me from sharing my thoughts till now. This post isn't directly related to marriage, per se, but rather in the idea of "primary purposes" in general.

First, what is a primary purpose? Mr. Webster says:

¹pur·pose 1 a : something set up as an object or end to be attained : INTENTION

Now then, if the purpose of something is or is linked to an intention, it seems to me that nothing can have a purpose without a designer intending that thing to have that purpose.

This is not to be an entry on Intelligent Design "Theory", though it may seem that way at this point. It should be no secret that I believe in a God/Designer, but what mechanism He used in the creation of the universe is not my topic here. My question is whether or not we can even use the word purpose for things without a known designer. And if so, how can we do this? Can we redefine the word "purpose" or rather generalize its meaning to make it more practical -- including designed and (possibly) undesigned objects?

Second, what might be the best way to determine the primary purpose of something? If the primary purpose is based on the primary intent of the author or designer, isn't the most direct way to find out from that designer or author?

But what if this author/designer is silent on the topic? Is there a reasonable way at guessing at the primary purpose?

I think there can be if one links the primary purpose of an object with that object's definition, with that object's very existence in one sense. (A secondary purpose could then be considered one that does not link with that object's definition.)

For example, what is the primary purpose of a car? Is it to make the owner look wealthy? Is it to provide a place for road-trippers to sleep? Is it to provide power to charge one's cell phone? Certainly, one can intend to use his or her car for any of these purposes. However, was this why the car was made or invented? I think not. These purposes are secondary.

But what is the definition of a car?

car 1 : a vehicle moving on wheels

If a car does not move on wheels, it is no longer a car. If a car does not move, it is considered to be a broken car. Can it not then be said that a car's primary purpose is to move, to provide -- in most cases -- transportation?

If a car loses any of its secondary purposes, it can still be a car. If my car ceases being able to charge my phone, it is still a car. If my car has the seats removed, such that sleeping and drive-in movies are no longer very feasible, it is still a car, because it still can move.

This way of determining a primary purpose does so without an interview with the inventor of the car. In other words, the existence or nonexistence of the car's inventor is not relevant to determining the purpose of the car. Or if the inventor of the car does not tell us the primary purpose of his invention, we can still make a good guess at it. If it does not do its purpose, it would not be that invention anymore.

We need not stop with man-made objects. What is the primary purpose of a mouth? It is not to speak, because not all mouths speak. It is not just an opening; that is far too general a definition. A door is not a mouth. It is not to breath; one can also breath through nostrils, and some animals use even other methods of respiration. Is it not to eat? All mouths eat. Eating is what makes a mouth a mouth and not just another orifice. Breathing, spitting, smiling, kissing, then, all must be considered secondary purposes.

I bring all this up to clarify how I think of primary purposes in general. As for specifics, as I mentioned, the topic has come up in regards to the primary purpose of marriage and of sex, but also of men and of women, in the last few months. For those interested, my thoughts on some specifics:

( marriage according to the Bible )

( sex )

Edit: I shall probably write more about this topic later, but for now, please read the comments for a continuation and addendum to my thoughts.

Tags: biblical, definitions, marriage, philosophy, purpose, sex
Current Location: our apartment
Current Mood: bouncy because my wife is in the room with me
Current Music: Switchfoot, "Stars" (LaunchCast mix)

I get bothered when I hear people state things about the Bible that are simply not in the Bible at all, such as Jonah being swallowed by a whale (It does not specify a whale.) or God helping those who help themselves (That was Ben Franklin, I do believe).

I think that two of the biggest pet-peeves/anti-favorites I hear are caused by Milton in Paradise Lost. In that well-written poem, he refers to Eve eating an apple (It never says it was an apple.) and he portrays Adam as eating the apple solely so that Eve would not die alone. He decided to join her in her death because he loved her. It also paints Eve as flawed from the start, wrongfully wandering off all alone.

This is not what the Bible indicates. Actually, it states that Adam was right there with her. There is no indication that he ate out of any sort of self-sacrifice. Were this the case, he likely would have thrown that excuse in when confronted by God. Instead, he only blamed God for creating the woman. No, Adam was fully responsible for his fall.

---

inspired by commadre's last post

Tags: anti-favorites, biblical, books, the fall
Current Location: Remsen Hall, Johns Hopkins University
Current Mood: tired
Current Music: silence

I will preface this post by clarifying that this is not a flaw with creationism, but rather with "creation science", which attempts to use science to support the idea of creationism.

(Ordinarily, I do not post Bible-related posts save on Wednesdays, but this one is not really that much about the Bible....)

(...and actually, strict atheistic evolutionists make this error too as I will mention below....)

Science, as I have said many times, is primarily based on observations. Because of this, it cannot make statements with nearly as much certainty about origins as it can about current happenings. Because none of us were there in the beginning, we cannot observe it, so our "postdictions" are based on the assumption that things are the same now as then. In the same way, none of us can observe the far future, so our scientific predictions about what will happen are also based on the same assumption that the way we observe things now will be then the way things are now. History has thus far shown these to be reasonable assumptions to the point that, in practice, most people take the assumption as one of the postulates[1] of their world view. I think that unless we see reason not to hold this assumption, it is a fair one.

However, the Bible, if it is taken literally, very clearly indicates major changes in the physical world. It seems to indicate an emergence of death and decay when before there was none. It also indicates long life in at least humans. It indicates vegetarianism among animals that today would die on such a diet. It indicates that it never rained. In fact, until the Great Flood, pretty much the entire physical world seems to have been very, very different.

Now, the point of this entry is not to debate whether one should take the Bible literally or listen to it at all. My point is this: If you take the Bible to be literal, and if you are a creationist, then you should know better than to try and use science to support your views, because science assumes that the rules the physical universe follows now are the same as they were then and the Bible clearly indicates otherwise if taken literally. In other words, the very physical laws must have been different before the Fall and/or the Flood, so it is pointless to bring science into it.

Likewise, for those of you evolutionists seeking to prove the first 10 or so chapters of Genesis false with science: It cannot be done emphatically in this way, because the Bible never claims the world followed the same rules before the Fall or Flood as it does now. (You can still attack the Bible's validity, sure.)

I am not saying that creationists cannot study science. Not at all. I am only saying that science cannot be used to say much of anything about events before the Flood.

And oddly enough, I have not read anyone else saying this. Why is this point ignored by both sides of the issue?

Tags: biblical, creationism, logical flaws, origins, science, the flood
Current Mood: tired
Current Music: silence