Shifting Gears

In our ongoing discussion of homosexuality, it seems that the debate's fulcrum is whether or not their is validity to one basing his morals on the Bible. Notice that the question is not whether or not the Bible contains good morals, whether it is a basically good book to follow if one wishes to be a moral person. The question is whether one can legitimately base his entire ethical view of the world on the Bible. If the pro-homosexuality camp (cat) could demonstrate that is is not legitimate to base one's moral positions on the Bible then he could effectively discard any positive biblical argument purported by the anti-homosexuality camp (dog). But anti-homosexuality does not find its only basis in the Bible. Appeals to nature may rightly be made, and they too could be somewhat easily shot down. This truism causes us to shift our earlier suggestion that the debate's fulcrum hangs on the valid basis of Scripture as the authority on morality. To be anti-homosexuality is not to be a biblicist. Conversely, to be a biblicist is not to be pro-homosexuality. And now we're confronted with the problem of hermeneutics. But hermeneutics doesn't even matter if one is not a biblicist, or doesn't place at least some. credence in the comments of Scripture on issues. If one can however demonstrate the reasonableness of the Biblical worldview, then he has forced us all to listen to his hermeneutic, which should leave us with a solid opinion of homosexuality. We may at this point disagree, but we may not say that his opinon is unreasonable. We'd have to admit that. A reasonable opinion should not be confused with a true opinion. This is a trap that many the debater falls into. Many seem to think that if you can prove that something is reasonable, logical, and consistent, then you have proven the truth of it, but this itself is self-contradictory. In the end the truth of anything is not based on its logical consistency, or reasonableness, for these are subject to the an almost infinite amount of perspectives, impossible to wade through, but simply upon whether or not it is true. To say that something is reasonable is to say that it could be true, but not to say that it definitely true. However, if something is unreasonable, then it is definitely more suspect, though the arguer may simply be unskilled at argument, and unable to find the reasonable anecdote. When you really start to think about it, it all becomes crazy. Simply put. If something is true then it is reasonable. But that doesn't mean that if something is reasonable that it is true. If an argument is unreasonable it may not mean that the truth being argued is false, although it may mean that. I believe that the dogs have a reasonable basis for their belief that it is not okay to be gay. I also believe that the cats have a reasonable basis for their opinion. On this issue, both cannot be right. I believe faulty arguments are employed by both. With that said, the reasoable proof of the Bible as a valid all encompassing authority on morality is possible, and if properly demonstrated cannot be dismissed. But if someone is unwilling, that is in their will, to accept that the Bible is an authority, no amount of proving can persuade them. The will is the last thing to succumb to truth. And it's probably true that the will may be all their is when it comes to beliefs.

I am veering from the path I set out in the earlier post. I believe I have made my point. Hopefully both sides can see that there coming from such different perspectives that debate is nearly impossible. That is all I was trying to demonstrate. What is of particular interest to me is showing, not why it's reasonable to believe the Bible, but why the Bible is uncompromisingly anti-homosexuality. But also how current "Christian" attitudes toward homosexuals is uncompromisingly unbiblical. And also how this is a symptom of a bigger wolrdview problem that may accurately be called a crisis, and that problem is manifest in how Christians see themselves in relation to the world, which I believe has been very unbiblical, untrue, and unfortunate as of late.

What Do I Really Believe?

Here's a good line in the song of a good band and a good album:

"I suffer from a lack of seratonin. Synapses they happen too infrequently for me to be functioning properly."



Today I relayed my basic emotional state to my barista friend. This basic state being me irritated for absolutely no reason. He said, "Seasonal depression, everybody's got it". I think it comes from a lack of melatonin." To which I said, "You mean seratonin". He said, "Oh yeah, it is seratonin" There was a pause, and then he said, "Are you sure?". And I said, "Yeah, melatonin is what gives your skin its pigmentation". Then he said, "Yeah, but I thought maybe it had something to do with depression and your brain too. To which I said. "I don't know". If a doctor or professor of biology had been eaves dropping he would have either laughed or been really annoyed. But the whole exchange made me think. How affected are human emotions by rates of synapses? Do the speed of synapses determine the emotion, or does the emotion determine the speed of synapses?
I was reading a little about Epicurean philosophy the other day, which seems to me to be the most fascinating philosophy I have stumbled upon yet. I will try to sum it up as best as I can. Basically the epicurean believes that all that exists is either space or material, including the soul. Everything we see is a combination of atoms which give things their distinct shape. The complex atoms that make up human beings have a will all of their own. But, like all atoms are destined to eventually be divided, and this is death, and death is nothing more than this. Even our souls, against the Platonic conception, are material things made up of similar, but not identical atoms. I say this to say, that I think the Epicurean would answer my question by saying saying "yes and yes". Others would obviously disagree? As for me, there is a certain appeal for me to Epicureanism. It makes sense. It relieves the fear of dying, since memory is erased along with consciousness. Nonexistence after having experienced existence is just like nonexistence before experienceing existence. What we have is today to enjoy. I like it because it defends itself against immoral hedonism, by pointing out that it is an empirical fact that often the most pleasureable choices in the moment lead to much more pain later. The basis of morality is then pleasure which includes moderation, contemplation, and compassion. I like this. I like this a lot.
But what of my faith? Where does my faith collide with Epicureanism and make them untenable together. I don't think my faith tends to care about the nature of the soul, only that it is distinct from the body, and that those who have faith in Christ will place it in a new uncorrupted body. What then of the corrupt soul? Epicureanism denies original sin, and dismisses it as an illusion based on an irrational fear of death. Salvation in Epricureanism bypasses the cross in favor of rational enlightenment. But for the Christian, the fear of death is erased not by rationalism, but by faith in the Resurrection. It kind of bothers me that I am so attracted to this philosophy that is in such starch opposition to my faith. I simply cannot be a Christian Epicurean. To resolve this I defer to Blaise Pascal and his famous or infamous wager. For if I am a Christian and Epicureanism is true, then I am okay when I die. But if I am an Epicurean and Christianity is true, then I am in trouble. To some extent Pascal's wager, without context, appears to be a most heinous acceptance of fear in deferrment to the crudest form of intellectual dishonesty. But the point is well taken. When it comes to the afterlife, you have nothing to lose if your a Christian. You have a 100% chance of being okay, assuming that all things are equal.
But with Christianity, true Christianity, there is always something to lose. In order to be a Christian, you have to give it up now, in faith you will receive it later. If life is lived in this way, and your faith is proven to be false, then it is the Apostle Paul's exclamation that bears acceptance instead of Pascal's. "For if there is no Resurrection, than I am to be pitied above all men". We are required to live our lives in such a way that if we are wrong, then we are the most pitiable of creatures. Only then will we truly be "little Christs" a.k.a. Christians. Otherwise, we may as well be Epicureans. The stakes are high. We may be wrong either way. We have to ask ourselves. What do I really believe?

Poems

Lines

Stay in between the lines; where your independance and pride reside

Try not to venture out to the fringes where people end up places you never wanted them to be.

You won't be happy anymore

Cherish the prime time

Flip past the ten o'clock news

Prepare yourself for late night laughs; and get ready for visions of men screaming lies into your flaky eyes

Flip some more and flip again until you fall asleep

Go outside the lines the law requires you to stay in

Cause the law was set up to kill you and you don't want that

Mock the pitiful souls standing uniformily close together inside their walls of death

And stand alone boy stande alone

And by alone I mean all by yourself

The show won't start without you cause you're already there

With your right foot inside the line and your left foot outside

Face the north in 2 dimensions

Pay no attention to the 3rd dimension or the 4th

Nevermind the 5th

When somebody asks you why you walk like a penguin just tell them that you're trying to stay balanced

And when they snicker, snicker back cause you know they're bound to fall

And fall hard they will, and stop they won't

A Regressive Code of Morality(The Rise of Absurdity)

Carbon copy destinies

twisted

Tied knots on top of

withered epiphanies

Cramped neatly folded inside

To get a cozy moment just in time for

The unapathetic Dramatic exeunt tonight

They don't know what they want they just want to know who's not as happy as they are

They don't wanna be who they are they just wonder who they're supposed to be

But if they could be me they'd be no different

A Corrosive exotic mess layers the floor

Wreaks nasty now confess you don't want anymore

But cheerful you give your stony brow away

To suitors wroth with nothing nice to say

They don't know what they want they just want to know who's not as happy as they are

They don't wanna be who they are they just wonder who they're supposed to be

But if they could be me they'd be no different

Talked to a mistress so fair

Talked to a martyr who cared

Talked to a manic so proud

Talked to a maiden so loud

Talked to a Christian with doubts

Talked to Christ-Child on clouds

Talked to a foreigner Friday

Talked to a freed slave

(repeat)

Presuppositions and Faith

I propose a rough overview of a philosophy which I espouse to. I don't want to say that I made it up. By I have never heard or read it in the way I am about to say it before. I know deep down that it's not as original as I would like to think. I do not think that it is complete or all encompassing... yet. Here it is.

All knowledge is founded on a presupposition. I define presupposition as; "a belief held to be foundational, and true in the deepest sense of the word. A presupposition is unverifiable by a rational or empirical evidence. It is accepted a priori". It is expected however that logic and reason carry the presupposition to it's ethical conclusions. Ethics is the end of knowledge.
Paradoxically, since all presuppositions are unverifiable, no philosophy can be discredited on the whole. A foundation upon abstract ideals cannot be shown to be faulty by abstract arguments. It can only be proved to faulty when the storms come. It can be called out on logical insconsistencies, but this does not serve to take down the structure. It may only remove a brick. This brick and foundation illustration is not perfect. With a house if you remove the right single brick you may tear down the house. I am not assuming that all bricks are of equal importance. To be true I think of logic constricted to a line, not consisting as a structure. Therefore, the presupposition is maintained. All presuppositions are unverifiable, and by that truth, also incapable of being proved faulty except by eschatology.
This explains, but does not resolve conflict. All philsophies exist to explain. Most exist to resolve. Some make no such distinctions between the two; the explanations are the resolutions.
Objectivity is subject to mystery.
My personal presupposition leads to a complicated ethic in the particulars. But on the whole, I have concluded, based on my philosophical presupposition, that all humans are brothers and sisters who must be served, cared for, and protected. That some people are too selfish to acknowledge this is God's problem. All will be made right. And the foundation of Jesus Christ will prove itself to be a solid foundation.

The Burden of Proof

Who's court is the "burden ball" in? Is it in the court of pro or con homosexuality? In other words, is it up to the anti-homosexuality club to prove the immorality of homosexuality , or is it up to the pro homosexuality club to prove the amorality, if not the morality of homosexuality? Is it right for me to say that the ball is in the middle of the court; that both sides must determine to build their own case, to understand the objections of the other side and to deal with them. In order for there to be progress in this, neither side can be dismissed out of hand. The pro-homosexuality cat must not dismiss the anti-homosexuality position as too religiously motivated to be considered. The anti-homosexuality dog must not dismiss the pro homosexuality position as outside of biblical teaching, as if that seals the deal. I am assuming that anti-homosexuality dogs generally disagree with pro homosexuality cats because of their firm beliefs in the literalness of the Bible. Likewise, I am assuming that the cats generally oppose the dogs because of their presuppositoins about reason and it's foundation, assuming that belief in Scripture as authoritative is unreasonable. So with these upcoming discussions, and forgoing debates, I want to show why "the bible says so" is a frivolous way to argue against homosexualiy. But I also would like to esatblish that a biblical worldview is indeed reasonable. Of course, this would take volumes. A volumous work of this magnitude, I am of course not prepared to take on, but I believe that if I can clearly set up what I see as the true battleground of this debate, then true progress can be made. With that said, I do not seek to actually establish anything in the strictest sense of the word establish in the upcoming posts. In short, if one side is yelling; "Homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says so!" and the other side retorts with a shout; "The Bible is full of contradictions and untrustworthy", then this is a debate destined to be debating's version of Vietnam, with the pro homosexuality cats winning by default.

In my next post, I will try to articulate and define a "biblical worldview". From there I will attempt to argue that a biblical worldview is both unscientific, yet reasonable enough that it cannot be flippantly tossed aside as it seems it often is. I will then discuss the passages that discuss homosexuality and see if we can come up with a reason why the biblical authors opposed it.

In the post after that I will play devil's advocate, and attempt to dismantle the biblical worldview as articulated in the previous post. And establish a position that morality cannot be based upon ancient writings.

My hope is that this exercise will show clearly the debate battleground, and also that there cannot be a clear winner, if the debaters are equal in skill. The only way to change your mind, no matter which side you're on, is to change your presuppositions. At this point the only reasonable thing to do is to actively love your opponent, or change your mind. The most unreasonable thing to do is to actively oppose and ostracize your fellow man. Christians, this is unbecoming of your leader, whose ways you follow, who spent time with prostitutes, and ate with traitors. Homosexuals, we Christians in our ongoing struggle with Scripture and how it affects our lives, reserve the right to be wrong, but also if we become convinced that your lifestyle is sinful, reserve the right to respectfully side with truth, which is not the same thing as opposing you. We are on your side. You don't have to believe it. I speak for real Christians, not the bigots and ignorant who are always hijacking the name.

Can we talk about something?

Why is it that logic, rationality, respect, dignity, and objectivity seem to go right out the window when people try to discuss certain topics? In particular, I'm thinking of the topic of homosexuality. I think that this is the case because the two parties involved both believe the opinions that they are holding are moral imperatives. One party thinking homosexuality is wrong, the other thinking that if you think it's wrong you're on par with racists. This is an oversimplification, but it serves to the get the train rolling. But people can change the moral imperatives can't they? Shouldn't they at least be open to it, I mean we're talking about morals? I'm willing to be wrong, but I won't concede to utter subjectivity, sensationalism, and sentimentality. I will listen to anybody who's willing to work through an issue with honesty, and respect. But as soon as those boundaries are crossed it's not a discussion worth having, but it does need to happen, that is the discussion. Let us listen to what each other is trying to say, and if we cannot agree, let us above all love one another. I will be writing more about this topic, offering by own opinions. I hope we can get somewhere.

Doobie Doobie Doo

Does anyone remember the commercial from the nineties with this penguin who had Frank Sinatra's voice and said "doobie, and doobie, doo"? Actually the creepy little penguin sang it. It was a promotion for the Stanley Cup Finals in hockey. And it was infectious. I remember singing it, against my will everyday all day. I had a love hate relationship with that little penguin. He was everywhere. He went to hockey games. He rode in caravans. He bought plane tickets, all with only two words to his vocabulary, that is if doobie and doo are words.

Homestar

Homestarrunner.com is saweet. Everyone says that there the first one to see the site, but everyone is lying. You did not introduce this site to the world. It introduced itself. It is the perfect commentary on Generation X with constantly genius references to even pre Gen X Americana. They are not paying me. I promise. I just thought of this out of nowwhere and thought it might be a worthy post subject.

Sometimes you're not allowed to have an opinion. This is freeing. Really. Sometimes people have opinions about things that don't require opinions. Sometimes it doesn't matter if you're wrong. (I am talking to myself, and its actually quite therapeutic) But I still think its true. I have learned that the wise person is able to discern the difference between things that warrant an opinion and things that do not. I have learned that the wise person is not afraid to be wrong. But I have also learned that the wise person is not afraid to speak out when he knows he's right. Some people in this postmodern generation aren't as afraid of being wrong as they are of being right. Actually it may be the case that we are so afraid of being wrong, we postulate a universal principle of relativity so that we can never be wrong.

Also just because logic is useful, doesn't mean that it's the key to all truth. It's more like a key to material truth. And do not mistake "material" for "natural".

We ought not to be so afraid of personal contradictions. There is a difference between having personal contradictions and being a hypocrite. Some contradictions are harmless and some are not. The ones that you are aware of that are harmful need to be taken care lest they become even more harmful. But the other side of the coin is that some of us spend too much time trying to be consistent. At the end of the day we're all walking contradictions, and we're all too focused on ourselves. So wisdom is kind of this balancing act between not being contradictory and accepting yourself for who you are. This is why Jesus says, "Don't judge lest you be judged yourself." We all condemn ourselves every time we condemn someone else. Let's just let it go. Nobody's perfect.

Super Bowl Thoughts

The Pittsburgh Steelers have been to 7 Super Bowls. They have won 6. If this statement was less appalling, and less fascinating it could be critisized for being as sickening a display of negating redundancy as every public comment that John Madden has ever made. (I kinda like being wordy) Half of the league has never even won 1 Super Bowl, and 5 teams have never even been to the big show. These fans are spoiled. Unless they are hardcore Pirates fans, they know very little of the misery many longsuffering sports fans across the country feel. But I highly doubt that even a tenth of Steelers nation are Pirates fans. This doesn't seem fair. Where is the karma?

What was the deal with the commercials last night? If that wasn't a sign of the state of the economy, I don't know what was. How many soft porn godaddy.com commericials can they show? And the absolute lack of funny beer commercials made me a little uncomfortable. I am totally used to funny beer commercials. Bruce was Bruce if Bruce was old, but still awesome, if you're being objective. If you're living on emotion (like me) Bruce is painfully melodramtic, and ridiculously overrated, but entertaining, just like LOST and American Idol.

I realize that in one way, because it was the winning touchdown, that Santonio Holmes catch was worthy of winning him the MVP, but wasn't it obvious that James Harrison's 100 yard pick six was the difference in the whole game? My man almost died. Did you see him after running over every person in the stadium wearing red and white, and a couple of refs, and 5 squirrels? If the Cardinals get a touchdown there, they win. If they get a field goal, win. If Kurt Warner throws the pick and Harrison runs 99 yards, Cardinals=Lombardi. How is Harrison not the MVP? The only way I can figure is if the voting committee was Lebron James and the MVP nod was reward for the cheesy Lebron chalk thing.

Yes. I like sports. Grow up. At least I don't drink Decaf or listen to Fall Out Boy. Wait...