MarkPele's Xanga

Is Neutrality "Good"?

Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:49:04 GMT

Hi all, I'm back again, at least temporarily. I was transferred at work to a location where I couldn't access Xanga during the day and ended up falling into the "Open Diary" crowd. You can see my posts there under the same name....

I'm starting a series over there on the myth of religious neutrality. My objective is to prove that, first of all, neutrality cannot exist in a state, and second that it is not proveable that neutrality is an inherently good thing. I'd like to bounce this discussion off of people here before I inundate the more liberal/atheistic crowd at OD with too many posts.

What is "good"?

I have a very articulate Athiest/Libertarian friend, and we debated whether state neutrality towards religion is "good".
AL: "Of course it's good"
MP: "Why?"
AL: "Because everyone agrees that it's good."
MP: "Well, I don't agree that it's good. I think the state should be Christian."
AL: "You're just 10% of the people. 90% think that neutrality is good, and what about all the other religions?"
MP: "Was it wrong to send the Japanese Americans into concentration camps?"
AL: "Of course"
MP: "But it was wildly popular. The governor of Colorado lost re-election because he apologized to those citizens who were held in those camps."

--- So here we have the inconsistency in the argument of neutrality. Neutrality is a good thing because it's popular. I then understand the implicit Atheistic argument that popular=good. So, here's the argument and rebuttal.

Neutrality=popular
<popular=good>
therefore Neutrality=good.

Japanese detainment=popular
<popular=good>
therefore Japanese detainment=good.
Yet, that argument fails because we all agree that Japanese detainment was not good. Now if you went back to World War II, you would not be able to make this argument, but now that we are wiser, it's simple.

So, we've just blown a colossal hole in the premise of humanism - that morality=popular opinion. (popular=good). And we find that, in fact, good is something that the specific humanist determines is good based on his own intellect.

So, now, religious neutrality cannot be argued on the basis of popularity. What standard can the humanist bring to bear on this debate? I think the only argument is based on the history of religious intolerance and fighting, which, although a worthy argument to consider, still doesn't answer the question at hand. If my concepts of murder are based on Biblical values and not on Muslim values, then I've inherently given creedence to the Judeo-Christian morals, whether I want to say that or not. Thus, if women have rights, and private property exists and I have a right of privacy from government intrusion, then I've just checked off a whole set of boxes that are squarely in the Judeo-Christian camp. So, who's neutral now? We have recently begun to shed the benefits of Judeo-Christianity in the sense of a stonger, more invasive federal government and the concept that rights come from the government at its discretion. This is because the philosophical underpinning of justice and morality comes only from a proper understanding of our relationship towards each other and our Creator - the God of the Bible.

Mathematics, Physics and proofs for the existence of God

Thu, 19 Oct 2006 10:28:29 GMT

    For all you Christians out there, I'm sure that someone, somewhere asked you to basically prove that God exists. Whether it was some offhanded comment about the problem of evil or a direct confrontation, it happened. Now how did you respond? Most try to prove God from what the Bible says or from nature - the complexity of life or, even like C.S. Lewis, try to prove God from our thoughts about right and wrong. All of these seem steeped in futility, but why is this so? Because the existence of God is axiomatic.

    An axiom is something in mathematics that you can't (or think you can't) prove, but seems to stand up to scrutiny. That's it. Axioms are necessary, because you have to start from somewhere, and that starting point can never be proven, otherwise it isn't a starting point. Addition is an axiom. Think about it. Try proving that 1+1=2 or 2+2=4. I asked this of my Sunday School class. They said, "well, you get two rocks and you put them side by side. One rock + one rock = two rocks." BAH! That's no proof. It's an axiom. Who says that what seems to work (at this instant) for rocks works for a, b and c? You see, the word asks the impossible. You can't prove an axiom. You can only add circumstantial evidence.

    But, is this concept so foreign? While Mathematics just labels addition as an axiom and moves on, because mathematicians don't really put a lot of thought into axioms. They just state them and move on to what interesting things are the results of those axioms.

    What about Physics? It's the same thing. You have laws. Now scientists hold up Evolution as a theory, but what is it really? It's an axiom. The scientists will never prove Evolution. Scientists can't prove gravity, they can't prove relativity. Ah, you say, "but I can conduct experiments that show gravity exists." But I can say that a billion experiments cannot prove gravity, because, gravity may not work the billion+1th time. It's an axiom. You assume that it's true, state it and move on. Physicists are often wrong about their theories. Classical physics is, at best, a convenient approximation of relativity, and a convenient aggregation of the shadowy happenings of Quantum physics.

    All axioms appear to be circular logic. I've been accused of circular logic more times than I can count. Why? Because I treat God as an axiom. When you talk about 1+1=2, you don't spend time considering what would happen if 1+1 equaled 3. You take two rocks or fingers or coins and show that 1+1=2. But that is a circular proof. You are starting from the conclusion that 1+1=2 to prove 1+1=2. In the same way, the Bible claims to be Gods Word, and the Bible claims that God Exists. Those who believe the Bible understand that it is a circle. Those who don't want to break it up. You believe God because the Bible claims He exists, and you believe the Bible because you think it is the word of God. Circular logic.

    The important thing with every so-called axiom, or theory, is that it withstands scrutiny. You may get ridiculed for believing in God, but the existence of God withstands scrutiny. Why isn't God scientific? Because the scientists declared that He is not scientific. That's why Intelligent Design is so hated among scientists. It cuts at the very heart of their denial of God. For better or worse, science has been declared to be the study of only measurable things. God cannot be measured, therefore God cannot be shown by science. The next step, which science loves to take, is that God cannot exist. But even in "explaining" Evolution, science actively denies God, which leads it to erroneous results. Think about it. Here's a bit of evidence, the evidence can easily fit with Creation/Biblical accounts, or it is a quandary for evolution to solve. Since I can't use the Bible to explain the evidence, I must accept the quandary and move on. Thus science has stabbed itself in the back by forcing an explanation for something that it cannot answer.

My first Irene post?

Wed, 11 Oct 2006 02:13:41 GMT

Since we're having another child, my dear wife has been encouraging me to put our two-year old Irene to bed. This, thus far has been an exercise in frustration. Even a week or so ago when mom left to go shopping, Irene had a fit - so much that I had to go back in and comfort her after mom got home.

Tonight was different. I said, "Irene, time to get ready for bed." No complaints, no fussing, no asking for mommy. In fact, I took her out to give mommy a goodnight hug and she said, "back to daddy?" A few rounds of "in a cabin by the woods" later, and she willingly climbed into bed and has since not made a sound. Usually she's somewhat fussy until I walk out of the room and then starts crying as soon as I leave. Mommy and I spent a good minute between, "I can't believe what just happened!" and just staring at each other in disbelief.

Debate?

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:01:10 GMT

I'm starting to think that I am very strange. I've started to realize that many people don't like to debate. I grew up in a family where there was nothing more mentally invigorating than a good argument, which would escalate to the point where we were yelling at each other, but it would rarely turn into a fight. In fact, I think that some of my brothers purposefully did/said things to start these arguments, especially if they thought they had some new angle on winning it.

I tend to participate in various blogs more as a matter of debate. I LOVE DEBATING. In verbal debates, I get too excited and start getting louder, which doesn't go over too well, but in written debates, there is time to think and respond. Loudness seems to be an overwhelming force when there is no time to think how to respond. ;)

But, what I've noticed is that many, if not most people don't like to debate. They want to state their opinion as if it's the Word of God, and then they expect everyone to say, "Wow! That was so insightful it left me with no way to respond!" I think Jesus and the Apostles were some of the few people who had this knack. Jesus could thoughtfully listen to the best debaters and then say the one sentence that not only tore their argument apart, but showed them the kernel of truth that they were missing. His detractors were almost always left with no way to respond. I am nowhere near that, but I tend to think of myself as being able to pick apart many arguments.

I find this sadly true in the church as well. Maybe it is my problem and not the problem of others. Our church has a long history of Reformed doctrine, and many of our beliefs are based on long-standing traditions. There are a few that I disagree with, but what I've seen is a reluctance to really search out the issue and more of a desire to turn it into an up or down vote with a short, poorly defended paper.

In fact, our highest court, and those of most other churches choose NOT to debate issues on the floor. What they choose instead is to appoint a few men to study the issue and then write a report. That report is shortly debated on the floor, and then given an up or down vote. That system is easy to exploit. In a trick learned from our Congress, papers seem to be loaded with riders. In other words, someone who knows they would lose if they challenged each individual issue they disagreed with puts them all together along with some of the other complaints he has heard, and all of the sudden, you have a paper that might pass, not because the majority agrees with each point, but because somehow the church has chosen to restrict itself to an up or down vote on every paper.

While we don't know everything about what happened in Acts 15, we know that the first court DEBATED the most critical issue on the floor, decided on an approach, and THEN wrote a paper justifying their decision to pass back to all the churches.

I would expect no less if I wrote a thoughtful paper to the courts of the church. I would expect thoughtful consideration and a thoughtful response that was the collective opinion of the church, not the opinion of a few men. In other words, when I read a paper, I expect not only the "what" to be the opinion of the church, but also the "why".

I guess I must be strange.

On the lighter side

Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:34:03 GMT

Okay, all this stuff is a bit of heavy thinking. Here's something I saw today, which I thought was pretty cool. Extreme Hammock! Check it out. It's way too extreme for me. http://www.jamesdeane.com/ExtremeHammock/album/index.html

Open session meetings...

Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:48:47 GMT

So, why would our Synod decide that session meetings should be closed? Well, apparently, the issue is that "sensitive" issues are discussed, and those issues would not be appropriate for general members of the congregation. Well, that's not exactly the issue, because that's what "executive session" is for. The problem is that some issue might come up and in dealing with the issue, a typical member may get more information than they should. Here is what was brought up.
E1: What do we think about the possibility of Joe as a deacon?
E2: We should discuss this in executive session.
[members are dismissed at this point]
The assumption here is that the members in attendance now know that there is a problem with Joe that would preclude him from being a deacon. For two reasons I deny this. The first is that the session should not be bringing up this PERSONAL discussion in the public part of the meeting anyway. The very question is inviting opinion that is not appropriate for open discussion. The second is that there are many reasons why Joe might not be qualified to be a deacon, many of which are not sinful. For example, Joe may have confided to elder 2 that he doesn't feel ready to be a deacon. Joe may be working with elder 2 on understanding the nature of the office and elder 2 would like to complete the study. In either case, any member who then talks about this is a slanderer and a gossip, just as if the member had slipped a tape recorder in the meeting to record the executive session.

I was personally challenged with this statement: "The session is not accountable to the congregation, but is accountable to Jesus Christ alone." On the surface, I think this is very true. The session's rulings can only be appealed to the higher courts. However, there are different levels of accountability. This argument is the same as saying that a wife has no authority. While the husband is the head of the family, the wife DOES have authority over the husband's body.

So, let's look at accountability.
Prov 27:17: Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another.
Romans 12:4-5: For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.
Romans 14:19: So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another.
Romans 15:14: And concerning you, my brethren, I myself also am convinced that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able also to admonish one another.
The point here is that there is no hierarchy in building each other up and admonishing each other. Thus, all who are members of a church are called to be accountable to each other. In that way, it is ill-advised for the session to hold secret meetings, since they cutting themselves off from one of the blessings of the church.

The implicit assumption surrounding the closing of session meetings is trust. It's a two-way street. The session, in closing their doors, refuses to trust the wisdom of the members, but in turn, asks the members to trust them to make life-changing decisions. The Bible says that we are not to put our confidence in princes. (Ps. 98) Jesus never asked for blind faith. His sayings were always verified with miracles. Even Thomas was asked to put his hands in the holes in Christ's hands and feet. God demonstrated His power to the Israelites in Egypt through signs and wonders, and it was only then that He tested their trust through trials in the wilderness. So, how are we to trust the courts of the church when we cannot see their wisdom in action?

I think we today live in such an individualistic society that we are not willing to allow external scrutiny. When is the last time we confided our sins in another person? When is the last time we asked someone to pray for us? I'm just as guilty as the next person, if not much, much more in this! I don't want my secret faults to be exposed, and thus I am still overwhelmed by them. How can we expect to reap the benefits of the covenant community if we can't allow it to prove its trustworthiness.

Another point I would like to bring up is that "ordinarily" the work of the session should be public, even in cases of discipline. Matt. 18 indeed suggests that offenses ought to be kept private; however, the "two or three witnesses" is NOT the session. Bringing a matter before session is part of "telling the church." Thus, when a disciplinary matter is brought before the session, it is a public matter within the body.

When the session considers private matters, it invites the members of the court to slander. Remember that every fact is to be established by two or more witnesses. So, when the session discusses a member and only one elder is informed about the situation, he must tread carefully to avoid slander, because the other elders have no basis for judging the truth. Contrast that to a situation where there are members present. The point is that the session is a judicial court by nature, and forgetting the judicial nature is inviting evil.

So, when is executive session appropriate? For counselling members. If I'm having trouble with my wife, we may both desire to ask for the wisdom of the session in resolving our differences. This is not a judicial case, and it is not deciding doctrinal matters, thus the session may choose to consider this "extraordinary" and keep it private and unannounced.

What is is?

Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:06:33 GMT

What is the controversy about "open session meetings". Well, since I did not attend synod this year, and heard things second-hand, this debate may be a little off. However, what apparently was decided was that a congregation's practice of not allowing members to attend session meetings was in line with the law and order of the church.

This is a very disconcerting idea - that the members of the congregation have no "right" to know what discussion, decisions and statements are made at a session meeting.

Here's the entry from 2003:
Communication 03-3 regards the level of openness to the public of session meetings and minutes. The paper, sent by Great Lakes-Gulf Presbytery, originated in a session and then was studied in a presbytery committee. It asked that the openness of session meetings be understood “in a limited sense,” and requests the deletion of a sentence in the Directory for Church Government which states, “Ordinarily, meetings and minutes of the session are open to members of the congregation except when ‘executive session’ is called.” This communication was sent to Synod’s Judicial Committee.
The result was:
Communication 03-3 asked the Synod to delete a sentence in the Directory for Church Government. The Judicial Committee said we ought to "guard against any hint that church courts are secret societies."
"The meetings of the courts of the church are public meetings," said the Judicial Committee. "Sessions may politely request observers to dismiss themselves when the session is discussing delicate counseling matters."
Some delegates disagreed with committee assertion that session meetings are public. The nature of session's purpose involves people and sensitive matters and they should not routinely be open to third parties while those discussions are taking place, the delegates said. Many other Reformed/Presbyterian denominations don't have this kind of openness in their meetings.
In the end, however, it was the Judicial Committee's recommendation that overwhelmingly passed.

Now this year, a different approach was taken - let's say that the practice of private session meetings is okay - no updating of the church Constitution is necessary, just reinterpret "open" to be "closed" and we're okay.

Apparently, this is the only way that our church can get by issues - we either decide that we won't censure people who violate provisions in the Constitution, or we decide that a sentence in the Constitution is meaningless.

MIT Professor links religion to better income and families, blue laws to reduced crime

Wed, 28 Jun 2006 23:24:46 GMT

In a recent paper, MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber makes some stunning conclusions from his research:

1) Religious attendance correlates to higher income, better education, higher marriage rates and lower divorce rates.
2) Giving to church can be seen by some as substitutable for church attendance, yet only church attendance reaps the above benefits.
3) Higher rates of giving correspond to lower rates of attendance.
4 and probably most important) The widespread repeal of Blue Laws - laws that prohibited businesses from being open on the Sabbath had the following effects:
a) a reduction in church attendance with the resulting decrease in benefits
b) drinking rose
c) illegal drug abuse rose
these were particularly among those who formerly attended church regularly

Read more at:
http://alum.mit.edu/ne/whatmatters/200606/index.html?tr=y&auid=1782739

Who owns your property?

Wed, 21 Jun 2006 21:14:52 GMT

In Communism, the state owns the property, and you merely borrow it for a time. In a democracy, the property is owned by individual citizens, and the state is restricted from mandating its use, unless the property owner is fairly compensated. In light of this, I give you the most recent agenda for the board of ordinance appeals for my hometown. Most of it is pretty run of the mill - now that ratting your neighbors out to the collective is run of the mill in our town. Of course, you know you have to ask permission before you do anything to (your?) property. FYI: I was told by a roofing contractor that they COULD NOT reasonably fix my roof ventilation. This law was passed in 2002, so apparently, there is no grandfathering in our Republik.

Edited to remove addresseses by request.
--------

1. G06-0063 Hearing on nuisance abatement at this location for dead Christmas tree in side yard and many weeds throughout landscape beds in front yard.

2. G06-0064 Hearing on nuisance abatement at this location for roof in need of repair, tall weeds around house, debris on and near deck, trash bags, bricks, scrap wood, etc.

3. G06-0065 Hearing on nuisance abatement at this location for shed in need of paint.

4. G06-0066 Hearing on nuisance abatement at this location for flowerbeds are overgrown and full of weeds.

5. G06-0067 Hearing on nuisance abatement at this location for patio full of debris (piles of trash bags, computer, toilet, old bike parts, tire, etc.).

6. G06-0068 Hearing on nuisance abatement at this location for trash and debris (furniture, boxes, misc.) garbage cans with no lids in front of garage.

7. G06-0069 Hearing on nuisance abatement at this location for junk auto and boat, trash and debris (wood, tire, carpet, buckets of oil, misc.), open hazardous structure (service door to garage is open), siding is in need of painting/cleaning, driveway approach in need of repair/replacement.

8. G06-0070 Hearing on nuisance abatement at this location for trash cans in front of garage, trash and debris (branches, stumps, misc.) in driveway and rear yard, trailer on grass at side of house, fence posts and branches in the rear yard, remains of a tree on driveway.

9. G06-0071 Hearing on nuisance abatement at this location for stagnant water in swimming pool.

10. G06-0072 Hearing on nuisance abatement at this location for exterior storage of building material (tarp), discarded building material, exterior soffit wood is rotting, paint is peeling and flaking, gutters and downspouts need replacing and additional ventilation has to be added to eaves area.

7. Old Business of the Board

1. G06-0053 Requesting Board approval to erect a 6-foot privacy fence in the front yard setback

Response from U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow on Federal Marriage Amendment

Tue, 16 May 2006 10:37:11 GMT

Thank you . . . 

 . . for contacting me to share your views on the federal marriage
amendment to the Constitution. I understand your strong feelings. 

As you know, this is a very emotional issue for many people whose
diverse opinions reflect their strong religious beliefs. Personally, I
believe that marriage is a religious covenant between a man and a woman,
and I will continue to support public policies that strengthen and
affirm the institution of marriage in our country. However, I also
believe that we must respect the legal rights of those in committed
relationships - basic rights most of us take for granted like visiting a
critically-ill loved one in the hospital or shared property protections.
Traditionally, it has been the responsibility of individual states to
govern the legal requirements for marriage. Michigan has had a state law
since 1996 that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a
woman, and in 2004, voters approved a state constitutional amendment
that prohibits same-sex marriages. Congress also reaffirmed this
position when it passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. 

I believe the legal aspects of marriage should continue to be a state
responsibility and that it is not necessary to change our U.S.
Constitution. Our Constitution has worked so well for 216 years as the
foundation of our democracy and our liberties, we must be very cautious
about amending this historic document. 

Again, thank you for contacting me about this issue. Please continue to
keep me informed about issues of concern to you. 

  

Sincerely, 

Debbie Stabenow 

United States Senator

Commentary:

1) I hate being lied to.  She wants to enact policies to "strengthen 
and affirm ... marriage in our community," yet is unwilling to pass 
an amendment to the Constitution to protect marriage.

2) "Basic Rights" can be protected without destroying marriage; 
however, shared property protection has traditionally been the 
domain only of marriage.  Why should two Joes off the street be 
afforded things only reserved for marriage in the state?

3) We approved a state constitutional amendment that has been set 
aside by a federal judge due to pending federal lawsuits.  Perhaps 
the dream of individual states determining marriage is a pipe dream.

4) State's rights in determining marriage is a smoke screen for 
allowing marriage to be destroyed at a federal level.  Every state 
amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman has been 
challenged in court by the ACLU.  Ms. Stabenow has not been decrying 
the involvement of federal government (courts) in determing marriage.

5) Our Constitution has worked well for 216 years because it has been
amended.  If our Constitution were not amended, blacks would be 
slaves and only count as 3/5 of a person, and citizens would have no 
constitutionally protected rights.

6) One thing to comment on is the liberal elitism - the majority of 
her constituents voted to amend the state constitution, yet she is 
more wise than us in saying that we somehow missed things like "basic 
rights" in our voting, which she intends to protect in her wisdom.

	If there is any reason to amend the Constitution, it is to set
the bounds of the government in determining marriage.  By saying that 
marriage is a state issue, Ms. Stabenow is saying that the state has 
the right to determine what marriage is.  This is baloney.  Marriage 
is a family institution and is, BY DEFINITION, between a man and a 
woman.  Why do we have a bill of rights?  Not because our government 
chooses to limit itself, but that our government believes that people 
have rights that should be protected by the government.