Consistency

Introduction

Logic must be consistent. Sometimes it's easy to refute a string of thought, sometimes it's harder, and sometimes it's impossible. As Hikmat Hanna said, logic can even be used legitimately to get to an evil conclusion. I agree. Still, logic can be useful for good and either way it must be consistent, for better or worse.

More important is Biblical consistency, an oft-made point of unbelievers. Biblical Consistency by Joseph Cook is good for answering those questions and as a support material for believers. He also brings up some good points: is consistency faith-breaking in (whatever case)? This is a good point. If there's a small error in name, does it matter? Even if a connection is made that two historical figures probably shared different names between cultures, is it truly important that it's not 100% sure? The overarching idea is that many points are just a smokescreen for unbelievers; it's easy to tell who wants answers and who wants arguments.

Finally, there's consistency in faith. There are a lot of angles that can be discussed here, but I'll narrow my focus to Christianity and CINOs, that being Christians In Name Only. Let's see what the Bible says about consistency:

Revelation and Consistency

John the Apostle is called to write in Revelation to seven churches. To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: "The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Originator of God's creations says: I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am going to spit you out of My Mouth."  Rev 3:14-16

Looks like the church of Laodicea was consistent at being middling! Likened to water, God would spit Laodicea out. As verse 22 says "Anyone who has an ear should listen to what the Spirit says to the churches." Looks like the church wasn't too keen on going "by the Book," pun intended.

Ephesians 5:15-17 echoes this as well as our world today: Pay careful attention, then, to how you walk -not as unwise people but as wise- making the most of time, because the days are evil. So don't be foolish, but understand what the Lord's will is.

Christians who adopt the ways of the world are not walking in accord with God's will. As much as anyone else, I have difficulty with this. The consistency I want to hit on is when people actively, continuously go against God but claiming fellowship with Him. They've deluded themselves and while much less important, they've given compassionate Christians a bad public image. I'm not so concerned with my image, it's that it affects our ability to reach people.

Closing

That digression aside, I wrote this article because of recent interactions with a friend. I'm not sure he realizes how his worldview is not harmonious within itself, let alone with God. Rather than bring him down, I'd like to use our interactions for this post as an example. Far from attacking him, I want to remind him and those like him that having one's cake and eating it too is a worldly deficit creeping into our lives today. We can't ignore God or tell Him off and then expect His blessing.

All verses are taken from the NASB version, which I recommend. Mine is a Holmans' The Apologetic's Study Bible, courtesy of my wonderful mother. I recommend it because it has many commentaries and food for thought sections inserted throughout. Sadly, yours won't come with the notes my mother wrote. Make your own and pass them on to accomplish this feat.

Social Expectations in Short Long-Hand

Introduction

I often talk with one of my good friends from high school. He's a student with me here at university and our conversations are never fluffy. Time after time, we talk about, in no small detail, social expectations. We cover a broad range, from physical appearance to "standard double standards". To cover each category in one post would be mind-numbing, perhaps lethal, both in writing and reading. Thus I have selected a few topics I deal with in my everyday life, some that I feel I can speak best on.

Expectations of Women

Perhaps the most potent expectation is that of physical appearance. Far from looking trendy, I just wear whatever is available. Most guys dress decently, with the exception of droopy drawers. You probably saw this coming a mile away, but I'll be focusing on the role women are expected to play. Literally from birth, we're all bombarded by advertising and messages of all sorts. The troubling trend I see is that women are expected to be sexy, yet then demeans them for it. Spiritually, I'd argue that modesty preserves one's dignity. Still, even if a woman wants to show herself off, she's then degraded for it. This is one of the rare times that I suspend my own beliefs; truly, women are forced into a no-win scenario. If she's modest, she's under huge social pressure to change. If she's trendy, that's cool but probably not to the degree society expects. Then if she is up to snuff, she's subjected to all sorts of crap for it. If she flaunts it...you get the idea.

Is it any wonder why we still see teen pregnancies, among other such hallmarks? Rather than at least prevent society's schizophrenia, we have have a dualism that defeats itself. True, I wish to see a world where the expectation is a modest, dignified beauty that women can be proud of. No need to show off, just living life and using her abilities to impress, like men pretty much do now (not boys, if you catch this brief differentiation). That's what I'd like to see. Still, the problem of "being to hot" for society's standard would pervade. It's a classic no win scenario. Humans are shallow. This only stirs the surface of the issue.

Teaching, a Cure-all

And now for something completely different. Have you ever had a bad teacher? How about a good one? We've all had a teacher, or at least a mentor, that we loved dearly. Perhaps that individual caused a chosen career path, or a passionate hobby. Teachers are pretty darn important. They're expected by society to be caretaker, counselor, taskmaster, knowledge dispenser, and even other jobs. Yet we see continually harsher expectations with the same amount of resources.

I could teach just about any math class back at my old high school at a pretty high success rate (for a young teacher, that is) despite my low experience. I know the material, what to expect in that social area, and so on. I know I'd have the resources to succeed, at the very least.

This is not the case everywhere. There are many neighborhoods where education is already on the brink of self-destruction. No Child Left Behind creates a usually-destructive trend that kills schools in such areas. What then? Is there a replacement? If so, does it fare better? I actually shudder to know; truth is, I haven't checked. The expectation of kids to suddenly want to learn more or learn better despite higher expectations with the same limited resources is baffling.

Learning becomes an evil machine rather than an enlightening process. Is it any wonder that a neighborhood composed of people of color will accuse a white person of privilege? Other issues aside, their kids will have a snowball's chance in Hell to get an education just to attempt to work their way up in life. Again, this is only a hair's breadth of the issue.

Professionalism, a.k.a People Suck

Finally, a sort of rhetorical question, something that's irked me for some time now. Why is it that if someone misses a date or meeting, or even work, the response is to verbally guillotine them? Throughout my life, I've had the privilege of being asked why I wasn't in my designated spot. Upon responding, I would always be told that the reason isn't good enough. This includes: nearly sliding off the road at 15 mph after the bus came early; being clinically depressed and arriving late to class and thus having homework rejected; simply being honest (don't get me started on law enforcement); and let's not forget people who start meetings/class/etc. five minutes late but penalize students who come in after the class is scheduled to start, but before anything actually happens. These are all situations I have experienced.

Why should an accident mean so much to someone's career? It's like in a sitcom: some friends are hanging out and they get ticked/sad/overly hopeful that the token outcast person didn't show up. Then they figure out he was mugged or something. Then it's tears and they accept the outcast and all that good stuff. Why is it that it takes something so drastic for an absence or tardy to be acceptable? Professionals might not have a choice: a barking dog preventing sleep, a faulty alarm (or several), exhaustion, the list is nearly endless. Society expects people to literally pay in blood, and usually mental health, for a mistake. Honesty means nothing; explanations are just excuses. Perhaps I've grown cynical in my experiences, but I've lived this trend.

Conclusion

Well, that's certainly a long post. Hopefully I've given you something to think about. Make a positive change about one of these points. Whether it's words of encouragement or volunteering your time, work for "the least of these" as Christ said.

A "Quick" Note

I decided to keep this separate from any other post, and it was too long to simply tweet. Two things are often posed to me in conversation and I figured it'd be good to list them here. One is use of Scripture and the is church attendance.

I think I mentioned it in an earlier post, but I'll repeat myself here. The point of this blog is to make arguments for Christianity, morality, and so on in a secular manner to show that the Bible is correct. Rather than do what many Christians do, my aim is to give unbelievers a reason to see consistency in Christianity. In terms of the faith, it's good to use the Bible to prove itself. However, if someone has no reason to find the Bible or the faith valid, then they'll need something else to do so. That's my aim here. The worst that happens is non-Christian people agree with me and Christians tell me Scripture I could use. Bombarding a nonbeliever with Scripture won't magically make them convert. Intellectualism will always attempt to be a substitute for Jesus Christ; my use or non-use of Scripture is not going to change that.

Secondly, church attendance. Nearly every ministry that I've spoken to a member of in the past few years will ask me what I believe, if I'm a Christian, and if I attend a church. Personal feelings aside, the big issue I see here is some "mustache growing." For unfamiliar readers, it's something I say instead of another male comparison. Anyways, I find that many ministries are interested more in numbers than anything else. With so many apostate churches, it's hard for me to take seriously very many claims by ministries.

This addition is mainly for Christians and "Christians": Asking me, or anyone else, what we believe, listening, and then asking if we have accepted Jesus when at least I, personally, already said I have in response to the first question, is a complete insult. Yes, some of us are intellectuals. We've all tried to be "normal" at some point (though I digress from that word now). We aren't going to want to attend your church if you undermine our entire thought process by assuming we're like the "intellectuals" that reject Christ. Never mind that many of us who scrutinize every detail won't attend a church with even a hint of apostasy.

I think you all get the picture, and I'm sure some of you, believers and nonbelievers alike, can relate. If something doesn't make sense to us who think in our way (mathematically in my case), we'll never get to the faith part. Ministries around the world are losing numbers by apostasy and limiting new numbers by alienating those of us who go intellectual->faith process rather than the opposite.

Word Play, Part 1

Introduction

While I research the Laws of Information and avoid plagiarism, I've taken up a new series to inject in between my other posts. The intention of this series is to see how words are used and what they really mean.


Let's look at homophobia, a word slung around like a tetherball hit by an ogre. What does homophobia mean? According to Merriam-Webster, it means irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. It doesn't take a sociologist to see that it's not how the word is used today.

A real-life example

By simply saying "If civil unions are equivalent to marriage, why should gays get married?" I would most likely be accused of being a homophobe.This is despite a legitimate question. If there's no "agenda" to undermine marriage, why not make civil unions equivalent in benefit? After all "marriage" could remain religious while "civil unions" would be the legal version, the government side.

I digress; I could continue that idea into an entire post of its own. The point is, there's no fear there. Two people getting married doesn't make me scared. Gay people don't scare me. I feel no threat by them. especially if the more vocal and political organizations are truly outliers. There's nothing in my reactions that points to fear.

There's no discrimination either. Even legitimate questions like the one above are ""homophobic." To quote from The Princess Bride's Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that word means what you think it means." The irony is that by discriminating between civil unions and marriage, I've taken care of all common arguments against same-sex coupling, in legal terms. To add one last layer of irony, if there is no "gay agenda," then it's truly ironic that no one has said this sooner. It would expedite the whole process of getting SSM (or SSCU, in my wording) legalized in all 50 states. Fascinating, right? For anyone thinking I've "betrayed my faith," I'll leave my personal reasoning to another post; this is simply a legalistic view.

What about an aversion? Personally, I have none. Let's take my question from the third paragraph again. An honest question is not an aversion. The vocal minorities in all cases need a thicker skin.

Conclusion

I realize that not everyone is like me. Many vocal people of many camps are rude, aggressive, even violent in their verbalization, especially with the shield of anonymity that the internet provides. Let's call those people for what they are, so long as they aren't passionate and simply need a breather (though this may be beyond the baseline wisdom needed to converse on the internet).

Such a person would simply be rude, nasty, angry, maybe even hateful. It all depends on the person. But please, stop beating the dead horse that is homophobia. It hasn't been used properly, it's no better than the person one would use it, and it's unnecessary. Dropping this word would be a start to seeing who is really hateful, after the easy mudslinging dies down.

On Donald Sterling

Let's get this straight: Mr. Sterling is a scumbag. He's a lecherous adulterer, the poster boy of dirty, rich old men. To defend his actions, especially after his racist remarks, would be social suicide.

Right?

I have redacted this post because of the information that conveniently surfaced after Sterling was forced to sell his then-team. Apparently, he asked to have his conversations recorded. There was also the housing thingy.

Since Sterling was part of an organization, he had to play by their rules. In day to day life, one might call what happened to him the work of thought police. It contrasts a state of being with a state of doing.

Sterling couldn't actually keep "colored people" from attending his games. His state of being is racist. His state of doing wasn't much of anything. Still a scumbag, true. My point is that the moment we move from demonizing actions to demonizing thoughts, we land in 1984 territory. A racist who does nothing sucks, but don't lock him up for it. He wants to do something about it? Then hit him with the book. That's all I'm asking.

Love is Love?

Some of my friends on Facebook have posted a picture. You might be familiar with it: on top is a gay couple and it looks like they're getting married; on the bottom is an incredibly malnourished child. It calls anyone against same sex marriage failures if they have a problem with SSM when instead they could be helping starving children.

In logic, this is what we call a false dilemma. I could support starving children (indeed, Freerice is a way I can donate at least a bit despite my low income) and oppose SSM. Someone else might support both, and another might support neither. This is why the dilemma is false.

That said, this reminded me of an oft-quoted phrase, "love is love." At the risk of sounding sarcastic, congratulations,  you just used the reflexive property of equality. My point is that this little phrase means nothing. Say it if you like, I'm not the thought police. It's simply that it has no bearing in an argument.

Need I remind everyone that we don't legislate based on love, let alone act out of love all the time? While my friends want to tell me to accept their version of love and the legislation what it entails, I have no actual rebuttal because there's no argument in the first place. I don't have an issue with people with other worldviews than mine. The issue I have is when an argument becomes about one's viewpoint of love and anyone who disagrees is a bigot. Thanks for sowing seeds of discord, by the way, if you've done such a thing.

Post what you want, but be consistent and don't manipulate children to further your viewpoint that would be exactly the same simply by the cop-out "love is love."

Arguments for God: Part 2

Disclaimer: Before I even continue with my arguments and proofs, there is something that must be made absolutely clear. There can be no question of it. There is a massive difference between acknowledging God or even that He might exist, and actually following Him and putting yourself in the service of Christ. Without reception of the Holy Spirit, there is no change. This is why so-called Christians, yes, even if Hitler said he was, are not indicative of actual Followers of Christ. And such a change must be out of sincerity, the true reconciliation that you know what the Truth is and how to correct your fallen condition. As such, these proofs are not fool-proof. No matter how air-tight my cases, they will not suddenly make someone hard of heart into a believer as suddenly if they had been exposed to a frosty wind. Let us continue.

This second argument starts where the first left off. From my first argument we see that is logically necessary for a Creating Force. This proof used to be much longer being a list of deductions from non-Christian faiths. However, I have condensed it and changed partially to a proof by induction.

Premise 1: The Force must exist outside of creation, otherwise it presents a paradox.
Premise 2: The Force must be able to create the universe as we know it (logically, orderly, etc).

Point 1: The Force must be self-sufficient and uncreated. Thus we can discount the following:

Aboriginal "Dreamtime" and other "guiding ancestor" types can be discounted because it does not speak of creation's ultimate beginnings. The Force, Baiame, is not sufficient to create and rather teaches man through the use of ancestors.

Taoist use of yin and yang, because they are created (as are other things)  are without logical explanation. The elements that would form the universe already existed without explanation.

Hinduism fails because it describes the universe as eternal or an illusion. Since we have already seen that the universe cannot be eternal, it must be an illusion. If the universe is an illusion, then it cannot be eternal but only appear to be eternal. Thus, the universe cannot be eternal or an illusion.

Islam fails due to logical inconsistencies in the Quran See here for examples. Thus the Force, Allah, is either mistaken in his book or is not logical.

Other religions, particularly polytheist ones, rely on various deities that exist within creation and cannot account for each other. There is no order, even among those with the power, let alone the paradox of existing in creation. This is essentially the same as  the guiding ancestor type.

Point 2: By previous result, we know that the universe requires a creator. By previous result, we have deduced the potential list. By induction, we see that God, in Christianity, fits the requirements. He exists outside of creation, He has the capacity to create(unlike other deities) and He is orderly thus creating the universe in a certain way with certain laws for its function.

Conclusion:  This proof and the first show that God is able to, by definition, be the Creator. However, just because He does, doesn't suddenly mean people will change their hearts. This logic only serves to show that the conclusion is logical. In other words, this is a tool for those at a certain point in their journey.  Please do not use this or my other posts as a beating stick.