Thursday, September 27, 2012

Rom 1 reply, 14: Is the Bible simply a pack of lies only believed by the intellectually defective? (An answer to some dismissive and scornful skeptics at Barbados Underground)

A few days ago, I chanced across the way some skeptical commenters and contributors at a Caribbean Blog, Barbados Underground, were treating an evangelical commenter. And, as I indicated yesterday, I now intend to take up some of their typical remarks:
 Exhibit A: for the the intellectual midget Zoe the preponderance of evidence that everything believed by him is a lie will never be his reality. But you BAFBFP must be the true intellectual giant among giants. The lies of Zoe’s bible is why there had to Islam in the first place. Everything these Christian, Jewish and Islamic Zionist have touched, from the beginning of their devilish constructions were untrue 6000 years ago and are untrue today . . .

Exhibit B:  Zionist are like Zoe. In fact Zoe means Zionist (smile). The criminal ideology as started in the late 19th century comprises some Jews and Muslims but the overwhelming numbers are fund among the so-called Christians. A lot of so-called Christians are Zionists and do not even know that they propound this evil ideology – like Zoe. In fact most Christians in Barbados are also unwitting Zionists, especially the people who attend the Peoples’ Cathedral and similar Evangelical business ventures that dominate the Barbadian landscape. In the USA all of the spiritual forefathers of this movement, including Billy Graham and his son Franklyn, are known supporters of the Zionist project . . . . We have already declared our willingness to go to their ‘hell’ than to believe anything they preach. In fact, I WANT TO BE FIRST IN LINE . . .


Exhibit C: Be careful what you say about that book of legends, myths and fairy tales that Zoe rants and quotes ad infinitum. He may christen you my sister and daughter of he who dwells below!! ha, ha, ha.
 The first thing that strikes me is how little of actual argument on the merits there is in the above!

By contrast, I cannot but notice how much of it is personalities and accusations; much of it being little more than a way to say, 
  • I do not like Christians, 
  • I think very little of the Bible (and don't care to do my homework before I dismiss it as "lies"), 
  • I hate the gospel which is found therein, 
  • I despise nationalistic Jews -- for, Zionism is simply the Jewish form of nationalism, and 
  • I detest the God of the Bible.
In short mocking vituperation has here by and large substituted for serious argument, and bigotry-laced accusation stands in for well-warranted facts.

Sad, and sadly revealing.

However, it is worth taking the above up in steps of thought, point by point in succession to help those who would want to know where the true case stands on the merits:
_________________
>> Exhibit A: for the the intellectual midget Zoe
1 --> Contempt laced personal dismissal, rather than addressing facts on the merits. Abuse does not properly stand in for warrant, especially on serious matters where the weight of our souls hangs on the question.
>>the preponderance of evidence that everything believed by him is a lie
2 --> Observe, the evidence that "everything believed by [Bible-believing Christians] is a lie" is not adduced or summarised, a sure sign that it is largely missing.

3 --> In direct contrast, the apostle Peter, about to face a cruel and unjust death at the hands of Nero in 65 AD, on the false accusation that every one knew that the despised Christians "must" have set the fire in Rome, confidently declared:
2 Peter 1: 16 For we did not follow cleverly concocted fables when we made known to you the power and return1 of our Lord Jesus Christ; no, we were eyewitnesses of his grandeur . . . .  19 Moreover, we possess the prophetic word as an altogether reliable thing. You do well if you pay attention to this as you would to a light shining in a murky place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

20 Above all, you do well if you recognize this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, 21 for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. [NET]
3 --> To see some of why he was so confident, let us cite Barnett's summary of the testimony of early non-Christian historical sources on the basic historicity of the key elements of the gospel, which is what Christians specifically believe:
On the basis of . . . non-Christian sources [i.e. Tacitus (Annals, on the fire in Rome, AD 64; written ~ AD 115), Rabbi Eliezer (~ 90's AD; cited J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth (London: Collier-Macmillan, 1929), p. 34), Pliny (Letters to Trajan from Bithynia, ~ AD 112), Josephus (Antiquities, ~ 90's)] it is possible to draw the following conclusions:
    1. Jesus Christ was executed (by crucifixion?) in Judaea during the period where Tiberius was Emperor (AD 14 - 37) and Pontius Pilate was Governor (AD 26 - 36). [Tacitus]
    2. The movement spread from Judaea to Rome. [Tacitus]
    3. Jesus claimed to be God and that he would depart and return. [Eliezer]
    4. His followers worshipped him as (a) god. [Pliny]
    5. He was called "the Christ." [Josephus]
    6. His followers were called "Christians." [Tacitus, Pliny]
    7. They were numerous in Bithynia and Rome [Tacitus, Pliny]
    8. It was a world-wide movement. [Eliezer]
    9. His brother was James. [Josephus]
[Is the New Testament History? (London, Hodder, 1987), pp. 30 - 31. Cf. McDowell & Wilson, He Walked Among Us (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1993) for more details; free for download here.]
4 --> That should sound fairly familiar. In short, there is no good reason to doubt the basic historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, or the Gospels and letters that speak of him well within eyewitness lifetime.

5 --> So, it should not be too surprising to see the overall consensus of historians who are experts on the relevant subjects in our day, the twelve "minimal facts" collected by Gary Habermas:
1. Jesus died by crucifixion. [--> This of course implies his historicity]
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).
[Cf. here for more.]
6 --> That is why, by AD 55, we can find the earliest primary source written record, summarising the core testimony of the 500 eyewitnesses (about 20 of whom we can identify specifically), and dating to c 35 - 38 AD, i.e. so soon after the event that it cannot be reasonably dismissed as a legend:
1 Cor 15: 1 Now I would remind you, brothers,1  of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you-unless you believed in vain.

 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me . . . 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. [ESV]
7 --> The "according to the scriptures" here speaks of the c. 700 BC Isa 52 - 53, which predicts just such a Messiah (as well as dozens of other texts):


Isa: 52:13Behold, my servant shall act wisely;
he shall be high and lifted up,
and shall be exalted.
14As many were astonished at you—
his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance,
and his form beyond that of the children of mankind—
15so shall he sprinkle many nations;
kings shall shut their mouths because of him;
for that which has not been told them they see,
and that which they have not heard they understand.

Isa 53:1 Who has believed what he has heard from us?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
8By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
and as for his generation,
who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?

9And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.
10Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors. [ESV]

8 --> So, there is excellent reason to be confident in the historicity of Jesus and that he did indeed exactly fulfill the prophecies of the Scriptures, giving us marvelous assurance in the God who inspired these Scriptures. (For more details, cf. here on.)

9 --> The "lie . . lie" accusation goes into an irrecoverable tailspin, crashes and burns.
>>will never be his reality.
 10 --> We see here a resort to the now common -- but utterly self refuting -- notion that truth is little more than perception, rather than that which accords accurately to reality. If you doubt this, just think, do those who say this sort of thing only mean that it seems such and so to them, or that this is actually accurate to reality? The latter, obviously; and with that the whole radical relativist notion that truth is in effect perception only collapses in self-refutation. That is, we are dealing with Plato's Cave shadow shows confused for reality by those whose intellectual world is the radical relativist cave. As a corrective, let us watch a video of the parable, based on Plato's remarks in The Republic:



11 --> That -- sadly -- is doubtless why to this skeptic, it can be "his reality" that the Scriptures and the gospel at the core of the Christian church are "lies." For, he cares not one whit about accuracy to reality.
>>But you BAFBFP [--> another skeptical commenter] must be the true intellectual giant among giants.
12 --> More of "skeptics' reality."
>>The lies of Zoe’s bible
13 --> Drumbeat repetition of falsehood, in hopes that this will make the false seem true. Jesus' reply to such is crisp:
Matt 6: 22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. If then your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eye is diseased, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! [NET]
>>is why there had to Islam in the first place.
14 --> That is, Islam is presented as if it were a correction to the manifest falsehoods of the Christian faith. On what grounds? Mere drumbeat "skeptics' reality" assertion.  (For a first corrective survey, cf here, and for more details, cf here.)
>>Everything these Christian, Jewish and Islamic Zionist have touched, from the beginning of their devilish constructions were untrue 6000 years ago and are untrue today . . .
15 --> More "skeptics' reality," made to sound impressive through confident manner, drumbeat assertions. Notice as well the twist-about inference that the God of the Bible is devilish. A reply to Dawkins' similar assertion is here. The underlying tactic is to allude to difficulties and the sins of Christendom, as though this suffices to dismiss the whole. There are no worldviews with a significant track record that do not face difficulties tracing to the finitude, fallibility, fallenness, and hard-hearted ill will we are all prone to. So, the real challenge is does the gospel have a serious cure to such ills, and the answer to that is plainly, yes. One backed up by 500 eyewitnesses and millions of transformed lives across 2,000 years. If skeptics cannot fairly face that, then they are not being honest. Jesus in Jn 3:19 - 21, is again deadly accurate:
Jn 3:19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.[NIV '84]

 16 --> We also see here an attempt to embroil the Christian faith in the deeply polarised complexities of the debates over Zionism. The tactic here is to push the anti-colonial narrative, dismiss Jewish nationalism (which is what Zionism is . . . ) as a mere colonialist imposition on native peoples in the ME [in effect, a modern Jewish "Crusader" state; but cf. here, here, here and esp. here], and then embroil Christians in the blame for such "obvious" imperialistic conquest.

17 --> The only problem, is that this is so distorted relative to the true facts on the ground -- cf. here for a first primer, and here for more details that address many specific "myths" -- that it constitutes a big lie propaganda tactic.
>>Exhibit B:  Zionist are like Zoe. In fact Zoe means Zionist (smile).
18 --> Here comes that embroiling. To start with, Zoe means "life" in Greek, with the theological inference being that it speaks of eternal life.
>>The criminal ideology
19 --> Name-calling and slander. To which other nationalism does the appellation "criminal" attach?  This term reveals (sadly) that there is racist -- anti-Semitic -- bigotry behind the  skeptical rhetoric.
>>as started in the late 19th century comprises some Jews and Muslims but the overwhelming numbers are fund among the so-called Christians.
20 --> The similar anti-Christian bigotry comes to the surface.  We are deemed to be guilty without adducing evidence that can stand scrutiny, guilty of supporting a "criminal ideology." And again that "criminal ideology" is the ages-long longing of Jews for their historic homeland. (Somehow, it has not dawned on such bigots to inquire and see that every Passover Seder, for many centuries ends, "Next year, in Jerusalem." As well, they must see the NT and OT as full of lies, as well as any objective archeological investigation, as these will show beyond reasonable doubt that Judaea, as its name suggests, is the historic Jewish homeland. For 3,500 years, and nearly 4,000 if we go back to the Patriarchal era.)

21 --> Yes, Arabs and others too have a share in that homeland. As the already linked will show, the Jews recognised this and were willing to settle in with their neighbours on favourable terms. Indeed, the OT scriptures that this skeptic so patently despises, documents just that. Start with the partial Moabite ancestry of Israel's greatest king, David.
>>A lot of so-called Christians are Zionists and do not even know that they propound this evil ideology – like Zoe.
22 --> Drumbeat repetition of false accusations.
>>In fact most Christians in Barbados are also unwitting Zionists, especially the people who attend the Peoples’ Cathedral and similar Evangelical business ventures that dominate the Barbadian landscape.
23 --> More repetitions of accusations as though accusation is proof of evil. Support for Jews, for Israel and for peaceful collaboration with their neighbours in accord with the spirit of the January 1919 Weizmann-Faisal agreement  is not a crime or the enabling of a crime. Let's cite the agreement:
His Royal Highness the Emir FAISAL, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of HEJAZ, AND Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization, mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine [--> then the term used for the prospective Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan!], and being desirous further of confirming the good understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following articles . . .
24 --> That, sirs, is what might have been.
>>In the USA all of the spiritual forefathers of this movement, including Billy Graham and his son Franklyn, are known supporters of the Zionist project . . . .
25 --> More drumbeat repetition of accusations and insinuations.
>>We have already declared our willingness to go to their ‘hell’ than to believe anything they preach. In fact, I WANT TO BE FIRST IN LINE . . .
26 --> This is of course confidently declared only because this skeptic does not think the prospect a likely one.
>>Exhibit C: Be careful what you say about that book of legends, myths and fairy tales that Zoe rants and quotes ad infinitum.
27 --> Much the same, in  irresponsible dismissal of the evidence to the contrary already seen.
>>He may christen you my sister and daughter of he who dwells below!! ha, ha, ha.
28 --> Let us, again, hear Jesus' all too apt warning:
Jn 8: 43 Why don’t you understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot accept my teaching. 44 You people are from your father the devil, and you want to do what your father desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I am telling you the truth, you do not believe me. [NET]  
______________
So, step by step, we see how we have a case, as usual, of much skeptical sound and fury, but little sober substance.

It is time to do better than this, given that our souls are in the balance on such matters. More than time. END
__________

F/N: It is almost sadly predictable that the reaction to the above at the named blog was reportedly largely a resort to personalities rather than a sober reassessment of the irresponsible, bigoted, ill-founded and falsely accusatory remarks against Christians and Jews that I corrected above. The astute onlooker will thus immediately realise that such a reaction speaks to where the true balance is on the merits, for those who posted as I clipped and corrected above would plainly have loved to show the above point by point response on the merits to be lacking in substance. On fair comment: the type of personalities reportedly indulged show that I was quite right to point out bigotry as a serious problem, and it is worth noting that the hosting of such remarks without strong correction is not so much an exercise in free speech as it is enabling behaviour.  (And, for corrective record; (i) nope, I did indeed chance across the thread and its content, in particular the attacks against Z, and (ii) when I raised issues to relevant authorities earlier, it was in connexion with the problem of hosting without corrective comment remarks that were plain incitement to arson against churches. Although it is in itself a sad sign, at least D seems to have had enough of a sense of shame not to mention this fact in his complaint, so there is hope. Please, think again. KF.)

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Matt 24 watch, 169c: Libyan President & US Intel (within 24 hrs of attack) point to Al Qaeda, while Major Media and Obama Administration by and large use a deflective narrative to play the story down -- Plato's Cave tactics in action

Let me first say why I am taking what is bound to be an unpopular, cross-grain view on a current and still unfolding (but clear enough) event. And, perhaps, that is a way for us to reflect on some dangerous signs of our times.

First, this still-unfolding issue is a part of the signs of our times, and speaks to the eschatologically pivotal Middle East.  The turbulence there comes straight out of the chaos and tumults theme in Jesus' eschatological -- last days -- teaching in Matt 24.

But, there is a second, closer-to-home theme in Matt 24 that we had better attend to: 
Matt 24: 1 Now as Jesus was going out of the temple courts and walking away, his disciples came to show him the temple buildings. 2 And he said to them, “Do you see all these things? I tell you the truth, not one stone will be left on another. All will be torn down!” 
 3 As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, his disciples came to him privately and said, “Tell us, when will these things2 happen? And what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” 4 Jesus answered them, “Watch out that no one misleads you.  5 For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will mislead many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars. Make sure that you are not alarmed, for this must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 For nation will rise up in arms against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these things are the beginning of birth pains. 
 9 “Then they will hand you over to be persecuted and will kill you. You will be hated by all the nations because of my name.
10 Then many will be led into sin, and they will betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will appear and deceive many, 12 and because lawlessness will increase so much, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But the person who endures to the end will be saved.
14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole inhabited earth as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come . . . .

22 And if those days had not been cut short, no one would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. 23 Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe him. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 Remember, I have told you ahead of time.  [NET]
In one word, deception.

So, we need to ponder how a false, Plato's cave world of shadow shows confused for reality can be constructed to the point where as Jesus said in warning:
 Matt 6: 22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. If then your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eye is diseased, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! 

Jn 8: 43 Why don’t you understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot accept my teaching. 44 You people are from your father the devil, and you want to do what your father desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I am telling you the truth, you do not believe me. [NET]
I of course take Matt 6:23 as a dead giveaway that Jesus was responding to the ideas in Plato's parable of the cave where people are chained up in the conventional wisdom of a society, and are artfully manipulated by the presenters of shadow-shows mistaken for reality. That is, what seems to be light but is in reality darkness: 


Plato's Cave (Source: University of Fort Hare, SA, Phil. Dept.)

Willfully, slyly deceived by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. [Eph 4:14.] To the point where when the real truth comes, one may well follow one's programming and reject it as false or even as absurd and outrageous or offensive nonsense. 

(The rage in the ME over a silly and amateurish movie that just happens to touch on or hint at several of the less savoury themes in the career of Islam's founder, sadly, must come to mind here; cf. well documented details here. Let's just say here that when your reaction to something that provokes you is rage, violence and even murder, that is a sign that you are not being animated by the love, truth, purity and power that come from the Holy Spirit.)

Let's watch an animation of Plato's Parable of the Cave:



I find the contrast where as the end of days draws near both deception and the gospel go forth, in very different forms of power. And, that there comes a point where the deception stirs up such hostility that those who stand for the gospel will face global oppression and persecution. 

Sounds sadly familiar . . . 

This of course raises the sort of dismissive view of the gospel and the scriptures (not to mention Biblical Eschatology) I ran across the other day in Barbados Underground blog; in demonically cruel ridicule and contempt-laced mockery of not only an evangelical Christian who often comments in this regional blog, but of the Christian Faith and its scriptural and historical foundations:
 Exhibit A: for the the intellectual midget Zoe the preponderance of evidence that everything believed by him is a lie will never be his reality. But you BAFBFP must be the true intellectual giant among giants. The lies of Zoe’s bible is why there had to Islam in the first place. Everything these Christian, Jewish and Islamic Zionist have touched, from the beginning of their devilish constructions were untrue 6000 years ago and are untrue today . . .

Exhibit B:  Zionist are like Zoe. In fact Zoe means Zionist (smile). The criminal ideology as started in the late 19th century comprises some Jews and Muslims but the overwhelming numbers are fund among the so-called Christians. A lot of so-called Christians are Zionists and do not even know that they propound this evil ideology – like Zoe. In fact most Christians in Barbados are also unwitting Zionists, especially the people who attend the Peoples’ Cathedral and similar Evangelical business ventures that dominate the Barbadian landscape. In the USA all of the spiritual forefathers of this movement, including Billy Graham and his son Franklyn, are known supporters of the Zionist project . . . . We have already declared our willingness to go to their ‘hell’ than to believe anything they preach. In fact, I WANT TO BE FIRST IN LINE . . .

Exhibit C: Be careful what you say about that book of legends, myths and fairy tales that Zoe rants and quotes ad infinitum. He may christen you my sister and daughter of he who dwells below!! ha, ha, ha.
This is not in some North American atheist's hangout on the web, it is a regional blog. 

That, sirs, is how many people are now thinking about and reacting to the scriptures and the gospel right here in the Caribbean.

So, we need to ground ourselves so we can join with Peter, even as he faced martyrdom at the hands of Nero on the flimsy excuse that it was those despised Christians who "must" have set fire to Rome:
2 Peter 1: 16 For we did not follow cleverly concocted fables when we made known to you the power and return1 of our Lord Jesus Christ; no, we were eyewitnesses of his grandeur . . . . 

 19 Moreover, we possess the prophetic word as an altogether reliable thing. You do well if you pay attention to this as you would to a light shining in a murky place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 

20 Above all, you do well if you recognize this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, 21 for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. [NET]
And, earlier,  he had counselled:
1 Peter 3:15 But set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts and always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess. 16 Yet do it with courtesy and respect, keeping a good conscience, so that those who slander your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame when they accuse you. [NET]
_________ ______
 (F/N: I will want to pick up on these themes and examples later on, DV. For the moment, I point to the grounding of the Faith here and here in the NCSTS course, as a start point for correcting such arrant folly and fallacies of distraction, dismissal and personal attack. Also, for those troubled by the caricatures of Israel, Zionism -- the nationalist movement of Jews -- and the recent history of Israel, I suggest the outline here and the correctives to ever so many commonly believed myths here; it should be plain that the appeal to the anticolonialist narrative is being used to here project the concept that Israel is simply an imperialist project imposed on the native peoples of the ME; which even a moment's pause to examine basic historical facts would soon show to be false to the point of being a big lie. But, we are not dealing with responsible thought here, we are dealing with a Plato's cave mentality. Just so, it is my convinced opinion that we are at a civilisational watershed here, as the relativisation of views and values inspired by the radical relativists has now led to a point where marriage is being homosexualised in law, which directly implies the outright criminalisation of Christian faith that takes the Bible seriously, as the abominable nature of this perversion -- never mind dismissive remarks about obscure epistles of Paul -- is a non-negotiable flying in the face of creation order for marriage and family. I note, Mr Obama is now openly involved in this, and thereby -- God have mercy on his soul and open his eyes . . .  --  reveals himself to be in deepest heresy. It is a mark of how far gone the USA is, that this is evidently not being generally squarely faced. As for Mr Romney's Mormonism, let us just note that, for cause, this C19 new religion is right at the top of the lists of major cults. )
We are plainly now in very dangerous territory as a civilisation.

That is why I want to dissect a live case study, unfolding around us; never mind that it is going to cut across sensibilities and perceptions. We need to begin to think outside the box being set up for us.

So, let us plunge right in.

First, on fair comment, there seems to be a determination in both the US Administration and the main, pro-Democratic Party Media houses, to downplay what was pretty clearly an Al Qaeda attack on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, reflecting an evident unravelling of current US foreign policy and conventional wisdom on the so-called Arab Spring uprisings.

It is beginning to look like, if one has a handy talking point or two and a convenient target for blame, one can buy several days that move even a very serious adverse event off the headlines into punditry shows and the like. These will be viewed and talked to death by politics junkies, but such do not have the potential to ignite a media firestorm that affects the perceptions of the bulk of the population.

A lot can be done through advanced spin techniques, if the major media houses and institutions of influence are plainly in your "progressive" corner.

Until, things totally unravel, go into a tailspin, crash, burn and explode.

Unfortunately, such a misalignment between dominant opinion and quite evident reality makes such a blow-up ever more likely.

But, if we naively go along for the ride, we too will get caught up in the crash and burn.

So, let us pause for a video interview with the president of Libya that is probably not in our news headlines:



The transcript:
NBC

The Today Show

Sept. 26, 2012

7:13 a.m. EDT


ANN CURRY: Would you call the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi an act of terrorism?


MOHAMMED MAGARIEF: I have no doubt about that, and it's a pre-planned act of terrorism directed against American citizens.


CURRY: What is your evidence that it was a pre-planned act of terrorism?


MAGARIEF: Number one, is choosing the date, the eleventh of September has all the significance. If we take all the facts about the way it was executed. You can see there's enough proof that it is a pre-planned act of terrorism.


CURRY: Describe the attack based on your investigation.


MAGARIEF: It's too early for me to give the details about this, but it was launched with a high degree of accuracy which means the perpetrators must have had some kind of exercise on how to hit and launch these rockets.


CURRY: You're confirming that RPG's were used in the initial attack?


MAGARIEF: [And] Mortars.


CURRY: Mortars were use in the subsequent attack.


MAGARIEF: At the safe house, yes.


CURRY: And do you know how many mortars [--> i.e. mortar bombs, cf. here, and technical details here]  were used?


MAGARIEF: About five.


CURRY: And you're saying these were fired with such accuracy.


MAGARIEF: Yes.


CURRY: That this could not have been done by someone who did not have experience?


MAGARIEF: Experience and knew what he was doing.


CURRY: And this is what is helping convince you that this was a pre-planned attack, not a reaction to a controversial movie?


MAGARIEF: Yes. I have no doubt about this.


CURRY: Do you think the movie had anything to do with this attack on the consulate?


MAGARIEF: Not on this attack, it has nothing to do with this attack.

CURRY: So do you know then who is behind this attack and what the motive was?


MAGARIEF: I think it has Al Qaeda elements, hiding in Libya.


CURRY: Is there any direct evidence that it is Al Qaeda behind this attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi?


MAGARIEF: So far not. So far not. As the investigation progresses, there is the likes of that that will show that the attack on the consulate was pre-planned with the intention of killing Ambassador Stevens, that's too early to say.


MATT LAUER: The Libyan president went on to tell Ann at least 40 people have been interrogated. Still no mastermind has been arrested, but he's confident that it will happen.

7:15 AM EDT
 Worse, there is indication that within 24 hours of the attack, US Intelligence had strong indicators that this was an Al Qaeda-linked operation, even though the Administration's spokesmen kept up the "the movie didit" talking point -- which conveniently puts Christians in an unfavourable light -- for almost a week.

We can see this from Eli Lake's Daily Beast Sep 26th report:
Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya.
Nonetheless, it took until late last week for the White House and the administration to formally acknowledge that the Benghazi assault was a terrorist attack. On Sunday, Obama adviser Robert Gibbs explained the evolving narrative as a function of new information coming in quickly on the attacks. "We learned more information every single day about what happened,” Gibbs said on Fox News. “Nobody wants to get to the bottom of this faster than we do.”

The intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast did so anonymously because they weren’t authorized to speak to the press. They said U.S. intelligence agencies developed leads on four of the participants of the attacks within 24 hours of the fire fight that took place mainly at an annex near the Benghazi consulate. For one of those individuals, the U.S. agencies were able to find his location after his use of social media. “We had two kinds of intelligence on one guy,” this official said. “We believe we had enough to target him.”
Another U.S. intelligence official said, “There was very good information on this in the first 24 hours. These guys have a return address. There are camps of people and a wide variety of things we could do.”  
A spokesman for the National Security Council declined to comment for the story. But another U.S. intelligence official said, “I can’t get into specific numbers but soon after the attack we had a pretty good bead on some individuals involved in the attack.” 
It’s unclear whether any of these suspected attackers have been targeted or arrested, and intelligence experts caution that these are still early days in a complex investigation.
The question of what the White House knew, and when they knew it, will be of keen interest to members of Congress in the election year. Last Thursday, the Obama administration formally briefed House and Senate members on the attack. Those briefings however failed to satisfy many members, particularly Republicans. “That is the most useless, worthless briefing I have attended in a long time,” Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, was quoted as saying  . . . 
 So, we clearly see a divergence between the drumbeat headlines about the movie -- which have consistently failed to address the relevant and long known history regarding Islam's founder  -- and the evident facts and investigations on the ground.

This should put us on our guard as to what is going on behind the scenes in much of what we take as straight news and even textbook "facts." 

And, increasingly, what we may well hear from the pulpit too. 

We have reached a day when we are going to have to learn how to tell the difference between what is straight and what is spin.  

And, increasingly, we will have to take it in our own hands to dig out and communicate a fairer and more accurate view, on many topics, especially the credibility of the gospel in a world where "news,"  seemingly powerful arguments by persuasive opinion leaders, revisionist "history" (NB: on the sins and blessings of Christendom here)   and "science" will increasingly be used to try to discredit it and draw people away into deceptions of various kinds. 

So, we must be prepared to give to those who ask us, a reason for the hope we have. At least, if we are determined to obey our Great Commission and carry forward the gospel of the kingdom of God to all the nations as an effective and credible witness.  END

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Capacity focus, 67: The Visual Bible project's Acts of the Apostles

I think that it is important for us to get an overview of the history of the first generation of the church. Not only as foundational history but because the C1 church is a model for how we should live, fellowship together as church, bear witness to the gospel under the Great Commission, and serve God in the nations.

After a bit of searching, I see the Visual Bible presentation of the Acts, verse by verse:



Let's watch, and let us think. END

Matt 24 watch, 169b: Libyan counter-demonstration to the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi -- good news AND bad news . . .

News reports indicate that there have been counter-protests in Libya to the recent Embassy attacks. Good news.

The bad news?

The rarity of such, implying the intimidation of moderates by extremists on the streets. Which is a characteristic of both unstable pre-radical revolutionary situations, and of revolutionary power struggles that tend to put ruthless radicals in the driving seat.

Jihad Watch comments:
If the government and mainstream media narrative about Islam being a Religion of Peace that has been "hijacked" by a Tiny Minority of Extremists were true, we would be seeing this kind of thing frequently: Muslims not only registering their public disapproval of those who riot and murder in the name of Islam, but taking real action to stop them. Instead, there are only a handful of such stories, at best, since 9/11. Now, why is that? The learned analysts dare not ask that question, or answer it . . . 
The problem is that history is riddled with cases of tiny radical minorities driving the unfolding of events and seizing power then taking the bad habits of nihilistic ruthlessness and/or extremism into the halls of power. Millions of ghosts warn us of what can happen as a result.  Where, this is not exactly hard to find in credible histories,  from the French Revolution on.

 We need to see the radical routed all across the Islamic world.

And, BTW, this sort of real phenomenon is one reason why I hold that the distinction between IslamIC and IslamIST is valid.

Let's root for the moderates, but remember the sobering warning of those millions of ghosts. END

Friday, September 21, 2012

Rom 1 reply, 13: A first level critique of William G Perry's model of intellectual (and ethical) development in College

William G Perry was a Harvard professor doing research on educational psychology from the 1950's on, and from the publication of a major paper in 1970 on, was the promoter of a theory of intellectual progress from naive authority-dependent black/white thinking dualism to relativism and commitment to a view within relativism. 

This "seminal" view -- modifications and extensions notwithstanding -- seems to dominate a good swath of the world of ideas on the proper educational aims of College curricula.

Wikipedia gives us a summary on that:
Perry (1970) proposed that college students pass through a predictable sequence of positions of epistemological growth. Fundamental to the Perry scheme is a student’s nine-position progression from dualist to relativist epistemologies. Learners move from viewing truth in absolute terms of Right and Wrong (obtained from “Good” or “Bad” Authorities) to recognizing multiple, conflicting versions of “truth” representing legitimate alternatives. Significantly, the intent of the original research was “a purely descriptive formulation of students’ experience,” rather than a “prescriptive program intended to ‘get’ students to develop” (Perry, 1981, p. 107). The Perry scheme of epistemic development becomes prescriptive when teaching and curriculum are “optimally designed to invite, encourage, challenge, and support students in such development” (Perry, 1981, p. 107) . . . Perry’s scheme speaks to epistemic issues underlying critical thinking: students’ assumptions concerning the nature and acquisition of knowledge (or truth).
Since his work, further research on epistemological beliefs and reasoning has refined, extended and adapted Perry’s developmental sequence.[5][6][7][8] Perry's Epistemology has also been extended by Baxter Magolda and co-workers who were looking at students intellectual development and in particular the exposure to the research environment.[9] Knefelkamp and Slepitza (1978) saw the Perry Scheme as a general process model providing a descriptive framework for viewing the development of an individual’s reasoning about many aspects of the world. They applied the scheme (with apparent success) to the development of an individual’s thinking about career planning. The assumption “that personal epistemology is unidimensional and develops in a fixed progression of stages” has been challenged (Schommer, 1990, p. 498). Nevertheless, Perry’s seminal work continues to function as the primary reference point for the discussion on epistemological growth in the adult learner.
 Now, the pivotal problem with this model is how radical relativism has been embedded in the idea of intellectual and ethical development, and how -- even a generation later -- this seemingly dominates thought on intellectual development in College and beyond.  This goes a long way to explain some of the key trends in our civilisation, trends led and promoted by those who have been educated in colleges in recent decades.

That also makes it highly relevant to the complaint that College too often serves as a context for manipulation and indoctrination of ill-prepared students, under the impact of profs, pals, peers and the general milieu of fashionable views on the campus.

A basic critical response is therefore indicated, in light of some basic canons of logic and what they do to the idea that knowledge is relative based on pivotal counter-examples to that ever so beguiling notion.  

In addition, radical relativism in ethics is deeply questionable, as can be briefly examined here. Greg Koukl soberlingly points out where radical relativism can end, here. Let's use the German, for shock effect: “Lebensunwertes Leben.” Life, unworthy of life. 

Thence the cascade Schaeffer and Koop pointed out in Whatever Happened to the Human Race: abortion, infanticide, euthanasia -- at first "voluntary" then patently involuntary, genocide, the death camp.

Let's pause and watch the video:



Sobering.

I therefore wish to snip from the draft NCSTS course as follows, for general circulation:
_____________

>> Let's pause for a moment, for a pointed question or two: 
I: why are we placing our spiritually and theologically under-prepared young people into the hands of violently hostile, clever skeptics who too often are ever so willing to indoctrinate them in the precepts of unbelief, in the name of education, science, liberation from the dark ages of "fundamentalism" and career preparation?

II: what can -- and, should -- we do about it, how?
One answer is that if we are serious about the Faith, we must make the sacrifice to create a sound education alternative, understanding that the intellectual climate of our civilisation is increasingly anti-Christian. 

If you doubt this and dispute that this undermining of the credibility of Scripture-anchored confidence in Him who is "the way, the truth and the life" has been going on for generations, consider the following diagram of the model of "Intellectual Development" in College pioneered by William G Perry c. 1970, based on research at Harvard from the 1950's on: 



A summary of the Perry model of college-age intellectual (and ethical) development.  (Source: Wankat & Oreovicz, Teaching Engineering, Fig 14-1, p. 270. Fair use.)

This view (with a few modifications for differences in the way women make similar progress and the like) seems to have captured the commanding heights of thought in educational circles -- cf summaries here and here, as well as a slide show here -- on how College students should and do "grow" intellectually and ethically.

Perry and many others view dependence on authorities and associated black/white dualistic thought that accepts absolute (or, objective) truth as dangerously immature and as needing to be corrected across the college years, especially through the teaching of professors, through peer influences of fellow students and through the resulting general climate of the college.


As one progresses (some are dismissed as seeking to escape the progressive process), one first loses confidence in authorities as having answers and  -- under the impact of multiple views and areas where no-one seems to have answers -- becomes relativistic, reducing truth to in effect the core beliefs or claims or views of diverse groups. Then eventually those who mature enough hold a committed view in the face of the reality of relativism.


However, it should be obvious that the view (ironically) is actually a new politically correct absolute view, one that seeks to relativise the concept that objective truth is real. To do that, it implies that
"truth [is] relative" -- note the implied commitment that this claim correctly describes how the world actually is. It is not just a mere report per opinion surveys that show that some people happen to think this is how the world is. (Of course, such a view is often presented or subtly disguised under the bland declaration that "[properly maturing] students come to see truth as relative." Or, the like.)

Sure, because they have been taught systematically and intimidated to doubt traditional authorities, including especially God (who, presumably would have perfect knowledge and who would call us to grow towards the perfect good expressed in love for God and for neighbour).  And, if students' worldviews and value systems brought from home, church and community have not been well founded prior to reaching college, they may then easily undergo the sort of belief and value system collapse summarised by the late Gene Denham of SCFSU in Jamaica back in the 1980's in student leadership training materials:


We are raised with a set of values and beliefs, primarily those of parents, siblings, church, school, and community.  For values to become internalised, they must be reflected on, and made the objects of our best efforts and judgement in decision making  . . . 

Many students (Christians, too!) have never worked at the former.  If we conceptualise the College experience as a situation in which one is confronted daily by radically differing value systems, be they religious, political, economic, racial, philosophical, and whether they be presented by peers, profs, or pals, we will see why there may be so many Christian victims in this area -- especially in the first year.  The total collapse of the value system can follow and is a catastrophe of major proportions  . . .

The alternative to this is for friends to recognise the symptoms and offer support through this period.  Or, students may find another set of values (often ready-made) and swallow it whole -- at least for now. [Denham, Gene.  Developmental Tasks of the College Student.   Paper presented to the 1983 National Conference of the University and Colleges Christian Fellowship, Jamaica.]

An alternative, sounder path of progress is to first firmly fix that truth is real and knowable, as -- echoing Aristotle in Metaphysics 1011b -- that which says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. 

For instance, take the claim championed by American philosopher, Josiah Royce as a pivotal first truth:
error exists.

From our painful memories of the elementary school Maths classroom, and especially of corrected work returned full of red X's, we would say, that is obvious. But, it is more than just factually so,
it is undeniably true.

To see that, symbolise
Error exists as statement E. Then, symbolise its denial as NOT-E.  Now, consider the two together:

E AND NOT-E
Can both be true? No, as one is the direct denial of the other. Similarly, they can both potentially refer to the real world, and so, one or the other must be false. As well, to join them together and assert that both are true, will be false. So, we see that some one of these three statements MUST be false -- must be an error, and that we can thus see that error must exist. So we can draw up some premises [a, b, c] and infer some implied conclusions [d, e, f, g, h, and i]  that are soundly established on following logically from known true premises:
a: Statement E is true, and MUST be true.

b: It is undeniably true.


c: It can be shown and known to be undeniably true.

____________________________________

d: Truth exists as that which conforms accurately to reality


e: We can in some cases warrant our belief in such truths as E


f: Thus knowledge exists as warranted, credibly true beliefs.


g: In some cases, that warrant is to the point of being undeniable.


(NB: In others, it can be to moral certainty, where it is foolishly irresponsible to think or act as though such a truth were dubious or false. In others, warrant is provisional, on balance of evidence, as in a lot of science and practical affairs.)
h: However, that E is true means that we can be in error about what is true.
(NB: So, we must be humble and open to correction, that we may grow in responsible and confident knowledge of the truth.)
i: As a result, views that dismiss truth and knowledge as merely relative to opinions or views, are themselves in error.
In short, the whole concept that represents becoming a relativist thinker on truth represents intellectual development, is deeply questionable.  But, this view is, beyond dispute, deeply embedded in contemporary culture all over the world to the point of being a largely unquestioned axiom among those who view themselves as intelligent, informed and educated.

In that context, such are conditioned to dispute claimed authority that does not have their seal of approval:
sez who? However, this often encountered rhetorical challenge/ dismissive talking point fails to appreciate that in actuality 99+% of real world arguments rest on explicit or implicit appeals to experts and other authorities ranging from the dictionary and Wikipedia back to newspapers and other mass media, professors and teachers, "Science sez," and many other similar appeals.

So, a wiser view is that
no authority is better than his or her facts, reasoning and underlying assumptions.

This means that we need to audit the quality of the authorities we are inclined to use in general, and to check the basis of their claims on particular cases that may be under examination or dispute. What we must not fall into the trap of, is to allow an authentic and reliable authority to be discredited and dismissed unfairly, and then blindly switch to a more politically correct or fashionable one in response to pressure on campus or media campaigns or talking points spread in the community.


Where also, the case of "error exists" vs relativism above should show how such pressure to go along and be squeezed into a new shape by undue pressure can all too easily happen.


Beyond this, we must also learn to think in terms of comparison of
worldviews, and to understand that the very fact that error exists is itself a point of knowable objective truth that then undergirds the possibility of knowable and livable truth despite our finiteness, fallibility, sinful fallen-ness, and too frequent ill-will.

So, we should instead learn how to grow towards reformation and renewal rather than abandoning the insight that truth and right are real, they can be knowable and it counts.


Similarly, we should recognise that some things -- such as: the consequences of the truth that
error exists -- can be sufficiently warranted that we would be irresponsible to then act as though they were false, i.e. they are warranted to moral certainty and can and should serve as a guide to sound decision-making. (Cf Unit 2 in this course, here and here, with key backdrop here and onward remarks here on in Unit 9 on indoctrination in hostility to God.) . . . >>
_____________

In short,the Perry model is seriously flawed and needs to be corrected in light of the errors of radical relativism. (The associated issues of manipulation, undermining and indoctrination on the campus also serve to ground the call for the creation of an independent AACCS, as is discussed here.) END