Tag: Christianity

The butter knife at the gun fight

While Tom Kratman doesn’t assert there are no atheists in foxholes, in the afterword of the Tuloriad, he expresses his doubts about the survival prospects of a culture that relies on putting large quantities of atheists on the front lines.

Where was Secular Humanism at Lepanto?
The moral of this story, this afterword, is “Never bring a knife to a gunfight.” Keep that in mind as you read.

In any case, religious fanatics? Us? We don’t think so.

We’re not going to sit here and lecture you on the value and validity of atheism versus faith. We’ll leave that to Hitchens and Dawkins or D’Souza or the pope or anyone else who cares to make the leap. One way or the other. Hearty shrugs, all around. A defense of the existence of God was never the purpose of the book, anyway, though we would be unsurprised to see any number of claims, after publication, that it is such a defense.

Sorry, it ain’t, either in defense of Revelations or in defense of Hitchens’ revelation that there was no God when Hitchens was nine years old. (Besides, Dinesh D’Souza does a much better job of thrashing Hitchens in public than we could, even if we cared to.)

Moreover, nope, we don’t think it’s unethical to be an atheist. We don’t think it’s impossible, or really any more difficult or unlikely, to be an atheist and still be a highly ethical human being. The same, sadly, cannot be said for governments. Thus, consider, say, the retail horrors of the Spanish Inquisition which, from 1481 to 1834 killed—shudder—not more than five thousand people, few or none of them atheists, and possibly closer to two thousand. Compare that to expressly atheistic regimes—the Soviet Union, for example, in which a thousand people a day, twenty-five hundred a day by Robert Conquest’s tally— were put to death in 1937 and ’38. And that’s not even counting starved Ukrainians by the millions. The death toll in Maoist China is said to have been much, much greater. Twenty million? Thirty million? A hundred million? Who knows?

Personally, we’d take our chances with the Inquisition before we would take them with a militantly communist, which is to say, atheist, regime. The Inquisition, after all, was a complete stranger neither to humanity nor to the concept of mercy.

But that’s still not the point of this book or this afterword. Go back to the afterword’s title. Ever heard of Lepanto? Everyone knows about the Three Hundred Spartans now, at least in some form or another, from the movies. Not enough people know about the battle of Lepanto….

Now let’s suppose, just for the moment and just arguendo, that God doesn’t exist, that He’s a pure figment of the imagination. What then won the battle of Lepanto? No, back off. What got the Christian fleet together even to fight the battle, for without getting together to fight it it could never have been won?

The answer is, of course, faith, the faith of the pope, Pius V, who did the political maneuvering and much of the financing, and also the faith of the kings, doges, nobles and perhaps especially the common folk who manned the fleet. And that answer does not depend on the validity of faith, only upon its sincere existence. Faith is, in short, a weapon, the gun you bring to a certain kind of gunfight.

If you’ve got any interest in the atheism/religion debate or military history, you simply must read the whole thing. And then reflect upon the likelihood that the West’s secular humanist culture will survive either the challenge of Islam in the Dar al Harb or the third world’s Christian revival.

Happy Thanksgiving

Among the many things for which I am grateful to God:

  • Marcher Lord Hinterlands. I cannot tell you how wonderful it is to be able to write in the full knowledge that I can write whatever I want and see it professionally edited and published in a timely manner. One has to have repeatedly put up with the vagaries of mainstream publishing to fully appreciate this.
  • Kirk and JartStar. Yesterday I received the QM:AMD dustjacket from the former and a high-res image of the QM:GK cover from the latter. Spectacular on both accounts. I’ve seen so many writers try to grin and bear it, try to pretend that they LOVE LOVE LOVE the dreadful cover that the publisher’s crack team of stock photography contorters have produced, that it is a true luxury to know that the cover is all but guaranteed to be the best part of the book.
  • John Scalzi, Andrew Marston, and the various anklebiters. When motivation is lacking, they are always there for me, an endless pool upon which to draw. It may sound strange but I’ve realized that they are, in their Platonic Form, my collective muse. But perhaps it’s not so strange; most male athletes respond better to curses, insults, and derision from their coaches than flattery and praise.
  • My football team and my continued good health. I’m the second-oldest man on the team, but I was selected to start more than half the games this year. Not too bad for someone who thought he was finished due to injury six years ago.
  • My partner in game development. Markku has worked himself nearly to the bone and we’re not finished yet. But First Sword is going to be really good, perhaps even great with a bit of luck and a tailwind.
  • The reviewers of my novels. Many writers and publishers have marveled at how many reviews my books get in comparison with their sales. Every novelist has his fans, but a higher proportion of mine are sufficiently motivated to take the time to tell others what they think, and better yet, to do so in an intelligent way that shows they are no mere fanboys and fangirls.
  • The readers of this blog. I blog out of compulsion, not out of the desire for fame or fortune. (NB: I’m no St. Francis; the latter is why I design games.) So, in one sense it doesn’t matter if anyone reads VP or not. But I was re-reading the debates with both Nate and Dominic yesterday, and it is very clear that the product of the interaction with the readers is superior to what I can produce alone.

So give thanks today. And be cognizant of to whom you are giving thanks. For without God, not only would there be nothing for which to give thanks, there would be no consciousness to be thankful.

Bring it on

I agree with Tony Jones. It is absolutely time for a schism in the Church over the role of women:

I don’t take this lightly. I very much take Jesus’ prayer for unity in the Fourth Gospel seriously. Our eschatological hope is that the church will be one, and that we will all be united in belief, practice, and love.

But sometimes we need to separate. We need to say hard words to those who are not living the way that Jesus laid out for us. We need to divorce.

The time has come for a schism regarding the issue of women in the church. Those of us who know that women should be accorded full participation in every aspect of church life need to visibly and forcefully separate ourselves from those who do not. Their subjugation of women is anti-Christian, and it should be tolerated no longer.

That means:

  •     If you attend a church that does not let women preach or hold positions of ecclesial authority, you need to leave that church.
  •     If you work for a ministry that does not affirm women in ecclesial leadership, you need to leave that ministry.
  •     If you write for a publishing house that also prints books by “complementarians,” you need to take your books to another publishing house.
  •     If you speak at conferences, you need to withdraw from all events that do not affirm women as speakers, teachers, and leaders.

That is, we who believe in the full equality of women need to break fellowship with those who do not. The time for dialogue and debate has passed. The Spirit has spoken, and we have listened. It’s time to move forward with full force.

The schism has been declared. Very well. And likewise, Christians who actually follow the Word of God need to do the same. 

  •     If you have members that insist women preach or
    hold positions of ecclesial authority, you need to expel them from that church.
  •     If you run a ministry that does not affirm women in ecclesiastical leadership and you have employees or volunteers who do, you need to expel them from that ministry.
  •    
    If you run a publishing house that prints books by
    “non-complementarians,” you need to drop those authors.
  •     If you speak at conferences, you need to speak against the affirmation of women as speakers, teachers, and leaders.

As for me, I stopped attending all churches that feature female preachers or teachers or pastors or priests years ago. Based on the declining numbers of equalitarian church congregations around the world, I’m far from the only one.

The Spirit to which Tony Jones is listening to is not the Holy Spirit. It is the sweetly whispering voice of the Prince of This World.

THERE IS NO EQUALITY. EQUALITY DOES NOT EXIST IN ANY REAL, MATERIAL, LEGAL, OR SPIRITUAL SENSE.

Mailvox: studying Christianity

LC asks for reading recommendations to learn more about Christianity:
I read your book, The Irrational Atheist, and I have been reading
your blog for a few months now because I find most of what you say
interesting and some of it comforting. I was raised by Christian
parents. I am young, 21, and have recently gone through a questioning of
my faith.  I have re-committed myself to my beliefs and living in a way
that has resulted in a good life. I have realized that I still have the
faith of my childhood and my understanding of Christianity and the
world in general is very limited. I always have respect for your
arguments because you know what you’re talking about and back up your
assertions. Can you please give me some direction on texts to study
other than the Bible to increase my understanding of Christianity and
religion in general? 
First of all, remember not to get too caught up in the theological extrapolations. No matter what you end up reading, it is always worthwhile to periodically circle back to the original source. Don’t neglect reading the Bible in favor of various men’s interpretations of what the Bible says. In the end, theology is nothing more than philosophy derived from the Bible and it is no more intrinsically reliable than any other logical derivation.

I would start at the beginning. If your understanding is limited, begin with The Chronicles of Narnia. As we saw in the debate with Luke of Common Sense Atheism, the average grasp of Christian concepts don’t even rise to the level of Narnia. Then read The Tower of Geburah by John White. Once you’ve read the children’s fiction, move onto simple theology like Mere Christianity by CS Lewis and Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton. As a general rule, it’s hard to go too far afield on a foundation of Lewis and Chesterton. I would also recommend the very short, very simple, but intriguing A Defense of the Revelation by Leonhard Euler, who happens to be one of the most legendary mathematicians in history. And my friend Greg Boyd’s Letters to a Skeptic is also recommended.

Once you have a grasp of the theological basics, you may be ready to read up on the actual history of Christianity and some of its leading thinkers. The first volume of the Cambridge Medieval History series, The Christian Empire, is tremendously informative and the epub is freely available for download online. St. Augustine’s Confessions are worth reading for their influence on Western thinking and a good summary of Thomas Aquinas is a necessity as well. I haven’t read it yet, but I have heard very good things about Edward Feser’s Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide and I intend to review it as soon as I finish the Cantillon.

Any other reasonable recommendations would be welcome. Please note that this is not the right sort of post to either indulge your particular theological peculiarities or exhibit how esoteric your reading happens to have been. We’re talking Christianity 101, not 503.

The Church of England is not the Church

After decades of slow-motion suicide, the Church of England decides that killing itself faster is the cure:

The Church of England is just ‘one generation away from extinction’, the former Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday. Lord Carey laid the blame at the feet of Church leaders who he said should be ‘ashamed’ of their failure to bring youngsters into their services.

His stark message was echoed by the Archbishop of York, who told the General Synod that compared to the need to attract new worshippers, ‘everything else is like re-arranging furniture when the house is on fire’.

The Most Reverend John Sentamu told the Synod – where leaders will debate how to persuade traditionalists to accept women bishops – that they spent too long ‘arguing over words and phrases, while the people of England are left floundering amid meaninglessness, anxiety and despair’….

Church of England Sunday congregations are running at half the numbers of the 1960s, and over the past two decades Roman Catholic churchgoing has seen a similar decline. Christian numbers are rising fast in some parts of the world, notably in Africa. Worldwide, the Anglican churches have between 70 and 80 million followers – many of whom look to the Church of England for a lead.

Embrace the world and die. Abandon Biblical doctrine and die. Permit women in leadership and die. The Church can, and will, survive any amount of persecution. The Gates of Hell themselves cannot prevail, much less bloodthirsty atheist dictators.

But the one thing no church can survive is cutting itself off from its own source of life and nourishment. There are always a plethora of excellent, logical, and convincing reasons why the Church should embrace sin, abandon doctrine, and walk upon the broad and easy path to the approval of the world. And the churches swayed by that reasoning always end up dying. The pursuit of approval always ends in apostasy and societal apathy.

Mailvox: Are Christians “required to be dicks”?

LudVanB objects to the idea that atheists should be expelled from Christian organizations:

“Not all Christians are required to be dicks, Vox”

To which Myrddin responded:

Actually, if we behave the way Christ and his apostles behaved:

  1. To honest seekers: Be gentle.
  2. To scoffers in private: Avoid them.
  3. To scoffers in public: Humiliate them.
  4. To people who claim to be part of the church, but are willfully and proudly disobeying: Kick them out.
  5. To false teachers: Silence them and/or kick them out.
  6. To those who repent: Welcome them back.

Notice under churchian definitions, in four of those six situations, Christians are required to be dicks.

Let’s see if we can  find Scriptural justification for Myrddin’s claims. I’ll start with the two that are relevant to yesterday’s discussion, numbers (4) and (5).

(4) 2 Thessalonians 3:6: “In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.”

1 Corinthians 5: 11-13 “I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.””
 
(5) James 3:1: “Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”

2 Peter 2:1: “But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.”

The lesson, as always, is this: never listen to an atheist attempting to lecture you on theological matters. They literally do not know what they are talking about.

How institutions die

As various Christians at Northwest Christian University fall about congratulating themselves for being so open and accepting of having an atheist student body president at their nominally Christian institution, the reality is that this likely marks the beginning of the end for the school.

A student from a Christian university in Oregon ditched the privacy of the confessional and went public about his faith, writing in the school newspaper: “I am an atheist. Yes, you read that correctly, I am an atheist.”

Eric Fromm, 21, a senior at Northwest Christian University in Eugene published his thoughts about not believing in God in the Beacon Bolt, the student-run online newspaper — despite the fact that his university is a Christian school.

Although Fromm didn’t share the religious beliefs as the school, he said in his post he decided to enroll because Northwest Christian had a “solid communications program.”

“Before I enrolled, I visited the campus to make sure that the chapel services were comfortable enough that I could fulfill the requirement,” he said. “No one was speaking in tongues or handling snakes, so I decided to stay.”

But Fromm didn’t feel at peace.

“Every day I’m burdened by the fact that my peers might reject me because I’m different from them. I won’t be rejected because of my race or social class, but simply because of the fact that I don’t believe in God — because I am an atheist,” wrote Fromm in his post.

The university should promptly expel Mr. Fromm, return his senior year tuition, and make it clear that it is a Christian university and not a secular one. Christianity is not about acceptance. It is not about tolerance. It is about separating the wheat from the chaff and dividing the sheep from the goats. In his own words, Jesus makes it perfectly clear that he did not come to bring peace. He is, in fact, the dividing factor.

If the university does not expel Mr. Fromm, then it is quite clear that it is no longer a Christian institution. It is merely another secular institution with religion classes. What’s next, churches with atheist pastors….

Now, there is nothing wrong with secular institutions that welcome everyone and practice religious and ideological ecumenicism. There is a place for such things. Atheists are welcome here, for example. But not only is there no place for inclusive Christian institutions, such institutions have no rational reason to exist in the first place. To those who will say “well, what is wrong with permitting atheists attend/teach/work at religious institutions” the answer is quite simple: look at what has happened to the Ivy League universities, the Episcopal Church, and every other Christian institution that decides to be led by the principle of tolerance rather than doctrine-based exclusion.

Every institution that doesn’t actively police its membership will be invaded, taken over, and subverted by its opponents. It doesn’t matter if you’re talking about the Cub Scouts or the Communist Party. It’s not an accident that Mr. Fromm pursued a leadership position, then promptly went public with his atheism.

Just look at that smug, self-satisfied face. You can see that he is absolutely delighted for having been able to pull one over on the university. The remarkable thing is that he managed to control himself from his inclination to lecture everyone about his adolescent concept of the life, the universe, and everything. And despite the fact that he wasn’t rejected by the school, he still managed to produce a conventional work in the oppression genre.

Mailvox: 25 reasons for Trinitarian skepticism

PB actually emailed me 100 reasons why he feels my skepticism concerning the Trinity doctrine are correct. But the first 25 are more than sufficient for the purposes of discussion.

1. Because
Jesus Christ is represented by the sacred writers to be as distinct a
being from God the Father as one man is distinct from another. “It is
written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one who bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me” (John 8:17 and 18).
2. Because he not only never said that himself was God, but, on the contrary, spoke of the Father, who sent him, as God, and as the only God. “This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3). This language our Saviour used in solemn prayer to “his Father and our Father.”
3. Because he is declared, in unnumbered instances, to be the Son of God. “And lo, a voice from heaven, saying, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:17). Can a son be coeval(the same age) and the same with his father?
4. Because he is styled the Christ, or the anointed of God. “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power” (Acts 10:38). Is he who anoints the same with him who is anointed?
5. Because he is represented as a Priest. “Consider the ….High-Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus” (Heb. 3:1). The office of a priest is to minister to God. Christ, then, as a priest, cannot be God.
6. Because Christ is Mediator between the “One God,” and “men.” “For there is one God, and oneMediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5).
7. Because, as the Saviour of men, he was sent by the Father. “And we have seen and do testify thatthe Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world” (1 John 4:14).
8. Because he is an Apostle appointed by God. “Consider the Apostle,…Christ Jesus, who was faithful to him that appointed him” (Heb. 3:1 and 2).
9. Because Christ is represented as our intercessor with God. “It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us” (Rom. 8:34).
10. Because the head of Christ is God. “I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of every woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3).
11. Because, in the same sense in which we are said to belong to Christ, Christ is said to belong to God. “And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s” (1 Cor. 3:23).
12. Because Christ says, “My father is greater than all” (John 10:29). Is not the father, then greater than the son?
13. Because he affirms, in another connection, and without the least qualification, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).
14. Because he virtually denies that he is God, when he exclaims, “Why callest thou me Good? There is none good but one, that is God” (Matt. 19:17).
15. Because our Saviour, after having said, “I and my Father are one,” gives his disciples distinctly to understand that he did not mean one substance, equal in power and glory, but one only in affection and design, as clearly appears from the prayer he offers to his Father in their behalf, –“that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us” (John 17:21).
16. Because the Father is called the God of Christ as he is the God of Christians. Jesus saith unto her, “….Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my Godand your God” (John 20:17).
17. Because an Apostle says of God, in distinction from the “Lord Jesus Christ,” that He is the “onlyPotentate,” and that He “only hath immortality” (1 Tim. 6:15 and 16).
18. Because it is the express declaration of the same Apostle, that the Father is the one God, and there is none other. “Though there be that are called Gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things” (1 Cor. 8:5 and 6).
19. Because the power which Christ possessed was, as him affirmed, given to him. “All power isgiven unto me” (Matt. 28:18).
20. Because he positively denies himself to be the author of his miraculous works, but refers them to the Father, or the holy spirit of God. “The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works” (John14:10). “If I cast out devils by the spirit of God” (Matt. 12:28).
21. Because he distinctly states, that these works bear witness, not to his own power, but that theFather had sent him (John 5:36).
22. Because he expressly affirms that the works were done, not in his own name, but in his Father’s name (John 10:25).
23. Because he asserts, that “him hath God the Father sealed,” i.e. to God the Father he was indebted for his credentials (John 6:27).
24. Because he declares that he is not the author of his own doctrine. “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me” (John 7:16 and 17).

25. Because he represents himself as having been instructed by the Father. “As my Father hath taught me, I speak these things” (John 8:28).

Regardless of what your opinion on of the matter is, I think it is important to keep in mind that Christians should not elevate theological understanding to an overly sacred status. It is repentance and acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior that are the central issues of our faith, not an ability to see more clearly through the glass than others. Jesus, you may recall, was never overly impressed with intellectual ability.

God is not mocked

I couldn’t help but think of Galatians 6:7 when I read about the tragic death of this father on his misguided trek in remembrance of his dead son.  “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

I can’t link to the story, for some reason, but the headline is: Oregon Father’s Memorial Trek Across Country Ends in a Family’s Second Tragedy. So you can probably find it on Google or wherever.

The American elites have declared that there is nothing wrong with what God calls abomination. The usual suspects will insist, in defiance of both traditional morality and secular logic, that there is no such thing as objective universal morality while simultaneously insisting that homosexuality normal and it is wrong to say otherwise.

But at the end of the day, God’s Game, God’s Rules. Are they arbitrary? Perhaps. So is the intentional grounding rule. That doesn’t make them nonexistent and it doesn’t mean we can safely ignore them, given that we are warned about what the wages of sin are.

That being said, I very much doubt that the grieving father was struck down by God simply because he was on a personal crusade to popularize the acceptance of a particular form of sin; the ironic malice involved tends to strike me as the handiwork of a very different supernatural being.

This is something many Christians don’t seem to understand. Evil revels in grief, pain, and suffering. Not good. And not God.

Mailvox: a creedal correction

In which my religious views are somewhat mischaracterized on Twitter:

Avenging Red Hand: Vox is amusing, but highly arrogant, and heterodox, if not outright heretical, on his views of the Trinity.

Uilesmiselani: Yes, he’s a heretic. Not even Nicene.

As it happens, my views are entirely Nicene in the proper sense, they simply do not happen to be in line with what should be technically considered Constantinoplene rather than Nicene.  Consider the actual Nicene Creed of 325:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.


And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;


By whom all things were made;

Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;


He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;

From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the Holy Ghost.

I readily affirm all of that. Now, one can certainly quibble over the “one substance with the Father” aspect, as it can be interpreted in various ways and I do not accept it means that “the Father Almighty” and “the Son of God” are exactly equal and wholly interchangeable at all times because this is an explicitly anti-Biblical position; how can God the Father have abandoned Himself?

What I take exception to is the addition made by the First Council of Constaninople 56 years later, in which the simple belief in the existence of the Holy Ghost is raised to a quasi-equal status with both God the Father and the Son of God alike.

“And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.”

How can the Helper, who came after the Son, be considered the Giver of life when not only life, but life eternal, had already been given? And if the Father and the Son are wholly equal, how can the Holy Ghost proceed solely from the Father and not the Son, especially if the Son is the one by whom all things are made? Is proceeding more akin to being begotten or being made?

It seems to me that the true Nicene Creed is not only more fundamentally Christian, but more coherent than the later Constantinoplene Creed for which it is so readily confused. These questions don’t trouble me in the slightest, as we know perfectly well how dark the glass is through which we see these things, but I do think it is inaccurate to describe me as “not even Nicene” or a heretic in the Scriptural sense as opposed to one based on whatever the post-Scriptural dogma happens to be at the moment.

“Heterodoxically Nicene” would, I think, be a more judicious description of my Christian theological perspective.