Heaven

I recently realized that I have no idea what “heaven” is, according to Christianity. I hear the word mentioned daily, and I meet Christians that seem to know what it is. However, a lot of these Christians haven’t really read the Bible, so I can’t trust their descriptions. So it is to the source itself I go, to the Bible! Using my electronic King James Bible, I did a word search for every instance of the word “heaven”, and collected the best information I could. It took quite a while, as I had to continually filter through every time the Bible says “…and God rained fire down from the heavens”, which isn’t exactly useful for my current endeavor (by the way, it says that line possibly one hundred or more times in the Bible).

Below are some excerpts from the Bible, with my brief commentary. Following the excerpts, I present my interpretation of this information.

Excerpts and Commentary

“…and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.” [Genesis 1:20]

-Birds fly around in heaven. Heaven is mostly synonymous with sky, it seems.

“Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years…” [Genesis 1:14]

-Again, heaven equals sky and space.

“…and the fowl of the heaven…” [Genesis 7:23]

-Heaven seems to be synonymous with “sky” here.

“…and the rain from heaven was restrained…” [Genesis 8:2]

-Heaven seems to be synonymous with “sky” here.

“And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven…” [Genesis 26:4]

-Again, this is more of a generalization about “sky”, as the stars most certainly exist far out into space.

“But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal.” [Matthew 6:19]

-There will be “treasures” in heaven, but it is not specific as to what those treasures are. It seems to be mentioned in relationship to or in context with material goods.

“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come.” [Matthew 12:31-12:32]

-Speaking a word against the Holy Ghost denies you access to heaven. Ever. That’s pretty harsh.

“If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give it to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven…” [Matthew 19:21]

-Again, more mention of treasure in relation to material goods.

“For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” [Matthew 22:30]

-So people will be like angels in heaven. Also, married couples will not remain married in heaven.

“For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.” [Hebrews 10:34]

-The “better and enduring substance” is most likely something about heaven. Very non-specific.

“Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the what into my barn.” [Matthew 13:24 – 13:30]

-So the wicked people are the “seeds of the devil”. When the time of reaping comes, all the “tares” (aka, sinners), will be gathered up and burned, while the “wheat” (aka, faithful), will be put somewhere safe.

“Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.” [Matthew 13:31-13:32]

-Not sure what to make of this. I’m just confused by it.

“Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.” [Matthew 13:33]

-Um…what?

“He [Jesus] answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked [one]; The enemy that soweth them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” [Matthew 13:37-13:43]

-Same as above – the good will be sheltered, the evil burned.

“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.” [Matthew 13:44]

-Another confusing parable about heaven. I’m really not sure what this is supposed to tell us about heaven, apart from the fact that it is valuable.

“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls: Who, when he had found one pearls of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.” [Matthew 13:45]

-Same as above. We get it. Heaven is valuable.

“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” [Matthew 13:47-13:50]

-They are really driving home the fact that the bad people will be cast forth into a fire and burned. They seem to define that scenario more clearly than what happens with the good people.

“Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owend him ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owned him an hundred pence: and he lad hands upon him, and took [him] by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest. And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.” [Matthew 18:23-18:35]

-Okay, this is a very long parable. The point of it is not really about heaven; it is more about the criteria for getting into heaven. Forgiveness is key. If you don’t forgive every single person of their trespasses, you do not get into heaven.

“Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly ever enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” [Matthew 19:23-19:24]

-Jesus drives home the point about poverty and wealth. Wealth is bad. Give it away, or you won’t get into heaven.

“Any everyone that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.” [Matthew 19:29]

-It looks like material goods forsaken in this life will be returned, a hundredfold, in heaven. Heaven seems to contain material possessions, literally “wealth”.

“The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and [my] fatlings [are] killed, and all things [are] ready: come unto the marriage. But they made light of [it], and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise. And the remnant took his servants, and entreated [them][ spitefully, and slew [them]. But when the king heard [thereof], he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast [him] into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few [are] chosen.” [Matthew 22:2-22:11]

-Again…what? I guess the final line is the whole point of this long-winded parable. Not really seeing the point of it all.

“Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise, and five [were] foolish. They that [were] foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him. Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. But the wise answered, saying, [Not so]; lest there not be enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and said, Verily I saw unto you, I know you not. Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.” [Matthew 25:1-25:13]

-This parable is almost comical. “You never know when Jesus is coming, so be ready, just like those virgins!” It’s an odd way of making a point, and I’m really not sure how effective the point is. Fools don’t get into heaven? Not really sure here.

Conclusion

No where in the Old Testament does it describe heaven as anything but a “sky realm”. It is the place of fire, rain, thunder, lightning, stars, and the sun and moon. The birds are said to fly in heaven. This is a very literal and physical interpretation of heaven. Additionally, it does not describe heaven as a place of “afterlife” in the Old Testament. This seems to be a mostly New Testament idea, of which most discussion takes place in Matthew. The book of Matthew describes in great detail the process by which people will be selected for entering heaven, but it does not really describe what it’s like there. There is a much clearer image of what Hell is like (a furnace of fire), and they make sure to drive that point home frequently.

The following features are the best I could come up with from my admittedly brief research:

1. People become like God’s angels in heaven. Matthew [22:30]

2. You will have tons of treasures, including material wealth, so long as you gave up material wealth in life.[Matthew [19:21] and [19:29]

3. People have everlasting life in heaven. Matthew [19:29]

4. Marriages in life are not binding in heaven, and no one can marry or be married in heaven. Matthew [22:30]

5. There will be very few people in heaven, as the criteria is extremely strict. If you ever blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, you have committed an unforgivable sin, and you will not get into heaven. EVER. Matthew [12:31-12:32] and [22:11]

6. Heaven is the source of: rain, thunder, lightning, and contains the stars, the moon, and the sun. Genesis [1:14], [8:2], and [26:4]

7. Birds fly around in heaven, which leads me to believe it is not only part of this realm (not another dimension or something), but that it is literally right above us. Genesis [7:23]

That is not the clearest of images. I’m not sure where many Christians get their conceptions of heaven, but what I’ve posted above is what the Bible itself says, most of the time right from Jesus’ own mouth. On the other hand, the Bible is quite clear as to who gets into heaven, and I’ve never met anyone, let alone a Christian, that meets the criteria set forth in the Good Book.

Possibility

Is anything possible? Yes. Does that matter? Not especially. Is it possible that not anything is possible? I suppose so, but that seems even less useful. Below, I discuss the process of “doubting” and “infinite possibilities”, as they relate to the practice of Philosophy.

Before I get into the discussion proper, I will provide a brief personal anecdote, one that my best friend Daniel can only truly verify, for he was there with me on the “front lines”, and witnessed my battle and eventual fall. Many years ago, I was deep into the process of “doubting”. I questioned and questioned. I dug deeper and deeper. I peeled away at layer after layer. When I got down to the apparent “bottom”, I didn’t like what I found. I found nothing. At my core, I felt like I was not a “real person”, but only a person who “acts” like one. I thought that I only behaved as I thought I should behave, and that my entire life was arbitrary. I took the process to the literal extreme – I truly and genuinely doubted my own existence. Not on an academic level, but on an actual level. It broke me. I made several poor decisions following this – decisions I am not proud of. I won’t get in to them at this time. It took me some time to rebuild, to piece back together my reality, but eventually I became whole again. I am stronger now. I am actual. I tell this story to fully articulate my experience and understanding of the subject of “doubt” and “possibility”. Having said that, we may begin:

Could an umbrella be a galaxy? Absolutely. What does the “best evidence presently available” suggest? That it is not. Could be, though? Again, assuredly so.

Accepting the possibility of alternatives does not preclude one from acting on the “best evidence presently available”. Placing too much weight into alternative possibilities is not only non-productive, but counter to the very process of Philosophy.

No matter the argument, no matter the claim, one can always say “Well, it is possible that this is all an illusion!” This is, of course, true. One could make that rebuttal to any claim, to any statement. This is not, however, good Philosophy.

When does the questioning stop? It will never, until the very fundamental edifice of knowledge is eroded away. What good has that done, Philosophically speaking? We have gained no insight, no further understanding of a matter. We have simply dismissed it, cast it aside as so much possibility. One cannot build an understanding of reality on such a premise. One cannot believe anything, trust anything, or enjoy anything. It has gained us nothing. What we have gained is doubt – doubt we did not need. It is, to put succinctly, a non-starter.

Any serious Philosopher must concede the point that yes, the umbrella could be a galaxy. Are we supposed to leave it at that? Are we supposed to throw up our hands in defeat and head forward, trusting in nothing due to such possibilities? I would say no, we shouldn’t.

This is where the “best evidence presently available” comes in. Is the coffee mug I hold in my hand really there, or is it just an illusion? Well, it is certainly possible that I’m in a tank as per the Matrix films, but is that what the best evidence presently available suggests? The immediate, tactile sensation, the odor of the mug, the fact that I see it – this is all data. Of course, my senses may lie to me. However, once I allow that fact to undermine all sensory data, my life becomes nothing – a false reality not worth living.

The best evidence presently available suggests that yes, there are objects that take up physical space, and yes, I am alive, and yes, my senses are as tuned into reality as is possible by our current bodies and technology. This data suggests to me that, yes, the mug is just a mug, and yes, the umbrella is just an umbrella.

Is it a fact that the umbrella is what I think it is? It’s as close as I can get. That “as close as I can get” puts air planes in the sky, people into space, re-attaches severed limbs, and other feats I can only barely comprehend. It is that “best evidence presently available” that not only builds human society, but allows us to exist within our reality.

The best evidence presently available is not perfect. Nor will it ever be. It will always grow, iterate, and edit itself, and our understanding of reality along with it. At every step along the path, all we can do is work under the assumptions currently available to us. We accept that the path continues on, in some unknown direction and toward new possibilities – but what we have before us is all we have. We will never gain perfect understanding (although, I suppose I should concede the possibility of that, too), but the quest toward it is no less valiant. However, we can’t wait for that (possibly) unobtainable end point, that wonderful conclusion. We have to use what we have.

Is it the job, or duty, of a Philosopher to negate all theory, to simply “question something to death”? Or is it the job of the Philosopher, going off the best available evidence (and possibly contributing to the best available evidence), to help us understand our world, the people in it, and how to interact them?

It is not the duty of the Philosopher to simply cast doubt – it’s the duty of the Philosopher to understand. So one must ask: does making the admission that the umbrella could be a galaxy, or an illusion, assist in our understanding of the umbrella, or any theory stemmed there from? I would say no, it does not.

I will close with a reference to a big name in Philosophy: Descartes. King of Doubters, Descartes sought to tear down the reality around him as he sat in his comfortable chair by the fire. He peeled away, layer after layer, until he could peel no more. That peeling, that doubting was just the beginning. What Descartes did after that was build. Doubting is only the first, and frankly, easiest step. It is the building where the action happens. That’s where doubt stops, and Philosophy begins.

Fun Quotations

Here are some fun quotes from some very smart and very famous people regarding religion! Hope you folks get a chuckle out of them, as I did.

Side note: This blog has been neglected by me over the last two months. I have been busily working on a different project, namely "Clockworld", and it will likely take up most of my writing time for the indeterminate future. I hope to return to working on my philosophy after the completion of Clockworld.

Gene Roddenberry - "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."

Michael Shermer - "In the past 10,000 years, humans have devised roughly 100,000 religions based on roughly 2,500 gods. So the only difference between myself and the believers is that I am skeptical of 2,500 gods whereas they are skeptical of 2,499 gods. We're only one God away from total agreement.

Jonathan Swift - "We have just enough religion to make us hate but not enough religion to make us love one another."

Mark Twain - "Our Bible reveals to us the character of our god with minute and remorseless exactness... It is perhaps the most damnatory biography that exists in print anywhere. It makes Nero an angel of light … by contrast."

Napoleon Bonaparte - "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."

Robert G. Ingersoll - " Hands that help are far better then lips that pray."

Magellan - "The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church."

President George Washington - "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." (Treaty Of Tripoli, 1796)

President Thomas Jefferson - "History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."

“An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.” –Benjamin Franklin

“Anger is never without a reason, but seldom with a good one.” –Benjamin Franklin

“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” –Benjamin Franklin

“Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing.” –Benjamin Franklin

“Games lubricate the body and the mind.” –Benjamin Franklin

“He that displays too often his wife and his wallet is in danger of having both of them borrowed.” –Benjamin Franklin

“He that lives upon hope will die fasting.” –Benjamin Franklin

“If a man empties his purse into his head, no one can take it from him.” –Benjamin Franklin

“Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.” –Benjamin Franklin

“The doorstep to the temple of wisdom is a knowledge of our own ignorance.” –Benjamin Franklin

“The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason.” –Benjamin Franklin

“To follow by Faith alone is to follow blindly.” –Benjamin Franklin

“When you’re finished changing, you’re finished.” –Benjamin Franklin

An Infant's Rights

Part 1

In speaking with Maribel Navarro on the topic of fetus’ rights, she pointed out some very interesting issues. The following is the result of our conversation, coalesced and honed into a more precise discourse.

Many people are anti-abortion. Such people believe that the fetus is a living thing, and should have protection under our laws. This child-to-be, this future person, should have its liberties and life protected. These are compelling arguments. The protection of sentient life is a noble endeavor, indeed. I am not here to argue against this position. This is not an essay on the merits or demerits of abortion. What this essay is about will be revealed shortly.

Let’s take a look at some anti-abortion precepts.

1. An unborn child is a person, despite still being in the womb.

2. As a person, an unborn child has rights.

3. An unborn child, as a person, should have their life and body protected against harm.

4. A parent does not have the right to harm their child, even if that child is unborn.

If you read numbers 1-4 above and agreed with them wholeheartedly, I have a question for you: Are you a supporter of child circumcision*? If so, how can you reconcile those two beliefs? How can you believe that a child, even an unborn one, has an amount of autonomy and protection under the law and yet support a practice where parents may permanently alter their child’s genitals without the child’s consent?

*Note: I am referring to any circumcision practice in this essay, whether male or female, sanctioned or banned. Any permanent altering of an individual’s genitals falls into this description.

Hypothetically speaking, if I had a child, do I have the right to surgically and permanently remove their eyebrows shortly after birth? They don’t really need them, and they won’t suffer any serious medical issues if they don’t’ have eyebrows. I think my child’s ears are too wide, so I’d like to give the child a permanent alteration to its ears after birth, shaping them how I want them.

If, at the age of 5, my parents held me down and shaved off all the hair on my body while I screamed and cried, they’d be locked away. If my parents forced me, at the age of 3, to have reconstructive surgery performed on my nose because they didn’t like it’s shape, it would be criminal.

To be frank, I don’t wish to tackle the issues of circumcision at this time. I simply wish to point out an amount of hypocrisy and contradiction I have encountered in my investigations. How can someone say “God wants me to protect the life of unborn children” and then turn around and also claim that “God wants me to mutilate all male children at birth”. Does not compute!

Part 2

I wrote Part 1 about one week ago. Since that time, I have done some further reflection on the subject of circumcision. I have read some articles and heard some discourse claiming that the practice of circumcision is sacred, and to outlaw its practice would be an attack on religion (specifically, the Abrahamic religions, namely Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). This claim is inappropriate. When discussing public policy, in a nation where it is most specifically laid out that the government shall not endorse any one faith, it is not relevant that a particular religion holds a specific practice sacred. I will elaborate on this further.

In the eyes of the government, all faiths must be considered equally false. This is not to say that they are false, but that the government must take a completely neutral approach to them all, otherwise favoritism and bias emerge. It is not possible to assume that all faiths are true, so we must assume that they are all false, at least as it comes to public policy. In this manner, equality can be maintained – no one faith is considered any better than another, and the issues of religious doctrine becomes irrelevant. Again, this is not to say that the faiths are false, just that we must assume so as far as governmental issues are concerned. People have the right to believe said beliefs, that is for certain, but public policy cannot revolve around the myriad and incongruent beliefs of the faithful. It doesn’t matter that Fundamentalist Mormons believe that polygamy is sacred, we have deemed the practice itself unlawful.

The practice of circumcision, as we practice it today in the United States, has its roots in the Old Testament. It signifies a covenant made between Abraham and his god. Why the God of Abraham dislikes foreskin so much is beyond me, but that is a topic for another day. My point here being that this practice is religious first and medical second. There are some medical benefits to circumcision, and some medical drawbacks. It is important to note that this is an elective surgery, in that it is in no manner life saving or life improving, at least not in any significant way. If we divorce ourselves from the belief that mutilating infants’ genitals pleases an ancient Semitic sky deity, then maybe we can see what this practice really is: barbarism.

Side Rant: The God of Abraham demands we do a lot of things. A brief flip through my copy of the King James Bible also informs me that we should: Hunt witches, stone apostates to death, beat and kill our children, make blood sacrifices, and murder homosexuals. The mutilation of infant genitalia seems to fit right in among those directives.

Guest Blog: Maribel on Gypsy Wedding Traditions

(By Maribel)

Bear with me on the beginning of this one, I promise; it has to do with more than gypsy weddings. 

Thanks to the very helpful and convenient Internet, I’ve become acquainted with traditional British Gypsy weddings. Recently, TLC’s Say Yes to the Dress made a post on Facebook about these gypsy weddings and, as might be expected, a lot of women commented. There were lots of comments deeming the culture tacky and repulsive as well as responses damning those judging comments as ignorant. I decided to take a look for myself, so I searched YouTube for anything on this new show revolving around Gypsies. 

Initially, I wrote it off as a gaudy culture with very backwards and overly-fantastical bridal fashion. I was very put off by the extravagance of the weddings and the sheer impracticality of the dresses. They were layer upon layer of sparkling, glittery fabric sewn into revealing, 70-pound-plus gowns that, literally, got stuck in doorways and had to be kicked while walking.  The bride, who is on average sixteen years old, is covered in heavy make up, lots of “bling” and given a healthy dose of hair extensions to curl up around an equally “blingy” tiara.  

 

The more I watched of this documentary-style show the more I was… dismayed (to put it lightly). Now, whether or not I care for this display of extravagance bears no weight or relevance to the subject and it is not what I will be basing my arguments on. My problem is not with the wedding or the dress or what they deem as acceptable formal clothing. Instead, the problem is with the ideas and ideals this wedding sums up. What I saw was another display of ignorance running rampant in modern times. Why are the unjust practices of this culture being defended by women? 

Women of the gypsy culture have very limited personal freedom, they do not get an education past the age of eleven, and they are groomed and indoctrinated from a very young age to look forward to marriage and only marriage. After marriage, the bride is completely dependent on her husband. One of the women interviewed on the show openly admitted that girls hope marrying will give them more personal freedom. It is no wonder, then, that the wedding is an excessively gaudy event. There’s nothing else a girl has to look forward to; no high school or college graduation, or starting a career, etc. This is the event of their entire lives, and it comes at age 16. That was enough to raise flags in my mind. 

To broaden the subject, the oppression can be extended to their people as a whole. It is criminal that their culture openly condones the act of suppressing education and intellectual development among their entire population. They breed their women to be housewives and men to be laborers. The Gypsy culture rejects, even demonizes mainstream British society, deeming it a breeding ground of violence and other vices.  But they themselves have been refused by event centers because Gypsy weddings and other social events often lead to violent or destructive behavior.  Any stigma surrounding their culture is purely their own doing.  

Their culture is not necessarily without merit; they do value things like chastity (for women specifically) and strong familial and community ties. But these are values not unique to their culture, nor do young men and women need to have their intellectual development stunted in order to achieve them. The gypsies pride themselves on preserving their cultural traditions. However, I’d like to clear up that the oppression does not count as a tradition.  The style and exaggerated nature of the weddings is a tradition, the size of the dress is a tradition, a couple not living together before marriage is a tradition, the ceremonies are traditions. Telling men and women to stay away from the "evil" mainstream culture is not a tradition; it’s a social impediment, keeping them uneducated is not a tradition, it’s an impediment; limiting the rights of women and reducing their role to homemaker and baby-maker is not a tradition, either, it’s oppression. Generally, as Americans, we don’t allow it in our own culture, and we definitely don’t find it acceptable when Muslim countries oppress their people, more specifically women,  so  why are these modern women I spoke of earlier, allowing it in the gypsy culture?  Why are they overlooking this aspect of the culture, judging those who point it out as "ignorant"?

 I re-read the comments posted under the link on Facebook. It is obvious people consider it ignorant to openly oppose and dislike a culture that isn’t our own, but it is imperative to analyze all cultures, no matter how peaceful, with a discerning eye to weed out what customs and traditions are detrimental. 

In my opinion, the first and foremost impediment to this solution is the fact that humanity relates to each other in terms of culture. We create a distance between ourselves using the notion of culture as part of our instinctual attempts to categorize and classify our surroundings.  However, that keeps us from determining when something is wrong in another culture like that of the Gypsies.  If, instead, humanity saw itself as human beings first, and as distinct cultures second, it would be easier to spot the slightest degree of impediment to social progress.  This leads me to a second point.  I asked earlier why the oppression in the gypsy culture was being overlooked.  It might be too simple an answer, but it makes a great difference: 1) it’s not overtly violent and does not call too much attention to that aspect of the culture.  People accept it because there is a level of willingness on behalf of the people. They aren’t subjugated the way people are in some Muslim and African countries and so, to some people there is no hurry in changing the gypsy “tradition” of keeping their people slightly oppressed.  2) Gypsies are Catholic, a doctrine widely accepted around the world as “good.” And 3) they’re “white”.  They speak English and have light colored skin, to put it less colloquially. 

The second impediment is that there is a stigma associated with applying our views to those of other cultures. The stigma usually has undertones of imperialism and capitalism tacked onto it. In the past, whenever a developed country has tried to “Americanize” or make more European another culture in the name of progress, it usually involved changing every aspect of that culture forcibly, and today it also involves setting up a McDonald’s or Wal-Mart wherever there is room.  It’s easy to see where the hesitation to scrutinize a different culture comes from, let alone apply our standards to them.  However, it’s important to note that applying universal concepts of rights and freedoms is completely different from the way in which is has claimed to be done before (if it has been done at all). 

But what are these freedoms I’m talking about? For starters, the freedom to be independent via developing personal and intellectual potential; the idea that every individual has the same opportunity as the next; living free of the fear of violence brought on by certain beliefs, creeds or opinions; That each person has the sole, exclusive rights over his or her own body and mind. These are rights that should be accepted by everyone, regardless of tradition or culture.  I doubt that female circumcision is a practice cherished by the women of Africa. Granted, that is a drastic example compared to the limited freedom the gypsy women have so I'll pose this question: what woman wouldn't want to be able to decide what's best for herself. Better yet, what person doesn't automatically deserve the right to decide for him or herself? What person likes living with prejudices (either holding them or having them held against them?).  How can we justify, in any culture, some people having some rights, but not others? These are the types of questions we should be asking ourselves in regard to other cultures, like that of the British Gypsies, as well as in regard to our own culture here in America. 

I was asked, by one of the women who commented on the link, who was I to deem a culture's traditions and customs as harmful? But in light of all my previous arguments I ask, who are they not to challenge the disproportionate treatment in the gypsy culture? Who are the gypsies to think their limiting norms count as traditions and are therefore correct? There is something very askew when one human decides it's alright that another should be complacent with the shortcomings of their culture simply because they are miles away and speak a different language or have different customs.  

To answer the question I was asked, I am a person that sees the people of the world as human beings first (perhaps, only as human beings) and who believes in the equal treatment of all human beings, regardless of culture and so should you.

Lanoitakude’s Closing Comments

Thank you, Maribel, for contributing to my blog! I very much agree with her words. I see the issue as Relativism run amok. We have to be “culturally sensitive” when it comes to criticizing the practices of other cultures, lest we be deemed ignorant or closed-minded. Here’s the rub, folks: not every belief is as good as the next. Not every culture treats its citizens as well as others. The practice of personal autonomy is much better than the practice of infanticide, honor killings, and subjugation. The belief that young women should receive equal education and opportunities as their male counterparts is better than the belief that young women must remain uneducated and permanently bound to their husband, whom they married at age 16, for the remainder of their lives. This isn’t a “relative belief”. This is a fact. Thanks for reading, and I hope to have Maribel Guest Blog again sometime soon!

Seeing is Not Believing

It is common for people to assume that Atheists adhere to the principle of “seeing is believing”. I would like to argue that this is not the case, at least as far as Reason is concerned.

What the Atheist really should be adhering to is the scientific method, or simply, “no belief without proof”. There seems to be a connection that people draw between witnessing something and proving something. I argue that witnessing something is not a form of proof, not by a large margin.

Knowledge, or as close as we can get to it, is never derived directly from sense experience, let alone an individual’s sense experience. We know that the Earth is round. This is counter to what our senses might tell us. It is only through the application of a more thorough and trustworthy system (scientific method) that we are able to determine the truth.

This issue generally occurs when discussing matters such as ghosts, the soul, and divine beings. A Christian may say to me, “I have experienced God directly, I have felt Him.” I cannot discredit this statement. I cannot say that this person is mistaken or never actually had this experience. To attempt to is a fool’s errand. Our sense experiences are so intimate and vivid to us that I can never hope to dispel them. However, the above Christian has not proven to me that the God of Abraham exists, just as someone who informs me they saw a ghost has not proven to me that ghosts exist. Our limited and error-prone senses do not dictate the laws of reality. It is only through iteration, repeatability, and testability that we can arrive at knowledge.

I have been asked on multiple occasions: “What would you do if you saw a ghost?” This phrasing, of course, begs the question. A better phrasing would be “What would you do if you saw a transparent person who resembles what others have described as a ghost?” They assume that, once seeing it for myself, I will believe in its existence. I do not think this would be the case. I am more likely to assume that there is something wrong with me than I am to assume that ghosts exist. Will I be frightened? Assuredly. Will I think it proof of the existence of ghosts? No. Will it make me call my doctor and order a brain scan? Maybe. [for more information about Ghosts, see my previous post on that subject].

This very stream-of-consciousness essay is dancing around my overall point: I am not the arbiter of reality. The laws that govern nature are not dictated by me in any manner. My finite and erroneous senses can never derive knowledge on their own. At their best, my senses can point me in the direction of further inquiry. At their worst, they provide patently false data. I trust my reason far more than I trust my eyes.

Reducteo Trap

This is a brief explanation of a form of argumentation I will call "The Reducteo Trap".

There are few things more gratifying than the Reducteo Trap. The Reducteo Trap is a variation of Reducteo ad Absurdum (or just Reducteo, as I’ll call it), and was one of the primary weapons in Socrates’ arsenal. The Reducteo technique is where you assume the truth of your opponent’s position and demonstrate how it leads to absurd, contradictory, or undesirable conclusions. Reducteo is very effective against opponent’s who hold broad or uncompromising positions, as these sorts of positions often do not leave “wiggle room” for outlier examples and situations.

Here’s an example of Reducteo ad Absurdum:

Person A: I believe that God instantiates the soul at the time of conception.

Person B: Okay, if that’s true, then what happens with natural spontaneous abortions? Does God kill the soul when this occurs? Or what about chimeras? Does God create a second soul when the embryo splits, or does the soul divide into two souls?

In the above example, Person A held a very strong belief. Person B assumed they were correct, and demonstrated absurd conclusions or questions we must then ask if we assume as such.

The Reducteo Trap is where you attempt to lead the opponent toward their own absurd or contradictory conclusions, or simply be forced to accept your own position. The goal of the Reducteo Trap is to eventually arrive at the Reducteo ad Absurdum situation, by way of getting your opponent to admit several small, seemingly innocuous premises. Put simply, you force your opponent to build the premises of your own argument. The primary difference between normal Reducteo ad Absurdum and the Reducteo Trap is who actually makes the argument. The Reducteo Trap involves the opponent admitting to their own contradictions or absurdity, instead of you pointing it out to them. This makes it significantly more powerful.

I certainly did not create this technique. This is taken directly from the methods of Socrates. He would simply ask so called experts about their positions and beliefs, and eventually get them to accept absurd or contradictory conclusions. He did not do this by brow beating or inflammatory language – he simply guided the ‘expert’ in the construction of their own position in such a manner as to allow it to be easily toppled.

Another way to explain this is to make reference to a common fallacy – The Strawman. With the Reducteo Trap, you attempt to lure your opponent into “Strawmanning” themselves. Basically, you lead them along so that they present their own position in an manner that is easy for you to defeat.

For those of you that have held discussions and debates with me, you have probably experienced the Reducteo Trap first hand. It is definitely my preferred method of argumentation.

Do any of you have a preferred method of argumentation? If so, I’d love to hear about it!

The Man and the Dog

This is something I wrote over a year ago. It has been a slow week for me, philosophically speaking, so I'm tapping into my previous works. Hope you all enjoy it, regardless!

Let us imagine a man owns a pit bull. This man takes the pit bull to a park where small children are playing. The man procedes to release the pit bull from his leash and leave the dog to his own devices. This dog does not have to harm anyone, but it definately has the power within itself to do so. If the dog harms no one, we would still say that the man was acting irresponsibly. If the dog does attack a child, possibly killing it, we would hold the man responsible, and charge him with criminal negligance, for he knew the dog had the capacity to commit evil and allowed for the possibility to play out. So it is with God. God created man, placed him within the world, and released him from the leash (gave him free-will). Man then prcoeded to harm and commit evil, which God knew could potentially happen (and, depending on our interpretation of omniscience, God knew it would happen). If we believe that the man with the pit bull was wrong and his actions criminal, we must then think the same about God's actions.

Possible objections:

1) God did not know that man would commit evil.
2) The dog's life (and man's) is better without the leash, and we must accept the evil to enjoy the freedom of choice.
3) A dog's sense of morality differs from that of a human. A dog does not act with relation to morality, it only acts on instinct, and is therefore not responsible for its own actions. A human, however, is capable of moral decisions, and is therefore responsible for its own actions, not God. The human has free choice and is therefore responsible for its actions.

Replies to possible objections:

1) This would deny God's omniscience. For even if he did not have explicit knowledge of the future, God's intellect is definately vast enough to appreciate the likelyhood of evil.
2) Dostoevsky's arguments in The Rebellion. The greater good, the divine order, is not worth the suffering of others. To say that others must suffer so that I can enjoy good is selfish and wrong.
3) Man's ability to commit evil through moral choice makes him far more cruel than a beast, as Dostoevsky says in Rebellion. Because of this, God is even more responsible, knowing full well what man would do with this will, knowing full well what would happen when he released the dog that is man into the world.

Even if we say that there is no causal connection between God's creating of the agent and the agent's actions (possibly like Chisholm), we still can blame God. Let us assume that the man did not train the dog to behave in any way whatsoever, nor did the man breed the dog or any such thing, but the man still brought the dog to the park. We don't care if the man trained the dog to kill or not to kill, bringing the animal there created that negligent risk for which we would still blame him. It is this way with God; even if God does not influence our actions in any way at all, it was still God's actions that brought us into existence and allowed us to commit the evil that he surely would have known about.

Ghosts!

Do ghosts exist? That’s a tough question. Many people have told me stories of supernatural encounters with entities they describe as “ghosts”. They were in their home late one night, and they saw the distinct features of a small child at the end of the hall. They rubbed their yes, they shook their head, and the child was still there. A moment later, it vanished.

Are these people crazy? Certainly not. Are these people lying? Certainly not. Then how do we explain what they saw?

Before I begin the discussion proper, I would like to make the following statements:

1. I do not believe that ghosts exist.

2. I am not going to attempt to prove or disprove the existence of ghosts.

Please keep those in mind as I continue.

As I mentioned, I will not attempt to disprove the existence of ghosts. I will, however, attempt to prove that such a question is answerable. Whether or not I currently have the ability or technology at my disposal is irrelevant. Whether or not I would ever actually succeed in such an endeavor is equally irrelevant. All that I wish to convince you, the reader, of is the fact that if ghosts do exist, then that is provable (or disprovable).

To steal a quote from my father, “To measure is to know.” I believe completely in this statement, taken out to the extreme. Everything that is can be measured. If something cannot be measured, then it probably does not exist. It may be the case that we lack the proper tools to measure it, but that does not mean it is not a measurable thing.

To put it another way: Everything in the universe is subject to a rule. If there is an exception to that rule, then we did not understand the rule. There are no exceptions.

Let’s say that someone sees a ghost. Humans see things by catching reflected light (and a specific spectrum of light, no less) with the eye. That is what it is to “see” something. I don’t know the exact science behind it, but this layman’s understanding is all we need. Reflected or refracted (or whatever) light is a measurable phenomena. If a ghost is something that can be seen, then it is something that can be measured. The same system can be applied to “hearing a ghost”. Sound occurs when vibrations travel through a medium (like the atmosphere) and are picked up by our ears. That is a measurable phenomena. These are the definitions of what it is to see or hear something. There is no other way in which humans see or hear things external to them.

If ghosts exist, then they are measurable. There are no exceptions to this. If we cannot currently “measure” a ghost, then simply do not understand ghosts well enough, or lack the proper technology.

It may be the case that ghosts do exist. I am fully willing to admit this possibility. But if they do exist, by any definition of the word, then they are measurable and therefore provable (or disprovable).

Response: Maybe ghosts do not reflect light or cause vibrations, but instead put the sensations into our minds directly. In this manner, they make us see or hear things without causing the external stimulus normally associated with said phenomena.

The brain is a measurable thing. Our ability to understand and measure it are not perfect, not by a long shot. Brain waves are measurable things. If a ghost is affecting the brain in some manner, then that is a measurable thing. Again, if a ghost exists, then it is not an exception to the rules. If a ghost exists, then it is measurable in some manner, whether by sight, sound, brain waves, or some other spectra or energy wave – even if we haven’t discovered that wavelength or spectra yet.

Under God

The inclusion of “under God” within the American Pledge of Allegiance is flagrantly unconstitutional. It openly acknowledge a divine being as supreme ruler, which presides over our nation.

Before I delve into this matter, let’s take a look at some historical facts.

1. The United States Constitution contains no mention of the word “God”, or any of his many nicknames.

2. Until 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance contained no mention of any deity or supernatural entity.

3. On June 14, 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a bill adding the phrase “under God” to the Pledge. He did this after attending a spirited sermon by Rev. Dr. George McPherson Docherty at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church. Eisenhower, a recently baptized Presbyterian, fervently supported the Reverend’s religious reasons for including the phrase.

4. The above bill was signed in a time when Atheist Communism was the hated enemy of the United States, and accordingly Christian conservatism and patriotism were extremely popular.

5. Pres. Eisenhower announced the following phrase after signing the above bill: “From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty.”

To be honest, #5 wins the argument for me. For the sake of thoroughness, I will continue the discussion further.

Response: The phrase “under God” endorses no particular religion, it simply acknowledges a generic, all-encompassing “God”, and does not favor one religion over another.

This response is transparently weak, but I thought I would include it, just in case. The inclusion of any mention of any supernatural entity has already “picked sides”, in favor of the believers. Atheists don’t want it to say, “under no God”, they simply want it to contain no mention of any god at all. The Pledge of Allegiance should be utterly neutral when it comes to religion – it shouldn’t mention it at all. I am pledging myself to a nation, not a deity. I want that nation to be guided by reason and justice, not faith and dogma.

Response: The phrase “under God” does not endorse or establish religion, it only acknowledges the nation’s religious heritage, in particular the role of religion for the Founding Fathers. Thus, the Pledge is a secular act rather than an act of indoctrination in religion or expression of religious devotion.

The above argument was one presented by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who presided over the Newdow v. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District (2004), in which the father of a 13 year old girl sued the school district for forcing the girl to recite the Pledge (including the “under God” phrase). It pains me to see such an argument presented by someone so high up in our judicial system. It genuinely does. It took me less than ten minutes to find the citation that refutes his perspective (numbers 1-5 above). This was not a secular, historical ‘nod’ to the religious perspectives of our Founding Fathers. This was a pious act, with every intention of promoting Christianity within the nation.

I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the Founding Fathers, as they are often gestured toward by religious individuals during these conversations as a justification for the inclusion of Christianity within our government.

The Founding Fathers were brilliant men. I have nothing but respect for them. I think that they had among their ranks some of the wisest and sharpest individuals the world has ever seen (Franklin, I’m looking at you). It is a fact that these men believed in the God of Abraham. However it is also a fact that they sought to create a nation free from any sort of repression, coercion, or indoctrination. If I had to sum up the intentions of the Founding Fathers in regard to our nation, I would use the following words: Freedom, liberty, and justice. I would not use words such as piety, Christianity, or faith. It wasn’t faith that made this nation. It was bloodshed and reason. It wasn’t faith that guided the Drafters of the Constitution, it was enlightenment and cultural evolution. It was not the God of Abraham that allowed us to defeat the British, to abolish slavery, or give women the right to vote. It was the lives of countless young men and women, and the dispelling of antiquated, archaic, and base beliefs that do not deserve our praise and admiration, but our contempt and dismissal.

Let’s not lie to ourselves about our nation and our intentions. Keep your ancient, bloodthirsty Semitic sky deities out of my government.

End of the World

I am finding myself increasingly boggled by the actions of my fellow human beings. Over the last month or two, I have been seeing an increase in the “May 21 – Judgment Day” posters and preachers. These people, of which there are apparently quite a few, believe that the world will end tomorrow, Saturday May 21 2011. They honestly believe that angels will sound the trumpets, releasing the seals and sending the world into a cataclysmic nightmare after all the Christians have been transported up to heaven. How modern, reasonable people can dilute and deceive themselves into believing this prediction is beyond my ability to comprehend. Some of these people, over the last months or even years, have gone so far as to quit their jobs, stop saving money for their children’s college education, and squandered all of their funds on spreading the news of the coming Apocalypse. These people should not have been allowed to reproduce.

Just so everyone is clear, the guy behind this movement, Harold Camping, is a 90-something year old retired civil engineer turned preacher who runs a very fundamentalist Christian talk radio show. Here is how he knows the world is going to end tomorrow. (He says he is 100% certain of this, that there is no chance or doubt involved). Ready? Here we go:

Some numbers repeat a lot in the Bible, and these numbers are associated with particular themes. The number five is associated with “atonement”, ten with “completeness”, and 17 with “heaven”. If we multiply those numbers by each other, then square the total, we get 722,500. If Jesus hung on the cross on April 1, 33 AD, then it will have been 722,500 days since then on Saturday, May 21, 2011. Oh ya, and for some reason, it’s going to start at 6 p.m. (pacific standard time, of course).

Yep. That’s his basis for claiming the world will end. Also, he had originally predicted that the world would end on Sept. 6, 1994. Nothing happened that day. He then changed his prediction immediately thereafter, to March 31 1995. I’m pretty sure the world didn’t end then, either.

Now, I’ve read the Bible. I honestly have. I am fairly certain Jesus actually tells us, in plain-as-day language, when Judgment day will occur. Spoiler Alert: he said it would happen within one generation of his death. Twice. He says this twice (see my post about Prophecy in the Bible). I am also fairly certain he never says that 722,500 days after his crucifixion the world will end.

Some believers are very reasonable people. Some of them are brilliant, and I respect their perspective and arguments. Sadly, people like Harold Camping and the Muslims claiming the US didn’t respect Islamic burial rights in regard to Bin Laden are making it harder and harder.

Anyway, see you all on Monday.

Musings on Reproduction

I was at Jamba Juice this morning, enjoying a delicious and healthy breakfast with my girlfriend, when I spy a young couple entering the establishment. The man and woman, who were no more than 30-35 years old, had three children scampering about their feet. The variance between the children's ages was no more than 1 or 2 years. In addition to all of this, the woman was very pregnant.

Many people would see this scene and think, "How adorable." I, however, thought to myself, "How selfish."

How is it, in a world where millions of parent-less children are starving to death every year, can we justify reproducing to the levels of this couple? What reason, besides the fulfillment of the desire to reproduce, do we have for creating so many new humans? Overpopulation is one of the most prevalent and dire issues plaguing the global ecosystem, and it is one that we all seem to welcome with open, loving arms.

News flash, everyone: we aren't still recovering from The Flood. Each new person you create adds to one of biggest problems we face today. Creating a new life is one of the most dramatic and influential endeavors a human can undertake, especially in a global society as interconnected as the one we live in.

Please, for the sake of us all, stop making so many babies.

Musings on Individuality

Here is a brief musing I wrote some time ago. Nothing fancy here, just a fun thought.

What does it mean to be an individual? What is the opposite of an individual? Is it a group? Or maybe it is a “Plurality”, which does not necessarily mean that the person is part of a larger group, but that the person is splintered or is validated by things outside of itself.

A true individual is someone whose explanation of actions and of the self starts and ends with the individual. The individual’s actions flow out from her, they do not have an antecedent. There is no such thing as a compelling outside force, as all forces that drive action are internal. There is no scapegoat, no excuse, only complete responsibility for everything that makes up the self. There is no appeal to Nature or Nurture, no traumatic childhood experience that compels action. The individual is praiseworthy of every accomplishment and blameworthy of every failure. The individual feels compromised when performing acts in concert with others. The feeling of loss of autonomy is disconcerting to the individual. The individual does not wish her voice drowned out by others or added to the greater din of the crowd. The individual wishes to be seen and herd, not as part of many, but one standing out from many.

The plural person sites things outside herself. The plural person is a product of external forces, Nature and Nurture, and the pressure of peers. When asked “Why?”, the plural person will say “They made me do it!” The accomplishments and failures of the plural person are never her own – they belong to the external forces at work within her. The plural person exists most comfortably when around others. The plural person needs external forces to guide her, as the source of her action is not within. The plural person feels right when singing in chorus, when cheering at a sporting event, and when applauding the conclusion of a show. The hum of the collective and the sway of the crowd are pleasant to the plural person.

True Individual- one person in number, in action, in intent, and in cause.

Plural- more than one person in action, in intent, and in cause; not necessarily more than one person in number.

Who gets to be a Christian?

This short essay was inspired by conversations with actual, practicing Christians. It starts with an earnest question, one I am still cannot answer. If anyone can offer further insight into this question, please don't hesitate to post a comment.
-----

Who gets to call themselves a Christian? Who is allowed to join the club, and who is denied entrance?

*for this discussion, I am referring to Christianity as the sub-category of all religions that believe Jesus was the Messiah (which is also often referred to as “Christianity), which is distinct from Catholicism and contains such groups as Protestants, Evangelicals, Born-Agains, and etc.

This question is easily answered when it comes to Catholics – they have a special organization with a leader that presides over every individual within that organization across the globe. To be a Catholic is to be a member of the Catholic Church.

What does it mean to be a Christian, then? The answer is somewhat reminiscent of Islam – it simply requires the Admission of Faith. Most Christians would say that an individual must “accept Jesus Christ as his or her personal lord and savior” in order to be classified as a Christian. The belief that faith alone can align an individual with god is distinct from the Catholic belief that faith, plus admittance into their club, is required to align with god.

To believe in Jesus as the one, true god, and to follow the Bible’s teachings – that’s another way of putting it, I suppose. What further criteria is there for a Christian? I earnestly wish to have this issue clarified, as it seems to me to be quite ambiguous.

If the above is true, why is it that so many Christians are quick to say “They are not a real Christian” when referring to so-called Christians that cast a negative light on their faith? What right to they have to question another’s faith? I guarantee that so-called Christians feel just as much conviction, emotion, and faith in regard to their adherence to Jesus as the one true god. I’m sure he or she has accepted Jesus his or her personal lord and savior. What is the difference between them and you, oh arbiter of Christendom?

For argument’s sake, let’s put down some reasonable criteria for deciding who gets to decide on the members of the Christianity Club, taking some inspiration from the Pope. I will repeat for emphasis: this is not the criteria for being Christian (which would be more lenient), this is the criteria for being an individual with the authority to judge who is Christian and who is not.

Arbiter of Christianity

1. Must have read the Bible, from cover to cover, more than once.

2. Must know the general contents of each book of the Bible.

3. Must attend religious gatherings with great frequency and consistency.

4. Must understand the cultural climate of Biblical times, to allow for proper interpretation.

5. Must accept Jesus as personal lord and savior.

6. Must have faith in Jesus’ power to save souls.

7. Must attempt to follow Jesus’ example as much as possible (including charity, humility, honest, unconditional love for all humanity, and absolute adherence to pacifism).

I am being very generous with Numbers 1 and 2. The Pope can probably recite whole books of the Bible from memory (and in two or more languages); I’m simply requiring a basic level of Biblical comprehension. Number 3 is not too tough, either. Number 4 is not outrageous to require, it is vitally important for examining both the Bible and Jesus’ life and actions. Numbers 5 and 6 are easy enough. Number 7 should be expected of the Arbiter of Christianity, of course.

I think I have presented a very reasonable set of criteria that would give someone the authority to judge who is a Christian and who is not, in fact, I think I am being overly lenient. I am being especially lenient to prove a point, of course. I ask any Christian that thinks that the members of the West Borough Baptist Church are not real Christians to take a look at the extremely basic criteria I presented above. Look at that criteria and ask yourself, do you meet each requirement?

Never actually sat down and read the Bible, cover to cover? No authority.

Didn’t retain any information from your Bible reading? No authority.

Can’t quote the Bible to back up claims? No authority.

Only attend religious gatherings on occasion? No authority.

Don’t have knowledge of the culture and history surrounding Biblical times? No authority.

Violent, in action or in words? No authority.

Turn down a homeless person’s request for money? No authority.

Habits of acting jealously, untruthfully, or maliciously? No authority.

Focused on accumulating material wealth? No authority.

I will repeat the question again, for added emphasis: Who are you to say who is a Christian and who is not?

Compare yourself to, say, a member of the West Borough Baptist Church. I would bet my bottom dollar that most the members of said church have read the Bible several times, and can quote verse at the drop of a hat. They can recite various scriptural passages in order to back up their (insane and hateful) claims. Can you quote the Bible? You assert that they are not real Christians – can you back that up with line and verse references? Again, I bet they can back up their (insane and hateful) claims with said references. So who are you to say that you are “more Christian” than them?

This critique applies not only to Christianity, but to Islam as well (and any other faith, for that matter). Modern, moderate adherents to various faiths are quick to disavow the actions of the “extremists”. But you know what? I am fairly certain that those extremists know your religion better than you do. I am fairly certain they’ve read and studied their religious text more frequently and fervently than you have. I am fairly certain that their level of faith reaches summits yours has never achieved.

I ask anyone who adheres to an Abrahamic religion (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) to answer the following question regarding faith:

Is your faith strong enough that you would hijack an airplane filled with innocent people and fly said airplane into a building filled with more innocent people, taking your own and thousands of innocent lives, in order to fulfill your god’s wishes?

That, my friends, is real faith. That is someone who really believes.

I’ll ask it one last time: Who are you to question the faith of others? Who are you to say who is Christian (or Muslim) and who is not?

Side note: When it is all boiled down, stating that “They aren’t real Christians” is just a clear example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Fallacies are just that: fallacious, and therefore not a credible or powerful line of reasoning, especially when the individual making such a claim is in no position to arbitrate who is a Scot and who is not.