In A Perfect World Cheetahs Would Be 14.58% Faster

My son loves Cheetahs.

Perusing his latest acquisition, ‘Fastest And Slowest’, Camilla de la Bedoyere, ISBN 9781554078097, he was gratified to confirm his knowledge that the Cheetah with a top speed of 96 KPH is the world’s fastest land animal, contemptuous of the paltry cornering of the Tree Sloth (3 KPH)…but aghast that at a MASSIVE 109 KPH, the Giant Sailfish is in fact the animal kingdom’s overall speed champion.

This motivated him to formulate his first-ever prayer which went like this:

Dear God.
Can You please make the Cheetah go 109 which is faster than the Snailfish.
In Jesus’ Name
Amen.

Anyone noticed any surprised Antelopes around the place going:
‘Strewth! Have they sped up or something??’

Evading And Suppressing Truth: Problems Justifying An Atheist Ethic

I recently had a short discussion with an atheist at Lavartus Prodeo. The host thread “Are You Rapture Ready” used the recent highly publicized false ‘rapture’ prophecy of Harold Campling as a vehicle to denigrate God, Jesus, The Bible and believers in the usual atheist fashion.

Ethical Or Merely Rational

The article which introduced the thread alluded to The Problem Of Evil; which got me thinking as to whether or not evil or moral wrong could ever exists under atheism. Googling atheist ethics I came across sites like this one that described atheist ethics of kindness and compassion having supposedly arisen from an evolutionary survival technique of mutual help, so I posed this question:

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that atheists don’t have a system of ethics based on morality, but rather on rational survival strategies ?

To which my atheist responsent (AR) replied:

Atheists can observe that certain ethical behaviours have been empirically shown to result in the one life we have to live being longer, healthier, safer and generally more pleasant for the group as a whole than if those ethical behaviours are not followed.

AR’s use of empirical methods to determine ethics confirmed to me that the fundamental atheist ethic is rationality determined by notions of the common good, which would make sociopathic acts merely irrational as opposed to actually wrong or evil. AR didn’t address this directly. She merely said:

It makes them [sociopathic acts] an unacceptable danger to others.

.. which evades the question I was driving at which is what is the ground or basis of the atheist ethic.

Can Amoral Systems Give Rise To A Satisfactory Human Ethic ?

I pointed out this evasion to AR and underlined the amoral concept of rationality at the heart of her atheist ethic by providing a specific example: If ethics arise from rational self-interest in avoiding anti-social behaviours directed back at oneself then if some bloke should kill a child her atheist response would be ‘That’s irrational. Doesn’t he know that someone could kill his children ?’

AR responded;

I make no value judgements about someone’s behaviour when I describe it as dangerous… Your [child murder] scenario is a community presented with a person of proven dangerous-to-others behaviour. The community’s interest in their mutual safety will lead them to develop guidelines about protecting themselves from dangerous people.

I was stunned to read AR describing child murder in her atheist ethic as merely dangerous as opposed to immoral, evil or wrong and that the label of dangerous was sufficient to cover sociopathic acts considered in general and specifically child murder.

I sought clarification by summarizing AR’s ethical propositions to date: I make no value judgements about someone’s behaviour and observed Perhaps I misunderstand you. The murder of a child is immoral, right [not merely dangerous]?

AR was outraged and told me I was engaging in dishonest cherry-picking,. From that point, being a Moderator on Lavartus Prodeo, she simply banned me from the thread.

Evading Truth

AR showed a strong inclination to evade examination of her atheist ethic. She wanted her statements about how she derived her atheist ethic to stand without examination. When her ethic was critiqued she engaged in a superficial and somewhat deflective conversation and then banned any further inquiry.

Even given the opportunity to clarify or resile from an astoundingly weak ethical judgement on child murder as merely dangerous she would not.

I believe that this is because the discussion had shown in a few short exchanges what is obvious, namely that there is no objective basis for atheist ethics and hence nothing that is recognisable as a grounded morality.

The Limits And Impoverishment Of Atheist Ethics

All that atheists can do in place of an objective morality is appeal to subjective notions such as rational self-interets or the common good, both concepts which are necessarly subjective and can be replaced by any arbitrary statement of value or worth.

An ethic submitted to AR’s atheist committee for approval would need to demonstrate an empirical rational basis for acceptance. Rationality is the basis. The actual ethics are subject to revision at any time.

So unethical behaviour is defined in terms of its irrationality not its intrinsic characteristics. Should killing certain segments of the population improve the common good e.g. by removing defective genes leading to better overall health outcomes, then such killings are ethical.

AR said:

Empathy and compassion arise from rational self-interest

I say that the reduction of empathy and compassion to the impoverished formulation of Classical Economics robs them of their very humanity.

Empathy and compassion are not subject to a Business Case and ethics are not in thrall to Key Performance Indicators.

Suppressing Truth

The Bible says that fallen humanity suppresses moral truth.

Romans 1:18-20

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,

19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

AR suppressed truth in the Blog thread under discussion by moderating posts of mine which described a Biblical approach to universal ethics and its rejection of karma or works-based systems of salvation; but AR permitted other posters describing ‘what the Bible says’ incorrectly and by permitting a clearly off-topic post rejecting Jesus’s Ddvinity.

Hilariously inventing the concept of an on-topic thread derail AR moderated and eventually banned my posts to prevent critique of atheist ethics and thereby protect the atheist ethic from a Biblical challenge.

Problems Justifying An Atheist Ethic

While there are many ways of justifying an atheist ethic, it is difficult for atheists to avoid subjective and hence ungrounded ethics, or alternatively a universal ethic based merely on survial or rational self-interest which logically lead to horrific propositions such as Eugenics being morally acceptable.

The Biblical alternative is that morality is grounded in God who alone is Holy and Wise and who thus is uniquely qualified to state what is moral and what is not.

God then graciously communicates those moral truths to us in His Scripture, in creation and in the person of Jesus; more than that, implanted those truths in humanity by creating them in His moral image. The Image Of God in Humanity is now marred and distorted by Original Sin, hence mankind is no longer perfectly able to determine moral outcomes. Nevertheless the residual Image Of God in mankind explains how Universal or near-Universal moral truths can exist.

‘I Forget’: Reading The Story Of Joseph In Harmony With The Other Patriarchal Narratives Of Genesis

===================
Joseph and Benjamin
===================

I have never really paid close attention to the story of Joseph before but while reading the story the other week I found myself asking “why didn’t Joseph simply tell his brothers who he was when they first turned up?” The whole shell game Joseph played with secret identities, silver cups, and elaborate feasts seems inordinately complex and a waste of time.

Some commentators take the line that Joseph orchestrated a number of tests for his brothers designed to bring them to awareness of their sin in selling Joseph into Egypt so that the brothers could make proper repentance before God and a true family reconciliation could take place based on full recognition of the brothers’ sin and its effect on Joseph.

The line is that Joseph with genius-level psychological and spiritual insight calmy pulls the emotional levers in his brothers until they become truly penitent for their past behaviour. Finally, at the apogee moment Joseph leaps out of the birthday cake with a big sign on saying “Surprise, surprise” and all live happily ever after.

I feel that this view misguidedly “canonises” Joseph, elevating him into a kind of spiritual superman while failing to take into account Joseph’s struggles with his feelings and his deep human pain at his past treatment by his family.

As in the lives of all the Patriarchs, beginning with Abraham, the real hero of Genesis is God, who regularly redeems the chronically bad choices made by His children (including those of Abraham), who actively protects His own promises, and who works through tragically flawed vessels for righteousness sake. In his deep mercy and lovingkindness, even while working his purposes for mankind at a global and cosmic level, God simultaneously reconciles brothers and families, bringing dignity to his people, even the cowardly (like Abraham and Isaac), the wantonly violent (like Simeon and Levi), the fornicators (like Judah), the duplicitous (like Jacob) and the emotionally slaughtered (like Joseph).
God’s ways are deep and tender.

When Joseph had his first son in Egypt he called him ‘Manasseh’ (which means ‘causing to forget’), saying ‘now I forget my family and my father’. For Joseph, his heritage was dead and buried. He was making his career and life in Egypt as an Egyptian. What a rude awakening when his 10 brothers suddenly appeared in his court during the famine.

What memories came flooding back. Imagine the pain that resurfaced in those moments. Joseph’s first response – he threw them all in jail for three days while he thought about…everything. It is not always pleasant when family turns up suddenly.

In his first reflections on this unexpected turn of events, Joseph recognises the fulfillment of the prophetic dreams of his youth. The brothers are here, bowing before him, but Joseph is concerned for Benjamin, not present at the first meeting, and for his aged father. In all Joseph’s interactions with the brothers before his revelation of his identity there are the repeated solicitous inquiries -

- What about your younger brother?
- What about your father? Is he alive?

For the 10 older brothers there is the repeated dismissal
- You are free to go

I don’t think Joseph bore much special affection for his older brothers prior to the completion of their second visit.

Their value to Joseph lay solely in the access they provided to Benjamin, which access Joseph guaranteed by holding Simeon captive prisoner (i.e. hostage) for several months after the first visit. The silver cup then provided the pretext for Joseph to retain Benjamin permanently in Egypt in Joseph’s care following their second visit. I suspect that Joseph, based on his own personal experience, did not trust his older brothers with Benjamin’s safety. After all, neither did Jacob.

I am uncertain whether or not Joseph originally intended to reveal his identity to his brothers at the banquet. Overall I think Joseph wanted to tell his brothers who he was but was inhibited by the pain and mistrust he felt toward them. Certainly at the great feast that accompanied the arrival of Benjamin in Egypt there were two significant hints as to the identity of Joseph, these being the arrangement of the brother’s seating in age order and the favourable treatment given to Benjamin. A third hint followed during the search for the cup, which was also done in descending age order. These hints could be taken to show that Joseph wanted to make his identity known to his brothers but nevertheless his final words to them following their arrest for the frame-up on the silver cup were “go back to your father.”

It is Judah’s entreaty to Joseph which provides the catalyst to Joseph’s revelation of his identity and this speech is centred firmly on the sorrow that Jacob will experience at the loss of Benjamin. Judah’s speech thus hits Joseph in his weak points – his father and Benjamin. The emotional force of Judah’s entreaty overwhelms Joseph’s remaining barriers. The twin torrents of pain and love for his brothers are finally intermingled. He breaks down utterly. Love prevails. The whole family is reconciled and reunited.

I think the story of Joseph in Genesis 42-45 shows a progressive work of God in Joseph of forgiveness. God took Joseph on a journey from a wastleand of emotional denial (Manassah ‘I forget’) to rude pain (throw brothers in Jail) to masked affection (The Great Feast) to full reconciliation (I am Joseph). This was not achieved without significant emotional struggle. But God did it. He worked in Joseph and Joseph finally yielded.

I believe that Joseph knew at an early stage that he was God’s agent to protect the Abrahamic blessing on Israel – possibly as early as those first three days he had his brothers in the slammer. But Joseph tried to do his duty to God while simultaneously withholding family affection and reconciliation – ask Simeon about Egyptian jails sometime – but as God worked in Joseph, he gradually moved closer to true relationaship with his brothers. Lots of masks were first involved but God ripped them off in His time and to His glory, for the benefit of His children

A question that appears to undermine my analysis of Joseph’s attitudes is “when did Joseph decide to settle his family in Goshen ?”.

Immediately after Judah’s entreaty and Joseph’s self-revelation Joseph comforts his brothers with a description of their family history centred on God’s sovereign will and His promises to Abraham, which also encompasses the realities of the present famine and Joseph’s response to it on behalf of his family (Gen 45:5-11). This short speech by Joseph in which he guarantees Israel’s habitation of Goshen is rich in understanding of God’s plans and promises and exhibits careful forethought. It is obvious that Joseph could not have produced this analysis without careful forethought, prayer and reflection. I think it is on this basis that most commentators make their Joseph Spiritual/Psychological superman line.

I agree that Joseph knew what God wanted him to do with his family (i.e. house them in Goshen), what I disagree with is the view that Joseph was always willing to do so. In the first instance I think that Joseph felt he would guarantee Israel’s survival by periodically selling them grain (Gen 43:34). Just as God progressively worked in Joseph for forgiveness I think that God progressively worked in Joseph for compliance to His plans. By the time the brothers had been framed for the cup Joseph knew what he had to do (house them in Goshen), but his pain and mistrust of the brothers prevented his obedience. Remember those last words before Judah’s entreaty – ‘The rest of you may go home to your father’. Judah’s entreaty based on Jacob’s feelings and fate being intertwined with that of Benjamin undid Joseph. That speech was God’s final instrument in God’s work in Joseph vis-a-vis reconciliation with his brothers.

The great benefit of viewing the story of Joseph in this way, I believe, is that it leaves it in harmony with the other Patriachal narratives. (In Craig Groves’s terms “we have more treasure value”.)

In all the other narratives from Genesis 12, God is the hero, working with and in and in despite of fallible, disobedient, sinful humanity to protect his promises to Abraham. Abraham gives his wife away, so God has to get her back for him. Isaac does the same, then underhandedly tries to re-sell the birthright to Esau against God’s prophetic word. God intervenes to pass the blessing in line with his word. Barren wives bring forth children, famines ruin the land, but God protects his word. Joseph’s struggle to completely forgive his brothers would have left Israel in a parlous state, dependent on intermittent trade for survival and teetering on the brink of starvation for the next five years. God wanted them in Goshen where they could prosper and multiply. His obstacle was Joseph, just as his obstacles had been Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Making Joseph the hero of his narrative pushes God put of the picture somewhat. It is God who gave Joseph his dreams, God who interpereted them, God who blessed Joseph in prison and in Potiphar’s house and God who dealt with Joseph’s brothers and Joseph’s own pain.

God is the hero.
Of Genesis and every other story.

One final comment: the “Joseph as Hero” scenario has it that Joseph engineered repentance and confession in his brothers and it is this that allowed Joseph to reveal his identity, since the preconditions for true reconciliation had been made. But the brothers never confessed fault to Joseph. Judah’s entreaty mentioned only Jacob’s supposed belief that Joseph had been killed by wild animals – but Judah knew that not even Jacob really believed that. The only brother to admit murderous intent while in Egypt was Reuben, and he had never agreed to the plot anyway, and when he spoke of it he wasn’t talking to Jospeh.

The brothers never confessed anything to Joseph.

Did God Rape Mary ?

Everything is pure to those whose hearts are pure. But nothing is pure to those who are corrupt and unbelieving, because their minds and consciences are corrupted.
Titus 1:15

Surfing the Net for reaction to Richard Dawkins’ appearance on ABC’s Q&A program of March 9 2010 “God Science and Sanity”, I discovered for the first time the assertion of aggressive Atheists that the Immaculate Conception consitutes an act of rape.

I was familiar enough with the scripture to know that Mary consented to the Immaculate Conception and responded in that manner. My Atheist correspondent, Lord Voldemort, replied with reference to scripture, Luke 1:28-38

The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.”

“How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. For nothing is impossible with God.”

“I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May it be to me as you have said.” Then the angel left her.

And summarizes his rape argument as follows:

• Mary’s opinion is neither requested nor acknowledged.
• The language of directives is used.

By today’s standards, someone in a powerful position is using that power to commit rape. This is corroborated by the “I am the Lord’s servant” line.

Unfortunately for LV, the ‘language of directives’ is NOT being employed here, except in the directive to name the Son Jesus. Will merely signifies the future tense. It is not employed gramatically as an order or directive. In fact most of the Wills occur in the section where Mary asks about How the conception will occur, so these Wills cannot be orders to conceive. They are explanations of how the conception can occur since she is a virgin.

The only will that could possibly be misconstrued as an order to concieve is the very first in the passage: ‘You will be with child,’ but this is a usage of future tense, not an order.

See below for further comments on ‘will’

Secondly, Mary was not denied the opportunity to express her opinion, and in fact did so by questioning the means of, then consenting to the Immaculate Conception. Thus the acknowledement of that opinion then becomes moot unless LV wishes to insist that the angel should say ‘Righto then, that’s all agreed’ or somesuch.

What Is The Relationship Between God And Mary ?

LV’s mischaracterisation of the relationship between God and Mary as Rapist and Victim is a complete misrepresentation of the factual relationship which is beloved King to trusted servant.

The angel has not come to inform Mary that she will be assaulted by God, but rather entrusted with a unique and highly honoured task which is to bear and birth the Messiah, the coming of whom is the most anticipated event in Jewish history. God is bestowing Mary with a unique historical honour, not abusing her. This inversion of God’s intent and character is typical of aggessive atheists like LV who gain perverse pleasure from maligning God and forcing foul meanings on The Bible.

An example of a similar difficult and esteemed honor might be a medieval King choosing and entrusting a servant to accompany and protect his juvenile son on a long horseback journey across the breadth of China, or, more prosaically deliver, an important message written in the Kings own hand to an ally. The servant is chosen for reasons of loyalty, courage, trustworthiness and reliablity not in order to humiliate or abuse them. That servant may also be chosen in the knowledge they would accept such a task if assigned it, as leaving a critical and supremely important task or entrusting one’s own Son to one not willing is to invite disaster.

Unconscious Bias

LV’s negative reaction to this passage is also a result of unconscious Western bias he brings to the passage.

Distaste for the differential King/Subject statuses (here of God and Mary) is typical of Westerners as it cuts across our culturally revered norms of Democracy and autonomy (radical individualism). However, a person from an Eastern culture reading this encounter between King’s Messenger and Subject would find it unremarkable for the difference in status and obligation assumed in the passage and indeed may well find the Angel’s attitude remakably acommodating and kind for an emissary of the monarch: The angel speaks gently, does not demand ritualised forms of address or explicit acknowledgement of relative status, allows questioning and waits for consent.

King And Subject

LV is correct to identify that Mary has an obligation to obedience(I am the Lord’s servant) arising from her Subject/King status, but typically of aggressive atheists, LV instantly and always identifies the obligation of the Subject to the King as an abuse of power. In doing so LV fails to recognise any possibility that a healthy King/Subject relationship can exist, that such a relationship can and does exist without abuse, that the King may select servants for particular tasks on the basis the he already knows in advance that they will accept and enjoy the task and that tasks performed out of obligation may neverthess impart high honour to those performing them.

Finally on this the King may not always choose to exercise his right to obedience. It is not evident in this passage that Mary had no choice of refusal, even though her obligation to obedience is correctly assumed. Mary could have said ‘No’ and the King may have said ‘OK then’. Given the gravity, honour and historical importance of the task God needs someone wiling, not unwilling.

To summarize some points so far:

• The task is to bear and birth the Messiah
• The coming of the Messiah to Israel is the great hope and entire focus of the whole history of the Jewish nation
• Given this, a higher honour for Mary is hard to imagine
• The task honours Mary, it does not debase her, as rape would.
• Given the gravity, importance, surpassing honor of the task and that in involves God entrusting his Son to another person (Mary) God may well have chosen Mary for the task knowing in advance she would accept

Mary’s reaction to the Immaculate Conception, as well as that of her cousin Elizabeth, the mother of John The Baptist, directly confirms many of the points I have made above. Her song, now known as The Magnificat, is located in scripture at Luke 1:46-55.

Mary’s Zeal For The Mesianic Promise

The Magnificat records Mary’s joy in God that she has been selected for such a great honour and that she this honour is centred on assisting in bringing the Messiah to Israel. She praises God for His faithfulness in remebering his Messianic promises to Abraham and Israel.

54He has helped his servant Israel,
remembering to be merciful
55to Abraham and his descendants forever,
even as he said to our fathers.”

Mary’s zeal for the Messianic promises of God top Israel indicate that this zeal forms at least some part of the reason that God selected her to bear Jesus. If one includes verse 50 in this frame of reference, gratitude to God for sending the Messiah comprises about one-third of Mary’s song of thanks. The Angel Gabriel indicated specifically to Mary that the child would be the Messiah by reference to the child’s later assumption of ‘the throne of his father (i.e. ancestor) David’.

Luke 1 is a chapter all about the coming of the Messiah. The task of Elizabeth, the other major personage in the chapter is to bear John the Baptist, whose role is to proclaim the immediate coming of the Messiah and Mary’s role is to birth and bear the Messiah and name Him Jesus.

Mary’s song indicates her zeal and faith in God’s Messianic promises, explaining her favour with God and also her selection as Jesus’ mother. God, knowing Mary’s character and hope for the Messiah, knows she will not refuse the honour and hence selects her for the role.

She certainly does not consider herself a victim and neither does Elizabeth.

42In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

Since God knows that Mary will not refuse the honour, the Angel can speak to Mary in the future tense (Will) of the events that she has been selected for.

Missing Out, Messing Up

LV’s determination to malign God and The Bible causes him to miss out on the many encouraging aspects of the Virgin Birth narrative including Mary’s point that God has special concern with the ordinary and poor of the planet, including herself, as proven by her selection, despite being a completely unremarkable village girl for the high privilege given her.

LV’s impoverished approach to this passage robs him of both understanding and coherence. Titus 1:15 could have been written for him. Indeed LV’s very characterisation of the Immaculate Conception as Rape can’t be sustained even if God did force Mary into the arrangment. Rape is a non-consensual sexual act even where conception does not occur, whereas conception is the genesis of a human life. To treat one as the other is a non-sequitir. The maximum charge that could be levied against God is “non-consensual conception”, not rape.

But the Immaculate Conception was consensual, first accompanied by obligation, but then overtaken with joy.

And Mary said:
“My soul glorifies the Lord
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
Luke 1:46-47

A Waste Of Good Heartbeats

Today I spent six hours attempting to make check marks programatically appear in some tiny boxes in a little grid. I can’t help thinking that this is a probably a waste of good heartbeats.

“I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” – Jesus

Popping Into Being

As a result of a conversation on another blog I was motivated to Google for the following scientific hypothesis:

The “popping into being” idea is that the probability of a universe popping into being is not (quite) zero, therefore it’s gonna happen.

Its One Of Hawking’s

Hawking explains the “popping into being” theory in “Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created From Nothing” (2007)

It’s an entertaining read. The theory is based on work done by:

Richard Feynman a brilliant physicist at the California Institute of Technology. He proposed that a system got from a state A, to a state B, by every possible path or history.

Each path or history, has a certain amplitude or intensity, and the probability of the system going from A to B, is given by adding up the amplitudes for each path. There will be a history in which the moon is made of blue cheese, but the amplitude is low

Come Again ?

So non-existence is posited merely as a state which can be moved freely from or to and this movement is achieved by traversing all possible paths, including the one in which Invisble Pink Unicorns tap dance on tables at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe. You are expected to take this seriously, even once you swallow the concept of non-existence as a valid state.

Non-existence as a state is a logical contradiction. Its like asking where you want the immovable object put.

Hawking goes on:

The picture Jim Hartle and I developed, of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe, would be a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water.

The idea is that the most probable histories of the universe, would be like the surfaces of the bubbles. Many small bubbles would appear, and then disappear again. These would correspond to mini universes that would expand, but would collapse again while still of microscopic size. They are possible alternative universes, but they are not of much interest since they do not last long

As I understand this, Hawking is talking about the expansion of the Universe fom a singularity. Which seems to me that Hawking wants to have his Invisible Pink Unicorn and eat it too. If the Universe is non-existent, where did the singularity come from ?

Perhaps I misunderstand the article. I am happy to be corrected.

Science. Yairs. *Cough*

So there you have “popping into being”. As might be expected from an untestable and highly entertaining idea from the realms of pure creativity it is full of preposterous nonsense and downright contradiction.

But because this fairy story is labelled “Science” many swallow it without bothering to read the fine print. And for many on the Left, or fanatical atheists like Stepehn Hawking and Richard Dawkins, anything that ejects God from the room is axiomatically justified.

US Creationists And Climate Change Denialism

What’s With Them Rednecks ?

It is occasionally noted during discussions of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) that Creationists are a stronghold of AGW Denialism. For example, The Guardian (UK) ran an article in April 2009 entitled “Just What Is It With Evangelical Christians And Global Warming” citing a survey from the Pew Forum On Religion and Public Life which showed only 34% of US White Evangelical Christians accept the AGW hypothesis.

Here is an extract from the Pew survey of 1,502 Americans, which has a sampling error of plus/minus 3%

Percentage of Americans who believe in AGW:

Total Sample: Yes 47% No 45% Don’t Know 8%
Non-Religious: Yes 58% No 35% Don’t Know 7%
White Mainline Protestants: Yes 48% No 44% Don’t Know 8%
White Evangelicals: Yes 34% No 55% Don’t Know 11%

What Is The Correlative Factor ?

Given that Pew found that the rate of acceptance of AGW amongst the Evangelicals was significantly lower than that of the general population and in view of the fact that Creationists would be more strongly respresented in this group than the others, it is fair to assume that the correlation between Creationism and anti-AGW exists. This being the case, what is the correlative factor ? What is it about US Creationists that predisposes them to reject AGW ?

The Wall Street Journal of Sept. 28, 2007 ran an interesting article, “Split Over Global Warming Widens Among Evangelicals”. In this article the views of pro- and anti-AGW Evangelicals are canvassed and the following anti-AGW viewpoints/rationales given:

- Senior US Evangelicals believe that AGW distracts clergy/believers from their core responsibility to elucidate Jesus’ message. A similar argument has been advanced by Cardinal Pell of the Catholic Church in Australia.
- Theological reasons advanced against AGE by certain Evangelicals.
- White Evangelicals are overwhelmingly Republicans hence toe party line.
- Conservative inertia. Southern Baptist Convention cites Climate Change not settled among scientists. 50 years ago refused to acknowledge Racism as an issue.

In my opinion the correlative factor between Creationists and anti-AGW is that of political allegiance to the Republican Party, the third factor cited in the Wall St. Journal article.

Creationist and Republican

The Religious Right is a constituency of the Republican Party. In the 2008 US General Election 73% of Evangelicals voted Republican according to the Pew Research Centre in this article, Voting Religiously

Republicans, Republican Pastors and AGW

The Republican Party is haven and wellspring for anti-AGW ideology.
Environment Magazine in Sept/Oct 2008 carried an article entitled “A Widening Gap: Democratic and Republican Views On Climate Change”. In data, data sourced from Gallup Polls showed that only 40% of Republicans subscribed to AGW compared to 72% of Democrats.

In a similar vein, Pew Research Centre in Oct. 2009 found that belief amongst AGW is very low amongst Republicans. In April 2008, Pew found only 27% of Republicans subscribe to AGW, dropping to 18% in Oct. 2009. The comparitive figures for Democrats were 58% and 50%.

Despite the disparity between the Gallup and Pew figures, both polls make clear that Republicans are far less likely to subscribe to AGW than Democrats.

To summarize the Pew Data:
27% of Republicans believed in AGW as of April 2008
18% of Republicans believed in AGW as of October 2009
34% of Evangelicals (mostly Creationists) believed in AGW as of April 2009.
73% of Evangelicals vote Republican.

In general terms then: Creationist correlates to Republican correlates to anti-AGW.

Some hard data which supports the above correlative chain comes from Lifeway Research, an arm of the Southern Baptist Convention. They polled 1,002 pastors and found that the more conservative their political beliefs, the more likely they were to reject AGW. The research appears in their article LifeWay Research studies global warming beliefs among Protestant pastors

When the pastors’ personal beliefs are factored in, the differences grow even more pronounced. Among pastors who consider their political ideology liberal or very liberal, 93 percent agree that global warming is real and man-made, and 79 percent of self-perceived moderates agree. Among those who identify themselves as conservative or very conservative politically, however, agreement is only 37 percent and 16 percent respectively

Disseminating Republican AGW Denialism To Creationists

The Religious Right (RR) has a very effective network of radio and television stations through which it can disseminate its opinions to members and sympathizers. These TV and Radio networks are controlled by the older members of the RR who are more conservative and more pro-Republican than the younger members.

AGW represents a massive challenge to the economies of the West, addicted as they are to chronic over-consumption. For the Republican Party, with its array of prominent financiers and backers from Big Oil, AGW represents a second and even more immediately serious challenge which is how to maintain the legitimacy of unlimited Oil Production and Consumption. AGW represents a threat to the power, money, authority and thus the very survival of the Republican Party. These challenges can only be met by de-legitimizing AGW.

Fissures In The Religious Right Over AGW

From the Pew figures it can be seen that Evangelicals, and hence Creationists, are less likely to reject AGW than the average Republican. (34% vs. 22% approx.)

During the 2008 US Federal Election campaign, fissures in the Religious Right began to appear as younger members began to assert their agreement with the AGW hypothesis and pressure Evangelical organisations to adopt AGW platforms and practices.

The younger Creationists turned to the Biblical concept of ‘stewardship’, a centuries old cross-denominational position on mankind’s relationship to the environment to support their notion of ‘Creation Care’ and argue for an AGW-friendly agenda in the RR media and secretariat.

For Senior Evangelics acceptance of AGW represented a second-order heresy of ‘turning Democrat’ the party not only of Al Gore, whose entire political career was predicated around the environment and Climate Change, but also associated in their minds with Gay Rights and Abortion.

Those that control the RR, with their established links to Republican politicians and centres of influence use theri position and control of RR resources to broadcast their anti-AGW opinions at the expense of pro-AGW opinions to the Evangelical rank-and-file.

The Contempt Of The Left For The Bible And Christianity

It is sometimes posited by left-leaning journalists and bloggers that the Creationists are anti-AGW for theological reasons: that Creationists believe the Bible teaches anti-AGW, or that Creationists are simply anti- or non-scientific because the Bible, itself putatively an anti-scientific document is the arbiter of truth for them.

Such leftists group Creationism and anti-AGW as equally non-scientific beliefs. Creationists are held to be innocently or defiantly ignorant of good science. A contempt for Creationists is apparent among many leftists, prominent in this contempt being the general refusal of Creationists to accept the Theory Of Evolution as incontrovertible fact. This contemptuous tone is very evident in the Guardian article cited above.

The contempt of leftists for Creationists leads them to attempt to locate the reasons for Creationist anti-AGW sentiment in the Bible, a document leftists love to mock as being non-scientific, not least because it is the source for the Creationist position.

The desire of leftists to mock and ridicule the Bible thus causes them to overlook the most obvious reason for US Creationists being anti-AGW. They are Republicans.

Theological ‘Proofs’ For Anti-AGW

To be fair to leftists, it is absolutely true that theological ‘proofs’ are used by certain prominent Creationists to argue against AGW.

But the quality of these ‘proofs’ is very poor, suggesting that theological argument is being coerced from the Scripture by certain Creationsists in order to to buttress a political (anti-AGW) position, rather than being derived inductively from Scripture. These Creationists are trying to force the Bible to say something that it really doesn’t say.

In short, anti-AGW interperetations are being retro-fitted onto Scripture by those with motive to coerce such interperetations from the Bible.

A theological ‘proof’ for anti-AGW is very palatable to the senior RR movers and shakers as it allows them to reconcile their Political and Theological ideologies into a coherent whole and stave off leadership and/or policy challenges from younger members.

Consequently, senior RR members allow such ‘proofs’ airtime or print space and leftists gleefully pounce on these theologically impoverished proofs to support their own bias, that the Bible is anti-Scientific and to give them further excuse to ridicule Scripture and Christians (not that they generally need much encouagement).

But again, to be fair, most leftists do not have sufficient Biblical literacy to properly evaluate theological argument.

Theology and Anti-AGW

The concept of Dominion as expressed by certain Creationists to theologically disprove AGW relies on a highly innovative understanding of Dominion. It is in fact so ‘innovative’ that I suspect that it has been invented expressly to cover the proponents real objections to AGW which I would say is that it challenges the rapacious corporate-government ‘free market’ paradigm beloved of the Republican Party.

The US Evangelical organisation Cornwall Alliance, a faith-based ant-AGW advocacy group, strongly infer that the Dominion of Humankind over Earth means that Humans can only ever be an agent for improvement in the natural environment and never an agent of destruction.

Cornwall, quoted in the Guardian article say:

Many people mistakenly view humans as principally consumers and polluters rather than producers and stewards. Consequently, they ignore our potential, as bearers of God’s image, to add to the earth’s abundance… Our position, informed by revelation and confirmed by reason and experience, views human stewardship that unlocks the potential in creation for all the earth’s inhabitants as good. Humanity alone of all the created order is capable of developing other resources and can thus enrich creation, so it can properly be said that the human person is the most valuable resource on earth… While some environmental concerns are well founded and serious, others are without foundation or greatly exaggerated… Some unfounded or undue concerns include fears of destructive manmade global warming, overpopulation, and rampant species loss.

The concept that humans can only ever exercise a positive effect on the natural environment is not taught in scripture. What is taught is that it is God’s mandate and gift to humanity that we, of all creatures, have the primary responsibility for the care of the planet and the most capacity to enjoy its beauty and wonder, as it was prepared very much for mankind’s enjoyment, but not solely for that purpose, as other scriipture goes on to tell us.

Other creationists teach, as did for example John Shimkus, a Republican House Of Representatives member testifying before the US House SubCommitte On Energy And The Environment in March 2009, that since God is sovereign, only He can destroy the planet, not humanity, thus AGW cannot be real.

Shimkus also ingeniously posited that AGW cannot be real because it would cause a second Noah’s Flood, which God said He would not do. This ignores the fact that God is not causing AGW (note that ‘A’).

Theologically Agnostic To Climate

Finally on climate and theology, it has been sometimes posited that Evangelicals are anti-mitigationist because they believe in The Rapture (thus it doesn’t matter what happens to the climate) or because they are looking forward to the destruction of the planet beause that’s when Jesus will return.

It is plain that the first belief should not be correlated to anti-AGW as it renders the entire debate moot, while the second could easily lead to a pro-AGW position because it makes Jesus’ return more likely to be sooner.

To Summarize

Creationism correlates to an anti-AGW belief because Creationists are Republicans.

Creationists are less likely than most Republicans to be anti-AGW because traditional Christian concepts of stewardship undermine the Republican position that humans are not responsible for Climate Change.

Theological arguments in support of anti-AGW exist but are theologically impoverished. Their role is to reconcile the political beliefs of Republicans with the Bible, but do not successfully do so.

The Author Speaks

I contacted the author of the Guardian article, Leo Hickman, and said I felt he had left out the obvious fact that Evangelicals are Republicans. He was kind enough to reply and said:

Not sure why I didn’t make that direct reference at the time but I think perhaps I felt many would make that link instinctively.

In other words, its obvious.

In which case the opening sentence of Mr. Hickman’s article just looks more like he’s enjoying putting the boots into Christians due to standard leftist antipathy. That sentence:

Just what is it with evangelical Christians and global warming? I
doubt we’re ever going to get a satisfying answer to this long-running
question…

So Why Do Creationists Vote Republican ?

Evangelicals have identified with the Republican Party since the 1960′s. Prior to that time they were politically disengaged, but several issues coincided in the 60′s, to make Evangelicals identify with the Republican Party as the party of traditional Christian morality.

These isues were the advent of a the Catholic presendential candidate, John F. Kennedy, fielded by the Democrats, the rise of the 1960′s counter-culture with its ‘progressive’ social views and libertarian sexual morality and Supreme Court decisions legalizing abortion and banning prayer in schools.

This identification solidified during Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign and presidency such that by 1984 the formation of the Evangelicals as a Republican Party constituency was completed in the form we know today.

While, the Evangelical vote is overwhelmingly Republican, it is not monolithic. African American Evangelicals (15% of all Evangelicals) vote Democrat because they place jobs and the economy of higher electoral importance than Abortion and issues of traditional morality.

As noted above, in recent times the younger Evangelical vote has fissured from the more conservative older generation. The younger generation of evangelicals did not favour the Iraq War and are AGW-friendly. Only 45% of younger Evangelicals were in favour of the Bush administration during 2008.

In general, however, Evangelicals vote Republican because they see the Republican Party as caring more for issues of concern to them. A survey commissioned by the Barna Group in January 2008 and reported at World Net Daily found:

Evangelicals’ top concern – by a wide margin – was abortion (94 percent). This was followed by the personal debt of Americans (81 percent), the content of television and movies (79 percent), homosexual activists (75 percent), and gay and lesbian lifestyles (75 percent,)”

So, Why Are Evangelicals Sceptical About Global Warming ?

From, Evangelicals Go “Green” with Caution, Barna Group, Sept. 2008

In particular, evangelicals express the greatest caution regarding their perception that media has hyped the story (65%), their belief that cyclical climate change is not primarily caused by human activity (62%), and their concern that proposed solutions would hurt the poor, especially in other countries (60%).

While Evangelicals enunciate specific objections to the AGW or mitigationist view , the overall picture given by history and data is that the Evangelicals associate the AGW hypothesis with the Democratic Party and its legions of godless liberals.

AGW is perceived as a Democrat cause along with Gay Rights, Abortion, and the banning of prayer. On the other hand, the party that Evangelicals identify with and trust, the Republican Party is anti-AGW. The specific reasons given by Evangelicals to oppose AGW are Republican Party propaganda points.

Sure, Evangelicals do not say ‘I oppose AGW because the Republican Party say so’, but that is in effect the case.

The Basic Issue Is Trust

…and Evangelicals do not trust the Democratic Party.

An evangelical couple from Texas, Katharine Heyhoe and Andrew Fairley who are respectively a climate change scientist and a pastor have specifically identified lack of trust as central in Evangelical resistance to the AGW hypothesis.

They have wrotten a book aimed at answering questions commonly put to them by the Evangelical community.

When it comes to conservative Christians, I think the real question is who can we trust on this issue?” Farley said. “The scientist who has opposed us in the past, perhaps on issues such as evolution versus creation? Can we trust the local radio talk-show host on conservative radio who seems to be vehemently opposed to the idea that climate change is happening and speaks out quite passionately? Should I trust my local pastor who has a B-minus in high school biology?”

Many of the questions put by Evangelicals are recycled from the arguments of conservative celebrities who act wittingly or not as Republican Party functionaries

“Glenn Beck is saying this, Laura Ingraham is saying that, Rush Limbaugh is saying this, and these people are well-respected in conservative communities, so where are these talk-show hosts wrong and how can you show that they’re wrong with data, not slick talk?” [Fairley] said.

Older Evangelicals will not abandon the Republican Party while it is their personal Hezbollah (Party Of God), nor will they abandon their mistrust of the godless Democratic Party.

While these factors are salient and the Republican Party opposes AGW, so will older Evangelicals.

But the younger generation is moving on and this is fuelled in part by the Bible because its natural reading on the environment supports an ecology-friendly approach to living. The tortured, coerced and debased Dominion Theology used by Republican Party loyalists in the Evangelical movement falls to pieces in the face of the genuine article.

Why Take Any Notice Of The Bible ?

Introduction

This is an essay I did for a Diploma-level subject at an Australian Bible College. It got an ‘A’, so it must be good

Why Do I Take Notice Of The Bible ?

I take notice of the Bible because it is God speaking and God speaking to me.

The Bible claims to be the written record of God speaking to humanity. If this is true, then the Bible is both authoritative and necessary for spiritual life.

By ‘authoritative’, I mean that the Bible has the right or power to command obedience (Milne, 1998, p.26). By ‘spiritual life’ I mean that the Bible instructs us how to enter into right relationship with God, that through the Bible we learn about God’s will for our lives and that the Bible instructs us how to grow in spiritual maturity and insight (Grudem pp. 116-119).

Phrases such as “God said” and “God commanded” fill the Old Testament (e.g. Gen 2:16, Ex. 9:1; Lev 12:1; Num 5:11, Josh 1:1, Judg 1:2, 2 Sam 7:4; Jer 66:1) which affirms that God’s speech and directive word was written down by His prophets and disciples beginning with Moses (Lewis and Demarest, 1987, pp. 138-140) (see Ex. 24:4 referring to Ex 20:22-23:31, Is 8:1, Jer 30:2). Similarly the New Testament (hereafter NT) attests that its own contents are the commands and words of God. For example, Jesus taught that He was bringing God’s message to Israel, that His teaching is superior to all those who preceded Him and is eternal (Matt 24:35; Matt 5:21-22; Matt 15:24).

While it is one thing for the Bible to claim to be the word of God, it is reasonable to ask how this claim can be tested. In my view the authenticity of scripture can be known by the person of Jesus, crucially hinging on His resurrection. (1 Cor 15:13-14)
As Milne puts it:

‘The resurrection is central to the entire Biblical revelation…To
deny it is to empty faith of all content and value’ (Milne, 1998, p.169)

Jesus claimed to be God. This can be seen in many ways including the unique way in which he expressed His relationship of sonship with God, His acceptance of worship and His jaw-dropping appropriation of the name of God through His famous ‘I AM’ statements (McDowell, 1986, pp. 89-102).(esp. John 8:58ff). Since only God has power over life and death then God’s action to resurrect Jesus ratifies His teaching and claims, especially since Jesus had the audacity to stake the authenticity of His teaching on His statements that He would rise from the grave Matt 12:36-42; John 2:18-22(Rom 1:3-4; Acts 2:29-36; Phil 2:9-11)

Given that Jesus’ teaching is ratified by God, let us then consider Jesus’ teaching on the Bible. I will consider this in three parts: The Old Testament (hereafter OT), the Gospels and the remainder of the NT

Jesus endorsed the entire OT as scripture, affirming the accepted categories and hence contents of “the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44 NIV). He rebuked the Pharisees for nullifying the OT by their man-made traditions and had complete confidence in its plenary inspiration, even on obscure points such as the death of Lot’s wife. He used the OT to settle points of doctrinal contention, to provoke thought about Himself and passionately defended its verbal inspiration by stressing that not a jot or tittle of the Law could be “dropped out”. He saw his own ministry as confirming and establishing the OT. (Lewis and Demarest, 1987, p. 141; Pinnock, 1985, pp. 37-39) Jesus high view of the OT is also demonstrated by how he constructed and understood the course of His Messianic ministry in relation to it. In this I agree with Milne that Jesus submitted to scripture, in distinction to Pinnock who, rightly affirming the scriptures’ witness to Jesus, then places Jesus in relative freedom to them. (Milne, 1998, pp. 41-42; Pinnock, 1985, p. 42).

As God, Jesus’ own teaching as contained in the Gospels are, by definition, scripture. There then remains to demonstrate why the remainder of the NT, written and/or sanctioned by the apostles, is also scripture.

The key to judging the apostles as inspired writers is in recognizing the special commission and empowerment given to them by Jesus. The commissioning of the apostles took place at the Passover Feast prior to Jesus’ crucifixion. They were commissioned to testify about Jesus using the teaching from the Father that Jesus had passed to them and were also promised additional truth by the agency of the Holy Spirit. After His resurrection Jesus gave the twelve a special endowment of the Holy Spirit to carry out the task of proclaiming this teaching. (John 15:27; John 17:8; John 16:12-15; John 17:20; John 20:21-23)

As Erickson points out, there is a strong sense in which many aspects of Jesus’ commissioning of the twelve apply to believers as a whole (Erickson, 1983, p. 251), but this does not permit us to ignore the localized context of the original commissioning or the manner of the training of the twelve through their three years of intimate personal engagement with Jesus. Jesus personally chose the twelve then employed rabbinical methods of training which impressed on them the fact of being groomed to be carriers of His teaching (Lewis and Demarest p. 144) Jesus also gave the twelve privileged, deeper instruction. (See Matt 13:16). Viewed thus, the Passover passage constitutes the climax of their training – a real handing-over of the task of teaching, training and proclamation.

The apostles clearly understood that they had received the delegated authority to teach with the authority of scripture. Paul distinguished between apostolic writings and the general insights available to the common believer and described his epistles as “the Lord’s command” (1 Cor 14:37; 2 Cor 13:3). He instructed his letters to be read to all believers, who were then exhorted to stand firmly on the truths therein. Those disobedient to Paul could righteously be excommunicated. Peter affirmed Paul’s writings as scripture, who for his part, submitted himself to the apostles of Jerusalem to confirm his own apostolic credentials. (1 Thess. 5:27; 2 Thess 2:13-15; 2 Thess 3:14-15; Gal 1:11-13; 2 Pet 3:16; Gal 2:1-10; 2 Peter 3:2; Eph 3:4-5 )

The connection between apostleship and authoritative teaching is keenly appreciated by Paul who takes pains to demonstrate that he too fulfills the criteria for apostleship by being an eyewitness to the resurrection, by the reception of teaching directly from Jesus the Lord and by the reception of a divine commissioning from Him (Lewis and Demarest, 1987, p.106). (Gal 1:11-15; 1 Cor 15:8-9; 1 Cor 9:1)

While not all the books of the NT were written by the apostles, all were validated by the apostles because they were written under apostolic sanction. As Warfield puts it,

“God’s authoritative agents in founding the church gave them
[the non-apostolically authored NT books] as authoritative to the
church which they founded.’ (Reformation Ink website, 2007)

Our friend has also objected that the Bible was written by ordinary people. In what way can human writings be said to originate with God? Theologically, this point addresses the concept of ‘inspiration’.

Inspiration

Milne canvasses the major conceptions of inspiration, namely dictation, accommodation and supervision (Milne, 1998, pp. 49-51). While the Bible does contain instances of divine dictation (Rev 2:8), the model which best fits the biblical data is that of ‘supervision’. This conception of inspiration sees that God exercised control over the biblical authors in their selection and redaction of words and ideas and indeed in their entire life development to fit them for the portions of scripture they were to write (Jer. 1:5; Rom 9:17).

The ‘dictation’ view cannot be reconciled to the Biblical data that shows the source of scripture are as varied as documentary research, collation, redaction, dreams, vision and memory. (Grudem, 1994, pp 81-82; Lewis and Demarest, 1987, p. 140).

The ‘accommodation’ view, on the other hand, is inadequate to explain the high view of scripture displayed by Jesus and the NT writers and sets us on a slippery slope (Erickson, 1983, p.226) ending in the kind of Biblical vandalism demonstrated by Bishop John Shelby Spong (Australian Broadcasting Commission website, 2007), whose idea of a Christian reformation begins with the disembowelment of scripture (Diocese Of Newark website 2007)

In distinction to other conceptions of inspiration, supervision provides both a holistic and high view of the divine-human partnership in scripture. The Bible states that scripture is inspired, meaning literally ‘breathed out’ by God, thus underlining its divine origin (2 Tim 3:16). Complementary to this is Peter’s description of the impetus for scripture being the Holy Spirit who ‘carries along’ the scripture writer.
( 2 Peter 1:19-20). Jesus’ endorsement of scripture validates for us that the process of human mediation of scripture does not compromise the integrity of the inspiration.

Conclusion

The veracity of the Bible hinges on Jesus. Jesus validated all scripture in existence at the time of His incarnation and, as God, provided additional scripture. He also trained, specially commissioned and empowered twelve apostles to deliver all remaining necessary truth. Admittedly, the process of inspiration is a mystery and it is difficult to know where or how the divine ends and the human starts. For example, in Exodus 34:1 Moses was commanded to chisel two stone tablets on which the Lord would write and yet in verse 28 we learn that Moses did the actual writing. All that we can say with certainty is that the origin of scripture is divine – God provides the inspiration and impetus – but that human vessels are used.

The ground for our trust in Jesus is ultimately His resurrection. This is the Father’s great attestation to Jesus, God the Son, and hence ratification of all His claims including Jesus’ endorsement of the Bible as God’s word. That is why I take so much notice of the Bible.

Finally, though, it is admitted that the Bible does not provide a formal proof of its own character. It simply provides assertions about itself. (Grudem, 1994, p. 171) The proof of the divine origin of the Bible is only found in the witness of the Holy Spirit to scripture and this is available only to those redeemed through faith in the object of its message. In the meantime, sin obscures the apprehension of the divine virtue of scripture, a condition even the redeemed must battle until He comes again.

Reference List

Australian Broadcasting Commission website (cited 17 March 2007), ‘Sunday Nights
with John Cleary: Bishop Shelby Spong’, transcript, 17 June 2001,

http://www.abc.net.au/sundaynights/stories/s815368.htm

Erickson M.J, 1983, “Christian Theology”, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids,
Michigan

Grudem W., 1994, “Systematic Theology: An Introduction To Biblical Doctrine”,
Intervarsity Press, Leicester.

Lewis G.R and Demarest B.A, 1987, “Integrative Theology”, Vol. 1, Zondervan,
Grand Rapids, Michigan

McDowell, Josh, 1986, Revised edn, “Evidence That Demands A Verdict”, Vol. 1,
Here’s Life Publishers, San Bernardin, California

Milne B., 1998, 2nd edn, “Know The Truth”, Intervarsity Press, Leicester

Pinnock Clark H., 1985, “The Scripture Principle”, Hodder And Stoughton, London

Spong, John.S., Diocese Of Newark website (cited 17 March 2007), ‘A Call For a
New Reformation’, May 1998, http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/vox20598.html

Warfield B.B, 1889, Reformation Ink website (cited 17-March 2007).
‘The Authority & Inspiration of the Scriptures’,

http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/bbwauthority.htm

The Roots Of Western Misogyny (Not)

Those of TEH LEFT often criticise Christianity or the Bible for supposedly teaching that Eve was responsible for corrupting Adam and that therefore that Christianity or the Bible teach that women are the corrupters of men. In this way, TEH LEFT imply or plainly state, the Bible is a misogynistic document.

In this post I would like to argue that the Bible does not teach that Eve corrupted Adam and that therefore the Bible does not teach that women corrupt men.

An Example

The blog Still Life With Cat (SLWC) posted an article “Biblical world view legitimised: Australian feminist icon turns in grave” in which the above view, that the Bible teaches that women corrupt men, was posited. The author wrote:

I’m not really all that surprised that the 2009 Miles Franklin Literary Award has been won by what was by far the safer choice of the two front runners, a novel in which a bitter, twisted woman called Eva (geddit? geddit?) corrupts the young hero, takes away his innocence and warps his psyche for life with her nasty dangerous bent sick non-missionary sexing-on ways. She robs our hero of Paradise, that’s what she does; she pushes him into his fall from grace.

Because, as we all know, that’s what women do. The Bible tells us so.

Here’s another example on the prominent Australian Left blog, Lavartus Prodeo, in the comment by ‘Acerbic Conehead’.

A Challenge
I challenged SLWC to provide a scriptural reference that supported her assertion; she came back with Genesis 3:11-13.

And God said, Who told thee that thou [wast] naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest [to be] with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
And the LORD God said unto the woman, What [is] this [that] thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

In addition to the above scripture, SLWC adduced that the church has centuries of teachings and songs that state that Eve corrupted Adam.

Genesis 3:11-13 does not teach that women corrupt men.. The passage in question records Adam trying to blame Eve for his actions in eating the fobidden fruit, God asking Eve her side of the story who, in turn, blames the serpent.

God is unimpressed with the cowardly blameshifting of both Adam and Eve and punishes them both. Both are banished from the Garden. Nowhere does the text say that Eve corrupted Adam. Rather, both are found guilty for their own actions.

The Bible is clear that Adam was complicit in the fruit incident. From Genesis 3:6

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

Adam was there all along. He should have tried to prevent Eve from eating the fruit and he certainly should not have eaten the fruit himself. Eve at least had the partial excuse that she had been deceived by the serpent. Adam ate in the full, clear knowledge that what he was doing was wrong.

Both ate. Both did wrong. Both were punished. There is no suggestion in God’s reaction to the incident that Adam was a victim of Eve.

Who Was Responsible ?
In fact, contra the position of Still Life With Cat and many leftists, the Bible explictly ascribes responsibility for for Original Sin to Adam, not Eve (and also not the serpent). As Romans 5:12-14 puts it:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man…Adam…

So SLWC and leftist fellow travellers have actually reversed the teaching of the Bible. The Bible says Adam was the responsible party in Eden; SLWC says the Bible blames Eve. That is simply a reversal of the Biblical text.

Now, SLWC asserted in correspondence that the traditional Church has taught that Eve corrupted Adam That may be correct; but in her original post the blogger stated that the Bible teaches that Eve corrupted Adam. That is simply not true.

Eve is presented in scripture as a model of the danger of becoming spiritually deceived (see 2 Corinthians11:1-4), not as the corrupter of Adam and not as the author of Original Sin. That distinction is reserved for Adam.

The Garden Of Eden passages thus cannot be asserted to be misogynistic.