For whom the Bell tolls

I...dislike Rob Bell's theology for a few reasons, but the one that chafes the most, I'd say, is an overly optimistic view of humanity. I'll just focus on one example for this post.

In his book Velvet Elvis, Bell asserts that we (Christians) are already holy and that holy means flawless. In other words, we are rendered perfect at salvation and all we must do is "live in that reality." Bell is somewhat ambiguous as to the meaning of this phrase, but I'll let that one slide. Bell commits two errors here.

The first is a misuse of Scripture. In support of his claim, Bell quotes Paul in a passage that refers to Christians as God's dearly loved and holy people. Bell states that "holy" means flawless. Not a good translation. Holy more precisely means "set apart." Something can be set apart and still imperfect. Christians are set apart from the world, but we are still in need of reshaping and reforming. Moreover, Paul is saying that as God's people we should be doing something. Paul's letters are, in general, written to churches in trouble, full of Christians still undergoing sanctification.

The second is a breach in logic. Bell makes two apparently contradictory assertions. First is that people are perfect and simply need to embrace our perfect nature. Second is that we are not embracing this nature already. If we are truly perfect, why do we need to do anything? This contradiction renders and entire section of the book moot. Bell seeks to simultaneously assert that we shouldn't try to lead better lives and yet...we should.

Most annoying is the fact that you need to actually read every word in the book to catch stuff like this, which is hard when he

does

cute

stuff

with the stupid

line

breaks, evidently in an attempt to be "hip." This book is toxic, folks. And the packaging only serves to disguise its nature.

Engaging auto-destruct in 5...4...3...

These are some of the worst things anyone can say in a round of debate. The TP topic deals with policy toward India. LD is idealism (affirmative) versus pragmatism (negative). Let's break it down, shall we?

Team Policy

Affirmative

"Our plan works in theory."

"Barack Obama is enacting our plan even as we speak."

"Death is only a problem in some instances."

"The negative has failed to impact their thermonuclear war disadvantage. Why is this a problem?"

"Our plan harnesses the power of global warming..."

Negative

"Saving babies is irrelevant to this round."

"Personally, I think this is a great idea, but..."

"We don't actually have any evidence."

"Human trafficking? How is this even a harm?"

"I'd like to address the affirmative's definitions..."

Lincoln-Douglas

Affirmative

"Hitler was an idealist."

"Sometimes we have to ignore reality."

"I don't understand what the negative just said."

"I'd like to quote Josef Stalin..."

"Well, yes, we sometimes have to compromise our values..."

Negative

"Hitler was a pragmatist."

"Human rights don't matter that much."

"Progress is the highest value."

"I'd like to quote Nietzsche..."

"Pragmatism is basically the same as practicality."

General Debate Potpourri

"What have the starving children done for us lately, eh?"

"Ignore the arguments for a minute."

"My opponent is unworthy of consideration because she is short."

"You face a choice at the end of this round: agree with me or be eaten by the wolves."

“I don’t have the burden of proof with me…”

“I can’t quote that evidence because it is resting.”

“My source is a professor of botany.”

“My partner is wrong.”

“My evidence, as you can see, is open to interpretation.”

“Although I don’t have evidence for this point…”

“There’s nothing wrong with Wikipedia.”

“If I were me, I’d lie in this situation.”

(On CX) “Did you mean to write that case?”

“Wait. I’m on which side?”

(On CX) “Was that a question?”—“If that was an answer.”

“I plead the Fifth.”

“Hold on. I meant to say the opposite.”

“According to the following blog…”

“Can we try a different case?”

“Well, as you can see our case is perfect…”

“Well, we never said our case was perfect…”

“There are worse things than nuclear war.”

(On CX) “What’s topicality?”

“The Constitution was a generally good idea, but shouldn't we get over it?”

“People are worth $367.57 a piece.”

“In the wise words of Rosie O’Donnelll…’

“I saw our plan in a movie once and it worked great. I think it was a Tom Clancy…”

“Our case is similar to what the Soviet Union did in 1924…”

“The affirmative case is horrible because it might cause a spike in the cute bunny population.”

"The other side has won only four of the five stock issues. Unaddressed thoughout the round has been the importance of pity toward us..."

On continuity of experience

Postmodernism can be reduced to absurdity in so many fun little ways, but I thought of a particularly interesting one recently. I doubt that this is new, but it's still an intriguing argument.

First, a little background. Postmodernism, for the purposes of this analysis, is the idea that "there is nothing outside the text." Picture a short essay, say on the superiority of Lincoln-Douglas debate over Team Policy. The contents of this paper are, according to postmodernism, entirely a matter of interpretation because no extra-textual (Yes, I just made up a term. No, I don't care.) data or context exists. My interpretation is just as valid as yours even if one of us were to assert (gasp!) that the paragraph proves that Team Policy is superior.

According to postmodernism, the entire world is like that paragraph. It has no meaning beyond what we assign it as individuals, and no one individual's assertions are any more or less valid than the next's. No higher or absolute truth exists. A few problems do exist here. The most obvious, of course, is that even the claim that no absolute truth exists is an absolutist claim. Slightly more subtle are postmodernism's other flaws.

And so we come to my argument. Tag this one as the argument from continuity of experience. If you throw a rock at me and manage a hit, I will experience pain. Trade sides with me and I bet you'll feel the same. We both would rather not be eaten by bears. Such experiences are uniformly unpleasant. Similarly, we both probably like clean air, chocolate, and the song "There's No One As Irish as Barack O'bama." This implies that our minds function in similar ways, in turn suggesting that there is some uniform constant that forms a reference point. Even if it is merely biological in nature, such a constant is immutable and not "subject to interpretation." This is the first half of the argument, namely that our minds deal with reality in similar ways. The second, and more forceful, aspect of the argument is simply that the rock you just threw nailed me right between the eyes. You can apologize next time you see me. From your perspective, the rock traveled in a parabola from hand to mark. From my perspective the rock traveled in a parabola from hand to mark. Then blackness. The point is that this event was obviously independent of perspective and interpretation. You were able to take an action that I then perceived. Thus our minds engaged in interaction via some sort of medium (the medium that allowed conveyance of your intent to throw the rock to my perception of your intent). This medium, I postulate, is called reality, and it changes only when acted upon and not with "interpretation."

Treating reality as a medium through which minds interact is an interesting idea. I'm probably not the first person to think of it, but it still has some interesting implications even beyond a refutation of postmodernism. If reality really is simply aether for the conveyance of data, then some credence goes to the philosophy of Berkeley, who asserted that an object only exists insofar as it is observed. I think he is close. He claimed that the world continues to exist when you close your eyes because God is still watching. Hmmmm.... I think it may be still more fundamental. Let us progress from philosophy to theology.

First postulate: God created us to love him. Love, according to Augustine, requires that we make a decision. A decision requires that we possess information.

Second postulate: Such a decision is inherently heuristic because we cannot know God fully in our present form. If our form were changed so that we could fully know God no decision would be necessary. (Who would turn away from God revealed in His majesty?) This decision must be based on limited or incomplete data.

Third postulate. A means of limited communion must therefore exist between God and Man to allow the conveyance of knowledge of God without total exposure.

Fourth postulate: The universe provides exactly such a medium. God reveals His attributes to us in limited form through the universe. We gain fleeting but awesome glimpses of His skill in design, of His omnipotence, and so on.

Fifth postulate: The universe (Scripturally, nature) was corrupted by the Fall because Man's ability to commune with God was damaged by our sin nature. The cataclysm extended from the direct connections of the soul to God to the indirect link through Creation.

I am not an expert or ordained theologian. I have no degrees (although you might be wise to trust me less if I did). This is merely a though experiment and should not be regarded as teaching. But it is an interesting and perhaps helpful way of looking at the world. Suddenly any philosophy (and there are postmodernists and existentialists who claim to be Christians) that denies the absolute nature of reality starts looking a bit odd. Once matter becomes an absolute aether, the external world takes on an interesting purpose.