Author: tomsheepandgoats

  • Sarah Walks with God: Genesis 20

    Sarah Walks Courageously with God

    Sarah was the noted figure last night in Courageously Walking With God. Leaving her home and all in Ur, a comfortable life, to follow her husband and traipse all over on camels. The contrast was drawn with Lot’s wife, who wasn’t about to give up the good life, who looked behind as her family was fleeing Sodom, and who subsequently turned into a pillar of salt.

    I know she did this because I saw that drama played out at the St Louis International convention years ago at Busch Stadium. They ran from the diamond into the outfield, as though chasing a fly ball. Midway, she raised her colored cloak inside out over her head. It was white on the inside. From afar, she looked exactly as though turning into a pillar of salt.

    In Sarah’s case, her sacrifice of the good life was remedied after a time. Abraham passed her off as her sister in Negeb, for fear the king might kill him off to take her as his wife. They were known to do such things—killing didn’t bother them but stealing another man’s apparently wife did. So Abimelech absconds with her, figuring he’s going to woo her over. ‘Keep your paws off her,’ God says in a dream. ‘She’s married!’ Whereupon, Abimelech falls all over himself to make amends, showering both Sarah and Abraham with gifts:

    “Abimelech then took sheep and cattle and male and female servants and gave them to Abraham, and he returned his wife Sarah to him. Abimelech also said: “Here my land is available to you. Dwell whereveryou please.” And to Sarah he said: “Here I give 1,000 pieces of silver to your brother. It is a sign of your innocence to all who are with you and before everybody, and you are cleared of reproach.”

    I mean, if you were wanting to scam the guy you could not do better. I’ve even thought of copying the scheme myself next time I run across a rich king, for my wife is also a looker, and as it is I have to constantly beat off louts giving her the eye. Trouble is, I’m a little worried she might become enticed with the good life and cut me out of the picture entirely.

    ******  The bookstore

  • What is the Burden of Jehovah? (Jeremiah 23:33)

    What is ‘the Burden of Jehovah?’ (Jeremiah 23:33)

    Burden of Jehovah?

    “And when this people or a prophet or a priest asks you, ‘What is the burden of Jehovah?’” (Jeremiah 23:33)

    Huh? What is being spoken of?

    There is a play on words here towards a people who are anything but respectful toward the prophet. The Hebrew word massa has a double meaning. It can genuinely mean a heavy burden. Or it can mean a solemn utterance that is that way.

    ‘What “burdensome message” do you have for us today? As they party and carry on and preside over a shipwreck of maltreatment (to other people, not themselves) which suits them just fine, here comes Jeremiah. “What downer do you have for us today?” they jeer. “Come to spread a little more doom and gloom?”

    The prophet does not flinch: “You people are the burden!” he throws back at them, reverting to the other meaning of the word. “And I will cast you off,” declares Jehovah.” (33b) Mend your ways and you won’t be such a burden. But it doesn’t seem too likely that you will, as the remainder of the twenty-third chapter indicates.

    Imagine the stress of such a role. Imagine being in Jeremiah’s shoes. No wonder his book shows him all but being dragged kicking and screaming to his work:

    “You have fooled me, O Jehovah, and I was fooled. You used your strength against me, and you prevailed. I have become a laughingstock all day long; Everyone ridicules me,” he explodes at 20:7.

    “For whenever I speak, I must cry out and proclaim, “Violence and destruction!” For me the word of Jehovah has been the cause of insults and jeering all day long” just like it is with these homegrown prophets and priests sneering, “What is the burden today?”

    How to cope? Quit.

    “So I said: “I am not going to make mention of him, And I will speak no more in his name.” But in my heart it became like a burning fire shut up in my bones, And I was tired of holding it in; I could no longer endure it.”

    He can’t do it. But does it ever cause him stress! There’s no sanitizing these verses. He complains mightily, even bitterly. How else can you explain his subsequent words at 20:14-16?

    “Cursed be the day on which I was born! May the day that my mother gave me birth not become blessed! Cursed be the man that brought good news to my father, saying: “There has been born to you a son, a male!” He positively made him rejoice.And that very man must become like cities that Jehovah has overthrown while He has felt no regret.“

    Somehow God pulls him through despite himself, but he never regards his assigned role as a piece of cake. Maybe he’s the guy I’ll rush to chat up in the resurrection, as others are making a beeline for David. Sort of reminds me of an older brother, faithful lifelong, who will close out his days that way, I have no doubt, who nonetheless ventured his view that “Jehovah expects a lot.” I’ll ask Jeremiah how he ever pulled off his role.

    God keeps ratcheting up his assignment.

    He confronts those who say “again and again to those who disrespect [Jehovah]: “You will enjoy peace.”’ And to everyone who follows his own stubborn heart they say, ‘No calamity will come upon you.’” I mean, does that sound like a great assignment or what, continually butting heads with these people?

    It’s like a friend of mine remarking of those he encountered in the ministry, that they had minds “of concrete—all mixed up and firmly set.” The entrenched interests have taken charge, liken the modern-day counterparts who have adapted to doing anything they want and calling it ‘holy spirit,’ serving God with their lips but it seems not important to them if they actually do what he wants or not.

    His prophetic mission has taken him to the top of a world that doesn’t want to hear it. So much do they not want to hear it that. “Pashhur . . . the priest . . . the leading commissioner in the house of Jehovah, kept listening to Jeremiah while prophesying these words [and] struck Jeremiah the prophet and put him into the stocks.” (20:2) Was Jeremiah abashed the next day upon his release? Doesn’t sound that way:

    “Jeremiah now said to him: “Jehovah has called your name, not Pashhur, but ‘Fright all around.’ For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘Here I am making you a fright to yourself and to all your lovers, and they will certainly fall by the sword of their enemies while your eyes will be looking on; and all Judah I shall give into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he will actually take them into exile in Babylon and strike them down with the sword.” (20;3-4) It is another play on words, this time a play on Pashur’s actual name. Pashur literally means something like ‘fruitful/joy all around.” Jeremiah kept the ‘all around’ part’ changing only the stuff that the “all around” was all around.

    This is why you do not put intellectuals and academics in charge of disseminating the Word of God. Ever concerned about their stature in the eyes of their peers, they will wuss-out every single time when the game gets rough. No, you need to put lowly ones in charge who have no special stature to worry about. To me, Jeremiah’s becoming one of the most interesting players in the Old Testament.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Anecdotal Evidence and Science

    What to do with Eyewitnesses

    In May of 2020, no hope was held out for victims of Covid-19. The “warp speed” development of a vaccine had not yet landed. Sufferers were advised bedrest and fluids at home. They were only to enter the hospital if they were almost dead (which in many cases would finish off the job for them), President Trump then described a letter he had received:

    “I got a letter from a doctor the other day, from Westchester, New York, around the area, he did not want anything. He just said: ‘Sir I have hundreds of patients and I give them hydroxychloroquine, I give them the z-pack, which is azithromycin, and I give them zinc, and out of the hundreds of patients, many patients, more than 300, I haven’t lost one.’ He said: ‘Please keep pressing that sir.’”

    Q: What do you do when people are dropping dead left and right and then a physician comes along with a treatment he has used on over 300 patients and says ‘I haven’t lost one?’ Do you:

    A) Ignore him.

    B) Seek higher-quality evidence

    C) Go talk to those 300 and shake them down for their stories.

    Though any one of common sense would choose C, the actual response was a cross between A and B. Why? Because to choose C makes you beholden to “anecdotal evidence,” a horrific faux pas in the discipline called science.

    Michael Shermer discussed anecdotal evidence in his Great Courses lecture series, “How to Think Like a Scientist.” Anecdotes are near-worthless, he maintains. If you want to think like a scientist (who doesn’t?) you ignore them. “Ten anecdotes are no better than one and one hundred anecdotes are no better than ten,” he stated. “Imagine how worthless five hundred must be to him,” I said in ‘Workman’s Theodicy,’ referring to the five hundred eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection.

    Okay, okay, so the five hundred eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection were long dead at the time of his and my writing; that throws a significant caveat into it for sure. But the three hundred eyewitnesses from the Westchester physician were not dead! Quite the opposite. They would have been dead, many of them, were it not for his treatment that he subsequently tried to share with the nation. How can you not go and talk to them?

    Science did not. They devised “higher quality” studies to conclude that the doctor was talking through his hat, and that whoever disdained science enough to listen to him was equally foolish. Is it because talking to the patients requires leaving the laboratory? Is it because if you send someone to speak with them, whatever they bring back is also “anecdote” and therefore equally untrustworthy? I can’t think of a better circumstance to validate the Romans 1:22 verse of fools insisting they are wise.

    So stupid is this mainstay of “thinking like a scientist” that conspiracy theorists arise to insist it was not stupidity at all, but design. The plan, they insist, was to discredit anything cheap and effective so as to make a financial killing with the next product from Pharma. It is a battle for others to wage, not me. Good luck to those who embark on it; it’s like arguing over the trinity. I let it pass. Others can conclude what they will. But it may just be a limitation of science itself. Science is simply not nimble enough to deal with anecdotal evidence, so it doesn’t even make the attempt. It ignores it. It carts that stuff to the curb. No matter if lives are said to depend upon it or not—out it goes.

    This doctor, a Vladimir Zelenko, was not the only doctor to weigh in. Other doctors would also weigh in, and even eclipse him by testifying before Congress. I heard one of them, a Dr Pierre Kory. In the early days of Covid-19, he and others did not want to just sit around waiting on CDC guidance which didn’t come beyond bedrest and fluids. They started tinkering with already existing drugs that they had used for other illnesses. Might some be adapted to the new contagion? The found the answer was yes. ‘Look, I’m not dissing any vaccine,’ Kory said. ‘But it’s not here yet. In the meantime people are dying. I’ve found a regimen that works. [just like Zelenko and others had] Please let me use it! Please tell others about it!’ But it was anecdotal evidence. Though each doctor who testified had hundreds of patients treated, hundreds of eyewitnesses that could have been sought out, it was to no avail. Science can’t be impeded by such nonsense. They ignored him and sought out higher quality evidence that would tell them he was wrong.

    You’d almost think that President Trump’s own experience with Covid 19 would indicate Zelenko (whose regimen he promptly adopted and who closed his practice shortly after sending his letter, so harassed was he by detractors—he has since died) was onto something. In October of 2020, Trump himself came down with Covid. He was old and obese, two huge factors of comorbidity. Everyone thought he was a goner. Instead, he kicked the illness in no time at all. Shortly thereafter, he was waving from his limosine. During his 4-day hospital stay, he was mostly ambulatory and worked from his bedside. Did the Zelenko treatment help him recovery so quickly? The answer will never be known, probably, for his care consisted of treatments then unavailable to the general public, primarily a regeneration monoclonal antibiotic cocktail.

    And no, don’t carry on about Trump’s getting treatment better than you would get. That is just the way it is with regard to leadership of anything in this system of things. On a recent trip to Chicago, I was even reminded of how past-mayor Daly had to think very quickly to extract himself from such a trap.

    It seems that the President, the Pope, and Mayor Daly had been caught adrift in a small boat which had sprung a leak. It could thereafter safely transport two persons, but not three. The President promptly pointed out that as leader of the free world, it could hardly be he that bailed. The Pope made the same observation on the basis of heading the world’s largest religion. Mayor Daly, a politician renowned for his corruption, began to sweat. “Gentlemen, gentlemen,” he proposed, “Let’s do this the democratic way! Let’s take a vote.” So they did and Mayor Daly won, five to two.

    Does it water down this post to conclude it with a joke? Maybe. But how can you conclude that a policy of ignoring eyewitnesses is anything but a joke? God help us when this mainstay of science is picked up by the judicial system. Prosecution and defense alike will soon stop calling upon them, since science has deemed them unworthy of consideration. It recalls a certain chum of mine, admittedly given to corniness, who stocked a bookshelf with various Bible translations and his collection of comic strips—Calvin and Hobbes was a favorite. That way he could say, “If it’s not in the Bible, it’s a joke.”

    ******  The bookstore

  • Exposing an Inordinate Trust in Science

    In the days of ‘Me Too’ a common endorsement of anyone leveling an accusation was ‘Why would she lie?’

    I’m almost at that point now with conspiracy theories, so many of them have turned out true. I’m almost at the point (but not quite) of saying that the burden of proof should be upon those denying them, not those asserting them, so awry has gone the doomed trial period of human self-rule.

    Here is the doctor, Anthony Fauci, who directed the U.S. Covid-19 policy testifying before Congress at July’s end, 2026. One political party grills him relentlessly. The other party lauds his long tenure of public service. It was precisely the opposite from 30 years ago, during the AIDS epidemic, when the accusing and supporting parties were reversed!

    After an opening statement in which he declares himself the victim of a witch hunt which threatens even science itself, he invokes his fifth amendment right over 100 times. It is the answer to every question asked of him. In a snafu that screams the absurdity of human government, the accusers holler that he cannot plead the fifth, since he has already been pardoned. However, if the pardon is invalid, as has been alleged due to its being signed by auto-pen and not the participating president, then he might be in hot water and pleading the fifth is exactly what he should do.

    Thirty years ago, it was Democrats blasting him for stonewalling off-patent AIDS therapies in order to pave the way for a new one, AZT, a toxic antiviral that neither cured AIDS nor prevented transmission. This time, it was Republicans blasting him for stonewalling off-patent Covid-19 therapies in order to pave the way for a new one, remdesivir, which would be nicknamed by many nurses, “Run—death is near.”

    Since he represented science—he repeatedly said that he did—a media with no use for religion but boundless enthusiasm for science, long ate up and heralded every utterance from his lips and shouted down as misinformation anything contrary. Heaven help you if you went against official narratives. Doctors lost hospital privileges and some their licenses. Individuals lost their social media accounts. Today, many of those dissident views, such as the very origin of the Covid 19 virus, are widely viewed as correct. It didn’t hop from one animal species to people. It was an accidental result of human tinkering, called gain-of-function research. As always (human government triggers so much mistrust these days) conspiracy theorists arise to charge that it was not accidental, but deliberate,for who knows what nefarious ends

    And no, I have no ax to grind regarding Doc Fauci. My former post of ‘What if Moses spoke like Trump,’ from the pandemic’s onset, when he and the president were nightly on television, left unmolested the statement that he was the great doctor soon to save us all. Nor do I have any ax to grind with regard to vaccines. Dissing them has never been my cause. There is an ax to grind, however, in the unthinking adoration often entertained toward science, it being the human answer to God’s proposed ruling of the earth. Who needs the latter when science will deliver us? In order to properly address that misplaced adoration, one must shovel through the snow of vaccine lore clogging the path, but it is not an end in itself.

    The boundless trust and enthusiasm in science is such that (U.S) society tolerates what they would never tolerate in any other area: the removal of liability should results go bad. The most common sense item in the world, instantly acknowledged in all other fields of activity, is that if you remove incentives for things to be safe, they soon won’t be. People will take shortcuts in research and manufacture. That’s why one has legal recourse in case they be harmed by—say—defective auto parts, or medical implants, or toys for your child, or household appliances, or power tools, or household chemicals or, or nearly anything—with one notable exception. If you are injured by a vaccine, you are out of luck. They alone are immune from liability. To attack them is to attack science itself—what crazy person would do such a thing? The author of ‘Vaccines, Amen’ likens the current reality to a customer asking a car salesman if his product is safe. “Prove to me it isn’t,” the salesperson retorts. It is an absurdity tolerated in only one area, probably enduring for only one reason: an over-devotion to science from people who have cast out God but not their instinct to worship one.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Qualifications and the New World Translation

    What were the qualifications of the men who translated the NWT into English?

    It’s a common query from those who don’t care for Jehovah’s Witnesses, hoping to embarrass. Just who are these translators, anyway? Do they have letters trailing their name? Do they really know any language besides Pig Latin? Perhaps the Witnesses will admit that they didn’t really use translators at all, but hired trained orangutans for the job

    It’s not easy to satisfy on this point since the NWT translating committee has ever remained anonymous. Not just the NWT – everything Watchtower published is anonymous. One consequence is that people must focus on the work itself and not just who wrote it. But it’s a lot easier to do the reverse: find out who wrote it, and then figure on that basis if it’s any good or not. It’s the tactic of a lazy lout. After all, examining a work takes time. Examining credentials of the author can be done in 2 seconds.

    Is the New World Translation any good or not? One ought to be able to determine that without knowing the “qualifications of the translators.” Instead, qualifications become apparent through examination of the work itself. That holds true in any other aspect of life. Why should it not hold true here as well? When Mrs Sheepandgoats and I moved into our present house, we looked it over for quality. We even hired an inspector. Satisfied, we purchased it. But we don’t know who built the house, and we’ve not lost any sleep on that account. The qualifications of the builders are evident from what is built.

    Shortly after the New World Translation’s release, back in 1963, the Andover Newton Quarterly wrote: “The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation.” How do they know the “scholars” are “qualified”? They examined the work itself. Does it bother them that the translators are anonymous? It doesn’t seem to. “The New Testament translation was made by a committee whose membership has never been revealed — a committee that possessed an unusual competence in Greek,” the journal wrote in 1966. They could tell the work was well done without knowing the authors, just as you can tell the earth is beautiful without knowing its Creator. But lazy persons insist they have to know the authors first. Not so. To insist that credentials determine a work’s value is to insist that Apples and Microsoft are nickel-and-dime third rate outfits because Steve Jobs or Bill Gates were “unqualified” – they held no degrees in computer science, and never completed college.

    Or what about Marilee Jones, the MIT Dean of Admissions who was carted out like yesterday’s trash when it was found she was “unqualified” for her job. She’d forged her credentials! Those letters and degrees she carried – all made up! Yet before she was found out, they’d sung her praises to the heavens! She was a leading expert in her field! On the other hand, the most qualified financial people in the world darn near destroyed the entire world economy in 2007. Not to berate qualifications, of course – God forbid! – but they are frequently used merely to screen persons, as any job-seeker knows. And to pad the education industry.

    Opponents sneered at the apostles for lack of qualifications: “Now when they [qualified religious leaders of the day] beheld the outspokenness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were men unlettered and ordinary, they got to wondering,” Acts 4:13 tells us. Jesus fared no better: “Therefore the Jews fell to wondering, saying: “How does this man have a knowledge of letters, when he has not studied at the schools?” (John 7:15) Got it? Christianity’s a flop because its founder was not “qualified.”

    Frankly, Watchtower, through its program, structure and dedication, is a “school” in its own right. Can one learn languages only through the world’s universities? Give us all a break. A two-year-old raised in a bilingual homes picks up both tongues without effort. Put him in a tri-lingual home, and he picks up three. Okay, ancient language adds a degree of complication, I admit, but still, language is just a means of communication and surely there are many avenues through which one may learn that. Not to mention that translators today mostly work from master texts, compilations from such scholars as Westcott and Hort. Thus, the heavy lifting has already been done.

    Besides, what is it they do most there in Bethel? What are they known for? TRANSLATING! The Watchtower website is presently translated into over 1000 languages. Nobody else comes close—not Google, not Apple, not any news media, not the U.N,—nobody.

    So, IF it turns out that NWT translators bypassed the advanced degrees of prestigious universities, that’s not the big deal detractors make it out to be. The reality probably is that those universities should be approaching the Witnesses for tips on how to translate, not the reverse.

    Yet, even THAT can’t be determined for sure. Detractors claim to know who the translators were, and have a field day with their supposed “lack of qualifications.” But how you positively identify a group which has never identified itself is beyond me. And even if those guessed-at persons chaired a committee, that by no means says they personally did all the work, just as a builder might farm out various areas of expertise on the home he’s building.

    “Maybe there were many others,” admits one grumbler. “But again, in a matter like this, what or why would they hide? Who lights a lamp and puts it under a bowl? Honestly, provide one reasonable excuse why these men should be anonymous.”

    What’s wrong with modesty? By remaining anonymous, they direct attention to the work (and its real author), and not themselves. “Who lights a lamp and puts it under a bowl,” my foot! They’ve not put the work under a bowl. They’ve put themselves under it. Now, having accomplished a great work, people today are given to strutting around and basking in the praise of their peers. To forsake that shows unusual modesty. We live in a culture in which people are obsessed with personalities, and in which they focus, not so much on words said, but on who said the words. Anonymity thwarts such laziness.

    Most criticism of the New World Translation arises because it does not translate certain verses in the precise words necessary to uphold the Trinity doctrine. This is extremely important to Trinity people, because the Trinity teaching derives almost all of its authority from such ‘formula’ verses. Many translations have rendered such verses similar to the NWT over the years, but such translations all tank because they depend on the world’s commercial marketplace for distribution – and Trinitarians won’t touch them with a ten foot pole. The NWT would also tank if distributed that way, no doubt, but it’s distributed in an entirely unique way by dedicated Christians, outstripping anything the world’s commercial system could accomplish, and at a very nominal cost.

    If you believe in the Trinity, you’ll loathe the NWT and do everything possible to discredit it. But if you don’t carry that baggage, and you’re permitted to look at it without preconceived ideas, it speaks well for itself. In fact, Jason Beduhn, who has theological qualifications coming out of his ears, compared 9 popular translations and concluded the New World Translation is the most accurate, containing the least bias, of them all. His 2003 book is entitled Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament. He’s not hung up at all about anonymous translators. He has enough ability to look at the work itself, and not just who produced it.

    ******  The bookstore

  • An Equal and Opposite Expert

    Arthur C. Clarke is the wit who coined the expression, “For every expert there exists an equal and opposite expert.” He may have thought he was arranging a meeting of the two when he introduced Carl Sagan to Stanley Kubrick. They were both experts, and if their respective areas of expertise, science and filmmaking, are not exactly opposites, they will do for the purposes of this narrative. He hoped the two would hit it off. Instead, they couldn’t stand one another. Well—Sagan liked Kubrick well enough to all but assume takeover rights on his upcoming film, but the feeling wasn’t mutual. “Get rid of him. Make any excuse. I don’t want to see him again,” the director afterwards told Clarke.

    Clarke may well have thought of himself and Kubrick as equal and opposite experts. He, Robert A. Heinlein, and Isaac Asimov were the Big 3 of science fiction just then. Kubrick’s star was quick rising in the film world. His ‘Paths of Glory’ (1957) was acclaimed an anti-war masterpiece. Big budget Spartacus (1960) won four Oscars. Lolita (1962–you don’t want to know what that one’s about) proved his literary chops. And Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worryng and Love the Bomb (1964)—who can forget General Buck Turgidson shielding war plans with his hands as the Russian ambassador enters the room, as though hiding Scrabble tiles from a cheating opponent? Or when he later scuffles with that ambassador and is rebuked by President Merkin Muffley; “Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here! This is the War Room!” Or when cowboy pilot Major T J “King” Kong mounts the jammed nuke in his B52’s bomb bay to free it, then rides it down to earth, whooping and waving his hat as he triggers the end of the world?

    So when Kubrick sought out Clarke for an upcoming science fiction movie, the latter might have thought the collaboration only natural. Didn’t the writer have some short story (The Sentinel) in which aliens monitor another civilization to alert them once they’ve grown smart? The two hit it off immediately. Nor did it dampen their relationship (as Clarke feared it might) when he fessed up to the director that he was a “well-adjusted homosexual.” “Yeah, I know,” Kubrick said and moved on. He probably had already looked into just why the British writer lived in Sri Lanka, then called Ceylon, and not his native England. He probably had not yet looked into it when Clarke first came to his attention, judging by his initial remark that the writer was “a nut who lives in a tree in India or someplace.” England was not then as gay friendly as it would later become.

    There has never been a good science fiction movie, Kubrick observed to Clarke as he proposed brainstorming for one; they’d all been garbage up to then. Clarke wasn’t so sure of that. There had been two or three good ones, he thought, but there is a time to keep your mouth shut. It certainly was true that science fiction at the time was considered just one small step up from pornography, and film adaptations were mostly monsters on the beach eating teenagers. It would take Steven Spielberg 30 years to improve on that scenario with his Jurassic Park dinosaur eating a lawyer.

    Sagan left his mark on the film, even if Kubrick did show him the door. He had advised that any aliens be not shown but only implied. Preserve the awe. If you show them and they are in any way contrived, it will be a letdown. If you show them and they are done perfectly, it will still be a letdown, since where do you go from there? Thus, the movie showed the deeds of the aliens, their devices, their abilities, but as to their appearance itself, they stayed as invisible as Yahweh: “No man has seen God at any time,” says the scripture. Nor would any see the aliens.

    There really wouldn’t be much difference between aliens and God, Clarke had earlier mused. J. D. Vance said much the same much later in a Joe Rogan interview, in which he promised to use his Vice Presidential office to someday look into accumulating UFO reports. His VP status means nothing is off-limits to him, he told Joe. It is only time constraints that make it so (welcome to the human condition) plus the fact that in government there are foot draggers a’plenty who impede directives of any sort. But he would get around to it. A dull stretch of time would surely arise to permit undistracted investigation, he said—though his interest was beginning to wane, since he knew many far more interested in the question than he, and if they had come up with nothing, he was veering toward the view that maybe there was nothing to be had. If so, he would be joining the ranks of Elon Musk who said that if anyone would know, it would be him and he’d seen nothing.

    The idea behind Clarke’s likening God to aliens is that any alien with the wherewithal to roam the galaxies and pay earth a visit would likely be indistinguishable from God. It wouldn’t just be the Gibeonites pretending that they were from far away. These beings would in reality be from unimaginably for away—and just try to fathom the technology that must be second nature to them in order to do that.

    Space Odyssey pretty much ran with this idea, first presented in The Sentinel. Its aliens are an atheist’s God-dream come true—they only bestows gifts and expects nothing in return. That God they can get behind—one whose modus operandi is the Dylan line, “Oh, whatever makes you happy, I won’t stand in your way.” If they entertain the Bible God at all, they are miffed He isn’t that way. They are miffed that he wants stuff and doesn’t just give stuff. It wouldn’t be so bad for them if he was like Santa Claus.

    So obliging is this Space Odyssey alien/god that the ending space-child, to the accompaniment of Also Sprach Zarethrusta, snuffs out in mid-flight (in the book, not the movie) the nukes that human governments have launched toward each other, taking for granted that they have learned their lesson and will not immediately build more. Many have been the science fiction scenarios that hold earthings a bunch of warlike losers who have not learned to get along and until they do any sane alien race is best advised to shun them. This particular alien race controls them by ruining their nukes, trusting (they don’t know much about humans, do they?) that they won’t afterwards complain about it.

    ******  The bookstore

  • The Accusations of 2 Corinthians 7:2

    You can see the same accusations of today at 2 Corinthians 7:2

    “We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one.”

    Why would the apostle Paul say this other than to counter accusations that they had?

    The C-word is the latest twist in a narrative that has always been. It was the case when Paul visited Rome in the first century. ‘Anybody been talking trash about me?’ he asked. His answer?

    “They said to him: “We have not received letters about you from Judea, nor have any of the brothers who came from there reported or spoken anything bad about you. But we think it proper to hear from you what your thoughts are, for truly as regards this sect, we know that it is spoken against everywhere.” (Acts 28:21-22)

    It was “spoken against everywhere” then. It is “spoken against everywhere” now. It was a “sect” then. It is a “cult” now.

    It is even the case that a prime proponent of cult-accusation has moved on to politics, as though to broaden his power base. The BITEman’s (a well-known cult-buster) latest book is ‘The Cult of Trump.’ When you think that half the country belongs to a cult, it is evidence that you have drunk too much of the Kool-Aid yourself.

    It also reflects what is, at root, the evolutionist view that everything is based upon the struggle to survive, and that the only way to do that is to prevail over others trying to manipulate, if not control you. See the paradigm at work in areas having nothing to do with religion. Politicians do whatever they do to cater to their “power base.” Nobody is seen to do anything with good motive anymore. Developments and actions are typically either framed as one party’s caving to the other’s increased power, or escaping from their control. Transfer that thinking to the field of religion and you have everyone who is not mainstream accused of being a cult set out to control people.

    The Bible frames it EXACTLY the other way around. It is not a religion like JW that is a cult, its members “misled.” It is the one hurled down from heaven fulfilling that role:

    “So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth . . . “ Revelation 12:9

    The “entire inhabited earth” is the cult that would mislead, not ones who would run counter to it. As to it’s power and intention to “control,” one need only look to the counsel of Romans 12:2 to

    “stop being molded by this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” It is not the minority religion that would detrimentally mold. It is the overall “system of things.”

    It is even in popular song, this matter of who is doing the molding. The children sing in the Pink Floyd song:

    “We don’t need no education. We don’t need no thought control.”

    Is it the thought-control of a minority religion they protest? No, it is the thought control of the established school system, spewing the traditional pablum that has historically failed human kind, nevertheless determined that no one should stray from that path.

    ******  The bookstore

  • The Potter Molds the Clay—Jeremiah 18

    (see Part 1)

    Though the world contain scoundrels a’plenty, though even in the congregation ones are not immune to falling away, the apostle says, “But in your case, beloved ones, we are convinced of better things, things related to salvation, even though we are speaking in this way.” (Hebrews 6:9)

    Yes. Of course. The potter molds the clay and you hope for the best. It doesn’t always work out that way, but he hopes. At Jehovah’s direction, Jeremiah “went down to the house of the potter, and he was working on the potter’s wheels. But the vessel that the potter was making with the clay was spoiled in his hand.” (Jeremiah 18:3-4)

    This recalls a visit to my college friend ages ago. There he was with a soldering iron in the lab trying to finagle a part for the centrifuge. But the project wasn’t go well. At length, he looked at the dubious results and said, “Well—this might be okay for the toilet, but I think not for a precision centrifuge.”

    Maybe he tried it out in the toilet, but he probably just scrapped it. As to Jehovah and his spoiled project, “So the potter reworked it into another vessel, just as he saw fit.” He didn’t save it for the toilet.

    Even so, the toilet is a better analogy than at first appears. A later passage of Peter speaks of another “toilet” of sorts, a “low sink of debauchery.” (1 Peter 4:4)

    “For the time that has passed by is sufficient for you to have done the will of the nations when you carried on in acts of brazen conduct, unbridled passions, overdrinking, wild parties, drinking bouts, and lawless idolatries. They are puzzled that you do not continue running with them in the same decadent course of debauchery, so they speak abusively of you.” (4:3-4)

    Not all translations keep the literalism of water. Even the 2013 NWT version has abandoned “low sink of debauchery” for “decadent course of debauchery.” Balancing literalism with conveying the meaning is ever a dilemma for translators. But there are plenty of translations on biblegateway*com that read “flood.” DARBY says “sink of corruption.” Evangelical Heritage Version (EHV) seriously ups the ante with “plung[ing] into the same overflowing river of filth with them.”

    Suppose you accidentally drop your glasses or your pen or—Lord, I hope not—your phone in the toilet. Then you must brace yourself for an unpleasant task, made especially unpleasant if that toilet is occupied with substance. Imagine if the pen or glasses or—Lord, I hope not—phone were to say to you, “Nah, don’t worry about it. I’m good here.” It’s essentially what they say in the “low sink.”

    ‘Water’s fine in the low sink,” they say, both surprised and nettled that anyone would have a problem with it. They are “puzzled” at first. As soon as they resolve their puzzlement, they “speak abusively of you.” So it is with the crowd of Jeremiah 18:12. They’re both surprised and irritated that the prophet should call them out. ‘We’re good here,’ is their response. ‘Potter, schmotter—we like the way things turned out. “They said: ‘It is hopeless! For we will walk after our own thoughts, and each of us will act according to the stubbornness of his wicked heart.’” (Jeremiah 18:12)

    But, defying theologians, the JW meeting that week of July 19, 2026 was more along lines of Hebrews 6:9. , “But in your case, beloved ones, we are convinced of better things, things related to salvation, even though we are speaking in this way.” (Hebrews 6:9)

    “‘Can I not do to you just as this potter did, O house of Israel?’ declares Jehovah. ‘Look! As the clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel,” the potter narrative resumes at Jeremiah 18:5.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Committing the Sin of Eisegesis—Reading Today into Yesterday

    The preamble is clear. God says to his people: “Turn back, please, from your bad ways, and reform your ways and your practices.”

    “But they said: “It is hopeless! For we will walk after our own thoughts, and each of us will act according to the stubbornness of his wicked heart.” (Jeremiah 18:12)

    It’s a tricky verse, for it seems to indicate inner conflict. As though, they would like to shape up, but knowing their past, they figure the task is hopeless, as though anticipating that they would just start out and immediately get tripped up by something else.

    ‘Nah, it is not that way,’ AI told me, summing up the majority view of commentators. They don’t despair. They are defiant. They just try to put a good face on it. They are framing defiance as though it were despair.

    You sure it’s not the other way around, I challenged AI—and thereby the majority of commentators. You sure it is not really despair, discouragement over their previous history of defiance? You sure it’s not like trying to break free of an addiction. You sure it’s not that they would like to, but they’ve failed so many times before that the task presents as hopeless. Society these days is empathetic towards those battling addiction.

    Well, it wasn’t in those days! AI shot back. You’re doing “eisegesis”—reading today’s attitudes into the past! How are you going to be a theologian if you keep doing that?! You need more exegesis. You need to interpret passages as they would have been understood then! Draw out its meaning as they would have done it, not what you think it means today.

    It is hard to argue with AI. Moreover, I do want to be a theologian, just like Pinocchio wanted to be a real boy. That’s why I was steamed when the JW o**********n built an entire meeting around the despair part of that verse and downplayed the defiance, taking for granted there would be some who wanted to repair their relationship with God. (week of 7/19/2026) I got on the phone to Bethel and complained to them. “How can you do that?” I muttered. “That’s eisegesis! Theologians say you can’t do that! Oh, how embarrassing to be out of step with smart people!”

    ‘Yeah, well, we don’t care,’ they told me. ‘If it can help someone, we’re going for it.’ And so the whole meeting was of people trying to come into accord with God’s purpose, either for the first time or returning to it. The task would look daunting at first. They had deviated so far. However, counsel was given that you don’t take on everything all at once. Of course you will feel despair it you look at it that way. Figure it’s like recovering from an illness. You start out very slow—broth, at first. Meetings revolve around a central theme, these days, combining whatever can be pulled out of that week’s Bible reading coupled with present needs.

    I actually think that the nerdy theologians are right. It IS eisegesis the Witnesses are committing—something not allowed by the rules of theology. The overall pattern of Jeremiah IS one of God’s people being defiant. But, just how bad is the sin of eisegesis in this instance? Rather than strut around and show off how smart you are, isn’t it better to employ verses so that they help people?

    For example, in the sixth chapter of Hebrews, Paul speaks “hardball” as to those who had fallen away, but then he follows with: “But in your case, beloved ones, we are convinced of better things, things related to salvation, even though we are speaking in this way.” (Hebrews 6:9) Of course. That’s what that midweek meeting did. Love hopes all things, says 1 Corinthians 13:7. Sometimes it’s wrong but it still hopes all things.

    The meeting theme even dovetailed with the new study book being considered, Walk Courageously with God. This could not have been pre-planned, I don’t think, since both the Bible reading (Jeremiah 18-19) and the study book selection were separately placed on the calendar long ago. Instead, it has to be that it reflects the overall tone of meetings. Look for the good whenever one can.

    Take this excerpt of paragraph 7 from that book, for instance:

    “Jesus also expressed confidence in his followers. Imagine the reassuring tone of his voice when he told them: “Take courage! I have conquered the world.” (John 16:33) He knew that they could follow in his footsteps​—and they did. Jesus used the expression “take courage” on a number of occasions. He said it to a paralytic before assuring him that his sins were forgiven. (Matt. 9:2) He said it to a woman after healing her grievous illness. (Matt. 9:22)

    These are instances of “take courage” where you might not ordinarily expect them. “Take courage” for I have conquered the world, Jesus says. That doesn’t mean that I will. “Take courage” to the man forgiven of sins. That doesn’t mean he may not commit some more. “Take courage” to the woman healed of illness. She might get sick again. But in all cases, the “take courage” is an assurance that Jesus has triumphed, is leading the way, and, through holy spirit, will help you as well.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Everlasting Life: A Bore? Part 1 and 2

    Part 1: When they asked physicist Robert Jastrow about living forever—would it be a blessing or a curse?—he said ‘it all depends.’ “It would be a blessing to those who have curious minds and an endless appetite for learning. The thought that they have forever to absorb knowledge would be very comforting for them. But for others who feel they have learned all there is to learn and whose minds are closed, it would be a dreadful curse. They’d have no way to fill their time.” If you’re a know-it-all, what is left to learn? What a bore endless life would be. But our appetite for learning can also be endless, unless we have closed down shop ourselves. Of course, Dr. Jastrow is an egghead—a thinker—and so he focused on learning. But other things are probably boundless, too, like our capacity to create and to love.

    In recent years, however, pop culture has been selling death as though it were a benefit. It is probably those atheists. There are more and more of them and buying into their thinking means settling for a final death sentence perhaps not too many years away.

    Pay attention, and you’ll see the ‘Death is Beautiful’ notion a lot. For example, it surfaced in a Dr Who episode entitled: ‘The Lazarus Experiment.’ Now, Dr Who, for a time, was the only show that I deliberately worked into my routine. A British import, it was science fiction with a quirky protagonist, clever writing, travel in a space ship that looks like a phone booth—“it’s bigger on the inside than on the outside!”—and it featured endless visits from aliens, most of whom were up to no good. It just so happened that the show fit perfectly into some weekly down time in my schedule—I might never have discovered it otherwise. But having done so, I tried not to miss it. “Yeah, you just watch it on account of that cute blonde!” accused a workmate. But it was not true; the cute blonde was written out of the script (she was stranded on a parallel universe—sometimes things like that happen), yet the show continued to hold its appeal.

    The episode name itself is a giveaway, since Lazarus is the biblical character whom Jesus resurrected. But this television Lazarus has invented a machine that makes him young again—he steps in aged and steps out a young man—to the amazement of all the high-brow folk invited to his gala bash. But Dr. Who (was he invited?) smells something amiss. He follows the newly minted youngster, and sure enough, the machine has malfunctioned and has doomed Lazarus to transforming back and forth from human to monster! See, in setting back his DNA, the machine has selected ancient mutations long-ago rejected by evolution. (Hmmm—yes—indeed, plausible, nod all the atheists watching the show—whereas if you mentioned anything about God, they’d throw up.)

    The Time Lord doctor lectures Lazarus on what a curse everlasting life really is, and what a dumb, greedy thing it was for him to seek it. For when life drags on forever and ever and ever, you will get so tired of it. You will have been everywhere, done everything. Living will have become an endless, pointless trek to nowhere. You will long for it to end, but—fool that you were for choosing everlasting life—it will not end, but it will go on and on and on. Oh, the monotony! See, without death, it is impossible to savor life—and so forth.

    Please. Spare me (and Dr. Jastrow). It is almost as though the ‘Death is Beautiful’ mantra is atheists striving to come to terms with the new “god” they have chosen to serve. All depends upon whether you see life as futile or not. If you do, then sure—you would want it to end. But as Jastrow stated, life is only futile if you have made it so. Of course, one ought readily concede that baked into this system of things are various ingredients to encourage that dismal view—for example, old age and frailty—but imagine were they to be vanquished.

    Part 2: The George Eastman house in Rochester N.Y is listed on the top ten list of things to do in that city. Therefore, when my wife and I were in that town, we paid it a visit. Mr. Eastman, who brought photography to the masses and who founded Kodak, turned philanthropist once he had made his fortune and built half the city. His mansion just outside downtown showcases his life, his inventions, his contributions to society, and serves as the nucleus for all things photographic right up to the present. But snoop thoroughly and you will discover that he shot himself in the head at age 78. In the throes of old age, his health failing, one by one he saw his friends passing, going senile, bedridden or wheelchair-bound. He left behind a note: “To my friends – My work is done. Why wait?”

    Q: Why did George Eastman take his life?

    A.) His work was done. Why wait?

    B.) He longed for the blessed release of death to finally end a futile life that had dragged on and on for much too long.

    C.) His health was failing and he (a lifelong bachelor) dreaded the indignities of old age -with its dependence upon others.

    Does anyone honestly think that, with health and youth, he would not have found more work in which to engross himself? Or would he have longed, nonetheless, for life to end? In this, Mr. Eastman is much like Leonardo DaVinci, the artist behind the Mona Lisa and The Last Supper. Leonardo made his mark not only as an artist. He also contributed hugely in areas as diverse as geometry, anatomy, astronomy, architecture, and flight. Some of his sketches have been used as blueprints for devices in use today. He was a renaissance man; perhaps he even originates the term. Yet toward the end of life, he reportedly sought God’s forgiveness for “not using all the resources of his spirit and art.”

    Eastman and DaVinci—two fellows who typify Dr. Jastrow’s statement. And they would be joined by most everyone else, were we not sucked into a morass of drudgery, duty, debt, injustice and hardship. Sure—you might well long for death if you can only envision more of that. Ditto for the frailness that comes with old age. I recently attended a funeral of someone who had been happy, content, and productive throughout life. Nonetheless, death was not unwelcome, his relatives assured me, since he’d grown “so tired of being sick.”

    That’s why the Bible’ promise of everlasting life on a paradise earth is so appealing. It’s Robert Jastrow’s dream come true—unlimited time to grow, minus the very real liabilities that eventually cause most of us to tire of life. Perfect health is promised, and an economic system will be in place so that people do not feel they are “toiling for nothing.” Note how Isaiah 65:21-23 describes life as God’s purpose is realized:

    “And they will certainly build houses and have occupancy; and they will certainly plant vineyards and eat [their] fruitage. They will not build and someone else have occupancy; they will not plant and someone else do the eating. For like the days of a tree will the days of my people be; and the work of their own hands my chosen ones will use to the full. They will not toil for nothing, nor will they bring to birth for disturbance; because they are the offspring made up of the blessed ones of Jehovah, and their descendants with them.”

    There’s a lot of things I’d like to do. I’ve done a few of them. But for the most part, I’ve just scratched the surface. And I’ve spent a fair amount of time shoveling aside the nonsense the present life throws at one. No, everlasting life, should I find myself there, will not be a bad thing. Not at all. (March 2009)

    ******  The bookstore