Sheep and Goats

Category: Genesis

  • Was Abraham Autistic?—Who Would Have Thought It?

    4000 years after Abraham bargained with God—the verses read as though he got the better of Him!—along comes a writer who suggests the man was autistic. Only if you had autism would you be so completely unaware of the impropriety of staring down God, so goes the rationale. Here is exchange, located at Genesis 18:

    Then Abraham approached and said: “Will you really sweep away the righteous with the wicked?  Suppose there are 50 righteous men within the city. Will you, then, sweep them away and not pardon the place for the sake of the 50 righteous who are inside it? It is unthinkable that you would act in this manner by putting the righteous man to death with the wicked one so that the outcome for the righteous man and the wicked is the same! It is unthinkable of you. Will the Judge of all the earth not do what is right?”

    Then Jehovah said: “If I find in Sodom 50 righteous men in the city, I will pardon the whole place for their sake.”

    But Abraham again responded: “Please, here I have presumed to speak to Jehovah, whereas I am dust and ashes. Suppose the 50 righteous should lack five. Because of the five will you destroy the whole city?” To this he said: “I will not destroy it if I find there 45.” But yet again he spoke to him and said: “Suppose 40 are found there.” He answered: “I will not do it for the sake of the 40.” But he continued: “Jehovah, please, do not become hot with anger, but let me go on speaking: Suppose only 30 are found there.” He answered: “I will not do it if I find 30 there.”

    But he continued: “Please, here I have presumed to speak to Jehovah: Suppose only 20 are found there.” He answered: “I will not destroy it for the sake of the 20.” Finally he said: “Jehovah, please, do not become hot with anger, but let me speak just once more: Suppose only ten are found there.” He answered: “I will not destroy it for the sake of the ten.” When Jehovah finished speaking to Abraham, he went his way and Abraham returned to his place.

    Did Abraham just get the better of God? Only an autistic man would be so rash to try! It reminds me of when I entered the living room of a home where I had been invited and an autistic son descending the stairs said to me (four times his age) “What are you doing here?” “Asperger’s” is the specific brand of autism we are speaking of here, I think, though the writer does not say it.

    This post was introduced to me with the ‘Hoo boy!’ remark that “Now they're speculating as to whether Abraham had autism. These retro-diagnoses really are getting a bit out of hand.” So I was prejudiced against it and that prejudice held up well while reading it. And then I noticed something that changed everything: the writer is a seventh grader, Meyer Lewis. I take back everything I was thinking. It’s brilliant.

    That’s not to say I buy it. In fact, the very idea of an “autism spectrum” upon which one might “identify” seems dubious to me. Even more dubious is to contrast it with “neurotypical” people not on the “spectrum.” Is it science or is it marketing to line up conditions that may or may not be related as though they were different gradients of the same thing? I am happier just to recognize that there are differences in people. But this is hardly a reflection on Meyer—he is taught this stuff in school—of course he is going to pick up on it.

    Meyer is autistic himself, he says, and ‘it takes one to know one.’ That’s why he reads into Abraham something no one else would. He also tells me something about Greta Thunberg, the global warming kid, that I didn’t know—she too is autistic, and is unaware of the social graces that hem in others!

    Meyer plays the connection even further. Later in the Torah, God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son, his only son, and Abraham doesn’t give him any feedback at all? How to explain this, from the fellow who wrung the concessions he did from God, whittling down the 50 persons required for God to save the place to just 10? Well, he experiences “selective mutism” in this latter case, which Meyer has also experienced—that’s why he thinks he can put himself in the patriarch’s shoes. The request is so “confusing and subtle” for Abraham to grasp that he freezes up, just as Meyer freezes up if you throw everything but the kitchen sink at him all at once.

    I don’t like the categorizing of people that Meyer is taught, but given that he is taught it, I like what he does with it. It undermines the very foundation of critical thinking in that it reveals we are a collection of our experiences and it is those experiences that skew, if not determine, how we think. He will always see situations the way he does, but others will see things according to their own perceptions molded by their own experiences. Will critical thinking enable us to “come together” and find common consensus? I wouldn’t hold my breath. “Stay apart” is what has defined us throughout history.

    The seventh grader even quotes Elie Wiesel, and endorses his take that “God invited Abraham to play this role. It is as if God turns to us, the readers of the future, and says, ‘I’m going to tell Abraham what I intend to do to Sodom so that he will argue with Me. I want to lose this argument.’” God thereby prods Abraham to reveal the good that is in his heart. I like it. Even if it is not God’s purpose, it certainly is the effect.

    A noble handling of verse from the youngster, so that I, several times his age, ought be ashamed of the silly use I put the verses to—using them to trace the possible origen of a pejorative roundly considered offensive today—so that Meyer’s parents will either forbid him to read it or encourage him to on the basis of learning to spot an ignoramus when he sees one.. Either way, it’s dubious for me, but good for him.

     

     

  • Is God Omniscient? Omnipresent? Playing the Abraham Card

    Whenever the religionists come around trying to tell me of God’s “omniscience”—let alone his “omnipresence”—I play the Abraham card: “Then Jehovah said [to Abraham]:

    “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is very heavy. I will go down to see whether they are acting according to the outcry that has reached me. And if not, I can get to know it.”

    He didn’t know if it was true or not! And in order to find out, he would have to go down there and check it out! To be sure, this is a personification of God. It is conversation with a ‘man’—an angel—representing him. Still, there is no reason that the angel representing HIm could not have said:

    “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and of course, I know all about it. I’m God! What! Do you think I have to go down there myself and check it out?”

    He did have to ‘go down there and check it out!’ He’s not omniscient. He’s not omnipresent. Love the personification. When the Bible speaks of the “eye of Jehovah,” the “ear of Jehovah,” the “hand of Jehovah,” the “arm of Jehovah”—he doesn’t have anything of these things. It’s all for our sake. It plants the perception that Paul relates 2000 years later, that “in fact, [God] is not far off from each one of us.” (Acts 17:27)

  • Whittling a Deal Out of God

    “Can you imagine having a conversation with God?” someone asks reverently—but maybe too reverently to strike a chord with the general population. “The very thought inspires awe—the Sovereign of the universe speaking to you! You hesitate at first, but then you manage to reply. He listens, he responds, and he even makes you feel free to ask any question you want.”

    Let’s earthy the remark up a little bit—so as to reach people who don’t eat Bible sandwiches. I mean, nothing is wrong with the remark, nothing whatsoever. But maybe we can broaden its base of appeal.

    He probably has in mind the latter third of Genesis chapter 18, because all Jehovahs Witnesses consider a sequential portion of scripture each week and this week it is Genesis 18 and 19.

    Yeah—a conversation with God is something, all right—let alone wheeling & dealing with him, and seemingly emerging with the upper hand—that’s what happens when God and Abraham haggle over the future of Sodom. There is even a pejorative phrase about Jews in business, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this verse wasn’t pointed to as the underlying authority:

    Then Abraham approached and said: “Will you really sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are 50 righteous men within the city. Will you, then, sweep them away and not pardon the place for the sake of the 50 righteous who are inside it? It is unthinkable that you would act in this manner by putting the righteous man to death with the wicked one so that the outcome for the righteous man and the wicked is the same! It is unthinkable of you. Will the Judge of all the earth not do what is right?” Then Jehovah said: “If I find in Sodʹom 50 righteous men in the city, I will pardon the whole place for their sake.”

    But Abraham again responded: “Please, here I have presumed to speak to Jehovah, whereas I am dust and ashes. Suppose the 50 righteous should lack five. Because of the five will you destroy the whole city?” To this he said: “I will not destroy it if I find there 45.” But yet again he spoke to him and said: “Suppose 40 are found there.” He answered: “I will not do it for the sake of the 40.” But he continued: “Jehovah, please, do not become hot with anger, but let me go on speaking: Suppose only 30 are found there.” He answered: “I will not do it if I find 30 there.”

    But he continued: “Please, here I have presumed to speak to Jehovah: Suppose only 20 are found there.” He answered: “I will not destroy it for the sake of the 20.” Finally he said: “Jehovah, please, do not become hot with anger, but let me speak just once more: Suppose only ten are found there.” He answered: “I will not destroy it for the sake of the ten.” When Jehovah finished speaking to Abraham, he went his way and Abraham returned to his place. (Genesis 18:23-33)

    He outmaneuvered God! Look, I don’t do pejoratives here—I really don’t. I don’t want anyone coming after me saying that I do. On the other hand, every phrase has a etymology. Is this where the expression “jewing someone down” comes from?

    These days, the ones who seem to me most behind the negotiating curve is Westerners—everyone else has learned to copy Abraham handily. As immigrants and refugees step from sinking islands onto ones that seem more stable, they bring extraordinary wheeling and dealing skills with them. If there is a marketplace back home—watch out! Westerners see the price tag, gulp, and reach down into their purse. ‘Foreigners’ see that price tag and regard it as a most interesting opening bid for negotiation.

    Nguyen was my all-time hero in this. He left me speechless as he related picking up his new Toyota from the dealer. He circled it carefully. He spied something out of place and pounced upon it. “What’s this?!” he cried. “This is not my car! This is not the one I ordered! I don’t want it!”

    The salesman was nervous. He had already given away half the store negotiating with this fellow. Of course it was his car. Nguyen pointed to a spot. “That was not on my car! I don’t want this one!”

    “Oh,” the salesman sighed with relief. ”That is just the dealer sticker. We put that on all cars we sell” Nguyen gasped in disbelief. “You want me to advertise for you—for free?!” By the time he was done, he’s whittled a few more hundred out of the poor fellow.

    “I hadn’t actually planned to do that,” he told me later with a smile. “It just occurred to me that moment.”

    And as far as I know, before studying the Bible with Jehovah’s Witnesses, he’d never heard of Abraham.

  • The Meeting That Was Not Cancelled and the Canaanites That Were

    All day long I had expected the meeting to be canceled due to snow and plunging temps. When the snow did not come, I texted the elder of my service meeting group: “I can’t believe you guys aren’t cancelling the meeting! It’s getting cold tonight, you know.” He replied that he was just a lowly peon and not the one who would make the call. Not good enough. “If I shiver tonight, it’s on you!” I shot back.

    But I’m glad it was not cancelled. (It used to be that even an avalanche would not do the trick) The video about communication in marrage was featured, and my wife gave me looks that suggested that she hoped I would benefit from it. After the meeting—maybe the other brothers DO have it all together in that regard—I approached two of them only to overhear. “Well, he WAS watching the ballgame.”

    I even got two comments in of my own. About that verse that Jesus, coming into Jerusalem: “and he would not let anyone carry a utensil through the temple” (Mark 11:16)—it was a massive structure and people would take shortcuts through its courtyards, as you might take a shortcut through the mall, with worship of God the farthest thing from your mind—drop by Herschel’s to pick up coffee and bagels, cut through the courtyard heading home. Jesus wouldn’t let them do it, and I likened it to how in the Kingdom Hall you ought to get your act together spiritually and not spend an overabundance of time chatting about mundane stuff.

    The other was about the Amorites, the original occupants of the ”promised land“—promised to Abraham’s descendants after 400 years had passed  (Genesis 15:13-16) The Amorites were bad news—unsavory practices as in Leviticus 18 being bedrock to their society—and God allowed 400 years for them to get their act together, even telling offspring of Abraham: “Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for it is by all these things that the nations that I am driving out from before you have made themselves unclean…and I will bring punishment on it for its error, and the land will vomit its inhabitants out…you yourselves must keep my statutes and my judicial decisions, and you must not do any of these detestable things.” (18:24-26)

    Clearing the land of them, like felling trees, was hardly non-violent, but somehow those verses softens the blow. Jehovah is the Giver of Life, after all, and he does provide an owner’s manual. Clearing out the Canaanites is an exception to ordinary m.o. Once God allows human governments to exist, he pretty gives them free reign, but it is not for nothing that the Bible likens them to wild beasts. 

    He allows them to exist because virtually any human government is better than anarchy. But they are not his idea. To referee them would suggest that they are. Sometimes I read Matthew 24:14 and explain that the end that will come is not that of the earth, for it did nothing wrong. It is the end of a system of 200 eternally squabbling nations pushing at each other—surely that was not his idea. But he lets it remain. It beats the alternative. It is a stopgap until “thy kingdom comes.”

    Can it do things that are murderous? (someone had asked about that—why is it considered murder when you kill someone but not when governments do?) Well, sure—but the entire arrangement is murderous, a rebellion against God. Even though it is a best-case scenario of that rebellion, it is still murderous. God doesn’t get in there and mediate every little thing—it’s not his arrangement and he interferes hardly at all—but he did with the Canaanites and the 400 years heads-up.

    Granted, it’s not everything. It doesn’t quite cover the little children. But I used to explain that when children die today due to parental neglect, people don’t blame God—they blame the parents. Same here—it was for parents to train their children and they neglected to do it. Of course, today people blame God for everything, so the above line doesn’t wash as it once did. 

    I wrote a post long ago about why God permits suffering, and an atheist I would swap comments with couldn’t stand it. It hadn’t been written with him in mind. It had been full of appeals to the scriptures, none of which he accepted. So I began to wonder if it couldn’t be repackaged in a way that would appeal to an atheist. I rearranged everything, squashed some ideas, elevated others, and came up with the following. It is more or less relevant here. How does it sound?

    The NY driving instructor—of those refresher courses you take so as to get 10% off auto insurance—asked how many in his class thought driving was a right and how many thought it was a privilege. Some thought one, some the other. The answer is that it is a privilege—screw it up and they’ll take it away. Same with Jehovah, the Giver of life

    Human governments take life away. They are not the giver of it, though. They abuse their authority. They’ll pay. But their entire existence is an abuse of authority, so when it comes to their killing people—throw it on the stack.

  • Lies and Distortion of Facts

    They didn’t just say lies in that November 2019 Watchtower. They said lies and distortion of facts.

    Is it outright lies that we deal with here? Not so much. Is it distortion of fact? For the most part, yes.

    ”Distortion of fact” encompasses a lot and much of what it encompasses is in the eye of the beholder. If a point, in the overall scheme of things, is really quite insignificant, and it is made to seem all-important, is that not a distortion of fact? 

    Suppose the spies that I have sent report back to me with a dossier of George’s private life that includes a few exasperating habits of his—like nose-picking. Suppose too that he has had one of two regretful episodes in his life that he would rather not broadcast. Suppose that he flunked out of a school or was fired from a job. Suppose he made a few judgments as family head that blew up in his face—not only his face but the faces of those in his family. Suppose he let down brothers in the congregation at one time or another, and even stumbled one or two.

    ”Ah, here comes my spy, now…..Hello Spy, what do you have?….hmmmm……oh my…yes….hm……whoa!….will you look at that?…..looky looky looky” 

    Now suppose with my voluminous commenting privileges I never again focus upon anything other than one or all of these blunders, and I dismiss as inconsequential whatever good others point out that he has done, even though these matter plainly be what defines his life. Am I not distorting facts? Have I told any lies? No. Have I distorted any facts? I have done nothing else.

    Another illustration—this one I gave at the meeting when it was my turn to comment—was that if there is someone in the audience who hates beets, I will not be able to argue with him that beets taste good. It is something that is beyond the scope of argument and I am proving myself pretty dense if I persist in trying. In the same way, the verse says: “Taste and see that Jehovah is good.” Some have tasted and seen that he is bad. It’s not something that is subject to arguing. 

    My 30 seconds were up and you can’t keep raising your hand like a jack-in-the-box. But if I was to extend the thought here I might point out that I love cake. It tastes good. That’s why I love it. Imagine my surprise upon coming here on the all-open forum and discovering some dissing cake. How is that possible? Upon probing, I find that it is because the sweetness of sugar does nothing for them, so they just drop down a notch and focus on how you can get cavities and put on weight with cake. Well, yeah—if sugar did nothing for me, I too would drop down the list and harp on these other things.

    So it is with the ‘sugar’ of the Bible’s message. This is what does it for Jehovah’s Witnesses—that unique combination of accurate Bible teachings along with the united brotherhood that comes with it—a unity and love unparalleled—and a satisfaction of knowing that one is cooperating with God’s intent of declaring his name and purposes. But if for some reason none of that should matter anymore, than what is there left than to drop down a level and promote some complaints to first place? It is what the opponents here do. Is that not a distortion—the reprioritizing of facts? We tend to carry on here as though facts are islands unto themselves. They’re not. They are more like the ingredients of a cake—they work together. One’s appreciation for the baked product will depend entirely upon one’s taste for the different ingredients. 

    We’re a little nuts when we quibble over facts, as though individual facts in themselves are what clinches the deal. Instead, it it the prioritization of facts that matters. Seldom is it that people argue with no facts at all. It is which ones they choose to focus on and which ones they choose to downplay or even ignore that matters. 

    And that is of facts that are presented accurately—as many are not. For example, a Pew survey lists Jehovah’s Witnesses as bringing up the bottom of the income chart—collectively they are the financially poorest. A fact? Yes. Opponents take that fact to suggest that Witnesses are deadbeats, some by nature, and some made so by a controlling organization. A distortion? I think so. When I wrote a post on the topic I stated that, in view of what the Bible consistently says about money and the love of money, any group not toward the bottom of that list has reason to hang their head in shame. Their high placement affords proof that they do not practice what they preach and they do not trust what the Lord says.

    As to the Watchtower’s own statement, ‘lies and distortion of facts’—it might be more technically accurate if rephrased as ‘distortion of facts and lies’—I am not necessarily a fan of how the warning is made—but in the end, is it not the same thing? Consider:

    ”Is it really so that?”  (a distortion of truth, designed to plant doubt)

    ”You will not die.” (a lie—nothing but)

    ”for God knows that in the very day of your eating from it...” (a bit of both, but mostly a distortion, for it impugns God’s motives)

    More is distortion than outright lie. But it amounts to the same thing. In fact, the distortion is worse than the lie, in most cases, for without the distortion to ‘prime the pump’ the lie itself will often be spotted and rejected out of hand. 

    Who does the fellow with the ink horn mark on the forehead? Those who are sighing and groaning over all the detestable things done in God’s name. Some aren’t. They aren’t marked for that reason. In no case is any lie being told. Even the distortion of truth is not immediately apparent. But it is there. People made in God’s image should be sighing and groaning over the detestable things done in God’s name. And sighing and groaning is not the same thing as bitching and complaining.

    Too often we play their game. Given the facts that they choose to focus upon, they are exactly right, It is the choice of facts that is significant—which ones are promoted, which ones are inflated, which ones are downplayed, which ones are ignored, and which ones are declared not facts at all.

    The Word makes clear from the get-go that those who serve love and serve God in the manner he directs and those who do not will have dramatically different ways of looking at things. They will have dramatically different goals in life. Once in a while (or even more than once in a while) apostates are pure loons. Once in a while (or even more than once in a while) some of us are. But for the most part, both groups act consistently with the facts that they choose to focus upon.

    It is really impossible to successfully argue against their facts without also arguing against their priorities, their “tastes.” And since the latter is plainly impossible, it does make one reassess one’s time spent in doing so.

  • Man Gave Names to all the Animals

    The beavers are hard at work out where I walk the dog. I wonder if they will cause back up flooding at the apartments where I don’t live. That outcome doesn’t concern them in the slightest. They will drive in upright poles and then fetch branches and sticks for the horizontal. Ponds form, and they use the waterways to float food and debris so as to build homes entered from below.

    They are all of them skilled engineers, all of them graduates of Dam U. When the kids were small and we would camp at Allegheny State Park, visiting beaver dams was one of the attractions. You had to go early in the morning and be very quiet—alarm them and they will dive out of sight after slapping the water with their tails to alert their buddies.

    “Now Jehovah God had been forming from the ground every wild animal of the field and every flying creature of the heavens, and he began bringing them to the man to see what he would call each one; and whatever the man would call each living creature, that became its name.” – Genesis 2:19

    Bob Dylan has explained just how this worked:

    He saw an animal that liked to growl, Big furry paws and he liked to howl, Great big furry back and furry hair. "Ah, think I'll call it a bear."

    He saw an animal up on a hill, Chewing up so much grass until she was filled. He saw milk comin' out but he didn't know how. "Ah, think I'll call it a cow."

    He saw an animal that liked to snort, Horns on his head and they weren't too short. It looked like there wasn't nothin' that he couldn't pull. "Ah, think I'll call it a bull."

    He saw an animal leavin' a muddy trail, Real dirty face and a curly tail. He wasn't too small and he wasn't too big. "Ah, think I'll call it a pig."

    Next animal that he did meet. Had wool on his back and hooves on his feet, Eating grass on a mountainside so steep. "Ah, think I'll call it a sheep."

    So it was pretty much like that. The Watchtower—no doubt others have said it as well—has written that Adam would have taken his time, observed unique characteristics, before naming names.

    Let me see if I can do one:

    He saw an animal that was great and gray, Swimming about freely every day. Catching its food without a fuss, “Ah,—a hippopotamus.”

    And God said to Himself, ’Oh, come on!’ but he went with it.

    And just to bring this full circle:

    He saw an animal building dams, flooding just like a jailbird on the lam, carving up waterways with a cleaver. ”Ah—looks like a beaver.”

    5B4E37D6-FEA2-423C-B86C-F57138B98049

  • Lamech Composes For His Wife the Most Beautiful Love Song

    (more…)

  • How Long Are the Creative Days of Genesis – With a Nod to the Sean Carrolls

    Let scientists be scientists and Bible teachers be Bible teachers. Don’t squabble unless there is a reason to.

    That there is not a reason to in some battlegrounds is highlighted in the downloadable Research Guide to accompany the NWT Study Bible. Regarding Genesis 1:14 and the creative days, there is a link to a 9-year old Watchtower article:

    “These are not 24-hour days but are epochs. On the first creative day, Jehovah caused light to begin to appear at the earth’s surface. That process would be completed when the sun and the moon later became discernible from the earth. (Gen 1:3,14) On the second day, the atmosphere began to be formed. (Gen 1:6) Earth then had water, light, and air but still no dry land. Early on the third creative day, Jehovah used his holy spirit to produce dry land, perhaps harnessing powerful geologic forces to push continents up out of the global sea. (Gen 1:9) There would be other astounding developments on the third day and during later creative periods.”

    I made reference to this article in my own post, entitled “Epochs and Aeons,” after reading the Sean B Carroll book, “The Making of the Fittest – DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution.” You have to use the middle initial of Sean Carroll, a ‘B’, because there is another well-known contemporary scientist with an ‘M’ for a middle initial—this one specializing in physics. It’s surprising, but no more surprising than to consider that the public face of JW persecution in Russia—the first one to be sentenced (to six year’s imprisonment) has a surname (Christensen) that evokes both his Lord and his Lord’s profession.

    It turns out that there is also a local broadcaster by that name—Sean Carroll—who has since moved to Syracuse. I followed them all on Twitter and introduced them to each other. They hit it off and began to talk baseball! Then I made some remark about the trinity and in what way the three men might foreshadow that. All three Seans fell silent at that. Who can blame them?

    They would have fallen more silent still had I tweeted the skit that I inserted in No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash:

    Crack! “Mike Behe hits a grounder to shortstop! Sean Carroll scoops it up and flips it to Sean Carroll at second base – one out! Sean Carroll fires it to Sean Carroll at first – double play! And the Denver Denyers lose to the Cincinnati Smarts! Jock, those Smarts have one helluva team this year. I almost think Sean Carroll will be named MVP.” “Yeah, and if not Sean Carroll, then maybe Sean Carroll! Or maybe even Sean Carroll!”

    Oh, and I also like this link to a 2004 Awake with regard to verse 16:

    “How could God produce light on the first day if the luminaries were not made until the fourth day?” is the question. The answer is that the Hebrew word rendered “make” in 16 is not the same as the word for “create” in 1, 21, and 27. The bodies that are the source of light were created before any of those creative days began. Their light did not reach the earth, however, until the early impenetrable atmosphere began to clear. Not surprisingly, Genesis is written from the standpoint of someone on earth, not someone hovering in space.

     

  • The downloadable research guide is going to add much to the current cycle of Bible reading.

    The downloadable research guide is going to add much to the current cycle of Bible reading.

    Already with Genesis 1:1 are links to articles observing that there is no reason to quarrel about the age of the earth. Scientists say 4 billion years? Let them. There is no objection, since “in the beginning” is BEFORE the creative days begin.

    Nor is there any objection to a ‘big bang’ as a means to which God created the cosmos. Let scientists be scientists and Bible teachers be Bible teachers. Don’t manufacture conflicts until there are some.

    Genesis 1:3 I have always loved: “and God’s active force [spirit] was moving about over the surface of the waters”—as though saying, “okay—ready, here—gimme something to do.”

    “The riot squad is restless; they need somewhere to go.” – Bob Dylan. Nah, it doesn’t really fit, but I do like Bob Dylan.

    And, technially, my prediction that the system should have ended yesterday since JWs have reached the end of their multi-year Bible reading cycle and it would be too inconveiniest to make them start all over again still holds, since I know of no mid-week meetings that falls on Monday.

    [Edit: Within a half hour of this post, two persons contacted me to say they new of some Monday meetings. Rats. So much for home-baked prophesy.]

    The following represents my taking my eye off the ball, to be sure, but not to worry—it’s my blog and I will not forget what it is about: My quote of Dylan recalled to mind some history.

    My all time peak in internet hits came in response to a review of a Bob Dylan concert at Gordon Field House linked to above—some Dylan site picked it up & I had 1000+ hits in a day—nothing for some people I follow but a big deal for me. For a post or two, Morristotle and I played with idea of whether we could make lightening strike twice, and we sprinkled in Dylan references where they had no conceivable place. The lightning never did strike again, and we both resumed normal activity.

  • “We Are Wise and Learned Adults, Far Too Clever to Be Sold Adam and Eve. What’s Next – Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck?

    I like the way Paul deliberately dialed back on the ‘wisdom.’ Most of his contemporaries would have had to because they didn’t have it. Not so Paul, who was highly educated, and could have gone toe to toe with these characters. He deliberately chose not to. 

    And so I, when I came to you brothers, did not come with an extravagance of speech or of wisdom declaring the sacred secret of God to you. For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and him impaled.  And I came to you in weakness and in fear and with much trembling; and my speech and what I preached were not with persuasive words of wisdom but with a demonstration of spirit and power,  that your faith might be, not in men’s wisdom, but in God’s power. (1 Corinthians 2:2-5)

    The upshot is that you treat a highly educated person pretty much like anyone else, with only minor adjustments. They just as much as anyone else, have no clue as to why there is suffering, why people die, what happens when they do, why governments suck & so forth. The explanation for them too will lie in discerning what "Jesus Christ, and him impaled" means in practical terms. People do not understand this. Even religious people, as they say to you "Christ died for our sins" are almost always unable to explain just how and why that works.

    Show the high-brow people something about Adam & Eve from Genesis, for example, and there is no reason that you can not present it as a metaphor, its underlying message to be deciphered. Let me tell you, there are many people who will be intrigued, rise to the challenge, and even be flattered that you count them smart enough to figure it out. Whereas if you said from the get-go that it was all literal to people conditioned to reject the idea, you know what the reaction would be: “We are wise and learned adults, far too clever to be sold Adam and Eve. What’s next? Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck?”

    Focus on the meaning of the account itself (Genesis 3:1-5) without regard to whether it is literal or not. Sometimes when people see how much sense something makes, they reappraise their initial assumptions. 

    For a concise explanation of the subject itself, without regard for whether it is metaphor or not – in fact, taking for granted that it is not – I don't think you can do much better than the short clip presented on the JW website:

     

     

     

    00