Sheep and Goats

Category: Uncategorized

  • 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

  • Science without Religion is Lame. Religion without Science is Blind

    Science without Religion is Lame. Religion without Science is Blind

    Albert Einstein wrote: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Science provides the how of the universe, but religion provides the why, along with the morals and purpose.

    Given a choice of unknowns, most people will choose the why questions over the how questions—unless you include such questions as ‘How do I keep my head above water in an inherently unjust world?’ But that is really just a subset of a greater why: “Why is the world inherently unjust?” Moreover, one has to be comfortable and monied to be preoccupied with the how. Those with any significant struggling in their lives will more readily fixate on the whys. Each day will have its own anxiety, said Jesus. For the average person, there is precious little reward in fixating on the how. If your specialty of how persuades you that it is permanent curtains in but a few decades, where’s the reward in that? Bragging rights, maybe, strutting around to tell others how smart you are. One thinks of Jesus’ words regarding those doing acts of piety to be seen by men; they were “having their reward in full.” One also thinks of the Sherlock episode in which (per John’s blog) the public learned that Sherlock didn’t know the earth revolved around the sun. Far from being embarrassed, he shot back with ‘What difference does it make?’ How could such knowledge conceivably help in the day-to-day of life? Yes, I know, Sherlock is fiction, but his observation was not. That’s not to say the search for the how is bad. It is greatly welcomed so long as it stays in its lane. When it supposes it owns the entire road, that is another matter.

    It is a fine thing to be interested in reality, but it’s overrated. Define the benefits of being interested in reality when you’re only around a few dozen years to enjoy it. The entire field of poetry and art is stocked with people who are “interested in reality” only to a limited degree. Ought we them to knock it off and get real? At any rate, upon contemplating the very tiny and the very large, being obsessed with finding reality through science leads to results impossible to visualize.

    The goal here is to see how much of a bridge can be built between Genesis and evolution theory and to what degree (if any) they need be mutually exclusive. To that extent, one must be willing to sacrifice undue literalism on one end and undue extrapolation into ideas more speculative than proven on the other. One might contemplate that when we hear science accounts for only 5% of what is out there—that the 95% that is dark matter or dark energy we don’t know what it is and that they primarily are stipulated just to keep our present 5% knowledge intact, well, maybe even that 5% is not as sure as we think it is.

    It may just boil down to a difference in filling in the gaps. One side fills them in with God. The other side fills them in with mathematics impossible to visualize. At the tiny end, it is Feynman saying he thinks it safe to state that nobody understands quantum physics. At the massive end, it is dark matter and dark energy comprising 95% of what is said to be out there, and which James Peebles called “placeholders for our ignorance.”

    As to sacrificing undue literalism, that shouldn’t be too hard when we reflect that God doesn’t really have eyes, ears, a hand, an arm. The anthropomorphizing of God, used throughout the Bible, is clearly a poetic devise. We all know enough not to demand evidence of the bush when someone says we must not beat around it. Most Bible verses used to support the trinity teaching would, if they were seen in any other context, be instantly dismissed as figures of speech. Really, if you were going to employ a human analogy to suggest equality, would you not suggest one of brothers rather than that of father and son?

    Poetic devices all. The Bible is full of them. The beauty of poetry is that it doesn’t unduly hem you in. When something is written in “poetic symbolism,” who can say how far that symbolism goes? How much of it can be allowed in our road to reconcile Genesis with evolution? One might be reminded of a scene from Up the Down Staircase, a novel set in an urban high school. A student is given a grade of F for wrongly interpreting a poem. He protests, supporting his interpretation with the reasons for it. The grade stands. It even stands when he locates the poet himself, brings the fellow to school, and the poet says, “Yes, that’s exactly what I meant.” But for the school it is ‘Once an F, always an F.’ The only satisfaction the student finds is in knowing he has changed school policy. From that time on, only dead poets are assigned for interpretation.

    ******  The bookstore

  • How’s it Going with “the Wicked” These Days?

    How’s it Going with “the Wicked” these days?

    There are plenty of passages to show that ‘the wicked’ (the Bible’s terminology, not mine) do just fine these days, so that one must serve God through love for his ways, not through thinking it will set one up pretty in the short term. For example, Job’s complaint:

    Why do the wicked live on, Grow old, and become wealthy? Their children are always in their presence, And they get to see their descendants. Their houses are secure, they are free from fear, And God does not punish them with his rod. Their bulls breed without failure; Their cows give birth and do not miscarry. Their boys run outside just like a flock, And their children skip about.  They sing accompanied by tambourine and harp And rejoice at the sound of the flute. They spend their days in contentment And go down peacefully to the Grave [at least they do not escape THAT bit of inconvenience\].  But they say to the true God, ‘Leave us alone! We have no desire to know your ways. Who is the Almighty, that we should serve him? What would we gain by being acquainted with him? (21:7-15)

    Or Psalm 73, where the carefree ways of those ignoring God almost made the writer stumble:

    As for me, my feet had almost strayed; My steps had nearly slipped. For I became envious of the arrogant When I would see the peace of the wicked. For they have no pain in their death; Their bodies are healthy. They are not troubled like other humans, Nor do they suffer like other men.  Therefore, haughtiness is their necklace; Violence clothes them as a garment. Their prosperity makes their eyes bulge; They have exceeded the imaginations of the heart. They scoff and say evil things. They arrogantly threaten oppression. They speak as if they were as high as heaven, And their tongues swagger about in the earth. So his people turn aside to them, And they drink from their abundant water. They say: “How does God know? Does the Most High really have knowledge?” Yes, these are the wicked, who always have it easy. They keep increasing their wealth.  Surely in vain I have kept my heart pure And washed my hands in innocence.  And I was troubled all day long;   (73:2-14)

    Sharing in the ministry helps, I think, for that is where you can showcase what you have to offer. It builds your own faith as you see how people respond. Here in the Bible are answers to the deep questions of life. Some thirst for such answers. Others do not. A statement in the 1968 book ‘The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life’ reads just as true to today as it did then: True, there has been progress in a materialistic way. But is it really progress when men send rockets to the moon, and yet cannot live together in peace on earth?” Some people think it is. Witnesses look for people who don’t. There is even a difference between those who “sigh and groan” over all the “detestable things” and those who bitch and complain because the politicians they don’t like presently have the upper hand. 

    I highly recommend an offer to read a scripture and see if the person has any interest in discussing it. Some will. Often, I start out with an observation that ‘the world is crazy [which nobody disputes in my part of it] and we are people who think the Bible helps: why is it crazy, what hope for the future, how to live in the meantime. I want to read you a scripture, you tell me what you think, and I am gone.’ This way they know immediately the two things Westerners must know: What does this visitor want? and How long will this take?

    Many years ago my wife and I, for our anniversary, attended a high-class cultural function in which everyone was dressed to the nines—impeccably. During intermission, as they were all sipping wine and mixed drinks, I said to her: “Here’s people we don’t hang out with too often: the wicked!” drawing on the phraseology of Psalm 73. I know, I know, completely unfair. No doubt most of them were nice. My wife, who did not yet savor all my sense of humor, looked at me oddly.

    ******  The bookstore

  • GB Update: Use of One’s Own Blood (under construction)

    who is accountable for the lives lost under the blood doctrine?

    Who is accountable when a Christian gets killed in war? Who is accountable when a missionary is kidnapped or killed? Who talked them into so putting their lives at risk?

    I am surprised that this atheist argument—which holds that loss of life is permanent and irreversible calamity—is picked up on a Christian forum.

    I think it’s called “living in the world.” Things change. Time and changing settings make you look at things anew.

    The Acts 15:29 principle about “abstain from blood” remains intact. What was said in the update was just an extension of something said 20 years ago: “A Christian must decide for himself how his own blood will be handled in the course of a surgical procedure, medical test, or current therapy.”

    People work with the understanding they have at present, not the one they will have in the future. Ask the relatives of anyone who suffered harm, even loss of life, in some war that was all the rage at the time but was later seen as wrong-headed. Or due to some scientific decree what was seen to be cutting edge at the time but is now seen as deluded. Such things happen. Some adjust and some don’t.

    “Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated,” said Mark Twain.

    Moreover, I’m not sure how many lives were lost previously. It will be like Covid-19, when, in order in inflate the numbers, if you died for any reason while having Covid-19, it was recorded that you died OF Covid-19

    …I think it’s called “living in the world.” Things change. Time and changing settings make you look at things anew.

    The Acts 15:29 principle about “abstain from blood” remains intact. What was said in the update was just an extension of something said 20 years ago: “A Christian must decide for himself how his own blood will be handled in the course of a surgical procedure, medical test, or current therapy.”

    People work with the understanding they have at present, not the one they will have in the future. Ask the relatives of anyone who suffered harm, even loss of life, in some war that was all the rage at the time but was later seen as wrong-headed. Or due to some scientific decree what was seen to be cutting edge at the time but is now seen as deluded. Such things happen. Some adjust and some don’t. “Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated,” Mark Twain said. 

    The point is that we put up with it in any other venue, be it nations, be it science. Time passes by and we look at many things anew. It is only in a disliked venue that people will not put up with it. 

    JWs people lost their lives because they refused blood transfusions because of the WTJWorg ban. GB are blood guilty, for sure.

    To the extent they are, so is any leader of any sort presiding over policies in which anyone suffered harm (and you, if you had any role in putting them there). They “knew or should have known” is how the lawyers put it. Whether it be changes in politics, statecraft, science, economics, medicine, manufacturing, even sports, policies change all the time, by your reasoning making whoever was in oversight before “blood guilty.” Yet, we all accept this as a cost of living in the real world. Nothing is frozen in time. Everything updates as time progresses, and not always for the better.

    “The “life-saving instruction” they gave you was paid for dearly. It was paid for with Human Lives. You served God in ignorance and arrogance.”

    How are Human Lives different from human lives? Got it that, in atheistic society today, human life is all that counts, and even among the religious, mankind’s salvation is the overriding issue, whereas with JW it is secondary to sanctifying God’s name—if the latter happens, the former automatically follows. Yet, even with these caveats, JW is by far the “safest” religion out there. Abstinence from drugs, tobacco, alcohol abuse, war, even extreme sports far overweigh anything regarding transfusions, regardless of the latest tweak, so that to vociferously oppose them plainly points to another motive. I mean, if Human Life is truly your greatest concern, look anywhere else first.

    Who would think that a faith that is non-violent, that has all but eliminated racism, that teaches living honesty and peaceably among others, and that doesn’t meddle with governments would be the subject of such online furor as is so with the Witnesses? There has to be another motive for this to be so.

  • Earnest People Seek Different Paths: What’s With That?

    Q: How come it seems like there’s people who honestly and wholeheartedly seek God/truth, yet end up in different religions/denominations? I’m trying to understand why/how people can earnest seek Truth yet come to different conclusions and paths.

    railroad tracks in city
    Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

    A: Different people seek God according to different criteria. Sometimes, at the door with someone inclined to be contentious, I might say, “Look, why don’t we just agree to leave that in God’s hands? He knows if he’s a trinity or not.” (or whatever be the issue left unresolved)

    The meetings of Jehovah’s Witnesses take the form of Bible studies. You can prepare for them. We Witnesses think that is that way to go, but there are people drawn more to denominations or venues more experiential, more triggering the emotions, ones where they will say they experience the holy spirit. The gatherings for many faiths there is no point in preparing for, beyond getting yourself in the mood.

    Then, there are faiths as Catholicism, where a sense of mystery is thought highly desirable in any worship service. There’s not too much of this at Witness meetings, which look more like a classroom, which are more for edification and encouragement, that a person might be better equipped to worship God in their daily life.

    Charlie Kirk said Catholicism is experiencing a resurgence these days, somewhat against his preference, as an evangelical. He attributed much of it to their long history and confidence that it was less given therefore to flip on the dime of new social trends. Stability is what attracted people, he thought.

    JWs think that God speaks to us primarily through the pages of his written Word, and we to him primarily through prayer. Not everyone is drawn to that formula. It used to be, maybe still is, that there were denominations where you might ‘roll in the aisles’ (they were nicknamed ‘holy rollers) getting upon getting ‘filled with the spirit.” There are many modern updates of that formula.

    Paul spoke of his Jewish countrymen at Romans 10:2: “For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.” Witnesses do think it best to do things “according to knowledge.” But, rather than attack each other online for being wrong—attacks that tend to be endless—online, it is better to adapt to the formula: present whatever you have to present (let your light shine) and let people be drawn or not to the faith you espouse. Or, in the words of Bob Dylan: “Let me see what you got. We’ll have a whoppin good time.”

    It’s not a call for ecumenism. It is simply a call for practicality, so that we all may realize the words: “Can’t we all just get along?” No one’s trying to sweep 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 under the rug: 

    “But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders and every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved. That is why God lets a deceptive influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.”

    It’s just that you can’t settle it through debate. Frankly, I think the above is evidence that God is having the last laugh on those who think you can. It will have to be a “Let me see what you got.” It is a dictum not too far from Jesus’ own: “By their fruits you will know them.”

    ******  The bookstore

  • The Anger that Does Not Turn Back

    Four times the phrase is repeated, each time after a surface or insufficient fix—or maybe it just presents as an important reminder:

    “In view of all this, his anger has not turned back, But his hand is still stretched out to strike.” There it is four times in close succession:

    Isaiah 9:12— After attacks by Assyrians.

    Isaiah 9:17 — After widespread godlessness under rebellious leadership.

    Isaiah 9:21 — After internal tribal strife and civil war-like division.

    Isaiah 10:4 — After wide-scale injustice and oppression of the vulnerable.

    “In view of all this, his anger has not turned back, But his hand is still stretched out to strike.”

    It’s almost like the refrain from Desolation Row. “Don’t send me no more letters, no. Not unless you mail them from Desolation Row.”

    Mail all you want. No one pays attention to them. Hardly any point in sending more.

    There was even a fifth letter addressed to the two-tribe southern kingdom, four chapters prior: 

    “In view of all this, his anger has not turned back, But his hand is still stretched out to strike. He has raised up a signal to a distant nation; He has whistled for them to come from the ends of the earth; And look! they are coming very swiftly. (5:25-26)

    He whistles to Assyria. It does sweep in from the north. Naphtali and Zebulun are foremost in its path—that is the “contempt” those tribes are subjected to “as in former times when the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali were treated with contempt. But at a later time He will cause it to be honored—the way by the sea, in the region of the Jordan, Galilee of the nations.” (9:1)

    The Assyrian king who swept in from 734-732 BCE was Tiglath-Pileser III, called Pul in the Bible. The invasion devastated the region: populations were exiled, lands incorporated into Assyrian provinces , were hardest hit, their peoples killed, exiled, repopulated, by others displaced from their own conquered lands. Later it would become known as Galilee. It would be “honored” in that Jesus began his ministry there, a “great light” to the people there “walking in darkness.” (9:2) 

    Verses prophetically applied to Jesus follow, the most explicit we have seen thus far. Start with 9:6:

    “For a child has been born to us, A son has been given to us; And the rulership will rest on his shoulder. His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.”

    Conventional Jews today don’t buy it. They figure it a reference to Hezekiah. They reckon the four glowing descriptions no more than the kissing-up praise you’d lavish on any king back then, who might resent it if you didn’t. Even the next verse:

    “To the increase of his rulership And to peace, there will be no end, On the throne of David and on his kingdom In order to establish it firmly and to sustain it Through justice and righteousness, From now on and forever. The zeal of Jehovah of armies will do this.” (9:7) 

    That’s Hezekiah, too, they say—also the higher critics who are guided exclusively by what they can see and touch, rather than by the “walking by faith, not by sight” of 2 Corinthians 5:7. Prophecy, to them, is almost always later day interpretation of which they are dubious.

    Not only do Isaiah’s countrymen ignore the anger that is still ongoing and the hand still ready to strike—which has struck in the north—but they regard each as a challenge from which they will build back better. 

    “Bricks have fallen, But we will build with hewn stone.  Sycamore trees have been cut down, But we will replace them with cedars.” (9:10)

    They don’t humble themselves, repent, and turn back to God (as Isaiah 9:13) They say: “No problem—we’ll upgrade! We’ll replace bricks with expensive, quarried stone blocks and ordinary trees with luxurious Lebanese cedars.” It’s pride and arrogance. It’s trust in human strength. It’s defiance against God. “You knocked it down? We’ll build it better!”

    tower crane during daytime
    Photo by 500photos.com on Pexels.com

    The boastful response only invites greater judgment—four times repeated. Ultimately, it becomes the total destruction of the northern kingdom by Assyria in 722 BCE.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Is the Kingdom of God “Within You,” “Among You,” or “in your Midst?” Part 2

    So why do so many who identify as Christians today claim the “kingdom of God is within you,” when it is based on outdated* scholarship?

    (*see part 1)

    Might it be because it reduces the kingdom of God to a personal motto that otherwise allows the prevailing world to call the shots? Whereas, if the kingdom of God is “in your midst,” you begin to wonder what it wants. Meeting its requirements becomes more of a concern if it is “among you” in the person of Jesus.

    Moreover, it is really only a kingdom of God that has authority (in your midst, among you—but not “within you” that can be said to trigger the turmoil of Psalm 2:

    “The kings of the earth take their stand And high officials gather together as one Against Jehovah and against his anointed one. They say: “Let us tear off their shackles And throw off their ropes!” (verses 2-3)

    What “shackles” or “ropes” are there when “the kingdom of God is within you,” making it just a personal code? But if it is a kingdom that right now has authority and right now directs people in what to do, the anti-c_lt movement can easily portray that as “shackles” and “ropes” that should be cast off.

    The Witness organization in Russia was banned for exactly that reason. Again from the book ‘I Don’t Know Why We Persecute Jehovah’s Witnesses: Searching for the Why:’

    “One month after the Court decision, Aleksandr Dvorkin, the anti-cult expert, crowed about the outcome he helped mastermind.13 After several years of maneuvering, the coordinating organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses would be shut down so as “to protect the civil rights of the members of this organization.” He was “absolutely convinced that after a few years, the number of members of the organization will decrease dramatically, two or three times, because, when one cuts off its financial foundation, its ability to freely, without hindrance, recruit other people, to rent large halls and so on, then, in fact, people will lose interest and will very quickly disperse and, in this sense, this decision is very correct and far-sighted.”

    “When you cut off someone’s limbs, that person can be expected to die. He champions his role as protector of the individual Witness by severing ties to their organization of choice.”

    How is this not “casting off shackles” and “throwing off ropes?” Where would be its counterpart to those who maintain the kingdom of God is “within you?”

    ******  The bookstore

  • Why Reason Fails: Insights from the Cake-Fruit Experiment

    It was irksome when atheists put up their ‘Let Reason Prevail’ billboard right next to that Illinois State Capitol Nativity Scene back in 2009; that much was immediately apparent. But putting my finger on just why it was irksome required more effort. Was it the presumption of the atheists that they held a monopoly on “reason?” Partly. Was it the crassness of plunking it next to the nativity scene, as though it, too, offered a message of *hope*? Closer.

    It took a while, but I at last came across an experiment that blew that silly *Let Reason Prevail* slogan sky-high. Reason *cannot* prevail among humans. We are not capable of it. We can muster a fair effort when distractions are few. But add in any significant stress, and human reasoning ability goes right down the drain. It is hard to come to any other conclusion after pondering the cake-fruit experiment of several years back. Alas, it received only the publicity of light fluff news. It deserves more, as it holds unsettling implications for any future based on the veneration of reason.

    The cake-fruit experiment unfolded thus: In 1999, Stanford University professor Baba Shiv enrolled a few dozen undergraduates and gave each a number to memorize. Then, one at a time, they were to leave the room and walk down a corridor to another room, where someone would be waiting to take their number. On the way down, however, participants were approached by a friendly woman carrying a tray. “To show our thanks for taking part in our study,” she said, “we’d like to offer you a snack. You have a choice of two. A nice piece of chocolate cake. Or a delicious fruit salad. Which would you like?”

    Unbeknownst to each participant, some had been given two-digit numbers to memorize, and some had been given seven-digit numbers. When Shiv tallied up the choices made (for that was the object of the experiment) he found that those students with seven digits to remember were nearly twice as likely to choose the cake as those given two digits! Two digits—you choose fruit. Seven digits—you choose cake. What could possibly account for that?

    The reason, Shiv theorized, is that once you weed out the occasional oddball, we all like cake more than fruit; it tastes better. But we also know that fruit is better for us. This is a rational assessment that almost all of us would make. But if our minds are taxed with trying to retain seven digits instead of a no-brainer two, rationality goes right out the window, and the emotional, “Yummy, cake!” wins out! “The astounding thing here,” said the *Wall Street Journal’s* Jonah Lehrer, reviewing the experiment for *NPR*, “is not simply that sometimes emotion wins over reason. It’s how easily it wins.”

    Now, this experiment was not taken very seriously by anyone. When the media covered it at all, they treated it as fluff, as a transitional piece going in to or out of more serious news. But plainly, the experiment holds deeper significance. Aren’t world leaders also human, and thus susceptible to emotion trumping rationality? Daily they grapple to solve the woes afflicting us all. Meanwhile, opponents seek to undermine them, and media outlets try to dig up dirt on them. If it takes only five extra digits for emotion to overpower reason, do you really think there is the slightest chance that “reason will prevail” among the world’s policymakers, immersed in matters much more vexing and urgent than choosing between cake and fruit? Has it up till now?

    That is what was so irksome about the ‘Let Reason Prevail’ slogan. Reason *cannot* prevail among imperfect humans! It can occur, but it cannot prevail. Humans are not capable of it. Five digits is all it takes for our rational facade to crumble!

    Since that Baba Shiv experiment, the term “reason” has been upgraded to “critical thinking,” as though to impress with increased potency. It’s the same stuff. It’s just that the latter was not the buzzphrase then that it has come to be today.

    Now, if there is one thing that Jehovah’s Witnesses are known for, it is for their insistence that humans do not have the ability to govern themselves. Nearly everyone else in the field of religion accepts the present setup of squabbling nations as a given and prays for God to somehow bless the leaders running it—often with the proviso that whatever country they are in emerges on top. Of course, it doesn’t matter too much, though, since said religionists are all heaven-bound! Just passing through, you understand. So while one might not like staying in a crummy hotel, you can at least console yourself that it’s only for a night or two.

    ******  The bookstore

  • A Workman’s Theodicy: Why do Bad Things Happen?

    A Workman’s Theodicy’ addresses the question: How can a God of love coexist with evil and suffering? (In the world of theology, such explanations are called ‘theodicies.’)

    The book consists of 3 sections on Job—a chapter by chapter review of the entire Bible book.

    Job: the Setup. (Chapters 1-2)
    Job: The Prosecution (3-32)
    Job: The Resolution (33-42)

    There is a short section on the Holocaust, followed by two on theologians:

    Theologians: Higher Criticism
    Theologians: Attributes of God

    This is followed by a review of the ‘workman’s theodicy’ itself, then a section of efforts to advertise it, amidst some pushback:

    The Workman’s Theodicy
    Enemies

    At the book’s end is an Appendix section of three parts:

    Appendix A1: Does the Bible Condone Slavery?

    Appendix A2: The Origin of Life [a critique of the handful of scientists who specialize in this field—what progress have they made?]

    Appendix A3: When We Cease to Understand [a review of a historical-fiction book that intertwines the themes of quantum physics, mathematics, world war, and madness]

    Enjoy

    Phonto

    From book’s back cover:

    The theodicy that works advertised by people who don’t know the term? How can that be?

    “Why does God permit human suffering?” the Bethel speaker begins. “Well, that’s an easy one, isn’t it? It is one of the first things we learned when we go the truth.”

    It’s easy? Easy?! EASY?! It is only one of the hardest questions in theology! The great thinkers throughout history have tied themselves into knots trying to account for it.

    “The question of how God could allow evil is a staple in philosophy. In fact, it may even be older than the discipline itself.” – Professor David Kyle Johnson

    If there is a benevolent God, why would he coexist with evil and suffering?

    From Job to Kant, from the Holocaust to the lecture halls, from the public squares to the quadrangles, with nods to a bevy of philosophers and theologians, see how and why the giants of miss the theodicy of the workmen.

    ***Dress up your meeting notes for presentable online presentation, and it has the effect that you retain them better yourself. When the Witness mid-week meetings started in on Job, I figured I’d write a synopsis of each week. There they are, for the most part, on my blog. Sort through and combine those notes, merge them with some other writings on how theologians look at Scripture, visit the horrific Holocaust, add in some history and a few appendixes, and out came this book!

    Now available at Amazon bookstores—a new book by Tom Harley

  • The Value of Christian Organization

    My wife and I had people from out of state come into town to work on a Kingdom Hall remodeling project nearby and they needed a place to stay. Sight unseen, we handed them the keys to our house while we were heading away on vacation. There are people who would pay anything for such a brotherhood in which you can place such trust in total strangers.

    At the Independence Day church, Mr. and Mrs. O’Malihan heard of this and decided to do the same. The first guests who stayed at their house broke their TV. The second set of guests tracked mud throughout the house. The third set found the Go Packs and raided the funds set aside. The fourth set emptied the house completely and the O’Malihans returned to four bare walls. Steamed, they contacted the Independence Day church headquarters. “Oh, yeah, that happened to us, too,” they were told. “No, they’re not congregation members – they’re imposters. But we have such a half-assed organization that any scoundrel can pull the wool over our eyes in a twinkling.”

    The first paragraph is true. I just made up the second. But what I like is how with Jehovah’s Witnesses, not only may you enjoy a good relationship with God and his Son, but as a pure gimme, you get a united worldwide brotherhood. Why anyone would throw that away from insistence that their own viewpoint prevail is beyond me.

    The world is more dangerous than before, so the organization safeguards more than before. It is not like in the 1970s, when I, on a whim, drove to a St. Louis International Convention of Jehovah’s Witnesses and presented myself at the rooming desk with the expectation that someone would put me up for the four or five days. They did. The only way that they knew I was a Witness was that I said I was. I stayed with an elderly sister and her non-Witness husband who treated me as though one of their own. But that was long ago, and “wicked men and imposters have advanced from bad to worse,” says the verse. Today there is vetting, only possible with organization, so that you know people are who they say they are. 

    You can do more with organization than you can without. It is no more complicated than that. In the case of an organization such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, devoted to spreading “this good news of the kingdom throughout all the inhabited earth,” seamless organization of voluntary efforts has enabled an entirely new channel of Bible production and distribution,  so that ‘Big Business’ is not in charge of distributing the Word of God, and everyone stays on the same page in the process. Organization is the obvious way that Jesus’ prediction comes to pass: “Most truly I say to you, whoever exercises faith in me will also do the works that I do; and he will do works greater than these.” Greater works than Jesus? It can’t be done through disconnected individuals.

    ******  The bookstore