Christian Worldview/Ethics Class

[Matt]

This year at my school the Bible class is Worldview/Ethics.  I was just thinking that it might be helpful to me to write down my thoughts about the class and that you might get a kick out of it and correct me when I say/do something nuts.  I'm going to focus mainly I the things that I disagree with, so keep in mind that you'll be getting the worst possible impression of the book and of the class and teacher.  They're not as crazy as they're probably going to sound.

The book we're reading is called "Heaven is a Place on Earth", by Michael Wittmer.  The class has covered all the way up to chapter 11.  I'm thoroughly convinced at this point that the author is a raging fundamentalist, but I can't tell exactly what the views of the teacher are.

Today's class was on the first half of chapter 11.  I'm going to have to start taking notes in class again (I stopped because only things covered in the book were tested on), since I can't remember but a few minutes of it.  I'll have to settle for writing mostly about the book and not the lecture.

The chapter starts with the story of Jean Valjean being compared to the grace of God.  I thought it an appropriate analogy, given the magnitude of the crime for which Valjean was condemned.  The point of the analogy, and the story, is that God plans to redeem everyone (except for people who don't believe in Him and demons, apparently--something which is actually mentioned in the discussion questions for the chapter at the end of the book.  The author doesn't include any answer to this question, and I am curious as to how he answers it).  The author goes on to write that sin and Satan screwed everything up and that God wouldn't settle for losing to Satan.  I get the distinct feeling from the motivations Wittmer gives to God in a number of places that the god he worships is Zeus.

He then went on to give some scriptural references supporting the redemption of Israel.  While doing this, he mentions that the laws given to Israel were to make them prosperous and to protect them.  I brought this up in class when the teacher got to this point in the chapter and the teacher ended up saying the craziest things I had heard the whole semester.  I gave a few examples of rules that weren't meant for this, the main one I brought up being the law which said to stone unruly children.  To my utter surprise, he said he thinks unruly children ought to be stoned.  He went on to say that the American justice system is far too lax and that sex offenders ought to be stoned.  Unfortunately, I wasn't able to pursue this line any further since there was a lot more stuff he had to cover.  I want to know his opinion on whether rape victims should be married to their attackers or stoned if they don't cry for help.

The final part of the first half of this chapter made the point that Christianity is the only religion with undiluted grace.  He also says:

Most, if not all, false religions are inspired by Satan.

It seems that Wittmer doesn't know his mythology.  There are plenty of religions which offer a crapload of grace.  Mithraism was the first one that came to mind.

So today I learned: God's redemption applies to everyone and everything (unless you don't believe in Him or rebel against Him), so even though people suck now it'll get better, and keep teach' the hell away from any position of power.

After rereading my post I don't think I did a particularly good job of this.  I'll do my best to make a higher-quality post for the next class meeting.

[Will]

To my utter surprise, he said he thinks unruly children ought to be stoned.  He went on to say that the American justice system is far too lax and that sex offenders ought to be stoned.  Unfortunately, I wasn't able to pursue this line any further since there was a lot more stuff he had to cover.  I want to know his opinion on whether rape victims should be married to their attackers or stoned if they don't cry for help.

You should hold him to the same insane standards. According to the Bible, it is strictly forbidden to wear a garment made of a mix of wool and linen (Leviticus 19:19), one must have a beard (Leviticus 19:27), and children without a parent cannot enter a church, the punishment for working on the Sabbath is death (Exodus 35:2), etc.

And you may want to also say, without a hint of irony in your voice, quote John 8:7: "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone."

It's so easy to out-Christian Christians it's not even funny.

The Valjean thing was funny, though.

[Matt]

you may want to also say, without a hint of irony in your voice, quote John 8:7: "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone."

The thing I don't understand is that he knows that.  Most of the teachers at my school know their Bibles pretty well.  Most of them wouldn't agree with him, and I wouldn't have suspected for a moment that he thought those OT laws should be followed before today.

[fazFwQo83]

Beside the contradiction that God is allowed to get away with morally reprehensible actions simply because he is God, I don't need religion to tell me not to slaughter my neighbors. The value of co-operation and compassion seems fairly self-evident to me. Whereas I see no value in being a mass murderer or a drug addict. As such my "morals" are guided by physical, mental and emotional harm. For example, I choose not to do drugs because they lead to destruction of the mind and body. My decision is not based on some concept of sin or a desire to get into heaven or to please some god.

And if god exists, and if he knows your heart, then he can tell if you're "staying clean" just to get into heaven. So, not doing drugs simply because it's "wrong" or "sinful" is really just a way of covering your own ass "just in case" god exists and is not a good reason (in my estimation) for not doing drugs.

[Matt]

Part Two, a day late.

Today's chapter/class is about the Christian's role in culture.  The author writes that most things can be used for either good or evil.  Take, for example, movies.  They can be used for immoral purposes or for wholesome family entertainment (by the way, according to Wittmer, inane plots are sinful.  So is juvenile humor.  Goodbye, poop jokes.).  They've been corrupted by the fall and the question is whether a Christian can redeem them or if they're better off just staying away from them entirely.  I don't really have much to say about this.  Friggin' great commission.  Oh, I almost forgot to mention: Wittmer's god has gone from being Zeus to being a spoiled child.  We're supposed to reclaim culture for God because he claims "It's mine!"

There's a section of this chapter titled "The End Is Near?"  I can only interpret that as fear-mongering, because in the section the only thing discussed is whether or not culture and its products will be present after Judgment Day.  Wittmer's conclusion is "Yes", but there's really nothing in the Bible that is clear about whether it will be or not.  This bit's so unclear that we've been assigned to write a paper defending one side or the other.  I guess I'll have to ask if my position can be "The Bible doesn't say".

Now for the in-class discussion!  I am happy with my classmates.  A couple of them seem to be pretty cool guys and doesn't afraid of anything.  When we were discussing whether or not Christianity should be involved in government, one satirically suggested "communism for Jesus".  Teach agreed that it shouldn't be, bringing up Tuesday's discussion, saying that, for example, 'Matt' wouldn't want people using the government for religious purposes because of people like himself who want to stone unruly children.  When we spoke about how Christians were doing on the whole "redeeming culture" thing, another classmate said that almost all Christian media sucks, and it was agreed by most that it does.

Class yesterday was pretty boring.  A teacher of another class made an interesting statement, though.  He went on for ten minutes about how blogging is paganism.  He's known to have more-ridiculous-than-average beliefs, but this was a shocker.  Nobody really challenged him, though.  He's good at defending his positions.

Next class is going to be on the same half of the chapter.  Hopefully I'll be able to make some interesting discussion happen.

[Achronos]

According to the Bible, it is strictly forbidden to wear a garment made of a mix of wool and linen (Leviticus 19:19),

These three commands have the same general thought behind them. They move from concrete to intention, that is, from letter to spirit. The one regarding cloth is easiest to illustrate this principle. The specific application involves linen and wool, and Israel was not to mix the fibers from a vegetable product and an animal product into the same piece of material. It expands in its practical application when we understand that mixing animal and vegetable fibers makes poor quality material. Therefore, the intentâ€"its spiritâ€"is to teach us to purchase the best quality that we can afford.

The same holds true with the other laws that appear in this context. God is instructing us that the best thing to do is to keep the breeds pure and not let hybrids develop. The pure breeds of a species are always considered to be of higher quality.

Why was it done this way? It has to do with the Old Covenant and God's intention in His use of the children of Israel. It was not God's intention at the time to save them. He was producing a historical record so that the church of God, whom He did intend to save, could understand things much more clearlyâ€"His purposeâ€"and make proper applications of those laws, examples, and principles to their lives.

one must have a beard (Leviticus 19:27)

It was a ritual custom of the heathen to cut or trim their beards and hair into special shapes in honor of a particular pagan deity. To honor the sun god Ra, the ancient Egyptians had their dark locks cropped short or shaved with great care so the hair that remained on the crown appeared in the form of a circle surrounding the head (from which the halo derives), while the beard was dressed in a square form. Alternatively, a round bald spot might be shaved on the head.

It is this type of false worship the Bible forbids. Shaving one's beard and cutting one's hair for normal good grooming is something entirely different and not at all condemned in the Scriptures. In fact, the apostle Paul takes great pains to address proper grooming of one's hair in I Corinthians 11:2-15.

and children without a parent cannot enter a church, the punishment for working on the Sabbath is death (Exodus 35:2), etc.

Even though the Israelites were constructing an important edifice devoted to the worship of God, they were not to desecrate this holy time by working on it.

And you may want to also say, without a hint of irony in your voice, quote John 8:7: "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone."

How about you include the whole of it:
"So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, 'He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.' And again He stopped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, 'Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?' She said, 'No one, Lord.' And Jesus said to her, 'Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.'"

What this means is to go and sin no more: God forgives and does not condemn the repentant sinner. But true repentance includes striving to sin no more.

[tunghaichuan]

This is what drives me nuts about Christianity: cherry picking. Christians always explain away the contradictions and anomalies. You can't have it both ways. Either the Bible is the literal word of God, or it isn't. If there are contradictions and anomalies, then it isn't the literal word of God. If this is the case *anything* written in the various versions of the Bible is open to interpretation.

The Bible is not some holy book from the lips of God to the scribes' ears. The Old Testament is the recorded oral traditions of how a group of  Bronze Age, desert dwelling nomads viewed their tribal deity, Yahweh. The New Testament is oral tradition of how Greek speaking Jews (and then Christians) viewed their savior. It is a collection of writings from various different groups of people, collected over a long period of time. It is a book of myths and fairy tales, nothing more.

According to the Bible, it is strictly forbidden to wear a garment made of a mix of wool and linen (Leviticus 19:19),

These three commands have the same general thought behind them. They move from concrete to intention, that is, from letter to spirit. The one regarding cloth is easiest to illustrate this principle. The specific application involves linen and wool, and Israel was not to mix the fibers from a vegetable product and an animal product into the same piece of material. It expands in its practical application when we understand that mixing animal and vegetable fibers makes poor quality material. Therefore, the intentâ€"its spiritâ€"is to teach us to purchase the best quality that we can afford.

The same holds true with the other laws that appear in this context. God is instructing us that the best thing to do is to keep the breeds pure and not let hybrids develop. The pure breeds of a species are always considered to be of higher quality.

Why was it done this way? It has to do with the Old Covenant and God's intention in His use of the children of Israel. It was not God's intention at the time to save them. He was producing a historical record so that the church of God, whom He did intend to save, could understand things much more clearlyâ€"His purposeâ€"and make proper applications of those laws, examples, and principles to their lives.

one must have a beard (Leviticus 19:27)

It was a ritual custom of the heathen to cut or trim their beards and hair into special shapes in honor of a particular pagan deity. To honor the sun god Ra, the ancient Egyptians had their dark locks cropped short or shaved with great care so the hair that remained on the crown appeared in the form of a circle surrounding the head (from which the halo derives), while the beard was dressed in a square form. Alternatively, a round bald spot might be shaved on the head.

It is this type of false worship the Bible forbids. Shaving one's beard and cutting one's hair for normal good grooming is something entirely different and not at all condemned in the Scriptures. In fact, the apostle Paul takes great pains to address proper grooming of one's hair in I Corinthians 11:2-15.

and children without a parent cannot enter a church, the punishment for working on the Sabbath is death (Exodus 35:2), etc.

Even though the Israelites were constructing an important edifice devoted to the worship of God, they were not to desecrate this holy time by working on it.

And you may want to also say, without a hint of irony in your voice, quote John 8:7: "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone."

How about you include the whole of it:
"So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, 'He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.' And again He stopped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, 'Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?' She said, 'No one, Lord.' And Jesus said to her, 'Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.'"

What this means is to go and sin no more: God forgives and does not condemn the repentant sinner. But true repentance includes striving to sin no more.

[Achronos]

Uh huh, yet the one who was cherry picking verses was not I. I was merely explaining the misinterpretation present.

[fazFwQo83]

... The author writes that most things can be used for either good or evil.

Wow! Did the author figure that out all by himself or did he have some help? This principle applies regardless of religion.

... inane plots are sinful.

This guy may be an idiot but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

They've been corrupted by the fall and the question is whether a Christian can redeem them or if they're better off just staying away from them entirely.

I'm not sure about the bible, but I know the Koran specifically deals with this. Basically it says don't bother with the unbeliever because Allah has blinded them and theirs will be a painful doom. Now, what kind of god would intentionally blind people from seeing the truth? But once again god gets away with this morally reprehensible behavior simply because he is god and I guess he can do whatever he wants. For more info on this and other interesting stuff, check here: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

... whether or not culture and its products will be present after Judgment Day.

If the bible does not cover this, then the very best anyone could do is speculate. Basically, this is a dead-end question because there's no evidence to indicate one way or the other.

'Matt' wouldn't want people using the government for religious purposes because of people like himself who want to stone unruly children.

I love the way he associates morality with his particular brand of religion. As if, without it, we would all go around stoning unruly children. What an idiot. But thats what you get for using the words "Christian" and "Ethics" in the same sentence.

[tunghaichuan]

Uh huh, yet the one who was cherry picking verses was not I. I was merely explaining the misinterpretation present.

But this begs the question: why interpret the literal word of God at all? If God's word is literal is there any room for interpretation? And if there is room for interpretation, what makes anybody sure he/she are getting right?

[Matt]

Part III:

Today's class was about Demon Alcohol.  It was going to be more about the ontological/ethical distinction again, but the teacher used alcohol as an example and derailed everything.  I got to hear some pretty liberal views from my classmates.  One in particular I'm starting to wonder about.  He's espoused some extremely conservative views in the past, but I'm starting to wonder if it wasn't satire.  Today he favored legalization of underage drinking.  There's not much at all to say about the period, so I won't drag this out.  Maybe next time I'll post the paper I'll be writing.

EDIT:
No class today, but there was some interesting discussion in study hall.  There's one kid who's really serious about religion and getting things right, so sometimes he'll ask the hard questions and the group suddenly bursts into heated discussion.  It's damned interesting to watch.  He asked (I believe it was just a general question to the room, but it might have been to the supervisor--either way, everyone got in the action) whether... well, now that I think about it, I can't remember the original question. It was something to do with Hell and I think predestination, though that may have been brought into play later.  I didn't realize until now just how screwed up my classmates' ideas about this were.  Most said that people are predestined to go to Hell, but there were a few who said that people have a choice of whether or not to go, mainly because they couldn't stomach the idea of a god creating people whose sole purpose was to burn for eternity.  I interjected at some point that even if you hold the latter stance, it's God's fault since he's omniscient, but other than that I stayed silent since the only side I could defend was that the question is moot: God doesn't exist.  They all agreed that people are shit and deserve Hell (well, almost all of them).  The guy who asked the original question went to ask the super-theological history teacher why God created and sent people to Hell (this may have been the original question).  This teacher sees the morality of the Bible about the way an atheist would, except for the fact that he thinks it's right and good.  He sticks to what the Bible actually says.  His opinion on the whole thing was that Hell glorifies God's wrathful side.  Not sure why you would glorify the side of yourself that is a dick to the greatest possible extent, but whatever.

So, after all this, I had to give an opinion anyways.  I was sitting out in front of the school waiting for my ride, next to the guy who had started the whole thing, and he asked me my opinion.  I had to choose the predestination side, since I felt that it was the correct one if one assumes the Bible to be correct, but I really hated it.  I didn't really know what to do.  After he asked me the question, I just sat there for a minute tying to think of a good answer.  I finally came up with one, but only 20 minutes into the trip home.  I could have told him that because God's omniscience and omnipotence are contradictory with omnibenevolence if this is the case, there must be some other explanation, but that I don't know what it is.

Oh, and that history teacher I mentioned earlier--there was an ASVAB test today which disrupted the schedules, so today was "Question Thursday", and someone got him on the topic of dating.  It was revealed that instead of just being strict about gender roles, he's actually an uber-sexist prick.  Which is frustrating, because he's pretty cool in a lot of other respects.  I can't fathom how he thinks that 30 year old men marrying 14 year old girls is actually a good idea.  What with this and the discussion in study hall, I was feeling physically nauseous at the end of the day.

[Matt]

Whee, Thanksgiving break is over.  Not much in class today, either.  Sorry.  Here's a summary of today's experience: "These ideas aren't just applicable to affluent white folk.  Seriously.  C'mon, why don't you believe me?"

More nuttery from the guy who knows what he's talking about.  He's pro-slavery, it turns out.

And, finally: I found some Christian dating advice in the folder they put homework and announcements in.  Here we go... ...and it's from Focus on the Family.  Bleh.  So, it starts off saying that people want to know how they can get to know someone without getting hurt.  I'm interested to see where they're going to take this.  You can't eliminate the risk entirely, otherwise you wouldn't be able to have a relationship.  Wait, I have a guess:  They're going to suggest not having a relationship.  They note that a person named Joshua Harris has suggested an old-fashioned courtship model, which is not having a relationship, but you could still totally get hurt and that's not what they're going to endorse, it seems.  No, nevermind, that's what they're going with.  Why am I surprised?  Oh god.  They're complaining about young people dating.  Guess you've forgotten some history, eh?  

Depending on which statistics one believes, the divorce rate may actually be higher for professing Christians than for Americans as a whole.

Nice way to frame that as wishy-washily as you can.  I'm halfway through and they're still talking about how terrible love is.  Get to the advice already.  Yay, the advice!  First off they say that scripture is sufficient for all areas of life.  I would suggest that they consider that idea for more than a split second.  Here's how they define dating:

1.  That begins (maybe) with the man approaching and going through the woman's father or family.
     2.  That is conducted under the authority of the woman's father or family or church.
     3.  That always has marriage (or at least a determination regarding marriage to a specific person) as its direct goal.

1.  Sexist, sexist, sexist.
2.  Sexist, sexist, sexist.  Authoritarian, authoritarian, authoritarian.
3.  I don't like this, but my thoughts aren't coalescing into words, so I'll leave this one alone.
I find it strange that I didn't notice the blatant sexism of many Christians before I deconverted.  I knew of some who I knew were sexist, but often I would just think "That seems a little unfair" and then the thought would go away.  A bit more detail on the points:
1.  This is stupid.  What happens when women like a guy?  This pretty much says that men get to choose their women, and women can only be approached and aren't encouraged to make their own decisions.  Then there's the father or family thing.  God, I am so pissed.  WOMEN CAN BE INDEPENDENT.  ARGH.
2.  Same as above.  Also, people can make decisions for themselves.  They don't need their parents or church to tell them what to do.
Scripture verses to defend their sexism!  Yay!  Let's see if there are any interesting ones.  Song of Solomon, ooh.  Let me look at the context on that one.  Hm.  It's not obvious what it means.  The verse is Song of Solomon 2:7: "Do not awaken love before it pleases."  They say that means before marriage.  My guess was that it had something to do with orgasms, but I can't tell from the passage.  What.  None of these verses suggest any of the three points above.  They're all just crap about purity.  So that was the "Biblical Dating" section.  Now for what they think modern dating is.  The first bullet is that either the man or the women starts it.  What the hell.  Two is that it's conducted without the formal oversight of the family or church.  I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want their parents telling them who to kiss.  Three is that it is often "recreational" or "educational".  Hee, no biblical support of modern dating.  Funny.  

The very idea of romantic or sexual involvement outside of marriage doesn't even appear in Scripture unless it is described as illicit.

Wrong.  Do your research.  God explicitly commands his children to rape his other children.  Apparently because modern dating didn't appear until a century ago, it's bad, and because biblical dating has been around a long time, it's good.  Wait a moment while I commit genocide, will you?

...

I'm back from the slaughter.  Next, they explicitly say that equality in a relationship is wrong.  WHAT.  What the hell does "spiritual equals" even mean?

Men choose to marry, and women have to do housework and raise the children and listen at church while men go out and do the real work and preach, but they're spiritual equals.

Modern dating: Depth-first search.  Biblical dating: Just pick one.
Modern dating: Find someone you'll enjoy spending the rest of your life with.  Biblical dating: JUST MARRY ANYBODY, GORRAMIT

Damn.  They just said that perhaps my idea of my own freedom and rights is the reason I might disagree.  Now they've just said that the Bible doesn't cover some areas.  I refer you to the beginning of the article.

EDIT:  Was just looking through some of the other articles on that site.  There's one about premarital kissing.  What's next, premarital seeing?  ...oh.