Morality

Would You Stop Paying Your Mortgage?

5 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

I was listening to the “This American Life” podcast today and heard something that intrigued me.  The podcast recounted the story of a few NPR reporters who bought a mortgage-backed security (MBS) earlier this year.  This particular MBS is a kind of bond that bundles some 2,000 mortgages together and pays the investor (the NPR reporters) interest from the proceeds of the mortgage payments made by the 2,000 mortgage holders.

Sounds like a good deal, right?  The only catch is that this MBS was actually a “toxic asset.”  That means that a large percentage of the 2,000 mortgage holders have stopped paying their mortgage payments, and therefore the investment is highly risky.  The NPR reporters paid $1,000 for the MBS, which was originally priced at $100,000 (a 99% discount due to the risk).  These are the kind of securities that helped cause the recent world financial collapse.

The NPR reporters knew this going in.  Their goal was to buy one of these MBS’s, do some detective work to figure out who some of the mortgage holders were, and then find out why they weren’t paying.

After some initial investigation, they were able to locate an 81-year old man in Florida who had stopped paying his mortgage and agreed to talk about it.  What happened?  Well, he bought a brand new condominium in Sarasota so that he could downsize from his current home.  He took out a $300,000 mortgage on this condo only to see it quickly drop in value.  It dropped in value so much that his $300,000 mortgage was more than the value of the condo.

What did he do?  He decided to stop paying his mortgage, thus defaulting on his loan and stiffing the bank who loaned him the money and the investors who bought the MBS which included his mortgage.  The NPR reporters asked him why he stopped paying.

He answered that it was a very painful decision for him, that it went against everything he was taught growing up.  But, he claimed, he had no choice.  One of the NPR reporters challenged him, telling him that he did have a choice, that he could have kept paying.  He didn’t have much of a response, only saying that it “didn’t make sense” to keep paying.  It’s important to note that he had enough money to keep paying, but that he chose not to.  The only consequence for him is a bad credit rating, but since he is 81 years old he probably won’t need to borrow money again, so this didn’t seem so bad.

What do you think of this elderly gentleman’s decision?  Was he wrong to stop paying?  It seems that millions of other people did the same thing in the last several years as housing prices fell, thus precipitating the financial crisis.  Please vote in the poll below and then leave some comments telling us what you think.

Church History, Difficult Bible Passages

Was the Early Church Communist?

9 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In the most recent edition of the Christian Research Journal, Jay W. Richards addressed this topic.  The verses that have led some to make the claim that the early church was communist are Acts 4:32-35.  But is that the correct interpretation of these verses?  If so, is communism the ideal for the church?

Richards argues against this view, giving several reasons.  First, Richards notes that modern communism, based on the writings of Marx, is about class warfare and the evil of private property.  According to Richards, “There’s none of this class warfare stuff in the early church in Jerusalem, nor is private property treated as immoral.  These Christians are selling their possessions and sharing freely and spontaneously.”

Second, communism is associated with state control of resources, but the state is not involved in the early church.  “No Roman centurions are showing up with soldiers.  No government is confiscating property and collectivizing industry.  No one is being coerced.”  Again, the early church was sharing their property voluntarily, with no state involvement at all.

Third, the communal life described in Acts 4:32-35 is never prescribed for all churches everywhere.  Richards explains, “What Acts is describing is an unusual moment in the life of the early church, when the church was still very small.  Remember this is the beginning of the church in Jerusalem.”  In addition, we know that other early churches had different arrangements.  Take, for example, the Thessalonians.  Paul addresses the situation in their local church when he warns them, “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”  Paul’s words hardly exemplify the ideals of communism.

Richards concludes, “The take-home lesson should be clear: neither the book of Acts nor historical experience commends communism.  In fact, full-bodied communism is alien to the Christian worldview and had little to do with the arrangement of early Christians in Jerusalem.”

To read the complete article, you need to be a subscriber to the Christian Research Journal, which happens to be one of my favorite magazines.  If you are interested at all in Christian apologetics, it is a must-read.

Religion

Is There a Pagan in the Next Cubicle?

4 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

A friend of mine recently forwarded me excerpts of an email sent around by his company’s HR department on Paganism.  The email article was entitled “The Pagan in the next cubicle (or office, or lab).”  This is a major US company with thousands of employees.  Here is what he sent me:

A Pagan employee will hold ethics emphasizing personal freedom and responsibility.

Pagan ethics allow personal freedom within a framework of personal responsibility. The primary basis for Pagan ethics is the understanding that everything is interconnected, that nothing exists alone and that every action has a consequence.

No concept of forgiveness of sin exists in the Pagan ethical system; the consequences of one’s actions must be faced. No arbitrary rules about moral issues exist either; instead, every action must be weighed against the awareness of what harm it could cause.

A Pagan employee will hold a paradigm that embraces plurality.

Because Pagan religious systems hold that theirs is a way among many, not the only road to truth, and because Pagans revere a variety of deities among their pantheons, both male and female, a Pagan employee will believe that each person is free to choose his or her own destiny, and will not believe in evangelizing or proselytizing.

One advantage of this is that a Pagan employee will thrive in a pluralistic environment, eager to support an atmosphere that discourages discrimination based on differences such as race or gender and encourages individuality, self-discovery and independent thought.

A Pagan employee is also likely to have knowledge of other religions; most Pagans have explored other spirituality before deciding on their own. Because Neo-Paganism’s mainstream popularity is less than 50 years old, few Pagans were born in the faith, but those who are were likely taught about many religions as well.

Pagan parents are adamant about not forcing their beliefs on the child but rather teaching them and letting the child decide when he is of age. Despite its sometimes-misunderstood beliefs, Paganism is believed to be the fastest-growing religion today.

What can be said about this?  First of all, estimates are that about 300,000 people are practicing Neo-Pagans in the US (latest study done in 2001).  That equates to roughly 0.1% of the population, so I’m wondering why this warrants a company-wide email.  You have a better chance of meeting a space alien than a practicing Pagan.

Second, there seems to be an anti-traditional religion undercurrent in the email, based on the contrasts that are being made.  The writer approvingly notes that “Pagan parents are adamant about not forcing their beliefs on the child” and that “Pagans have explored other spirituality before deciding on their own.”

The message seems to be that teaching a child the religious traditions of his family is a bad thing, that more enlightened Pagan parents don’t do this.  Several things could be said here.  It’s highly dubious that Pagan parents aren’t teaching their children about Paganism.  At the very least, the children can see the parents practicing their religion, which is very influential in and of itself.  Secondly, if Pagan parents believe that their conceptions of reality are correct, then they would be doing a grave disservice to their children by not teaching them.  Do they want their kids to fail?  If the Pagan parent answers that they don’t have any truths about reality as embodied in their religion, that it’s all about subjective experience, then they aren’t practicing a religion after all – religions make truth claims about reality.

Third, the email commented that “no arbitrary rules about moral issues exist either; instead, every action must be weighed against the awareness of what harm it could cause.”  Arbitrary rules?  Is that what the writer thinks of the moral codes of traditional religions, that they are arbitrary?  To a person who wants total personal autonomy with no restrictions, moral laws may seem arbitrary, but to the person who actually wants to live in a just society, traditional moral rules are anything but arbitrary.  The fact that most people live by traditional moral values is the only thing that allows “we don’t have arbitrary moral rules” individuals to have their personal autonomy.  They can live as parasites as the rest of society does all of the heavy lifting.

Fourth, the comment about Pagans being especially able to foster a pluralistic work environment is mystifying.  It is Christianity that has allowed pluralism in many forms to flourish in the US.  Most Christians understand that even though we wish to share our beliefs with others, they are free to reject our proselytization.  We believe that God has endowed each human with free will, the ability to love God or reject Him.  It does not, therefore, follow that non-evangelizing religious groups are more accepting of diversity in the workplace than evangelizing religious groups.

An interesting question arises, though.  If Neo-Pagans are not telling their children about their beliefs, and they are not telling other adults about their beliefs (evangelizing), then how does anyone become a Neo-Pagan?  They must be telling somebody if their numbers are growing, right?  Am I missing something?

Finally, can you imagine an email like this going out about Christianity?  No, I can’t either.  After all, Christians teach their children their beliefs, they proselytize, and they believe in actual moral rules.  Clearly there is nothing to learn from them.

Evolution, Human Nature

G. K. Chesterton: Monkeys, Dogs, and Horses Don’t Draw Pictures

10 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In the opening pages of G. K. Chesterton’s classic The Everlasting Man , he explores the implications of prehistoric cave paintings discovered by modern-day humans.  What do these paintings tell us about primitive man?  Is he merely an advanced ape (as in the evolutionary account) or is there a real difference in kind between man and the rest of the animal kingdom?  Below is an excerpt:

But I have begun this story in the cave, like the cave of the speculations of Plato, because it is a sort of model of the mistake of merely evolutionary introductions and prefaces.  It is useless to begin by saying that everything was slow and smooth and a mere matter of development and degree.  For in the plain matter like the [cave paintings] there is in fact not a trace of any such development or degree.

Monkeys did not begin pictures and men finish them; Pithecanthropus did not draw a reindeer badly and Homo Sapiens draw it well.  The higher animals did not draw better and better portraits; the dog did not paint better in his best period than in his early bad manner as a jackal; the wild horse was not an Impressionist and the race horse a Post-Impressionist.

All we can say of this notion of reproducing things in shadow or representative shape is that it exists nowhere in nature except in man; and that we cannot even talk about it without treating man as something separate from nature.  In other words every sane sort of history must begin with man as man, a thing standing absolute and alone.

Chesterton published this book in 1925 in order to counter the influence of men like H. G. Wells who were increasingly characterizing man as merely different in degree from the rest of the animal kingdom.  This battle is still raging today, 85 years later.

Islam, Miracles

What Did Thomas Aquinas Have to Say about Islam?

19 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Between AD 1258 and 1264, Thomas Aquinas wrote Summa contra Gentiles, a book at least partially aimed at arguing for the truth of Christianity against the falsehood of Islam.  Recall that Islam was founded and spread in the seventh century, about 600 years before Thomas wrote.

In an interesting section of book I, Thomas argues that the veracity of the miracle accounts in the Bible are supported by the successful spread of Christianity around the world.  In essence, he is saying, “How else could Christianity be so successful unless the miracle accounts were true?”  Here is Thomas in his own words:

This wonderful conversion of the world to the Christian faith is the clearest witness of the signs given in the past; so that it is not necessary that they should be further repeated, since they appear most clearly in their effect. For it would be truly more wonderful than all signs if the world had been led by simple and humble men to believe such lofty truths, to accomplish such difficult actions, and to have such high hopes. Yet it is also a fact that, even in our own time, God does not cease to work miracles through His saints for the confirmation of the faith.

Thomas points out that given the humble roots of Christianity, it would be more miraculous for the religion to have spread without miracles than with them.  The miracles of Jesus and his apostles provide a reason for the initial spread of Christianity.

Thomas then goes on to differentiate the success of Christianity with the success of Islam.  He argues that Muhammad offered no miracles to prove he was from God, and that his sole appeal was based on the carnal pleasures he offered his followers, including military power.  Here again is Thomas:

On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this, The point is clear in the case of Muhammad. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth.

On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning, Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms.

Thomas makes some important distinctions between Islam and Christianity based on their respective beginnings.  It is paramount for all of us to understand these differences as we increasingly dialogue with the world about Islam.

Evolution, Intelligent Design

Is Junk DNA Evidence for Darwinian Evolution?

13 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

One of the most common arguments you will hear that Darwinian evolution must be true is the “Junk DNA” argument.  It goes like this:

There are significant stretches of the human genome that appear not to code for any biological function.  This is what you would expect if millions of years of random genetic mutations occurred in the genome.  This junk DNA is simply left over from evolutionary history and is serving no purpose any more.

The argument makes sense, but there is only one small problem.  Every year that goes by scientists are discovering more and more functions for this junk DNA.  It turns out that it’s not junk after all.  If the junk DNA is coding for biological function, then this particular evidence for Darwinian evolution falls by the wayside.  Not only that, but this becomes positive evidence for the Intelligent Design community, as they have been predicting this very finding.

Take a look at this video where ID scientists discuss Francis Collins’ use of the “Junk DNA” argument in his book The Language of God.

Bible Interpretation, Difficult Bible Passages

How Do Biblical Proverbs Operate?

Leave a comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt

The Bible contains numerous proverbial sayings (not just in the Book of Proverbs), and these sayings have some characteristics that must be kept in mind when reading them.  These characteristics can also be found in non-biblical proverbial literature.

Biblical scholar Walter Kaiser lists a few of these characteristics in his book The Uses of the Old Testament in the New.  Here is Kaiser’s list:

1.  Universal moral statements in proverbial literature may be limited to:

a. only a certain tendency of some thing(s) to produce a certain effect (e.g., Prov. 15:1 – though there are times when it may have no effect on wicked men)

b. only telling what generally or often takes place without making it an irreversible rule for any and all situations (e.g., Prov. 22:6 – though some children occasionally will refuse the best of parental leadership and help)

c. only noting what is the normal course of action without listing some implied or understood exceptions (e.g., Matt. 5:34 – though this does not forbid us from taking legitimate oaths in court)

2.  Universal moral truths in proverbial literature may often be stated as direct opposites when they are meant to be understood in terms of priorities or to be taken comparatively in such expressions as:

a. “I desire mercy, not sacrifices” (Hos. 6:6; Matt. 9:13; Matt 12:7)

b. “To obey is better than to sacrifice” (1 Sam 15:22; Ps. 51:17, 19; Jer. 7:22-23)

3.  Universal moral truths in proverbial literature often assume that the correspondingly proper circumstance is also understood, thus:

a. Prov. 26:4

b. Prov. 26:5

I hope these three points help you to better understand what’s going on when you read proverbs in the Bible.

Atheism, Historical Christ, New Testament Reliability, Skeptics

Did Jesus Really Exist? Bart Ehrman Thinks So

16 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Some of the atheists that have commented on the blog have expressed skepticism at the existence of Jesus, claiming that there is very little or even no good evidence for him being a real historical figure.  My response has been to point out that Jesus is the most well attested historical figure of ancient history and that no reputable historian doubts his existence.  Uninterested in what historians have to say, these skeptics continue to hold their position.

What is especially ironic is that many of the skeptics who doubt the historical scholars are also the same people who chide me for doubting Darwin’s historical account of the origins of species over the past 4.5 billion years of earth’s history.  I guess it’s OK to doubt professional historians, but not professional paleontologists.

In any case, this week I came across a fascinating radio interview that bears on this issue of the existence of Jesus.  The interviewer is an atheist named Infidel Guy and he is questioning New Testament (NT) scholar and agnostic Bart Ehrman.  Ehrman has written several books pointing out discrepancies and errors that exist in the Greek NT manuscripts.  He is not a Christian and he believes that some of the things recorded about Jesus in the NT are legendary.

What is fascinating about this interview is that Ehrman finds himself arguing with the Infidel Guy that Jesus actually exists!  Ehrman, as a scholar, knows that the idea that Jesus never existed is ridiculous and that no serious scholar holds this position.  For 16 minutes he tries to convince the Infidel Guy, but to no avail.

Maybe the fact that Bart Ehrman, hero for skeptics of Christianity, has attempted to put this silly notion to rest will influence some atheists who continue to cling to this idea.  We’ll see!  In the mean time, please take a listen to the interview below which is broken into 2 parts.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRx0N4GF0AY&feature=related

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SIhX4BWCPU&feature=related

Bible Interpretation, Difficult Bible Passages

Has God Promised You New Revelation?

4 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Some Christians seem to think so, based on John 14:26, John 15:26, and John 16:12-13.   Here are each of these passages:

“But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” – John 14:26

“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.” – John 15:26

“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.” – John 16:12-13

After reading these passages, some Christians claim that the verses are promises to all believers, that the Holy Spirit will reveal new truths about God, will teach new things that have never been heard before to each of us.  They claim these verses promise that privilege.  Is that really what these verses are saying?

I think the answer is clearly “no” when we carefully read these verses in context.  All of these verses are from Jesus’ Upper Room discourse.  In this discourse, Jesus is specifically addressing his disciples about what is to come, with one of the primary themes being Jesus’ promise of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit would remind them of what Jesus said to them during his earthly ministry, but the Spirit would also give them new revelation.  What we have is an indication of how the New Testament letters and books would come together – the Holy Spirit acting in concert with Jesus’ disciples.  What we do not have is an open promise to all believers to receive new revelation from the Holy Spirit.  These promises were only for the disciples of Jesus who lived with him.

Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser is worth quoting at length here from his book The Uses of the Old Testament in the New :

As any serious student of the Bible will recognize those passages were not directed to believers at large, but to those disciples who had been with Jesus during His earthly pilgrimage.  The promise was for additional revelation and thus we are given some hints as to how the NT canon was shaped.

Almost every cult and aberration from the historic Christian faith has appealed at one time or another to these three texts as the grounds for adding to or bypassing the inscripturated Word of God.  But all fail to meet the tests given in these texts because they never personally walked with our Lord on this earth.  They never heard instruction from His lips, so how could they recall what they never once heard?  Neither were they witnesses from the start of his three-year ministry.  But the apostles were!  Therefore, they were the ones who would record the life, words, and works of Christ in the gospels with the Holy Spirit’s aid of recollection (John 14:26); they were the ones who would teach doctrine (“what is mine,” John 16:14-15); and they were the ones who would predict the future (John 16:12); for they had been eyewitnesses and auditors of all that had happened to and was spoken by Christ (John 15:26-27).

These verses, my friends, do not promise that we will all receive a new word from God.  Instead they promised the inspiration of the Word of God we now have in the New Testament.  Instead of wishing for new words from God, maybe we should cherish the words He has already given us.

Morality

Why Are We So Confused about Morality?

2 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

My good friend, Wes, sent me a video link (see below) because he knew it would drive me crazy!  (maybe he’s not my friend, after all)  The video features a guy named Lamar talking about illegal activities that people give a pass to.  The speaker mentions several activities that he thinks are wrong, and he even explains why they are wrong, but then he inexplicably trots out the tired postmodern cliche of, “These things are wrong for me, but maybe not for you” and one of my other personal favorites, “I don’t judge other people.”  He says that his position is one of neutrality.

Here we have a textbook example of moral relativism.  There are no absolute moral duties, because, according to Lamar, we were all raised with different moral compasses and we must remain neutral and not judge each other’s moral compasses.  You have your compass and I have mine.   This all sounds so fair and tolerant and high-minded, doesn’t it?

The problem is that Lamar doesn’t believe a word of what he is saying.  He really does believe that stealing is wrong.  The moment you stole something from him, I guarantee he would judge you, and harshly!  And what about moral laws against things like murder and rape?  Would Lamar hesitate to call those things wrong for everyone?  Would he say that he remains neutral about murder and rape?  I think not.

What irritates me so much about this kind of thing is that folks like Lamar are trying to portray themselves as heroes of tolerance and non-judgmentalism when they really are not (almost nobody really is).   I’m guessing  that if we could just ask Lamar’s family and friends whether he never judges anybody else’s morality, we would find out he’s just like the rest of us – judging every day.

And don’t we want there to be some judging?  Do we really want people to remain neutral about stealing?  How would you like it if your neighbor saw someone breaking into your house and taking your new LCD TV, but instead of calling the police, he just thought to himself, “I’m going to remain neutral.  Maybe the thief just has a different moral compass than me.”

I don’t know about you, but I’m glad that my neighbors aren’t neutral.  In fact, I think most of them own guns…

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PaKW_PnRF4&feature=player_embedded

A Christian Apologetics Blog