The ugly things religious people say

In Why Yeshua’s disciples must put away medical quackery, I argued that Messianics should embrace modern medicine, putting away the “all natural” cure-alls, elixirs, and other medical quackery that has…afflicted many in our movement.

This touched a nerve with many of you fine Kineti readers.

One commenter said,

I can't believe you are defending this issue. Guess you'd have been one of those calmly walking into the Nazi 'showers'. Many of the companies that made the gas for those showers now make our fertilizers. Big Pharma is part of the depopulation agenda. What part of steal, kill, and destroy do people not get?

I replied, “I’m going to forgive you for saying that.”

His response was,

And not only would you walk into the showers, you'd tip the gaurd. You'd write home 'the waters fine come on over'. Because that is essentially what you are doing by promoting drug companies that came out of Nazi corporations.

ಠ_ಠ

I’ll have to add that to the long list of nasty things religious people have said to me.

Is this the best blog post you'll ever read?

No, it's not. Drew you in there, didn't I? Did you come here because you really thought that? Or just for the circus?

Sorry for the deception, folks, but I fooled you here to make a point, and to make you, fine Kineti reader, a little wiser.

Observe this amusing article: Quake reveals day of Jesus' crucifixion: April 3rd, 33 AD.

Sounds really exciting and groundbreaking! Except, the evidence isn't really that strong. And it relies on a great deal of assumptions. And it's really just a best guess of a few ordinary geologists who hope to explain supernatural events in the gospels through natural means, 2000 years after the fact.

As Yeshua's disciples, we ought to be able to detect and dissect stuff like this, spitting out the bones. There's a lot of junk on the web, and it's easy to be deceived, especially in religious parts of the web. By the end of this post, you'll be just a little wiser about detecting junk like that.

Back to the Jesus-death-date article: so weak is this article's evidence, the web page's title is phrased as a question, "Does quake reveal when Jesus died?"

This is a classic example of Betteridge's Law of Headlines, which states,

Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word 'no'.

This amusing "law" comes from a tech journalist Ian Betteridge, who noticed a trend in modern journalism towards publishing implausible stories marked by headlines stated as questions. The very existence of the headline-as-question, he says, reflects the improbable nature of the story.

…any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word "no". The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably bollocks, and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it.

"Have We Found the Cure for Cancer?"

"Does New Discovery Turn Science Upside Down?"
"Can Leman's Blog Be a Source of Sound Biblical Teaching?" 

"Does Quake Reveal Date of Jesus' Death?"

The answer to such can almost always be "no".

Unfortunately, not all sensationalism is stated in the form of a question. While journalists at least have the courtesy of leaving open the possibility of their story being bollucks, others, especially zealous religionists hoping to spread THE TRUTH -- aren't so self-doubting.

Here's a recent example from the Messianic blogosphere. The other week, I was debating the divinity of Yeshua with James Pyles and a few others who deny Messiah is God-made-flesh. In the heat of the debate, one of them wrote this single comment,

If any of you are willing take a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvcizFKWNfc

Oooh, intriguing! "If any of you are willing", as if we need to muster courage to come to some great enlightened truth.

"I am willing!", I thought, as I bravely (naively?) clicked the link. It took me to a YouTube video with the following headline:

MUST SEE: AMAZING HISTORICAL PROOF THAT JESUS WAS NOT GOD!!!

Quick, do you recognize anything wrong with this headline? You should.

The headline alone should be a dead giveaway. It’s overtly sensational. It's also ALL CAPS, a red flag that is the online equivalent to shouting. And if that weren't enough, we also have excessive punctuation (!!!). At least they didn't go Full Monty and release the shift key!!!!1111

Of course, the "AMAZING HISTORICAL PROOF" in the video doesn't deliver on those sensational claims: its assertion is that the Didache, a short document written to the early gentile believers in Jesus, is actually a Church-suppressed secret containing proof that Jesus was not considered God-made-flesh by the early believers. It's supporting evidence? The Didache does not refer to Jesus as "Lord God", therefore Jesus wasn't considered divine.

If the fellow who used this video as his argument had actually bothered to read the Didache himself, he'd see that the document -- which is not some Church-kept secret, but a well-known publication -- in no way disproves Jesus' divinity, making the whole documentary seem a little silly at best, misleading sensationalism at worst.

Fine Kineti readers, learn to recognize sensationalism on the web. Avoid being deceived.

Keep a healthy skepticism, especially for religious materials. Do research, consider evidence outside your own beliefs. Don't be dismissive or mocking of people who see things differently. Identify your niche, your echo chamber, then deliberately read outside of it. Above all, prefer stable, grounded, qualified teachers over the sensationalist joe_schmuck_4_da_TRUTH@aol.com

Annoying Religious Spam

Dear Religious People of the Internetz,

Please refrain from using ALL CAPS WHEN TYPING. It’s the online equivalent of shouting, and makes you appear a fool.

Please don’t send me emails with ALL CAPS in the subject line. It decreases the chances of it being read.

Emails with gratuitous bolding, underlining, and crazy color schemes that highlight the latest end-of-the-world scenario have been safely ignored since 1988. You can’t milk that cow forever.

Emotion-based arguments are silly.

I won’t join your Facebook group.

I won’t forward your religious chain mail. Especially if it tries to lay guilt trips on anyone who ignores it:

“90% of the people that receive this Godly Jesus loving email won’t forward it to their friends because they’re afraid to offend. Or maybe you’re just ashamed of Jesus Christ.

Will you be one of the blessed few who forward this to everyone in their address book?”

No. No, I won’t be one of the ‘blessed few’.

If you send me more than 2 emails/day on average, I’m unlikely to read any of them. Especially if they are emotion-based arguments, or utilize crazy color schemes or migraine-inducing text highlighting. If you’re really writing that much, start a blog. If you’re just forwarding other people’s crap, stop it.

Using numbers in place of words is juvenile.

“Be baptised 4 the forgiveness of sins! Don’t be h8in’!!11”

When you do that, we’re left to believe you’re too lazy to type a few extra characters, or you’re a tweener. Either way, you come across as a fool.

Acting all religious, then cursing like a sailor on MySpace makes you look like a hypocrite.

If your argument references www.aol.com/members/~joesPreaching, I’m unlikely to take you seriously.

Likewise, Wikipedia shouldn’t be your only reference source.

When your doomsday emails suggest we purchase survivalist equipment,

Survival - What to buy? Farmland and ammunition.

…I’m unlikely to take you seriously.

Less so if you use headache-causing text formatting:

Survival - What to buy? Farmland and ammunition.

Even less so if you use ALL CAPS:

Survival – What to buy? FARMLAND AND AMMUNITION!

Yet less so if you misspell ‘survival’ and add gratuitous exclamation points and accidentally let up the shift key while making all those lovely exclamation points.

servival – what to buy? FARMLAND AND AMMUNITION!!!!!1111

Thank you, dear religious people on the internet, for your time and consideration.

Sincerely yours,
-A religious person on the Internetz

p.s. For tips on proper email and online etiquette, go here and then here and if you’re in the mood for some animation, go here.

Shlomo's Wisdom

A couple weeks back, I mentioned Massachusetts Institute of Technology's (MIT) guide to writing a philosophy paper, which equally could be applied to discussions on the internet:

“Pretend that your reader is lazy, stupid, and mean.”

He's lazy in that he doesn't want to figure out what your convoluted sentences are supposed to mean, and he doesn't want to figure out what your argument is, if it's not already obvious. He's stupid, so you have to explain everything you say to him in simple, bite-sized pieces. And he's mean, so he's not going to read your paper charitably.

Well, maybe King Shlomo had a more eloquent way of putting it:

A man of knowledge uses words with restraint, 
       and a man of understanding is even-tempered.

Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, 
       and discerning if he holds his tongue.

You know that last blog post about being saved by grace? I've made lots of long-winded replies in the comments. Probably haven't used my words with restraint. I need to make an effort to chose my words wisely. Too often I ramble on with lengthy diatribes to all the places my mind takes me.

Help!

Relative moralism and pseudo-tolerance rhetoric

When debating with folks over the truth of Messiah and Torah, I've noticed a pattern among the arguments of each opposing group, whether Muslim, Christian, atheist, agnostic, or Jewish.

In particular, the most common arguments I encounter are the Pseudo-tolerance argument, Relativist Fallacy, and the Hagelian Fallacy.

The Pseudo-Tolerance argument, a favorite among atheists and humanists, is structured like this:

1. "I must respect all opinions" (or some variation is presented).
2. Therefore I cannot say which opinions are better or worse.

An example is,

Me: I don't believe humans are reincarnated as lesser animals if we misbehave, I am not a Hindu. I do not believe Allah wants to kill all infidels, I am not a Muslim.

Antagonist: Well, I respect everybody's beliefs. Look, all paths lead to the same destination. Who's to say Jesus is the only way to God?

Or alternately,

Me: Homosexuality is a sin, as defined by Torah. If a Christian or Jew claims otherwise, he is ignorantly defying God's commandments.

Antagonist: Hey, I'm a [Jew/Christian] and I tolerate all beliefs, so why can't you? Who are you to say what's right and wrong? Certainly not bigots like you!

It is elementarily simple to understand why such an argument is flawed: not all arguments are equally true. To dismiss all arguments under the veil of tolerance is a flawed favorite of humanists who revel in today's politically correct culture. In essence, it gives them license to dismiss any view that is not universally accepted, regardless of whether it's true.

Regarding the argument that "Jesus is the only way to God", I point you to atheist Jew-turned-Jewish-believer-in-Messiah Art Katz's excellent teaching:

Have you heard of pluralism? The whole modern western world is pluralistic. That is to say, "many paths to God." There's no single truth.

Jesus made a remarkable statement: "If you see me, you see the Father, I and the Father are one. No man comes to the Father but by me. If any man comes any other way, that man is a thief and a robber." You guys realize what a scandal the gospel is? You realize how abrasive the gospel is? Do you realize that God has chose the foolish things? That there's nothing about the gospel that's intellectually credible? God has given us something calculatingly foolish, compared to the wisdom of the world. The world that is pluralistic and likes to consider many paths to truth has got to contend with a gospel that insists upon itself, and the Jesus of that gospel, as the only truth. It is uncompromising in its insistence. It is absolute in its expression. And the very question of absoluteness and singularity itself runs right across the whole tenet and grain of the modern world. You understand that? Do you understand how pluralistic the whole mindset of the world is, how many options -- I don't know's, the maybe's, the grey's, who's to say's -- and into that whole mucky world of vagaries, and choices, and nuances, comes one statement out of the heart of God: "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no man comes to the Father but by me."

If I hear anything from my Jewish kinsmen in conversations I have been involved with my people, invariably they bring up, "What about the other people of the world? What about Buddhists, what about Muslims, what about Hindus? Don't they have a religion, isn't it a world faith? Aren't there redemptive elements in these religions? And you feel a blush coming up to the roots of your being, when you have to insist and say, "No, these are satanic deceptions and false alternatives that lead unto death." To insist on the singularity of the gospel, to insist on the absoluteness of it: this is not just an issue of religion, it's hitting the world head-on in a confrontation of wisdoms, of moral systems, of mentalities.

Indeed, to the world, there are many ways to God. Or at least, many ways to a moral and ethical life. Each with beauty and advantage. Yet the reality remains there is but one truth. Many ways, but only one that leads to truth. That lends many ways to be false and leading to death.

Another common argument I encounter is the Relativist Fallacy. This one I've found to be surprisingly popular with religious folk, Christians in particular. That said, I've encountered it a number of times when speaking to leftist humanists, especially those specializing in humanistic ethics. It follows this structure:

Claim X is presented.
Person A asserts that X may be true for others but is not true for him/her.
Therefore A is justified in rejecting X.

An example is,

Me: Torah is for today, for Jews and Christians. God tells us it's an eternal and everlasting covenant with Israel. Because Christians are grafted into Israel through the Messiah of Israel, this applies even to gentile Christians.

Christian: The Law is fine for you Jews, but we Christians don't have to follow that; Jesus set us free from that bondage. Therefore, we are excused in our ignorance.

This is a fallacy because the assertion made is an objective one. If a similar statement was made of the world, "The world is large, and spherical in shape.", it would be a fallacy to reply, "Gee, that might be true for you, but for us, the world is small and flat." Likewise, objective statements must be either true or false, they cannot be true for some and false for others. In essence, this fallacy is used to excuse ignorance or rejection of an idea whilst still being polite and politically correct, thus making it a favorite among the modern PC culture, both religious and secular.

The last common flawed argument I encounter is the good old Hegelian Fallacy. It's the most common flawed argument spewed by agnostics. It's structured like this:

Position A and B are two extreme positions.
C is a position that rests in the middle between A and B.
Therefore C is the correct position.

An example is:

Atheist: Jesus is a myth; there's no evidence for him outside your bible. Even your bible wasn't written until 70 some years after the supposed events took place, leaving much room for hearsay and exaggeration. Even if Jesus did exist, it is absolute madness to claim he's the son of God or that he somehow rose from the dead. Humans don't come to life after dying. Period.

Me: Jesus most certainly existed; not only did the gospels record him, but many writings outside the New Testament wrote of him, including apocryphal writings, the secular historian Josephus, and even Jesus' enemies write about him in the Talmud. If the man didn't exist, why would so many people --friends, enemies, and neutral secular parties -- write about him?

Agnostic: Look, Jesus probably did exist. He had some great teachings and taught a lot about peace and love. But these "son of God", messianic claims are just exaggerations of his over-zealous followers. He was a great human teacher, and nothing more.

You like that? It's smug, cozy middle ground that doesn't step on anyone too harshly. It's also false: one cannot logically assume that an argument is correct simply because it's in the middle of two extremes. If that weren't true, then one could say the moon is made of cheese, and another say it's made of soil, only to take a correct middle ground that the moon is made of orange, moldy, milk-chunk soil. When presented in this light, it becomes apparent that the Hegelian argument is foolish nonsense.

In regards to the specific argument about Jesus being a great moral teacher but nothing more, the great atheist-turned-Christian C.S. Lewis had this to say,

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

----------------
Now playing: Steve McConnell - We Delight in Your Shabbat
via FoxyTunes