The Importance of Critical Thinking - 3,000 Widgets Per Hour

One sociopolitical issue where I am relatively progressive (at least on the American political spectrum) is when it comes to the rights and interests of workers. I support unions. I support at least many of the legal protections employees have in the United States and believe there are more we should have. I do think regulation (to a point) is necessary because one party is always going to have far more power than the other, and history demonstrates the ill effects of this. 

I do believe that generally free markets are important because it is the best way to generate the wealth for society that is necessary to keep everyone fed and out of poverty. But this is for practical reasons, not due to a pure, ideological commitment to the free market.

That said, one value that I hold dear is one that is truly non-partisan, but also one that unfortunately is increasingly becoming considered a conservative value (to the extent that anyone still values it at all). This value is sound, logical analysis apart from one's interests and emotions. It is the value of critical thinking.

This matters so much to me, in no small part, because of the human element to it. Poor thinking leads to bad outcomes that genuinely hurt people. It's not that I care about theoreticals over flesh and blood humans. It is specifically because I care so much about flesh and blood humans that I believe we need to think through these things clearly. People adopting what feels right and kind without caring about the actual result leads to far more suffering and heartache in the end.

The Meme of the Exploited Machinist

The meme below is a bit old, from a deleted page on Mastodon (reposted on Reddit), but the general message behind it still pops up on social media today. Its message, and my response to it, illustrates this concept.

Guess Who's Back, Back Again...

Hello there,

It's been a few years since I last posted here, but that doesn't mean I was going to be gone forever!

No, I didn't die lol I wasn't even disposed of or anything. Really, just a mix of life getting busy and writer's block took me away for a while.

I haven't totally stopped by writing and theological musings, of course. During this time, I have written a number of articles for Rethinking Hell, including my most recent here: https://rethinkinghell.com/2024/10/31/implications-of-evangelical-conditionalism-eternal-life-becomes-more-meaningful-vs-the-traditional-view/

Nevertheless, I figured it was time to dust off my old general blog. I don't know how frequently I will post here; after all, it was just an occasional thing well before the long hiatus. Nevertheless, there will be more coming, including a post I have ready to go (and I hope you'll like it).

One major development is that I began and recently completed a master of theological studies degree at Regent University (with a concentration in biblical studies). Not much about my doctrinal beliefs have changed, but now no one can say I am a nobody who has never even been to seminary. Now, I am a nobody who has been to seminary lol

Why Calling The US Tax Code Racist Is Not So Clear: Consistency and Logical Conclusions

It doesn't come up much here, as I use this blog to focus more on matters of religion and worldview, but I am an accountant by trade. And on some occasions, the two worlds intersect.

In this case, the issue at hand is racism and the United States Internal Revenue Code, which sets the laws for taxation at the federal government level. 

Full disclosure: I don't specialize in tax directly. It's not my specialty or field of interest. Nevertheless, I am a CPA (certified public accountant) and an EA (enrolled agent), so I have to maintain a working knowledge of tax law and practice. I know enough to be dangerous.

And so when an issue ties taxation with worldview, I may have some thoughts and insight (at least hopefully).

Jesus Did Not Tell His Disciples To Buy A Sword In Order To Make Himself "Among the Transgressors"

Whenever the question of whether Christians are ever permitted to use violence comes up, it is neither a secret nor a surprise that Jesus telling His disciples to buy swords in Luke 22:36 also usually comes up. It's not hard to understand why. Telling someone to buy a sword in the first century was like telling someone to buy a handgun today; it is a weapon with only one real use, and it is not to prepare food or chop wood.

Those who believe that Christians must never use violence ever, no matter what, understandably have rebuttals to this and explanations as to why, they believe, this passage does not justify the use of violence.

One such interpretation seems to be getting more popular. This interpretation is that Jesus told them to buy the swords so that it would look more like he was part of a violent mob, in order to fulfill Isaiah 53:12, which He cites in Luke 22:37 about Himself:

The COVID-19 Vaccines, The Cross, and Making Good Come Out of Past Evils

One area of substantial controversy over the multiple available COVID-19 vaccines is the use of fetal cell lines in their production. Needless to say, those who oppose abortion on moral grounds (as I do), based on the belief that a person is already alive inside the womb before birth (which I hold), are wary of anything that necessarily involves the death of an unborn baby.

For this reason, it is important to understand what is and is not happening, and to be reasonable and consistent in how we think through the matter and apply it to our lives.

In this post, my focus is more on the underlying worldview and moral implications of the use of fetal cell lines in the COVID-19 vaccines than on whether you should get a vaccine. With that said, the application will be in favor of the vaccine (or at least against declining the vaccine due to this particular issue).

Don't Let the Fall of Ravi Zacharias Threaten Your Christian Worldview (The Bible Predicted This Sort of Thing)

Needless to say, right now nothing good is being said about the late, formerly-great Christian preacher and apologist, Ravi Zacharias. And unless there is some massive and explosive revelation that the recent reports about him are actually false, probably nothing good will ever be said about him again.

It is now well-known news that Ravi Zacharias International Ministries published a report earlier this month, after an investigation by an independent law firm, that during his career, Zacharias committed not only acts of sexual immorality and adultery, but even sexual abuse and rape against multiple women (RZIM).

But while fans and followers of Ravi Zacharias certainly (and justifiably) feel stunned and betrayed, none of this poses any real challenge to the Christian faith and worldview. None of this should cause doubt or trouble us at a greater, meta level. And I don’t just mean this because we put our faith in Jesus and not men, or because broadly everyone is a sinner or what have you (although those things are all true).

This kind of thing was predicted by the Bible itself.

Government Welfare is, by Definition, Not Compassionate (Even If It Is The Right Policy To Have)

Government welfare is not compassionate. It cannot be compassionate by its very nature. And I say that as someone who is much more progressive on economic issues than I am on social issues. I support a lot of forms of government welfare. I think that they are ultimately the right types of things for government to enact. I just don’t think that they can be considered compassionate, nor can you call it compassionate to support them or vote for people who do.

The reason that it is not compassionate is simple: no party involved, neither government nor the taxpayer, willingly makes a sacrifice for the sake of others.

More Reasons to Think that Jesus Affirmed the Old Testament (and Not Progressive Christianity)

You may be sensing a trend here. In recent months, I have started putting more emphasis on and effort into dealing with the broad classification of progressive Christianity and the way that this theological system attempts to maintain a robust, genuine Christian faith while openly and knowingly belittling and dismissing much of the Bible.

The primary focus in this is what Jesus says in the Gospels, since a major component of what would be called progressive Christianity is setting Jesus's (apparent) teachings, as recorded in the Gospels, in conflict with the rest of the Bible and ultimately overruling much of it. The rest of the Bible is a lesser revelation, usually deemed to be a man-made attempt at understanding God in contrast to the true and ultimate authority of Jesus (as found in the much more accurate and reliable Gospels).

However, this whole approach to scripture and theology falls apart if Jesus Himself (in the Gospels) contradicts this theological system and affirms the truth, accuracy, and divine origin of the other scriptures (namely the Old Testament, since the rest of the New Testament did not exist yet).

Clearing Up Myths And Misconceptions About Adam and Eve

The narrative of Adam and Eve, in the first few chapters of Genesis, is one of the most commonly misunderstood parts of the Bible. For such a pivotal point in the Bible and human history, people make mistakes about it quite frequently.

In this context, I am not even talking about disagreements about the broader elements of the narrative. Was the earth and the life on it created in six literal days or longer? Are Adam and Eve literal humans who were actually the first humans to exist or are they allegorical? What broad and controversial issues in systematic theology apply (e.g. God's sovereignty, man's immortality, etc.). That is a whole different discussion.

I am simply talking about people missing key elements of the text, or coming to conclusions that are not hard to disprove from the text. Some of these mistakes are made by non-Christians who simply haven't read the actual text. But many mistakes are made by Christians who miss a verse here or there that refutes their belief, fills in a gap they believe exists, etc.

So let us dive in and clear these things up.

What Is With People Wanting to Re-Define Biblical Inerrancy (Instead of Just Denying It)?

I cannot think of any major doctrine within Christianity where there is such a tendency and desire to substantially and materially re-define the doctrine, rather than just denying it, as there is with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

Normally, if there is a doctrine that is defined by a belief you don't hold, you would just say that you don't accept that doctrine. No big deal. I deny doctrines all the time. Everyone does.

But I have noticed a trend, primarily among lay people who are nonetheless theologically learned, to want to fundamentally change what inerrancy means and embrace that version which is a fundamentally different doctrine.

First Things First

If you aren't familiar with the term "biblical inerrancy" (usually just called “inerrancy”), it is basically just the belief that each book of the Bible, when properly understood, in its original language as first written by its author, does not assert anything to be objectively true that is objectively false.

What Jesus Said About Hell Was Not Very Progressive (Even If He Didn't Say What You Might Think)

It amazes me how often non-Christians and liberal/progressive Christians appeal to Matthew 25:31-46, where Jesus talks about doing kindness to others being kindness to Him, in order to show that what matters to Jesus is generically being a good person because He is loving and not a mean, backwards religious fundamentalist.

Aside from particulars of who is in view in the passage (e.g. who are Jesus's "brothers"?), Verses 41 and 46 are explicitly about Jesus sending people into hellfire...

Compared to those who quote snippets of Jesus in order to shame people who say other things that Jesus said, I have much more intellectual respect for the likes of Bertrand Russell and other unbelievers who denied the faith because they took Jesus seriously:

Some Reasons to Think that Jesus Affirmed the Old Testament (and Not Progressive Christianity)

One of the major doctrines of the various ideologies that would go under the umbrella of progressive Christianity is that the Bible is not inerrant, and what Jesus says in the Gospels (which, unlike the rest of the Bible, are assumed to be true and accurate) overrules what is said elsewhere in the Bible.

This principle plays out in many ways. Some in the general progressive camp are much more upfront about this (e.g. author Benjamin Corey of the former Formerly Fundie blog) than others (like Peter Enns). But the general principle employed is that Jesus (i.e. what He says in the Gospels) is the only true revelation of God.

For this reason, none of the rest of the Bible is regarded as the word of God in any meaningful sense. The rest of the Bible is usually believed to be completely human in origin. The Israelites, in attempting to understand God as they imagined Him, wrote the Old Testament over the course of many centuries and attributed words and deeds to Him. It is not actually revelation from God, and therefore, there is no reason to try to harmonize it to the words of Jesus.

Jesus is The Word of God, but He Is Not the Only Word of God

The Lord Jesus Christ is the Word of God. But He is not the only (lower case) word of God that the Bible speaks of.

Sometimes it is asserted that the Bible is not the “word of God,” but rather, that term is reserved for Jesus alone.

This comes up in conversation with some who are under the broad umbrella of progressive Christianity, those who not only deny the doctrine of inerrancy, but who will even dismiss considerable portions of the Bible because, in their minds, they contradict what Jesus taught. Jesus is the special and unique “word of God,” and rather than seeing if what He says in the Gospels can be harmonized with the rest of scripture, it is believed that Jesus simply takes precedence and anything that seems to disagree with Him does disagree and therefore can be rejected. The rest of scripture is not of the same divine origin as what Jesus says in the Gospels.

J.K. Rowling And The Way Transgenderism Necessarily Allows For No Middle Ground

Over the weekend, Harry Potter author (and notable gay-rights activist) J.K. Rowling got into some hot water for some comments made on Twitter which many have called transphobic. 

These comments pertained to transgender men (i.e. biological women who identify as men) and the matter of whether or not only women can menstruate. Rowling declared her belief that this is the case ("People Who Can Menstruate").

Of course, from a biological standpoint, it is true that only women menstruate. Men do not. The only possible dispute one might make is in the case of those who are intersex, born with some degree of both male and female anatomy. However, even then, menstruation is recognized as a biological female attribute that the person has (part of what defines them as intersex), not a unisex one (like having eyes or a spinal cord).

The reason this is of any controversy at all is because transgender men consider themselves to be men, yet have female bodies that still perform the functions of female bodies (especially early on in the gender transition process). This means that there are people who menstruate (and occasionally even bear children) who identify as men.

This, of course, raises one of the most enormous worldview and societal questions of our time (at least in western society): is gender determined by biological sex or not?

Book Review and Commentary: Robert Gundry - Peter: False Disciple and Apostate According to Saint Matthew

Did Matthew intend to show the apostle Peter as an apostate?

I don’t do a lot of book reviews on my blog. I usually reserve them to Goodreads.com (a site specifically for book reviews) and occasionally Amazon.

But every once in a while, a theology book has greater significance than just its own contents and arguments.

This would book would seem to be the opposite. It really doesn’t seem to be anywhere in the public consciousness anymore. On Goodreads, three other people rated it, and one other person besides me wrote a review (and it was only one sentence long). Other than some reviews by religious scholars at the time the book came out, it just hasn’t been a big thing.

So why would a niche book that most people even among theology nerds probably haven’t read be worth additional attention?

This Year I Want to Be More Like Jesus - Updated Version

Lately on social media, I have seen a list of ways to be more like Jesus this coming year. From what I can tell, it was written (or at least popularized) by Craig Greenfield, author of the book Subversive Jesus. In fact, the original Facebook post added the caption "Be like Jesus...Subversive."

This list-meme has gained some popularity, and more than that, it encompasses some fairly popular ideas about Jesus that themselves deserve some analysis.

In light of this, I have decided to endorse the core content of this list. However, I figured I would add a bit to it to clarify each point (my additional comments in parentheses). Why? Because a lot of people can mean a lot of different things when they endorse a list like this. 

Besides, I too can be subversive.

When Some Doctrines Are Absurd on Their Face - Guaranteed Healing

In this entry on the last day of 2019, I am largely shooting from the hip in reaction to some interactions I have had on Facebook over the last year. But it seemed appropriate, because despite believing in an invisible God who is triune and grants prayers and everything else, I still do have some sense of healthy skepticism.

For that reason, there are times when, just by thinking about it, I can see holes in an idea that claims to be Christian and claims to be biblical. And while a convincing exegetical case for such a doctrine would require an exegetical response, usually that isn’t part of the discussion in these matter. At most, a few passages here and there are presented, clearly out of context or clearly not saying as much as the person presenting them seems to think. And so pointing out the problems even just on the surface of the view can get you a long way.

In this case, I am discussing a belief that is part of the so-called Word of Faith movement and spread about here and there that if you have faith in Jesus, you are guaranteed to be healed if you get sick.

Morality is Hierarchical, Not Absolute (Which Isn’t As Liberal As It Sounds)

One of the most useful ways I have heard moral dilemmas framed was that morality is hierarchical, not absolute.

I got this from an old church community group leader who studied both philosophy and theology and had a lot of very well-reasoned things to say. This was no exception.

Now, this is not to deny that morality is objective. This is not to deny that there is a lawgiver (being God). This doesn't mean that morality is dependent on culture or that there is no actual right and wrong. It just means that sometimes, moral principles will conflict so that you can't follow both of them fully and properly. In these cases, you have to choose to give priority to one over the other, and in doing so, you have not sinned.

Any time that you are in any moral dilemma, this idea of hierarchical morality comes into play, whether you think of it in those terms or not. After all, the whole reason we call it a dilemma is because different moral principles conflict and cannot both be followed.

Churches, Taxes, and Nonprofit Treatment

Every so often, the issue of tax-exemptions for churches and religious organizations in the United States comes up and raises a bit of ire. Of course, at least for the time being, it usually comes up because of an occasional meme floating around Facebook and Twitter, and not because of serious attempts by those in government to call the tax exemptions of religious organizations into question.

But what about tax exemption of churches and religious organizations? Isn’t this unfair special treatment? Shouldn’t pastors have to pay taxes on their income?

My goal here is to explain a bit about tax exemption for religious organizations, clear up a few misunderstandings, and hopefully improve the conversation about how to handle taxes and religious organizations by getting us all on some common understanding about the situation.

Do Millennials Delay Adulthood Because We Have Been Told So Often About How Terrible Adulthood Is?

It is no secret that those in my generation, the millennial generation, have been known for trying to extend adolescence and the simple joys of youth well past the point where past generations would have settled down, married and had kids, and otherwise started doing things we associate with being a real grownup.

Of course, this is by no means universal and is probably overplayed. But it does seem true that it is more common for people in my generation to delay things like marriage, child-bearing, home ownership, and other milestones of adulthood. The trope of men in their late twenties or early thirties who go to work in the day to pay the bills and then return to the apartment or house they share with multiple roommates and play video games until bed is not based on nothing.

The other day I saw something, a meme specifically, that got me thinking: could part of the reason millennials aren't so quick to fill the traditional roles adulthood (marriage, kids, demanding career) is because older generations have been so quick to tell millennials how terrible life is when you get older?