A Break from the usual: Culture and Dreams

A very 80s Album, still timely

 

 

This morning I had a dream where I was listening to the radio, some pop station.  I thought to myself, "Hey, this sounds a lot like a song from 30 years ago, but I know it's not."  So I started singing the words to this song:

 

Welcome to the truth custom made
Come in and have some lemonade
Reality will readjust while we evade
The issues that are pressing us
And getting so depressing but
Undressing and unstressing
Makes them go away

We're tired of solid ground
We're wired up for sound
From any fool who'll keep us
Cool with all his lies
Cool with all his lies

Ba-ba-ba-ba
Ba-ba-ba-ba
We believe, we believe
Cuz we felt it burning in our hearts
Ba-ba-ba-ba
Ba-ba-ba-ba
And it's true, yes it's true
If it gets us all thru the night
For the rest of our lives

If there's a master race, we're one
And if by chance they drop the bomb
The heat will never find us
Cuz we've learned to run
No absolutes to spoil our time
So we won't have to change our minds
Just hope that we won't die
While we're still in our prime

 

(Please, click the link to hear some good old 80's music you probably have never heard unless you were into "CCM" at the time.)

 

In the dream, I was amazed how the timing of the song was perfectly aligned with these lyrics...as a good hipster, I was recognizing the irony of pop music not evolving for 30 years past the formulaic constructions of a satirical Christian band.  (Although the 77s, Daniel Amos, Randy Stonehill, Mark Heard and others of that era were pretty innovative, IMO--especially lyrically.  Even when Terry Taylor was channeling the Beach Boys and the Beatles.)

 

It goes along well with Randy Stonehill's "Die Young" of the same era...and frankly, the criticism implicit in both songs is more appropriate than ever.  The ever-elusive promise of fulfillment through absolute freedom ends the same way, every time.  A happy nihilism is still nihilism...and happy nihilists often just turn into grumpy old men who can't stand anyone having any hope or suggesting that there's something more than being born, having fun, then being eaten by worms.





The Goodness of God and the Power of God: Part 5

A Robot Angel: Is this the eternal state of the Blessed?

So let's recap what I've discussed so far:

• God is all-powerful and can do anything
• God's actions can be limited, however, by His character and free choices
• Sometimes we do/allow certain painful things to achieve a greater good
• There's a lot of evil in this world
• Some evil is caused by evil humans; a lot of evil is caused by something else
• The free will reason for evil can explain some human-caused evil, but not natural evil--unless Satan has some power over natural forces
• Biblically, God sometimes intervenes to stop human-caused evil and sometimes intervenes to stop non-human-cause evil--but not always

With me so far?  And if not, why not?  (There is a comments section...please use it!  Well, politely, please.)

So let's get back to the character of God.  "Free will" is a popular theory, but it's not a full explanation for evil.  Even if you assign some pretty strong powers to Satan, he is still limited by God saying "thus far, and no further."  And Biblically, God does demonstrate periodic intervention to prevent evil--so Deistic claims that He just started the ball rolling and left it unfold "naturally" can't be called "Biblical" in any meaningful sense of the word.

So what can we know about His character?  If the free will theory is correct, this would reveal that God puts an enormously high value on the evil choices of human beings (higher than preventing all evil), but sometimes (rarely?) steps in to stop the evil that they chose.  There's also that pesky thought that the Telos for the universe contains a heaven of the Blessed, who are really, really better off than we are today--but free from doing evil (or even the possibility of doing evil).  So why go through all this pain and evil in the first place?

Some might think that a free choice must be made at some point for it to be real.  In that sense, then, the free will theory requires that for the best state to exist (heaven), there must be a real moral choice at some point.  And for that choice to be real, some will inevitably choose evil.  Therefore, for good to exist, evil must exist (or at least, have existed at some point.)

Think about the implications of that: that means that God is required to create a universe with a certain amount of evil in order to achieve the most goodness possible.  (In a round about way, we've just entered the "best of all possible worlds" theory...though this theory can be independent from the free will theory, too.)

Think of another implication: what of those who, dying at a tender age, have not exercised "free will" in a meaningful sense?  Infants who die shortly after birth?  Or before birth?  Are they permanently crippled with a "lesser" blessedness because they never faced a free moral choice?

Another implication: can God be meaningfully called "good" if the highest good can only exist because evil exists (or has existed)?  In His eternal state, was God not fully good because evil was lacking?  (Or was evil existing in eternity past if His knowledge of future evil existed in the eternal past?)  And if God knows for certain what He will create in the future, did He ever have a meaningful choice?

 

Ok, I'm getting a bit too philosophical here.  And my point isn't really to try to reason through something philosophically...enough of the rabbit holes for now.  Let's instead turn to Scripture.

 

So, when confronted with evil, what do we do?  We'll talk about free will.  Or we'll talk about God punishing people--that's why bad things happen (Job's "comforters" did this with lofty theological language about the fate of the wicked, to which God said essentially "Your friends are a bunch of idiots.")  But Jesus gave some insight on this:

 

As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, c“Rabbi, dwho sinned, ethis man or fhis parents, that he was born blind?” 3 Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but gthat the works of God might be displayed in him.  --John 9:1-3

Does this give us any insight?  Here, Jesus is asked a question by his disciples: who's fault caused this man's blindness?  Who did wrong?  Jesus said, no, it's not about sin, it's about displaying the works of God.

Of course, we know the rest of the story: Jesus heals the blind man, he goes along praising God, gets himself thrown out of the Synagogue because of his fanaticism, and people start saying Jesus has a demon because of this healing.

Is there some general principle that we can extract from here?  In my next installment, I'll hunt for other Scriptures that might show what Jesus was getting at.  Was it merely a very limited lesson, that the man was born blind so that at this moment in history Jesus could cure his blindness and thus show God's power?  Is there something more?  What does this tell about God's character?

Stay tuned.

The Goodness of God and the Power of God: Part 4

No, no...not "Free Willy", Free Will.  But making Killer Whales live in tiny bathtubs is evil.

So...what shall we say, then?  Given the universe as it is, and given the theistic God as all-powerful, what motivates His actions?  Why is He content to have things the way they are (even if it is for a limited amount of time?)

One of the most famous ideas for God's motivation is that of free will: God wanted to make a universe with free moral agents, knowing that some would choose evil, and others would choose good.  Only by "risking" the existence of evil could God insure the existence of the truly good.  There had to be a real choice to make beings truly "in the image of God" who would reflect His character--not because they had to, but because they chose to do so.

It's easy to see why this solution is attractive.  Since God wanted true moral choice, it was inevitable that some would choose to do evil.  So Hitler, Stalin, the Unabomber, Timothy McVey, Osama bin Laden, and the guy who just cut you off in traffic all chose to act the way they did.  That is the inevitable result of God allowing free choice.

But some might raise this objection:  exactly who's free choice is respected in this view?  I mean, maybe Hitler had some free choice...but what about his victims?  I don't think the Jews freely chose to be put in cattle cars, led to death camps, and ultimately gassed and cremated?  Where was their free will?  Or let's say a woman is drugged and sexually abused by an evil man--the man's free will was protected, but the woman did not freely chose her actions, did she?

This is often answered by saying that "free will" involves moral choice and not freedom of action.  That is, neither Hitler's victims nor the victim of rape made a moral decision to do good or evil in being subjected to evil; yes, their freedom was limited--but they were not compelled to act in an evil way against their will.

That's not a bad explanation, but it does reveal something about this universe:  in at least some cases, God is more interested in protecting the free will of evil people than protecting the freedom, health, or even life of the innocent.

Let that sink in: if the free will theory for accounting for evil is true, then the right to choose evil is often more important than stopping evil, at least in God's point of view.  There is a "higher good" (the free will of the evil choosers) than the "good" of stopping evil.  (Sounds a bit like the secret will of God, but I'm not going into the Arminian/Calvinist debate...yet.)

But a Biblical Christian who accepts this will also say that this freedom is not absolute--in the Bible, God often intervenes to stop evil:

• He stops wicked men from abusing Lot and his guests (Gen 19:4-11)...but He did not stop the men of Gibeah from abusing and murdering the Levite's concubine (Jud 19:22-26) 
• He stops the Egyptian armies from destroying the recently-freed Israelite slaves (Ex 14:26-31) ...but He did not stop Herod from murdering some Galileans while they were sacrificing (Luke 13:1-5)
• He heals Hezekiah from his sickness (2 Kings 20:1-11) ...but lets David's infant son die (2 Sam 12:14-23)

I could list many examples.  However, it is clear: the God of the Bible sometimes miraculously intervenes to stop evil, and sometimes does not.

So, we ask why?  Why does God sometimes stops the choice of evil men to harm the innocent, and sometimes does not?  Or, in the last example, allows sickness to kill, but at other times He heals the sick?  What is His motivation in all this?

Before I address this, I'd like to point out two more serious questions of the free will explanation for evil:

(1) Only a limited amount of evil can be explained by the choices of evil men.  There are other things that seem to have no connection with the free choice of an individual or groups of people: earthquakes, random genetic mutations, certain diseases, etc.  As I mentioned in the last post, these natural evils" often cause far more pain and suffering than the act of fellow humans.

There's a variation of the dualistic view of the Zoroastrians (two equally powerful Gods duking it out) where the devil is not as powerful as God (or anywhere close to it), but nonetheless can cause lots of evil, even what we call "natural evil."  The story of Job shows Satan in control of some natural forces...but please note: he still has to ask permission from God to take action against Job.  Thus, God is still not "off the hook" for the evil that befalls the righteous.

(2) In theistic belief, the eternal state of the blessed (for universalists, everyone) is an eternal blissful place called heaven, where we are in God's very presence forever and ever.  It's viewed as much, much better than our current state.

But the question arises: in the eternal state, are we still free moral agents?  Could we freely choose to do evil?

Some counter that we wouldn't want to do evil, so it wouldn't enter our minds--so we would never sin, it would be against our nature.  Well then, if it's possible for free beings to live in a state of sinless perfection and be free, why do we have to go through the current state of "free will means there must be some evil"?

I'll let you ponder that before my next installment.  Stay tuned, my friends.

The Goodness of God and the Power of God: Part 3

Victims of the 1918 Spanish Flue Pandemic

To recap: the theistic view of God affirms that He is all-powerful, that He can do whatever He wants.  Therefore, there is no theoretical limit on God's power.  However, there can be limits on what He actually does--these are limitations of character.

So, what is the theistic view of God's character?  What motivates His actions?  This is where theists of various stripes may start to diverge.  Before, however, I start looking at specific scriptures, I'll take a moment to look at what natural revelation suggests about God's character.  Because, no matter how lovely a theoretical system you build might appear, if it flies in the face of the reality we see around us, it is just pretty words.

To begin, once we acknowledge that God can do anything, then we should acknowledge that the universe around us is exactly as He wishes it to be.  That is, if God wanted to, He could step in and change things.  Forget whether or not God knows the future (as Open Theists deny); if He is all-powerful, if He sees something happening right now that He doesn't like, He can step in and change it.

Another factor: not everything in this universe is "good", as I understand this term to mean.  Indeed, by the standards of my culture (a terribly limited historical perspective, as well as one where there is not full agreement on what constitutes "good"), the universe has some things that seem very bad.

We could go through the litany of usual suspects: evil humans en masse achieving evil (ISIS being the current bugbear, but Hitler has been in our popular vocabulary for decades now); individual humans doing evil to others (murderers, rapists, child molesters, and other universally condemned criminals); oppressive human systems (whether political, social, economic, or religious, technically not illegal, but causing great human suffering); intentional and unintentional consequences of human action (such as pollution causing birth defects); and any other human evil one can think of.

Beyond these human-caused pollutants on the moral landscape, there are other things that, from a human perspective, can be viewed as "evil".  Diseases that are not caused by human malice, such as small pox or malaria; earthquakes; and volcanic activity.  These events we really can't chalk up to "free will" (more on this term in future posts), but they nonetheless cause great human suffering.  As an example, the 1918 Spanish Flu Pandemic killed 50,000,000 to 100,000,000--while the First World War, fought for four years at the same time, killed a "mere" 5,000,000 or so.  At best, our evil is pretty limited, compared to what happens "naturally."

Yet, if we theists are right, it is within God's character to allow this.  It really doesn't do any good to say that God doesn't want the universe to be as "messed up" as it is--if He wanted to end all suffering, He would.

So what, then?  Does natural revelation paint that God is some kind of monster?  Or is something else at play here?

Remember Col. Flagg and the electric cattle prod?  We humans sometimes do things that hurt us on one level to achieve another, greater result (or at least what we view as "greater").  Every slightly insane person who laces up in the morning to run does so--the pain of exercise is judged worth it to improve one's health (alternatively, to get an endorphin high).  Or slapping a child's curious hand away from a hot stove--the temporary welling of tears is judged worth it to prevent greater harm to the child.

So--sometimes we do things that, in and of themselves, we would like to avoid; but because the universe is made the way it is, we acknowledge that we need to go through a certain amount of pain or other unpleasantness to achieve what we want.

Now, I chose that wording carefully:  because the universe is made the way it is.  Theists claim that the universe is created the way it is by an all-powerful God.  He's the one that made the universe the way it is--He is the one who decided the write the "rules of the game" as it were.  So He's the one that made the "rule" that to get into shape you need to exercise, or that cooking food requires hot stoves that sometimes can burn curious little hands.

Some things to consider about the "rules of the game": some rules are seeming necessities, logically speaking.  Others, may be logical necessities, but we really don't know.  But of course, that assumes that God is limited by the rules of logic...but does that mean that God says "I really want to do this, if it weren't for those meddling rules of logic!"?   (Cue the Scooby Doo's villain's lament.)

As a theist, I seriously doubt it.  If rules of logic limit God's actions, they can't be a "higher law" above God to which He must conform.  They would be expressions of His very character--or else why wouldn't we just worship the rules of logic, since they seem more powerful than God Himself?  Unlike the pagan view of the gods being overruled by the fates, the theistic God is greater than anything imaginable.

So, I think we're faced with an inescapable conclusion: the universe is the way it is, because God wants it to be that way.  And if we left our analysis there, we would be faced with a God who has ideas of morality that are alien to our own (or even evil as we would define it).  We imagine that if we had the power of God, we would start smiting evildoers before they have a chance to do evil, stop earthquakes from killing people, and generally make this world more like Disneyland and less like the Thunderdome.

But is that the end of the story?  Is God capricious, or evil, or has an alien sense of morality (or the atheist's stance, non-existent?)  Well, it's not the final word as I see it...as we'll see in the next part, where we start looking at theistic explanations that maintain that yes, God could stop all evil if He wanted to, and no, He doesn't, and no, this doesn't make Him evil.  Stay tuned.

The Goodness of God and the Power of God: Part 2

Col. Flagg, choosing his nature with an electric cattle prod.

So...moving on from the last post, I've hopefully established that the God of the theists (traditional Jews, Christians, and Muslims) is all-powerful, and that yes, He could stop evil if He desired to do so.  It is not a lack of power that limits God's response.

Consider the implications: if God is truly all-powerful, then either His action or inaction are equally possible for Him.  That is, acting to stop evil requires no energy, no effort for God.  Being all-powerful means that the only limitation is not ability, but desire.

Or is it?

Consider: I, as a finite being, can do certain things, but am physically incapable of other things.  With reasonably healthy legs, I can walk.  I can run.  I can splash around in a pool and call it swimming.  But lacking wings, I cannot fly.  (Even if I board a plane, my altitude and speed are limited by the technology that other humans are clever enough to design).  I can eat a large meal, but I cannot eat the world.  Such are physical limitations.

But I also have other limitations, limitations of desire of course, but also limitations of character.  I cannot not love chocolate.  I cannot choose to dislike the music of Clint Mansell.  I can force myself to listen to Kayen West, but I cannot force myself to like him.

I didn't sit down one day and say, "Here's what I'm going to choose to like, and here's what I'm going to choose to dislike."  Maybe some of my likes and dislikes were formed in the womb.  Maybe long before, with my genes being selected by a process wholly apart from my own volition.  Or maybe as I grew up, I was influenced by my environment to have certain likes and dislikes.  Whatever the cause, I never chose my likes and dislikes.  As one quote I heard years ago put it: "We can do whatever we want.  But we can't want whatever we want."  (If anyone knows who said this, I'd like to attribute the quote correctly.)

I suppose I could go through some kind of conditioning that would change my desires.  But I would first have to desire to change those desires.  And I also question the effectiveness of trying to re-make one's desires by effort.  It usually ends in bitter failure.  Alcoholics don't stop drinking because they cease to love alcohol; they stop drinking (if they do) because despite their desire, they chose another action--because of a higher desire.

So...is God limited by His nature?  Does He have some kind of nature that was not self-chosen to which He is subject?  Or does being the all-powerful Creator of the Cosmos mean that He has a self-chosen nature?  In essence, what motivates God?  What limits His choices, if not His nature?

Honestly, I can't think of a clear Biblical passage that says if God choses His own nature or not.  That question is probably beyond us (though that doesn't stop philosophers from speculating.)  But it does reveal that He has a nature, He has motivations, and He is able to accomplish what He wills.  Indeed, I cannot think of a single Biblical passage that indicates that His plans are ever frustrated.  Rather, many passages that show He is in control:

8  Let all the earth fear the Lord;

let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him!

9  For uhe spoke, and it came to be;

he commanded, and it stood firm.

10  The Lord vbrings the counsel of the nations to nothing;

he frustrates the plans of the peoples.

11  wThe counsel of the Lord stands forever,

the plans of his heart to all generations.

12  xBlessed is the nation whose God is the Lord,

the people whom he has ychosen as his heritage!

13  The Lord zlooks down from heaven;

he sees all the children of man;

14  from awhere he sits enthroned he blooks out

on all the inhabitants of the earth,

15  he who fashions the hearts of them all

and observes all their deeds.

16  cThe king is not saved by his great army;

a warrior is not delivered by his great strength.

17  dThe war horse is a false hope for salvation,

and by its great might it cannot rescue. --Psalm 33:8-17

 Or this:

Why do sthe nations rage1

and the peoples plot in vain?

2  The kings of the earth set themselves,

and the rulers take counsel together,

against the Lord and against his tAnointed, saying,

3  “Let us uburst their bonds apart

and cast away their cords from us.”

4  He who vsits in the heavens wlaughs;

the Lord holds them in derision.

5  Then he will speak to them in his xwrath,

and terrify them in his fury, saying,

6  “As for me, I have yset my King

on zZion, my aholy hill.” --Psalm 2:1-6

Or this:

5  You, jLord God of hosts, are God of Israel.

Rouse yourself to punish all the nations;

spare none of those who treacherously plot evil. Selah

6  Each evening they kcome back,

howling like dogs

and prowling about the city.

7  There they are, lbellowing with their mouths

with mswords in their lips—

for n“Who,” they think,2 “will hear us?”

8  But you, O Lord, olaugh at them;

you hold all the nations in derision.

9  O my Strength, I will watch for you,

for you, O God, are pmy fortress.

10  qMy God in his steadfast love3 rwill meet me;

God will let me slook in triumph on my enemies. --Psalm 58:5-10

The plans of kings are, well, laughable to God.   All that pomp and glory of the earth, all that military might, all that wisdom and power--pfft!  He is not in the least bit concerned that His plans will go awry, that somehow evil plans will be successful.

Yet in these passages--they're not the ones we really like (or we tend to like only parts of them).  God laughing at His enemies isn't really a popular image--some might see a mocking that is unworthy of God (as they define Him) and more like a bully.  And that word "wrath" comes up, too...another word that some tend to minimize.  But that's part of the biblical message.  Maybe not an easy part, but still a part.  (Of course, if one canonizes Marcion, all bets are off...I'll address the weakness I see in that position later on.  And honestly, I think that this is a default theological position of many Christians today, both conservative and liberal.)

So...did I answer anything in today's blog?  Probably not.  But I just want to make it clear that, from a Biblical perspective, God lacks no ability to accomplish what He desires.

In future posts, I'll address the question: Ok, if God can do whatever He desires, what does He desire?  And actually, that theological question, even if it sounds innocuous  to you (and it shouldn't), is probably the single question that divides believers more than any other.  A host of other theological implications flow from how one answers that question.

The Goodness of God and the Power of God: Part 1

Christians (and indeed, traditional theists of various stripes--including traditional Jews and Muslims) are faced with an issue: if God is all powerful, and God is all-good, why does He tolerate evil in the world?

I cannot presume to solve this riddle in a mere blog, nor can I hope to state something original that no one has ever considered.  This is an old, old theological conundrum, and strong believers have come to differing conclusions on this matter.

Perhaps there is no fully coherent answer to this question; though it's clear that some answers are less coherent than others.  At some level, any attempts to answer the question tend to qualify one or more of the statements.  For example:

• "All powerful" doesn't mean what you might think it means
• "All good" doesn't mean the same thing as what you might think it does
• "Tolerating evil" isn't exactly what is happening

Some atheists or deists will say we're trying to square the circle with our explanations, that we should just admit that at least one of these assertions (if not all three) are false.

But the Bible (and the Quran, for that matter) makes statements that support all three assertions, and if we believe that God has spoken to us, then we should try to address it while doing justice to all three propositions.

To begin with, what does it mean to be "all powerful"?  Well, at an absolute bear minimum, it should mean that God is able to do more than the most powerful human.  If a human being can reach the moon, for example, it would be foolish to claim that God cannot.  If human beings can organize violence against evil doers to defeat Hitler (nod to Godwin), then it would be folly to claim that God was too weak to defeat Hitler.

When you assert that God is Creator of all that is, seen and unseen, this minimal standard needs to be magnified by near-infinite orders of magnitude.  If God can create life, create human beings, form the nuclear furnaces of stars at His command, breathe and have galaxies appear--well then, that's a pretty high standard of power, one that humans never can conceivably achieve.  (Maybe a few things that impress us around the edges--make nuclear weapons, send probes to distant planets, defeat age-old diseases--but in the vast scheme of things, our accomplishments on this pale blue dot are less than dust.)

Some have tried to assert that God isn't all-powerful, rather, He is "Omni-competent", not Omnipotent.   Some open theists, for example, are fond of this term.  God can't do impossible things, like make a square circle or make something both exist and not exist at the same time.

However, this "Omni-competence" really doesn't get God "off the hook" as it were.  Even if you assume that God cannot know future events (a dubious position if one accepts the Bible), once they happen, the open theist will acknowledge that God is not ignorant of current events.  So, let's say God didn't know Hitler was to arise and cause such evil.  Fine, absolve Him from creating a monster because He didn't know he would be a monster.  But the fact remains that Hitler lived for many years and did much evil, and yet God did not strike him down.  An open theist did not address why it took several years to do so.  Did he need the Soviets and allies to defeat Hitler?  Or could He have done it Himself?

Saying God could not have defeated Hitler is patently ridiculous.  Even a good old-fashioned pagan god had some pretty cool powers, and a god who couldn't defeat a mere mortal is a pretty lousy god.  Heck, he's not even a good superhero.

So others will say well, stop for a moment--maybe God is powerful, but he's opposed by other powerful forces--an anti-god, or a different version of the devil.  The faith of Zarathushtrianism traditionally held such a view, known as cosmic dualism.  God is pretty awesome, Creating all good things like the sun, humans, and dogs (one reason to really like this religion--dogs have a prominent place), but the evil spirit also creates and is also powerful--he made stuff like disease, darkness, and certain harmful animals.  The cosmos is a battlefield on which these forces fight, and we need to chose which one to follow: light or darkness, good or evil.

Much as I admire Zoroastrianism, it is not a theistic system and is antithetical to the Bible.  Isaiah ironically addresses one of the most admired non-Jews in the Bible, Cyrus, with these words:

5  xI am the Lord, and there is no other,

besides me there is no God;

yI equip you, though you do not know me,

6  zthat people may know, from the rising of the sun

and from the west, that there is none besides me;

I am the Lord, and there is no other.

7  I form light and create darkness,

I make well-being and acreate calamity,

I am the Lord, who does all these things. --Isaiah 45:5-7

I don't think this was an unintentional slight on Cyrus' Zoroastrian faith.

In the end, I don't think dualism is viable, nor does the universe as it is bears out that there are two opposing forces duking it out.  Rather, things like disease and death seem wholly baked in to the cosmos as it is today--life cannot exist apart from death, disease is just another name for a creature feeding off another to survive and reproduce.

So...briefly, I think it's safe to claim that the God of the theists is all-powerful, and could stop evil if He wanted to.  But, looking around us, He doesn't.  So we have to look at the other two components of the dilemma.  And I'll address these issues in future blogs.

Meme Fail of the Day

Sometimes I come across memes here on Facebook that make me laugh.  Some make me roll my eyes.  Others--well, others deserve a headdesk because they are so unselfconsciously silly.

In general, like Twitter (I have an account but it's rarely active), memes attempt to condense profound thoughts in a picture and a few words.  Sometimes this can be done well.  Sometimes there can be a lot of wisdom in a few words and a picture, enough to make us think, laugh or at least pause for a moment.

At other times, though, they fail, and fail badly, to convey the meaning that they attempt to convey.  This can be because they aim to simplify the complex, and the medium really isn't fit for it.  A treatise on the Anthanasian  Creed won't really be captured in a meme...nor will the complexity of hydrodynamics.  But sometimes they work well, especially if they're about parenting small children, making fun of silly people, or extolling the virtues of coffee.

But the ones that are headdesk-worthy...well, you just have to see them.  And here's one for you now:

A friend shared this from Allen West a few weeks ago.  (And if you're reading this, please--I'm not making fun of you...I'm making fun of Allen West and whoever made the meme.  Remember, I love you, bruh.)

But let's deconstruct this meme, shall we?

To begin, sure, it's entirely fare to criticize the claim that Islam is "the Religion of Peace".  We can talk about that, see if the label fits.  It's ok to examine statements in the Quran, Hadith, and those of Islamic scholars that might make one question if that label is accurate.

But what this meme is seeming to say is that "if a religion claims to be one of peace, the place where there a lot of adherents of that faith should be peaceful."  Fair 'nuff...but do you really want to go there?  Really?  I do remember something about stones and glass houses, so do be prepared....

Let's ask ourselves a question: can it be said that Christianity is a religion of peace?  Jesus is called "The Prince of Peace", but He also said "I come not to bring peace, but a sword".  Whatever nuance we should bring to these verses, I think it's safe to say that Jesus thought that love was pretty important...indeed, that love was the whole of the law.

So, by the logic of this meme, shouldn't the places with the highest number of self-identified Christians be, well, full of love?  Shouldn't, say, Europe, be full of peace, sweetness and light?

Well, it is a pretty peaceful place currently (aside from the Ukraine and the recent unpleasantness in the Balkans.)  It's also largely post-Christian.

But back when the majority of Europeans were self-identified Christians of various sorts, was it a peaceful place?  After the Roman Empire was largely Christianized, did it become peaceful (except of course for those nasty Muslims invading, of course)?

Hardly...it was wracked by war, political intrigue (in which the Church was a major player), and even pogroms against Jews or fellow Christians (who didn't quite see things they way others did).  And though the Intelligentsia was already moving away from any real faith by the start of the twentieth century, the rank and file soldiers of the armies of Europe were still Christians in the two most devastating wars of human history.  Gott Mit Uns, indeed.

The violence of the Middle East?  A bunch of pikers.  European Christendom (and those of European descent in these colonies) developed modern weapons of mass destruction, modern conscript armies, strategic bombing of cities, poison gas, et cetera ad nauseam.

"But wait!  That's not fair!  They weren't real Christians!"  Ok, fine...laying aside the no true Scotsman fallacy, don't move the goalposts.  The logic of the meme was that if there are bunch of Muslims in a place, and Islam is the religion of peace, then that place should be full of peace, Q.E.D.  No one is asking if these are "real" Muslims or not in this meme (and as I said, it's fair to ask "what does Islam really teach?"--but the meme skips that question.)  So why should we add that standard to the same question of Europe?  If the history of a region is proof-positive as to the nature of the religion of its adherence, then the history of Europe would suggest that Christianity is a baptized variation of the Ares cult.

In the end, memes are, well, propaganda.  They don't inform, they assume and they try to present statements in a way to say "you are a brain-dead fool if you don't agree with what I'm saying here."  They are not eloquence, they are not debate--they are virtue-signaling to the friends you agree with, and snarky comments to your friends who don't.

"Worst Mass Shooting in U.S. History..."

[[Note:  I wrote this a couple of days ago.  I've actually been seeing a lot of posts clarifying the erroneous claim that the Orlando Massacre was the "worst mass shooting in history."  That is heartening.

However, let's be clear: do not use the media's false claim obscure the fact that the Orlando Massacre was a horrific crime.  Do not try to say "Teh Gayz haven't really suffered".  Rather, realize that the Orlando Massacre is but one of many in a sad history of mass killings. But please do not allow the victims of these other killings be forgotten merely because they are more historically distant.]]

As expected, this country is intensely focused right now on the Orlando atrocity--and that's not just expected, it's probably a good thing.  It means that we're still human--when we mourn, when we struggle to make sense of tragedy.  I read a lot of thoughtful posts and blogs, and this has led many to deep thinking and re-thinking of positions.

Of course, there is also a lot of confirmation bias in what is posted.  As each new revelation comes forward, we try to incorporate it into our own worldview, and seek to understand how each fact builds up support for our political, ethical, and religious viewpoints and/or prejudices.

One unconscious statement that is present in most news stories that I read and many blogs:  "this is the worst mass shooting in U.S. History."  Some more cautious news stories say "worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history"--of course, there is some kind of understanding what date or event brought us to this "modern" era:  was it World War I?  World War II?  Vietnam?  The invention of the printing press?  No elaboration is given, no definition of what events constitute "mass shooting" and which ones are excluded in this definition.

For a grim exercise, I looked up in Wikipedia "List of massacres in the United States."  A pretty grim listing--and not yet updated for Orlando.  It didn't even have Columbine or San Bernardino.  Indeed, the last event listed was in 2000 when a "mere" five people were massacred in Wichita, Kansas.  So I'm not really sure why only certain massacres are listed in Wikipedia, why others didn't make the cut.  Helpful as ever, though, Wikipedia also links for events like Lists of Rampage Killers, School Shootings, Terrorism Deaths, Race Riots, and even the usually over-looked Indian Massacres.  Helpful categories for the Reaper's stat book.

There are some pretty famous events there--the Boston Massacre (5 dead), and the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre (7 dead).  Others that are less known, such as Bloody Island Massacre (60-100 dead)--an action of our own military in 1850.  Other events that are of special interest to certain people--the infamous Mountain Meadows Massacre in 1857 where some 100-140 settlers were killed by Mormon Militia under the flag of truce.  Or the horrible Fort Pillow Massacre when Confederate troops massacred 277 Union negro troops who were trying to surrender.

Maybe the categories of murder are somewhat muddy, but bearing mention is the Greenwood Massacre, a race riot in Tulsa resulting in the destruction of 35 city blocks of African-American residents, leaving over 10,000 homeless.  Official body count was 39, but other credible estimates are as high as 300.  And this happened in 1921.  Does this count as "modern", I wonder?

But the one event, for some reason, always comes to mind in eternal halls of shame in U.S. History: the massacre at Wounded Knee on December 29, 1890.  Over 150 Lakota men, women, and children were killed by U.S. Army troops.  Twenty-five soldiers lost their lives, many of whom were killed by friendly fire.  And for this atrocity?  Twenty Medals of Honor--our nations highest award for valor--were awarded.  (Proposals to remove these awards have fallen on deaf ears.  Bravely done, lads.

I do not wish to take away one tiny bit of mourning for the victims in Orlando.  But with the historical memory of goldfish and with a propensity to feel more deeply tragedy against those who look like us, we often silence the mourning of others.

What does it say about our society, our cultural memory, when we do not even remember the worst atrocities done in our country--and those atrocities done by our democratically-elected government itself?  What does it say if we are offended that someone would dare question the official narrative of the mass media?  "Don't bring up Wounded Knee--we're mourning now!"

Sure, let the victims mourn, and their families.  But those of us who sit afar off, who are touched only through the computer screen or looped video tape on 24 hour news, let's not turn this into an opportunity to think that somehow we are living in the Most Horrid Time Ever(TM) and Things Have Never Been This Bad(R).  We forget--how easily we forget!--the horrors that others have experienced--do experience--in our name.

If we are to respond appropriately to this atrocity, let us never distort the truth, never allow our emotion to overrule reality.  Recognize Orlando for what it is--and for what it isn't.