Three in One, One in Three, Huh?

I have been doing some reading recently about the Trinity. In its most general sense, the Trinity is a theological doctrine that says that the Father (God), the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit are all different, yet the same. No, there weren't any typos in that last sentence. They are three faces of what has been referred to as the "Godhead". They are eternal and were not created. They have always existed.

During the development of the early Church, the relationship between God and Jesus was hotly debated. One group, led by a man named Arius, held that God was eternal, but Jesus was not. God created Jesus and was therefore superior to him. This view is called Arianism. In the 330s A.D., the pope called a council that was held at Nicea. One of the issues the various church fathers discussed was this relationship between God and Jesus. After debating the matter for a while, the council voted (yes, VOTED) to see which view would be considered orthodox. By an overwhelming majority, the so-called Trinitarians prevailed. To this day, modern Christianity is overwhelmingly Trinitarian. However, this took a while. There were two post-Nicea Roman Emperors who were Arians. Even after the Roman Empire embraced Trinitarianism as orthodox, most of the so-called "barbarians" (those Christians living outside the boundaries of the empire) were still Arians. It wasn't until the 8th or 9th century that Arianism really began to die out.

In the 17th century, one of the great minds in human history, determined that Arianism was the "true" form of Christianity. Isaac Newton was not only one of the foremost scientists ever, but he was also very well-versed in theology. He spent far more time in his life studying the Bible and theological issues than he did doing experiments and writing about them. Almost none of his theological writings were published until well after his death. If they had been, he would have become a pariah in European culture and would not have been able to produce his scientific theories. Newton determined that some of the main Biblical passages supporting Trinitiarianism were actually fraudulent.

Frankly, I don't see what all of the fuss is about. From what I have read, there are Biblical passages supporting each position. Trinitiarianism became orthodox via popular vote almost seventeen centuries ago. Yet, a man with the capacities of Newton did his own research and reached a different decision. While it strikes me as odd, I'm not necessarily against a democratic approach to determining what should be considered "orthodox", and I'm not saying that the Arian view is correct simply because Newton took that position. I simply don't see why everyone cares so much. Does it change the basic message of Christianity? Does it really matter what the essential essence of Jesus is? Does it matter if there is a hierarchy between God and Son? It seems to me to be much like arguing over the color of the table cloth at the Last Supper.

Authority and the "Truth"

I have been giving a lot of thought lately to how we "know" things. I guess it is more accurate to talk about what we THINK is "true". We can have a subjective belief that we "know" something and still be wrong.

I would be curious to know what % of our information is derived from sources beyond our own personal observations. The information that most of us obtain through personal experience is fairly limited. This is especially true when we consider what we learn about various ideas during our education. For example, I have been taught that the earth orbits the sun, but I'm not sure I would even know how to begin to go out and prove that for myself. I still accept that as "truth".

Why?

We learn quite a bit from those considered "authorities". How does one get to be an "authority"? Typically, one becomes an "authority" because others say it is so. Again, we are acquiring this information from an outside source. The "logic train" runs in two directions. First, we can say that "X says R is true, and X is an authority, so the likelihood is that R is, in fact, true." Or we can go in the opposite direction. We can say "X has said A, B, and C. A, B, and C, either through my own observations or through the opinions of others, appear to be true. Therefore, X must be an authority."

Things get really tricky when X says "I am an authority". How does one evaluate that? You could listen to J, K and L, who might also say X is an authority, but then you are just substituting their opinion for X's. Things get even trickier when X says "I am an authority, and I say Z is true." If I can't determine independently that Z is true, what am I supposed to do?

This last example is (albeit in an oversimplified state, perhaps) the Bible. The Bible proclaims itself to be the "authority". It is "the word of God". It also says that God is omnipotent and beyond error. If we decide that God is omnipotent and that the Bible is the "word of God", then we can reach no other conclusion except that "the Bible is the authority". The problem, from a purely logical standpoint, is that God and the Bible prop each other up in what is essentially an exercise in circular reasoning. The Bible says God is omnipotent. The Bible says God is beyond error. The Bible says that the Bible is the word of God. Therefore, we must believe what is in the Bible because it was created by an omnipotent, error-free God. In a sense, they begat (to use a good Bible word) one another. Again, purely from the perspective of logic, that is cheating.

I don't intend this to be an attack on the Bible or on God. If you have read any of my other blog entries, you will appreciate the fact that I am a question asker. I am a searcher. The quest for understanding, to me anyway, is just that. A quest. I don't think we are ever supposed to get done. Humility and a realization of our own limitations empower us to say "I don't know" so we can keep looking.

The Abortion "Debate"

Abortion is probably the most heatedly discussed issue in American politics today. That doesn't mean it is the most important, just the most heatedly discussed.

The majority of what passes for "discussion" falters badly for a simple reason - the opposing sides are arguing different issues. Those who tend to oppose abortion (I am avoiding self-serving titles like "pro-life" and "pro-choice" like the plague here) do so from the position that whatever is in the mother's womb is a human and is therefore entitled to all of the protections, legal and moral, any other human is entitled to. Those who tend to favor abortion (at least in some circumstances) do so from the position that only the mother, from the perspective of her own conscience and values, can make such a difficult and momentous decision.

In other words, the anti-abortion camp says basically "abortion shouldn't be permitted because of this, this, and this." Their opponents say in return "but these are very difficult questions that reasonable people could disagree about. Why does YOUR view get to take precedence over MINE when my body is the one involved?" The positions can even debate each other directly because they aren't directly opposed in any true sense. It would be like one person arguing that Babe Ruth is the greatest baseball player ever, and another wanting to discuss what criteria are being used to determine the "best".

Since this is my blog, let me set forth what I think should be the paradigm for discussing this issue. Here are the key questions, in my opinion:

1. When does human life begin?
2. Once human life has begun, at what point is it entitled to certain fundamental rights?
3. Should the rights of the mother count? If they do, how do they compare to the rights of what is inside of her?

I'm not offering any answers just yet. I think the road to correct answers begins with the asking of proper questions.

Darker Days

Note: I originally wrote this in 2005. I just found it and still like it. Here it is.

Someone sked me once what I thought the most powerful weapon in the world was. I am not an expert in weapons. I gave it some thought and decided that the idea is the most powerful weapon. Ideas, after all, control the hands that hold the weapons. But ideas are difficult to control.

I think we (in the U.S. anyway) live in a society where various forces are constantly battling to control our ideas. This is scary when you consider how limited (either by lack of education, lack of interest, or lack of ability) a lot of our population is in processing the information we are pelted with on a daily basis. Throw in technology's improved ability to "spread the word" and the idea becomes much less unwieldly.

Up until a few centuries ago, Joe and Jane could just get together with a bunch of their neighbors, pick up their farm implements, and take on the government by force. Their chances of success weren't all that great, but at least they had a chance assuming they could muster up enough bodies for the effort. Those days are over. Military technology is such that now a very small number of people can keep a very, very large number of people under their collective boot through sheer force. It is vital that concepts of individual liberty, acceptance of minority views, and toleration of dissent remain alive and well in our collective conciousness. If they don't, it may well become tempting to simply resort to naked force in order to quell the suggestions of those with whom we disagree. Once the day arrives when those who control access to technological force decide to establish their authority over those who do not, that authority will become practically perpetual. No longer will their be any hint of open discourse, no give-and-take of ideas, no interaction of opposites that ultimately drive us towards truth. "Truth" will be what "they" say it is. And once the rest of us are told something enough times, over and over, we will eventually believe it.So, I'm satisfied that my answer to the question was a good one. The harder, and more important, question may well be WHICH idea.

Why We Need Campaign Finance Reform

Donating money to some campaign is the equivalent of exercising our right to free speech, isn't it? Not so much. Freedom of speech, classically, is wedded to the notion of the "marketplace of ideas". Freedom of speech is necessary to allow varying viewpoints to "compete" with one another so that one of them can "win". Ok, so it doesn't work as tidily as that in the real world, but that is the premise.

Does money do anything to improve the "quality" of the speech? Do those candidates and causes that can raise the most money have the best message? Clearly not. More likely, they simply have a better chance of winning a given election. Money does not impact the quality of the ideas being offered. It simply increases the VOLUME at which they are offered. In effect, we tend to vote for that which is the loudest, not that which has the most merit. Freedome of speech has nothing to do with volume.

Now that we have gotten around that issue (now all that we need is a Constitutional amendment!), let's take a serious look at campaign financing. I recall an election in Missouri where one side was complaining because one of the main financial backers of a specific issue was based in New York state. Why in the world should anyone, or anything, in New York get to donate money to impact an election in Missouri? Why do PACs set up to support Party Member X get to donate money to support Party Member Y? Money is so vital to our election system. It isn't necessarily outcome-determinative, but it is getting close. We end up with leaders who are skilled at raising money. The problem is that that skill doesn't have so much to do with governing. Another problem is that the winners are beholden to the backers who got them there. Anyone who claims that there isn't an expected quid pro quo for financial support is either lying or is frankly too stupid to vote.

Elections, at least on the national level, should be entirely funded by the government. Let people volunteer if they want. But all of the advertising, travel, staff expenses, etc. should be on a budget that everyone shares. Certainly, logistics would have to be worked out so that the Save the Red Coyote Party doesn't get the same dollars that major parties do, but that shouldn't be too hard. This approach would focus the campiagns on issues and ideas, and not on fund-raising.

We will never get it. Those with the power to make such changes are themselves indebted to the current system.

Bible Stuff

Religion is tricky stuff. To some extent or another, everyone ponders the weighty issues of "God". There is a fine line between seeking insight and tromping all over someone else's safe haven.

Christians, of course, revere The Bible. Different churches have different views about how it should be interpeted. There are different translations and some canons include books that others do not.

Taking a literal approach to biblical interpretation can provide the security of certainty. The chances are high that two different people reading the same verse will gather the same meaning. Metaphors and symbolism can create chaos. Meaning, seemingly, is in the mind of the beholder.

The Bible should be easy, right? Or........ not. The problem with literal interpretation of The Bible is that if you are in for a dime, you have to be in for a dollar. You can't just pick and choose what is intended to be read literally and what is not. That would be begging the question. If everything is read literally, you hit the problem of inconsistencies. For instance, right off the figurative bat, there are two accounts of the creation of man in Genesis. They are not consistent. There is also the problem of the use of "days" as a measure of time before the creation of the sun and the moon. I see these as literary signs that say "don't take this literally". If literalism was the intent, then there shouldn't be any inconsistencies. So, we find ourselves dealing with, yes, metaphors and symbolism.

Perhaps certainty is not the purpose of Biblical writing. It was written to keep us thinking, asking, and discussing. The problem with certainty is that, once we reach it, we stop thinking. Then we forget how we became certain in the first place. Apparently, the writers of the Bible don't want that to happen.

Bad vs. Evil

There are people who do bad things, and there are evil people. While these two populations overlap, inclusion in the former does not necessarily result in inclusion in the latter.

I'm sure most of you are familiar with Michael Vick. Vick is a former pro football player who was convicted of running a dog-fighting ring. He financed it and had facilities at his home to breed, train, and fight the dogs. This is an ugly business. Aside from the actual fighting and dying (which is wagered on by the spectators), the breeding involves something called "rape tables" (or something akin) where the female dogs are basically strapped down so the alpha dogs (literally) can impregnate them. I can only wonder if there is any wagering going on during those encounters. After getting caught, Vick did about 2 years in federal prison. He was recently released.

Dante Stallworth is another pro football player who has had legal problems. Stallworth got drunk, hit and killed someone with his car, then fled the scene. He was later caught and confessed. He know faces a variety of charges, the most serious of which is one for vehicular manslaughter.

People are debating about how Vick and Stallworth should be treated with respect to one another by the NFL. Vick recently was suspended for 4 games. Stallworth (I think) has been suspended for the entire season. Many believe that Vick shouldn't face any sort of suspension since he has "done his time" and "paid his debt to society".

Let me make this clear. There is a huge difference between what these two guys did. Both and certainly regrettable. Many argue that what Stallworth did is worse because it resulted in the loss of a human life. Fair enough. When I am trying to weigh the moral value of an action (or lack thereof), I tend to focus on the intent of the actor. What Stallworth did was reckless and insensitive. People can go out and drink all they want, but they should do it without taking the wheel afterwwards. Someone with Stallworth's resources could have easily had a driver to cart him around. Vick, however, is on an entirely different level than Stallworth. Stallworth got drunk, made a bad decision, and the result was horrible. But Stallworth didn't intend to kill anyone. In fact, I doubt that he gave it much thought at all. Vick, on the other hand, was instrumental in planning and financing the dog fighting operation. He was involved in this for years. He knew exactly what the results were going to be (a bunch of mutilated animals) because THAT WAS THE RESULT HE WANTED.

Stallowrth was stupid, irresponsible, weak, ignorant and impulsive. A bunch of common human frailties ganged up on him all at once and, as a result, someone else died. Vick was calculated, cold, and unfeeling. He orchestrated the pain and death of other living creatures for his own entertainment. That isn't just human weakness mainfesting itself. That's evil. Everyone has certain character shortcomings. Vick certainly has his. But he is also evil. No amount of time in prison will change that about him. It is impossible for him to be rehabilitated. Rehabilitation requires the acquisition of some new insight, or skill, that will enable someone to avoid past mistakes. I doubt that the federal prison system has a class called "killing dogs is bad". Vick may not re-offend, but only to avoid going back to prison. I guarantee you that he would love to fight dogs again.