Wednesday, March 27, 2019

The Socialist revolution

Nancy Pelosi recently brought up the idea of lowering the voting age to 16. That makes perfect sense—if you are a Democrat. Pelosi knows that the teachers’ unions are thoroughly Democrat. These Democrats instill Democrat Party values in their students and often actively promote Democrat candidates in their classroom. Giving the vote to 16 year-olds would be a huge victory for Democrats. It is all about political power.

The same is true of the immigration debate. Does anyone honestly think that Democrats would promote open borders if a survey showed that the majority of immigrants would vote Republican? Of course not. It is about Democrat power.

The same is true of the push for eliminating the Electoral College. That would concentrate all the political power in a few of our largest cities—which are Democrat strongholds. Democrats are willing to throw everyone else under the bus as long as they can win elections and regain political power.

The same is true of their talk of packing the Supreme Court with progressive justices who will promote Democrat’s new progressive-socialist agendas.

The same is true with the Democrat stance on religion. Their party platform calls for a re-definition of Freedom of Religion (If you don’t have enough support to amend the Constitution, you simply re-define it). They don’t believe in the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the Constitution. Instead, they want “Freedom of Worship” only (Hillary’s frequent reference to “Freedom of Worship” was no accident), and they want it confined to your home or church. They think conservative biblical values have no place in the public square—because it undermines their values, and they will not tolerate that. It is about political power.

Under the Obama administration Democrats tried to use the massive power of the IRS, the FBI and the Department of Justice to influence the election. But they still lost and are absolutely infuriated! They thought they had stolen the election fair and square. Now they will stop at nothing to force their progressive-socialist agenda down the throats of the American people. 

I’m not saying that Republicans are righteous or that politics is the solution to America’s problems—far from it! But socialists have pretty much taken over the Democrat Party and I don’t think it is too crazy or melodramatic to think that we are witnessing an attempted socialist takeover of America.

Take a good look at Venezuela. It is not impossible that we could be heading down that road in only one election.

Wednesday, March 20, 2019

The Electoral College

I understand that more and more prominent Democrats, like Elizabeth Warren for example, are calling for the elimination of the Electoral College, making presidential elections depend entirely on the popular vote. Sounds good doesn’t it? Of course in real life that means:

1) that the outcome of our presidential elections will be entirely determined by a handful of big cities

2) that the residents of small population states like North and South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, etc., whose concerns are MUCH different than those of urban areas, will have no significant say in presidential elections

3) that presidential candidates will be able to focus their campaigns entirely on the largest cities and could totally ignore the rest of the country

4) that presidents will be elected by people who do not know and could not care less about the concerns of people in rural areas or low population states. For example, urban residents can call 911 and have police at their doorstep in minutes. Many have no clue what it’s like to live in rural areas where the nearest law enforcement may be a half-hour or more away. These urban residents will elect presidents who support their gun policies.

Urban residents have access to bus, taxi, and commuter train service and have no clue how important cars, trucks and farm vehicles are to rural residents. These urban residents will support national highway policies, gas taxes and auto taxes that would be detrimental (to say the least) to rural life.
Most urban residents don’t have a clue about farms. For example, they don’t understand the importance of water and dams to many western farmers, and many urban residents seem more concerned about the impact of cow flatulence on global warming, and the importance of treating animals like people than they are about where their meat ultimately comes from—and they wouldn’t care until their policies put so many farmers out of business that it affected big city grocery stores. By then it would be too late.

This doesn’t even scratch the surface of differences between life in major urban areas and life in rural areas or low population states. But people in a few of our largest cities would elect presidents who would promise the world to the cities and could afford to completely ignore everyone else. Of course those living in rural areas and small population states would have to help pay for these future campaign promise to the cities!

Welcome to life without the Electoral College—where people living in 1% of the land would control the fate of everyone living in the 99%. But, it would be good for Democrats. And that is the whole point.

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

Nigeria and the New Zealand shooting

I must admit, it infuriates me!

Since February, “As many as 280 people were killed inChristian communities” by militant Muslims in Nigeria. In fact, over 1,800 Christians were murdered in Nigeria in 2018 and more than 5,000 have been slaughtered since 2015. Some are calling it genocide. According to the Christian Post, “there is a deliberate deception taking place that seeks to portray Fulani attackers simply as ‘herdsman,’ and the conflict as strictly a clash between farmers cattle herders. The truth is…that radical Islamists have taken over the Fulani, spreading jihad by deliberately slaughtering Christians andburning their churches.”

So 49 Muslims are tragically murdered in New Zealand and the story makes international news for days. Thousands of Christians are being slaughtered by radical Islamists in Nigeria and there is barely a peep by the news media. Why is that?

Please pray for our brothers and sisters in Nigeria as well as the friends and families of the New Zealand shooting victims.

Friday, March 15, 2019

New Zealand shooting

It hasn’t even been 24 hours since the New Zealand shooting when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mocked the NRA (and Christians) saying, “What good are your thoughts & prayers when they don’t even keep the pews safe? (Note to AOC: Mosques don’t have pews).

I really hesitated to post this but since AOC thought it expedient to score political points on this tragedy, I feel compelled to respond. First, New Zealand has more stringent gun laws than the U.S. but that didn’t stop the shooting.

Second, this shooting demonstrates that stringent gun laws do not keep people from obtaining guns any more than drug laws keep people from obtaining drugs.

Third, someone so evil they would open fire on a crowd of innocent people is certainly not going to be concerned about gun laws anyway.

Finally, as I understand it, the only reason there wasn’t even more carnage is because one of the congregants used his own gun to chase the gunman away. Of course none of this matters to AOC or other anti-gun lobbyists. They just want an excuse to take away your guns.

Please pray for the family and friends of the victims of this atrocity.

Monday, February 25, 2019

Abortion and Infanticide

I just read an article from the February 7 edition of the National Review entitled, “Infanticide and the Left” by Ramesh Ponnuru. The author made the following observation: “An individual infant who was born very prematurely is less developed (often substantially so) than a fetus at term, but it is the former who has legal protection. The distinction turns entirely on location: Inside the womb the developing human organism is a fetus, and outside it is an infant.”

In other words, laws that prohibit late term abortion do so supposedly because the unborn baby is much more developed in the third trimester than in the first trimester. The problem comes, however, when a baby is aborted, let’s say after 25 weeks—and survives. Once the baby is born his or her life is then protected by law.  So the life, for example, of a 30 week old unborn baby could be terminated in the womb and many states would consider that legal, but terminating the life of a 25 week old prematurely born baby would be considered murder.

Clearly it is not the developmental status of the baby that is the real issue, but simply the location of the baby—inside the womb or outside the womb. This is about as logical as saying that if someone kills their spouse outside their home it is murder but if they kill their spouse inside their home is it OK! Recognizing the absurdity of this position, some Democrats are now basically arguing that location doesn’t matter, saying that it should be legal to kill babies (or allow them to die unattended) outside the womb as well!

Even if these new advocates of infanticide succeed, it would not solve their logical dilemmas. Take, for example, two pregnant neighbors. One goes into labor prematurely and delivers the baby at 30 weeks. Only then does she discover that her baby has some kind of deformity, but if the mother were to terminate the baby, it would be considered murder.

Her neighbor, on the other hand, discovers that her baby also has a deformity and decides to abort the baby at 30 weeks. The baby survives the abortion. If infanticide advocates have their way, she would be free to have the baby terminated. Two babies. Both born at 30 weeks. The first is protected by law as a human being. The second is apparently not considered human and allowed to be terminated. So whether the baby was considered to be human and has human rights would depend entirely on whether the child was wanted!

Clearly this contradiction could not stand for long so the next step would be to allow infanticide in all cases. And if our society is going to allow infanticide, how much time should the parents be given to make that decision? Hours? Days? Years? Or should that decision also be left between a mother and her doctor?

Perhaps we’re making a mountain out of a mole hill since this affects only a very tiny number of abortions—or so they say. According to the article, “one abortion-industry official admitted that he had “lied through [his] teeth on national television” about this. There may be as many as “12,000 abortions after week 20” every year—more than the number of people murdered with guns each year.

I agree that location shouldn’t matter. Generally speaking, deliberately killing an innocent human being should be considered murder. It is a scientific fact that unborn babies, or as the Left likes to call them, “products of conception” are human and they are certainly innocent. The infant’s location, or whether he or she is wanted, should not be allowed to take away their constitutionally guaranteed human “right to life.”

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

The immigration debate

There is an easy solution to the immigration problem. Some of our more prominent Left wing politicians, media elites, and Hollywood activists just need to travel to the Mexican border to explain to the thousands of would-be immigrants what a terrible, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, imperialistic, oppressive country this is. Then the immigrants would realize how misguided they are in wanting to enter such a horrible place and go home. Then if all our America-hating Leftists would just go with them—problem solved!

But seriously, if our country is even half as terrible as most Leftists seem to think, why are so many thousands of people clamoring to get in?

Monday, November 05, 2018

"It's the economy, stupid!"

In 1992 when Bill Clinton was running for President, there was a sign on campaign headquarters that said, “It’s the economy, stupid!” This became the Democrat mantra as if to say, “It’s the economy, stupid—nothing else matters!” Fast forward to eight years of Barak Obama, most of which was spent blaming President Bush for the sluggish Obama economy. Eventually Democrats tried to argue that the poor economy was just the way things were in this modern age. Then Trump was elected. He cut regulations and taxes, and—just as Republicans had always predicted—the economy took off! Individuals and businesses got tax cuts. Businesses grew, gave bonuses and hired more people—lots more people! Unemployment plunged and people got off welfare! The GDP went up. You would think Democrats would be thrilled! After all, it was all about the economy, right? Naw. They’ve moved on to issues they think are more important than jobs and bonuses—like global warming, or forcing taxpayers and Christian companies to fund abortions, or running Christians out of business if they don’t support same-sex marriage, or allowing biological males to compete in sports with females, and enforcing regulations allowing biological males into female restrooms and locker rooms. That’s the modern Democrat party—it’s not the same as the party of JFK, LBJ or FDR. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Democrats really weren’t all that interested in the economy after all. They apparently just wanted a catchy slogan to regain power. Contrary to the 1992 Democrats, the economy is not everything—far from it! But it is not nothing either. When you vote tomorrow, a vote for a Democrat—any Democrat—is a vote to throw a monkey wrench in the economy.

Friday, October 19, 2018

Democrats and freedom

Would you want the government to have the power to force an African-American caterer to cater a KKK event? Would you want the government to have the power to force the Muslim owner of a sign company to make a sign promoting a church evangelistic event? Would you want the government to have the power to force a gay bakery owner to bake a cake saying “Homosexuality is evil.”

Why then should various government agencies be able to force Christian bakers, florists, artists, adoption agencies etc. to promote something—gay marriage—that they believe is a serious violation of their religious convictions? There are, after all, many other bakeries, florists, etc. that would love to have their business!

Gay rights advocates (both gay and straight) like to frame this as a civil rights issue (it is the only way they can win). This is deliberate deception. The Christians under attack do not refuse to serve gay people. They just cannot in good conscience support the institution of gay marriage. So for example, a Christian baker had been serving gay clients for years. It was only when a gay couple asked her to bake a wedding cake for their gay marriage that she respectfully declined, citing her religious convictions against gay marriage.

Whether you agree with her convictions or not is beside the point. The issue is that various government entities are trying to force people, through threat of huge fines, loss of their business, and even jail time, to support a political cause that would violate their religious convictions. Forced speech is not free speech. Not only that, but the government is attempting to prohibit the free exercise of their religion in violation of the Constitution.

The Constitution does not just guarantee “freedom of worship,” as Hillary Clinton so strategically wanted to put it. The Constitution guarantees that the government cannot prohibit the “free exercise” of religion. 

To force someone to support causes in violation of their deepest convictions is not only a violation of the First Amendment, it is tyranny!  This tyranny is fully and officially supported by the Democrat party which wants to re-define the First Amendment. The Democrat Party Platform reads, “We support a progressive vision of religious freedom that respects pluralism and rejects the misuse of religion to discriminate.” This is Orwellian double-speak. While standing against discrimination, they discriminate against Christians! Their “progressive vision of religious freedom” is one that would put private Christian businesses out of business, bankrupting and jailing their owners!

The Democrat Platform is clear that this tyranny would extent to employment and education as well. They would force Christian ministries like Christian schools and colleges (and even churches) to hire openly practicing homosexuals in violation of their core beliefs on morality—or go out of business. 
That’s the Democrat vision of religious freedom.

This is not just a position held by a fringe group of Democrat extremists. This is one of the core principles of the Democrat Party—in their official party platform! And that is what you are voting for when you vote Democrat.

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

School shootings and gun control

IMHO, we often get bogged down in the details of  the school shootings/gun control debate and miss the bigger picture. Here is my take on the gun issue. Very generally speaking, conservatives have a more negative view of human nature than progressives. Many conservatives believe that “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,” “there are none righteous, no not one,” and “there heart is desperately wicked….” Even those conservatives who do not have a Judeo-Christian base tend to agree that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That being the case, we (following our founding fathers) are afraid of big government which can so easily be corrupted and become tyrannical. Conservatives tend to think that a well-armed citizenry is a hindrance to potential government tyranny. 

Progressives, on the other hand, seem to think that people are basically good. Many seem to think that there are no bad people, just people who do bad things. And when they do bad things there is always a reason—poverty, or not enough education, etc. We don’t need punishment—just more education, more welfare, or rehabilitation. And since people are basically good, government can be trusted to provide our needs and regulate our lives for our own good. The idea that people should be armed as a hindrance to government tyranny is just outdated paranoia. 

Unfortunately for progressives, we have a Second Amendment—and when progressives failed in their attempts to re-define it to limit the right to bear arms to the military, they now use any and all tactics to limit that right as much as the courts will allow (and they pack the courts with those who think the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” so they can make it mean what they want it to mean)—until such time as they can get the Second Amendment repealed entirely.

The tricky part is that not even the NRA thinks the Second Amendment is absolute. For example, last I heard, the NRA is not fighting for the right of the average Joe to carry fully automatic weapons or bazookas. And that’s where the conflict is. Generally speaking, Progressives would like to limit our right to bear arms as much as they possibly can. Conservatives are afraid that any additional limitations lead to a slippery slope—knowing full that Progressives stand fully ready to push us down that slope, and also knowing that absolutely no concessions conservatives make will ever be good enough for progressives.

IMHO, because Progressives’ use school shootings and other gun violence as tools toward increasingly disarming us (and use school kids as pawns), they neglect other very important factors in the gun violence. Take, for example, mental illness. It was the progressives who shut down the mental hospitals in the 70’s and made it practically impossible to have someone committed! 

Progressives neglect the role of godlessness in our society. But it was the progressives who took religion out of the schools! 

Progressives generally neglect the role of Hollywood’s promotion of gun violence in movies and video games. But rather than shaming Hollywood for this, progressives control Hollywood and celebrate Hollywood for pushing all the boundaries. 

Progressives are also the ones who tend to argue for more lenient sentences, making it possible for violent criminals to go through the revolving door of “justice. 

Finally, much of the gun violence is drug related, and yet progressives have opposed all efforts to control illegal immigration across our southern border...traffic that includes drug running and violent gangs.

Neglecting bigger issues like these and focusing primarily on guns is like trying to treat measles with makeup or band aids!

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

The Real Jesus by Kristin Romey

National Geographic just published an article entitled “The Real Jesus” by Kristin Romey (National Geographic, December 2017, 40-68). Here are some random thoughts.

First, I was pleased to see that the author quotes even highly skeptical scholars who acknowledge Jesus’ existence. For example, Romey quotes Duke University’s Eric Myers (who in my view qualifies as a somewhat radical skeptic), as saying, “I don’t know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus” (42).

Second, not only does the article debunk those who deny Jesus’ existence, the article demonstrates that critics were wrong about Jesus being a “cosmopolitan Hellenist” (or Cynic sage) rather than an “observant Jew.” Critics were wrong in their skepticism about the existence of synagogues in first century Galilee. Critics were also wrong in their “once fashionable notion that Galileans were impious hillbillies detached from Israel’s religious center” (65). To the contrary, Romey provides numerous examples of archaeological evidence that tends to support the general reliability of the Gospels (though I’m not sure that was her intent).

Third, Romey mentions that not all scholars are convinced that Jesus was born in Bethlehem since the story is only told in Matthew and Luke, and those stories are different—e.g. “the traditional manger and shepherds in Luke; the wise men, massacre of children, and flight to Egypt in Matthew” (46). That is true, but it is a poor reason to reject the birth stories. The two accounts are not mutually exclusive. No biographer could possibly record every detail of a person’s life (and even if they could, no one would want to read it!). Biographers have to be selective. 

The Gospel writers select their material to emphasize the points they want to make (See John 20:30-31). The fact that one account leaves something out does not mean it didn’t happen. Besides, when two independent accounts differ in some respects, that only makes their agreements more significant—and both sources independently (assuming the “Two-source” synoptic theory) agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. There are no sources—none!—that say Jesus was born in Nazareth, which is what some critics assert.

Romey goes on to point out that “Some suspect that the Gospel writers located Jesus’ Nativity in Bethlehem to tie the Galilean peasant to the Judean city prophesied in the Old Testament as the birthplace of the Messiah” (46). Her statement is true—that is what some scholars propose. So if these scholars are correct, the writers of Matthew and Luke (or earlier Christians) made up the story about Jesus being born in Bethlehem in order to falsely say that Jesus had fulfilled this messianic prophecy. In that case, it would appear that even in the face of persecution these early Christians continued to believe and teach that Jesus was the Messiah even though they knew they had fabricated the Bethlehem story! I find this option unlikely, to say the least.

Another option is that Jesus really was born in Bethlehem where the prophet Micah says the Messiah would be born (there were, after all, babies born in Bethlehem!)—and this is one of several reasons early Christians thought Jesus was the Messiah. I think the second option better helps to explain the very early Christian belief in Jesus as Messiah.

Finally, the conclusion of the article is very disappointing:

At this moment I realize that to sincere believers, the scholar’s quest for the historical, non-supernatural Jesus is of little consequence. That quest will be endless, full of shifting theories, unanswerable questions, irreconcilable facts. But for true believers, their faith in the life, death, and Resurrection of the Son of God will be evidence enough (68).

The author hits the nail on the head when she implies that the quest for the historical Jesus has been a quest for a non-supernatural Jesus. That has often been the guiding presupposition of the entire quest! Regardless of what the evidence might be, nothing can be allowed to overturn what has been the assumption of predominantly western, white, male, academic elites regarding a non-supernatural Jesus!

Most people in the world, however, do not buy into this elitist assumption, and that fact is that there is much evidence in support of the essential reliability of the New Testament portrayal of Jesus. See, for example, Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus edited by Darrell Bock and Robert Web (931 pages); The Historical Reliability of the New Testament by Craig Blomberg and Robert Stewart (816 pages); The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright ( 817 pages) or The Resurrection of Jesus by Michael Licona (718 pages). Skeptics may counter that books like these don’t prove every detail of the Gospels to be true, but these books certainly show that, contrary to Romey, true Christianity is not just a blind leap of faith.

If you want a more thorough overview of the topic of Jesus and archaeology, I would suggest Jesus and his World; The Archaeological Evidence by Craig Evans.

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Faith and allegiance

In Luke 10:25-28 a Jewish legal authority asks Jesus how to inherit eternal life. Jesus asks him what the Law (of Moses) says and the man responds saying that people must Love God with all their heart, soul strength and mind; and their neighbor as themselves. Jesus told him he had answered correctly. But what does this have to do with salvation? Don’t we have to “believe” or have “faith” to be saved? Darrell Bock’s interpretation of this passage hits the nail on the head: “This answer does not defend righteousness by works. Jesus’ approval of the answer in the next verse comes because at its heart the answer is an expression of total allegiance and devotion that in other contexts could be called faith. At the heart of entering the future life is a relationship of devotion, a devotion that places God at the center of one’s spiritual life and responds to others in love” (Bock, Darrell, Luke 9:51-24:53. Grand Rapids : Baker, 1024-1025).

Thursday, November 09, 2017

Intelligent Design, science and truth

It is important to understand that the debate about Intelligent Design is not about science, reality or truth. Don’t misunderstand—Intelligent Design is all about science, reality and truth, but the debate itself is about one side (Intelligent Design) simply being ruled out of bounds by those in power. Law professor, Stanley Fish who is presumably no friend Intelligent Design explains:

“…it is easy to see why creation science or intelligent design doesn’t have a chance. Any attempt to present it in a state-funded classroom as a legitimate alternative to evolution will be blocked by the state’s unwillingness (given the establishment clause) to give its stamp of approval to a religious position. Any attempt to remove the label ‘religious’  and replace it with ‘scientific’ will be resisted by the arbiters of what science is, who have already made up their collective mind in advance. And any attempt to establish the truth of intelligent design by the usual academic routes of argument and experiment will not get off the ground because the academy, like the liberal state of which it is a mirror and an extension, defines itself by it difference from religion” (Stanley Fish, Winning Arguments. New York : Harper, 2016, 185).

In other words, Intelligent Design doesn’t fail for lack of better scientific arguments. It fails simply because the secular elites in science, education, law and politics simply refuse to give an honest hearing to anything that challenges their secular assumptions and presuppositions.

Tuesday, November 07, 2017

Gun control and the Sutherland Springs shooting

After the mass murder of 26 innocent people in a Texas church, the knee-jerk reaction of Progressives is as predictable as the morning sunrise—push for more gun control legislation! I’m trying to understand their reasoning in this case.

The perpetrator was the military equivalent of a convicted felon who was not legally entitled to own a firearm. Contrary to USAF regulations, someone in the Air Force failed to enter his conviction into a federal database which would have kept the perpetrator from purchasing his guns legally. Whether that would have kept him from obtaining firearms by other means is anyone’s guess. The point is that the problem was not the absence of adequate gun control laws, the problem was a bureaucratic mess-up. Better training or discipline may have prevented this murder, but stricter gun control laws would not prevent a bureaucratic error.

On the other hand, a former NRA instructor who, fortunately, did own a gun legally was able to use his gun to stop the perpetrator before even more people were murdered.

So how can we stop such murders in the future? Progressives’ solution: Stricter gun control! But not only would stricter gun control laws have failed to prevent this slaughter, such laws may have actually resulted in more lives lost if those laws had kept the hero from owning a gun. A man with a gun saved numerous lives, and yet the Progressives’ only solution is to call for stricter gun control. 

Progressives are not brain dead, and most are presumably not stupid so I can only conclude that they are pushing a hidden agenda.

Friday, November 03, 2017

Ethnic and cultural diversity

People need to make a distinction between ethnic diversity and cultural diversity. Ethnic diversity is a good thing. It is a core Christian value. Jesus commanded us to go into all the world and make disciples of all nations. The Book of Revelation says that there will be people from “every tribe, language, people and nation” worshiping before the throne of God. Ethnic diversity is a Christian value. By contrast, racism is fundamentally anti-Christian.

Cultural diversity, on the other hand, can also be good. We can learn a lot from other cultures and they can learn from us. But contrary to what seems to be popular opinion, cultural diversity is not always necessarily a good thing. Many cultures affirm values that are fundamentally irreconcilable with other cultures. Some cultures are fundamentally evil or destructive (e.g. Nazism or Islamic radicalism).

So what happens when two fundamentally opposite and irreconcilable cultures clash? The result is often persecution of the weaker group at best, and ethnic cleansing or genocide at worst. Ethnic diversity should be encouraged and promoted. Significant cultural diversity, however, can be a powder keg. Proceed with caution.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

"Why Christians Don't Need to 'Take a Stand Against Evil"?

I just read a blog post by someone named Jared. Jared argued that Christians need to show more love and compassion, but that by taking a stand against evil we often become "the voice of the accuser, while those who are not connected to God function as the voice of love."  

I tried to respond to Jared's post on his blog but was unable to log in so I sent the following response to him via the contact form on his blog:

Good article, Jared. Well written and thought provoking. I agree with you that we need to focus more on showing love to others—even to our enemies. I agree with you that Lady Gaga’s visit to homeless LGBT teens was commendable. I would add, however, that I suspect that all the aid Gaga and her like-minded multi-millionaire friends give to the needy does not even compare to what relatively poor Christians give through organizations like Samaritan’s Purse, WorldVision, Compassion International, Feed My Starving Children, Operation Blessing, etc. Nevertheless, we do need to do more to reach out and show the love of Christ in tangible ways to others.

On the other hand, we will have to agree to disagree on Christians as the “voice of the accuser.” If I really thought that it was wrong to “Take a stand against evil” I would have to take a stand against the prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul. Jesus fully affirmed what we Christians call the Old Testament (Mt 5:17-20), and the Old Testament prophets powerfully took a stand against the evils of their society. For example, Isaiah calls the people of Judah “offspring of evildoers,” a “sinful nation” who are “laden with iniquity” (Isa 1:4). Jeremiah condemns those who have killed the “innocent poor” (Jer 2:34) and “…have defiled the land with your prostitution and wickedness” (Jer 3:2). Hosea writes that the land was full of “swearing, lying, murder, stealing, and committing adultery…”(Hos 4:1-2). Ezekiel condemns the people of Jerusalem for immorality, bribery, unjust gain and extortion (Ezek 22:9-12). Zephaniah condemns Jerusalem as a city of rebellious, defiled oppressors (Zeph 3:1). Joel attacks the drunkenness of his society and calls them to repentance (Joel 1:5). Micah pronounces woe on those who oppress others and “devise wickedness and work evil on their beds” (Micah 2:1-2). Malachi tells the people that God will “come to you for judgment” and “will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive aliens of justice…”(Mal 3:5). These quotes barely scrape the surface of the prophets’ stand against evil.

That stand against evil continues in the New Testament when John the Baptist comes preaching baptism for repentance saying, “…You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance” (Matt 3:7-8). He then warned of fiery judgment for those who do not repent (Matt 3:12). According to Luke, John the Baptist tells people to share what they have with those who don’t have. He tells tax collectors not to collect more than what is required, and he tells soldiers not to use extortion or false accusations (Lk 3:11-14). John was preaching to people from all over Judea and his preaching included a stand against evil.

Jesus also took a stand against evil. In fact, the very first words Matthew and Mark record Jesus saying at the beginning of his public ministry is a call to repentance (Matthew 4:17; Mark 1:15)! It is a call to get one’s heart right with God and it applies to everyone. Contrary to popular opinion, Jesus did not just publicly criticize religious leaders—he criticized his whole society calling them an adulterous and sinful generation” (Mk 8:38), a “faithless and perverse generation” (Mk 9:19/Mt 17:17//Lk 9:41) and an “evil generation” (Lk 11:29//Mt:12:39; 16:4).

In John’s gospel Jesus proclaims that it is the world, not just religious leaders, that hates him because he testifies “that what it does is evil” (John 7:7; 15:18, cf. 17:14). More specifically, Jesus publicly calls out sins of hatefulness, adultery, easy divorce, judgmentalism, and evil-doing (cf. Matthew 5-7). He made clear to his disciples that such sins as “sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly” began in the heart (Mark 7:21-23). When Mark begins discussion of Jesus’ ministry with his public call to repentance, these sins were undoubtedly among those he had in mind.

Then right after the resurrection, Peter preaches to an enormous crowd in Jerusalem. His message is not a warm, fuzzy, feel-good sermon designed to win friends and influence people. He says, “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:38). Peter then calls them to repentance! The result is that many got saved and they “gave to anyone as he had need” (Acts 2:44).

Similarly, when Stephen preaches, he does not announce God’s understanding and tolerance, or a new social program by the newly formed church. Stephen calls them“…stiff-necked people with uncircumcised hearts and ears!” (Acts 7:51). He tells them they have always resisted the Holy Spirit and that they have not obeyed the Law (Acts 7:51-53).

When Paul preaches in Lystra, he does not talk about their culture’s great religions—he confronts their idolatrous culture publicly, saying, “We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God…” (Acts 14:15).  When Paul was on trial before King Agrippa, he pretty much summarized his whole ministry starting with his conversion on the way to Damascus saying, “First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached the they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds” (Acts 26:20). Proclaiming Jesus without calling people to repent and turn from their sins is not really proclaiming Jesus at all!

Jared, you are absolutely right that “we never hear of them protesting or boycotting,” but then again, they didn’t live in a democratic society with freedom of speech, and that makes a huge difference. When I was in Russia, one of the believers told me that they have absolutely no say in their government—all they can do is try to be faithful to God regardless of what the country throws at them. That is not unlike the plight of first century Christians. We in the United States, on the other hand, are fortunate enough to live in a nation where “we the people” have a say in the future direction of our country. I reject the notion that because we are Christians we should just shut up, sit on the sidelines, and let secularists determine the direction of the country our children will inherit. I’m quite sure our founding fathers (and mothers) would have rejected such a notion. As I understand Jesus’ affirmation of the prophets and his command to be salt in the world, I suspect he may have rejected it too. We have the privilege of calling out our society’s evils and attempting to affect change—especially though calls to repentance, but also by influencing voters.

Anyway, my point is NOT that we should immediately walk next door and tell our neighbor what a sinner he or she is. I’m NOT saying we should stand up on a desk at work and preach against office sins. And all this certainly doesn’t mean we should self-righteously look down our noses at others as if we ourselves are not worthy of God’s judgment! But it does mean that proclaiming Christ is not JUST about showing love and compassion (as important as that is). People cannot be saved unless they are confronted with the seriousness and horribleness of their own sin, respond in genuine heart-felt repentance and turn in loving devotion to Jesus as the only one who can save them from the penalty of their rebellion. If ALL we preach is love and compassion, we are not preaching Jesus. I suspect you would agree with this.

So, Jared, you make some very good points in your article but I don’t think it tells the whole story. And without the rest of the story, it may give fuel to some of your professing Christian readers who really just seek to avoid being hated by the world at all costs (but see John 12:25; 15:18, 19; 17:14; 1 John 3:13) and seem to imagine God to be an all-tolerant, non-judgmental, cosmic Santa Claus who accepts our sin and exists to makes us healthy, wealthy and prosperous. Such a god is merely an idol, a figment of self-centered imagination.

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Mind and matter

I just finished reading Mind & Cosmos; Why the materialist New-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false, by Thomas Nagel who is a world-class philosopher. I need to preface my remarks by saying that my field is not philosophy. That, combined with the fact that I read the book rather quickly (which is not usually the best way to read philosophy) means that my understanding of the book may be quite limited and even wrong at points.

Nevertheless, as I understand it, Nagel argues that it is virtually impossible for mind, consciousness, reasoning and values to emerge spontaneously from matter in a Neo-Darwinian system. Consistent with his atheism, Nagel rejects theism and intelligent design but, in my opinion, without adequate reason (other than the fact that he just doesn’t like it).

If I understand Nagel correctly, his very tentative solution seems to be that purpose is somehow just built into the fabric of the universe. Nagel’s reasoning seems to be:

1) It is pretty much impossible that mind could evolve from matter under a Neo-Darwinian system [I agree]

2) Theism is not worth serious consideration [Nagel mentioned but did not seriously engage with arguments for intelligent design other than to agree that proponents have raised serious questions about the origin of life under a Neo-Darwinian system].

3) The only alternative seems to be the idea that purpose is built into the very fabric of the universe [but if it is impossible for matter to spontaneously evolve into consciousness and mind, how is it possible—without a Designer—that dead matter is somehow endued with purpose from the start?]

Deep, thought provoking read from an honest, non-militant atheist perspective.

Thursday, November 03, 2016

Christians and politics

Jesus came from a long line of political agitators who spoke out against the personal sins, social evils and even political policies of their rulers and governments. Nathan (1 Ki 13), Jehu (1 Ki 16), Elijah (1 Ki 18; 2 Ki 1), Micaiah (1 Ki 20, 22; 2 Ki 3), Elisha (2 Ki 3), Isaiah (2 Ki 20), Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea Amos, Micah, Malachi and even some unnamed prophets (1 Ki 13, 1 Ki 20, 22; 2 Ki 3; 2 Ki 21).

This criticism of government even took a violent turn roughly 160 years before Christ when Mattathias and his sons revolted against a foreign government that was slaughtering Jews and outlawing the worship of Yahweh. The Jews violently liberated their Temple and established an annual celebration of that event (Feast of Dedication aka Hanukkah) that even Jesus apparently celebrated nearly 200 years later (John 10:22). This critique of government continued with John the Baptist who was beheaded for his criticism of Herod. And as I mentioned in my last post, Jesus’ strong condemnation of Israel’s religious leaders included their political leaders as well.

Of course all this was a long time ago in a different place and different culture. You can’t simply assume that such examples can be directly applied to the 21st century. In fact, even in ancient times, reaction to one’s government may have depended to some extent on the situation. For example there is no indication that Joseph condemned the government of Egypt in which he served. Similarly, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego are not recorded as publicly confronting the social evils of Babylon, though they did refuse to obey some of Babylon’s laws. Mordecai worked quietly behind the scenes to influence the government but did not openly confront it. And while Paul was not shy about publicly condemning the world’s religions he is never recorded as publicly criticizing Roman government injustices about which he had no say and no reasonable chance of influencing. Similarly, when I was in Russia last year one of the Christians there told me they have absolutely no say in their government so they just try to be faithful to Christ in whatever circumstances they find themselves. In their situation, that is understandable.

We in America are in different circumstances—at least for now. Our government was established to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people. In our government citizens are expected to speak out, to influence, and to vote. We can even protest peacefully. If Christians, both as citizens and as Christians, abdicate that responsibility, we become like salt that has lost its saltiness—“no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men” (Mt. 5:13).

I say all this because I sense in many Christians an uneasiness or outright hostility against those Christians who are politically outspoken. It is almost as if we should keep quiet and just assure everyone that Jesus loves them (which most people hear as, “Jesus is OK with me even when I continue in unrepentant sin”)! It is almost as if some Christians are afraid that if we become too vocal, non-Christians won’t like us. We certainly can’t have that can we (John 15:19; 1 John 3:13; James 4:4).

Friday, September 16, 2016

Anti-American protests

I don’t mind it when people point out the flaws, sins and outright atrocities in America’s past. Heaven knows there have been more than enough of them! I get annoyed, however, when people ONLY want to talk about the failings of America apart from the context of the injustices and atrocities of other nations. What about the atrocities that have occurred in the histories of  Russia, China, Japan, Germany, England, Spain, France, Norway, Turkey, Greece, Iraq, Bosnia, Cambodia, North Korea,Syria, throughout Africa and in fact, all over the world! We could even discuss atrocities committed by North American Indian tribes and other tribal groups around the world. And I'm just talking about outright atrocities--no nation on earth is free from a history of injustice, prejudice, discrimination or oppression! Just take, as one example, the millions and millions of people who have been oppressed under India's caste system. (Perhaps the Apostle Paul was right after all when he said "there is none righteous, no not one"; and "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"). We rightfully condemn the Atlantic slave trade which resulted in an estimated 16 million deaths but we never talk about the Muslim Middle East/North African slave trade which resulted in an estimated 19 million deaths! We condemn American imperialism--the same imperialism that conquered nations like Germany and Japan and then helped them become among the most prosperous nations on earth--but most people know nothing of the Islamic imperialism which produced one of the largest, longest lasting, and oppressive imperialistic empires the world had ever seen. And don’t tell me that as Americans we should just concern ourselves with American history—we live in a global community. Injustices in one nation often affect other nations (e.g. refugee issues caused by Syria or Somalia, to name only a couple countries). So if you want to protest America’s injustices, fine. Unlike many other countries, America gives you that Constitutional right. Just make sure you include all the other nation’s injustices in your protest. Otherwise, I will suspect that you are either ignorant of such injustices or you are just hatefully anti-American.

Thursday, September 01, 2016

The Arab-Israeli Conflict

Contrary to modern opinion, Israel did not invade Palestine to take back their homeland! In fact, they did not take the land from anyone. There has always been a significant Jewish presence in Palestine but the Jews who immigrated to Palestine in the first “Aliyah” (1882-1903) and second Aliyah (1904-1914) were simply fleeing persecution and looking for a safe place to live. There are unbiased traveler accounts from the 1800’s showing that Palestine at that time was very sparsely populated.  
Although there may be exceptions, generally speaking, the Jews who immigrated purchased land, often at ridiculously high prices, from absentee landlords, many of whom lived in other countries!

The Muslim population only blossomed after Jews began returning to and cultivating the land. By the First World War there were probably 80,000 to 90,000 Jews living in Palestine so even before the famous “Balfour Declaration” of 1917 there was a Jewish homeland of sorts in Palestine.

In World War I, Palestine was controlled by the Ottoman Empire which allied itself with Germany. Germany and the Ottoman’s lost, of course. President Woodrow Wilson said that nations formerly controlled by the Ottoman Empire should be given the right of self-determination.

But what about Palestine? The options were to 1) Give all the land to Arabs—even the parts with majority Jewish population.  2) Give all the land to Jews—even the parts with majority Arab population. 3) Let Syria rule over Palestine. 4) Let Arabs run Arab majority lands and let Jews run Jewish majority lands. The Allies, especially the British and Americans, decided on the fourth option. Palestinians opposed this because they didn’t want any recognition of a Jewish homeland for the Jews already living in Palestine. In fact, they didn’t want Jews in Palestine at all.

Although international law then recognized the right of the Jewish community to live in Palestine, the Arabs got 80% of the land. Jews who already lived in this 80% were violently forced to leave. No Jews allowed! But 80% was not enough for the Arabs. More and more Arab leaders began pushing for the elimination of all Jewish presence in Palestine.

After the Balfour Declaration in 1917, violence broke out against Jews even in the Jewish regions of Palestine. Jewish men were attacked, Jewish women were raped and synagogues were destroyed. The British tried to control the violence by appointing Haj Amin al-Husseini as the leader or “Grand Mufti” of Muslims in Palestine. Unfortunately, this turned out badly. Amin al-Husseini instigated anti-Jewish riots in Palestine, allied himself with Adolf Hitler, and strongly supported Hitler’s efforts to exterminate Jews!

The eventual clash between Jewish David Ben-Gurion and Amin al-Husseini was not about whether Jews should control Palestine. It was about whether Wilson’s solution of allowing both Jews and Muslims in Palestine to have self-rule (Ben-Gurion) or whether all Jews should be ruled or eliminated by Muslims (al-Husseini).  (Summarized from The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz, Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley and Sons, 2003. 13-62).

Fast forward a few decades. Unprovoked Muslim suicide bombers kept blowing up Jewish restaurants, stores and busses killing innocent Jewish civilians. As a way to stop the violence, Jews built a fence. This has caused significant inconvenience for Muslims, but it significantly curtailed the slaughter of Jews (my guess is that if your friends, family and neighbors were being slaughtered by indiscriminate terrorist attacks, you’d support a fence too). Later, the Jewish government forcibly removed its Jewish citizens from their own homes in Gaza to turn the area over to Muslim self-rule. 

This was the perfect opportunity for Muslims to show they could live in peace with Israel. It was the perfect opportunity to prove that a two-state solution would work! Unfortunately, the Muslims elected a terrorist government which for years fired literally thousands of rockets over the border at Southern Israel—all while the world and media simply ignores it!

So how can Jews today support a two state solution when it failed in Gaza and when the Muslims refuse to acknowledge the legitimate right of Israel to exist? If the Gaza experiment had worked, there would be reason to try it in the West Bank as well. It did not work. It still has not worked. And judging from the fact that schools in Gaza teach children to hate Jews from a very early age, it may never work.

I am not saying that Jews are perfect—far from it. I’m not denying that bad things and even atrocities have been committed by both sides. But overall, Muslims are the aggressors and oppressors in this conflict. As someone once said hyperbolically, if Israel’s enemies would lay down their arms today, there would be peace in the Middle East tomorrow. If Israel laid down its arms today, there would be no Israel tomorrow.

Thursday, August 04, 2016

The New Testament in a Nutshell

Matthew writes so his audience will know that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior and Son of God, and so his audience will repent and follow Jesus. Matthew places particular emphasis on Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies about the coming of the Jewish Messiah-King.

Mark writes so his audience will know that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior and Son of God, and so his audience will repent and follow Jesus.

Luke writes so his audience will know that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior and Son of God, and so his audience will repent and follow Jesus. Luke places particular emphasis on Jesus’ concern for outcasts—women, children, the poor, disabled, sick and “sinners.”

John writes so his audience will know that Jesus is the Christ and that by believing in Jesus they can have eternal life. John places particular emphasis on Jesus as the embodiment of God.

Acts is the story of the work of the Holy Spirit through the early church—specifically through Peter and Paul—in spreading the Gospel from Jerusalem to Judea, Samaria and Rome. The story covers from Jesus’ ascension in AD 30 or 33 to Paul’s imprisonment in AD 60-62.

Paul announces his plans to visit the church in Rome and introduces himself with a systematic presentation of his Gospel. Paul says the Gospel is the power of God for salvation, which produces an obedience that comes from faith in Christ for both Jew and Gentile.

First Corinthians
Paul responds to a letter telling of divisions and problems in the Corinthian church. He urges unity and addresses problems regarding immorality, marriage and singleness, food offered to idols, worship and the Lord’s Supper, spiritual gifts, and the resurrection of Jesus.

Second Corinthians
Since Paul’s second visit to the Corinthian church did not go well, Paul recounts how he sent Titus to them with a tearful letter and how Titus had just returned with great news that the Corinthians were eager to see him again. Paul tells of his sufferings for Christ and his love for the Corinthians. He urges generosity toward the Christians in Jerusalem who are suffering from famine.

Paul forcefully insists that salvation is by grace through faith alone, and not by doing good works. Paul says that all those who belong to Christ by faith inherit the promises given to Abraham. He warns, however, that those who live lifestyles of habitual, unrepentant godlessness will not inherit eternal life.

The first half of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians emphasizes the spiritual blessings we have in Christ—including the fact that we have been saved by grace through faith and are God’s workmanship created to do good works. The second half of this letter instructs and urges Christians to live a life worthy of these blessings.

Paul writes of his love for the Philippian believers and about his current imprisonment. He urges them to follow Christ’s example in looking out for the interests of others and to continue to work out their salvation, because it is God who is working in them. Paul closes by thanking them for the care-package they had sent to him while in prison.

Paul prays that the Colossian believers would “live a life worthy of the Lord and please him in every way.” He says Jesus is the image of the invisible God and that the fullness of Deity (God) lives in Jesus. Paul warns against a false spirituality which involves harsh treatment of the body. He tells his audience to avoid all sexual immorality, lust and greed, and to live lives of compassion, humility, patience, forgiveness and prayer.

First Thessalonians
Paul recounts how he had sent Timothy to encourage the Thessalonian church during persecution and how Timothy had returned with the good news that the church was thriving and spreading the Gospel. Paul urges them to continue pleasing God in their behavior and instructs them about Jesus’ coming again.

Second Thessalonians
Paul gives additional instruction about Jesus’ coming again and warns against laziness.

First Timothy
This is Paul’s personal letter to Timothy whom Paul had left to pastor the church in Ephesus. Paul urges Timothy to teach sound doctrine and to oppose false doctrine and ungodly behavior (including adultery, murder, homosexual behavior, and slave trading). Paul gives qualification for elders and deacons, and reminds Timothy “how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household.”

Second Timothy
Paul tells Timothy to be prepared to endure suffering for Christ and to correct, rebuke and encourage his people with sound doctrine. He tells Timothy to pursue faith, love and peace, to flee youthful passions, to preach the Word and to bring others to Christ. Paul says the time of his death is near so please come soon.

This is Paul’s personal letter to Titus whom Paul had left to pastor the church in Crete. Paul instructs Titus about appointing godly elders who can oversee the church well, ensuring sound doctrine. Paul specifically condemns those who claim to know God but deny him by their actions. He gives instructions for how believers should behave in order to attract unbelievers to “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”

Paul returns Onesimus, a runaway slave whom Paul had converted, to his owner, Philemon. Paul begs his friend Philemon to treat Onesimus as he would treat Paul himself, and hints for the slave’s release. Paul says, if Onesimus owes anything, Paul will pay the debt personally.

The author says Jesus is the radiance of God and the one through whom God created and sustains the universe. This being the case, the author warns his audience to beware of drifting away from the faith or hardening their hearts as the Israelites did in the wilderness. He says Jesus is our great high priest and author of the new covenant so beware of falling away because Jesus is the only way of salvation. He tells them to persevere in faith, like Abraham, Moses and other Jewish heroes of old, and prays that God would work in us what is pleasing to Him through Christ.

James urges his audience to be doers of the Word and not hearers only. He condemns ungodly behavior and gives specific examples of how Christians should demonstrate their faith by their actions.

First Peter
Peter writes to a church facing severe persecution, saying their endurance in suffering demonstrates the proven character of their faith. He urges them to set their hope fully on their salvation, to turn away from their previous evil lifestyles and to maintain good conduct before non-Christians so they will see their good deeds and glorify God. Peter says they should rejoice that they share in the sufferings of Christ.

Second Peter
Peter urges his audience to add knowledge, self-control, godliness and love to their faith. He strongly condemns false teachers who were leading many astray with their ungodly lifestyles. Peter says believers must conduct themselves in holiness and godliness knowing that Jesus will return like a thief at which time the heavens will melt away and the earth will be laid bare.

First John
John warns against false teachers who say Jesus didn’t really come in the flesh. John writes that if we claim to have fellowship with God (be saved) and yet keep on walking in darkness (habitual, unrepentant godlessness), we are lying, but if we say we have no sin we are also lying. Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for our sins and our advocate with the Father. Those who say they are in Christ ought to behave as Jesus did. They should love one another in deed and in truth, and shouldn’t be surprised if the world hates them. John writes so that his audience might know that they have eternal life.

Second John
John urges his audience to love one another saying: This is love—that we walk in obedience to Jesus’ commands. He warns of many deceivers who have gone out into the world and says that that Christians should not support their ministry.

Third John
John says that Diotrephes, a church leader, is spreading malicious slander about him. Diotrephes refuses to show hospitality other believers and excommunicates Christians who do. John warns not to imitate what is evil and says that those who practice evil do not know God.

Jude tells his audience he wanted to write about their common salvation but felt compelled to encourage them to contend earnestly for the faith. This is because certain men had secretly slipped in among them–immoral, divisive scoffers who had turned the grace of our God into an excuse for evil behavior. Jude strongly condemns these people and urges his audience to keep themselves in the love of God by building up their faith and praying through the Holy Spirit.


John uses apocalyptic imagery to teach that as the second coming of the Lord approaches, worldwide natural disasters, human evil and persecution will increase to unprecedented horrific levels. John urges believers to remain faithful even unto death. When Jesus is revealed he will destroy all opponents in a final battle and bring his people into his kingdom of peace and righteousness.

Wednesday, July 06, 2016

Bart Ehrman's Jesus before the Gospels (Part 5)

Ehrman begins chapter three of his book, Jesus before the Gospels, referring to a staged event that occurred in 1902. In this event, “a well-known criminologist named von Liszt was delivering a lecture when an argument broke out. One student stood up and shouted that he wanted to show how the topic was related to Christian ethics” (Ehrman 87). A fight ensured, a gun was drawn, and while Professor von Liszt tried to intervene, the gun when off (Ehrman 87). The professor then called the class to order assuring them that the whole scene had been staged as a test of observation and memory. Some students were then asked to write immediately about the event. Others wrote the next day or a week later. Still others were deposed under cross examination. Ehrman then reports that “The most accurate accounts were in error in 26 percent of the details reported. Others were in error as many as 80 percent” (Ehrman, 88). Ehrman concludes that “eyewitnesses are notoriously inaccurate” (Ehrman 88).

Ehrman got this story from a book by Elizabeth Loftus (Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA : Harvard Univ. p 20-21). Loftus was quoting from someone named Hugo Munsterberg (On the Witness Stand. New York : Doubleday, 1908; 49-51), and Munsterberg was recalling the event which had been staged by professor von Liszt six years earlier. Unfortunately, Munsterberg gave no further detail on this study so it is difficult to know what to make of the statistics cited. For example, Ehrman didn’t happen to mention that in this study, any “Omissions… wrong additions and alterations” were counted as mistakes (Loftus 20-21). But in recounting any event, different parts of the event may stand out to, and be emphasized by, different people. The fact that two or more people should omit parts of the whole may be due to factors other than memory. Without knowing more about what was omitted or added, or the nature of the alterations, the statistics are not much good.

It would have also been helpful to know what percent of the gist of the story students got accurate.  Students undoubtedly got details wrong, but did any students remember the event entirely differently? Did anyone think the professor shot the student? Did anyone think both students were shot? Did anyone say there was no gunshot at all? My guess is that the gist of the event could have been reconstructed quite well from the eyewitness accounts even though minor details would vary from student to student. Nevertheless, Ehrman uses the story to make the point that “eyewitnesses are notoriously inaccurate” (Ehrman 88).

As an aside, it may also be worth noting that Ehrman is trusting Loftus’ summary of Munsterberg’s memory of von Liszt’s eyewitness account in an effort to show that memory can’t be trusted!

Another study cited by Ehrman related to the crash of an El-Al Boing 707 (Ehrman 89-91). Ehrman cites a study by psychologists Hans Crombag, Willem Wagenaar and Peter Van Koppen regarding a Boeing 707 that crashed into an apartment near Amsterdam in October of 1992 (Hans. F.M. Crombag, Willem A. Wagenaar, and Peter J. Van Koppen, “Crashing Memories and the Problem of ‘Source Monitoring,” Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 1996: 95-104).

Ten months after the crash, Crombag and his colleagues surveyed 193 university faculty, staff and students about the accident. Specifically, participants in the survey filled out a questionnaire which asked, “Did you see the television film of the moment the plane hit the apartment building?” (Ehrman 90; Crombag 99). Of the 107 who responded, 55% said yes. Later another questionnaire was given to 93 law students. Ehrman relates that “In this instance 62 (66 percent) of the respondents indicated that they had seen the film. There was just one problem. There was no film” (Ehrman 90). Ehrman concludes that “they were imagining it, based on logical inferences…” (Ehrman 91).

What Ehrman doesn’t mention—and what is only relegated to a footnote in Crombag’s article— is the fact that “some networks showed a schematic computer animation of the movements of the plane between take-off and the moment of impact” (Crombag 95 n.1). A television computer animation could legitimately be considered “a television film.” So those who said they saw the television film were not necessarily mis-remembering a non-existent film. They may have thought the questionnaire was referring to the television computer animation film which did, in fact, exist and was shown on TV. Even though this film “did not show how the plane crashed” it did show “the movements of the plane between take-off and the moment of impact (Crombag, 95 n.1). The existence and airing of the computer animation on TV calls this entire study into question.

The possibility that those taking the questionnaire thought they were being asked about the computer animation is supported by the fact that the researchers were actually puzzled by the fact that it would be very improbable that a video would exist of the actual impact (the study was obviously before 911). They wrote, “only very little critical sense would have made our subjects realize that the implanted information could not possibly be true. We are still at a loss as to why so few of them realized this” (Crombag 103). It is actually quite easy to explain. Those taking the questionnaire thought they were being asked about the television animation film they had seen.

A follow-up study regarding the crash asked more specific questions, for example whether the plane was burning when it crashed, or whether it came in nose up, nose down or vertically, etc. (Crombag 100). Some who answered the questions admitted they had not seen the TV film of the crash. The researchers concluded that “The fact that in Study 2 many of the respondents answered the ‘memory’ questions’ after having admitted that they had not seen the (nonexisting) TV film indicates that they thought that all that mattered was getting it right” (103).
The researchers fail to realize, however, that this also undermines their study. The respondents simply misunderstood what they were being asked. They apparently thought this was a survey about what happened—and they pieced together what happened from memory of the extensive TV coverage of the aftermath of the crash. They were really being asked about what they personally remembered seeing on a television film. 
One of the points made in this article was that “Witnesses in legal trials must therefore be explicitly reminded that they can only testify as to what they know first-hand” (Crombag 103). Those who did the study should have followed their own advice. Were the respondents in Crombag’s study “explicitly reminded” that they were only to answer very specifically regarding what they had actually seen on a TV video (not an animation) of the actual crash—not what they inferred to have happened from videos of the aftermath? There is no way of knowing, therefore, whether these questionnaires were measuring memory or interpretation.

This study was a good reminder for those conducting court trials but has little relevance to historical studies. No one doubts that eyewitnesses get details wrong. What matters is the big picture or “gist” of the story. While the details in Crombag’s study varied, no one to our knowledge questioned the big picture, i.e. that a large plane (not a train or truck) did hit a building (not a soccer stadium) near Amsterdam (not Paris or London) and the result was chaos and disaster!