A Christian Perspective on Harry Potter

Dislcaimer

I'm only on the fourth book: The Goblet of Fire. Something could come up later that throws the rest of this post out the window.

I did start reading them a while ago, and got further (the fourth book, I think), but I read through them faster, basically racing through them. I'm now reading them at a slower, more enjoyable pace.

Background

This post is an extension of my previous post: My Harry Potter Fan Theory where I ultimately conclude that in the Harry Potter universe, magic isn't magic per se; it's technology.

I have recently started reading the Harry Potter series of books, and am so far enjoying them.

When the books first came out, there was discussion amongst Christians as to what the Christian perspective on them was. The books easily lend themselves to comparison to Lord of the Rings and Narnia. There seems to be a "completeness" about 3. We seem to want triologies. So many jokes involve three similar, but contrasting things. (A priest, a pastor, and a rabbi walk into a bar...)

Tolkien and Lewis make two. They were both Brits who wrote fantasy highly popular, other-world epics, which are often enjoyed by younger readers, which have thus far stood the test of time. Where's the third?

Enter J.K. Rowling and Harry Potter. We don't know if Harry Potter will stand the test of time, but the other criteria are met.

But, for the Christian reader, Narnia is blatant allegory. Middle Earth mythology are not allegory, but are laced with Christian themes, and clearly from a Christian world-view. What about the Harry Potter universe?

Most Christian parents would be happy for their kids to read Narnia. For Middle Earth writings, it would be more a question of age-appropriateness. We read The Hobbit as a class in grade 4 (9 years old), and I just loved it! That summer I tried reading Lord of the Rings, and I just couldn't get past the birthday party! Now that I'm older and more used to longer, slower stories, Lord of the Rings is a much more enjoyable read.

But what about Harry Potter? Some would say "No way. That's witchcraft and it's of the devil!"

What I Heard Others Saying

When this discussion first came to my consciousness, I was still a post-secondary student living in Sault Ste. Marie. The default position was "Harry Potter promotes witchcraft, and is therefore evil."

So, at first I just went with the default position. I was too busy with school to be doing all that reading, and it's easy saving money on a movie ticket when none of your friends want to see the movie.

A friend, whom I greatly respect, disagreed with the default position.

"But, what about the spells? They use spells! Surely that's evil." I asked.

She replied to the effect that the Harry Potter spells are mostly just Latin, and that "nobody had a problem with 'Bippity-Boppity-Boo.'"

Then years later, on Twitter (I'm not calling it X) Tim Keller, in an AMA said that he enjoyed Harry Potter "as a story of friendship and redemption" or something to that effect.

Okay, if you're going to argue with Tim Keller on whether or not a Christian should partake, you'd better have some solid ammo.

Time for my own reading. I picked up a box set of the Harry Potter books, and started reading. And I noticed a few things that lead me to develop my own fan theory, which I will delve into now.

My Own Findings

First, in order to decide if Harry Potter is evil by Christian standards, we need to understand the basis for why we think witchcraft and wizardy is evil.

In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis says that the reason we don't have witch hunts anymore is that not that we don't think that witches are evil, but because we don't believe in witches anymore.

“Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the 'Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?’ But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did—if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive them mad or bring bad weather—surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did? There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house.”

― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

So, the primary issues with witches are:

1. They do evil things (ex: kill neighbours, destroy crops, etc.)
2. They call upon evil beings (ex: the devil, demons, etc) for them to use their power

I'll look at each in turn.

Witches Do Evil Things

Yes, they do do evil things, especially "he who must not be named".

But they also do good things.

In the Harry Potter universe, magical powers seem to be like any technology; it can be used for good or evil. In The Philosopher's Stone, Snape talks about curing poison. Surely that's good.

Are you using your smartphone for good or for evil? Or are you just using it to facilitate whatever else you're doing (communication, research, entertainment, education, etc.)?

Furthermore, Dumbledore does talk about sin with the assumption that sin is something bad. "Curiosity is not a sin", or something like that.

The Harry Potter universe acknowledges good and evil, and their versions of good things and evil things seem to be pretty much in line with Judeo-Christian versions. Curing poison is good. Killing people is bad.

Witches Call Upon Evil Beings

Here's where things get interesting.

There's no mention of any specific supernatural being (that I've gotten to). But in my reading I noticed a couple of things: First, they celebrate Halloween (aka: All Hallows (ie: Saints) Eve), not Samhain. They celebrate Christmas, not Winter Solstice. That is to say: they're celebrating Christian holidays instead of the actual pagan holidays! (It gets a little tricky with Easter because the word Easter is pagan in origin, not Christian.)

If the Harry Potter universe were truly trying to indoctinate kids into the occult, why not introduce them to Samhain and Winter Solstice? Rowling is already introducing everyone to a world of new vocabulary (like Muggle and Squib), a whole new sport with complex rules, new magical creatures, a history, etc. Introducing the audience to Samhain and Winter Solstice would have been small potatoes compared to the rules of Quiddich.

To me, that was the first thing I noticed that suggested that my friend and Tim Keller might be right; these aren't manuals of witchcraft the way we think of witchcraft.

So, where do they get their power?

I explore this further in My Harry Potter Fan Theory. In summary, they're not witches and wizzards in the Harry Potter world; they're more like X-Men. They have a genetic mutation (or several) that allow them, through the use of a wand and incantations, to manipulate the electromagnetic field. It's not magic. It's technology that's not understood through the lens of scientific method.

And that doesn't make a thing evil. Simply using a power that you don't understand doesn't mean you're grasping at power that you shouldn't. Do you understand how your phone works? I don't. And we still use our phones.

Aren't They Using Power For Their Own Ends?

This is a common objection from Christians about Harry Potter. If I understand it, the object could be summed up as follows: "In Narnia and Middle-Earth, power is to be used for the betterment of others, not achieving one's own objectives, like it is in Harry Potter. Those witches and wizards are using magic for their own means, rather than for others'."

But is that what's going on? Let's look into it.

Power in Narnia and Middle Earth

Narnia

There are a few instances where people are put in positions of power, and saying they do not feel ready, and Aslan assures them that it's that feeling that says that they are ready, and if they had said they were ready, they wouldn't be. And, of course, The White Witch would like to rule Narnia and prevent the four humans from ruling; and Edmond would like to be at her side bossing Peter around and putting him in his place, all while he eats Turkish Delight. Then there's the Last Battle, where ape tries to basically take over by being the puppet master who controls "Aslan". And the green witch in The Silver Chair.

So, yes, there do seem to be themes of the dangers of the pursuit of ill-gotten power and authority. All true authority and power belongs to Aslan. And, yes, any unrightful power is often self-serving, rather than others-serving. It seems to be a theme that a king or queen's primary duty is to their own people; servant leadership.

But, how apparent would this be to Lewis' target audience: 7 to 9 year olds? I don't think it's the main point of the books. It seems more secondary.

Middle Earth

(Forgive me if I conflate the movies with the books.)

In Middle Earth, the pursuit of power is largely a Sauron thing. (A whole series of posts could be written on these themes in Middle Earth from before the end of the Third Age, which is when The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings take place. And most people are only familiar with those writings, so I'll stick to them here.)

Sauron wants to take over, so he created the rings of power (minus The Three). This would help him take over the world. I don't think it's ever stated what his end-game was. Was it to take over, then bring Melkor back to Middle Earth to finally rule? Or just to rule himself? Then what?

Gandalf and Galadriel are both offered The One Ring, and decline, but not without saying they would start off with the best of intentions, but would eventually go bad, serving themselves. Same thing would happen with men.

The special thing about hobbits is that they have enough interest to keep the ring around without succumbing to it for long enough to return it and destroy it. Others would likely go bad before reaching the mountains bordering Mordor. Whereas Tom Bombadill, who's so self-sufficient, wouldn't even care about the ring, and would likely lose it.

I think Tolkien's warning about the pursuit of power could be summed up as following: "You may start out like Superman, but eventually you would turn into Homelander."

It seems like the pursuit of power is a substantial theme in Lord of the Rings. Power must be kept in check. No one should have absolute power.

In other words, Tolkien isn't trying to say "Power is to be used for others, not for the self." He's trying to say "The pursuit of power is a problem."

Power in Harry Potter

Lewis and Tolkien warn us against the perils of power. It's more subtle, but Rowling warns us of the same thing! Remember, in the Harry Potter universe is that magic is not the power like, say, the one ring. Magic is not the power. It's a talent based in genetics.

It's like if you found out you had perfect pitch as a kid, you should sign up for music lessons; you need to hone that skill to be useful; to be a gift to the world, to fulfill your God-given purpose. When Happy Gilmour finds out he's better at golf than hockey, he develops the skill of golf to win enough money to buy his grandma's house back (or whatever it was for).

If you had the "magic gene" that exists in the Harry Potter universe, you need to learn to control it. (In Fantastic Beasts we see what happens when magic is suppressed. It's not good.) You don't go to Hogwarts to learn to summon satanic powers, or communicate with the under-world. It's closer to taking music lessons when you find out you have perfect pitch.

And, really, what do they use these spells for? They're not destroying crops or killing babies. They're using it the way we use technology. We have cars and airplanes. They have broomsticks and portkeys. We have phones. They have owls and some can communicate through fires. We have microphones and PA systems. They can amplify their voices with wands. We have flashlights. They can create light with their wands. They do hunt vampires (implying that vampires are inherently evil), or train dragons, or keep magical creatures out of view of muggles. It seems like they're just going about their lives as we are, just differently. If the existence or use of "magic" is evil, then so is any of our technology.

In fact, there's a whole government body overseeing the use of magic, making sure everything is done properly, and people aren't abusing their magic.

The "magic" isn't the power. But power still exists in the magic world as it does in our world, Narnia, or Middle Earth. It's the domination of other people. It's ill-gotten authority. And the Harry Potter books and movies have plenty of warning against that; just like Lord of the Rings, or the Chronicles of Narnia. So, don't take a throne that doesn't belong to you; don't use the One Ring to fight against Mordor. And don't use any spells to dominate or kill others.

The warning is in the four houses: Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, and Slytherin. As Hagrid (inaccurately) points out "There's not a witch or wizard that went bad that wasn't in Slytherin." But, he's correct in most instances. Part of the traits of students in House Slytherin are they desire power and cunning and ambition. They want to get on top. They want to be better than others. (Not all, but some.)

Slytherin exists as a warning to us what happens when those traits (which, as C.S. Lewis points out, are not evil in and of themselves) get out of hand and take over as the top thing. There's a whole 43 minute video on YouTube exploring Why does Slytherin still exist?. I didn't watch the full thing (it seems like there may be spoilers), but it seems like we don't know of any good Slytherins. There probably are good Slytherins, but their stories are probably not interesting enough to make it into the stories. (I understand there may be some repentance later on in the stories. But no spoilers, please.)

And it's clear that your personal preferences play a role in what house you're placed in. Harry could have gone Slytherin, but he wanted Gryffindor, and there he was placed. It's as though Rowling is warning us: "Don't desire Slytherin. It's better to desire friendship, loyalty, bravery, knowledge than power."

The Imperius Curse 

Furthermore, it can be said that the real problem with the power is to dominate or control other people. Ultimately, that's what the One Ring gives you.  The Green Witch from The Silver Chair is in the wrong for doing this.

And in Harry Potter, the Imperius Curse allows someone to do just that!  "Ah ha!  See!  EVIL!"

Except that the Imperius Curse is one of the three "unforgivable curses" which lands one a life sentence in Azkaban without possibility of parole.

So it seems that Harry Potter is teaching us that there is right and wrong; and it's wrong to control other people for your own ends. Just like in Middle Earth and Narnia.

Divination

But what about Divination? That's clearly frowned upon in the Bible, and that's in Harry Potter.

Rodney Dangerfield gets more respect than Divination does in the HP universe. They downright make fun of it, often saying or implying that it's not a real thing.

Conclusion

"Power" or "magic" in the Harry Potter world is derived from genes, and not evil spirits, demons, or the devil. We're "fearfully and wonderfully made." (Psalm 139:14) If some people have the genetic ability to interface with the world in a different way than others, then it's God that gave them that gift. Magic people in the Harry Potter universe aren't getting their power from Satan. The source of the magic is not in conflict with a Christian world and life view.

Any technology can be used for good or evil. Harry Potter uses technology and genes to do mostly good.

Since the two problems with witchcraft (source of power, uses of power) are inconsistent with the Harry Potter universe, we can conclude that there's nothing inherently wrong with Christians enjoying the writings or the movies.

Lastly....

I will continue to update this post as I read through the books and find further supporting, or contradictory evidence.

“Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed.”

― G.K. Chesterton

My Harry Potter Fan Theory

Dislcaimers

I know I'm probably not the first one to come up with this. I haven't looked for others. These are just my own conclusions. I guess I'm writing this out in case one of my old English teachers stumble upon it. "See, I can do this sort of thing, but only if I find the subject matter interesting."

I'm only on the fourth book: The Goblet of Fire. Something could come up later that throws the rest of this post out the window.

I did start reading them a while ago, and got further (the fourth book, I think), but I read through them faster, basically racing through them. I'm now reading them at a slower, more enjoyable pace. And during that time, I noticed a few things that have led to my current theory which I outline here.

Theory: Harry Potter et al aren't actual wizzards and witches; they're basically X-Men

Allow me to explain.

While reading the first book, something jumped out at me: At Hogwarts they were celebraing Halloween (ie: All Hallows (ie: Saints) Eve) and Christmas. Why would British witches and wizzards celebrate Christian holidays, rather than their pagan equivalents: Smahain and Winter Solstice?

Then I noticed that everyone is either magic or a muggle. There's no going back and forth. If you're a muggle, you can't learn these spells and do magic. If you're magic, you can certainly not do, but you can't stop actually being magic.

And, for the most part, magic people come from at least one magic parent. Occasionally, two magic parents produce a muggle (i.e.: a Squib). And occasionally, two muggle parents produce a magic person. But, it's noted that there is often a magic person somewhere in their ancestry. It really seems like genetics are involved.

I don't understand genetics well enough to understand how things like recessive genes work. But I think it's that a gene can be passed down for generations without the thing it codes for appearing. For example, my brother and I both identify as gingers (but not as much as the Weasleys). But no one else on either side of our family has a hair colour even close to ours! So, out of nowhere, we have this reddish/strawberry-blond hair. And out of nowhere, Hermione, a talented witch, is born of two muggles.

And what if several generations ago, like hundreds or thousands of years ago, there was a genetic mutation that somehow allowed a person to interact with, and manipulate the electromagnetic field? And this if generally what we see in the Harry Potter universe. They can manipulate objects as a whole (move things without touching them). And they can transform objects (this would be maniupulation of molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles). But they can't create ex-nihilo; hence their need for money. (I don't know why they need their own currency though.).

(In The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, Mr. Beaver tells the Pevensie children that Jadis is not a "daughter of Eve", but a "daughter of Lilith". What if that's where the magic started? This isn't a part of my theory, per se, but I'm currently reading through the Narnia Chronicles, and that thought occurred to me. It also fits in with a popular meme that the four Hogwarts houses equate to the Pevensie children. Maybe there is a Narnia/Harry Potter cross-over!)

At one point it's even mentioned that a lot of electronics don't work at places like Hogwarts because of all the magic concentrated in one location. Why would magic interfere with electronics? But this is exactly what you would expect if magic were really just the manipulation of the electromagentic field!

There also seems to be some complexity and precision to magic. You can't just say an incantation and make something happen. A wand is needed. And not just any wand, it has to be a wand that works with you specifically. And incantations need to be pronounced properly ("Wing-gar-dium Levi-o-sa", not "Wingardium Levio-sa"). And the swish-and-flick of the wand needs to be done properly. This seems to be more in line with science than magic.

And they can't bring people back from the dead. (There doesn't seem to be any explanation (so far) why some people die (like Harry's parents) and some people become ghosts (like Nearly-Headless Nick)). This implies there's more to life than electronic impulses. Either that, or no one's figured out how to get those impulses going again. But the spirit-world does exist in the Harry Potter universe.

Hogwarts or Dumbledore's School For Gifted Youngsters?

Any sufficiently advanced technology looks like magic to a primitive society. It seems like this is more like technology that was derived without scientific method. They don't understand it at the sub-atomic level. They just know a set of causes and their effects without understanding the underlying relationships. (And that's okay. Do you know how your phone works? I don't. But we can still use our phones. Nor does our lack of understanding make it magic. But someone understands it.)

And since they take kids out of muggle school long before they can learn about scientific method, maths, science, and other muggle subjects, and concentrate entirely on their own subjects, it's unlikely that science will ever be appreciated or applied by magic people. They'll continue to hand down their potions and spells to the next generation without understanding why they work, all the while calling it "magic" rather than what it is: technology.

Conclusion

Wizards and witches in the Harry Potter universe are more like mutants a la X-Men, and not like witches and wizards like we normally think of them. In the L. Frank Baum books, after The Wizard of Oz leaves Oz, he does return and Glinda teaches him some basic spells. He does become a wizard. Dudley Dursley will never become a wizard.

I will continue to update this post as I read through the books and find further supporting, or contradictory evidence.

I Hope I'm Not Left Below!

As I write this blog, the Rapture is supposed to happen tomorrow. Then, the world will end in October. I have figured out how the world will end. The universe will be ripped apart by a giant paradox.

Here's my syllogism:

1. The Rapture is a Christian Doctrine concerning the end of the world.
2. If the Rapture happens, then it proves that Christianity is the correct religion.
3. If Christianity is the correct religion then The Bible is infallible.
4. The Bible says that neither the angles nor Jesus - The Son of God - knows when the end of the world would be. "Only The Father knows." - Math 24:36, Mark 13:32
5. If the Rapture happens tomorrow, May 21, 2011, then it has been predicted. Someone other than The Father knew about it.
6. If someone other than The Father knows when the end of the world is then The Bible was wrong, ie: fallible. (See points 3 and 4).
7. The predictor of tomorrow's rapture predicts an end of the world in 5 to 6 months - much shorter than the 7 years predicted by The Bible.
   
8. Point 3 contradicts points 6 and 7. It's a paradox. POW! The universe is ripped apart.
   

My recommendations:

1. A this point, crossing the streams might work.
2. DON'T PANIC

Is It Getting Warm In Here, Or Is It Just The Climatologists?

One thing that bothers me is when experts in a field disagree on something. It seems there's no real way for a layman like me to know the truth. Take global warming, for example. The experts can't seem to agree on it.

I think most scientists agree that the climate is warming. The question is one of cause. Are humans to blame, or is the warming due to natural changes and our contribution is merely a drop in the bucket?

A recent report came out that was put together by many scientists saying that we are indeed the cause. But there's still scientists saying we're not. This report was, apparently, pretty convincing. But then they found that global warming isn't localized to Earth. Apparently Mars is getting warmer. This implies it might not be our fault.

So, whom do I believe?

It seems to me that a lot of people, who are not climatologists, are pretty convinced one way or the other. I'm sure if I asked them who I should believe, they would tell me to believe the scientists who tell them what they already believe. If I ask someone who thinks we're causing the global warming, they'll tell me to listen to the scientists who say that it's our fault. If I ask someone who thinks we're not the main cause, then they'll tell me to listen to the scientists who say we're not.

And none of these people will be climatologists. Now, I know who most of my blog readers are, and I don't know of any climatologists reading my blog. If you're a climatologist, if you reply to me telling me what side I should believe, then you'll also have to tell me why I should believe you instead of the climatologists saying the opposite.

Since I claim ignorance, the confirmation bias can't really be applied to me here. One suggestion would be that I read the studies and decide for myself. But that seems like a waste of time. I'm not a climatologist, nor do I wish to go to school for the length of time it would take to become one. So I'll end up wasting my time reading stuff that I don't understand. And they could be pulling the wool over my eyes and I'd have no idea. Same thing if they were practicing bad science, I probably wouldn't be able to tell. In the end I'd still believe what I wanted to believe, or being just as confused as I am now.

(The confirmation bias is when you find evidence to support a belief of yours, and ignore evidence contrary to your belief.)

So, whom do I believe? Since I can't make an educated decision it seems my choice of whom to believe would be arbitrary, doesn't it?

The Second Stupidest Thing I've Ever Heard

By now you've certainly heard that this archaeologist guy, Simcha Jacobovici, found the bones of Jesus, his wife Mary, and his son Judah. And he has DNA proof.

This is the second stupidest thing I've ever heard.

There is no end to articles explaining what's wrong with his conclusion, things like Joseph, Jesus, Mary, and Judah were very common names at the time, why would Matthew have been buried with Jesus' family?, why would Jesus' family have been buried in Jerusalem when that was pretty far from their home in Nazareth?, Why wasn't Jesus brother, James, buried with them?, and several other problems with his conclusion.

But they have all seemed to forgotten one big huge problem with this Simcha's conclusion.

For some reason non Christians tend to think of Jesus as a good moral teacher. But Jesus' teachings are not the main point of Christianity. Christianity is built on this succession: Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension. If one of those is missing, the story falls apart. Without the death the price for our sins has not been payed, which means we're not free from them, we still have to pay. With the death, but without the resurrection we have no way of knowing that Jesus' death made adequate atonement. ie: we wouldn't know if we were free from our sins or not. It would also have meant that death defeated him, as it defeats us. It is very important to Christianity that Jesus didn't stay dead. With the death, resurrection, but not the ascension then Jesus would have grown old and, presumably, died an old man. (Okay, it's true we don't know what would have happened had Jesus' not ascended. It's sort of implied in the Bible that if Jesus didn't ascend, then we wouldn't have received the Holy Spirit.)

So now Simcha Jacobovici says he has the bones of Jesus. This would be possible in one of the following two scenarios: 1) Jesus died on the cross, and never rose from the dead; 2) Jesus died on the cross, rose from the dead, lived for a while, hung around, did stuff, then died later on and was buried in Jerusalem.

We will now look at the flaws of each of these scenarios.

Concerning scenario #1:
After Jesus was arrested by the Romans and the Jews his disciples got scared. And rightly so. They figured that the Romans and Jews would come after them next. Now, they might get ignored if they laid low for a while and didn't bother anyone about Jesus for a while.

But then something happened. They came out of hiding, and decided to not lay low under the radar. They went around proclaiming the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. They did this fearlessly. Most of them died for this. Some were crucified. Some were burned at the steak. Some were sawed in two. Some were stoned to death. (With big stones, not with joints.) They had to really believe what they were proclaiming. Even if they thought Jesus was never raised from the dead, but they didn't want him to die in vein, and they wanted to spread a lie, some may have died for it, but surely not all. Surely there would have been a number admitting to the truth rather than dying for a lie.

People will die for what they think is right, but few will die for what they know is wrong.

Furthermore, if Jesus was dead, and the disciples were spreading the word that he had risen, the Jews and Romans could have easily refuted them by showing everyone the corpse. (BTW: The tomb was guarded by Roman soldiers who's lives would have depended on their successful guarding of the tomb.) But they knew that the tomb was empty.

The whole of the Acts of the Apostles couldn't have happened. Even if you don't believe in the miracles of the Acts, or pentecost or anything, you can't deny how Christianity took off, becoming a thorn in the Roman's side, and eventually taking over the Roman Empire to become it's official religion.

Concerning scenario #2:
Some say all these bones mean is that Jesus didn't physically ascend into Heaven, He only "Spiritually ascended". But if Jesus didn't physically ascend, and instead was just living down the street with his wife Mary, and son Judah, in Jerusalem, then again the early Christians wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. Part of Christianity is the hope of Christ returning. How could he return if he hadn't left?!

Furthermore, if Jesus was raised from the dead, and continued going around saying what he was saying then the Jews would have gone after him again, or turned and believed in him. We know they did neither. If, on the other hand, Jesus was raised from the dead but stopped doing what he had been doing and saying what he had been saying than 2 things: 1) the movement would have fizzled out. Who would go to their death for a movement who's leader and instigator was no longer interested? If Jesus was no longer claiming to be the Messiah, then why would his disciples go on proclaiming that He was, and that He was coming back? and 2) that would have been the only time in history when the death penalty would have been shown to be a crime deterrent.

Whether or not you believe in the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, you can't deny that his early followers believed in those things whole heartedly, and acted accordingly. They willingly went to their imprisonment, torture, and death for that belief.

And that's why that's the second stupidest thing I've ever heard.

What's Really Scary

Note: This blog entry is written as a response to to Kwilson's blog entry entitled "Redeemed, How I love to proclaim it!" where he quoted the end of a conversation we had. This is my response.

Consider the following verses:
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"
1 Corinthians 3:19

"Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed."
Isaiah 6:10

"He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"
Mark 4:11-12

I'll get to those verses in a moment.

For the sake of this entry, assume the doctrine of the 'elect' to be true. That is, assume that God has pre-ordained who would be saved, and who wouldn't, before the world began.

First let's consider the following scenario: Let's say there is Church A and Church B. Both A and B believe in the inerrancy of the original Biblical texts. Perhaps A and B translate those texts differently, or perhaps they interpret a translation differently. Perhaps the differences in their translation or interpretation is a significant salvation issue.

Each church has it's own experts that attest to their translation and interpretation. There are very very smart people in both churches (as well as not so smart people). And there is apparent fruit in the people in both churches. There are changed lives. There are people who go in living like spawn of Satan and after a while end up with patience, self control, love, etc.

Now, each church is convinced that the other is in error on their doctrine. Enough error to think the people in the other church are not saved because of that error. When a new convert in A asks an elder "How come people in B just can't see the obvious truth about this?" The elder may very well reply with a quote of a verse I quoted earlier. "Well, son, their eyes have been blinded. Unless one repents then they must not be one of the elect." But the same conversation could take place in B regarding the people in A.

Now, usually 1 Corinthians 3:19 would be used in references to those who make no claim to Christianity. For example, the wisdom of the world says "Living together before you get married makes sense. Sort of a trial-run." Christians would say "No. Better wait 'till you get married before you live together." In this particular example the statistics are on the side of the Christians. You're marriage is more likely to last if you don't first live together. (However, take note that that is correlational observation, not a statement about causation.)

---

A while ago I was discussing Trinitarianism with a Sabellianist. He warned me that Jesus said "Unless you believe that I am who I say I am, you will die in your sins." I said "And I have no problem with that." meaning 'Jesus claimed to be the son of God, and I believe his claim to be true.'

It would have been a whole lot easier had Jesus sat his disciples down, told them to get out some paper and pencils and write down what he was about to say, then told them "Listen, this is how it is: God is one being, but three separate, yet co-existant, persons who all share in the attributes of God (omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence). There's the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, in that hierarchical order. Yup, we're all persons. And, by the way, submission does not imply inequality." But, the fact is, he didn't do that (or at least it's not recorded). Instead throughout the Bible we get hints of that. The Old Testament was all about "There is one God!" Then during Jesus' ministry he makes the claim "The Father and I are one." Then he goes and makes distinction between him and the Father; and the Holy Spirit. Then we see more of the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts, where He is referred to as a person. From all these things taken together we derive the doctrine of the Trinity.

It's not an easy or intuitive doctrine. Heck, it took the church fathers around 300 years to figure it out and decide it was official doctrine. This got me to thinking "Even a lot of non Trinitarians understand that to get into a right relationship with God they need to confess their sins and put their faith in Jesus Christ. God sent his only son to die on the cross. It seems God is bending over backwards to make it as easy as possible for people to enter into right relationship with Him, to bring them into the kingdom. Then what does one need to know to be saved? It seems to me that the stuff that God wants us to know for sure would be laid out plain as day in the Bible, stuff you just can't miss!"

But then I see verses like Mark 4:11-12. Stuff is being hidden lest the non-elect turn and repent. Stuff might be hidden from the Baptists, stuff that seems foolish to us. Stuff that makes sense to others in Christendom. How do we know which of us is blinded lest we turn and repent, and which is actually right? If you're part of the blinded group then no matter how much you search the scriptures you won't find the answer. The only way you'll find the truth is if God changes His mind and de-blinds you. You could get 10 doctorate degrees in theology and you would still miss it! But you probably would, at some point, think you have it, totally convinced you're saved and part of the elect. And one who is part of the elect may find the answer in Sunday School when he's 5.

So, what's really scary is that you could be convinced that you're part of the elect and you're really not, and you can't know until it's too late and there's really nothing you can do about it.

Before anyone replies saying "Ahhh, but the Bible says such'n'such" remember you're seeing with the eyes God gave you. If you're part of the blinded group then you could quote the whole Bible to me and it wouldn't make a difference to me.

And if anyone (I know) says something like "yes, but you're assuming the doctrine of the elect to be true, and we know it isn't because of the following verses...." I will buy a plane ticket to wherever you are and give you the glaring of a lifetime on two counts; 1) because of what I wrote in the previous paragraph, and 2) at the very top of this post I said "assume [the doctrine] to be true." The same thing applies to anyone who argues that my logic is flawed because Christianity in any of it's forms is wrong. While not explicitly stated, it was implied for this post.

And, yes, I know that getting saved hasn't much to do with how much you know, but rather how you respond when God calls your name.

It wouldn't be nearly as scary if the doctrine of the elect wasn't true. Then to get saved all you'd have to do is put your faith in Christ, don't loose it, and you're set for eternity. You wouldn't have to worry about not being one of the elect.

Another way that wouldn't be nearly as scary is if the number of the elect is a lot larger than your typical Evangelical may think it is. The way some talk, you'd think you needed to have an MDiv to be saved.

Take the Jehovah's Witnesses. They reject the doctrine of the Trinity. It seems foolish to them. I've talked with a number of them and they ask me what it's like having a "Schizophrenic God." So, if they're right then The Trinity is a false doctrine, us Trinitarians are worshiping a false god, and are destined for the grave.

Now, we Trinitarians have our logic as to why their version of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is foolishness. But if they're right, then our eyes have been blinded, and we're just blowing a lot of hot air around.

But if we're right, and they're wrong, than they're the one blowing the hot air around. And there's not way to know until we all die and see who made it and who didn't.

But I think if you ask a Jehovah's Witness, and a Baptist, to each break it down and tell you as simply as possible, how to get saved, they'd each tell you "You can't make it on your own. Nothing you can do will be good enough. You can't buy back your way into God's favor. You must put your faith in Jesus Christ and ask forgiveness from God through Jesus." If that truly is it, as long as you do that, regardless of doctrinal beliefs, then you'll be saved, then the number of the elect is a lot larger than a lot of Evangelicals believe. That means that a lot of people believing heresies are saved. Then the non-Elect are those who have no interest in God at all, or reject Jesus as a savior. Then when Atheist Andy meets God the conversation may go something like this:

Atheist Andy: Woah! You really are real!

God: Yeah. Always have been.

Atheist Andy: How come I didn't know about you? Why didn't you ever show yourself to me?

God: You weren't interested. You never really wanted to know me anyway.

Atheist Andy: Fair enough.

Anyway, it's scary because it's a logical question with no possible logical or intellectual fool-proof answer (except the two that I mentioned: the doctrine of the elect is wrong, or the number of the elect is larger than estimated). You cannot use either scripture, nor your intellect to come to an answer. And even if an angel of the Lord were to appear to you telling you the answer, how could you be sure? Even the Devil comes disguised as an angel of light, and if you're not part of the elect then you can be deceived.

Much Ado About Evidence

Here's a scenario for you to ponder, and hopefully respond to. Hows about we get some discussion going here?

Scenario:

You're charged with a crime you didn't commit. In actual fact, someone framed you. Let's say, a murder. Someone framed you for murder. The person who framed you was very smart and they managed to remove all evidences of their guilt, and substitute those evidences for evidences of your guilt.

So, you're arrested. You under-go psychological examinations. It's found that you're very capable of going to trial. You show absolutely no signs of mental defect. (What ever that means.) So then you go to trial. The prosecution starts laying out the evidence against you, and it's damning. You sit there with your jaw on the floor at the amount of evidence against you. They somehow got some DNA evidence against you!

When it's time for the defense to present, you have no alibi, you have no counter evidence. You have no reasonable doubt. You're entire defense is "Honest! I didn't do it! Please, you have to believe me!"

In the world there are two people who know in actual fact that you didn't commit the crime, it was the other guy: you and him. Everyone else hears the evidence and has to judge on that. Perhaps some people know you and say "[S]He could never do that!" (But then think of all the people who get locked away for murder who's neighbours say "He was a quiet man who seemed harmless. This took us all by surprise.")

(If you think that everyone who's in jail is guilty, you're living in a freaking dream world! Even in Canada due to interrogation methods there are people who are locked away because they confessed to a crime that they didn't commit. And let's not even talk about other nations!)

So, tell me, what should people believe? Should people believe you just because you say you didn't do it? Should people believe the evidence? What should the jury do? What should the judge do?

At what point do you accept the evidence and say "Given the evidence, it's clear I'm as guilty as sin."? Does this mean you refute the results of the psychological tests? Do you continue to be adamant about your innocence?

In other words, how much stock do you put in the evidence?

What should happen? Should you be let go? Should you spend your life rotting in prison? Or, just 25 years? Or fried?

I Don't Know What I Don't Know, And Neither Do You.

I think it was Plato who said something to the effect of "wisdom starts when you realize how much you don't know." After my many years of school, I have learned a lot. I see how much more I haven't learned, therefore how much I don't know. It seems for every thing I learn I find there's about 5 things that I didn't know that I didn't know.

Now, there are a number of people I'm sure who will admit that there's lots they don't know. It may be that they merely give intellectual assent to that notion. They may actually believe it. But I wonder how many think of the implications of not knowing what they don't know, or not knowing what they don't know that they don't know.

I have a few examples of this in mind. I might get around to them in future blog posts, but for now I'll leave you with one example.

Earlier, I posted a link to an article which said the U.N. weapons inspector said that the war in Iraq is a "pure failure" and the Iraqis were better-off under Saddam. As you may have guessed if you read that post that I'm not a huge fan of Bush. I won't explain why, for two reasons, one of which is that I don't want this blog to be a political site, and the other I'll explain in a minute.

Somebody had read that post and said to me something to the effect of "That weapons inspector doesn't know what he's talking about," or "That weapons inspector doesn't know everything."
It occurred to me later "wait a sec...this guy thinks he knows more about that situation than the U.N. weapons inspector?"

See, there's lots we'll never hear about the war in Iraq, or a whole host of other political and non-political issues. What we do hear is filtered at least through some bias, and possibly through the Pentagon. There are only a small handful of people on this planet who know enough about that situation to actually have a valid, educated opinion on that situation. The U.N. weapons inspector may be one of them. I don't know. What I do know is that I'm not one of them (the second reason I don't want to put my reasons for Bushpobia on this blog). And, unless my friend is living a double life where he's actually a spy or something, he's probably not in that small handful of people either.

I know most people who read this blog regularly. (Would you believe I get under 1000 hits per day?) Now, I don't know what you know. But, there is a very low statistical probability that anyone reading this blog actually knows enough to have a valid, informed, educated opinion about the war in Iraq. (I, personally think Bush went in to Avenge daddy. But I don't know what Bush knows. Bush may have had actual good reasons that he's not telling anybody. Reasons other than WMDs.)

What's this you say? "That's the beauty of opinions, you don't need to know all the facts to have one."

Let me ask you this. What's your reaction to someone who shoots his mouth off to you about something they clearly know nothing about, but something you know about? (Like that guy I met who tried telling me, and another computer science student how it was because he worked at a call center that told people how to reboot their cable modems.) My reaction is usually "What a donkey. They don't know what they're talking about." Then what they have to say, on other topics, loses credibility.

Now think of someone you know who, instead of having something to say about everything, says "You know, I don't know," to some things. You think "That person is willing to admit they don't know." It lends credence to what they say when they actually have something to say.

Decide which person you want to be.

And keep in mind, both Tony Robbins and Tyler Durden say "Stop trying to be perfect!" which implies the statement "Stop trying to know everything!"

Of course, this forces me to examine what I know about. Precious little. Even what I do know about, I know very little.

It also raises the question of how I know what I know. Most of it is by authority. When you go to school, you get mostly authoritative knowledge. Stuff in text books and lectures. Some would say experience is a better teacher than any classroom. I'm not sure about that. When it comes to complicated things like relationships you might have patterns that direct all your relationships, and therefor your learning and knowledge on the subject. For example, if you're co-dependent then that will shape you're relationships and you'll learn completely different things than someone who has hermit tendencies.

Also, when it comes to a skill....I'm still skeptical. Why can I write better HTML/CSS code than some people who have been doing it much longer than I? And furthermore, why do I keep changing tenses in this post?

Then there's the confirmation bias. You pay attention to evidence that backs up what you already believe, and mitigate the evidence that runs contrary to what you believe. If you're predisposed to like Bush, then you will find reasons to like him, and evidence that what he's doing is good. If you don't then you'll find evidence that he's just messed things up and doesn't know what he's doing.

And, of course, the whole thing assumes you're not insane, or in a giant Matrix-esque machine.

You Can't Legislate Morality

One of the advantages to going to school for ten years is that you learn a lot of stuff. One of the advantages to going to university, as opposed to college, is that you learn lots of stuff that has nothing to do with your major. Some people really don't want to learn anything except their area of concentration. Electives are mere annoyances in their "education." Whereas I've always enjoyed my electives. Often times, more so than my concentration subjects.

As a result, I've taken a number of law classes in university. I think it's fair to say that I know more about Canadian law that your average Joe. (I'm no lawyer, nor do I know very many specifics. I mostly know how it works. I don't know a lot, but your average Joe knows very little. One guy kept trying to convince we don't have the right to remain silent when arrested in Canada. We certainly do. It's in the consitituion and case law (Ibrahim v. The King.))

There are two theories of law that I'm aware of: positive law and natural law. The natural law theory says that laws come from a sense of right and wrong that we all inherently have. Positive law theory says that something is law because the powers-that-be said so; made law to keep order, not because it's right or morally superior.

Law, as a whole, is a combination of the two. Some laws are obviously positive law, like driving on the right side of the road instead of the left. Driving on the right side is not morally superior to driving on the left. We need to have a side, the actual side is arbitrary, but in Canada we drive on the right. If everyone obeys that law then order is kept.

But where people, mostly Christians, get confused when dealing with law is they assume that laws that have a moral component come from the natural law as opposed to positive law. Take killing. Murder is wrong, and murder happens to be against the law. But (and this is the sixty four thousand dollar question) is murder against the law because it's wrong, or because without it on the books chaos would erupt?

Imagine a society where murder was not illegal, but was still understood by most to be wrong. Or, where it is illegal, but not enforced by the state. Person A murders Person B for whatever reason. It may be justifiable, it may not. It probably is justifiable in the eyes of Person A, but probably not to Person B's son, Person C. Person C then goes and administers justice and kills Person A. Justice has been done, right? Well, not in the eyes of Person D, Person A's son, who administers justice on Person C. And it goes on and on.

Eventually what will happen is that revenge-for-hire businesses pop up; officially or unofficially (like the mafia). Now you have two groups administering justice; the state for all official crimes, and the other groups for the unofficial crimes, like murder. But the unofficial groups are unofficial and can't be controlled. The government can be voted out, or revolted against. It seems inevitable that the unofficial groups would come into conflict with each other.

What we end up with is chaos. It's the same thing for other natural law things like stealing, raping, etc.

But, as long as you make those things illegal and enforce those laws then you can have some semblance of order.

The sooner you realize this, the sooner Canadian law, indeed most constitutional laws, make more sense. When it comes to the same-sex marriage debate, sure you may say it's a wrong life style, and shouldn't have been made legal; Canada shouldn't be condoning, much less celebrating immoral life-styles. But what does morality have to do with the law?

There are a few laws left on the books that seem to have roots in morality rather than order-keeping. The one the comes to mind are the euthenasia laws. If I were a betting man I'd be willing to bet my entire student loan that the euthenasia laws will be struck down in my life time.

Can anyone else think of any laws that exist purely for morality reasons?