Monthly Archives: June 2009

theology

god forgets?

Leave a comment

Excuse me for bringing this up again, but a leader in the Assemblies of God said, “The very concept of ‘atonement’ means ‘to cover.’ Or, as David put it, ‘As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us’ (Psalm 103:12). God’s forgiveness includes His forgetfulness. He is not interested in broadcasting your failures. Instead, He throws around you His robes of righteousness.”

I argue with none of this but what is emphasized above. Does God’s forgiveness truly include his forgetfulness? This is a difficult problem for one reason only: political. I would feel free to criticize this remark, even publicly, but I agree with what this leader is doing and do not wish to cause him trouble. What I would like to do is criticize the remark without having it reflect on this person’s otherwise much desired leadership.

To do that, I would like to set the remark in the context of a fairly primitive theological view. It is primitive, not because it is generally biblical but because it refuses to use the light of logic as a test for theological statements. Let’s make up a new word to fit the problem: theoillogical. That is not to say that all true theological statements are comprehensible, but that some are beyond our logic. The above statement is not one of those.

One thing we have learned in the last 2500 years or so is that humanly perceivable logic is actually true, despite the curious fuzziness at its limits. The core of logic, though empty is nonetheless true. If it is not true then, everything we have constructed around it is also without plausible connection to our rational perception. The world then becomes a complete mystery, and all our science is still completely in the dark. I cannot accept this consequence. Kill me now. If our logic is disconnected from reality, then most of what we know is wrong. Let the world end now. It isn’t worth trying to square things away any more.

Rubbish. We may not know everything, but we know some things.

The other possibility is that the theology is wrong. Is it possible that some things can be known of God? Is it possible to know what God can or cannot know, at least categorically? There is another issue: is the God I believe to be, worthy of being my God? The answer to the first question that bears on the second one, is that, categorically, any God must know more than I do, both about me and the universe. If that simple requirement isn’t met; if that isn’t the God who is there, then don’t bother me any more with theology, I am an atheist. Or, better, if there are superior beings who don’t qualify as Gods, then I would be happy to meet them as fellow travelers in this universe.

I hope this clears things up. Though this leader’s God is great, it is not great enough to know my sins I haven’t forgotten. That God doesn’t qualify categorically.

Actually the God I worship is greater than this leader’s God. My God still forgives me, covers me, redeems me, even though my God knows everything about me. My God, the one who created logic, and for that matter, all truth, is worthy of me, is not less than me, is the maker, the master, the holder, the origin, the all-encompassing one, whose beginning and end are incomprehensible, and who, arguably, is beyond human logic, impossible to prove the existence of, and scientifically uninteresting.

I think I’m going to hunt for more on this later. Who knows…

gender

an interesting proposition

Leave a comment

I bumped into an interesting blog Feministe through a tweet by @kidsgoape. It concerned the prospect of not assuming the gender of a child, but letting the child choose their own gender. Click here.

Here’s my take on the issue. It is clear that there are a small percentage of cases where the attribution of gender because of genitalia has caused psychological problems for the child. But this is a very small number. I am guessing that number must be less than 1 percent, less than those who eventually declare themselves to be gay.

I agree with Holly that mistakes have been made, and against the absolutists who force the gender issue, I say, “Give it a break! There is a wide variability in human children, enough to suggest that absolute answers are mistaken.” But I say this to Holly as well as to the physiology=>Gender police.

Holly, attempting to protect the tender sensibilities of those few children who are traumatized by this issue, she wants to force all parents to allow their children to decide what their gender is. This is as much a mistake as allowing the normalizing power of patriarchy to guide the decisions of women. Most kids, under Holly’s rule would choose the gender their genitalia dictates, but some who would otherwise prosper in blissful naivete would be thrown into a psychological thunderstorm and suffer terrible doubts, and worry incessantly about their gender.

I understand and appreciate the sentiment that drives the radical to want things to be different, but to totalize a rule because of the warranted mistakes of a few parents is overreacting. The reason radical feminism failed to keep the attention of the public is that ordinary men became their enemies. Holly will make enemies of ordinary parents with this line of reasoning.

stuff

got a new camera

Leave a comment

I bought a new camera last week. This week I am learning to use it. It is a Canon 50D, a mid-range prosumer body with a 28-135 zoom lens. When I am happy with it, I will pass it off to my daughter who will be using it for school in the fall. I haven’t been much of a photographer in my life, preferring to see life through my eyes than through pictures that are mere slices of history. The same goes for movies. My wife doesn’t have this aversion.

I think my aversion to seeing the world this way is related to my feeling about people, not my enjoyment of material nature, the blue sky, green trees, flowers, or even my enjoyment of people. As it turns out, I am actually very shy about asking people if I can take their picture. It seems rude to me. I don’t know whether this is a natural aversion, or some sense that I can’t make an object of them. I think I should learn to ask people if I can take a picture of them. Who knows the truth of this?