The Essential Ingredient for Meaningful Teaching

The most effective sorts are teaching are the ones that are student-centric rather than curriculum-centric. While curriculum-centric teaching focuses ostensibly on what students "ought" to know, student-centric teaching emphasizes that which students will actually find personally meaningful. This is not a paradigm generally embraced by teaching institutions. Curriculum-centric teaching is the norm in American public schools, private schools, and churches today. This misplaced focus is one of the major reasons why most teaching is perceived as irrelevant. If the goal of teaching is for students to be better prepared for life and better equipped to face various challenges, then it is imperative that students learn things that practically impact their lives. In order for students to learn things that practically impact their lives, it is necessary that whatever is taught directly addresses things that pertain to students' lives.

Curriculum-centric teaching does not effectively meet this need since curriculum-centric teaching has several instrinsic limitations. The first limitation of curriculum-centric teaching is that curriculums are developed by the people who teach, based on their own impressions of what students will find useful rather than being developed directly based on feedback and inquiries from students. The second limitation of curriculum-centric teaching is that it is fairly inflexible. Since curriculum-centric teaching typically emphasizes specific lessons that must be taught in a specific order, there is little room for day-to-day flexibility or deviation from the scheduled content. Additionally, since curriculums are generally developed and refined over a period of time and not prone to be changed rapidly, many of them are based on the real or perceived needs of students in times past, rather than being developed in response to the needs of today's students. The third limitation of curriculum-centric teaching is that it is uniformly "taught" to a broad range of students, whose varying levels of foundational knowledge and learning styles serve to negate the effectiveness of what is taught. Curriculum-centric teaching cannot be easily adapted to the needs of individual students or groups of students.

Student-centric learning, contrastingly, focuses on what students actually need to know. It is form of responsive, dynamic teaching, rather than being static and inflexible. For a teacher to teach students content of relevance, it is indispensible for teachers to be aware of what matters to students, what students struggle with, what students think about, and how students think. For this sort of awareness to be developed, teaching must be a relational experience rather than a merely "academic" one. An atmosphere of open dialog and direct student feedback must be continually cultivated. Simple "factual" communication is insufficient to gauge what students are actually learning. Instead, two-way communication must be the foundation of learning.

As an illustration, there is a profound difference between a teacher informing a student of a fact, and a teacher answering a question posed by a student, even if the hypothetical content is exactly the same. When a teacher informs a student of a fact, this may be a fact that the student does not care about, has no deeper comprehesion of, or already knows. However, when a student poses a self-motivated question, the answer then given is one that is desired, likely unknown and one which the student is prepared to develop a comprehension of. The best way to prepare students to learn is by encouraging them to ask questions, showing them how to ask questions, and having an environment where question-asking and open discussion are encouraged.

Upon the foundation of open dialog and relational learning, is it certainly possible to teach specific lessons about specific topics, since relevance has already been established. After (or even during) the teaching of specific lessons, it is best if there is room for direct feedback about the helpfulness and relevance of the lesson. Apart from establishing that a specific topic is relevant to a student, however, there is limited usefulness in teaching specific lessons. Relevance is the most essential ingreident for meaningful teaching. Anything that is taught must be relevant to the students' lives, comprehensible by the students, and taught in a manner that ensures students are able to connect with the way it is being taught.

The focus in developing lessons should be on quality, rather than quantity. Rather than throwing lots of factual content at students and hoping for them to retain some of it, teaching would be far more effective if most of the time were spent on seeking to develop relationships with students and determining topics of relevance. A few lessons that are highly relevant far outweigh the practical value of many lessons with limited relevance. This is a paradigm that is utilized by effective salesmen, effective couselors, and effective entrepreneurs. Developing a strategy that ensures relevance to the target market is the key to success for those sorts of jobs. If a similar paradigm were adopted towards teaching methods, the quantity of teaching and time spend teaching would decrease, while the quality of the lessons taught would increase exponentially.

Gender Roles and RPGs - A Discussion

A few days ago, I had a very interesting discussion concerning whether a Biblically-modeled patriarchal family structure necessarily implied that women are worse than men. The discussion also touched on whether or not a Biblical view of gender roles is sexist.

TheoConfidor: I believe that the patriarchal structure is what results in the most fulfillment and happiness for both men and women. A man should be a man, lead his household, be respected by his family and make a difference in the world. A woman should help a man in his goals, submit to his leadership willingly, love him passionately and respect him.

Corax: Are you then implying that women are innately inferior to men in regards to familial leadership? It sure seems like it, that a woman's leadership, "wearing the pants," seems to result in "discord, sadness and strife" in a family, to your eyes.

TheoConfidor: I am not implying that women are innately inferior in regards to familial leadership. In some cases, a wife may be more capable of leading her family than her husband. That isn't the issue. The issue is role-designation and not innate ability.

Since we are all gamers, please allow me to use a simple RPG example. Sometimes my brothers and I play D&D. Each of us has a specific class-role. The cleric should do the healing. The fighter should provoke the enemy and absorb attacks. The barbarian should smash dangerous enemies. The wizard should help by wiping out minions and doing some mobility control. Now, it might be that the fighter is built in such a way that he could do more damage than the barbarian. However, if he chooses to focus on killing enemies rather than taking the enemy aggro, more damage might be done, but it might also leave the more fragile party members open to attack. Stepping out of his role occasionally might be a good thing, but if he continually focuses on dealing damage rather than on tanking, the party will suffer and everyone will be less effective than if he stuck to his designated role.

It's the same way in the family. A man has his role, and a woman has her role. To the degree that each one fulfills their natural role, they will derive fulfillment and also contribute great to the group's success. To the degree that each one steps outside of their role, the family will be less effective and less fulfilled in the long run. Unlike with an RPG where each player can choose their own class, men and women are hardwired to perform their divinely-designated roles.

Corax: Problem with that would be that it still assumes and implies that women are inferior to men in leadership roles, particularly family ones. And that's called sexism.

TheoConfidor: The Bible never teaches that women are inferior to men. Different, yes. Inferior, no. There is no sexism in taking a Biblical stance on gender and gender roles.

Corax: I should also point out that I and no one else is proclaiming that women and men are exactly the same, and no rational feminists would state that either; that's not the point of feminism. Feminism is the pursuit of the end of discrimination against women. Which is based on the notion that men and women are equals (which seems to contradict your views Theo, given your descriptions of domination and such. "Loving" or not, it's still inequality).

TheoConfidor: If women are different than men, then it makes sense that one should treat them differently. Equality (of worth and value) does not imply equality of condition, equality of capacity in all areas, nor equal roles.

Again, in the example of an RPG, would it be reasonable to say that the cleric is more valuable or better than the fighter? Is the wizard better than the rogue? The simple fact is, they all are necessary and needed. They each have their strengths and weaknesses. One is good at healing and protecting, one is good at absorbing attacks and restricting enemy motion, one is good at controlling and special effects, and one is good at delivering the stabby-death. If the party is missing any one of it's members, it will not function as well. Each one is different, but each one is equally needed and equally valuable to the party.

The Christian worldview doesn't have such a limited view of "better-worse" hierarchies as the modern secular person does. In Christianity, all the members of the body of Christ, though possessing different gifts, are all equally valuable and necessary. The janitor who sweeps the floors is is necessary as the pastor who preaches. Those who have the gift of mercy and compassion are as crucial as those with the gift of prophecy. The weak are as valuable and treasured in God's eyes as the strong. The poor are as necessary as the rich. None is better or worse than any other. Each one has been given different gifts and different callings. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28) "Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. (Rom. 12:4-6a)

In the same way, within the family, both the husband and his wife are necessary and valuable parts of the whole. The husband is not complete without his wife. The wife is not complete without her husband. The parents are not complete without their children. The children are not complete without their parents. Together, they are a unit. Each member of the family is necessary and indispensable. However, the husband and wife have different roles and therefore, on the basis of their roles, MUST be treated differently. Discrimination (that is, treating one person differently than another) is a necessary thing as long as one believes in different roles. Would the rogue ask the fighter to heal him? Would the wizard ask the cleric to charge headfirst into battle? Preposterous! Different roles necessitate different treatment.

Corax: You've already stated that men should "lovingly dominate" their wives and wives should "submit to their husband's leadership." It also doesn't help that the Bible says that "Women were created for men." But even then, let's say somehow that purely what the Bible says isn't sexist. That men and women are just different. But wait... the wife is below the man, is supposed to support him and submit to him. Isn't that the definition of inferiority? Doesn't that make her less than the husband? Much as a human being is less than God, he/she is inferior.

TheoConfidor: Hierarchically inferior, yes. Of less value, merit, capability or importance? No.

Returning to my D&D analogy, in Neverwinter Nights, our party was always required to have a designated party leader. Sometimes the fighter would be the designated party leader. Other times the cleric was the designated party leader. Hierarchical leadership was required, but the hierarchy did not imply that one character was better than any other.

Similarly, though I have a boss at work, outside of the realm of work, we are peers. Though, when I am on the clock I submit to him and obey his orders, this does not imply that he is smarter, more capable or better than I am. In fact, in my area of expertise, I am far more capable than he is. The hierarchy exists to best accomplish the task of earning money and creating good products. Within that hierarchy, we each have our roles and responsibilities. My supervisor is the designated leader. Outside of that hierarchy, we are equals and peers. He is skilled in his areas, and I am skilled in mine.

The family structure is the same. Within the hierarchy of the family (which, like a company, has a specific purpose: to raise up godly offspring), the husband is the designated leader. He gives the orders, his wife willingly submits. Outside of that hierarchy, there is personal equality. The wife has her own specific talents, skills and areas of expertise. The husband has his own specific talents, skills and areas of expertise.

A lot of people have an culturally-indoctrinately objection to the concept of submission and the concept of dominance, especially in romantic relationships and the familial structure. These objections are almost always due to a fundamental misunderstanding of submission and dominance. The simple fact is that divergent roles do not imply personal inequality. People function best when they play a role that suits them and groups function best when each person plays their own respective role.

Men are hardwired by God to be leaders. They are inescapably leaders of their own families, and often leaders in other aspects of life, as well. Those men who lead best are the happiest, most successful, most fruitful and most fulfilled. Women are hardwired by God to respond to men who lead well. Those women who have a good husband and who submit to their husband's leadership are the happiest, the most fruitful, the loveliest and the most fulfilled.

I will not deny the possibility that there may be outliers. There are always exceptions to any general principle, and as such, there may be occasional instances where a woman must lead and will find fulfillment in leading. But, the existence of exceptions does nothing to invalidate the general principle. Both Scripture and practical life experience teach that in romantic relationships, men must be dominant and women must submit. Those who deny this crucial fact of life are destined for pain, relational dysfunction and heartache. Those who recognize that this is simply the way life is are able to develop relational habits that capitalize on the differences between men and women, which will result in the most holiness and happiness.

Projections of an Immoral Cynic

Today, Talleyrand posted a rather harsh response to a Catholic article on men and marriage. While I thoroughly support dismantling the pretty lies foisted upon us by various blind and agenda-driven organizations and individuals, when I read Talleyrand's response, I couldn't help but be struck by the shocking amount of logical fallcies and reactiveness in his post. While I am not a strong supporter of the Catholic church (for various reasons), I do highly value the fact that the Catholic Church has a noble vision for what marriage should be, and actively advocates it. In this particular instance, I think that the article in question is quite a reasonable one. Let's break down Talleyrand's response to it and see whether his criticisms are valid, or whether they are merely projections of a cynic.

I bring this up because of the Catholic’s church “new” (read conservative) stance it is starting to take. I headed over to read one of the blogs that supposedly represents this sea change in the catholic church and I found this article on men and marriage. (Hat tip: Butterfly Squash)

I have said it before, and I will say it again, conservatives, liberals, and feminists are no friends of men because they refuse to accept the nature of women.

It may or may not be true that conservatives, liberals, and feminists refuse to accept the nature of women. However, in this particular case, such a complaint is unrelated to the article in question, which specifically states: "It is true that women have a role in all these matters. But this article is directed to men." Given that the article in question says nothing at all about the nature of women, this critism has zero applicability to the present article.

Lets get to dissecting the article.

Among the measures of mature manhood that God Himself sets forth is faithful, stable, committed marriage. After observing, It is not good for the man to be alone (Gen 2:18) God says ….A man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and the two of them shall become one flesh. Thus God indicates an essential description of manhood. This is what a MAN does.

Right from the get go we have shaming language. (Code Green: Peter Pan, Code Lavender: Masculinity). They posit the convenient interpretation of scripture that to be fully a man, you must get married.

Shaming language? Perhaps my reading comprehension is sadly deficient, but nowhere in that excerpt do I see any shaming occuring. Nowhere is Charles Pope saying that marriage is the only criteria for being fully a man--hence his use of the word "among." He is sharing his vision, based on Scripture, that marriage is a good thing, and that a mature, stable, committed marriage does indicate maturity in a man.

However, the advocation of a certain course of action cannot be accurately conflated with disparaging the abdication of such a recourse. That the author advocates marriage does not mean that he is shaming those who don't choose to get married. This is a blatant misreading or misinterpretation of the author's words.

The article’s next point is:

A mature man recognizes that it is not good, not healthy, for him to remain alone and unattached.

Right back to the shaming language. I am almost embarrassed for them. They can’t move on, they can’t even come up with new tactics, just the same old, same old. (Code White: Mental health). The writer does not say how it is unhealthy for the man to do this. He makes no explanation for the health benefits for marriage at all.

The writer isn't presenting any new thoughts or ideas. Instead, he is postulating the age-old Scriptural claim that was quoted in earlier in the article. If God Himself doesn't say how it is unhealthy for a man to be alone, why complain that the writer doesn't? It is sufficient to state the true nature of things. Whether an idea is new or old has no bearing on its veracity.

He fills a very long paragraph with more shaming language: You’re a boy, not a man if you don’t get married. (Code Green . . . again).

Rather than simply take your word for it, let's quote the article itself:

But a man, if he is a man, prepares himself for marriage, or perhaps for the priesthood or religious life. He is serious and steadfast about it. This may mean finishing college and embarking on the beginnings of a career but in the end he will accept the truth that it is not good for him to remain alone and unattached. In the recent past dating was usually understood as a time wherein one searched for a spouse. Today many see it “just for fun.” Marriage is postponed indefinitely. Many young men are not serious in searching for a spouse. Instead they “play the field” and use women sexually. They avoid commitment and drift from relationship to relationship. Some “father” children and still do not accept responsibility. They are not men, they are boys. For boys play. “Boys will be boys,” after all. Sadly many women allow and facilitate this immature and immoral behavior. But God is clear, a man (rather than a boy) accepts that it is not good for him to remain single and unattached and he respectfully seeks a wife.

Here, there is very specific shaming language. It is not, however, directed at those who choose to abstain from marriage, nor is it directed at those who are "serious and steadfast" in their aims towards marriage or towards a life calling that does not include marriage. It is directed at those who, "use women sexually," "avoid commitment," and "drift from relationship to relationship." It does not surprise me that Talleyrand is bothered by such a moral judgement, since his very lifestyle is exactly the one condemned by the author as boyish and irresponsible. While I much appreciate his honesty and openness about who he is and how he lives, the fact of the matter is that he is one who uses women sexually, avoids commitment and drifts from relationship to relationship. Since we do live in a world of objective morality, which is codified by God Himself, such behavior is destructive and deplorable. The author's shaming language isn't nearly strong enough. Not only is it sad that "many women allow and facilitate this immature and immoral behavior," I would say that it is digusting that men allow and facilitate this immature and immoral behavior. Something Talleyrand wrote yesterday resonated deeply with me:

We should be as good fathers to each other. What does a good father do? He teaches his son all the skills that he can, shows him the pitfalls, and he lets his children live their lives, make their own way, make their mistakes and suffer the consequences as well as the triumphs.

If we are to be good fathers to each other, we must not only instruct one another, but also correct one another. Discipline is an inescapable component of proper fatherhood. Scripture says, "For what son is there whom a father does not chasten?" (Hebrews 12:6) If we are to be good fathers to each other, then we must exhort one another to live righteously and pursue virture. We must hold each other accountable for immoral and irresponsible behavior and admonish one another to live justly, to show mercy and to walk humbly before God.

Scripture also insightfully says, "Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you. (Proverbs 9:8) Indeed, a litmus test of a man's character is how he receives correction. A wise man accepts correction and discipline with humility and graciousness. A fool rages against all sound judgment and hates those who offer reproof, since his pride and self-righteousness conflict with wisdom. One who does not receive correction is a fool.

Next point:

Having properly sought a wife he marries her and leaves his parents to establish a home.

Leaving aside the inherent shaming language of this statement, the paragraph encourages marriage but again it does so with shaming language. It does not go into why this is important, only that you must do it. Because God says so, is a nice way to fall back on moral authority, but since the catholic church has allowed itself to become girlie, it needs to do better than that.

Shaming language inherent in this statement? I don't see any. To declare how a mature man of purpose pursues marriage says nothing about those who don't.

Regarding the idea itself, Talleyrand commits the infamous genetic fallacy by rejecting the idea of marriage because "the catholic church has allowed itself to become girlie," rather than discussing the importance of marriage on its own merits. For those who accept God's truth, "Because God said so," is sufficient epistemological grounding. God's words are directly mentioned in the verse quoted in the article, "A man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and the two of them shall become one flesh." The author is quoting Scripture and affirming Scripture directly.

He actually commits his whole life to his wife

Bad Advice. Horrible advice. Advice that will get a man divorced in today’s day and age.

Good advice: A man makes his mission, not his woman, his priority.

To commit to something is not the same as making something the top priority. This is an equivocation fallacy. A man can commit to a woman, or a job, or a lease, or a bet, without it become the center of his world. In fact, in all these instances, it is best for a man to have a higher purpose behind his commitment. Christians are called to be committed to God above all else.

Too many men are passive husbands. Too often it is really the wife who works hardest to preserve the marriage.

O.k., the first part of this is true, but unfortunately not the way this priest believes. The second part is not true, unless you believe constant tests and undermining the man are in fact efforts to preserve the marriage. This guy is so unbelievably dense about human relationships that it makes me weep with frustration. That he is so arrogant to give men advice like this is proof that being a man of orders does not protect you from that deadly of sins: PRIDE.

It is presumption to jump too quickly to finger-pointing in either direction. While there are many women who actively destroy their relationships and marriages through constant tests and undermining, it is also true that too many men are passive husbands. To deny or fail to consider one's own sins or the sins of one's gender is also a clear manifestation of that deadly sin, pride. Not all men are passive, and not all women test and undermine. The author is stressing the importance of manly assertiveness, nothing more. These is nothing dense or arrogant about that.

This is what God says a real man does.

I challenge anyone to find where God uses the term “real man.”

In the Bible, God just uses the term "man." Implied in such a term is the reality of being masculine. The fact that the word "real" has to be appended is a sad reflection of contemporary cultural conditions.

A man doesn’t whine and say, “But what about the wife?!” He just does what he is supposed to do and does not point fingers. He accepts his own responsibility. Yes, there are men who have worked hard to preserve their marriage and the wife still walked away.

Remember this fool was advocating counseling earlier in his missive? Remember that? Think about what counseling is like with someone with the above attitude. You cannot complain, you cannot whine, you cannot point out wrongs, because that is not what a man does. He just sits and takes whatever shit sandwich is fed to him and he likes it.

When someone is making these statements, what he is really saying that as a man you need to take it like a slave.

You have no right to complain, you have no where to air your grievances in the catholic church, because “real” men don’t do this.

The author is advocating responsbility and assertive action. Whining accomplishes nothing, and is pathetic and wimpy. Nowhere is the author saying that a man shouldn't point out wrongs or hold others accountable. Before a man holds others accountable for their actions, he must first take responsibility for his own. Jumping to point fingers or remaining passive while waiting for others to change is a weak way to approach life.



In his reponse to the article, Talleyrand has constantly resorted to using fallacious arguments of numerous sorts. Much of what he protests isn't even being advocated by the author of the article. With a couple of minor exceptions, nearly all of the supposed instances of "shaming language" are nonexistent. In the one instance where the author is actually using shaming language, it is directed at precisely the sort of behavior Talleyrand regularly engages in. His defensiveness and reactionary perspective are thoroughly evident in his response, and are clearly being projected onto the author of the original article, whose intent is entirely different than Talleyrand appears to think it is.

While the author does make a few minor points that I would quibble with, his major points are all quite reasonable:
1. A stable, commited, faithful marriage is the calling of most men
2. A man should pursue his calling (either to marriage or to abstinence) in a serious and steadfast manner
3. Marriage should be pursued according to God's prescribed method, as outlined by Scripture
4. A man takes leadership in his family and manfully addresses any threats to marital unity
5. A man should take responsiblity for his own actions and live righteously, regardless of how others behave

Of course, as someone who lives in a contrary manner to all of these points, it is no surprise that Talleyrand would be driven by his emotions to attack such teaching. Talleyrand views marriage as something that is undesirable, and instead dedicates substantial energy to the hedonic pursuit of promiscuity with numerous women. He neither pursues marriage nor abstinence. He rejects God's authority and Scriptural teaching. He adopts an individualistic approach towards relationships, and is not concerned with marital unity or even with relational unity in romantic affairs at all. He does not live righteously and pursue virtue. Instead, bitterness, unbridled pessism and defensiveness surface in his attempt to dissuade others from valuing marriage, living righteously, and standing against the tide of social decay that unarguably surrounds modern men and women. His critisms of the Catholic article seem more to be a reflection of himself than a proper logical refuttal of any of the major points made. Rather than being a reasoned response, all he offers us is the projections of an immoral cynic.

The Incidence of Cuckoldry in Large Families

Earlier this week, Alkibiades posted a little blog on the probability of cuckoldry. Using a simple mathematical formula, he calculated the odds of a child being born as a result of a woman's sexual infidelity, and created a table with the statistical likelihood of a man being cuckolded, based on number of children in his family. Here is the final probability table:

1 child = 10% or 9:1 odds
2 children = 19% or 4.3:1 odds
3 children = 27% or 2.7:1 odds
4 children = 34% or 1.9:1 odds
5 children = 41% or 1.4:1 odds
6 children = 47% or 1.1: odds
7 children = 52% or 0.9:1 odds
8 children = 57% or 0.7:1 odds
9 children = 61% or 0.6:1 odds
10 children = 65% or 0.5:1 odds

Immediately after looking at his model, something struck me. For any model to be useful, it must bear some correlation to the real world. To the degree that a model correctly describes what is actually seen in the world, the model has validity. If a model makes predictions that widely diverge from what is actually seen, then the model is rejected as being unreliable. Now, from a mathematical standpoint, if one accepts that there is a 10% for a single child to be conceived by another man, given the promiscuity of modern men and women, then the rest of the table is mathematically sound. However, though the model may be mathematically sound, it's simplicity is also its downfall, since it does not align with the evidence of reality.

While I might be willing to trust the reliability of the table up through four children, I believe that there is a significant factor that changes the likelihood of cuckoldry for all families that have more than four children. My first question in looking at this table was to ask whether it matched my experience of the real world. As I have ten siblings, my mother gave birth to eleven children. If you use Alkibiades' model to determine the probability of cuckoldry with eleven children, then you will find that it would predict a 68% chance that one of my siblings was conceived due to sexual infidelity. I know for a fact that this is not the case. Now, it is certainly possible that Alkiabiades' model is correct and that my father is simply a lucky man, who happened to get lucky despite the fact that his outcome was statistically unlikely (32% chance). But, I have an alternate explanation.

My conjecture is that the sorts of women who are likely are be sexually unfaithful are also the sorts of women who are less inclined to have more than four children. The corollary to such a conjecture is that those women who choose to actually have five or more children are more likely to be sexually faithful than those who have four or fewer. I have a couple major reasons for this conjecture. Based on my anecdotal experiences, I have noticed that large families (5+ children) both tend to be more religiously devout and tend to be much more likely to homeschool than smaller families. This twofold difference leads both to a greater likelihood of sexually faithful behavior due to a wife's character and moral standards, and fewer opportunities for a wife to be unfaithful given the amount of time that is consumed in homeschooling her children. As such, these sorts of women both meet fewer potential seducers, and are less likely to commit adultery with any potential seducers they do meet.

Now, conjecture is of little value unless it actually matches the evidence of reality. As such, I have wracked my brains and spoken with several people in order to determine how many large families we knew, and what the actual incidence of cuckoldry is in such families. While it is still a relatively small data pool, I have come up with a list of 9 large families that I can confidently declare have zero incidences of cuckoldry. There is one family with 5 children, one family with 6 children, two families with 7 children, three families with 8 children, one family with 9 children and then my own family with 11 children. Now, Alkibiades' model would predict that about 5 of these 9 families should expect to have at least one incidence of cuckoldry. There is only a 0.07% chance that all 9 families will consist of legitimate children, if his model is correct. Yet, they all do consist completely of legitimate children. This fact alone calls the validity of the model into question. Similarly, though there are some large families that I do not know for contain zero illegitiate children, there are no large families that I can think of (nor has anyone I've yet asked) that actually do have one or more children as a result of sexual infidelity.

Now, my purpose in writing this is not to criticize Alkibiades' model, but instead to help refine it. In his blog post he specifically notes: "Of course these computations assume that all women have the same chance of cuckholding, but I’m sure there are good women out there." While that disclaimer would seem to be a minor footnote, I think that because of the real-world difference seen in those women who have five or more children it seems to be a fairly major oversight. As such, I would postulate that a model that better fits with reality would be a cuckold probability chart akin to this one:

1 child = 10%
2 children = 19%
3 children = 27%
4 children = 34%
5 children = 30%
6 children = 25%
7 children = 19%
8 children = 13%
9 children = 08%
10 children = 05%
11 children = 03%
12 children = 02%

Readers: Of course, to test the validity of such a model beyond my pitifully small collection of anecdotal data, more reliable data is needed. I have been searching for sociological studies on large families, and data on the actual number of large families in America, sorted by number of childen, but have been largely unsuccessful. As such, I welcome any data that you can offer, either of an official sort, or even more anecdotal data. Do you know any large families who have one or more illegitimate children? Do you know any large families that you are certain contain no illegitimate children?

Clarifying Game Discourse

Confusion concerning Game, especially by various critics of Game, is something that has been surprisingly pervasive and shows little sign of disappearing soon. Stretching from the The Great Game Debate of August to the current week, there has always been confusion about exactly what Game is, exactly what personal motives various Gamers have, and about what sort of worldview is presented by Game. Because of the semantic confusion alone, strawmen arguments are rampant. In this post from Dave in Hawaii a couple of days ago, he addresses some major misconceptions concerning his personal stance on Game and relationships. Also, this post from Obsidian is a response to Lady Raine's opposition to certain alleged aspects of Game, which is more of an ad hominem attack against certain sorts of people rather than a rational attack on Game itself (which she does not understand). As Chuck rightly noted back in August:

The problem at hand, like most discourses on issues with less-than-obvious mechanisms, is that we have failed to lay out the terms of argument. It seems that both sides are arguing with a different definition of words like "Game", "neg", "alpha", and "beta."

As anyone familar with linguistic analysis knows, before any sufficiently complex subject can be critiqued or intellectual debated, it must first be clearly demarcated and defined so that there is no resulting confusion concerning the extent of the statements being made concerning the given topic. This is especially true in the arena of Game, since much apparent disagreement has arisen simply because of widely divergent ideas of what Game is. While there are legitimate concerns that some hold both towards Game and its practitioners, more frequently I see people talking past each other due to a lack of common ground related solely to insufficiently clear terminology. Consequently, I believe it is utterly necessary to set forth a fixed list of terms and clearly define exactly what each term means. Some of these terms are widely used and understood, while there are a couple new terms that I have created for added clarity in future discourse.

In future posts, I want to take at look at the three fundamental Game mindsets that exist, the inherent ethical nature of Game, the ethics of various Gamers, and what I believe to be the best usage of Game. But, in order to lay the foundation for those posts, I believe that laying a firm semantic foundation as a framework for the discussion is absolutely vital. As such, here is my Game Lexicon.

Basic Christian Orthodoxy - A Discussion

As usual, I was discussing various aspects of Christianity with a bunch of atheists, agnostics and self-professed "ex-Christians." One of the "ex-Christians" I was conversing with responded to one of my arguments by saying,

Rize: Please don't answer this with a bunch of theological mumbo jumbo. I'm an ex-Christian, so I know all the BS reasoning already.

In this particular case, we were dicussing the fact that God is both merciful and just. Surprisingly many people, due to their misunderstanding of both mercy and justice, view the two traits as mutually exclusive. However, the doctrine that God is both merciful and just is one of the central Christian doctrines. Jesus' substitutionary death to make salvation available to sinners makes no sense apart from a clear understanding of God's merciful and just nature. Because of his demonstrated misunderstanding, I wrote,

TheoConfidor: I'm not really sure that you can reasonably consider yourself an ex-Christian. It doesn't seem that you are familiar with even basic orthodox Christian theology. If you don't understand the nature of God, the nature of evil and the significance of the death of Jesus Christ, then you can't possibly have been a Christian to begin with. From our discussions it seems that you don't really know all the "BS reasoning" at all

In response to this, he wrote,

Rize: If it doesn't seem that I'm familiar with basic orthodox Christian theology, then it's only because there are so many competing branches (and my rejection of all of them probably doesn't help) and the instruction manual is ambiguous. Define orthodox Christianity? The few things that 90% of Christians agree on our probably known to every slightly educated person in the western hemisphere. If you want to go into the nuances, who can pin those down? To use your own example, what Christian knows the nature of God and how have they deciphered it? The Bible lists dozens of attributes that are impossible to understand rationally and frequently seem to contradict one another.

Obviously, this raises the question, "What is basic Christian orthodoxy?" Though the full spectrum of orthodoxy can be quite complicated and involved, there are a few central beliefs that more than 95% of Christians believe (this includes Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant Christianity). One simply cannot be a Christian, or reasonably claim to be a Christian, without understanding these basic doctrines. Similarly, despite the fact that there are relatively few basic orthodox Christian beliefs, I doubt that I'd agree with Rize that "the few things that 90% of Christians agree on are probably known to every slightly educated person in the western hemisphere." I doubt this, because more often than not, when talking to seemingly educated people in the Western hemisphere, there seems to be vast amounts of confusion or misunderstanding over even the most basic Christian doctrines.

In this post, I want to establish a list of what I consider to be the most basic and fundamental orthodox Christian positions, and briefly explain the scope and meaning of each doctrine. Given that being a Christian necessarily entails an understanding of the gospel and a saving faith in Jesus Christ, any doctrine that is needed to fully understand the bare essentials of salvation is a basic orthodox Christian doctrine. These doctrines are:

1 - The Existence of God
All of Christianity is based on the fundamental idea that God exists and is the Creator of the universe.

2 - The Nature of God
Being a Christian requires having a basic understanding of the nature of God, namely that God is a personal Being who has communicated truthfully to humans, that He is loving, that He is just, and that He is merciful.

3 - Man's Sinfulness
The Bible clearly teaches that God has established a clear, propositional moral code for people to follow, and that all people have broken God's commands. As such, all people are sinners who bear real moral guilt before God, and deserve the penalty for sin, which is death.

4 - Jesus is God Incarnate
Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, is God in human form. He came to this earth and lived a sinless life, so that He would be capable of serving as a sacrificial substitute for sinful human beings.

5 - Jesus Christ's Death on the Cross
After living a sinless life, Jesus Christ died on the cross, which paid the penalty for the sins of the world so that God's wrath would be appeased for all who believe in Him, and all believers would then become positionally righteous before God.

6 - Christ's Resurrection to Secure New Life
Three days after Jesus Christ died on the cross, He came back to life, just as He promised before his death. His resurrection proves his victory over sin and death and gives new life to all who place their faith in Him.

All six of these doctrines are absolutely essential to Christianity. Consequently, I would say that no person can reasonably claim to be a Christian, be an "ex-Christian" or even be slightly familiar with Christianity unless they have a clear understanding of all six doctrines. Much as it would be silly to criticize vegetarianism unless you knew what vegetarianism actually is, it is quite absurd to criticize Christianity (or defend it) without knowing what Christianity actually is. One can only speak intelligently about a subject that one is familiar with. For that reason, I think it is quite absurd for someone who does not understand even what the Bible teaches about God being merciful and just and man's sinfulness to claim to know "the few things that 90% of Christians actually agree on."

Arguments with the Logically Challenged

Ours is a generation that combines two things in a very oxymoronic sort of way. Modern people boldly declare their love for reason, rationality, logic, and empirical truth while simultaneous remaining completely unaware of what any of those things actually are. They vocally denounce those who believe things that are logically inconsistent, while arguing that such things are logically inconsistent using contradictory arguments themselves. Many freely engage in religion-bashing, but when asked to point out specific things they object to, their statements are crafted in ways that are as elusive and insubstantial as possible. Personally, I place a high value on reason, rationality, logic, and empirical truth. Therefore, whenever I encounter someone who pays lip-service to any or all of those glorious concepts and yet fails to exhibit the slightest comprehension of how to actually speak or argue rationally, disappointment and frustration quickly fill my soul.

I wish this were a rare occurrence. However, I am ceaselessly confronted with our generation's rational impotence. Within the past week alone I have had discussions with several people that perfectly exemplify the lack of ability to argue logically. Evidence is something important. When one is referring to an external source, it is typical to provide a specific quote or cite a specific phrase from the original source, rather than simply using a paraphrase. Even if one doesn't initially provide a reference, it is only reasonable to provide one upon request. One fellow I was conversing with alluded to a Biblical passage that illustrates that God changes His mind. When I asked him for a specific example, he simply offered a loose "paraphrase" that bore no similarity to the original passage whatsoever. Rather than even looking at the original source, he just assumed that he knew exactly what it said and meant. Even when challenged on it, he never provided me any solid references or direct quotations. Lack of evidence, or an improper recollection of a quote is the perfect way to ensure that one develops a straw man argument, rather than building any real philosophical case against an actual stance.

Similarly, earlier in the week, someone was commenting on the blog I posted on Christianity and Violence. He proceeded to develop a case opposing one of my statements in the blog. As the discourse continued and the evidence continued to mount against his case, the discussion began to turn towards semantics. Eventually, he suggested that for my statement to be correct, I must be using some odd and unusual definition of the word "violence." Once a dictionary definition of the word violence was provided, he still remained happily oblivious to that fact and accused another commenter of ignoring conventional definitions. From that point on the rational content of the discussion dropped to zero as his final argument was essentially, "You can think what you like, but remember, that's just your opinion." Honestly, I don't intrinsically object to reasonable discussions of semantics. However, when someone is claiming that others are using non-dictionary definitions of words, it is very important that they know what the actual dictionary definition is. If one is going to using evidence to support one's argument, it is vital to be sure that the evidence actually supports one's argument rather than rendering it inert.

Evidential problems are one sort of thing that I frequently face when having discussions with people. Another common issue is logical inconsistency. I was having a discussion with one fellow about whether freewill and foreknowledge are mutually exclusive. For some reason, he seems to have a stance that necessitates a categorical rejection of any possible synergism between the two. Of course, any sort of stance of categorical rejection is a problem because it prevents any rational consideration of arguments for a given position. However, categorical rejection, though dangerous to rational thinking, isn't necessarily a deal-breaker for having a rational discussion. It became worse when he began to use arguments whose conclusions did not logically follow from his premises, and when the premises of his arguments directly contradicted other statements that he made. Obviously, the glaring inconsistencies led me to ask for clarification. Did he agree with the statement that he had made, or did he hold to the implied premise of his argument? Rather than acknowledging the contradiction or clarifying his stance, he assumed I simply wasn't understanding him correctly, and attempted to argue through use of analogy. Needless to say, the analogy itself was logically inconsistent and simply served to reinforce the contradictory premises previously laid forth. It's quite difficult to argue with someone who has no problem with presenting an argument that is self-defeating and yet still believes that it is a powerful and sound argument.

Another problem that I encounter when discussing intellectual topics with people is that some people are unable to critically analyze their own stances and provide a rational basis for why they think what they do. My best friend is one such person. He's an amazing fellow and quite often his stances on things are dead-on. However, every so often we'll have a discussion about some topic where we disagree. When I press for details on why he holds a particular stance, he is unable to offer any rational reasons or logical basis. At those times he'll say things like, "It just is," or "I don't understand why you don't get it." At those times, I really don't understand why he thinks the way he does, which is why I am curious to learn his basis. Yet, he also does not really know why he thinks a certain way, and therefore remains unable to extrapolate a rational reason for his stance. Because of that, whenever we do hit a topic like that, I have to remind myself that I'm not going to be able to understand why he thinks what he does, even if I really want to.

Because of the many people I talk with who are rationally challenged, it is always refreshing to have a discussion with someone who is capable of clearly following an argument, dissecting it's premises and providing a clear and logically consistent response. Such people are not as plentiful as I wish they were, which means that rational discourse is not always a possibility. I think that although most modern Americans claim to like the ideas of reason, rationality, logic, sound evidence and empirical truth, a great majority are quite incapable of utilizing such mental resources or assessing their usage by others. If you're going to argue for something, know why you hold your stance. If you're going to use evidence to support your argument, make sure that you cite the evidence and that you actually know what it says. Most importantly, learns the rules of logic so that you are capable of rationally arguing in the first place.

Salvation, Love and Justice - A Discussion

A couple of months ago, we were discussing whether anything is knowable. Recently, we have been discussing the nuances of salvation. Though I often disagree with Ulcer, I have great respect for him, simply because he actually cares about the topic and offers occasionally brilliant insights. Our discussions are always scintillating and require me to critically think through various philosophical and theological issues. Here are some excerpts from our most recent discussion on salvation and my responses:

Ulcer: If "God cannot simply ignore or forgive the sinner and require no death, because that would make Him unjust," then it follows that grace and forgiveness are not intrinsically just, and since God is just, then grace and forgiveness are not godly qualities. So it follows from that, that Christ's crucifixion has nothing to do with my sins being forgiven, but rather appeasing the outrage of God as you have so succinctly explained. So if it is justice to condemn and punish, why even bother to send a sacrificial lamb to take the punishment? Why not just throw us all into the incinerator, wash your hands, and be done with it? The reason cannot be because God loves us. If love had anything to do with it, God wouldn't need to punish anyone. Consider what the apostle Paul had to say about love: "Love is not provoked, it keeps no record of wrongs." (1 Corinthians 13:5) So yes, he really could simply forgive the sinner, if the sinner was truly, sincerely, deeply remorseful.

First of all, I must say that your reply is very comprehensive and clearly represents a great deal of thought on the issue of salvation. However, it does appear that you don't fully understand the Christian position.

It seems that you view God's love and justice as mutually exclusive traits. This is not the Christian position. Rather, God is both perfectly loving AND wholly just. Because God is just, He must condemn those who break the moral law and enforce the stated penalties for a given offense. Because God is loving, He desires personal relationship with each person and desires the best for each person. Though love may keep no record of wrongs, the nature of love requires chastening not only for the sake of the relationship, but also for the sake of the chastened individual. Hebrews 12:6 points this out, "For whom the Lord loves, He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives." Based on that fact, let us revisit your question. Why does God not just throw us all into the incinerator, wash His hands, and be done with it? Because God's relentless love for each person leads Him to desire relational restoration, absolution from moral guilt and righteous living for each individual.

There are a couple of things wrong with the appeasement philosophy of Christianity, besides the love problem. First of all, you deserve credit for the creative answer you gave to explain how the sacrifice of the one can pay for the many. It does make sense that is if you believe in God in the first place. There's still a problem though: Is Jesus in Hell right now? Will he be in Hell for eternity? If the punishment for my transgressions is eternal torture (or separation from God), then it doesn't matter how much Christ suffered on the cross or how pure and holy he was. You cannot outsize eternity. If it is a one-for-one trade, then only way Christ can redeem us for our sins is to be in Hell for eternity.

Now you are changing the punishment. The wages of sin is death, not eternal torture. As I stated before, death includes both the physical component and the spiritual separation. Death is not an eternal state, it is a temporal occurence which may last for a very short time, or an eternity. In the case of the unrepentant sinner, he is dead now (being spiritually separated from God), and he will remain dead eternally, supposing no change of heart. In Christ's case, He experienced a spiritual separation from God the Father while He was on the cross, dying physically. In Jesus' case, the death was a very short occurence, for death had no lasting claim on Him. He was physically dead for 3 days, and spiritually dead for no longer than that. In a like manner, for Christians who believe in Jesus Christ, death is powerless to hold them. Therefore Paul writes, "So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: 'Death is swallowed up in victory. O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?' The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 15:54-57)

Still another problem is this: Even though I may have been absolved of my sins, I am still a sinner - one who sins - and I have a hard time believing that the God who was about to throw me into a pool of lava for stealing a candy bar won't eventually get irked at my mere presence again. Eternity is a very long time to go without another blood sacrifice. This is similar to the situation that a woman in an abusive marriage would be in. If her husband strikes her in a fit of rage, should she believe that he won't ever do it again? Now if God loved me unconditionally, I don't think I'd have much cause for worry, but we've already established, according to your explanation of Christianity, that my reconciliation with God has nothing to do with love and forgiveness.

Again, you have artificially divided God's loving nature from His just nature. God loves you even when you do sin or steal a candy bar. Even if He, to fulfill justice, throws you into hell, it is never because that is what He most wants to do. God, for some uncomprehensible reason, loves us in spite of the fact that we are sinners. The only reason He sends someone to hell is because of two things. First, justice demands it. Secondly, the sinner has willfully rejected God's love and His sacrifice and insisted on separation from God. Because God is just and because He respects the free choice of each person, God will send a person to hell who meets those two conditions.

You are quite right to say that reconciliation has nothing to do with love and forgiveness. Reconciliation is a legal concept, related to true moral guilt. Love and forgiveness are relational attitudes. However, because of God's love and desire for a joyous, personal relationship with each person, He is not indifferent to a person's choice. Because of His love, God desires that all people would choose absolution and reconciliation.

You have failed to make a good case for salvation through Christ. Now let me try.

When you offend someone (sin), you severe your relationship with them. Think of love as a cord that connects you to someone; it is the dynamic between you and I. Unselfishness, or giving consideration to the opposite end of that dynamic, keeps that connection strong and healthy. Selfish acts, from the subtle (refusing to help you with something) to the overt (physically attacking you), cuts that cord. This is something that you do, yourself. Its not that the other person - the opposing end of the dynamic - has stopped loving you, its that you have stopped loving them.

In most cases, anyone who truly is sorry, and feels the full gravitas of the unlove that they have committed against someone else, will not want to be forgiven! If someone arrives at a thorough understanding for what they've done to someone, and comes to have respect for social connection, they will want what's coming to them! But you don't have to give it to them. Instead of condemning them, you can redeem them through loving them again. You can mend the severed cord, just because. And why not? Which is better: the severed cord or the mended one? (Consider Matthew 8:5-8)

It is not possible to forgive someone who isn't sorry for what they've done (and, by the way, you also deserve credit for correctly stating that the sacrifice of Jesus must be accepted in order to work. Obviously, it doesn't matter how much you love someone; if they don't love you back, you don't have a relationship with them). However, if the offender is truly, deeply remorseful, the loving thing to do is to forgive the offense for the sake of love itself, and nothing else, no matter what. Love is awesome enough by itself to be the only thing ever needed for sins to be forgiven. Love is the meaning of life. Love is the whole reason why we exist. Why do you think God created us? He created us so that there could be a dynamic between Him and us, because it is only by that dynamic that love can exist. No one can love themselves; that's not what love is. Loving is not being obsessed with oneself; it is being obsessed with everything that surrounds you.

Indeed it can be said that Jesus Christ suffered horribly on the cross of crucifixion so that sins can be forgiven, but how, or in what way, does this get sins forgiven? Does blood and death get sins forgiven? Let’s look to John 15:13 – Jesus says “A greater love hath no one than this: that he lay down his life for his friends.” So, God had to prove to himself (as well as us) that he really did love us enough to forgive us for anything by becoming flesh and demonstrating his commitment to that love in the greatest way that love can be expressed: self-sacrifice.
And that, Theoconfidor, is how you make the case for salvation through the sacrifice of Christ; because love - not blood and death - is what gets sins forgiven.

If salvation were merely the restoration of relationship between God and man, your case would be powerful and compelling. However, salvation involves not just one, but two things:

1 - Absolution from real moral guilt stemming from a person's choice to sin
2 - Restoration of the broken relationship between God and a person

Therefore, no case for salvation is complete unless it includes both legal absolution to satify God's justice and relational restoration. Love, blood and death are all necessary for sins to be forgiven. That is the Christian position. It may not be appealing to the modern person, but it is the truth.

Do you know what the irony is this time? I am an atheist. I do not believe in a sentient, personal creator. I believe that morality is relative. I don't believe that there is any ultimate meaning to life (which is OK because life doesn't need meaning) aside from simply enjoying it. I do believe it is very likely that a historical figure named Yeshu existed, but he was no more divine than you or I. You are the devout Christian, here. You are the one who would, presumably, claim to have a personal relationship with God. And yet, even I can make a better case for Christianity than you can. Why do you suppose this is?

If you truly do make a better case for Christianity, then why do you not believe it? I find it hard to consider a case that is unconvincing a very good one.

Generalizations

Generalizations are used ubiquitously in modern communication. They are very useful ways of expressing principles and truths without adding billions of disclaimers to every statement. A generalization is: "a principle, statement, or idea having general application." In everyday speech, we use generalizations to talk about how things usually are and generally work. This is in direct contrast to universals, which apply to every instance of a given thing.

The reason that we predominantly use generalizations rather than universals is that our world is an exception-based one. Though things typically are certain ways, and though things typically work the same way, there are nearly always exceptions to things. For example, if I were to say that all humans have two arms, I would be stating such a fact as a generalization. Even though most people have two arms, I'm certain that there are some people who have lost a limb and have only one. There are probably even some people who have no arms at all. If I were to state that all humans have two arms as a universal, I would obviously be wrong, since there are some humans who have less than (or perhaps more than) two arms. Universals have their appropriate place in the realms of mathematics, abstract principles and definitions. Valid universal statements such as "1+1=2," "all planets have physical form" and, "nothing evil is good," are always true in all circumstances because of how we have defined such things. Anything that is stated as a universal must have no exceptions in order to be true. Therefore, very few statements can both be universal and true.

For this reason, Scott Adams has coined a little acronym that he applies to all statements.

I'd also like to proclaim here and now that all future sentences I utter are appended with the silent disclaimer "but of course there are obvious exceptions." The abbreviation is BOCTAOE.

This is important because about half of my time spent interacting with people involves me staring dully at them while they point out the obvious exception to whatever I've just said."

Example:
Me: Nice weather.
Other Person: Not everywhere on Earth. Plus, the day is young. It could still get cloudy later.
Me: Nice try, but I append all of my statements with a silent BOCTAOE.
Other Person: Damn the silent disclaimers!!!"

This is the strength of generalizations; since generalizations are general and do not claim to be universal, they are much easier to use validly. A generalization is true as long as it truly describes the standard way a thing is or functions. If I say that chairs have four legs, then my generalization is true as long as more four-legged chairs exist than three-legged chairs, two-legged chairs, or five-legged chairs...etc. If I say that Americans are illiterate, then my generalization is false if there are more illiterate Americans than literate ones.

The limitation of generalizations is that they vary in strength. Some generalizations have a strong correlation to reality, while others have a weak correlation. Sometimes the strength of a generalization is not readily apparent, which means that often a little bit of thinking is necessary to determine how strong a given generalization is. A generalization can vary in strength from 0.01% (impossibly weak) to 99.99% (shockingly strong). Anything that is true 100% of the time is a universal. Here are examples of some generalizations:

1 - Businesses seek profit above all else. This generalization is fairly strong. The main goal of most businesses is to earn a profit by providing a valuable service or selling a compelling product. However, there are certainly some business that are more concerned with helping society than with generating a profit. Non-profit organizations, some government-run businesses and a few other assorted businesses would fall into this category. However, since most businesses (more than 90%) pursue a profit, this generalization is strong.

2 - Middle-aged white men are dull and boring. This generalization is weak. Though there are certainly a lot of middle-aged white men who are boring and live quite dull lives, there are a good many who are interesting, fun, social and adventurous. This generalization probably isn't even true close to 60% of the time. Therefore it is a weak generalization and shouldn't be taken too seriously, even if it might have a hint of truth.

3 - Young children do not vote in elections. This generalization is exceptionally strong. However, if even a single young child votes in an election, it cannot be a universal. Given that underage people have been able to join the military, and given that identity theft is a reality in our world, it is not too far-fetched to imagine a politically-minded youngster finding a way to vote. However, since the exceptions to this are probably nearly zero, this generalization has a strength of around 99.99%. It is exceptionally strong.

Now that we have established what a generalization is and set forth standards for determining validity and strength, let us examine how they are used in everyday speech. As the excerpt I quoted from Scott Adams has demonstrated, rational people rarely use universals. Most intelligent people are acutely aware that there are many exceptions to most of their statements, exactly because such statements are generalizations rather than universals. However, if that short excerpt wasn't enough to conclusively demonstrate the cumbersomeness of speaking using universals, I shall give you another example.

When an ordinary person says, "The sky is blue," they are really saying something like the following. "Typically the sky appears blue in color to the unimpaired human eye during the daytime, except when there is odd pollution in the air, or when clouds are obstructing a view of the plain sky, or during sunrise or sunset when the sky appears red, yellow or some other color. The blue color that is seen may vary from being a light bluish color to being a darker, deeper blue; it may vary during the day, or season or based on your vantage point. This is also supposing that you are looking directly at the sky and not through a colored window or tinted sunglasses or any other sort of vision-filtering implement. Additionally, if you are not presently on the planet Earth, the sky may be imperceptible to you completely, in which case the sky appears transparent and colorless. But apart from all these exceptions and any other possible exceptions that I did not fully consider or articulate, under ordinary circumstances the sky appears blue."

To actually have to think about all that or state all the possible exceptions would render conversation prohibitively cumbersome and tedious. Therefore, when someone says, "The sky is blue," reasonable people assume that all of those disclaimers automatically apply, even when they are unstated. If ever a person says something, if there is even a single obvious exception, the only rational thing to do is assume that what is being stated is a generalization and is understood to be a generalization by the people speaking.

Because of this, even many things that might otherwise appear to be universal statements actually aren't and aren't intended to be interpreted as such. If I say that Christians read their Bibles, that coffee is tasty, that all people are sinners, or that I love music, I am not at all interested in hearing that some Christians don't read their Bibles, that some blends of coffee are horribly nasty, that Jesus wasn't a sinner or that there are plenty of bands and types of music that I wouldn't like. I already know all that! That's what all of those silent disclaimers are for. Other people also don't want to hear lots of nit-picky exceptions to their statements either. They also, are quite aware that there are exceptions.

This common sense rule will make all communication easier and less frustrating:
Unless something is explicitly a universal statement, it should not be treated as such.

Death In Adam, Life In Christ

The response to my last essay, "Are People Born Evil?" was quite overwhelming. There was some contentions over semantics, some contention over my thesis itself and some contentions over my interpretations of various passages. In this essay I hope to provide an in-depth analysis of the passages used to support the position that people are born sinners and are sinners even if they have not yet sinned. Personally, I find this to be an untenable and unbiblical position. In this essay I hope to put forth interpretations that do include the many nuances and subtleties of doctrine on human nature, while avoiding the pitfalls of jumping to conclusions or resorting to using "mysterious and mystical" doctrines to explain away the clear truths of Scripture.

Before I begin, I would like to address one misconception. In my last essay I wrote:

"Some would argue that all humans bear the guilt and penalty for Adam's sin. After all, speaking of Adam's sin, Romans 5:18 says, '...through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation...' However, this is not how God works. God's judgment is based on the actions of each individual person, and no person bears the guilt for another's sin."

A couple of people misread this and thought that I was contradicting the Bible by saying that God does not work the way He says He does. I quite agree that this would be heresy. However, when I said, "this is not how God works" I was not suggesting that the Bible was in error, but instead I was referring to those who argue that "all humans bear the guilt and penalty for Adam's sin" as being in error. I am a firm believer in the divine inspiration of Scripture, and it's complete truthfulness. If any human doctrine contradicts Scripiture, it is certain that the doctrine is in error, and not Scripture. That is my stance concerning those who claim that in Adam, all sinned. Though Scripture is infallible, I believe that there are many who misinterpret it out of ignorance, fear or denial.

Let us now consider various objections to the idea that people are not sinners until they have sinned.

Objection #1 - Sin cannot be reduced to actions. Sin is a state of being.
The support for this objection comes from Ephesians. "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others." (Eph. 2:1-3) There is a legitimate point in this objection. A sinful nature is something that is clearly more than just a sinful action, or even a series of sinful actions. If, when we say that someone is a sinner, we simply mean that such a person committed one or more sins at some point in their life, then such a statement does not mean much at all. Maybe Bob is a sinner just because he stole a couple cookies from a jar when he was young and has lived a perfectly moral life ever since. Obviously, sinner is a very weak word in such a context. However, if by sinner, we mean that a person IS sinful and regularly engages in sinful actions because of a twisted and defiled nature, then we are making quite a strong statement. Likewise, we may call someone an adulterer if they have committed a single act of adultery. But there is quite a difference between a righteous man who made one wrong decision and someone who is a committed adulterer, who has honed his skills of seduction and makes a practice of committing adultery as frequently as possible. In the first case, adulterer merely refers to an action, in the second case adulterer describes a person's state of being; this man practices adultery. Likewise, there is quite a difference between someone who killed his neighbor in a fit of rage, and a contract killer who has honed his art of killing, is skilled at taking human lives, enjoys the scheming and execution of a hit, and is quite knowledgeable about various methods of murder. In the first case we are refer to murder simply as an action, in the second case we are referring to a killer as someone whose very livelihood and life revolves around killing. He is not just someone who has killed; he is, by nature, a killer!

This is the distinction that this objection seeks to raise. There is a difference between simply committing a sin, and being a sinner. The Bible clearly teaches that all people not only have committed sins, but practice sin. We are skilled at it. Though the manifestation of sin varies from person to person, all people are skilled at their own particular brand of sin. Some engage in the ordinary sorts of vices Christians condemn: fornication, thievery, alcoholism, drug abuse, witchcraft, violence, rebellion, greediness and other such sins. While in other people sin manifests itself as self-righteousness, self-sufficiency, legalism and pride. People not only commit sins, but are sinners by nature. With this, I quite agree.

However, though sin cannot be reduced to mere actions, it cannot possibly be less than actions. When we say someone is an adulterer, we do not mean merely that he or she might have a propensity for adultery. Instead, we must mean that such a person has actually committed adultery. In the stronger case, we mean that a person habitually commits adultery and is quite skilled at it. But, we certainly do not mean that no actions are involved. Likewise, when we say that a person is a sinner we cannot mean that a person merely has a propensity for sin. Unless we mean that a person has actually committed a sin, we mean nothing at all. Anything else makes a perfect mockery of language and common sense. And this is exactly the point that I made in my previous essay. To be a sinner, you must have committed at least one sin, or else it means nothing to be a sinner. Now, you may be a sinner and have committed 10 million sins, but you certainly cannot be called a sinner if you have committed zero. Also me to illustrate the raw absurdity of using the word sinner, murderer, liar, painter or runner to simply mean that one might have the propensity to do such an action.

Example 1:
Father, to teenage daughter: You better stay away from Charlie. He's a lying murderer.
Daughter: How do you know, did he kill someone?
Father: No. But sometime he might kill someone, so you need to keep away from him.

Example 2:
Friend, to a buddy: Hey George is a pretty good painter, you should hang out with him some time, since you're artistic, too
Buddy: Really? What sort of stuff does he paint?
Friend: Well, he doesn't actually paint. But he might have the propensity to paint.

Example 3:
Mother, concerning her new baby: Little Joey is such a sinner!
Friend: Why? What did he do?
Mother: Oh, nothing yet. But I just know that he is a big-time sinner!

See? This usage of language is quite absurd! To say that one has the possibility of doing something or the propensity for a certain kind of action says nothing at all about what will actually be done. In the passage itself we see a lot of action verbs: walked, lived, conducted and fulfilling. We were dead in the trespasses and sins that we walked in. We were children of wrath because we conducted ourselves in the lusts of the flesh. The state of being descriptions are inseparable from the descriptions of actions. Because you walked in sins, you were dead. The two are intertwined and inseparable. Therefore, we can clearly make a Scriptural case for people being dead in sins. And, we can make a case for people conducting their lives in wrong ways. But, there is no clear Scriptural case for suggest that we sin because we are dead. Since there is no case to be made against the common sense usage of the word sinner or sinned, it would be unreasonable to jump to an unsupported conclusion.

Objection #2: Scripture says that people are born sinners
There are couple of passages that people cite to suggest that people are born sinners. Yet, I cannot fathom how such a conclusion is reached, when actually reading such passages. Romans 3:10 says, "As it is written: there is none righteous, no not one." Yet this passage never expressed why there are none righteous, or whether people start out righteous or not. Psalm 51:5 says, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me." To me this is not saying that David himself was born sinful but simply that his mother was a sinner and that, since David was born to his mother, he was born into a sinful family, by a sinful mother. I don't really see that it can be conclusively interpreted otherwise. Genesis 6:5 says, "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." I quite agree that wickedness is pervasive and that all people act sinfully. But this verse doesn't say whether men were born that way or whether they choose to act that way. It simply describes the present condition of those evil-doers. Genesis 8:21 says, "the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth." Sure, from youthhood onwards, people are sinful, but this passage still does not speak about anything before youthhood. No matter what Scriptures you look at, you can make a clear case for arguing that all people are inherently sinful, but you simply cannot provide a verse that says babies are born as sinners.

Objection #3: Adam's sin is imputed to all people, therefore all have sinned, even before birth
This is one of the most cohesive and rational arguments against my position that people are not born sinners. There is certainly a plausible case to be made for all humans having a mystical union with Adam. Just to give the full context of the passage, I am going to quote the whole of Romans 5:12-21 and then break it down and look at what the passage is really saying.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous. Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Here are simple observations that we can state with 100% certainty:
- Sin entered the world through one man, Adam
- Death entered the world through sin
- All men sinned
- Death spread to all men because all sinned
- Judgment which came from one sin resulted in condemnation
- This judgment came to all men
- By one man's disobedience many became sinners

There are a few other observations that can be made, but these are some of the major ones we can make concerning the condemnation that comes through Adam. In between these clear statements there are several different ways to connect the dots. John Piper and others suggest that there is a mystical union with Adam which results in Adam's sin being imputed to all people. In his own words:

I believe the answer is that Paul means we all sinned in Adam, that his sin is imputed to us, and that universal human death and condemnation is God's judgment and penalty on all of us because we were in some deep and mysterious way we were united to Adam in his sinning.

This is certainly one possible explanation. It is certainly plausible and cohesive. However, simply because something is plausible and cohesive does not make it true. Allow me to illustrate. Sometimes when kids are young they are told that babies are brought by storks. This is a plausible explanation. I never saw my parents conceive me. In fact, I have never seen anyone's parents conceive them. I also have never seen storks carrying babies. However, it is certainly plausible (to the uninformed mind) that maybe storks are very stealthy and bring babies whenever we're sleeping. Or maybe parents arrange to meet the storks in a predefined location to receive the baby. To a young mind, storks bringing babies is plausible. It would account for why babies who weren't there a week ago are now in your house. But, it completely lacks supporting evidence. Plausibility alone is not enough to support a position.

I have an alternate interpretation of Romans 5 to present. Quite clearly, Adam was the first man to sin. Sin entered the world through Adam. And yet, perhaps when Adam and Eve sinned, only Adam and Eve sinned. Maybe there is no odd mystical connection between Adam and your second cousin's best friend. Since death is the penalty for sin, death entered the world along with sin, much like jumping off a cliff necessarily entails a little bit of free-fall. The two are intertwined and inseparable. Perhaps all men do sin separately. Just because Adam ate an apple doesn't mean that every future human also ate an apple. Just because Adam walked around naked in a garden doesn't mean everyone has. Just because Adam sinned, there is no natural reason to assume that everyone did. Since sin still carries with it that death penalty, perhaps everyone who sins does deserve death individually.

Concerning the judgment that came through Adam, I don't doubt that the sins of one person effect other people. After all, Exodus 20:5 says, "For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me." Scripture does suggest that the consequences of sins will effect people beyond the sinner. Children whose parents rebel against God by getting divorced still are harmed by their parents' actions, though they bear no responsibility for such actions. When a good friend dies because of a random gang shooting, his family and friends are effected by the evil actions of the gangster, even though they bear no responsibility for his actions. Likewise, it would make sense that Adam's sin would result in his children being forced to endure consequences of his sin (death and a tendency to sin) even though they bear no responsibility for his actions. Therefore, it would make sense that with each generation of sinners that is born and rebels against God, the death penalty and sin nature is continually passed on to every new generation.

By one man's disobedience all became sinners. Perhaps this was not something that happened instantaneously, but was a natural consequence of having sin in the world. For example, through Thomas Edison lightbulbs entered the world. Before Thomas Edison invented lightbulbs there were no lightbulb users in the world. After lightbulbs entered the world, many people became lightbulb users. This certainly doesn't mean that all people had a mystical union with Thomas Edison such that his lightbulb using was imputed to them. Instead, since lightbulbs became plentiful, many people chose to buy them and install them in their homes. Thomas Edison is the indirect causes of many people becoming lightbulb users. He is not the direct cause. Likewise, if sin never entered the world, there would be no sinners. But since sin entered the world, people are now capable of choosing to sin. We may even go so far as to say that because of Adam people have a propensity to choose to sin.

This interpretation makes sense of all the facts stated in the passage without resorting to any mystical answers or mysterious workings. It is a plausible and simple explanation of the facts. When we compare my interpretation with John Piper's interpretation of the passage, both provide plausible explanations of the facts. Occam's Razor states that, "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is better." Unless my interpretation is neglecting to account for clear Scriptural truths, it is more reasonable to accept it than to believe in some mystical union with Adam's sin which causes 12 billion and 1 people to sin at exactly the same instant. If we're going to opt for unnecessary fantasy theories then we might as well believe in storks, the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.

A correct interpretation of Scripture is simply that Adam brought sin into the world, and that since Adam, all people choose to sin, causing them to become sinners, themselves. All people do receive a measure of judgment resulting from Adam's sin, even though they bear no personal guilt for his actions.

Summary
Having looked at Scripture itself and examined the various objections to my previous essay, I have yet to see an compelling argument proving that people are born sinners. First of all, though being a sinner is not simply a description of actions but is a state of being, one certainly cannot suggest that being a sinner can be reduced to exclude actions. This would result in semantic nonsense. Secondly, there is no Scripture that specifically states that people are born evil or born sinners. Third, the doctrine of imputed sin in Adam seems to go much further than Scripture and necessarily includes some assumptions that both contradict common sense and lack substantive Scriptural support of their own. While I happen to quite enjoy fiction, mythology and complicated accounts of things, when it comes to the Bible I refuse to accept anything that seems to bear more resemblance to fantasy than biblical truth.

Is Opposition to a Public Healthcare Plan a Sign of Miserliness?

Recently several friends and I were having a discussion about whether people with medical conditions (specifically obesity) should be charged more than other people for healthcare coverage plans. In response to my opinion that people's premiums should be proportionate to the amount of services actually used, someone wrote:

I didn't take you for the type who would rather keep that little bit of cash per month instead of helping your fellow man. Is a relatively insignificant amount of money really that important to people when it's going towards the good of everyone?

I certainly believe in giving money to help my fellow man. However, I think that the government is horribly inefficient and ineffective at actually helping people in need. More specifically, I am convinced that paying the government to help people results in less help for people in need at a higher cost than contributing directly to the needy or through a non-profit organization.

If the government were skilled at determining who to help, and actually put a large percentage of the money towards helping people, then I would be in favor of such a thing. But, when I know for a fact that a large percentage of the money I give is going to line the pockets of corrupt politicians rather than actually helping people, I feel disinclined to give (through that means) at all.

Addditionally, I don't believe in the "good of everyone." "Everyone" is not some single entity like a corporation or a nation. Everyone consists of a large number of individual people. Paying money for a public healthcare plan or making a donation to a research group that seeks a cure for cancer does not benefit everyone. It benefits a few specific individuals (or for a larger group, a specific subset of individuals) at the expense of everyone else. For example, in the case of a public healthcare plan, if I am giving money, my money does not directly benefit you. My money does not benefit people who are denied access to the program. My money does not benefit healthy people who have no need of health services. It only helps the subset of people who are eligible to receive benefits and who actually utilize those benefits. Therefore, even things that are for the "good of everyone" only benefit a select few.

The raises the question of whether more benefits are granted or costs are incurred. Since with a mandatory public healthcare plan, all citizens are required to pay into the plan, even if they can barely afford it, every single contributor directly incurs a cost. Each person who puts in more than they receive is being harmed by the plan, proportional to the difference between contribution and services received. Each person who receives more than they put in is being benefitted by the plan, proportional to the difference between the services received and the amount contributed. Given the fact that any administrated solution necessarily involves inefficiency, it is clear that out of 100% of the monies put in, even with a highly efficient system only 95% percent (at most) of the monies actually go towards the desired result. Therefore the total benefits received by society is only 95% of the costs cumulatively incurred. Though a few individuals will be better off, society as a whole finds themselves collectively worse off than if no public plan was enacted.
(The 95% efficiency figure is deliberately a low-end figure. Here are a couple of studies on the current administrative costs of the Medicare system: Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance, Medicare's Hidden Administrative Costs)

Let us contrast this with personal giving or giving through non-profit organizations. For example, let us suppose that I have a friend who needs an expensive medical operation and has no insurance. If I give him $100 to help him cover the expense, 100% of that $100 goes directly toward helping him cover the cost. This is a maximally efficient system since there is no loss due to administration. Also, I know for a fact that whoever receives the money that I give will actually spent it to cover their need, because I know the people that I give money to. For this reason, I love giving anonymous gifts to people who need help. I know that all of my money is going directly towards a good purpose and benefits society a maximal amount. If I give $100 to the government to help someone out, I have to wonder how much of it will really help those in need.

Likewise, if I give to organizations whose values I admire, I can be sure that even though some administrative inefficiency may be involved, that they will have a better selection process in determining whom to help. The government will never go and hand out bagged lunches to homeless people. If I give money to CrossStreets, I know that 100% of the money goes directly to helping the homeless. Since all of the members of CrossStreets are unpaid volunteers who willingly give their time and resources, I have assurance that they will go and find people who are truly in need, give them food, offer them clothing and tell them about the gift of salvation that Jesus Christ offers, which is a power that can break the devastating cycles of addiction and irresponsibility that most of them face. The government isn't going to help those people. They aren't going to offer friendship, love and spiritual support.

Because of this, I believe that helping individuals directly (or through more efficient means) provides society with a greater benefit than a public healthcare plan. The necessary government inefficiency guarantees that a percentage of resources are lost in the process of providing healthcare. As the study from the Heritage Foundation shows, when you have something as vast a public plan, not only is there a higher administrative cost per person, but there are many times more dollars being funneled through the system, which guarantees millions and millions of dollars of waste. Additionally, when giving is more personal and directly, there are relational benefits to society that the government can never hope to provide.

Lastly, I am strongly opposed to any form of mandantory "giving." The whole point of giving (and the joy of giving) stems from giving something completely out of the goodness of your heart. That which is mandatory neither has the same value to the recipient, nor provides the same joy to the giver. The beauty of giving is that you are freely contributing to the well-being of another person just because you want to. That makes it special. Personal giving is relational in nature. Contrarily, when you are forced to contribute to something, the obligation strips the joy of blessing someone with your gift. Whether you want to give or not, you have to. You have no idea who is going to be benefitted by your contributed. You will probably never see the happiness of the person receiving your gift. The giving is reduced to a mere mechnical process, devoid of any heart-to-heart emotional connection. Also, in the case of government-mandated "giving" it is much more akin to robbery, since there is a material threat to your well-being if you don't comply. If you don't contribute to the mandatory public plan, then you are subject to prosecution, fines and possible jail time. How is this different than a mugger threatening you with violence if you don't "give" him your money and possessions? The method is intrinsically one that dehumanizes the process of giving and is enforced by a method that has more similiarity to organized crime than it does to a benevolent organization looking for generous donors.

As you can see, I am not at all opposed to giving and to helping people in need. I typically give about 20% of my income to charitable organizations. However, I don't think that the government is very skilled at helping people, and I certainly believe that they have no right to demand contribution.