Penn Jillete and Rape

I recently came across this "meme" while perusing through Facebook. I've seen this kind of argument made by several of the "new atheists." Not only does it completely miss the point, but it simply is not honest. I've never seen this meme before, but I found it a little ironic in light of recent revelations about skeptic Michael Shermer's behavior towards women, which I covered here. As I said, I do not think these kind of arguments are honest about human nature. For example, multiple times a week I have the unfortunate privilege of hearing men check out women and talk out loud about all the things they would like to do to them. In their external dialogue about their internal desires, there is not one care for the woman's soul, or "romance" or whatever. All one finds is an aggressive considerations of how their bodies could gratify them. Indeed, with most men in the "dating" culture, most of the time, all outward demonstrations of care for a woman's personality, or romantic appreciations of them, is simply a means to get the gratification they think they deserve. THAT is the heart of a rapist. In my experience, most women in the dating culture are keenly aware of this. However, the reason why most of those men will not engage in rape, and will even condemn it consciously/publicly, is because they have been conditioned by a civilization with broadly Christian roots to find rape aesthetically displeasing. The desire's of their hearts say otherwise. So what happens when the worldview that framed rape as bad disintegrates? When we are pictured as mere biological robots, who evolved from pond scum, that then progressed up the evolutionary chain in many species through rape; how can one still call rape "wrong" in the true sense of the word? Can anything be considered "wrong" in such a world? On top of that, Mr. Jillette is a supporter of the prostitution industry in Nevada, which feeds into the very instincts that he apparently denies the majority of men even have. So I do not find that Penn is honest with himself in how he frames this objection.

On top of that, even if he was "sinless" in this regard, never having had a desire to exploit women; in his universe that is absolutely meaningless. Rape and consensual sex are nothing but atoms banging into one another. Nothing is "wrong" or "right," for that matter, in such a world. Saying rape is wrong is just an opinion, like saying that blue is a better color than red. Even if one wants to go the existentialist route and say that it is up to the individual to create morality, one cannot argue that their self-generated moral system extends beyond their 3 pound brain. Much less can they claim that it corroborates with abstract concepts like "truth," "goodness," or "beauty." They certainly cannot congratulate themselves for their tastes above others who go a different route, as Mr. Jillette seemingly does here. "I don't need God, because I know how to live a 'good life' without Him," isn't an argument in the atheist's own world. It is just brain fizz. These kind of arguments only appeal to people in a post-Christian society where they still enjoy some of the fruit left over from the Biblical worldview. You don't have to look very far to see what happens when that foundation is officially abolished.

The thing is, the Christian worldview can account for why even an atheist knows that rape is wrong. The Christian will claim that even the rapist knows that rape is wrong. That is because the law is written on everyone's heart, as they are made in the image of God (See Romans 2:1-16). Even apart from the influence of the Christian church, one sees a recognition of deity, accountability, and the law of God in all cultures. However, time and time again, when a culture consciously rejects the light of biblical religion, they condescend to depths worse than pre-Christian pagans. So not only can the Christian worldview give a better account of Mr. Jilette's claims here, it can also give a better account of why man is prone to such evil. Scripture informs us that simple lust of the heart is directly related to sins such as adultery, rape, and much worse things as well. Apart from God's restraining grace we would all descend into such debauchery. But even further, Scripture ends up giving us not just a better picture of the moral law, and man's sin, but it also gives us the solution as well. Christ crucified, buried, resurrected and ascended.

The Law is Just (Pt. 6): Exodus 22:1-15 - The Restoration of Property

As we begin chapter 22, we find that God provides more laws as it pertains to property. This is where the "general equity" of the Law truly stands out as a strong example and basis for common law. I can't think of any statement in the following passage that one could object to, once it is correctly understood. In fact, I think one can argue that our current justice system would be greatly improved if we stood under the wisdom of this passage. How so? Moses writes:

“If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep. If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft is certainly found alive in his hand, whether it is an ox or donkey or sheep, he shall restore double.

“If a man causes a field or vineyard to be grazed, and lets loose his animal, and it feeds in another man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard.

“If fire breaks out and catches in thorns, so that stacked grain, standing grain, or the field is consumed, he who kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.

“If a man delivers to his neighbor money or articles to keep, and it is stolen out of the man’s house, if the thief is found, he shall pay double. If the thief is not found, then the master of the house shall be brought to the judges to see whether he has put his hand into his neighbor’s goods.

“For any kind of trespass, whether it concerns an ox, a donkey, a sheep, or clothing, or for any kind of lost thing which another claims to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whomever the judges condemn shall pay double to his neighbor. If a man delivers to his neighbor a donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any animal to keep, and it dies, is hurt, or driven away, no one seeing it, then an oath of the Lord shall be between them both, that he has not put his hand into his neighbor’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept that, and he shall not make it good. But if, in fact, it is stolen from him, he shall make restitution to the owner of it. If it is torn to pieces by a beast, then he shall bring it as evidence, and he shall not make good what was torn.

“And if a man borrows anything from his neighbor, and it becomes injured or dies, the owner of it not being with it, he shall surely make it good. If its owner was with it, he shall not make it good; if it was hired, it came for its hire.

The general "gist" of this passage is that thieves are to punished by being forced to make restitution, paying back at least a double portion. As verse 1 says, if he steals in order to make a profit, the thief is to pay four or five times the amount that the animal was worth. If the guilty party is unable to pay, then he was to be sold into slavery, where an arrangement would be made, such that the injured party was repaid through his labors. There is NOTHING in this text about locking the thief up, or mutilating his body, such as is common place in Middle Eastern nations. Even slavery is a last resort, to be enforced only when the individual is unable to pay. Because property was stolen, it is property that must be restored. That is the principle of justice when it comes to property. To deter criminals, the punishment is not only to make restitution, but at least a double restitution (which also grants peace of mind to the affected party). However, in this case the criminal's life is not to be "dissolved" with either death, mutilation, or the purgatory of being "locked up." He is still respected as an image bearer of God with certain rights. In fact, verse 3 limits the term in which a "self-defense" killing can be argued for taking the life of a thief. If the thief is still alive the next day (most theft would happen at night, like today), and presumably off one's property, then one had no right to take his life. How much of the current disdain for our "justice" system could be eliminated if we would listen to the wisdom here? Many libertarians, liberals, and even some conservatives, have expressed disgust at the amount of people who are currently locked up for non-violent offenses, to the detriment of the tax-payer. Indeed, Scripture tells us that murderers and sex-criminals are to be punished with death, but all others are to charged with repayment and/or slavery. In fact, even our 13th amendment still says that slavery is appropriate for criminals. But nowhere does Scripture recommend locking someone up for years on end, where they essentially sit around with other criminals all day, while not engaging in the cultural mandate. Nor does the Bible have a concept of one owing a "debt" to society. That concept, in-and-of-itself is almost socialistic, as it views one's responsibility as being to "the collective" and not to God and one's neighbor. Thieves owe a debt to the one whom they have stolen from, and the God who created both of them. In our day of cheap labor and the ability to electronically "dock pay," this is completely reasonable, and courts could order it. It would save the tax payers a lot of money too...

The rest of the text deals with hypotheticals where property is lost, but not due to theft. In the case of an animal that is torn apart by a beast, the accused party is given the option to bring evidence to plead his case. It appears that restitution as it applies to accidental damage is on a 1 to 1 basis, and not the double restitution commanded with theft. In the case of someone who buys stolen goods, verses 7 and 8 order a judge to be brought in to deliberate whether or not it was out of ignorance or intentional.

Again, the Law is perfectly Just.

The Psychology of the POMO Sexual Revolution

As I mentioned in a previous post, the speed and aggression in which our culture is changing its sexual "mores," is simply a sign that our culture is under the wrath of God, and that we are witnessing Romans 1 before our very eyes. Yet I recognize that it would be very easy to read that statement and simply see it as an over-generalization at best, or as self-righteous pessimism at worst. Now of course, God's Word is to be trusted, and Romans 1 certainly applies to where we are at; but is there more going on in our cultural situation than the suppression of truth and the curse of God? Well yes, and no. If we look at the big picture, it certainly does not go beyond those twin realities. However, if we look closer at how our culture arrived at its position, and then compare that to what other Scriptures have to say about this subject, it is quite eye opening. In fact, not only will we find a sweeping condemnation of our culture's most cherished values, but we will also find that most American Christians stand under that same umbrella of values as well. So what am I referring to?

Well, recently I have been rereading Rosaria Butterfield's Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, with my wife. For those of you who don't know, Mrs. Butterfield is a former tenured English professor from Syracuse University, as well as a former lesbian activist. The book is subtitled, "An English Professor's Journey into the Christian Faith." She now is the wife of an RPCNA pastor and a homeschooling mother. I highly recommend her book, as obviously she has an insight or two into what is behind our modern sexual attitudes. In chapter two, she recounts the details of her conversion and presents a very insightful commentary on Ezekiel 16:48-50. In fact, Ezekiel 16 is often used by homosexual activists to argue that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but a lack of hospitality and piety. The text says:

“As I live,” says the Lord God, “neither your sister Sodom nor her daughters have done as you and your daughters have done. Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit. (Ezekiel 16:48-50 NKJV)

However, Mrs. Butterfield demonstrates that the message of this text is not mutually exclusive to the sin of Sodom being homosexuality. In fact, it actually fleshes out the mechanics of what Romans 1 is talking about. She writes:

"[...] We read here that the root of homosexuality is also the root of a myriad of other sins. First, we find pride ("[Sodom] and her daughters had pride"). Why pride? Pride is the root of all sin. Pride puffs one up with a false sense of independence. Proud people always feel that they can live independently from God and from other people. Proud people feel entitled to do what they want when they want to [...] Second, we find wealth ("fullness of food") and an entertainment-driven worldview ("abundance of idleness") [...] Third, we find lack of mercy (neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy") [...] Fourth, we find lack of discretion and modesty ("they were haughty and committed abominations before Me"). Pride combined with wealth leads to idleness because you falsely feel that God just wants you to have fun; if unchecked this sin will grow into entertainment-driven lust; if unchecked, this sin will grow into hardness of heart that declares other people's problems no responsibility or care of your own; if unchecked, we become bold in our sin and feel entitled to live selfish lives fueled by the twin values of our culture: acquiring and achieving [...] You might notice that there is nothing inherently sexual about any of these sins: pride, wealth, entertainment-driven focus, lack of mercy, lack of modesty." (Butterfield, Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, Pgs. 657-658 (Kindle Ed.))

Indeed there is nothing sexual about these sins. But they are exactly what lies at the root of POMO sexuality. I found her comments on being "entertainment-driven" to be the most insightful, as many have argued that Television and digital media are the driving force behind Postmodernism. In fact, it is that cultural channel of communication (TV), which has been the most effective in promoting POMO sexuality. Many conservative social commentators have pointed to the fact that almost every Television show and movie now includes a likable gay character or an "equal rights" sympathetic theme. In a culture of ease and entertainment, it is easy to convince people to accept a behavior if you consistently represent it in a positive light, through their favorite means of amusement. After all, if life is all about having fun and enjoying oneself "in a positive way," than what could possibly be wrong with a behavior that is consistently portrayed in such a manner. Indeed, the interweaving of these POMO cultural values, with POMO sexuality, is practically indistinguishable. Butterfield goes on to conclude:

"Sexuality isn't about what we do in bed. Sexuality encompasses a whole range of needs, demands, and desires. Sexuality is more a symptom of our life's condition than a cause, more a consequence than an origin." (Ibid., Pg 658 (Kindle))

Rejection of God's authority, and pride, go hand in hand. Out of that disposition men seek refuge and relief in the creation, and worship it above God. They then are driven to extremes to find the satisfaction in the world, which only God can give. Ezekiel 16 and Romans 1 are two sides of the same coin. But it is not just pagans who live this way. Christians are certainly not off the hook here. If we are honest with ourselves, these same underlying values motivate us as well. They just don't manifest themselves (yet) in the acceptance of POMO sexuality. (The shifting attitudes of evangelical college students, as documented here could be a hint of what is to come). For example, these same cultural values, which we often have conformed to, have lead us to fundamentally change our worship in ways that our forefathers would find abominable. DG Hart does an excellent job of comparing the motivations behind POMO sexuality to the motivations behind POMO worship, here. The cultural values that Butterfield exposes, are the exact same values that have warped our understanding of the first table of the law, just as much as it has warped the surrounding culture's understanding of the second table of the law.

We are inescapably a part of the surrounding culture, and if we aren't thoughtful about how we interact with it, we may find ourselves enveloped with it, and mirroring it. Sure, maybe in a slightly different manner, but the substance is the same. So as our culture continues to go the route that it is, we must not be content with simply resisting external manifestations of idolatrous cultural behavior. No, we must get under the surface and really understand what is making the culture tick, not only so that we can resist it in the world and in ourselves, but also so that we can better understand our neighbors and more effectively communicate the Gospel to them. As butterfield says "sexuality encompasses a whole range of needs, demands, and desires." Those are what need to be addressed, and we must do so convincingly and compassionately.

The "Tolerance" of "marriage equality" supporters

It has been a day now since everyone and their brother began changing their facebook profile picture to a red and pink rendition of the famous "equality" symbol of the gay marriage lobby. I have been increasingly observing behavior and sound bites from this crowd, which I find disturbing and disheartening. It has certainly been coming to a crescendo over the last day or so. Such observations make me wonder; Can the push for "marriage equality" exist without name calling? And as the agenda progresses will the aggression progress as well? First they called us "homophobes" (I have yet to meet one diagnosed with such a condition), now it is "never mind you aren't a homophobe you're an a**hole" or simply "don't be a jerk."

I get why supporters of "marriage equality" think they are justified to act this way. They believe they are simply giving the ideological persecutors of homosexuals, especially gay youth, what they deserve. However, I have two things in response to that.

1) Usually the first evidence marshaled forward to prove that Christians and conservatives are the ideological persecutors of homosexuals is a 50 member cult from Kansas that calls itself a baptist church. However, sometimes it is hard to discern who their actual supporters are. What do I mean? Well,I have worked in several Christian bookstores, and let me tell you, plenty of weirdos and wackos would come in from all over the spectrum. However, never once did I hear someone say something like, "Yanno I really like those Westboro guys, they tell it like it is." I really never heard them come up in conversation at all. Nor do I now. Most Christians roll their eyes at Westboro Baptist church and do so for deeply rooted theological and Gospel-centered reasons. The only people I see talking about Westboro baptist "church" constantly, and the people that I see constantly shining the spotlight on them, are liberals. It becomes very hard not to think that liberals do that simply to demonizes conservatives, and thus justify their vicious tone towards us.

2) If one is talking about gay bullying amongst teens, then I admit shamefully that I probably would have participated in that behavior in my teenage years. I may have, I cannot remember. But before I was 21 I was not religious at all, and I really didn't care about marriage. I made fun of gay people because I was an immature, dumb kid. Further, I never saw any of my self-identified Christian classmates leading the charge against them, which is what we would expect if the Christophobia of most liberals were true. The bullying of homosexuals does not occur because of "religious propaganda" or because marriage is restricted to heterosexual monogamy. Gays are bullied because other kids think it is weird and gross.

Not only are both of those categories an invalid example of Christian or conservative thought/behavior towards homosexuals, but they do no represent anything near the mainstream population of individuals who oppose gay marriage. So then, that reasoning now being taken off the table, I return to my original question; can the push for "marriage equality" exist without name calling and by fairly dealing with the opposition's actual arguments? I am not sure that they can. Why is that? Because we are (for the most part) dealing with people who are ethically and emotionally opposed to God's order in the world. They simply are not interested in listening to the opposition or being fair.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due [...] who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them." (Romans 1:18-25,32)

In the beginning of my post I said I was disturbed and disheartened by this behavior. However, I qualify that with the fact that given what the Apostle Paul tells us above, I am also not surprised. We live in a godless, idolatrous culture, and the moral decadence that we have been slowly descending into is simply the outworking of the judgment of God. Paul tells that such a culture becomes futile and foolish in their thoughts, all while feigning themselves to be "enlightened" and "progressive." Because they have turned from the Creator and are in rebellion against him, they can no longer discern the pattern and order of nature He has imposed upon it, while also actively perverting it and approving of those who do. Will this cultural aggression continue as sin progresses? Be certain of it. One of the most powerful psychological forces is the conscience. A guilty conscience can drive a man to drink, in order to shut it up, and it can also drive him to be violent towards those who would side with his conscience. I believe that is exactly what we are seeing, especially with this incident

So we must not be okay with this behavior, but we also shouldn't be surprised. And of course the only valid response for a Christian is to continue to speak the truth in love, and show the people who claim to be all about "love," what love really is.

"Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will." 2 Tim. 2:23-26