CalvinDude.com

This weekend I started revising The 13th Prime again. It’s only gone through one major revision since the first draft was done, and the first draft was actually completed in twelve days. (Yes, the first draft was 70,000 words long, so it was a complete novel in less than two weeks.) In any case, one of the scenes I read through was a dream that one of the main characters had that would serve as a foreshadowing of upcoming events. However, this time through I noticed something in the dream section that I had written in the first draft but which I had not intended to link up later in the story but which (once I found it) obviously needed to be!

This sort of thing actually happened a lot when I wrote Public Transit too. For the roughly six people who’ve read that book, I should point out that about the only intentional metaphorical connection that I had from the first draft through to the end was the use of the name “Sam” as a girl (i.e., Samantha and Sami) and the rest of it just came together as I developed the characters. When I read through the second and third drafts of it, I discovered many “happy coincidences” that were perfect for linking together to solidify the story’s meaning. In fact, many of these coincidences occurred spontaneously without my having to edit a thing.

That didn’t quite happen in The 13th Prime. The link that I discovered did require me to write in another event in one scene, as well as references to it in three other scenes later in the novel. Additionally, The 13th Prime contains far more intentional links from the start than Public Transit did, since it’s a completely different flavor. Public Transit was a satirical social commentary, and therefore relied more on taking everyday life to the extreme both in a work environment and a school environment. The rules of that book were simply to have everything Steve touched turn to ash while everything Justin touched turned to gold. The book then unfolded simply from that.

The 13th Prime, on the other hand, deals with a recurring “curse”, numerology, and history repeating itself in a small town. As a result, much more care and effort had to go into it to set up several connections from the beginning. Still, it’s nice to find the spontaneous ones too. It’s even nice to find the “hooks” for a possible link that I put in the first draft without realizing it and which, during revisions, get threaded back into the end of the plot.

And the amazing thing is, in the end product, I would wager that it is impossible for anyone else to differentiate between the intentional links and the happy coincidences that are sprinkled throughout. Such is the nature of writing.

In Japan, everyone got to play Snow White because parents “[forced] the school to admit to the injustice of selecting just one girl to play the title role.”

I wish I was making that up. And frankly I’m surprised that hasn’t happened here in America yet. But the fact is, reality is real. Not everyone is “the best” and not everyone deserves the “title role.” In fact, if there is only a title role, you’ve got a monologue. Pretty pointless.

So we have a generation of kids who are never allowed to lose. Not even in video games (cheat codes, anyone?). They go through life never having experienced the pain of coming up short.

As a result, they’re deluded into thinking that the world owes them. Then reality sets in. Usually in the form of their first boss who fires them because (surprise, surprise) they’re losers!

I’m currently going through my blog archives to get some updated stats regarding this blog. Since I have to do some editing with them to get just text for the parsing, it will be a long process. (When I first checked how long it would be by pasting it in word it came to roughly 2,500 pages of text and formating code I have to wade through!)

Anyway, I can tell you this much for now. So far this year, I have 67,057 words written for this blog. Yup, that’s more than a novel length right there. It’s 150 pages in a default-spaced Word document.

And I’ve also blamed Bush 27 times so far this year.

Note: this post is not included in the stats for this year.

Since the fine folks over at BHT have suffered a complete meltdown (despite what you’re thinking, this happened years ago—the effects are merely continuing through today) and do not allow thinking on their blog, it is rather fun to argue with them. It’s not much unlike discussing anything with any other liberal. You give them a fact and they emote. You give them reason, they whine. I did honestly try to see things from their point of view, but I just couldn’t get my head that far up my rectum.

Steve and I have offered several posts on prayer since Ted Kennedy was touched by an angel. We’ve actually put forth exegesis of Scripture as well as logical arguments using propositions. The response that BHT has given us is less than underwhelming.

In comments on this post, Randy McRoberts of the BHT said:

The thing is, Peter, that you don’t realize that arguments don’t always matter. It’s character and integrity and love that matter more. You can win arguments all day long against me. So what? You can speak with the tongue of men and angels, too, for all I care.

I don’t care to mount an argument. That’s not what I’m all about. If it works for you, have a ball with it. Don’t expect most people to care a whole lot. You might win the argument, but it’s an empty win.

Think about that for a moment. Randy has admitted that he doesn’t care about thinking, about intellectual consistency, about truth. It’s all about “character and integrity and love” not whether or not you’re actually, you know, correct and all. Mormons probably feel the same way, and I have to say they’re a heck of a lot nicer than the BHT folks are.

Reality has this weird property though. It’s real. It doesn’t change because you’re a nice person. It doesn’t change because you feel warm fuzzies.

So I responded with the following parable:

Once upon a time, there was a little boy named Randy. Randy loved everyone and everything as much as possible. If his cruel, cold-hearted Dad was about to crush a spider, Randy would rescue the spider and lovingly toss it outdoors where it had a chance to live.

One day, an early spring day, Randy was walking down the sidewalk with his evil father when they saw a baby bird lying on the ground. It had obviously fallen from its nest.

“Leave it,” the wicked adult said. “It’s mother will come for it.”

But that was unacceptable for Randy, who loved the poor little bird. So when the demon-in-human-form wasn’t looking, Randy scooped up the baby bird and put it in his pocket.

When they got home, Randy rushed straight to his room. He took out the bird and placed it in an old shoe box. The bird chirped because it was very hungry. So Randy decided to feed the bird.

He asked his less-wicked-but-still-not-quite-loving-because-she-was-a-Presbyterian mother what baby birds ate. She said they ate worms. But Randy knew that couldn’t be the case–worms were icky little creatures (that still deserved to live, mind you–that was why Randy would rescue them before his diabolical father went fishing).

There was a better solution. Randy liked Butterfinger candybars and Dr Pepper to wash them down with. They were his favorite treats. Because he loved the bird so much, Randy shared his favorite things with the bird.

The next morning he awoke to find a very dead bird in the shoe box. Because, you see, poor Randy never grasped the concept that love without knowledge is dangerous. If you love someone or something but you have no clue what they need then you will not be able to satisfy their needs and your love will condemn them to death.

Sadly, this episode did not teach Randy his lesson. Later, he would grow up to believe that it did not matter if a sinner was hell-bound. The important thing was the love them, not to argue with them. The important thing was to make sure the had a sugar buzz before they spent eternity in hell.

And as a result, Randy decided to attack those who were trying to rescue sinners by calling those apologists intellectual elitists in a Big-Brained Blog. And lo, he felt good about himself, and those who were hell-bound enjoyed his taunts. And merrily they continued on the path to destruction.

At least on the day of judgment Randy can say, “I loved everyone I ever put in hell, unlike those bastards at Triablogue who actually convinced a few sinners to change direction by using arguments.”

Naturally, Randy didn’t bother to respond to this here on the T-Blog because he’s a coward and knows he’d get shredded. Instead, he retreated to the BHT (where comments are not allowed because Groupthink must prevail) and whined:

This is a response to a comment I made over there. (Should have known better.) See? I have love, but no knowledge. I’m putting people in hell by loving them. I don’t know what birds eat. I’m attacking those who rescue sinners by arguing with them. I feel good about myself for all this. I’ve learned a lot about myself today.

I don’t think it would take more than about three verses of “Just As I Am” to get me down front. I feel so bad about myself for feeling so good about myself.

Oh, yeah. In another comment I learned that for me to say that there are other ways to converse without putting forth an argument is “in itself an argument”. Now, that’s heavy. I’m not sure I get it, since I’m not intellectual at all.

Well it is obvious that Randy is no intellectual since he cannot grasp a simple parable. Instead, he thinks he needs to read everything literally. Frankly, I would be ashamed to speak in public if I was as dumb as Randy brags about being.

But to clear up the record, when Randy says “I have love, but no knowledge” he is wrong. He has just as much love as he has knowledge: none.

I, for one, have never read a loving remark from Randy about me. No, I just get his hate poured out upon me. (These are the same people who complain about us when we debate Arminians because “we should treat brothers in Christ better than non-believers” yet they have no qualms treating the “TR”, as they call us, as badly as possible. Then again, you shouldn’t expect consistency from those who hate intelligence in the first place.)

Secondly, I wouldn’t say that Randy is attacking apologists by arguing with us because nothing Randy’s ever said could be misconstrued as an argument.

Naturally, the other bored skulls acted shocked by what went on. For instance, JS Bangs said:

Wow. I mean, wow.

To which I respond: “Like totally! I mean, TOTALLY!

Bangs continued:

What exactly gave any of them the impression that we don’t care about the salvation of the lost?

The fact that you’re not trying to convince the lost they’re on the wrong path is a great indication that you don’t care where they’re headed. Then again, I use logic.

The fact that several people admitted they had trouble grokking the concept of Hell?

Well, it is kinda hard to see how someone not going to Hell needs to worry about going to Hell. Then again, I use logic.

Or the fact that we actually pray for the unsaved?

Except I don’t believe you. You claim to pray for the unsaved, yet you do everything in your power to impede those who are seeking the unsaved. What exactly do you pray regarding the unsaved? And frankly a general prayer “Lord save the unsaved” is no substitute for genuine prayer either. Then again, I use logic.

I have zero interest in reading any TR blogs, so I honestly don’t know what they’re trying to say.

And this, of course, is the first sign that you’re dealing with a moron. Ask questions, and then say, “I’m not going to listen to the answer.” This works when you’re three years old, but we expect more from adults. Then again, I use logic.

Not content to leave it at that, Strawfoot said:

Is he actually saying that he and his BBB fellows have actually talked people into becoming Christians?

Yes, I am.

WHAT?! How can this be? Well, Strawfoot, it’s really quite simple if you actually cared about what the wicked TRs believed (which you don’t, cuz God forbid you’d actually have to talk with one!). God uses…are you ready for this now?…MEANS to enact His will.

I know, revolutionary concept. Not found in any Reformed literature except for all of it.

And since I get e-mails sent to me, I know that there do indeed exist people who’ve been convinced of the truth of Christianity by way of some of the arguments that I’ve presented. God’s used me to bring some to Himself, and I am honored to be of use to Him.

The BHT is a great example of what happens when Politically Correct thinking runs amok. They preach tolerance by being intolerant of everyone who disagrees with them. They teach that love is most important by being as unloving as possible toward other Christians. They think that something’s wrong with you if you use the brain God gave you.

Frankly, if their version of Christianity was true, I’d be an atheist. And that’s something that Randy and other BHTers don’t get. They think that everyone is as emotive as they are and that no one cares about thinking correctly. But I do. My mere existence refutes their notion that everyone agrees with them. I do enjoy thinking, I am intellectually oriented, I do study, I do use my brain. And because of that, I can actually interact with the atheists in our world who are likewise intellectually oriented.

That’s something that none of Randy’s self-serving emotive bleating will ever be able to accomplish.

This is the first time in roughly 50 hours that I’ve touched my home computer.

Yes, I am at home. And I got a comp day so I don’t have to come in tomorrow. We are finally caught up!

The good news about that is that since it’s a comp day, my not going in tomorrow won’t affect my overtime for the week. If I used vacation time, it would since the 8 hours of vacation time would not count toward my week total of hours. However, comp time is put in as if I were actually at work even though I am not.

Therefore, I will sleep until noon. And when I get up and start playing Guitar Hero, I will know that I am getting time and a half for it!!!

*w00t*

Additionally, the kind folks who are above our department in rank gave all of us gift certificates to Cinemark, so if I want to tomorrow I can watch Indiana Jones. I think I’ll wait until Saturday though since I don’t know for sure when I’ll actually wake up. I am, after all, still exhausted.

Whew.

You can pretty much repeat everything I put in yesterday’s blog here.

FWIW, I’ve now got 29 hours and 15 minutes of work time in this week. And it’s only Tuesday.

Here it is, past 9 PM. I finally get to go home. It’s nice to know that people who do not work in my department work overtime to help out me and my supervisor. It would be nicer if people who DID work in my department would have worked some OT too….but I suppose that’s asking too much.

Me = tired.

Well, it turns out that we didn’t have 35 batches left after all. Apparently, there was a software glitch on one computer and all the batches that that person did have to be redone. That person happened to do 42 batches. :-(

Unfortunately, only myself and my supervisor are able to fix these right now. And of course my supervisor has to do lots of other things besides keying batches, so that means I get to do probably around 30 or so of them by myself.

All without having a weekend.

I HATE BUSH!!!!!

One thing that I will admit that Roman Catholic apologists have got right is that they recognize that Protestants have Traditions too (note the capital T). The difference between Catholic and Protestant Traditions (qua Traditions) is this: the Catholics admit to theirs, whereas the Protestants don’t.

Since Steve first responded to John Mark Reynolds, we’ve been treated to one particular Protestant Tradition: the Obligation to Pray for the Enemy (OPE). Much has already been said in the original post (including the comments), as well as in Steve’s follow up post. Naturally, the responses that Steve received (as well as responses to me, which surprised me somewhat since I figured everything I had said was, you know, obvious and all) consisted of much hot air and no content. In fact, this was the main reason that I penned my Out of the Closet satirical post since one of the objections that we received was that we at Triablogue (affectionately known in BHT circles as the BBB for the “Big-Brained Blog”) were too intellectual, as if somehow accusing someone of using logic and thinking through a position was an insult.

I don’t want to belabor the point too much, especially since Steve’s response is sufficient to demonstrate the lack of intelligence our detractors have displayed. Yet I must add that the anti-intellectualism expressed in our culture today has infiltrated deep into the church as well, and it is a sad day indeed when Christians think their best response is to embrace irrationality.

But just as God always keeps a Remnant, I know that there remain Christians who actually care about what the Bible says. There are Christians who are able to think and who can draw logical inferences from passages of Scripture. There are Christians who are not satisfied with the knee-jerk spleen venting and pseudo-piety offered by those who would be righteous if they weren’t such harpies. For those dozen or so readers, I offer the following texts of Scripture as we determine whether the OPE Tradition is legit.

Let us start in an unusual place. Rather than the obvious imprecatory (yes, I know how to spell it now) Psalms and Proverbs, let’s begin in a different place: 1 Samuel. 1 Samuel deals with the nation of Israel in her attempts at gaining a king so they could be like the other nations. Before the first king of Israel existed, the nation was ruled by various priests and judges. As 1 Samuel begins, we find out about how the prophet Samuel came about. We learn about his mother, Hannah, who would offer prayers to God, beseeching Him for a son. She promised to dedicate her son to God in the temple. When God blessed her with Samuel, she obeyed her promise and gave Samuel to the temple which was currently under the care of Eli. So here in 1 Samuel, we already have an instance where God answers prayer to the benefit of His followers.

But not all is well. Eli had wicked sons who refuse to submit to God’s laws. In 1 Samuel 2:22-25 (all passages are from the ESV) we read the following:

Now Eli was very old, and he kept hearing all that his sons were doing to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who were serving at the entrance to the tent of meeting. And he said to them, “Why do you do such things? For I hear of your evil dealings from all the people. No, my sons; it is no good report that I hear the people of the LORD spreading abroad. If someone sins against a man, God will mediate for him, but if someone sins against the LORD, who can intercede for him?” But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the LORD to put them to death.

Now there are a couple of things of interest in this passage. First, the last sentence has got to make our LFW friends squirm. The reason that Eli’s sons would not listen to Eli was because “it was the will of the LORD to put them to death.” In other words, LFW is thrown right out the window. Eli’s sons did not have the possibility of listening to Eli. Yet compatibalism remains intact, for it was both God’s will that Eli’s sons be put to death and it was their desire to continue to do the behavior that would lead to death even after being warned of it.

But I didn’t quote this passage for that sentence. Instead, we are looking at how this passage relates to the concept of prayer, specifically relating to the OPE theory. Eli states a simple fact: “If someone sins against a man, God will mediate for him.” Naturally, there is implied in this the repentance of the sinner and such. However, Eli then asks the rhetorical question: “But if someone sins against the LORD, who can intercede for him?”

What isn’t as clear to modern readers is what is meant by a mediator. Despite the fact that Christianity is based on the mediation of Christ between sinners and God, most of the time we don’t really consider what this means. In the customs of the day, mediation was far more important though. Two parties in dispute would turn to a mediator to help resolve the dispute; but the mediator, in order to have any legitimacy, would be required to have more authority than either of the two parties involved in the dispute (this is what we do now using the court system with judges, backed by the authority of the law, for our mediators). This is why it is possible for God to mediate when one party sins against another party. In this instance, God has more authority than both of the parties involved and His judgment therefore holds weight. But when God is one of the parties involved (and because God is righteous, He is only involved if He has been sinned against), then there is no higher authority to mediate. Thus the question: “If someone sins against the LORD, who can intercede for him?” The answer is clearly implied: no one.

Naturally, in the New Testament we discover there is a mediator: Jesus. But since Jesus had not yet been physically born, the question stood in Eli’s time.

So how does this relate to the OPE for the Christian now that we have Christ as a mediator? It relates in this manner: are there people who have sinned against God? This answer is an obvious, yes. We are all sinners. More critically: are there people for whom Christ does not intercede? Unless you are a universalist, then you must answer this question in the affirmative as well (and if you are a universalist, you have bigger problems than this one to contend with).

Remember that the O in OPE stands for obligation. Do we have an obligation to pray for our enemy? Given the above, there will be people whom Christ does not intercede for who fall under the rhetorical question: “who can intercede for him?” No one can. And as a result of this, we cannot intercede either. If we say that we are obligated to pray for our enemies, and we know that this included people who are damned, then we are saying that we are obligated to intercede on behalf of those for whom none can intercede. This is frankly irrational.

Of course one could try to avoid this problem by saying we could pray for their physical benefit rather than for a spiritual benefit. But someone once asked: what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and yet forfeits his soul? (I only wish I could remember who said that….)

The next question that we must ask is this: does God always listen to every prayer? By this, I do not mean “Is God cognizant of every prayer?” because, being omniscient, He is. Instead, I use it in the Biblical sense. Does God care about and respond to every prayer?

Well, we don’t have to turn too many pages in 1 Samuel to find the following passage:

And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.

1 Samuel 8:18

Here we have the promise that God will ignore the prayers of the Israelites. Why? I think a strong case can be made that it links directly back to the above referenced passage in 1 Samuel 2. If someone sins against God (which is what the people did by demanding a king so they could be like the other countries) then there remains no one who can intercede on their behalf.

But this passage is not alone. Indeed, we likewise read:

For what is the hope of the godless when God cuts him off,
when God takes away his life?
Will God hear his cry
when distress comes upon him?

Job 27:8-9

Here we have in mind a specific group of people: the “godless.” Once again, a rhetorical question is asked: “Will God hear his [the godless] cry when distress comes upon him?” Again the answer is an obvious no. God will not listen to the prayers of the godless who have sinned against Him.

This is made explicit in other passages too:

Therefore, thus says the LORD, Behold, I am bringing disaster upon them that they cannot escape. Though they cry to me, I will not listen to them.
–Jeremiah 11:11

When you spread out your hands,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even though you make many prayers,
I will not listen;
your hands are full of blood.
–Isaiah 1:15

Then they will call upon me, but I will not answer;
they will seek me diligently but will not find me.
–Proverbs 1:28

They cried for help, but there was none to save;
they cried to the LORD, but he did not answer them.
–Psalm 18:4

Therefore I will act in wrath. My eye will not spare, nor will I have pity. And though they cry in my ears with a loud voice, I will not hear them.
–Ezekiel 8:18

Then they will cry to the LORD,
but he will not answer them;
he will hide his face from them at that time,
because they have made their deeds evil.
–Micah 3:4

These passages could be multiplied many times over. It is clear that God is under no obligation to listen to the prayers of the wicked. I therefore ask, if God will not listen to the prayers of the godless, what makes us think that God will listen to our prayers on behalf of the godless?

To answer that question we can do another examination of Scripture. Are there times when God has said that He will not listen to prayers offered by believers on behalf of non-believers? Indeed, there are:

As for you, do not pray for this people, or lift up a cry or prayer for them, and do not intercede with me, for I will not hear you.

Jeremiah 7:16

We cannot get more explicit than this. God commands Jeremiah specifically NOT to pray for Israel. He commands Jeremiah NOT to intercede. Why? Because “I will not hear you.”

We’ve already seen how God does not listen to the prayers of the godless. But here we see that God will not listen to the prayers of righteous Jeremiah if they are prayers on behalf of those whom God has condemned. Another passage from Jeremiah juxtaposes both themes together:

The LORD said to me: “Do not pray for the welfare of this people. Though they fast, I will not hear their cry, and though they offer burnt offering and grain offering, I will not accept them. But I will consume them by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence.”

Jeremiah 14:11-12

Here we see both the command for Jeremiah to refrain from prayer and God’s promise to ignore the prayers of those who are to be punished.

With these passages in mind, the OPE easily crumbles into nonsense. But it’s only nonsense in one particular part. The O. That is, the obligation to pray for our enemies. We cannot be obliged to pray for something God has promised not to listen to. But that doesn’t mean we can’t pray for it anyway. We certainly can do so.

Of course, God will still ignore us. In fact, this point is something that has caused some Christians to doubt God: “Why won’t God save my father?” or “Why won’t God save my best friend?” If your father, best friend, etc. is an enemy of God and is reprobate, then there is none who can intercede on his or her behalf. God will ignore your prayers.

But we do not know who God has Elected and who He has not. We certainly are allowed to pray for our heart’s desires. After all, Christ did in the Garden of Gethsemane when He prayed: “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me” (Matthew 26:39). But He did not stop there: “nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”

We are free to pray for things that God will not grant as long as we remember “nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”

So feel free to pray for your enemies. They may very well be only temporary enemies. They may, indeed, be lost sheep that Christ will return to the fold. But if they are not, your prayers will be futile and pointless…unless you remember “nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” Then your prayers will still have value, as they will be both a Godly act of worship and a means of submitting to the will of God in all things.

The obligation is to remember God’s will be done, not for us to pray for our enemies.

Well…the good news is that we’re down to only 35 batches left.

The bad news is that I still won’t have a weekend until at least Wednesday (and then only if I can convince my boss to let me use some vacation time before I go psycho).