CalvinDude.com

The story begins with a Levite and his concubine, and it ends with the death of all but 600 men from the tribe of Benjamin and a unique method of getting brides. Chapter 19 - 21 of the book of Judges detail the events, but a brief synopsis is sufficient for our current discussion.

When the Levite and his concubine rested in Gibeah, a Benjaminite town, the men of the town tried to rape the Levite. When they were unable to do so, they raped and killed his concubine. As a result, the Levite gathered the rest of the tribes of Israel to attack Gibeah, but the Benjaminites fought on the side of Gibeah instead. Thus outnumbered, they were slaughtered. Only 600 Benjaminites survived.

The other tribes, not wanting to make the Benjaminites extinct, made peace, but then discovered that the Benjaminite men needed wives so they wouldn’t die out. Since all the other tribes had vowed not to give their daughters to the Benjaminites, they ultimately settled on having the Benjaminites kidnap young virgins to take for their wives (that way, they weren’t given them, but no one would punish the kidnapper either).

The very last verse in Judges sums up the motivation for this “solution.” It says:

In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

Relativism, in other words, is the genesis of the problem. People had no standards, and thus the only solution was to kill one another, and then to kidnap survivors. Indeed, if the only standard is what is right in your own eyes, then nothing that anyone did in that story was actually wrong. It was simply action and reaction, nothing more.

If, however, there are universal standards, then we can measure and judge whether anyone in the story acted nobly. But only if the standard is not relative. Relativism must lead to behavior like that found in the end of Judges. It is the only logical outcome of anarchy.

I got an interesting e-mail forwarded to me. It stated that Target was denying their employees the right to say “Merry Christmas” because it might be offensive to some people. Naturally, my first reaction was, “Why aren’t they concerned about those who might find the ban offensive?” However, there’s something more troubling about that that I think takes precedence in America.

It’s the idea that employees have the “right” to say whatever they want to. Presumably, this comes from the idea of the First Amendment, which gives us free speech.

Or does it?

The First Amendment says, in it’s entirety:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

See that first word? Congress cannot make a law. This does not mean that employers cannot make a rule that their employees cannot say certain things. And when an employer decides that certain things may be offensive to their customers, then they certainly have the ability to say, “If you want to work for me, you cannot say this.” It therefore does not violate any rights to say that employees at Target cannot say “Merry Christmas.”

This doesn’t mean I support their decision that the term “Merry Christmas” is offensive. But it also doesn’t mean I support the e-mail boycott of Target for violating a non-existent right too.

To live without faith is to die a hyppocrite. Man cannot live without faith, for we all must believe in something unprovable for the basis of our knowledge. All knowledge (real knowledge, not mistaken beliefs) is still, at root, faith for it is based on our presuppositions. To find your presupposition, simply ask yourself “Why?” to each fact. So if you say, “The sky is blue” you ask yourself “Why is the sky blue?” If the answer is “Because the atomosphere scatters light such that blue is the lightwave that is perceived” you ask yourself “Why is that the case?” At the point at which you finally must answer, “Because that’s the way it is” then you have found your presupposition, which is by nature unprovable and therefore taken by faith.

By the way, the ESV continues to be a great translation to read. I have now completed Joshua and Luke, in addition to the nine books I previously read. I’m also most of the way through Judges and Acts too.

Individual verses are almost identical to other translations, but for some reason the flow of the text just feels better. It’s not something I can put my finger on. Before, my favorite translation was the NASB, but I’ve found the ESV to be more readable in long passages and just as accurate. So I’m thinking I’ll switch to being an ESV advocate (which isn’t to knock the NASB, this is just a personal preference).