The natural order of things

On the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Bible Tidbits makes the argument thusly:

I was recently invited to help a friend of a friend answer an objection about Mary's perpetual virginity... [Objector] says that Matthew 1:25 “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn* son: and he called his name JESUS.” Saying that Mary did not have sexual relations with Joseph until Jesus was born, but then after she did. Yet scripture uses the Greek word “until” to have another meaning. It can have the first meaning but it can also mean “up to that point”. 2 Samuel 6:23 “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto [GK until] the day of her death.” Does this mean that after her death she started having children? No.

Bible Tidbits is correct that "not X until Y" does not necessarily mean that X will begin once Y is reached.  It is an Hebraism, an idiom, and so we need to look past the individual words to see what function the phrase as a whole serves, if it has any function at all. Before I do, let me preface this by saying that as a non-Catholic I have no vested interest in whether Mary was a perpetual virgin**. But I do have an interest in what the scripture has to say about it. So that's what we're going to look at, hopefully without preconceptions. 

Unfortunately Bible Tidbits takes the easy way out with its Michal parallel, strong as it looks, because in doing so, they make the phrase meaningless. By making the "until Y" a dividing line that divides nothing, they have removed the meaning from the idiom. Whatever the sentence means, it certainly means something. So what does it mean?

I think there's an idea in play here that we might call "the natural order of things."  Michal did not have children until the day of her death. Since we should expect her to have them in the natural order of things, we are talking about something out of the ordinary (a "not X"). But since we would not expect her to have them afterwards, the fact that she did not is natural ("X"). "Not X" ended the day she died (denoted as Y), not because she ceased to not have kids, but because "she had no children" ceased to be unnatural. "Until Y" then serves as a meaningful distinction - it separates the unnatural order that God imposed on Michal from the resumption of the natural order, even though she had no kids on either side of the line.

That this interpretation can fit similar Hebraisms is evidence in its favor. For example, David "took the ten women his concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in ward, and fed them, but went not in unto them. So they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in widowhood." (2 Sam 20:3). The unnatural order of things was that they were "living in widowhood" even though their husband was alive. But they were certainly not "living in widowhood" after they died, they were just dead. The unnatural order ended at Y.

And "Uzziah the king was a leper unto the day of his death..." (2Chr 26:21). Royal leprosy was the unnatural order of things. After his death, Uzziah did not continue to be a leper; he was then just another dead king.

The idiom then is simply a way of saying the unnatural order "not X" is over once we reach Y. Michal continues to not have kids, while David's wives cease to live in widowhood. So whether "not X" continues through Y is a function of whether "X" is expected in the natural order of things after Y. Make sense?

If we apply this line of reasoning to Mary and Joseph, it works out something like this. The natural order of things is for married couples to have sex. In this case, we have an unnatural order of things - Joseph "knew her not" (Matt 1:25). Again, we have an "until Y," which if this ends the unnatural order of things, would mark the point at which the natural order of things resumed. In that case, there's no need to explain away the biblical mention of Jesus's brothers and sisters (Mark 6:3). The natural order of things is that Mary and Joseph would have kids.

So can we firmly conclude that Joseph and Mary had sex after Jesus was born, i.e. that Mary was *not* a perpetual virgin?  I don't know that we can go that far, even though I think that is probably the case. I also don't really think it matters - everything is in relation to Jesus, so Mary's virginity, whatever its value, was most valuable before Jesus was born. I'll let those with a theological dog in the fight take it from there.

UPDATE: "I don't know that we can go that far" is not verbal weaselry, as if I'm trying to avoid offending Catholics.  As a former Catholic I have plenty of practice with that.  It's just that since one can come up with plenty of theoretical reasons why Joseph continued to not touch her (e.g. he was gay, he was impotent, he suffered castration in a tragic carpentry accident and the kids were adopted) and since the Bible only implies that they had sex***, I drew the difference there between "probable" and "certain."  But whether they did or not is wholly unimportant after Jesus was born.  Matthew chooses that point for his Y because that represents the end of the matter from a theological perspective. The Virgin had delivered the Savior into the world.

* "Firstborn" does not, as some are wont to claim, assert the existence of a secondborn. Firstborn is a unique concept, wherein certain birth rights are established by the son that "opens the womb" (Ex 13:2) regardless of whether others are born later. That the nation of Israel was God's "firstborn" (Ex. 4:22) doesn't mean that God had other, younger nations. It simply means that Israel was God's special son.

** As Pascal says, "The Bible only speaks of the Virgin's virginity up to the birth of Jesus." Why? Because "Everything [is] in relation to Jesus."

*** When scripture says that sort of thing, it does not do so merely to quench our curiosity, but for one of two reasons: there is either a moral point involved or there is offspring that will be central to the story later. Since neither is the case once Jesus is born, we should expect the Bible to say no more than it does.

Just don't give them typewriters

Are you really homeless if you'd rather live outdoors?

Strange things are afoot at the Flea Party:

Zuccotti Park has become a haven for the homeless.

Enticed by the allure of free food and a community of open-minded people, increasing numbers are leaving New York's shelters to join the Occupy Wall Street protesters...

I suspect that the truth is far closer to "free food" than "open-minded people." But whatever, it seems that the habitually homeless are joining the voluntarily homeless, which does not sit all that well with the latter:

"If [the homeless are] going to come here and get our food, bedding and clothing, have books and medical supplies for no charge, they need to give back," Digioia* said. "There's a lot of takers here and they feel entitled."

A lot of takers there and they feel entitled. Hmm.  I'm not sure how that's any different than the rest of the protesters there.

* "Lauren Digioia, 26, a member of the sanitation committee." For some reason, that part made me laugh.

How it happened

When I was a kid, the dinosaurs died out because mammals ate all of their eggs.  A huge asteroid is a much cooler story.

Goes both ways

The slogan, that is:

President Barack Obama will unveil new measures to help struggling U.S. homeowners Monday, in the first leg of a campaign-style swing through western states that may be crucial to his re-election in 2012...

According to the White House official, he will also try out a new slogan to put pressure on Congress: "We can't wait."

I'm pretty sure many in Congress can't wait, either, but the thing they can't wait for is the election. That explains why they are so confused by it*.

In the unlikely event that the awesome power of this new slogan proves insufficient to bludgeon Congress into giving the President $400b to spend as he sees fit, I suggest that Obama ride up to each member, look him or her square in the eye, and say, "Ni." Maybe they'll bring him a shrubbery at least.

* As for me, the President's new mantra makes that old ALCOA commercial run through my head. Off key, even.

Buffalo Hangman 2012

Apocalypse Not

Nothing else in the world smells like that:

Thus we can be sure that the whole world, with the exception of those who are presently saved (the elect), are under the judgment of God, and will be annihilated together with the whole physical world on October 21, 2011, on the last day of the present five months period. On that day the true believers (the elect) will be raptured. We must remember that only God knows who His elect are that He saved prior to May 21.

Five months are up already?  It seems like only yesterday that the false prophet known as Harold Camping was saying the world was going to end. There is hardly any reason to suspect that he'll be any more right this time, and I do note that apart from a few mocking press stories, no one is really paying attention. That is as it should be. Well, the "no one paying attention" part, not the mocking part. But as the mocking is self-inflicted, I don't think we Christians get to complain about it overly much.

We need to work on that "wise as serpents" part, it seems. As Newton noted of his own day's Harold Campings, "By this rashness they have not only exposed themselves, but brought the Prophecy also into contempt."  Sometimes God's own people are his worst PR agents.

The Albert Gore Jr Gun Safety Award

When white people have no electricity and no water

they call it camping:

STEVE INSKEEP, host: A lack of jobs - not workers - has drawn thousands of people to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations. The protesters include recent college graduates who say they're unemployed and that they can not repay their student loans. One question is whether enough of them will mobilize to matter. NPR's Claudio Sanchez reports...

SANCHEZ: ...What did you get a degree in?
KAIT LEGERS: History, from Ohio University.
SANCHEZ: What do you do with a degree in history?
LEGERS: With a Bachelor's? Nothing. I can't do anything with this. 

Question for the unhappy camper: how many students will need to mobilize in a park to make Kait Legers's history degree employment-worthy?*

The fact of the matter is that if Kate got ripped off, it wasn't by Wall Street**. If she thought that getting a bachelors degree in history was a ticket to a good job she was a fool. If Ohio University led her to believe that she was going to somehow slide right into that corner office VP job at Sprint because of her detailed understanding of Roman Britain under the governorship of Agricola, then they are the ones who ripped her off.

This is really easy, campers. You choose college for one of two things, either to get training oriented toward a job or to get an 'education,' by which is meant training oriented toward not-a-job. Those people who want to get a job will get degrees in engineering, plastics, computer science, accounting, teaching, and the like. Those who want a more liberal education will get degrees in philosophy, history***, women's studies, black studies, religious studies, or sociology, and the like.  You borrow the money, you get to pick.

But if you chose the latter, what right have you to complain that you did not get the former?

* Judge Smails says... 
** Wall Street will be happy to rip her off later, obviously.
*** In the final class of my history undergrad, we were assigned the task of locating an actual job for which our new degree qualified us. It was a very cruel prank, for as a wakeup call it came far too late to do the grads any good. 

The Larry Doby of presidential politics

I'm not asking you who's on second

CNN wonders why no one really seems to care how black Herman Cain is:

...why isn't Cain's ethnicity as much a part of his story as it was with Obama?

For one, many conservatives decry the focus on a candidate's race as an obsession for liberals...

There's a second reason that some conservatives, particularly tea partiers, largely ignore Cain's race: it drives a stake through claims that the movement harbors racists...

There's a third reason: the novelty has worn off. Everyone knows now that a black guy can be just as poor a president as a white one, so who cares whether the next guy up to be president is black or white?  America has now been there and done that. No one is going to give it a second thought when a Bobby Jindal or a Nikki Haley or a Ben Nighthorse Campbell gets close to the presidency. No one except the press, for whom the 'first x' can always make a story seem more interesting than it really is. I mean, freaking Pakistan has had a female head of government. That we haven't is not really a story, it's just a fact.

When Obama was first elected, I asked How long until he can just be the president? I didn't know the answer then, but today I know it is 'less than three years.' If someone you know still consistently refers to Obama as 'the first black president,' you know that person is either a racist or a liberal*, and you probably ask yourself on occasion why you still talk to this person. To everyone else you know Obama is just the president.  And if the first black president** is no big deal, why would the second matter at all?

UPDATE: Racism is everywhere, man:

[PMSNBC Host Ed] Schultz's example? He quoted [Sen. Jim] Demint saying that "If we are able to stop Obama on this [health care law], it will be his Waterloo***. It will break him." For clarity, Schultz repeated the offending line, "It will break him."

Dr. James Peterson, director of Africana studies at Lehigh University, explained that "break" is a racist verb, "a term that was used to destroy, mentally and physically, slaves." Accordingly, the Demint line demonstrated "how dark some of these racial discourses can be in presidential politics."

Did you catch it? Everyone knows that "dark" is a euphemism for "black."  Darkies. Africa as "the dark continent." Washington D.C. itself  as "Dark Country." I can't believe that in this day and age, we still have to put up with such blatant racism on television.

* no exclusive disjunction intended.
** Besides, Obama is the third black president anyway.
*** freaking racist Napoleon

Slash says to buy American

Of course it's a cult

But saying so makes you stupid:

(CNN) – GOP presidential hopeful and Mormon Jon Huntsman had some choice words on Monday for the Dallas pastor who's repeatedly described Mormonism as a "cult" and a "false religion" this weekend.

"The fact that, you know, some moron can stand up and make a comment like that, you know, first of all, it's outrageous," Huntsman said on "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer."

It's outrageous that any moron can speak his mind in America? Yeah, if only we could get rid of that stupid First Amendment...

That said, to discover whether the pastor is really a moron it might make sense to determine whether he is correct in his assertion that Mormonism is a cult. For that we need a definition.  Now, this might be one of the few places where the dictionary cannot help us, because its definitions are too vague and lean too heavily on sociology. A cult can be any "particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies," in which case Mormonism is a cult, but then so is Anglicanism. Such a definition is not terribly helpful.

So we're going to need a different definition, a more specialized yet an also widely-accepted one. I propose the following: "A cult is a group that deviates doctrinally from a 'parent' or 'host' religion; that is, cults grow out of and deviate from a previously established religion." Gospel Outreach has a couple of examples, and they are right in line with much historical Christian teaching on cults.  In short, a Christian cult is a new group that deviates from established Christianity while claiming to be Christianity. Islam, though based on Christianity, is not a Christian cult because it does not claim to be Christian. Mormonism, in claiming to be Christian, might be such a cult, if it can be shown that they deviate from established Christianity.  So that is where we will have to make our case.

But rather than arguing over specific doctrines that might even make Catholics a cult*, I would rather present a pair of bigger fish for your frying pleasure:

1. Mormonism proposes a new prophet, Joseph Smith. Smith established the church, provided its doctrine and its additional scriptures, and is considered the spiritual head of Mormonism.  He might be a true prophet or a false prophet. But his truth or falsehood aside, when your church is founded by a prophet that no one else has, you cannot but deviate doctrinally from the main religion.

2. Mormonism proposes a new book, The Book of Mormon, as "holy scripture comparable to the Bible." They also claim that their Doctrine and Covenants is "a collection of divine revelations and inspired declarations." The truth or falsity of such claims aside, when your church relies on new scriptures that no one else has, you cannot but deviate doctrinally from the main religion.

Obviously, I do not believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, nor do I pay the slightest reverence to his Doctrine and Covenants - if I did, I would be a Mormon. And if someone is not a Mormon, they really have no choice but to conclude that Mormonism is a cult, even if John Huntsman calls them a moron** for it.

If someone is a Mormon, there's little good that can arise out of pretending to be one of us regular Christians, a people who will be tossed into the Gorge of Eternal Peril for ignoring both God's words and His prophet***. Well, other than to get our votes, of course.

* too many cult hunters would make everything outside the conservative wing of the Southern Baptist Convention a cult.
** not to be confused with Moroni, the angel who showed Smith the golden tablets (pictured above) which tell how a group of Israelites traveled to upstate New York in 600bc and established a thriving civilization that lasted centuries but alas failed to leave behind a single yarmulke.
*** And for not answering the five questions. Well, three questions.

Sie können dieses nicht berühren

We are the 99 weeks

A different kind of Dow 10,000 party

It look like Occupy Wall Street is set for an infusion of new blood:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The New York state comptroller expects Wall Street to lose 10,000 jobs by the end of 2012.

The job losses are projected to occur in New York City's securities industry from now through December, 2012, according to Eric Sumberg, press spokesman for state comptroller Thomas DiNapoli...

"These developments will have a rippling effect through the economy and adversely impact state and city tax collections."

Fewer securities brokers plus we get reduced state and local government to boot? Who says the papers are always full of bad news?

While it's not terribly kind to wish for other people to be thrown out of work, it is difficult not to be overjoyed at the approach of anything that might shrink our financial sector as a proportion of our overall economic activity. Yes, banking is valuable, but more is not better. Once you have reached the point where the minimal financial needs of the economy can be handled efficiently, additional employees add no value.  Same with Wall Street: there is very little marginal value added added to our economy by selling little pieces of companies or companies' debt to one another*. The more people we have involved in that after a certain small point, the less we are actually doing. We would all be better off in the long run if half of Wall Street was planting trees for minimum wage and another quarter was building Roman-style bridges out of rough-hewn granite. 

If there was one advantage to FDR's policy of making the Great Depression last as long as possible, it was that we got fewer brokers and more bridges out of the deal. Seems to me that will be the best we can hope from the current government's efforts as well.

* especially with High-Frequency Trading, which helps actual investment just as much as the sales tax helps commerce, and in the same way.

Sean dies at the end

The cool Mr. Bean

Friday Randomness

Baked beans are off

A couple of you have been getting caught in the blogspot spam filter recently - seems that Prof and Fish's nuggets of wisdom have been the most affected. I've added them all back in.  If your comments keep disappearing, leave me a comment letting me know*.

Speaking of Spam, the Vikings are actually favored at home this week**. Seems even the oddsmakers can't believe how bad they are. Coach Frazier really needs to PONDER that 0-4 record, I think, lest his team get caught in a self-reinforcing WEBB of despondency.

When you listen to Obama, you have to take him absolutely literally. For example, in his latest news conference, he noted that, "I had a chance to meet a young man named Robert Baroz. He’s an English teacher in Boston who came to the White House a few weeks ago..." Now a lot of people are calling Obama out because he didn't actually meet the man.  Obama never said he met him, only that he had a chance to do so. Just like the Vikings had a chance to be a pretty good team this year.

In both of my history classes (at least the ones I have to be in class for) we're watching films this week and next.  In one, we are watching actual Nazi propaganda films like Triumph of the Will and The Eternal Jew.  In the other, we are watching an A&E*** biography of Napoleon.  Like with the Vikings, it is apparently too much to ask for consistency between the first and the second.

SUNDAY UPDATE: The Vikings' change of strategy is obvious: since building a 3-touchdown lead and then retreating into a cocoon was not winning games, they have decided to up that to 4 touchdowns.

* Catch-22.
** By 2 1/2, but still.
*** History starts with an 'H', you will note.

Why are you here?

This is what happens when you name parks after Cesar Chavez.

This is sure to end well

Say Hello to my little trend

Due Process we can believe in:

(Reuters) - American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

I can't imagine any problem with establishing the precedent that Americans can be killed by the government so long as they are specially chosen for the honor by a secret panel of political appointees operating outside the law.

Janis occupies Wall Street

Her friends all drive Porches

O Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes-Benz?

Your gold is about to expire

This one will not remain online long, I'm pretty sure. So here's the important part:

00:23 "…Some investors aren’t confident that, what, what gold is backed by or if it’s backed by anything at all, as compared to something like the US dollar. Investors are comfortable that the US dollar is backed by the American government. So no matter what is happening to the American economy, something like the US dollar is backed by the Federal Reserve - that’s going to be around a year from now. That’s a much more comfortable investment for them."

(h/t: Astrosmith)

Cleaning out the spam filter

A study in pattern recognition:

Natie: Hello. I live with you in the same place. I am sweet, sassy and a little crazy. See my photos.

Jeany: Hello. I live in your city. I'm beautiful and well appointed. Can you see me here.

Lusy: Nice to meet you! I live in the same city as you. I am beautiful, intelligent girl. See my photos.

Ashley: Hi. I am far from you. I'm smart and beautiful. And here I am.

Mary: How are you?! I live some distance from you. I'm beautiful and well appointed. You can view my photos.

Jeany: How are you?. I'm in your city. I am beautiful, intelligent girl. Some of my photos you can find on...

Mary: How are you?! I live some distance from you. I have a wonderful and very funny girl. You can view my photos.

For our collective sake, I really hope the continued existence of such campaigns is due to their low overhead more than actual success because of the stupidity of their intended victims.