[Vision2020] Hope For Healing Pooh, Winnie The

[Nate Wilson]

    In my years on this mortal coil, there is only one person whom I 
have known to have the patience of Job. It's a handy trait in any walk 
of life, but is especially helpful for such a locally loved pastor. For 
the last year or so, or however long its been that my father has been 
sticking his oar in this particular puddle of vision, I have continued 
to be amazed, once again, at my father's patience. It's not as if he 
profits from any of this, but for some reason he continues his 
interaction, covering the same philosophical ground repeatedly, and 
somehow still enjoying you all, and the interaction. I grow impatient 
much more quickly, am surprised at the continual fog that passes for 
secular orthodoxy, and leave despairing. He expects the fog, and does 
not despair. He laughs and answers the same questions over again, only 
to have his answers once again dismissed with such deadly repartees as 
"Logic? I think not." or equivalent responses. Folks that he somehow 
still finds amusing, and manages to enjoy, then poo-poo him because 
that's what they're supposed to do. I wonder to myself "Are any of these 
people thinking?" (Note to Mr. Courtney: Could you provide a graph with 
projected cognitive ability among visionaries? Is there a correlation 
with government education? A pie chart would be nice.) and yet he is 
patient.
    I don't think anyone has taken more abuse in this little arena than 
my father, and I don't think anyone could be less affected by it. And so 
we come to the latest lap in the same old race: Philosophical 
foundations of morality, specifically in regard to homosexuals. I happen 
to watch, again, as my father wrote in a basic question about moral 
epistemology, only using much smaller words, and received the same old 
responses that pass for interaction is these circles. And I can't help 
it, I have to try. "Maybe this time they will see it," I tell myself. My 
Eeyore heart says otherwise, but I will try regardless. I will speak 
louder and slower, like an American in Paris, in the hopes that 
something, be it ever so small, might sink in. Of course I run a great 
risk attempting this. I might be told that it is hot outside, and mommy 
doesn't have time for me. That's always a dangerous rebuttal. Others 
will chose other ways to attempt to dismiss me. They might try to pat me 
on my wee head, compare me to a dog, and ask if I have other tricks. 
That one's used a lot in Philosophy of Religion departments around the 
country, originally credited to Plantinga of course. These are all 
dangers that I am willing to risk, and I need to learn patience. This, 
simple, well ennunciated foreign language explanation is about personal 
betterment, striving after patience, etc. Not that it will help.

    My father is against murder. Also racism, rape, torture, unlawful 
wars, etc. The funny thing is. . . he knows why he's against them. He 
has faith in an ultimate and absolute Goodness. To simplify: these 
things are bad because God made the world, He is good, and He hates 
these things. They are against His nature, contrary to His will, and 
thus, these things will sicken any faithful Christian. Now anyone can 
feel free to get all excited here, scoot to the front of their desk 
chair and twiddle their fingers in the air in the hopes of asking a 
sticky question about the Problem of Evil (PoE). Despite the fact that 
the discussion would be awfully interesting and highly intelligent, 
that's not what this is about. The point is this: When my father says 
something is evil, it means more than personal dislike. The Christian 
believes that the murder of a Wyoming homosexual is wicked, not as a 
matter of his own likes or dislikes. It is wicked because an 
authoritative, all-good, Creator God hates it. How primitive. Rape is 
bad because God said so. "Who's He think He is?" you ask. Well, God. He 
did make the place.

    But before those of you who want to giggle snicker too much, let's 
move on to the relativist (secular orthodoxy) paradigm. This, if I say 
so myself, is one dumb worldview. There can be no absolutes in this 
world. Absolutes are against the rules. All of them. Absolutely all 
absolutes are fallacious. But I digress already. People who are moral 
relativists are in a bind. Murdering homosexuals is bad. Killing your 
English teacher, shooting classmates, etc. These are all off limits. But 
here's the kicker. . . why? Is it because anyone in authority said so? 
Or is your morality based on nothing more than what you personally are 
comfortable with? Ah, society has spoken has it? You want to go with 
Kant and the old greatest good for the greatest number bit? That's the 
ethics of gang rape, and all the picking on minorities that filled our 
yesteryears. If you can't say why a thing is wrong, then you have no 
right to say anything more than "I don't personally like it," and the 
rapist can say "Who the hell are you?" Epistemological foundations are 
necessary. As depressing as that might be.

    Well, I'm off to paint the baseboards before my next my second 
offshoot gets borned (due 9-11). No doubt the next forty-five minutes of 
labor will reap greater fruit than the last. But remember, it was all 
about me, and personal betterment. Perhaps now I'm a little more 
patient, a little more like Pooh. Cheers.

NDW

P.S. And please accept my apologies for my Nieuwsma length.