A recent study analyzed the status updates of 12,000 religious and non-religious Facebook users from the United States and the United Kingdom. The study performed a differential language assessment or "DLA" indicating which words the religious and non-religious used in their statuses. The vast majority of those in the religious category identified themselves as Christian. The 75 words that are most common to each group are visualized below. The size of the word indicates how well it correlates with the group while the color indicates its frequency (red is frequent, gray is less frequent).
Wow.
As a whole, I would describe the religious cluster as gracious, thankful, content and happy while the non-religious cluster is angry, bitter, vulgar and critical. The most prominent word in the cluster for the religious is prayer while the most prominent word for the non-religious is f---. Life,love and smile are prominent in the religious cluster while dead, bloody (British respondents?), and sh-- are prominent in the non-religious cluster.
Religious Facebook users were more likely to use plural pronouns: us, we, you, let's and pronouns that referred to other people: you, u, ur, him. The non-religious used more 1st person singular pronouns: I, I've, I'd, I'm, my.
The religious were more likely to use words that referred to family and friends: mom, father, fam, friends, friendship; while the non-religious used words that referred to media and entertainment: internet, film, episode, album, computer, laptop.
The non-religious were more likely to use descriptive words, adjectives and adverbs while the religious used words that referred to emotional states of being. This seems to indicate that the non-religious tend to be more critical and judgmental in their statuses.
As Christians the proper response to this study is to not pat ourselves on the back or to think we're better than our non-religious neighbors. The Bible teaches us that a thankful heart and gracious words are fruits of the Holy Spirit. Without the Spirit of God our natural default is to be miserable, vulgar, and self-absorbed. As the Apostle Paul said, "I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature" (Rom 7:18).
Godly attitudes and godly words originate with God as he breathes his Spirit into us through his Word.
The Assyrian capital of Nineveh was arguably the greatest city in the world during the 8th century BC, ruling over an empire that stretched from Persia to Sudan.
Nineveh occupies an important place in the Biblical record. God sent his prophet Jonah to Nineveh to call the city to repentance. The prophets Isaiah, Micah, Nahum and Zephaniah ministered during the empire's existence and some of the most important Messianic prophecies were recorded during this time period (Isaiah 7:14, Micah 5:2). The Assyrians destroyed the northern tribes of Israel and most of Judah. In fact, Jerusalem appears to be the only major city in the Middle East that escaped Assyrian destruction due to God's miraculous intervention. (Isaiah 37:36)
What most people do not know is that up until the last century and a half there was very little evidence for Nineveh's existence outside of the Biblical record. In his Philosophy of History Voltaire wrote that the existence of a large city called Nineveh "does not seem credible," that the existence of a powerful empire like Assyria has "but very little the air of probability," and that "Nineveh was not built...or at least had very little importance during the time of Jonah."
During the 1840s French archaeologist Paul-Emile Botta uncovered the palace of Ashurbanipal II at the Assyrian capital of Nimrud. Meanwhile, English archaeologist Austen Henry Laynard uncovered Sennacherib's palace at the Assyrian capital of Nineveh. These archaeological finds in northern Iraq uncovered a treasure trove of artifacts that silenced the skeptics.
Here's a list of some of the more significant findings:
Details on the destruction of Samaria and the exile of the northern tribes. (2 Kings 17:3-6, 24; 18:9-11)
The first non-Biblical evidence of King Sargon II (Isaiah 20:1)
Assyrian king Sennacherib mentions King Hezekiah and admits that rather than taking Jerusalem he left Hezekiah in his city like a "bird in a cage." (2 Kings 18:13-16)
Large wall reliefs of the destruction of Lachish, Judah's second largest. The ruins of which have been found in Israel. (2 Kings 18:14, 17)
King Ahab mentioned by name as a member of an anti-Assyrian coalition.
A relief depicting the submission of Israel's king, Jehu.
The assassination of Sennacherib by his own sons (2 Kings 19:37)
Records that king Manasseh paid tribute and accompanied the Assyrians on a military campaign in Egypt.
(Image: King Jehu submitting to Shalmaneser III)
The discovery of Nineveh and the records of the Assyrian kings teach us that the Bible is historically reliable. Most skeptics I interact with know very little of Biblical and Assyrian history. Even Christians are content to ignore the historical significance of the Bible. This historical apathy has a way of undercutting the Bible's claim to truth. Christians and skeptics need to know that the Bible has a historical context that can be investigated.
If the Bible is historically reliable is it reliable in other ways? Is the Bible a reliable book on theology and prophecy? Nineveh's discovery not only supports Biblical history but also Biblical prophecy. The prophet Nahum predicted the fall of the great city. Consider Zephaniah's description of Nineveh's destruction: "He will stretch out his hand against the north and destroy Assyria, leaving Nineveh utterly desolate and dry as a desert. This is the city of revelry that live in safety. She said to herself, "I am the one! And there is none besides me." What a ruin she has become, a lair for wild beasts! All who pass by her scoff and shake their fists" (Zeph. 2:14, 16).
Had Voltaire heeded Zephaniah's prophecy he would not have been so quick to doubt Nineveh and Assyria's existence. Nineveh was discovered in the exact condition that Zephaniah had prophesied centuries before: "a dry, desolate place...a lair for wild beasts."
Did the discovery of Nineveh make men like Voltaire more open to the truth of Scripture? No, their approach to the Bible has always followed the pattern of "guilty and never to be proven innocent no matter what evidence turns up!" They will continue to cling to their foolish assumptions and inaccurate caricatures of the Bible no matter what archaeology turns up. Their position does not stem from an open mind but from a spiritually rebellious heart. The proper response to such skeptics is to shake the dust from one's feet and to relay the message that they will share the same fate as the defiant and arrogant city of Nineveh.
In the early 2000s the four horsemen of the non-apocalypse charged out of the starting gates to declare war on religion. The four militant atheists included Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet and the now-deceased Christopher Hitchens. Others who hopped onto the religion bashing bandwagon included Bill Maher, Dan Barker, Matt Dillahaunty, Peter Atkins, Lawrence Krauss and even Penn & Teller.
What caused such a godless commotion in the early 2000s? Some would argue that 9/11 and a religiously charged political landscape triggered the new atheist movement. Progressives worried that they were being sandwiched in-between fanatical Islam and fanatical fundamentalist Christianity. The LGBT movement also saw a useful ally in the new atheists.
But times, they are a changin'. A theocratic boogeyman has not taken over the White House. We are no where close to the dystopian world of the Handmaid's Tale. The last two presidents have not appeared to be very religious. The LGBT movement is getting its way. College-aged kids now have no recollection of 9/11 and the person who is currently the greatest threat to the United States is a chubby little atheist in North Korea.
What do post-9/11 millennials hate these days? They hate “hate-speech.” This has become a huge PR problem for the new atheists. I'm not sure when "hate-speech" became a popular phrase but it seems that most secular thinking people are distancing themselves from certain new atheists over incendiary remarks. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Bill Maher have all lost followers due to crude remarks. While harsh criticisms of Christianity seem to be tolerated, a religion like Islam has achieved special-interest status among progressives and criticism of the multi-ethnic religion of Islam is seen as racist. Consider the following interchange between atheist Bill Maher and Hollywood progressive Ben Affleck:
While the new atheists are being silenced on the secular front it seems that they have met their match on the religious front. The new atheist movement breathed new life into Christian apologetics. Christian thinkers met the atheist challenge by not only defending Christianity but by exposing many of the new atheists argument and as untenable and the atheistic worldview as irrational. The new atheist movement took on 2000 years of Christian thought and philosophy and found themselves lacking.
Does this mean that the world is becoming increasingly religious? No, not really. For the Christian, atheism is a mere outlier in the world of unbelief. Just because the secular world is not inherently atheist does not mean that they are inherently Christian.
The 1966 cover of Time: IS GOD DEAD? sparked considerable controversy. Fifty years later Time will soon launch a similar cover which asks if TRUTH IS DEAD? The catalyst for the cover: President Trump.
Forget Trump for a moment. Did Time unwittingly connect the death of truth to the death of God? Does eliminating God eliminate any hope for objective truth? Observers have described the last several decades as postmodern. Postmodernism suggests that there is no absolute truth, that truth is relative. Before postmodernism, if I had a truth claim someone may challenge the truthfulness of my claim. In postmodern times, if I have a truth claim someone may challenge the fact that I have a claim to truth! This has been especially true in the realm of religion and morality.
Consider a metaphor from Kurt Vonnegut's postmodern novel, Cat's Cradle. The novel centers around a terrifying man-made substance called "ice-nine" which remains a solid at room temperature. When ice-nine comes into contact with water it turns the property of water into solid ice-nine. Place ice-nine on your tongue and all the liquid in your body freezes. Pour ice-nine into the ocean and all water connected to the ocean would soon become solid wiping out all life on earth.
Was eliminating God the ice-nine that began to erode truth? And why would the relativism of ice-nine end with religion and morality? Would it not eventually spread to any and all truth claims?
Several decades ago, Francis Schaeffer observed that faith, values and morals were sequestered and isolated into the irrational private sphere of non-truth while reason and science were allowed to remain in the rational public sphere of truth. Faith and religion were relegated to the world of relativism while reason and secularism remained in the world of facts and absolutes. Mainline Christian churches fell prey to this mindset as they bought into the idea that religion is subjective and personal, ignoring the fact that the Scriptures make a historical, objective claim to absolute truth.
Schaeffer argued that humans cannot live with a split between the secular and sacred. Humans cannot live like machines. In order to have meaning, humans must make a "leap of faith" from the rational world of secular facts to the irrational world of faith. Failure to make this leap results in a tension that can lead to nihilistic despair.
As humans leap from one sphere to the other the ice-nine of postmodernism infiltrates the secular sphere. Secular subjects like history, logic and science are falling prey to relativism. Secular truth, like sacred truth, is no longer objective but subjective. This means that I get to determine weather or not they are true for me. For example, if someone makes a scientific claim about gender differences and this claim does not fit my preferences then they are oppressing me. In today's postmodern world, claims to absolute truth are now viewed as oppressive power plays. As Obi Wan Kenobi said, "Only Sith's deal with absolutes."
Are you absolutely sure about that Obi Wan?
Enter Sith Lord Trump. The Time article bemoans the fact that Trump doesn't seem concerned about the truth or that he is adjusting reality to fit his subjective and ideological views. Should this surprise anyone? The reason why progressives are so terrified of Trump is that they are now on the receiving end of their own tactics. The ice-nine of postmodernism has boomeranged back on them. Trump has taken their tools and weapons and is effectively wielding them against the progressive mainstream. For example, after the election many progressives suggested that fake new sites helped Trump win the election. Rather than argue about the fakeness of news sites or their impact on the election Trump took the "fake news" grenade and hurled it back at his critics by calling the mainstream news fake.
Like it or not, we are in a new era where all truth is becoming subjective and as a result power determines truth. Trump is the new King Saul anointed by a reluctant and defeated religious right to wage war against the progressive Philistines. Unlike the religious right, Trump is not afraid to use the weapons of postmodernism.
The secular-progressive monopoly on truth is crumbling and I don't have much sympathy for them. They are the ones that unleashed the ice-nine postmodern plague of relativism. They should look back at the March 1966 Time magazine cover and consider if that is when this all started.
I once worked at Sicilian restaurant where the chef created culinary masterpieces for his menu. I cringed when a patron decided to change the ingredients. I would return to the kitchen with the special request and the chef would roll his eyes and prepare an imperfect dish. Sometimes he would point down the road and suggest that his costumers go to a fast-food restaurant where they can stuff their faces with whatever they want.
The battle for the definition of marriage rests on a very simple question. "Who's the chef?" Christians view marriage as a dish designed by God, similar to an item on a menu designed by a master chef. To question the form and function of marriage is foolish, arrogant, and an insult to the God who instituted it.
While Christians live under the institution of marriage created by God, humanists throw on the chef's hat and place themselves above it. Humanists deconstruct the chef's dishes and place the ingredients upon a buffet table for their perusal. The end result is fast-food that I can have my way. If a Christian criticizes a humanist's design for marriage the humanist naturally becomes offended and views the Christian as arrogant and rude. "How dare you criticize my tastes. This is a buffet!"
We are no longer living in a Christian context where truth is determined by God. Understanding this will help to keep Christians from committing one of two errors.
Error #1: Christians will try to force God's "menu" on others. This legalistic approach fails because even if you successfully force a menu into people's hands they'll still desire a buffet. Legalism requires the heavy hand of authority or government. Jesus did not try to recruit Pontius Pilate or King Herod and neither should we. Christians must proclaim, offer and defend the truth but we must be careful not to force it.
Error #2 Christians will join others in the buffet to appear relevant. This approach makes Christianity indistinguishable from the rest of the world. Why join a church for more of the same? Over time the menu gets twisted and the remaining Christians become enamored by the buffet. This is the plight of most mainline denominations.
So what's the Christian to do?
The prophet Daniel lived in godless Babylon where he was literally offered a buffet. The Babylonians expected Daniel and his friends to eat food that was forbidden on God's menu. Daniel did not force his food on the Babylonians but he stood firm and refused the Babylonian fare. He challenged his overseer to observe him and his friends, to see what sort of impact his diet would have on him and his friends. Daniel's Babylonian overseer observed Daniel and saw that God's diet had a beneficial effect.
Christians are to treat marriage as an institution authored by God. We can offer it to others but we must not force it. We can be kind and respectful to others but we dare not change who we are or water down God's menu to appear relevant. Let's sit down together and enjoy God's menu. Perhaps someone who is sick of the junk food will observe the benefits of a faithful, God-centered marriage and ask to see a menu.
There's a story of a toddler using the toilet during an earthquake. When the earthquake ended the child asked his mother, "What did I do?" The story is amusing and it's a good reminder that we think more highly of ourselves than we ought to. Dogs also do this. The mailman arrives every day, the dog barks and the mailman goes away. The dog lies back down proud that his barking once again drove off the mailman.
This mindset is evident in paganism. Pagans generally adopt a pantheistic view that assumes an interconnectedness between the world, themselves and god(s). Through the proper knowledge, spells, sacrifices and incantations pagans believe that they can influence their environment. The Aztecs slaughtered, beheaded and ripped out hearts in hopes of appeasing the sun. The sun relents and the Aztecs are reinforced in their barbaric practice. The ancient neighbors of Israel brought their prostitutes to the tops of hills in order to arouse the sky god. The rains came and the pagans continue in their fertility rites.
The dog barks and the mailman goes away.
Today we're told that our actions are having an enormous impact on the environment and I wonder, are we like the child sitting on a toilet during an earthquake? Are we returning to a pagan mentality? Growing up in Alaska I was told that we caused a hole to appear over the arctic. The ozone hole was a rather frightening thing to learn about. I wondered if I was going to get skin cancer and I heard rumors that salmon were going blind. In 1987 the Montreal Protocol initiated a series of steps that would deplete the use of chloroflurocarbons which were thought to deplete the ozone. By 1996 chloroflurocarbons were no longer in use and now today, twenty years later, the ozone hole no longer exists or is, at least, no longer a concern. Al Gore swooped in on his plane, pulled the inhaler out of my mouth and replaced it with one twice as expensive and half as effective. Alaskans can once again lay out in the sun and tan their beautiful bods while asthmatics cough up a little more money.
Did we save the planet in 1987? Was the rapid healing of the ozone due to the decisions made in Montreal or did the mailman go away after we barked? Why isn't 1987 celebrated as the day we saved the ozone and, by extension, the planet? As soon as the ozone scare dissipated another scare replaced it. The concern floated from the arctic to Florida which would be underwater in the not too distant future. California and the rest of the West would become a vast desert, although every picture I see of the West lately includes a ton of water. A few years back we witnesses a polar vortex and the semantics shifted from global warming to climate change. Recently I watched a video suggesting that we don't see the huge effects of global warming because our planet is actually supposed to be in an ice-age. The world should actually be very cold right now and it just so happens that human-caused global warming has made things appear normal. Talk about interpreting facts to fit your conclusions! The beauty behind the science of human-caused climate change is that any environmental fact can be used to support the theory. The earth is too cold, the earth is too hot, the climate is stagnant, the climate is dynamic, there are no hurricanes, there are lots of hurricanes - any of these facts can be placed into the climate change model. Facts should mold models, models should not mold facts.
Consider Tucker Carlson's recent interview with Bill Nye in the clip below. After Bill talks about the settled science of climate change Tucker asks a very simple question: "To what degree is climate change caused by human activity?" Bill can't answer it and he obviously gets very uncomfortable as he tries to buy time by playing word games. The interview becomes very awkward and Bill seems to be in a very bizarre mental state by the end.
One of the reasons why children abandon their religious faith is because their questions are not taken seriously or they are chided for questioning authority. The same thing happens when questions are raised over human-caused climate change. When I was in middle school I asked why I shouldn't be a suspicious when a politician like Al Gore becomes the voice of global warming. I asked about the historical ebb and flow of glaciers and even sea levels. Later I asked about the medieval chills and warm periods. After that I asked if the relationship between carbon and temperature is logarithmic rather than linear and if urban heat islands account for the apparent rise in global temperature. I asked about solar activity and sunspots. The responses to such questions amount to condescending shrieks or patronizing attempts to educate. I believe that the greatest enemy to those who preach climate change are, in fact, the climate change zealots and their inability to recognize their dogmatic methodology.
I'll never forget my middle-school self watching a show called Sea Quest which took place in a submarine in the not too distant future. There was an episode where one of the characters had smuggled beef. Yes, smuggled beef, because cow farts kill the planet. Farts were supposed to be funny not threatening. I turned the TV off and thought about the large herbivore dinosaurs and how their farts must have destroyed the environment which led to their extinction. Good riddance to the brontosaurus, I guess. Last year I was very amused when I learned that cows in Argentina are now decked out in fart collecting backpacks.
The absolutism of human-caused climate change is not based upon science but upon a belief system Since human-caused climate change is based upon a belief system, skepticism is not tolerated. Radical environmentalists appoint themselves as priests endowed with a special gnosis which lies beyond the reach of the unenlightened.The pantheistic fantasy of James Cameron's Pandora is a religious parable that teaches the dogma of pagan environmentalism. The planet and its contents are deified and the pillaging mechanistic hordes of humans are demonized. Since the pagan mindset deifies both humans and the planet, our actions (even small ones) impact the environment. Our evil actions can kill the environment and our good actions can save it. We can drive our hybrids, reduce our carbon footprint, and pat ourselves on the back like proud little ecological Messiahs.
Humans can certainly have an impact on the environment, but I wonder to what extent. Just because I'm skeptical of certain climate claims doesn't mean that everything climate change advocates preach is inherently false. Why throw the polar bear out with the arctic bathwater? Skepticism also does not mean that I'm not going to do my part to care for the environment. In fact, the people I know who have the smallest carbon footprints are not the hip urban dwellers who preach an ecological end of days, but the out of touch country bumpkins who live in nature, respect it, understand it and do their best to conserve it.
Perhaps when the metaphorical waters clear and the smog lifts we will be able to see the truth more clearly. Until then I would advocate that we treat the earth like God's masterpiece rather than an impersonal deity that pathetically needs our protection. The Bible begins in a garden and pictures the land of Israel as a beautiful blessing worthy of respect, care, and at times, rest. Scripture teaches that the earth groans and awaits redemption. Christianity gives hope not just to dying humans but to a dying planet. Christians need to articulate an environmentalism that views humans as stewards and curators of God's masterpiece rather than slaves that must sacrifice themselves to Gaia.
Was Jesus ever sarcastic? Did Jesus ever use satire? The most obvious use of sarcasm and satire is in Jesus' treatment of the Pharisees and the religious leaders of the day. Jesus likened them to dirty dishes, unmarked graves, blind guides, a beautiful whitewashed tomb that contains a carcass, and a brood of vipers. Jesus says that Pharisees strain out a gnat (so that they don't accidentally eat an unclean thing) but they swallow a camel; they decorate the tombs of the prophets that they killed; they convert someone only to make them twice the child of hell; they show off their huge prayer phylacteries, long robes and tassels; they take impressive places of honor while devouring the widow's home; they love the praise of men more than the praise of God. Jesus even told them that prostitutes are entering the kingdom of heaven before them.
Some of Jesus' parable contain satirical jabs at the Pharisees and other religious leaders. In the parable of the Good Samaritan a heretical half-breed is pictured as more righteous than a priest and temple worker. In the parable of the Pharisee and the tax-collector the tax-collector goes home justified because he has a repentant heart. In the parable of the Prodigal Son the older son, who clearly represents the Pharisees, is left outside of his farther's home fuming with self-righteous jealousy.
I also sense a bit of sarcasm when Jesus compliments the Pharisees. If you say to someone, "Must be nice to be perfect!" They will probably be offended. It seems that Jesus did something similar after the Pharisees chided him for eating with the "sinners" and tax collectors. Jesus replied, "It's not the healthy that need a doctor, but the sick." In another place Jesus says that a person's righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees. This is a classic back-handed compliment that would've irritated the Pharisees. I would love to have seen their faces.
Most of Jesus's satirical criticisms are reserved for the self-righteous and the unrepentant. On one occasion he made an offensive remark to test the faith of a Canaanite woman. After she asked for his help he compared her to a dog. She took the insult and persisted. Jesus commended her for her great faith.
Jesus may be using a hint of sarcasm when he refers to himself by his favorite title. The Son of Man is a title that is first seen in the book of Daniel. The Son of Man clearly refers to the glorified Messiah. While the Pharisees would stone Jesus if he publicly said that he was the Son of God he could get away with saying that he was the Son of Man. This must have irritated the Pharisees as they understood the Messianic implications of the phrase. Jesus also played on words with his various I AM statements. He was especially bold when he declared, "Before Abraham was born, I AM." Here, Jesus was clearly identifying himself as God who had revealed himself to Moses as the I AM.
What lessons are we to take from this?
1. Jesus is not a wimp
As children we learn of a very gentle Jesus. We picture him embracing children and cradling a little lamb in his arms. Jesus was certainly loving and gentle with his flock. As children grow older it's also important that they see Jesus as a warrior and as a lion who will defend his flock. That love prompts him to lash out, and to expose the wolves who wear sheep's clothing.
2 Audience matters
Jesus knew who needed to be knocked down with the law and he knew who needed to be uplifted by the gospel. Jesus could see self-righteous hearts and repentant hearts. Jesus knew how to afflict the comfortable and how to comfort the afflicted.
3. Jesus's sarcastic remarks and satire came from a place of love
After Jesus condemns the pharisees he weeps for them. He says that he longed to gather them as a hen gathers her chicks. Jesus tears them to pieces so that they might see the error of their ways and repent. This is love's last resort.
4. Jesus is shrewd and intelligent
Jesus' knowledge of the scriptures and his audience was immense, deep and obviously divine. His retorts, parables, and questions silenced his critics. He was able to say things that were forbidden to say without really saying them.
5. Jesus was not afraid of causing offense
Jesus sought humility and repentance. Throughout the Scriptures the prophets preached repentance and the need for a new heart. This is offensive. Today's Christianity is scared to offend. If Christians are afraid to offend then they will be afraid to share the Word of God.
6. Satire is useful for exposing hypocrisy
Jesus makes the Pharisees look ridiculous by simply placing a mirror before them. The hypocrite brings the satire upon themselves. Satire is an effective way to expose hypocrisy.
