A dromedary (one-humped) camel, typical of kind in Middle East
Photo by Jjronused under CCASA
At first, I wasn’t going to write anything about the Oscar fiasco surrounding “Alone Yet Not Alone”, which was featured in an independent film by the same title. In so many ways, it is a non-story. It is the sort of finger-pointing and accusations that can only occur when the media elite are involved. However, in this case, they almost have moral ground in which to object. Almost.
Then, I read a “science” story about camels. I realized how well that fit with the same narrative involved with the Oscars. I realized that anything that can be used to discredit the Bible or Christianity will be used by the haters of this world. And, yes, I do mean to use the word “hate”, both in its vernacular and literal sense.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
As an aside, I’ve turned up some other interesting material in my research that is only tangentially related that will become future articles. For now, I wish to center on these public “debates” (arguments, actually).
Bruce Broughton and the Academy
Bruce Broughton was a co-writer of the song “Alone Yet Not Alone”. I’m no Hollywood big wig, so I hadn’t heard of him before. As one of the co-writers, he took it upon himself to email some of his associates to listen to the song. That was the act that led to its being withdrawn from the nomination, for the Academy frowns upon actively campaigning for Oscar nomination.
Was this fair? Well, probably not. He sent emails to his colleagues to “consider” the song, and sending one email is small stuff compared to what goes on all the time in Hollywood.
The haters call it a matter of “corrupt Christians” and other such phrases, which in itself shows the hypocrisy of it all. One email is a campaign? And, this is hardly the first such inference of campaigning, and not all of them had nominations rescinded!
However, there is more to it, but it doesn’t become any clearer with more information, it seems. For, it turns out, Broughton was once part of the Academy! So, there are now these things to consider as well:
- He knew the rules, and he did not think emailing his colleagues was breaking the rules.
- He should have known that once being a member of the Academy might be an undue influence upon the nomination.
Either way, it’s about as clear as mud.
About the only thing I could say to Broughton if I were to meet him in person would be that there was a passage written for just such an occasion:
22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
~ 1Th 5:22
But that’s not what bothers me so much. There is yet a vastly underreported little item I traced back to The Hollywood Reporter on “‘Alone Yet Not Alone’: Eligibility of Oscar-Nominated Song Challenged by Snubbed Rival (Exclusive)“. The flap over Broughton’s emails were not the first thing that was being investigated! An unidentified rival apparently took great exception to being snubbed and launched an investigation:
In the latest development, a charge has been raised that the movie failed to meet the advertising requirements stated in the Academy’s rules for eligibility and that the Academy is not enforcing the strictest reading of those rules because of Broughton’s involvement with the song.
In the wake of the nominations, a public relations firm representing a song that wasn’t nominated hired a private investigator to look into the song’s eligibility. The firm, which offered details of its findings to THR, refuses to be named.
Ah, yes! What brave conduct to pitch out accusations while being anonymous! </sarcasm>
So, is it antireligious bigotry or simple jealousy? It’s hard to say. The Chrisitan Post says that Dr Ted Baeher, co-founder and chairman of Movieguide, believes it was not antireligious sentiment, as “Frozen” opens up with a hymn (albeit in Danish).
“I think it was more about that a couple of the big-name writers, and the big movies, felt that they weren’t getting the respect that they should and so they threw their weight around and kicked out this little, tiny movie which deserved consideration,” Baehr said.
IOW, simple envy.
Still, the anti-Christian sentiment does exist, and it cannot be overlooked. Calling Broughton a “hypocrite” is comical, in fact, when you weigh how much campaigning goes on all the time.
The irony of a lot of it is spelled out in the title of the Christian Post article, though, which I held back intentionally. The title of the article is “22nd Annual Movieguide Awards Gala to Feature ‘Alone Yet Not Alone’ Performance by Joni Eareckson Tada“. IOW, Tada will be featured singing “Alone Yet Not Alone” in spite of its nomination being pulled.
Also, the controversy alone has stirred up a lot of free publicity.
You know, if they had left it alone, it would have been extremely unlikely to have actually won an Oscar. The song would have had it’s 15 minutes of fame (maybe less, maybe more), and most likely would have been forgotten. However, by stirring up controversy, people are going to hear about it much more than they would have otherwise, and probably would remember it better even than if it had won an Oscar!
Take me, for example. I just don’t watch these kinds of shows any longer, for they have such a skewed viewpoint on things that it insults my sensibilities. I would have probably not even heard of “Alone Yet Not Alone” had it not been for this controversy.
Not only was the nomination withdrawn, but none will take its place either. So, whatever they hoped to gain by all of this flap must now seem like a hollow victory. Meanwhile, the film’s and song’s creators are getting their message out one way or the other.
The Camel That Did not Exist
However, that’s not nearly as ironic to me as archaeologists who go out of their way to try to prove the Bible is untrue. Seriously, what’s the point? Long before the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens came on the scene, rogue archaeologists were the original rabid atheists, IMO. They have likely destroyed more faith than probably any evolutionist could.
Of course, it is carried in the ultra-liberal, ultra-progressive, ultra-secular New York Times that such “archaeologists” are reported on in “Camels Had No Business in Genesis” because it is unlikely that any credible conservative or evangelical publication would have carried an article about such “research” unless it were to tear it to shreds.
Actually, it is entirely possible they will ignore it, for only the unthinking secular humanist is going to swallow such shallow reasoning. The plot is that camels in Genesis are “anachronisms” and “are telling evidence that the Bible was written or edited long after the events it narrates and is not always reliable as verifiable history.”
Really? Every claim that archaeologists have made trying to discredit the Bible have had to be rescinded or altered as new discoveries shed doubt not on the Bible but on the prevailing thoughts and theories on history! In fact, this reminds me a lot of the idea that lions did not exist in the Middle East, which was debunked in 1988.
However, this one is more subtle, and it is indeed strange to sensible ears. They are strictly looking for domesticated camels.
The archaeologists, Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen, used radiocarbon dating to pinpoint the earliest known domesticated camels in Israel to the last third of the 10th century B.C. — centuries after the patriarchs lived and decades after the kingdom of David, according to the Bible. Some bones in deeper sediments, they said, probably belonged to wild camels that people hunted for their meat. Dr. Sapir-Hen could identify a domesticated animal by signs in leg bones that it had carried heavy loads.
So, camels existed, but because there were no signs of domestication in the bones, the stories are not true? Huh? Surely, I am not the only one who can see through this “research”!
At best, it is an argument from silence (but not really, which I’ll get to in a moment). The idea is that something does not exist because no traces of it can be found. However, logically, that is proving a negative. You cannot disprove Big Foot simply because no hard evidence for him has been found.
However, it is hardly an argument from silence, for that implies that there is no evidence. There is an eye witness, and the most trustworthy eye witness at that! That eye witness is God!
Still, that isn’t even the most devious part of it all, and it truly exposes the bigotry involved! It is recognized that very few animals will actually turn into fossils. The conditions have to be just right. That is why evolutionists are willing to accept not only gaps, but large gaps, in the fossil record. So:
- If the fossil record has gaps causing missing evolutionary links, then the assumption, a form of belief in what we cannot see (“faith”), is that we will eventually find fossils supporting those missing links.
- If the fossil record has gaps which support the Bible, then the Bible is automatically suspect and it is assumed, believed because we cannot see (opposite of faith), that those fossils do not exist.
It always comes back to presuppositions, which is one of the topics I want to eventually circle back on. The fact is that theists believe in a god or gods because their worldview gives them a framework for seeing the divine workings of one or more creators, whereas the evolutionist has a worldview that blots out the perception of the workings of any creator guiding the formation of the universe.
Or, executive summary: People usually believe what they want to believe and ignore any evidence to the contrary. That goes for so-called rational, scientific evolutionists as well as theists.
This is why, when we speak of someone being called, we say their mind is “opened”. Something has to occur to break the cycle.
Is Bigotry “Normal”?
I hate to say it, but I’m beginning to believe that bigotry is “normal”. By that, I do not mean it was the way that God intended for us to be, but rather that it is part of the human condition. Evangelicals like to call it “the fall of man”, but the Bible simply calls it “carnal nature”.
Bigotry is always based upon fear and/or hatred, but if you step it back even further, it is based upon ego. Someone is threatened by being wrong, different, lower, or any other negative adjective in relation to another, and that causes resentment, hurt or fear of loss. These things bruise the ego, and the natural reaction is to go into attack mode. Thus, bigotry is born.
Notice, though, that it could be short-circuited by simply not comparing ourselves to others in the first place. It won’t remove any wrongs or hurts, but it won’t elevate them either if we stop comparing ourselves to another.
12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.
The world will follow the world’s ways, but we need to not fall into that trap! Instead, we must remain loyal, committed and humble servants to the Lord Most High!
It is not only in the ultra-liberal New York Times. In an article in the more conservative English Times (Feb 12,2014) they state (emphasis mine) :-
“However, carbon dating carried out on camel bones buried deep in Israeli soil HAS CONFIRMED what archaeologists have long suspected: that the humped ungulates played no role in the lives of the Biblical patriarchs and WERE ALMOST CERTAINLY INSERTED into the story by authors or editors centuries later.”
“Tel Aviv University, which published the archaeologists’ study last week, hailed the findings as ‘DIRECT PROOF that the Bible was compiled well after the events it described’”.
To the casual reader it is totally settled. You have to read deep to notice that it is only speculation. Notice what the same article later on states :-
“The bones in that layer were found more frequently than the scattered ones unearthed below, and the leg bones in the upper layer showed signs that the animals had carried heavy loads, SUGGESTING they were domesticated, while the ones below WERE MORE LIKELY to be wild.”
“Mr Ben Yosef said the sudden proliferation of camels SUGGESTED they were introduced as domestic animals from elsewhere, probably in Arabia, rather than domesticated on site, a more gradual process”.
I have seen this also bias in articles about evolution and the structure of the universe. The average member of the public is given theories as if they are proven facts.
Watcher wrote: “It is not only in the ultra-liberal New York Times. In an article in the more conservative English Times”
Well, my impression is that when someone in Europe is touted as a “conservative”, it usually means what we Yanks might call a “fiscal conservative”. Europe overall is more secular, and some Europeans even sneer at the “religiosity” of the US (oddly enough, a century ago, that was considered a positive!). Now, maybe I’m wrong about that, or maybe the English Times is an exception. After all, there are atheists who are pro-life, whereas there are “Christians” who are pro-abortion.
“I have seen this also bias in articles about evolution and the structure of the universe. The average member of the public is given theories as if they are proven facts.”
Yeah, but I’ve sort of come to expect that. What really perplexes me are “archaeologists” who engage in such behavior.
I think of it like this: What if a scientist was dedicated to disproving the existence of Big Foot? What if that scientist received grants and government funds, not to mention the support of colleges and universities, to look for evidence to discredit the theory that Big Foot exists? Also, what sort of life would one have to live in order to engage in this activity?
Silly, right? Yet, if God does not exist and the Bible is untrue, then there is any difference?
Actually, there is one difference: Big Foot did not leave behind a book for his followers to read to prove he exists, has a special love for mankind and wants mankind to live in a way that does him good.
The assault against the Bible is more subtle, but even more destructive, for it amounts to “Hath God said …?”