bebu
3.6K posts



My new @washingtonpost column: Why do Muslims need to be like everyone else? A case against assimilation. washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/…

The ancient Israelite had an excuse for polytheism. Stand at ground level long enough, and the world feels local, bounded by horizons you can name, and seasons you can predict. At that scale, gods make sense in the plural. The sea has its keeper; the harvest, its steward. The “face-to-face” view of the universe produces a distributed theology: small, proportional, and tailored to the visible. Then you board a plane. Everything you thought was large becomes notation. Cities become diagrams. Then, NASA points a camera at the Earth from the Moon. Seeing the Artemis II photographs, shifted something in me that I am still trying to articulate. Not because the images are new information; I knew, intellectually, that the Earth is a marble suspended in incomprehensible darkness, but because knowing something and seeing it are categorically different experiences. The knowing lives in your head. The seeing hits your chest. Someone asked me once why the universe is so obscenely, almost wastefully vast, billions of light-years of what looks like empty silence on every side. I think the answer is simpler and more terrifying than we want to admit: God is making a resoundingly emphatic point. He is making the point the way a master architect makes a point, by building something so far beyond the requirements of the brief that the brief itself seems absurd in retrospect. The sheer excess of the cosmos is itself a declaration. David understood this. David, who by any modern metric was working with almost nothing; no telescope, no physics, no photographs, no orbital mechanics, looked up at the same sky and was stopped cold. “When I consider the heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars which you have set in place...” He was bamboozled. He had 1% of our information and arrived at the exact same place we arrive with 100% of it. That should tell us something. The awe is not a function of data. It is a function of scale meeting the soul. We went to the Moon. We have gone further. We have instruments that can see to the edge of observable creation. And we are still standing where David stood, asking David’s question. What is mankind that you are mindful of them?… [FULL ARTICLE] open.substack.com/pub/crossroads…

@JeremyDBoreing Certain things shouldn’t be threatened in public, and destroying a civilization is one of those things. Great leaders know how to create leverage without creating unnecessary hysteria.

I can’t believe I actually have to explain this, but, “I just find it impossible to accept that the accounts we have of the apostles would exist unless they really did behave exactly as described on the basis of having witnessed a resurrection” is trivially defeated by, “well, I find it impossible to accept that there was a resurrection, mate.” You are creating a case of, “which is more likely” and, “a guy rose from the dead” is definitely the less likely of the two possibilities, from a purely scientific and secular worldview, even if the other thing is really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really improbable. Even if we grant that the accounts that we have today of their behavior are perfectly accurate, that nothing has been left out, that no mistakes were made, that literally everything occurred exactly as described, and even if we therefore grant that they went to their deaths genuinely believing they had firsthand evidence of a resurrection, one would still have to say, I think, that some other explanation for their behavior, no matter how unlikely or improbable, is still more likely than that a guy genuinely rose from the dead. If your acceptance of Christianity is based on arguments like this one, then I think it will always be flimsy. These just aren’t very good arguments. That is to say, at the very least, these arguments are not going to be convincing to most smart, scientifically-minded people. I would just simply resist the urge to try to compare probabilities in this way. Most smart, rational people see these two options and think that resurrection is the dramatically least likely of all available explanations. ”But without the resurrection, these accounts of the disciples make no sense!” just simply cannot overcome the improbability of a literal resurrection (again, from a purely secular, scientific worldview). I think it is a mistake to base your Christianity on these kinds of arguments. I think you will find that these kinds of arguments are not very convincing to most educated people. And I think also that the reason for this is that it is in fact not a very convincing argument. We cannot hope to construct Christianity on logic in this way. If one believes, as I do, that Christ was in fact resurrected, as I proclaim in my recitation of the Nicene Creed every Sunday, then one must have the courage to accept that this must somehow be possible absent the intuition described above.







He is Risen.



















