A small beast traipses across the desert, soaking wet and shivering. He has had enough of being frozen time and time again. He seeks a quiet spot to just lay down that is as far away from anything to do with Holdingses as he can get. But he can't. He looks up and sees, once again, that little green lizard-like being with one eye approaching. He hunts around for a hiding place, but there is none. In a panic, he tries to shove himself under a rock half his size. In the end, his posterior is sticking out quite obviously as the being approaches.
BEAMER: Hum. And what are you trying to do, exactly?
MATTCHU (muffled): Sssstupid lizard! Go away!!!
BEAMER (shakes head): Uh uh. You need to face the music.
(Beamer grabs Mattchu by his stubby tail and pulls. He drags him out from under the rock as the latter screams and pounds the ground, crying. In the end he smashes his face into the desert floor, still crying. Beamer clears his throat and removes a sheaf of papers.)
BEAMER: I was asked to check this one out -- not sure why, but I guess it's because of this. (Beamer indicates his eyescope.) I guess I'm an expert on eyes or something. Hmmm. Well, let's see. We can skip all this spin at the front side about ulterior motives and all that rot. You still haven't learned what the genetic fallacy is, have you? (Mattchu continues weeping, but says nothing as Beamer tosses the top sheet aside.) But look here - do you deny that the Bible uses phenomenological language? Really?
MATTCU (turning head): Pfaw! One problem with this, of course, is that you can take just about any creation myth from any ancient cult or any sacred text that clearly teaches a geocentric cosmology and apply this reasoning to it so that it's not really errant after all.
BEAMER: Oh, really? Why don't you go ahead and do that with three examples, then?
MATTCHU: Uhhhhhhhhhhhh -----
BEAMER: Didn't think so.
MATTCHU: Grah! I also want to know how it is that these apologists know deep down inside that these ancient authors of the Bible really didn't believe what they appeared to be writing and knew that they had to write in a language that would accommodate the primitive beliefs of the people who read their texts.
BEAMER: Um, I think you're missing the point. No apologist argues that at all; what they argue is that God inspired language that was equivocal because it was the only option available. You see, if God inspired language that was unequivocally "flat earth" then of course it would be false; but if He inspired language that was unequivocally "round earth" then ancient people who believed in a flat earth would have said the text was wrong. Since there wasn't any way for them to do the science to prove otherwise - and even when there was, it wasn't accessible to the vast majority - equivocal language was the only way to go.
MATTCHU: Pah! If God uses any "language of appearance" to have his writers describe something, God is guilty of being deceptive and reinforcing any inaccurate beliefs that people had at the time.
BEAMER: Say WHAT? (Beamer points to the horizon.) What is that?
MATTCHU: Wha? Is SUNSET, stupid lizard! It -
(Mattchu's face falls. He smashes his head repeatedly into the ground.)
MATTCHU: NO! NO! IMPOSSSSSIBLE! I'S GENIUSSSS!!! I - I ----
BEAMER: Yes, well, let's talk about eyes, shall we, since that's the main point. What exactly is the problem here?
MATTCHU (sits up): Grrrr. "Evil eye" issss! Thissss doessss irreparable damage to the biblical concept of inerrancy and an inerrant Jesus, which would be expected if any divine being chose to become incarnate as human flesh.
BEAMER: Uh HUH. How, exactly?
MATTCHU: Ha! You knowsses! Holdingssesss has probably ignored the problem altogether because he knows what damage it will do to his beliefs in an inerrant Bible and an inerrant Jesus.
BEAMER (shakes head): There you go again. No, beast, he hasn't "ignored" it, you just don't know how to search his site. It's spoken of in his study on Galatians, where he says:
Paul now proceeds to another standard method of deliberative (requesting a decision) rhetoric, in which he appeals to a prior example, that of Abraham, whose example is one to be followed. The "bewitched" is literally the evil eye, which Paul likely uses metaphorically in a way that will still move the Galatians, who as former pagans would recognize the metaphor.
He also mentions the "evil eye" briefly in Matthew as one that covets. So try to look a little more carefully next time, hm?
MATTCHU: Uhhhhh---- okay, I foundssss it now. Duh --- ah --- HA! But he sssstill has problemssses, ha ha!
BEAMER: How so?
MATTCHU: You readssss! What Malina sayssss about "evil eye"!
BEAMER: I did. And?
MATTCHU: Issss clear! Even Jesus acknowledges what he believes to be evidence of the evil eye. It's very difficult to explain what else he could have in mind when he refers to the eye as the "lamp of the body" and lists the evil eye as being among the sins that defile a man.
BEAMER: Yes, that's obviously a reference to covetousness. And, what?
MATTCHU: And WHAT! Jusssst look at what Malina sssayssss, lizard!
BEAMER: Son, you're not making any sort of coherent argument here. If you're trying to say that because Jesus referred to an "evil eye" in the context of coveting, then that means that he also accepted that whole package of beliefs about it that Malina describes, you're barking up a bad tree.
MATTCHU: Huhhhh???
BEAMER: Look, little fellow - I just beaned you for using the word "sunset". How would you like it if I used that to say that you accepted the whole package of flat earth belief?
MATTCHU: But --- but --- !
BEAMER: Is ANY of those specifics Malina gave found in the words of Jesus or Paul?
MATTCHU (weakly): Uhhh --- no.
BEAMER: In context, is it clear or not that the sin Jesus speaks of is covetousness?
MATTCHU: ------------
BEAMER: He refers prior to treasures in heaven, and afterwards to serving mammon. So what in the context carries anything but "evil eye" as a tool of coveting?
MATTCHU: ------------
BEAMER: Yep. Now when Paul asks the Galatians who cast the evil eye on them, how do you get the whole semantic package out of that, please?
MATTCHU: Even St. Paul seems to have believed that his opponents were affected by an evil eye and that his opponents didn't shield themselves from him nor did they spit in his presence to ward off the evil eye.
BEAMER: Oh, really? Do you think Paul would have said that an "evil eye" was used to get people to want to be circumcised and do other works of the law, as the Galatians were thinking of?
MATTCHU: Uhhhhh ---
BEAMER: The questions in Gal. 3:1-5 where that is are all rhetorical and sarcastic. That means that Paul's reference doesn't have the literality to be taken seriously the way you do. Sorry, chum, but you're trying to build a silk purse out of a Prycene's ear. The bottom line is that you have nothing more than an "evil eye" as one that covets being actually taught. There's nothing of the "evil eye" as a projecting device, except as a clear metaphor in Paul; nothing of charms or spells associated with it, and so on.
MATTCHU: Why does Holding, in his essay, "The Impossible Faith", incorporate whatever insights are helpful to defending Christianity from the Context Group and yet doesn't defend evil-eye belief?
BEAMER (drily): Dumb question. You mind explaining where in the context of that article he ought to have brought it up?
MATTCHU: Duh ---- fart ----
BEAMER: In any event, Mr. Holding won't need to write an article on this; you just need to pay attention. There's nothing in the words of Jesus and Paul "reinforcing belief in this ancient superstition" any more than you referring to "sunset" reinforces belief in a flat earth. It takes a lot of gall - and desperate creativity - to arrive at THAT conclusion.
MATTCHU: NOOOO! NOOOOO!!! I IS GENIUS! NOOOOO! I -----
BEAMER: Hey.
MATTCHU: WHAT?
BEAMER: You wanna see a REAL "evil eye" in action?
MATTCHU: Huh? How?
(Beamer adjusts his eye scope. At once a bright red beam flashes from it, engulfing Mattchu. When it stops, he is standing there, blackened and woozy, with smoke coming from his skin all over.)
BEAMER: Now THAT was an "evil eye"!
