February 19 2013

Show open and tonight's lineup

The hosts open from the Pathway studios in Johnston, noting technical difficulties (only one camera working). They preview the night's lineup: a continued walk-through of godisimaginary.com proof #36 ('God is impossible'), a host's dilemma about his wife's charity ministry and people abusing it, and a batch of Dear LFTP letters. A brief digression covers the Pope's retirement — the first in about 600 years — and whether he took the job lightly.

Sponsor read

The hosts read the week's sponsor list: Capona's Coffee and Gelato, Valley Services Cleaning, the Eisenlauer Team for real estate, and On Purpose Promotions.

God Is Imaginary proof #36 read aloud

• Is the concept of a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient God logically impossible?
• If God is able and willing to stop evil, why do evil and suffering (like starving children in Ethiopia) exist?

A host reads proof #36 from godisimaginary.com, 'Realize that God is impossible': a dictionary definition of God as a perfect omnipotent omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; a mention of denominational differences among believers; Epicurus's four-options formulation of the problem of evil; a reading of Matthew 7:7-11 followed by the starving-children-in-Ethiopia objection; the claim that omniscience negates free will (so believers are effectively Calvinists); and the who-created-God paradox.

Rebuttal: problem of evil and free will

• Why did God create man at all, knowing people could refuse Him?

The hosts answer proof #36: God never uses the word 'benevolent' of Himself and never promises a pain-free life; the author is creating God in his own image and demanding a utopia. Food exists — people starve in Ethiopia because other people withhold and misdistribute it, not because God fails to provide. On free will, they argue God wants a genuine relationship, which requires letting people be themselves; demanding God stop us from sinning would require Him to remove nearly everything about us. The base question becomes: why create man at all — answered with free will and the choice to love Him.

'I AM' — God defines Himself; Moses and the burning bush

A host counters the dictionary definition with God's self-definition: 'I AM' is all anyone needs to know. The hosts riff on the Exodus scene — Moses sent to Pharaoh with only 'I AM' behind him, the staff-to-serpent sign, and God's answer to Moses's reluctance ('Did I not provide you a brother?'). One host reflects on first reading the 'I AM' verse: 'I owe you nothing and I give you everything.' A brief aside discusses the Jehovah's Witnesses' rejection of the Trinity in passing.

The great backtalkers of the Bible

Spinning off the Moses story, the hosts pitch a recurring bit: 'the great backtalkers of the Bible' — Moses, Jacob (bargaining after the ladder dream, then wrestling God all night and limping away), Samson bossing God around, and Simon the sorcerer from Acts. Comedy follows: Jacob's daughter-question about why Jacob poured oil on the rock pillow, a child's 'that seems like a lot of stairs — couldn't Jesus pick us up in a van?', and the observation that Enoch 'walked with God and was gone' while Noah 'walked with God' and had to stay.

Creator paradox rebuttal; preview of proof #37 (DNA)

The hosts address the proof's final point — who created God: everyone, atheist or believer, ends in the same bucket of something from nothing, and they find an all-knowing, all-powerful creator more plausible than 'magic nothing out of nothing,' citing Lou Giglio's view that God could have authored the Big Bang. They note the author elevated Epicurus, from the same era he earlier dismissed as primitive, and that Epicurus wrote 'the gods' (plural), not the God of the Bible. Proof #36 is declared a win for the God side; next week previews proof #37 on DNA as information requiring an author.

The charity dilemma: stewardship vs. the Jesus sting

• How should a charity ministry handle people who abuse its generosity — keep giving, set boundaries, or run a sting?

A host lays out his wife's informal clothes ministry ('two gals and an SUV showing God's love'): pick up donated baby and mama clothes via Facebook, deliver free to families in need. Problems: one woman requests for four age groups but has one child; hearsay that another sells donated items online; repeat monthly takers. He admits he wanted to run a sting — buy the items back online, confront her eye to eye — and asks where his tolerance for love stops. The hosts debate: 70-times-7 giving vs. good stewardship (giving to a fraudster denies the next family); hearsay isn't proof; food banks have boundaries because some people abuse them. Advice converges on direct, firm questions and time-limited help ('we'll finish you out this month, then six months off') rather than vengeance-driven stings, plus one host's Senator Harkin story about refusing aid to a lying family.

Dear LFTP: Eddie and the slow dance

• Is it wrong for my boyfriend Eddie to slow dance with other women at a wedding I was not invited to?

A listener writes that her boyfriend of one year, Eddie, was invited to the wedding of a waitress at a bar he frequents; she was not invited, and he wants to slow dance with others. The hosts answer: slow dancing isn't inherently wrong (a host slow-dances with his mom and keeps a polite distance from other women), but her request was reasonable; the real problem is going to a wedding without his girlfriend. Advice: ask if he can bring her; if not, don't go. Secular's answer: stop trying to control him, insecurity is unattractive, 'a dance is only a dance' — which the hosts find callous. A side story recounts an awkward refused-dance moment at a bar at age 20.

Break: sponsors and the 'Boova away' bit

A throwaway slow-dancing line becomes a running gag: the hosts coin the 'Boova away' as a unit of distance measurement — drywall measured in 'three Boobas,' a gym of 'six or seven Boobas,' plus the 'garlic Boova' for bad-breath distance. They note the bit will hit the highlight reel.

Dear LFTP: the hyphenated last names

• How do we get relatives to address our children by their hyphenated last names?

A listener from New York writes that her two children (ages 4 and 1) have hyphenated last names, which two relatives on separate sides of the family keep ignoring; her husband suggested returning mail 'addressee unknown.' The hosts think the whole thing is prideful: with family, let it go — everyone misspells names (Brandon spelled B-R-A-N-D-E-N). If you must share names, pick one new one rather than burden kids with a hyphen. Secular's advice — have another chat with the 'non-compliant' relatives and explain your feelings — draws mockery for giving the relatives an out as backwoods hillbillies.

Dear LFTP: the absent husband at 25 years

• After 25 years as an absent husband and father, how can I repair my marriage?

A listener married 25 years with three children writes that his dad was the boss and uninvolved, he followed the same pattern — work, then TV, absent from wife and kids — and now that the kids are gone he realizes he should have been a better husband; his wife ignores him and doesn't want to celebrate the 25th anniversary. The hosts are blunt: he sounds like he's fishing for sympathy after 25 years of neglect. Advice: forget the milestone, start making amends, go back to what he did at the beginning (like Jesus's word to the church of Laodicea) — call years 1-25 'not an actual marriage' and build the next 25.

Hyphenated names follow-up

The hosts circle back to the hyphen question: the only defensible reason to keep a name is business or performance (like Beyonce Knowles), and even then you don't need to change the business name. One host argues the hyphen reads like a contract — 'the two became one flesh, except they kept half their names' — and that marriage means one shared identity; another would take his wife's last name if that were the tradition. Jokes follow about terrible surnames (John Toilet, Bill Squatter, Ted Creeper of 'Creepers Massage').

Secular's marriage advice and the counseling debate

The hosts read Secular's advice on the marriage letter (ask the wife why 25 years isn't worth celebrating; consider a marriage counselor) and spend the rest of the segment debating counselors. Concerns: secular counseling arbitrates who's right while Jesus-based counseling locates the sin separating people from God; going to a counselor first can signal unwillingness to try on one's own, or hand the marriage's fate to a referee. Counterpoints: many people genuinely don't know how to have a conversation, and a third party can arbitrate when pride blocks repentance — counseling helps, but shouldn't replace learning to live the marriage yourself.

Outro

The hosts close out: the music is the ender. They plug Capona's Coffee and Gelato — one host is fasting and can't do sweets — and joke about doing a live show from the shop with a sign reading 'they did not agree to this.' Sign-off for the week.