Conventional Wisdom Is Neither

Conventional wisdom isn't all that conventional, and it's definitely not wisdom. There are so many things that are considered conventional wisdom that are distortions, or just plain wrong. I've never been one to follow the pack myself. Partly because I've always been comfortable standing alone, and partly because I've never bought into the notion that if the majority share an opinion it must be right. In my experience, when it comes to humans, the group is more likely to choose wrong. History supports me in this. The majority thought the atom was the smallest object, the speed of sound couldn't be broken, and so on. Of course, everyone looks down their nose at the people of the past, thinking how foolish those people were back then. All the while they are just as guilty as the people they sneer at. I think they are worse. They see the example from the past, understand it, yet are incapable of applying the lesson to their own lives. Who is the real fool?

Here are a few bits of conventional wisdom that are actually foolishness:

We Three Kings

The traditional nativity scene isn't historically accurate. The stable was most likely a cave, not a wooden structure. And the magi weren't present. They didn't arrive until at least a year after the birth. (Anyone who reads the story themselves knows that one.) It is highly unlikely there were only three of them. The song would have us believe that they were three kings. But they were magi, or wise men. It is likely they were men of high station, probably advisors to the rulers of their lands. But the historical record doesn't say how many there were, what country or countries they were from, or what their skin color was, or that they were kings. It is western tradition that puts the number at three, and gives them the names Melchior, Caspar and Balthasar. It is likely that this tradition's origins are due to the number being equated to the three gifts. The names were likely from a fictional story that first appeared around 500 A.D. Eastern tradition puts the number of magi at twelve. But the fact is, we don't really know.

Clearly, they were men of learning and wealth. It is likely they were of noble birth as learning and wealth were normally a sign of that in most areas of the world outside Israel at that time. The gifts they brought were not tokens. The gifts were so valuable that Joseph and Mary were set for life. While Joseph worked as a carpenter, he didn't have to. There were a lot of reasons for him to work, but it wasn't for financial reasons. The magi weren't just knowledgeable, they were wise as they were able to connect the dots between the prophecies and what was happening in the world. And they put their knowledge into action.

Money Is The Root Of All Evil

This is a misquote that completely changes the meaning. The actual quote is that it is the love of money that is the root of all sorts of evil. Money in and of itself is not good or evil. It is a tool, just like anything else. People do evil things in pursuit of money like theft, murder, lying, etc. When people love God, they do good. When they love money, they do bad. But possessing money is not an evil act. We need money to live. But to desire money over all else is where we go wrong.

Ever notice how some people who strongly advocate that money is intrinsically evil have a lot of it themselves? I think this scripture is deliberately misquoted by some in order to advocate for their political beliefs. Even while they decried greed, capitalism and individual wealth, the party members of the Soviet Union had great wealth, privilege and luxury. The more someone tries to sell this one, the more I think they are full of it.

1 Timothy 6:9-11
But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

But flee from these things, you man of God, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance and gentleness.

Cleanliness Is Next To Godliness

This is not in the Bible. There is no such verse. Yet so many people think it is. It's a cliche, but it's not scriptural. Personally, I like it when things and people are clean. I like it when they smell nice. But as to Godliness, there is no real connection. It is superficial. When Moses wandered the desert for forty years, I don't think he was very clean or smelled that good. Yet he was God's chosen leader, and was clearly Godly. When Jesus walked the dirt roads as he travelled and spoke, I'll bet he got dirty and sweaty. Yet He never sinned. In fact, this sort of superficial nonsense was one of the things he taught against. He preached that it was more important what was on the inside, and spoke against the fraud of the Pharisees.

Luke 11:39
But the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the platter; but inside of you, you are full of robbery and wickedness."

Don't get me wrong. I think it's a little hard to live our lives as an example for others to follow if they can't stand to be downwind of us. And it's a good thing to put our best foot forward. But don't confuse outer appearances with inner holiness.

Ben Franklin Discovered Electricity

He did no such thing. And he wasn't even trying. Electricity had been known about for thousands of years. Even the term for it was coined nearly a hundred years before Ben Franklin's birth. Ben Franklin's experiment with a kite and a key were meant to, and did prove that lightening was the same thing as the tiny electric sparks that were generated when you produce static electricity.

Archeologists at ancient Roman and Persian digs have found clay pots with a copper tube surrounding an iron rod and sealed with asphalt. If some sort of electrolyte had once filled the space between the iron and copper, the pots would have made an effective battery. Historical accounts may exist, but were discounted by the "experts" because they couldn't conceive of an ancient world that understood electricity. I say this because there is precedent. Every scientist believed the accounts of the destruction of Pompeii were fanciful fiction because they "knew" that volcano eruptions don't behave that way. Then on May 18th, 1980, Mount St. Helens in the state of Washington blew it's top. Suddenly, the term "pyroclastic flow" went from artistic fantasy to scientific fact. Of course, the reality is that it was always factual and the facts didn't change. The top scientific minds of the time were wrong, and their opinion changed.

Arranged Marriage = Forced Marriage

This one really ticks me off. It is a lie. Let me repeat, this is a lie. These are two completely separate and unrelated concepts. Yet it is accepted as gospel that they are one and the same. They are not!

In an arranged marriage, the two families know each other, know the values and personalities of the boy and the girl, and present the idea of the two of them getting married to the prospective bride and groom. Then the kids get to decide. Either one can veto the match. Only if both agree does the wedding go forward. How long they have to decide varies. It can be as short as an hour or as long as a year. But there is no force involved. It does no good to pair up with someone you're not attracted to.

It is a fact that arranged marriages have a significantly lower divorce rate than people who find their spouse themselves. And this is not due to cultural taboos against divorce. It holds true in Western culture among people where it isn't even the cultural norm for their families to arrange their marriage, yet they were set up by friends and family as a match. Doesn't this make sense? Can you honestly say that meeting a stranger in a bar or any other social gathering is likely to pair you with someone that shares your values, goals and aspirations? Now what if your family and friends, who know you, what you are like and what you want in life, bring you to a person they know is a match for all of that? It is only logical that this would lead to more compatible, happy couples.

The idea of romantic love before marriage is a very modern one. In Orthodox Jewish teachings, love is not even possible until after marriage. It is only then that you can know someone well enough to truly love them. Is it any wonder that "modern" marriages are so often a failure?

Forced marriage has never been a part of Christian or Jewish tradition or culture. It's never been the common practice it is made out to be. It does make for good Hollywood stories, but the reality just isn't there. In fact, other than minor cults, the only religion that finds it acceptable is Islam.

If I wanted to start a conspiracy to set people up for a life of misery and pain, I can think of no better way than to mess up the process of finding a spouse. I don't know if this was a grand scheme of the devil, or if it was just man's foolishness that handed it to him on a silver platter. But this fallacy is clearly a win for the anti-humanity side.

Proverbs 25:23-24
The north wind brings forth rain,
And a backbiting tongue, an angry countenance.
It is better to live in a corner of the roof
Than in a house shared with a contentious woman.

The Worst Thing You Can Do Is Marry Young

This is fallacy based on bad reporting. I used this as an example on the FAQ page. Almost everyone, including most Christians, have bought into the fallacy that the worst thing you can do is get married too young. It all comes from a study that was covered extensively in the media in the 1970s. It's so pervasive that most people accept it in the same way they accept the law of gravity. What is wrong with this is the study was comparing 14-17 year olds who got married to those who married when they were 26-30. The media coverage led everyone to believe it was about 18-22 year olds, when that age group wasn't even in the study. I'm not saying it was a conspiracy. It may have simply because the implication made it a more sensational story. More likely, it was that the reporter didn't understand what he was writing about. (This is still a common problem.)

In later studies that did include this age group, those who marry at age 18-22 had the lowest divorce rate over other age groups, reported the greatest satisfaction and happiness in their marriage and so on. It makes sense if you look at it objectively. Consider these two hypothetical couples:

Couple one both started dating when they were in junior high or high school, dating various people for over ten years, but never took it seriously. Each has been in several intimate relationships, (aka had sex.) They have been living as single people outside their parent's home for years, ten or more. They each have their own way of keeping the house, their own ideas about meal times and food choices, their own habits in spending their free time, and so on. Then they get married. All that baggage comes along with them. They beat each other up because of wrongs that were done to them in past relationships. They fight over how things are supposed to be, or at least are dissatisfied that things aren't the way they think they should be.

Couple two didn't date casually. They treated it as way of finding the person they wanted to marry. They got out of relationships as soon as it became apparent that it wasn't going to lead to marriage. They find each other, decide to get married, and do so. They haven't become set in their ways. And while they are from different households, they are both eager to differentiate themselves from their parents way of doing things anyway. So they decide and learn to do things as a couple. They learn to live life as a couple, not as two individuals with their own way of doing things. They don't have the baggage of past relationships, because they didn't let themselves get entangled emotionally or physically with someone they were just dating. Which couple will have an easier time of it?

The lie is that you have to squeeze all you can from life while you're single so you can survive the life-sucking experience that is marriage. The truth is that when you do it right, marriage isn't life-sucking, it's life enhancing. Married college students perform better than single college students. Married people do better in business. Married people live longer. But if you've poisoned your life with a bunch of garbage you did when you were single, it won't disappear when you get married. Marriage isn't a magic spell that erases what came before. How much better would it be not to mess up in the first place than to have to deal with that garbage later?

I'm not saying you need to get married young. I'm not saying you are doomed if you wait. I'm saying marriage is hard enough without making it harder. I'm saying don't give away your heart and body to someone casually. I'm not saying don't date at all. I am saying don't date casually. In my personal opinion, I would advise that people don't date unless they are within two years of the earliest they would find it acceptable to get married. One year is the maximum time one should spend dating. They should know by then. Either get engaged or break it off. And one year is the maximum for being engaged. That's where the two year guideline comes from. Going longer in either case only gives you more time to do the wrong thing. If you date someone for five years, decide they aren't the right one, dump them, then do this a few more times, before you know it you're in your forties and still single. But if you never go past a year, you can go through several duds before you find your stud and you're still young. Is it a rule? No. It is just my opinion, guided by experience and study. Take it or leave it.

Dating Is Just Having Fun

If you aren't even thinking about marriage, then you shouldn't be thinking about one-on-one dating. That isn't the forum for being casual and just having fun. I think group dates are a great thing. By that I mean, a group of friends getting together and going out for food and/or entertainment. It's more fun. There's much less pressure. It's casual by nature. So if you're going to be casual, stick to casual ways of doing things. The added bonus is that you get to know people better. It's harder to keep an act going in a group setting than one-on-one. The real person slips out now and then. How people react reveals the truth behind the act. I'm not saying that you shouldn't have fun when you are dating. I am saying to take one-on-one more seriously, and realize it's purpose is for finding your spouse. Then you'll have far fewer problems in your life.

The Jewish - Christian Split Was Over Jesus Being The Messiah

If you read the biblical accounts, when Paul or someone is talking to Jews, especially jewish leaders, they will take people through a short version of the history of Israel. When they get to the part where they show that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah, they are allowed to keep going. The audience keeps listening and allows them to continue to talk. It is when they start talking about gentiles being saved that they are cut off with anger and violence. The Jews had no problem with the concept of Jesus as the Messiah. Having studied the scriptures all their lives, having the prophecies matched to events made sense. But they couldn't accept that you didn't have to first convert to Judaism to be saved. That was the deal breaker. They believed their identity as the chosen people of God was being attacked.

That's Not Me

Whenever someone slips up and does or says something offensive they say, "That's not me." Stand up comedian Michael Richards (Kramer on Seinfeld) was in the middle of his comedy routine, when a heckler got him riled up, and Michael dropped an N-bomb from the stage. He immediately appeared on Larry King Live and said, "That's not me, Larry. That's not me." There are lots of variations on this. Someone will apologize for bad words or behavior by saying they were tired, or stressed, and that they weren't themselves. A celebrity gets busted for driving drunk, or hitting someone, and they say, "It's not the real me."

That's not true. The truth is they were so tired and stressed they weren't able to keep the act going. It was the real them that was peeking out. Yet most people buy this bilge. They accept the act as the real person, and ignore the bad behavior. I don't condemn people for their bad behavior. I'm as guilty as anyone. But don't add to the bad by lying. A more honest way to put it would be to say, "That's not who I want to be." It acknowledges the imperfection, and one's desire to overcome it.

People are the most blind to this concept when they are dating. We see how the other person reacts to a situation and tell ourselves that's not the real them. That's not the person we're in love with. If you say that, then you are in love with a work of fiction. The best dating advice I can give is date the act, but marry the react. (I got this chestnut of wisdom from Mark Gungor.) How someone reacts in a moment of adversity says more about their character than a thousand hours of dating. If their reaction is unacceptable to you, break it off and move on.

Conclusion

I could go on and on with more examples. This is fertile ground, and I will definitely write more in a later article. Let me finish this article with an example. Near my grandfather's farm there was an honest to goodness shepherd with a flock of sheep. He even carried a shepherd's crook to guide, grab and rescue his sheep. At night he would bring them into the fold for their protection. The fold had a narrow gate that only allowed one sheep to exit at a time. One morning as he was letting the sheep out to graze, a boy asked him if sheep were really as dumb as he had been told. In answer, the shepherd held his crook across the opening of the fold. The next sheep in line stopped, then jumped over the obstacle. The next two sheep did the same. Then the shepherd pulled his crook away, and every one of the sheep jumped exactly as the one in front had done. There was no longer an obstacle to jump over. But they continued to act as if there was one. They followed the example of the sheep in front without question. They acted like sheep because they were sheep.

My advice to you is don't be a sheep. Be skeptical. Don't accept what the crowd says. You don't have to do something just because everyone else does. You don't have to think like everyone else thinks. Being an individual doesn't mean you have to isolate yourself from everyone else. Just keep your own mind and use wisdom, not group-think. To put it simply, you can be one of the people. Just don't be one of the sheeple.