If you have not read TSM, Time Space Material and Infinity, it is one of my most major arguments in favor of Gods existence, and I suggest you read it before this post, which is a continuation of some of the ideas.
A response I once heard to the spatial argument is that 3 dimensional space is in fact wrapped onto a 4th dimensional sphere. Therefore, the size of the universe is fixed. If you travel in one direction long enough you will end up right back where you started. Now, this model contradicts euclidean geometry and has some other problems, but I will leave those aside for the moment. Two things came to mind as a result:
1) You have invented a 4th spatial dimension (the radius of the sphere). Can we travel in it? Regardless of whether we can travel in it, something must travel in it for it to be considered space. This dimension is unlimited and is still subject to the Spatial argument dilemma.
2) In this sphere, several of the dimensions to measure position in space are angles (like theta and phi for spherical coordinates). These dimensions are fundamentally limited to 360 degrees. I wanted to argue that all spatial systems required at least one unlimited dimension, such that whatever spatial system you imagined, the Spatial dilemma still applied. Unfortunately and fortunately, some exist.
Take for instance two points in 3dim space set a fixed distance apart along an imaginary vertical line. Any point in space can be signified by angles from both of these points (relative to the connecting line) and a theta about the center line.
Fortunately, the problem with this is that as points appear farther and farther away, the measurements of the two angles must become more and more precise. For any point distance x away, a precision d can be found to map the point with the angles. Therefore unlimited or infinite precision also produces a spatial dilemma. For if you shrink your viewpoint down to the arbitrary level of precision you reach, the universe becomes arbitrarily large.
2b) This has an implication for the material argument as well, adding weight. As you break down matter/energy into smaller and smaller parts, you are increasing precision arbitrarily. Therefore the dilemma of matter also produces a spatial dilemma even in a spatially finite universe. (Even if the universe is a fixed sphere 1 billion light years in radius, if the breakdown of matter is infinite, a viewer from that size will perceive an infinite universe)
05 September 2013
04 September 2013
evolutionary benefits of religion
I am now reading "Kingdom Triangle" by J.P Moreland. Awesome book. The second chapter got me thinking, though...
The most ready argument in the hands of atheists/agnostics against theists is probably that humans invented religion as a psychological crutch and it survived because it brings societies together, enforces moral law, etc. This is essentially their explanation for why anyone believes in any sort of God - it's useful for survival. [Other common arguments are how 1) you're being intolerant / relative truth and 2) the ultimate 747 / how did God begin?]
The assumption both sides have always accepted is that religion is profitable for survival - atheists because anything so prevalent must be and theists because religion is a good thing. This assumption may very well be true. But I started arguing from the point of an atheist.
Religion burdens a person down with a long list of rules, occupies much of their time in worship, takes at least 10% of their money, mentally preoccupies them, gives them an intolerance of new ideas, restricts them to one social group, etc etc. Additionally, most of the benefits I just enumerated for religion are group benefits - things that are only beneficial if most of a group has them and often benefits other in the group, not the user directly. Richard Dawkins himself makes passing comment at these benefits but considers them quite small compared to individual benefits (ch5 of The God Delusion). All the problems with religion I listed are personal. Anyone violating a moral law benefits personally if he is not caught.
To be fair, Dawkins does have a decent argument for the origin of religion - as a by-product of many other useful concepts. For instance, it is beneficial for children to listed to their parents without question. Therefore they will, and will pick up any incorrect but not hurtful advice along the way. This generational 'waste buildup' to form legend may have started religion. Also, concepts such as authority/law and design/intention by a person may have all conglomerated into religion.
However, an atheist may argue much stronger personal benefits for his belief than accumulated generational errors. Freedom from useless beliefs, higher mental clarity, ability to create morals and social norms through calculation rather than tradition (this was Dawkins response to a Muslim man on atheistic morals), more free time and money, true appreciation for nature and science, mental freedom and clarity in knowledge of ones own true position in nature, etc etc.
Now, bear in mind that I do not necessarily think atheists are evolutionary advantaged over theists. Persecution and willingness to die for others may dampen it a little but having a correct view of reality, moral based on truth, not agreements which can be broken if you think you can get away with it, freedom from guilt, worry, fear, etc are all good. But as I demonstrated, an argument can be made for atheism.
The implications of this are very specific and very significant. If the human species developed widespread belief in god (some form of God) where that trait is evolutionary inferior to what we assume is the normal atheistic state, it begs some other cause - namely God himself. This is an external argument against atheism [ atheist tenets (assuming atheists are also evolutionists), conflict with the evidence of widespread religion].
Contrary to what you may think, if theism is evolutionary preferred, the argument does not work backwards. Traditional theism does not include evolution and as such the presence of atheism does not suggest it had an external cause superior to theism. Traditional Christians who believe in absolute truth believe other religions are incorrect, and atheism is merely grouped in the 'incorrect' category.
I feel like this post isn't finished but I don't know where to go next. If you see a gaping hole please let me know. Over and out.
The most ready argument in the hands of atheists/agnostics against theists is probably that humans invented religion as a psychological crutch and it survived because it brings societies together, enforces moral law, etc. This is essentially their explanation for why anyone believes in any sort of God - it's useful for survival. [Other common arguments are how 1) you're being intolerant / relative truth and 2) the ultimate 747 / how did God begin?]
The assumption both sides have always accepted is that religion is profitable for survival - atheists because anything so prevalent must be and theists because religion is a good thing. This assumption may very well be true. But I started arguing from the point of an atheist.
Religion burdens a person down with a long list of rules, occupies much of their time in worship, takes at least 10% of their money, mentally preoccupies them, gives them an intolerance of new ideas, restricts them to one social group, etc etc. Additionally, most of the benefits I just enumerated for religion are group benefits - things that are only beneficial if most of a group has them and often benefits other in the group, not the user directly. Richard Dawkins himself makes passing comment at these benefits but considers them quite small compared to individual benefits (ch5 of The God Delusion). All the problems with religion I listed are personal. Anyone violating a moral law benefits personally if he is not caught.
To be fair, Dawkins does have a decent argument for the origin of religion - as a by-product of many other useful concepts. For instance, it is beneficial for children to listed to their parents without question. Therefore they will, and will pick up any incorrect but not hurtful advice along the way. This generational 'waste buildup' to form legend may have started religion. Also, concepts such as authority/law and design/intention by a person may have all conglomerated into religion.
However, an atheist may argue much stronger personal benefits for his belief than accumulated generational errors. Freedom from useless beliefs, higher mental clarity, ability to create morals and social norms through calculation rather than tradition (this was Dawkins response to a Muslim man on atheistic morals), more free time and money, true appreciation for nature and science, mental freedom and clarity in knowledge of ones own true position in nature, etc etc.
Now, bear in mind that I do not necessarily think atheists are evolutionary advantaged over theists. Persecution and willingness to die for others may dampen it a little but having a correct view of reality, moral based on truth, not agreements which can be broken if you think you can get away with it, freedom from guilt, worry, fear, etc are all good. But as I demonstrated, an argument can be made for atheism.
The implications of this are very specific and very significant. If the human species developed widespread belief in god (some form of God) where that trait is evolutionary inferior to what we assume is the normal atheistic state, it begs some other cause - namely God himself. This is an external argument against atheism [ atheist tenets (assuming atheists are also evolutionists), conflict with the evidence of widespread religion].
Contrary to what you may think, if theism is evolutionary preferred, the argument does not work backwards. Traditional theism does not include evolution and as such the presence of atheism does not suggest it had an external cause superior to theism. Traditional Christians who believe in absolute truth believe other religions are incorrect, and atheism is merely grouped in the 'incorrect' category.
I feel like this post isn't finished but I don't know where to go next. If you see a gaping hole please let me know. Over and out.
18 August 2013
Paul didn't save CHristianity
A couple years ago I took a world religions class at college. The teacher was a Philosophical Daoist (you need balance in life, ying yang, take the easy way). While explaining the history of Christianity she said that if it weren't for Paul, Christianity would have died. He was very passionate, spread the Gospel to most of the non-Jewish, and wrote most of the New Testament.
Naturally this irked me. Whether her point is valid or not is another story. On the one hand, it is significant that most of our New Testament was written by one man (though the gospels were not Paul), and that most of the evangelism to the non-Semitic world happened through the same man (or so it would seem). However, I would like to make a few points of explanation. I don't think this completely wraps up the concern, but it should remove most reasonable doubt.
1) Paul was not the only evangelist. Possibly in fact he is responsible for less than half of it (which is still a lot). All the apostles save John died martyrs for the faith. Peter was the rock center of the church and at one point was so touched by the holy spirit that sick were healed by even his shadow falling on them (Acts 5:15). Peter is responsible for the birth of the Coptic (Egyptian) church through teleporting to the Eunuch in Acts 8 and Thomas died in India (according to an Apocryphal book "The Acts of Thomas"). Other non-apostles were doing work at the time as well. Note Barnabas who split from Paul, presumably doing his own ministry. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul mentions 'Apollos' as another evangelist too and does not seem to denounce him.
2) The reason we have so much on Paul is because he wrote it down (directed by the Holy Spirit and intended for the bible). We do not say that Herodotus and Homer (Histories, Illiad and Odessey) were the pillars of Greek culture, much less that without them it would have collapsed, simply because their works are the main ones that survive. Although they are not canonical and may not be accurate, we do have dozens on different books from different authors around the time - commentaries and letters and such, disciples of the apostles and other church leaders like Polycarp (if I remember correctly).
3) Paul wrote 13 of the 27 books of the New Testament. Romans was written by Luke, closely associated with Paul but not authored by Paul.
4) The fact that Paul wrote so many books may be a function of his giftings and situation rather than his zeal. Other people like Peter, John or James may have even been more passionate, but demonstrated it in different ways. Peter was the rock on which Jesus built the church, and may have been caught up in administration and leadership. John was more prophetic. Paul, on the other hand, was extremely learned, one of the Jewish upper class. He knew how to write and how to write well, how to make arguments from old testament scripture and how to reason. He was also itinerant and had a wide base of churches he wished to disciple, making letters one of the most practical ways to do so. The apostles in the near region of Israel may have had an easier time and not had to write so much, and had gifts of leadership rather than teaching.
5) I'll leave you with an argument from scripture itself: Acts 5: 35-39 "35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”
Naturally this irked me. Whether her point is valid or not is another story. On the one hand, it is significant that most of our New Testament was written by one man (though the gospels were not Paul), and that most of the evangelism to the non-Semitic world happened through the same man (or so it would seem). However, I would like to make a few points of explanation. I don't think this completely wraps up the concern, but it should remove most reasonable doubt.
1) Paul was not the only evangelist. Possibly in fact he is responsible for less than half of it (which is still a lot). All the apostles save John died martyrs for the faith. Peter was the rock center of the church and at one point was so touched by the holy spirit that sick were healed by even his shadow falling on them (Acts 5:15). Peter is responsible for the birth of the Coptic (Egyptian) church through teleporting to the Eunuch in Acts 8 and Thomas died in India (according to an Apocryphal book "The Acts of Thomas"). Other non-apostles were doing work at the time as well. Note Barnabas who split from Paul, presumably doing his own ministry. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul mentions 'Apollos' as another evangelist too and does not seem to denounce him.
2) The reason we have so much on Paul is because he wrote it down (directed by the Holy Spirit and intended for the bible). We do not say that Herodotus and Homer (Histories, Illiad and Odessey) were the pillars of Greek culture, much less that without them it would have collapsed, simply because their works are the main ones that survive. Although they are not canonical and may not be accurate, we do have dozens on different books from different authors around the time - commentaries and letters and such, disciples of the apostles and other church leaders like Polycarp (if I remember correctly).
3) Paul wrote 13 of the 27 books of the New Testament. Romans was written by Luke, closely associated with Paul but not authored by Paul.
4) The fact that Paul wrote so many books may be a function of his giftings and situation rather than his zeal. Other people like Peter, John or James may have even been more passionate, but demonstrated it in different ways. Peter was the rock on which Jesus built the church, and may have been caught up in administration and leadership. John was more prophetic. Paul, on the other hand, was extremely learned, one of the Jewish upper class. He knew how to write and how to write well, how to make arguments from old testament scripture and how to reason. He was also itinerant and had a wide base of churches he wished to disciple, making letters one of the most practical ways to do so. The apostles in the near region of Israel may have had an easier time and not had to write so much, and had gifts of leadership rather than teaching.
5) I'll leave you with an argument from scripture itself: Acts 5: 35-39 "35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”
12 August 2013
graduation speech
It is a tradition in the Christian group at my college to have the graduating seniors say something to the rest a couple weeks before graduation. It occurred to me that although I have two more years ahead of me, I will not be present the latter part of the second year and may wish to have a fake graduation this upcoming year. So, because I love to make speeches, I started thinking about what I'd say. These are some of my ideas.
On the one hand there is so much I want to say I could preach multiple sermons to you. On the other hand I don't want to say much because really, following God isn't that complicated. So let me say this:
First and foremost God is glorious, wrapped in mysterious darkness, and holy like none other. The more you are aware of this the better.
Second, we humans are sinful, helpless, despicable and detestable in a hundred ways. Do not deceive yourself and think you can even measure up to your own standards, let alone Gods.
Third, thank God that in his great mercy he withholds destroying us for a time, but at the end of the age, his holiness with be unleashed and all evil will be thrashed and obliterated, shunned and locked far away into eternal darkness.
Fourth, Christ died to remove our sin and save us from destruction. His passion to save you is a mighty whirlwind and a mothers whisper. Do not harden your hearts when you hear it. His yoke is easy and his burden is light and nothing can ever compare to knowing God personally. It's nuts. Accept your sin and accept his death.
Fifth, for those who believe in God, he has but one work for us - to believe in the one he has sent. John 6:29. This is much harder than it sounds and much more rewarding. Knowings Gods glory, your sin, Christs salvation and the Holy Spirits power for you is immeasurably healing and satisfying. It roots out lust, greed, anger, fear, pain, bitterness, hopelessness, and all other human ailments (mental/spiritual ones). In Christ you need nothing, desire nothing other than him, fear nothing, nothing can hurt you, and you have a glorious hope to look forward to.
Sixth, for those who believe there are two commands - love God, love people. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, it is with your heart you believe God (Romans 10:10) - our primary work, soul - worship him with abandon, mind - study the word, his commands, know his glory and his power for you, and strength - do not be hearers of the word merely but also doers. And love your neighbor as yourself.
And this is love for God, to obey his commands. And his command is this - to love one another. Read 1st John.
What is love? To want the best for someone. What is the best for anyone? To be drawn closer to God. This is how God loves us, by sending his son so we can be with him. Therefore love yourself and love others by drawing close to God.
There are two primary ways to advance the kingdom of God, bringing new people to close God and bringing those close even closer. Evangelism and discipleship. This latter part should include your own discipleship.
Seventh and finally my brothers, life is not easy and you WILL fall. Today I set before you life and death, a blessing and a cure. Hold fast to life. "These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the door-frames of your houses and on your gates." (Deuteronomy 6:5-9)
And your God will never, ever, leave you.
[exit]
On the one hand there is so much I want to say I could preach multiple sermons to you. On the other hand I don't want to say much because really, following God isn't that complicated. So let me say this:
First and foremost God is glorious, wrapped in mysterious darkness, and holy like none other. The more you are aware of this the better.
Second, we humans are sinful, helpless, despicable and detestable in a hundred ways. Do not deceive yourself and think you can even measure up to your own standards, let alone Gods.
Third, thank God that in his great mercy he withholds destroying us for a time, but at the end of the age, his holiness with be unleashed and all evil will be thrashed and obliterated, shunned and locked far away into eternal darkness.
Fourth, Christ died to remove our sin and save us from destruction. His passion to save you is a mighty whirlwind and a mothers whisper. Do not harden your hearts when you hear it. His yoke is easy and his burden is light and nothing can ever compare to knowing God personally. It's nuts. Accept your sin and accept his death.
Fifth, for those who believe in God, he has but one work for us - to believe in the one he has sent. John 6:29. This is much harder than it sounds and much more rewarding. Knowings Gods glory, your sin, Christs salvation and the Holy Spirits power for you is immeasurably healing and satisfying. It roots out lust, greed, anger, fear, pain, bitterness, hopelessness, and all other human ailments (mental/spiritual ones). In Christ you need nothing, desire nothing other than him, fear nothing, nothing can hurt you, and you have a glorious hope to look forward to.
Sixth, for those who believe there are two commands - love God, love people. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, it is with your heart you believe God (Romans 10:10) - our primary work, soul - worship him with abandon, mind - study the word, his commands, know his glory and his power for you, and strength - do not be hearers of the word merely but also doers. And love your neighbor as yourself.
And this is love for God, to obey his commands. And his command is this - to love one another. Read 1st John.
What is love? To want the best for someone. What is the best for anyone? To be drawn closer to God. This is how God loves us, by sending his son so we can be with him. Therefore love yourself and love others by drawing close to God.
There are two primary ways to advance the kingdom of God, bringing new people to close God and bringing those close even closer. Evangelism and discipleship. This latter part should include your own discipleship.
Seventh and finally my brothers, life is not easy and you WILL fall. Today I set before you life and death, a blessing and a cure. Hold fast to life. "These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the door-frames of your houses and on your gates." (Deuteronomy 6:5-9)
And your God will never, ever, leave you.
[exit]
23 July 2013
the created
He is the creator
We are the created
He is
The Orator
The Poet
The Gymnast
The Chef
The Musician
The Dancer
The Artist
The Singer
We are
the words
the ryhmes
the muscles, the bones
the aromas, the tastes
the notes, the songs
the rhythm, the moves,
the colors, the canvas
the voice
"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (Eph 2:10)
I have not fully resolved for myself that it is so, but I find it strange that the superfluous things in life, a sunset, a warm friendship, a laugh, should also provide it's value. That we should be so unnecessary to God, and rightly so, yet so immensely valuable. Think of it. He didn't need us, but he made us.
We are his sunset
It comes to mind too, that sons and daughters are unnecessary too, but yet so cherished. In the end they probably cost more than they provide in your old age, yet no man would hesitate to die for his son. Created, a joy often causing pain. Yet so desirable.
We are Gods sons and daughters
"And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!'" (Gal 4:6)
"Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' it shall be said to them, 'Children[b] of the living God.'" (Hosea 1:10)
"Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel." (Jer 18:6 - verse slightly out of context, please read all)
We are the created
He is
The Orator
The Poet
The Gymnast
The Chef
The Musician
The Dancer
The Artist
The Singer
We are
the words
the ryhmes
the muscles, the bones
the aromas, the tastes
the notes, the songs
the rhythm, the moves,
the colors, the canvas
the voice
"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (Eph 2:10)
I have not fully resolved for myself that it is so, but I find it strange that the superfluous things in life, a sunset, a warm friendship, a laugh, should also provide it's value. That we should be so unnecessary to God, and rightly so, yet so immensely valuable. Think of it. He didn't need us, but he made us.
We are his sunset
It comes to mind too, that sons and daughters are unnecessary too, but yet so cherished. In the end they probably cost more than they provide in your old age, yet no man would hesitate to die for his son. Created, a joy often causing pain. Yet so desirable.
We are Gods sons and daughters
"And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!'" (Gal 4:6)
"Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' it shall be said to them, 'Children[b] of the living God.'" (Hosea 1:10)
"Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel." (Jer 18:6 - verse slightly out of context, please read all)
19 July 2013
Circular reasoning cannot prove scriptures
A pamphlet was given to me by an organization that I highly respect (but will not name for political reasons), title "The Authority of the Bible" by John R. W. Stott. I suggest reading it, it's quite good in many respects, provided you are already a Christian who believes in the bible.
The first heading introduces the concept of authority and why we need it, but the second outlines his argument for the authority of scripture:
"What is the major reason why evangelical Christians believe that the Bible is God's Word written, inspired by his Spirit and authoritative over their lives? ... [he goes over reasons we don't use] ... No. The overriding reason for accepting the divine inspiration and authority of Scripture is plain loyalty to Jesus. We believe in Jesus. We are convinced that he came from heaven and spoke from God. He said so: 'No one knows the father except the son' (Mt 11:27). ...[he quotes more scripture]... So we are prepared to believe what he taught for the simple reason that is he who taught it." (Pg. 6)
Did you catch it? Right there in the middle. "The overriding reason for accepting....scripture is plain loyalty to Jesus. We are convinced he...spoke from God. He said so:" and then he quotes scripture. Circular reasoning. We accept scripture because Jesus did. We accept Jesus because scripture says Jesus is from God (and therefore credible). Circular reasoning.
Let me give you a similar example I borrowed from a logic book, but with a different topic.
We accept Mein Kampf because Hitler did (he wrote it). We accept Hitler because Mein Kampf says Hitler is (his message is) from God. [Mein Kampf frequently says the Aryans are made in Gods image, certain common workers are Godless, etc pg 310, ]. Now, we obviously don't accept Hitler. But the argument is in the same form. Anytime you argue using two things that support each other and nothing else, it is circular reasoning.
To be fair, towards the end in pg 24, Stott addresses the accusation of circular reasoning, He says his reasoning is linear, "...in a line (historical document evoke our faith in Jesus, who then gives us a doctrine of Scripture)." (pg. 24). The problem is getting historical documents to evoke faith. The Iliad is a historical document, but we don't believe that Achilles was really blessed by the Gods. God may be able to convince you of faith in Jesus by first reading scripture, and confirm it though miracles and work in your own heart, but a historical document does not elicit faith purely by existing.
Now, I totally believe in the divinity and message of Jesus. He's pretty awesome. I also believe in the total inerrancy of the bible as it was originally written (and modern translations are pretty much completely faithful to the originals). But, I get my faith elsewhere. Below are a few reasons I have for believing Jesus and scripture:
1) The bible is quite easily the most accurate and well preserved historical document ever written (purely from an archaeological, secular standpoint). A number of objections have arisen, whole lists of them on atheistic websites, none of which I have failed to find a solution for. Archaeological finds continue to confirm the bible, the tomb of James, the brother of Jesus, census records, cities, royal records, etc, to the point that archaeologists now use the bible to find buried cities. 'oh, the bible says Capernum is about 50 miles west of... and next to...' Then they go dig and find it. (I made up the example).
2) The bible has 66 books written by many different authors over roughly a 1400 year time span. Yet it is amazingly internally consistent.
3) The three days after their charismatic leader is public tortured and killed, while hiding afraid in an upper room, the tomb appears empty and they proceed to publicly proclaim his resurrection, speak in languages they don't know, heal miraculously, and all save John are killed for their beliefs. The psychological fortitude or dementia required to overcome such loss, disarm or bribe 16 Roman soldiers (fishermen who haven't worked in 3 years outnumbered vs. soldiers who face the death penalty if they are caught), and proceed to all, without one of them breaking and letting the story out, die brutally for their lies, is simply inconceivable. That the Romans would not have produced the body and squashed an annoying cult, that no word would have leaked out, that 500 people could simultaneously hallucinate or be coordinated to tell non-contradicting stories of seeing Jesus.... The equivalent is that 12 fan or friends of Elvis claimed he rose 3 days after his death. If the evidence wasn't in their favor, no one would believe them.
4) I personally have performed what I cannot convince myself is anything other than a miracle. Two pastors and my Mom have both told stories of undeniable miracles as well. (Undeniable is spinal columns straightening, people near death suddenly becoming completely healthy, etc.)
5) I have experienced too many coincidences by what appears to be the Holy Spirit. Too many times I have experienced stimulus which is decidedly not a placebo effect or emotional experience. I am reminded of things or have thoughts which are not my own. Friends have expressed words of knowledge (they know things they couldn't without spiritual intervention or a crazy accurate intuition).
6) The entire conceptual model of Gods plan for us is both amazingly interdependent and non-contradictory, dimensionally complex to a dizzying degree and insanely simple (they kind of go hand-in-hand), supremely commonsense and practically useful in the real world, and finally emotionally/mentally healing and robust in ways no other philosophy can provide.
7) In science I have encountered roughly 5 unavoidable lines of reasoning that demand a supernatural presence in the universe, and roughly 10 more that provide strong suggestion.
8) I have not yet found another religion or belief system which is not inherently empty and would logically suggest the suicide, utter despair and meaninglessness, decidedly amoral behavior of it's followers or some combination of the three.
I could say more, but this post was not designed as proof for God.
"The Authority of the Bible" is not a bad book. It was nice to see how Jesus trusted the authority of the OT scriptures and the strong authority of the apostles who wrote the NT. But scripture cannot be proved through simple circular reasoning and faith in Jesus cannot come just through reading some historical documents.
The first heading introduces the concept of authority and why we need it, but the second outlines his argument for the authority of scripture:
"What is the major reason why evangelical Christians believe that the Bible is God's Word written, inspired by his Spirit and authoritative over their lives? ... [he goes over reasons we don't use] ... No. The overriding reason for accepting the divine inspiration and authority of Scripture is plain loyalty to Jesus. We believe in Jesus. We are convinced that he came from heaven and spoke from God. He said so: 'No one knows the father except the son' (Mt 11:27). ...[he quotes more scripture]... So we are prepared to believe what he taught for the simple reason that is he who taught it." (Pg. 6)
Did you catch it? Right there in the middle. "The overriding reason for accepting....scripture is plain loyalty to Jesus. We are convinced he...spoke from God. He said so:" and then he quotes scripture. Circular reasoning. We accept scripture because Jesus did. We accept Jesus because scripture says Jesus is from God (and therefore credible). Circular reasoning.
Let me give you a similar example I borrowed from a logic book, but with a different topic.
We accept Mein Kampf because Hitler did (he wrote it). We accept Hitler because Mein Kampf says Hitler is (his message is) from God. [Mein Kampf frequently says the Aryans are made in Gods image, certain common workers are Godless, etc pg 310, ]. Now, we obviously don't accept Hitler. But the argument is in the same form. Anytime you argue using two things that support each other and nothing else, it is circular reasoning.
To be fair, towards the end in pg 24, Stott addresses the accusation of circular reasoning, He says his reasoning is linear, "...in a line (historical document evoke our faith in Jesus, who then gives us a doctrine of Scripture)." (pg. 24). The problem is getting historical documents to evoke faith. The Iliad is a historical document, but we don't believe that Achilles was really blessed by the Gods. God may be able to convince you of faith in Jesus by first reading scripture, and confirm it though miracles and work in your own heart, but a historical document does not elicit faith purely by existing.
Now, I totally believe in the divinity and message of Jesus. He's pretty awesome. I also believe in the total inerrancy of the bible as it was originally written (and modern translations are pretty much completely faithful to the originals). But, I get my faith elsewhere. Below are a few reasons I have for believing Jesus and scripture:
1) The bible is quite easily the most accurate and well preserved historical document ever written (purely from an archaeological, secular standpoint). A number of objections have arisen, whole lists of them on atheistic websites, none of which I have failed to find a solution for. Archaeological finds continue to confirm the bible, the tomb of James, the brother of Jesus, census records, cities, royal records, etc, to the point that archaeologists now use the bible to find buried cities. 'oh, the bible says Capernum is about 50 miles west of... and next to...' Then they go dig and find it. (I made up the example).
2) The bible has 66 books written by many different authors over roughly a 1400 year time span. Yet it is amazingly internally consistent.
3) The three days after their charismatic leader is public tortured and killed, while hiding afraid in an upper room, the tomb appears empty and they proceed to publicly proclaim his resurrection, speak in languages they don't know, heal miraculously, and all save John are killed for their beliefs. The psychological fortitude or dementia required to overcome such loss, disarm or bribe 16 Roman soldiers (fishermen who haven't worked in 3 years outnumbered vs. soldiers who face the death penalty if they are caught), and proceed to all, without one of them breaking and letting the story out, die brutally for their lies, is simply inconceivable. That the Romans would not have produced the body and squashed an annoying cult, that no word would have leaked out, that 500 people could simultaneously hallucinate or be coordinated to tell non-contradicting stories of seeing Jesus.... The equivalent is that 12 fan or friends of Elvis claimed he rose 3 days after his death. If the evidence wasn't in their favor, no one would believe them.
4) I personally have performed what I cannot convince myself is anything other than a miracle. Two pastors and my Mom have both told stories of undeniable miracles as well. (Undeniable is spinal columns straightening, people near death suddenly becoming completely healthy, etc.)
5) I have experienced too many coincidences by what appears to be the Holy Spirit. Too many times I have experienced stimulus which is decidedly not a placebo effect or emotional experience. I am reminded of things or have thoughts which are not my own. Friends have expressed words of knowledge (they know things they couldn't without spiritual intervention or a crazy accurate intuition).
6) The entire conceptual model of Gods plan for us is both amazingly interdependent and non-contradictory, dimensionally complex to a dizzying degree and insanely simple (they kind of go hand-in-hand), supremely commonsense and practically useful in the real world, and finally emotionally/mentally healing and robust in ways no other philosophy can provide.
7) In science I have encountered roughly 5 unavoidable lines of reasoning that demand a supernatural presence in the universe, and roughly 10 more that provide strong suggestion.
8) I have not yet found another religion or belief system which is not inherently empty and would logically suggest the suicide, utter despair and meaninglessness, decidedly amoral behavior of it's followers or some combination of the three.
I could say more, but this post was not designed as proof for God.
"The Authority of the Bible" is not a bad book. It was nice to see how Jesus trusted the authority of the OT scriptures and the strong authority of the apostles who wrote the NT. But scripture cannot be proved through simple circular reasoning and faith in Jesus cannot come just through reading some historical documents.
02 July 2013
Hebrews 11:1
Hebrews 11:1-2 "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for."
0) A song by Hillsong recently appeared in church. The first part of the chorus declares, "I don't need to see it to believe it / Cause I can't shake this fire burning / deep inside my heart," strongly referencing Hebrews 11:1.
Now, I can't argue with this lyric directly, but I think it represents the lopsided emphasis the currently takes on this issue. It's true that we must have faith without sight and we should 'never lack in zeal', but far too often we misinterpret this verse and even pass over the other three or four parts of this faith. We think we don't have to see the evidence, we don't have to see anything and should just believe outright, slipping into an emotional and escapist sense of belief. This is very bad and may be contributing to the rise of atheism and agnosticism in the world, as well as the degradation of our Christian culture as a whole, as the young people ask tough questions and look for real answers.
Let me show you the 3 parts of these verses and how it demonstrates the stronger side of faith
1) First let's clarify 'what we do not see', because the verse says we don't see, but it requires a little thought to know what it is we don't see. This verse is a simple repetition. I happens many times in the psalms and proverbs, like Psalm 24:1 "The earth is the Lords', and everything in it / the world, and all who live in it." This one is no different. So what do we not see? The first phrase tells us it's what we hope for.
0) A song by Hillsong recently appeared in church. The first part of the chorus declares, "I don't need to see it to believe it / Cause I can't shake this fire burning / deep inside my heart," strongly referencing Hebrews 11:1.
Now, I can't argue with this lyric directly, but I think it represents the lopsided emphasis the currently takes on this issue. It's true that we must have faith without sight and we should 'never lack in zeal', but far too often we misinterpret this verse and even pass over the other three or four parts of this faith. We think we don't have to see the evidence, we don't have to see anything and should just believe outright, slipping into an emotional and escapist sense of belief. This is very bad and may be contributing to the rise of atheism and agnosticism in the world, as well as the degradation of our Christian culture as a whole, as the young people ask tough questions and look for real answers.
Let me show you the 3 parts of these verses and how it demonstrates the stronger side of faith
1) First let's clarify 'what we do not see', because the verse says we don't see, but it requires a little thought to know what it is we don't see. This verse is a simple repetition. I happens many times in the psalms and proverbs, like Psalm 24:1 "The earth is the Lords', and everything in it / the world, and all who live in it." This one is no different. So what do we not see? The first phrase tells us it's what we hope for.
2) Well, what do we hope for? What do we not have yet (do not see) as humans? Heaven! For the Jews who did not have New Testament information on heaven, heaven was often connected to the concept of inheritance or the new Jerusalem. This term carries over (like everything else) into the New Testament as we have a picture of a heavenly inheritance waiting for us after we die. Ephesians 1:18b "you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people,".
This is pie-in-the-sky, but it's also more tangible and measurable. The Jews thought (correctly) that eventually there would be a heavenly kingdom on earth at Jerusalem (read the prophets to see that) and zealots, including Simon the Zealot, on of the twelve apostles (not to be confused with Simon Peter), used to plot revolts against the Roman government in hopes of gaining this kingdom. 'What we do not see' will be quite tangible my friends, we do NOT ignore hard evidence or people who disagree with us. In fact we SHOULD 'see' them, 'be wise in the way you act towards outsiders...know how to answer everyone'. Instead we DON'T see heaven yet, but make doubly certain it's coming.
This is pie-in-the-sky, but it's also more tangible and measurable. The Jews thought (correctly) that eventually there would be a heavenly kingdom on earth at Jerusalem (read the prophets to see that) and zealots, including Simon the Zealot, on of the twelve apostles (not to be confused with Simon Peter), used to plot revolts against the Roman government in hopes of gaining this kingdom. 'What we do not see' will be quite tangible my friends, we do NOT ignore hard evidence or people who disagree with us. In fact we SHOULD 'see' them, 'be wise in the way you act towards outsiders...know how to answer everyone'. Instead we DON'T see heaven yet, but make doubly certain it's coming.
3) Why do people repeat things? Because they're important. Same goes here. Faith is 'being sure' and 'certain'. The first Greek word 'hupostasis' connotates substance and reality, that what you're sure of really does exist and has material weight. It also reminds one of legal contracts, rights of title and possession. The second 'elegchos' has to do with logical proof and a little of inner conviction.
Faith is not an arbitrary belief my friends, it's not primarily a leap, a blind commitment. Jude, like many of Paul's letters, writes to protect the faith of his hearers and them mainly goes on to warn against false prophets and specific falsehoods, not encourage them and urge them on, not give them a pep talk.
This is not to say Christianity is all head knowledge. Belief is heart-based, and as Philippians says "Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor serving the Lord". But the longest chapter of the bible is Psalm 119, all about Gods law and word, describing over and over again how the psalmist loves to meditate and study his statues and precepts.
Study the word, build yourself up in your most holy faith and pray in the spirit.
Faith is not an arbitrary belief my friends, it's not primarily a leap, a blind commitment. Jude, like many of Paul's letters, writes to protect the faith of his hearers and them mainly goes on to warn against false prophets and specific falsehoods, not encourage them and urge them on, not give them a pep talk.
This is not to say Christianity is all head knowledge. Belief is heart-based, and as Philippians says "Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor serving the Lord". But the longest chapter of the bible is Psalm 119, all about Gods law and word, describing over and over again how the psalmist loves to meditate and study his statues and precepts.
Study the word, build yourself up in your most holy faith and pray in the spirit.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)