And especially why must there be a lake of fire. Ok I know we don't know, but that's because faith does not lend itself to reason in my opinion, but that is another debate.
Current music: Pink Floyd, The Great Gig In The Sky.
What a vocal solo.
***
I imagine how you must be feeling, especially with the long drive ahead of you. Another one of lifes great adventures for you Bagwell :-)
Monday, January 31, 2005
Hell, Naturally
Help me here ... are you questioning whether it's right for someone to come to faith simply as a means to avoid hell? Or were you simply pointing out that my proposition -- that secularists are reacting to the tsunami out of some deep sense of appeasement to a frightening god -- is not that far removed from what many Christians feel as well? Or am I missing it completely, and your post was really as the subject line indicated -- a discussion on the nature of hell itself?
(It's been a weird couple of days ... my sense of comprehension doesn't seem trustworthy.)
(It's been a weird couple of days ... my sense of comprehension doesn't seem trustworthy.)
Sunday, January 30, 2005
On the nature of Hell
When you wrote:
"And in the face of some all-powerful god they don't understand, mankind reverts to what must be an innate reaction: appeasement in the hope of mercy at some future time."
That might not be so far away from many Christian beliefs, regardless of what "true" Christians actually *should* believe. I know of zero Christians who do not enjoy the future prospect of entry into Heaven. Even Jesus talked about Heaven as a reward for believing. If you "believe" you will receive mercy. The fact that they are avoiding Hell is of great comfort to Christians. Heaven is indeed like a reward.
And in your previous post you mentioned:
"So a person who has had ample opportunity to hear and study the Gospel message, yet still rejects Christ stands in a perilous position"
Now that perilous position, I assume, is the non-avoidance of Hell.
So what is Hell? I'll take you back, if I may, to:
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Hell does not appear to be a return to the days before birth (or conciousness), which wouldn't be so bad, after all I have no complaints about any of the approx. 5,113,500,000,000 days the Universe was around before I was born. No, Hell hurts.
Many people do not wish to believe in a God that would not save them from themselves. Why is the following scenario not possible with a True and Loving God?
1. Atheist person dies
2. It all becomes clear, Jesus and the Bible are 100% correct
3. Atheist person converts to Christianity on the spot
4. Atheist person is saved from a lake of fire
4. does not happen does it? At that stage it is too late. When all becomes clear you don't need faith so you've failed the test of suitability for Heaven haven't you? I would estimate, extrapolating from conversations I have had, that this "rule" stops millions of people from believing in Christ, Yahweh and The Bible.
It's a tough faith, but then again nobody said it was easy :-)
***
I'm glad that you're feeling better and that the deed is done!
"And in the face of some all-powerful god they don't understand, mankind reverts to what must be an innate reaction: appeasement in the hope of mercy at some future time."
That might not be so far away from many Christian beliefs, regardless of what "true" Christians actually *should* believe. I know of zero Christians who do not enjoy the future prospect of entry into Heaven. Even Jesus talked about Heaven as a reward for believing. If you "believe" you will receive mercy. The fact that they are avoiding Hell is of great comfort to Christians. Heaven is indeed like a reward.
And in your previous post you mentioned:
"So a person who has had ample opportunity to hear and study the Gospel message, yet still rejects Christ stands in a perilous position"
Now that perilous position, I assume, is the non-avoidance of Hell.
So what is Hell? I'll take you back, if I may, to:
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Hell does not appear to be a return to the days before birth (or conciousness), which wouldn't be so bad, after all I have no complaints about any of the approx. 5,113,500,000,000 days the Universe was around before I was born. No, Hell hurts.
Many people do not wish to believe in a God that would not save them from themselves. Why is the following scenario not possible with a True and Loving God?
1. Atheist person dies
2. It all becomes clear, Jesus and the Bible are 100% correct
3. Atheist person converts to Christianity on the spot
4. Atheist person is saved from a lake of fire
4. does not happen does it? At that stage it is too late. When all becomes clear you don't need faith so you've failed the test of suitability for Heaven haven't you? I would estimate, extrapolating from conversations I have had, that this "rule" stops millions of people from believing in Christ, Yahweh and The Bible.
It's a tough faith, but then again nobody said it was easy :-)
***
I'm glad that you're feeling better and that the deed is done!
Natural Disasters vs. Man-made Disasters
The cold is subsiding, and I do think I've avoided the flu. I woke up this morning feeling quite a bit better, and my voice isn't so strained. So I'm grateful for having been spared from something worse, and will now march on, despite a stuffed head and a runny nose.
The closing on the house went well, by the way. The only glitch was on the settlement sheet when the sellers cost for the pest inspection showed $540. I had a receipt for $350, and the realtor swore up and down she had been assured it was going to be only $180. We got it all straightened out and after the last signature was written out, the house I lived in for 10 years transferred ownership. But they seem like a nice young couple, and I pray they enjoy a properous stay in the home.
* * *
I recall the mass-hysteria back in 1997 when Princess Diana died. I could not for the life of me understand what all the fuss was about. We even had people here in the U.S. wailing away, stretched out face down on the pavement before some "shrine" built to Diana. I could never understand it.
It's my belief that Mother Theresa's death after a few days of the Diana madness was not coincidence -- I honestly believe that was God making a point. Few could argue that in the grand scheme of things, Mother Theresa was a far more influential servant of good than was Diana.
* * *
Here's my theory on the response to the tsunami: in a secular age, when a disaster like that occurs people are faced with a dilemma -- either there truly is no higher power, and we are the product of pure chance; or there is a higher power, and that higher power may expect something of us.
If they dwell on the prospect that all that we see and all we experience is the result of natural, dispassionate, impersonal forces, then they find themselves facing a dreadful prospect: we are the product of chance; we have no purpose; we are born, we live a short period, we die; there is no real meaning. That's an dark, dismal, awful prospect. Most will not dwell long in this region.
On the other hand, if they dwell on the prospect that there is a higher power -- yet due to their secular upbringing they have little understanding of that higher power -- they may then wonder what that higher power may expect from us. Is there something they should do to avoid having something similar happen to them? They are likely then to slip into a behavior we've seen across all of history: attempts at appeasing the unknown, wrathful gods. My guess is this is where most western secularists end up, though I doubt many would realize it or confess to it.
Note: It's interesting to note that in the immediate aftermath of the tsunami disaster, there was a desparate attempt to find some way to blame mankind for the event. Hurricanes, heavy rains, floods, avalanches -- all can be (perhaps falsely) attributed to "global warming" caused by human consumption of hydrocarbon energy sources. But a seismic event, deep under the ocean, is simply beyond anything man can affect. That created an enormous dilemma for western secularists.
The fact that we (mankind) are utterly powerless against the sheer magnitude of natural forces such as earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes and hurricanes simply magnifies the need to do something. But what? This is when the urge to "do good" takes effect; doing good earns mercy, or so goes the thinking. The unseen god must surely count these acts of goodness to our credit and spare us in the future.
The difference between the tsunami disaster and atrocities like Sudan or Rwanda is the source of the disaster -- some unseen god vs. man. A regional civil war in an impoverished continent that results in genocide won't affect rich, secular countries elsewhere. There's no need for appeasement -- the source isn't the frightening, misunderstood "god," but rather bad people somewhere else.
Note: and let's not kid ourselves ... the fact the genocide is occuring in Africa is very much part of the equation. There is an unspoken class system in our world. Some peoples are "worth more" than others. Africa isn't one of those places. Shameful as it is to admit that, that's how we think.
So my theory is this: in the absence of any true sense of God, western secularists are forced to either concede an utterly meaninglessness to life, or grope in the dark for some response to a disaster where in the background there is some unseen, poorly understood god. Finding the former dreadful, they opt for the latter. And in the face of some all-powerful god they don't understand, mankind reverts to what must be an innate reaction: appeasement in the hope of mercy at some future time.
Note: How then is the evangelical Christian response to the tsunami any different? We look at this disaster, have pity and compassion on those that suffered, but ultimately place our trust and hope for the future -- including eternity -- in Jesus Christ. From that sense of gratitude to God for his Grace comes giving. Of course, none of that helps explain why the disaster occurred in the first place, or whether God had a direct hand in it, or why such things happen, etc. We touched on that subject earlier. Read the book of Job. Scratch your head. Trust.
The closing on the house went well, by the way. The only glitch was on the settlement sheet when the sellers cost for the pest inspection showed $540. I had a receipt for $350, and the realtor swore up and down she had been assured it was going to be only $180. We got it all straightened out and after the last signature was written out, the house I lived in for 10 years transferred ownership. But they seem like a nice young couple, and I pray they enjoy a properous stay in the home.
* * *
I recall the mass-hysteria back in 1997 when Princess Diana died. I could not for the life of me understand what all the fuss was about. We even had people here in the U.S. wailing away, stretched out face down on the pavement before some "shrine" built to Diana. I could never understand it.
It's my belief that Mother Theresa's death after a few days of the Diana madness was not coincidence -- I honestly believe that was God making a point. Few could argue that in the grand scheme of things, Mother Theresa was a far more influential servant of good than was Diana.
* * *
Here's my theory on the response to the tsunami: in a secular age, when a disaster like that occurs people are faced with a dilemma -- either there truly is no higher power, and we are the product of pure chance; or there is a higher power, and that higher power may expect something of us.
If they dwell on the prospect that all that we see and all we experience is the result of natural, dispassionate, impersonal forces, then they find themselves facing a dreadful prospect: we are the product of chance; we have no purpose; we are born, we live a short period, we die; there is no real meaning. That's an dark, dismal, awful prospect. Most will not dwell long in this region.
On the other hand, if they dwell on the prospect that there is a higher power -- yet due to their secular upbringing they have little understanding of that higher power -- they may then wonder what that higher power may expect from us. Is there something they should do to avoid having something similar happen to them? They are likely then to slip into a behavior we've seen across all of history: attempts at appeasing the unknown, wrathful gods. My guess is this is where most western secularists end up, though I doubt many would realize it or confess to it.
Note: It's interesting to note that in the immediate aftermath of the tsunami disaster, there was a desparate attempt to find some way to blame mankind for the event. Hurricanes, heavy rains, floods, avalanches -- all can be (perhaps falsely) attributed to "global warming" caused by human consumption of hydrocarbon energy sources. But a seismic event, deep under the ocean, is simply beyond anything man can affect. That created an enormous dilemma for western secularists.
The fact that we (mankind) are utterly powerless against the sheer magnitude of natural forces such as earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes and hurricanes simply magnifies the need to do something. But what? This is when the urge to "do good" takes effect; doing good earns mercy, or so goes the thinking. The unseen god must surely count these acts of goodness to our credit and spare us in the future.
The difference between the tsunami disaster and atrocities like Sudan or Rwanda is the source of the disaster -- some unseen god vs. man. A regional civil war in an impoverished continent that results in genocide won't affect rich, secular countries elsewhere. There's no need for appeasement -- the source isn't the frightening, misunderstood "god," but rather bad people somewhere else.
Note: and let's not kid ourselves ... the fact the genocide is occuring in Africa is very much part of the equation. There is an unspoken class system in our world. Some peoples are "worth more" than others. Africa isn't one of those places. Shameful as it is to admit that, that's how we think.
So my theory is this: in the absence of any true sense of God, western secularists are forced to either concede an utterly meaninglessness to life, or grope in the dark for some response to a disaster where in the background there is some unseen, poorly understood god. Finding the former dreadful, they opt for the latter. And in the face of some all-powerful god they don't understand, mankind reverts to what must be an innate reaction: appeasement in the hope of mercy at some future time.
Note: How then is the evangelical Christian response to the tsunami any different? We look at this disaster, have pity and compassion on those that suffered, but ultimately place our trust and hope for the future -- including eternity -- in Jesus Christ. From that sense of gratitude to God for his Grace comes giving. Of course, none of that helps explain why the disaster occurred in the first place, or whether God had a direct hand in it, or why such things happen, etc. We touched on that subject earlier. Read the book of Job. Scratch your head. Trust.
Human drivers behind sensationalism
The kids have been fed breakfast, the younger is now regailing the Playstation 2 Eye Toy and the elder is furiously instant messenging with her school friends, I'm not sure I like her handle of "I'm small but I kick ass".
A very simple question you raise about the aid efforts for victims of a natural disaster before we aid victims of a man-made disaster. When I read your question my thought processes went something like this ...
1. This phenomenon may be due to media coverage
2. Ah, but why does "sensationalist" media coverage of such events sell newspapers?
3. We humans want to hear about such things
4. Why?
5. Maybe it's the same reason we like to see blockbuster movies with special effects
6. Why do we like to watch blockbuster movies?
7. Entertainment
8. Tsunami (an act of God) might somehow be a perverse kind of entertainment and political acts of man (genocide) are not. Perhaps because such acts of man remind us of what awful potential we have? (And therefore we'd rather not think about those?)
I'm reminded of the time that Princess Diana died, back in 1997 the UK was in the grip of some sort of mass hysteria. We humans just love to have a big drama don't we?
The other cause of such united outpouring of emotion could of course be that somehow during times of great global stress, the "souls" of people connect and collectively mourn. Maybe there is something deeper going on perhaps?
Regardless, a tradgedy that claims 300,000 lives is something we lucky folks in the west should do all we can to relieve.
What's your theory?
PS. I hope your cold is not the flu and is getting better
A very simple question you raise about the aid efforts for victims of a natural disaster before we aid victims of a man-made disaster. When I read your question my thought processes went something like this ...
1. This phenomenon may be due to media coverage
2. Ah, but why does "sensationalist" media coverage of such events sell newspapers?
3. We humans want to hear about such things
4. Why?
5. Maybe it's the same reason we like to see blockbuster movies with special effects
6. Why do we like to watch blockbuster movies?
7. Entertainment
8. Tsunami (an act of God) might somehow be a perverse kind of entertainment and political acts of man (genocide) are not. Perhaps because such acts of man remind us of what awful potential we have? (And therefore we'd rather not think about those?)
I'm reminded of the time that Princess Diana died, back in 1997 the UK was in the grip of some sort of mass hysteria. We humans just love to have a big drama don't we?
The other cause of such united outpouring of emotion could of course be that somehow during times of great global stress, the "souls" of people connect and collectively mourn. Maybe there is something deeper going on perhaps?
Regardless, a tradgedy that claims 300,000 lives is something we lucky folks in the west should do all we can to relieve.
What's your theory?
PS. I hope your cold is not the flu and is getting better
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Something On My Mind
Care to engage in an exercise of wild speculation? Why is it the outpouring of assistance and concern for the tsunami victims dwarfs the response for far larger tragedies, such as the genocide in the Sudan, or Rwanda? I have my pet theory, but I'm interested in yours.
Defining "Sin"
Wonderful, excellent questions, deep.thought. I am mulling over much as I prepare to write a response. I am hindered somewhat by a full dose of TheraFlu cold and flu medicine. Somewhere in the past week I picked up a bug. I will happily endure a cold; I am less eager to endure the flu.
The most common definition of "sin" is, I suppose, something along the line of what you cited: the trangression, or breaking, of God's law. The trouble with that definition pops up almost immediately as we wrestle with what exactly constitutes "God's law." There is a real danger of becoming legalistic in this pursuit. Recall the parable of the "Good Samaritan" (Luke 10:25-37). The Bible records that an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. The expert asked Jesus, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus turned the question around, and asked a question in return: "What is written in the law? How do you read it?" (Luke 10:26, NIV, paraphrased, emphasis added.) The expert replied, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' and 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (A reference to Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18, respectively.)
Good answer. "Do this and you will live." Jesus replied (Luke 10:28)
The expert should have left well enough alone, but instead pushed on. The Bible attributes the motive of self-justification to the expert's next question: "And who is my neighbor?"
You can almost hear the expert saying, "Now let me understand exactly how this works. Who, precisely, is my neighbor?" The expert was looking for a loophole; a way to avoid the hard truth of his initial answer. Legalism had slipped into the discussion. Jesus responded with the parable of the man left beaten and dying in the ditch, with Hebrew priests and Levites passing him by on the far side of the road. And then, a despised Samaritan is provided as the merciful one. There was the expert's answer: your neighbor is everyone, even those you do not like, even those that hate you.
What's the point? The point is that "God's Law" is really nothing short of a requirement for us to do things as completely and perfectly as God himself. Take for instance the first response of the expert: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind." Think about that. Every waking moment of your day you are to dedicate every breath, every thought, every motive, every action to the Glory of God.
Impossible, you say. Can't do it.
Precisely the point.
You wrote: "Which means I probably am always going to sin."
Yes. As will I.
This really is the heart of the Gospel message: we're sinners and we can't be perfect so we can't really abide by God's law perfectly. God knows this, so he gave his Son to be a sacrificial payment for our sins. Our faith in Jesus clothes us in his righteousness, giving us reconciliation with God that we ourselves could not achieve. Simple (and mysterious) as that.
You wrote, with reference to some Christians' answer that those who do not believe in Jesus had their chance, therefore off to Hell they go ... "Which is highly unsatisfactory, especially going back to the one year old baby I saw coming out of a cancer radiotherapy suite."
With regard to small children who do not have the opportunity to learn and know about Jesus prior to their death ... there's a very critical aspect of the bestowing of Grace that we have to keep in mind: The bestowing of Grace is completely within the sovereign desire of God himself. It is not a transaction. We do not "earn" salvation by our profession of faith. God in his mercy bestows it upon those whom he is pleased to bestow it. This opens up a series of other quesitons, which I'll skirt by for the moment ... the key point is this: a small child in a cancer ward may very well receive Grace from God, for it is at the pleasure of God to bestow Grace on those he is pleased to do so. Suggesting that Grace is given only when we humans execute a certain series of things (profession of faith, baptism, whatever) limits God. Similarly, suggesting that God can't bestow Grace on a small infant also limits God. It is a healthy thing to watch our thoughts for things that limit God; our putting limitations on God is never Scripturally supported.
I'm left with one final thought: the Bible teaches us in Luke 12:48 that "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." I've always thought that what's being referenced here is not material things, but rather knowledge of God. So a person who has had ample opportunity to hear and study the Gospel message, yet still rejects Christ stands in a perilous position. Someone who has never heard of Jesus (the aborigine example) will receive mercy.
Note: To what degree, I do not know. Some believe that everyone will receive salvation in the end. Those who believe this are properly classified as Universalists. Often they cite Philippians 2:10-11, "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (NIV) I'll confess I'm unpersuaded by this interpretation of the text. It strikes me this is really saying there will be a day when there shall be no doubt that Jesus Christ is Lord, and everyone in heaven, earth and hell will acknowledge it.
The most common definition of "sin" is, I suppose, something along the line of what you cited: the trangression, or breaking, of God's law. The trouble with that definition pops up almost immediately as we wrestle with what exactly constitutes "God's law." There is a real danger of becoming legalistic in this pursuit. Recall the parable of the "Good Samaritan" (Luke 10:25-37). The Bible records that an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. The expert asked Jesus, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus turned the question around, and asked a question in return: "What is written in the law? How do you read it?" (Luke 10:26, NIV, paraphrased, emphasis added.) The expert replied, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' and 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (A reference to Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18, respectively.)
Good answer. "Do this and you will live." Jesus replied (Luke 10:28)
The expert should have left well enough alone, but instead pushed on. The Bible attributes the motive of self-justification to the expert's next question: "And who is my neighbor?"
You can almost hear the expert saying, "Now let me understand exactly how this works. Who, precisely, is my neighbor?" The expert was looking for a loophole; a way to avoid the hard truth of his initial answer. Legalism had slipped into the discussion. Jesus responded with the parable of the man left beaten and dying in the ditch, with Hebrew priests and Levites passing him by on the far side of the road. And then, a despised Samaritan is provided as the merciful one. There was the expert's answer: your neighbor is everyone, even those you do not like, even those that hate you.
What's the point? The point is that "God's Law" is really nothing short of a requirement for us to do things as completely and perfectly as God himself. Take for instance the first response of the expert: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind." Think about that. Every waking moment of your day you are to dedicate every breath, every thought, every motive, every action to the Glory of God.
Impossible, you say. Can't do it.
Precisely the point.
You wrote: "Which means I probably am always going to sin."
Yes. As will I.
This really is the heart of the Gospel message: we're sinners and we can't be perfect so we can't really abide by God's law perfectly. God knows this, so he gave his Son to be a sacrificial payment for our sins. Our faith in Jesus clothes us in his righteousness, giving us reconciliation with God that we ourselves could not achieve. Simple (and mysterious) as that.
You wrote, with reference to some Christians' answer that those who do not believe in Jesus had their chance, therefore off to Hell they go ... "Which is highly unsatisfactory, especially going back to the one year old baby I saw coming out of a cancer radiotherapy suite."
With regard to small children who do not have the opportunity to learn and know about Jesus prior to their death ... there's a very critical aspect of the bestowing of Grace that we have to keep in mind: The bestowing of Grace is completely within the sovereign desire of God himself. It is not a transaction. We do not "earn" salvation by our profession of faith. God in his mercy bestows it upon those whom he is pleased to bestow it. This opens up a series of other quesitons, which I'll skirt by for the moment ... the key point is this: a small child in a cancer ward may very well receive Grace from God, for it is at the pleasure of God to bestow Grace on those he is pleased to do so. Suggesting that Grace is given only when we humans execute a certain series of things (profession of faith, baptism, whatever) limits God. Similarly, suggesting that God can't bestow Grace on a small infant also limits God. It is a healthy thing to watch our thoughts for things that limit God; our putting limitations on God is never Scripturally supported.
I'm left with one final thought: the Bible teaches us in Luke 12:48 that "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." I've always thought that what's being referenced here is not material things, but rather knowledge of God. So a person who has had ample opportunity to hear and study the Gospel message, yet still rejects Christ stands in a perilous position. Someone who has never heard of Jesus (the aborigine example) will receive mercy.
Note: To what degree, I do not know. Some believe that everyone will receive salvation in the end. Those who believe this are properly classified as Universalists. Often they cite Philippians 2:10-11, "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (NIV) I'll confess I'm unpersuaded by this interpretation of the text. It strikes me this is really saying there will be a day when there shall be no doubt that Jesus Christ is Lord, and everyone in heaven, earth and hell will acknowledge it.
On the nature of sin
I find myself, on this beautiful UK Saturday morning, musing on the nature of "sin" in the Christian Doctrine.
So what exactly is sin?
Is it a transgression of God's law? So for instance, if you break a commandment you have sinned? I can understand "Thou shalt not steal" -- therefore if I steal I have sinned. But hang on, there is more to it than that isn't there? .. the Bible talks about many behaviors which are sinful but don't have an explicit commandment for them: for example "Thou shalt not take part in homosexual sex" is not actually a commandment but the engagement of said practice is a sin nonetheless.
So to truly understand all of the sins that we may commit do we need to read The Bible?
Plus, back to the New Covenant, if I do not love my neighbor as myself am I sinning? Probably. Which means I probably am always going to sin. There are few people outside of my immediate family that I would lay down my life for.
Furthermore, if one sins, and does not avail oneself of the savior, then one will go to a lake of fire. From the KJV:
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
The answer I usually get from Christians when I ask why is there such a painful downside to not being a Christian is "you were warned buddy, you had a whole lifetime to convert, God gave you your chance". Which is highly unsatisfactory, especially going back to the one year old baby I saw coming out of a cancer radiotherapy suite. I guess we have to put this down to mystery.
Sidenote: Why is it that some (most?) human beings become incredibly smug when they think they are saved and you are not? It's like we cannot handle being saved, or we are always so quick to give into the temptation to think we are better than our fellow man. Which I bet is a sin by the way :-)
Other folks believe that sin is being in a state separate from God, after all "sin" means "without" in Spanish does it not? If that were the case then why, upon atheist death, does one not return to the state one was in before one became conscious? Why would one go and fry? It appears from The Bible that if you sin and do not repent and follow Christ, you will be punished.
What is the greater desire ... to get to Heaven, or to avoid Hell?
"...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta Nikaya v. 353
Brother Bagwell I hope your house sale went smoothly -- moving house is up there in the top five stresses of life "... the times they are a changing."
So what exactly is sin?
Is it a transgression of God's law? So for instance, if you break a commandment you have sinned? I can understand "Thou shalt not steal" -- therefore if I steal I have sinned. But hang on, there is more to it than that isn't there? .. the Bible talks about many behaviors which are sinful but don't have an explicit commandment for them: for example "Thou shalt not take part in homosexual sex" is not actually a commandment but the engagement of said practice is a sin nonetheless.
So to truly understand all of the sins that we may commit do we need to read The Bible?
Plus, back to the New Covenant, if I do not love my neighbor as myself am I sinning? Probably. Which means I probably am always going to sin. There are few people outside of my immediate family that I would lay down my life for.
Furthermore, if one sins, and does not avail oneself of the savior, then one will go to a lake of fire. From the KJV:
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
The answer I usually get from Christians when I ask why is there such a painful downside to not being a Christian is "you were warned buddy, you had a whole lifetime to convert, God gave you your chance". Which is highly unsatisfactory, especially going back to the one year old baby I saw coming out of a cancer radiotherapy suite. I guess we have to put this down to mystery.
Sidenote: Why is it that some (most?) human beings become incredibly smug when they think they are saved and you are not? It's like we cannot handle being saved, or we are always so quick to give into the temptation to think we are better than our fellow man. Which I bet is a sin by the way :-)
Other folks believe that sin is being in a state separate from God, after all "sin" means "without" in Spanish does it not? If that were the case then why, upon atheist death, does one not return to the state one was in before one became conscious? Why would one go and fry? It appears from The Bible that if you sin and do not repent and follow Christ, you will be punished.
What is the greater desire ... to get to Heaven, or to avoid Hell?
"...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta Nikaya v. 353
Brother Bagwell I hope your house sale went smoothly -- moving house is up there in the top five stresses of life "... the times they are a changing."
Friday, January 28, 2005
"What Do They Call a Whopper?"
"I don't know. I didn't go into Burger King."
A billion is a 1 followed by nine zeroes. A thousand million. The number you gave was a thousand billions or a trillion. Let's do a little comparison:
* * *
Nice list of essentials, deep.thought. We have quite a bit of overlap. Here's my list:
* * *
With regards to Romans 7:14 through 8:4 -- the stuff in Romans 7 can be a bit jumbled. What Paul is getting at there is the nature of our sinfulness and the purpose of the Mosaic Law, which was to show us how utterly incapable we are of abiding by it perfectly. In essence, what Paul is saying there is:
I'm off to close on the sale of my house. Grace and peace, deep.thought ... in Christ's name.
A billion is a 1 followed by nine zeroes. A thousand million. The number you gave was a thousand billions or a trillion. Let's do a little comparison:
- 1,000 = thousand
- 1,000,000 = million
- 1,000,000,000 = billion
* * *
Nice list of essentials, deep.thought. We have quite a bit of overlap. Here's my list:
- Bible is God's revealed word, his Truth provided to us
- God is perfect, Holy, all-knowing, all-powerful, present everywhere, boundless, timeless, completely sovereign.
- Man is inherently sinful, and is incapable of his own effort to reconcile himself to God's Holiness. In other words, man needs a savior.
- Jesus is that savior -- God incarnate, as a man on this earth he was completely without sin, and as a sacrifice on the cross he paid the complete cost of our sins. He literally and physically rose from the dead and is alive today.
- "Faith in Jesus Christ" means trusting completely that Christ did all that's necessary to be reconciled with God, and that we are simply to accept the gift of Grace through faith and obedience.
- The Christian life is to be lived in humble gratitude for Christ's saving work, and in daily submission to God's will. Jesus said: "For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother." (Matthew 12:50, NIV) God promises us a "helper" (His Spirit) in this quest. Were the whole world to do this, we would have a far, far better world.
* * *
With regards to Romans 7:14 through 8:4 -- the stuff in Romans 7 can be a bit jumbled. What Paul is getting at there is the nature of our sinfulness and the purpose of the Mosaic Law, which was to show us how utterly incapable we are of abiding by it perfectly. In essence, what Paul is saying there is:
"You know, I've tried and tried to follow those rules. But darn it, every time I think I'm making progress I trip up. And the more I trip up, the more I realize how helpless I am. It makes me feel awful! Oh, man ... what am I going to do?" (End of Chapter 7)* * *
(Beginning of Chapter 8) "Ah, but wait! There is an answer. And it's not 'work harder' or 'pull up your socks, man.' It's simpler than that. Look what Jesus did for us. That's it ... see what Christ has done, believe in that and trust in it, and I'll find peace and forgiveness! That's wonderful!"
I'm off to close on the sale of my house. Grace and peace, deep.thought ... in Christ's name.
A Royale with Cheese
I'll play, I'll play!
Write down the 4 to 6 or 7 core things you feel the Christian faith is absolutely dependent upon
In no particular order ...
Jesus being the son of God
Jesus' death atoning for our sins
Loving others
Jesus being the only path to Heaven
Forgiveness
Putting God first
As I was writing these I thought maybe it's also dependent upon:
Moral courage
Trying to convert others to Christianity (to save them)
Being right
Acting all self-righteous and pretending to be a little Christ?
What would your list be?
PS. I read from Romans 7:14 through 8:4 as you suggested in your previous post and ended up thinking the (NIV) text was very jumbled and confusing, but thankfully I think that I did get the message the author was trying to convey about Christ as savior, I think.
PPS. How much is a billion anyway? In the US I hear it is 1,000,000,000. When I was a child the UK school that I attended said that it numbered 1,000,000,000,000.
Colonials.
Write down the 4 to 6 or 7 core things you feel the Christian faith is absolutely dependent upon
In no particular order ...
Jesus being the son of God
Jesus' death atoning for our sins
Loving others
Jesus being the only path to Heaven
Forgiveness
Putting God first
As I was writing these I thought maybe it's also dependent upon:
Moral courage
Trying to convert others to Christianity (to save them)
Being right
Acting all self-righteous and pretending to be a little Christ?
What would your list be?
PS. I read from Romans 7:14 through 8:4 as you suggested in your previous post and ended up thinking the (NIV) text was very jumbled and confusing, but thankfully I think that I did get the message the author was trying to convey about Christ as savior, I think.
PPS. How much is a billion anyway? In the US I hear it is 1,000,000,000. When I was a child the UK school that I attended said that it numbered 1,000,000,000,000.
Colonials.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
The Meaning of Metaphors; the Metaphors of Meaning
As I read back through my earlier post, I wonder if I created the wrong impression. I wonder if I created the impression that what Paul was suggesting is that our motivation should be to act out of love so that we create a sense of shame? If so, I think I did a poor job of communicating my thoughts. If shame is our objective, it would seem to me to be a wrong objective. We should love our enemies simply as a way of honoring the fact that God loves us. After all, in our sin we are enemies of God's holiness. Only through faith in Jesus may we become God's children.
I think what Paul was saying is that if someone is your enemy, presumably it is because they are unfriendly or worse towards you. To return love for hate will be the best way to make the other person realize the sin of their anger or enmity. But they may not, and whether they do or not is not really our concern. Love your enemies as God loves us, and allow God to sort out the wickedness of our hearts.
Whether there is a case within the Bible for a "just war" is a subject well above my learning. Smart people have come down on both sides of that question for centuries. Two thoughts:
Here's a thought exercise: take out a 3x5 card. (And by the way, what on earth do you call that over in the U.K. with that silly metric stuff?) Write down the 4 to 6 or 7 core things you feel the Christian faith is absolutely dependent upon. Without any of those, the structure of the faith crumbles due to lack of structural support.
It's an interesting exercise because I'm willing to wager peripheral issues often squabbled over by denominational factions would not appear on the card. And it serves to focus one's attention on what's truly critical in being obedient to God.
I think what Paul was saying is that if someone is your enemy, presumably it is because they are unfriendly or worse towards you. To return love for hate will be the best way to make the other person realize the sin of their anger or enmity. But they may not, and whether they do or not is not really our concern. Love your enemies as God loves us, and allow God to sort out the wickedness of our hearts.
Whether there is a case within the Bible for a "just war" is a subject well above my learning. Smart people have come down on both sides of that question for centuries. Two thoughts:
- Some invoke Jesus's commandment to "turn the other cheek" as a way of arguing against any war. It's interesting to note that when Jesus stood before the High Priest prior to being taken to Pilate, he was slapped hard across the face by an official (Luke 18:22). His response was not to silently accept the abuse and offer his other cheek to be slapped as well. '"If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?"' (Luke 18:23) That's a rather challenging -- though not physically threatening -- response.
- Imagine two scenarios: in one, someone comes up to you and slaps you across the face. In another, someone goes up to a helpless invalid and slaps them across the face. Is your Christian obligation the same under both? I would think not. In the second scneario, if the threat of further violence was evident, wouldn't you have an obligation to assist the invalid? If so, can that idea be extrapolated to nations conducting broader war?
Here's a thought exercise: take out a 3x5 card. (And by the way, what on earth do you call that over in the U.K. with that silly metric stuff?) Write down the 4 to 6 or 7 core things you feel the Christian faith is absolutely dependent upon. Without any of those, the structure of the faith crumbles due to lack of structural support.
It's an interesting exercise because I'm willing to wager peripheral issues often squabbled over by denominational factions would not appear on the card. And it serves to focus one's attention on what's truly critical in being obedient to God.
Metaphors, allegory and meaning
I'll go with you on the coals of shame.
Sometimes though the coals become real, the Christian Warrior dons his battle garb and heads out to wherever to kill some people. Is it really workable to not have wars? According to Romans when we get a 9/11 we should be nice to Osama, we should feed and water him and make him feel ashamed. Or is there perhaps another section of The Bible that says that war is ok?
My point is, that according to The Bible it is good to heap coals of shame on folks heads, it is also good to heap real coals on folks heads depending upon circumstances. How do you interpret the piece of The Bible that you are reading? And can the meaning of it to you change over time or as you grow older and (hopefully) wiser? And if the meaning changes does that mean you got it wrong in the first place?
Does every single human being interpret the Bible in the same way, I doubt it. Look at me and the coals :-) I suspect that people read into The Bible what they want to see. How do you know that you are hearing the message of God and not your own? (or Satans for that matter?)
Sometimes though the coals become real, the Christian Warrior dons his battle garb and heads out to wherever to kill some people. Is it really workable to not have wars? According to Romans when we get a 9/11 we should be nice to Osama, we should feed and water him and make him feel ashamed. Or is there perhaps another section of The Bible that says that war is ok?
My point is, that according to The Bible it is good to heap coals of shame on folks heads, it is also good to heap real coals on folks heads depending upon circumstances. How do you interpret the piece of The Bible that you are reading? And can the meaning of it to you change over time or as you grow older and (hopefully) wiser? And if the meaning changes does that mean you got it wrong in the first place?
Does every single human being interpret the Bible in the same way, I doubt it. Look at me and the coals :-) I suspect that people read into The Bible what they want to see. How do you know that you are hearing the message of God and not your own? (or Satans for that matter?)
Burning Coals
I will admit that the phrasing in Romans 12:9-21 can be somewhat jarring at first. But I think there's some value in exploring this, because it highlights the importance of reading the Bible in context. And there are three levels of context to consider: the context of the surrounding passages; the context of the book as a whole; and the context of the Bible as a whole.
Let's look at the sentence once more time:
Humility is the key to walking the Christian faith. Jesus never instructed us to be arrogant or boastful; indeed, he told us in Matthew 5:3: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." In other words, those who recognize the hopelessness of their sin and are properly humbled by it will see the glory of Christ and his offer of redemption.
Humble, yes; weak and ineffective, no. We are to be humble in the shadow of the cross, but strong in the certainty of Christ.
Let's look at the sentence once more time:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”Here's how I'd unravel this:
- Paul is playing off what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount, specifically the commandment to love our enemies (Matthew 5:43-44). In fact, what Jesus was doing there was making reference to Leviticus 19:18 and shining a bright light on the way in which the original commandment to love your neighbor as yourself had been tortured to the point where it yielded "hate your enemy." Jesus, ever the revolutionary, tossed the contemporary interpretation of the Law out the window and instead turned the heat up a notch.
- The second sentence is connected to the first -- by starting with "In doing this," Paul is making direct reference to the previous sentence: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink." So we can't (or rather, should not) view the second sentence separate from the first. So we must face the question: are the two sentences complementary, or contradictory? To do an act of kindness out of a sense of revenge or spite would clearly be to lose the blessing. And Paul alludes to this just prior to the passage in question: "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord" (Romans 12:19, NIV). So what is Paul getting at here?
- It's my belief what Paul is saying here is that by loving one's enemy -- by feeding him when he's hungry, and giving him something to drink when he's thirsty -- the contrast between the love you display and the enmity felt in the heart of your enemy will produce a self-induced sense of shame on the part of your enemy. I think (personal opinion) the "heap burning coals on his head" is an metaphor for inducing shame.
- The overarching theme of the book of Romans is the inherent sinfulness of man, the helplessness of man to do anything about it, and the glorious Grace of God to reach down and forgive through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. To get a flavor of this, read from Romans 7:14 through 8:4. The key is that accepting Christ's sacrifice as payment for my sins requires that I first recognize and sense the magnitude of my own sin. So the notion of inducing shame in another through selfless love on your part is consistent with the rest of Romans. By your acts of love you help others see their own sin, and in so doing they might come to Christ as well.
- The fundamental lesson of the Bible as a whole is Jesus and his selfless act of love on behalf of us. But one must first realize that Jesus is the only way. So again, given my reading of "heaping burning coals" as a metaphor for inducing shame, then it's consistent with not only the book of Romans but the Bible as a whole.
Humility is the key to walking the Christian faith. Jesus never instructed us to be arrogant or boastful; indeed, he told us in Matthew 5:3: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." In other words, those who recognize the hopelessness of their sin and are properly humbled by it will see the glory of Christ and his offer of redemption.
Humble, yes; weak and ineffective, no. We are to be humble in the shadow of the cross, but strong in the certainty of Christ.
Caveat Emptor
Sir, I very much enjoyed your last two posts entitled "The problem of pain" and ""Treat Others" ... and Romans 12:9-21."
It is heart warming indeed to hear a Christian Fellow admit that he (or she) hasn't got all of the answers -- this humility is lacking in many religious people, over-zealousness on their part perhaps?
And reading Romans 12:9-21 (and thank you for posting it) I could almost believe that this is the Word of God. The first two passages are most beautiful. But in the third passage do you not see the hand of man at work to ruin such divine sentiment of the first two ... ?
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
Unfortunately this assumes the following:
1) Inside you, you are harboring a desire to heap coals on the head of another living creature
2) God thinks that you have a desire to heap coals on someone's head and will aid you in doing so
3) It's ok to be two-faced
The other part that bothers me is:
"Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody."
I was dismayed by a Jehovah's witness whom I was debating with online on Boxing Day as the Tsunami news came it ... his immediate response was "we must be seen to be supportive and providing aid".
We must be seen.
Regardless of how he felt. My first thought was not about how we should appear. Maybe I just don't like politicians?
Thank you for the humilty and the beautiful words bagwell :-)
It is heart warming indeed to hear a Christian Fellow admit that he (or she) hasn't got all of the answers -- this humility is lacking in many religious people, over-zealousness on their part perhaps?
And reading Romans 12:9-21 (and thank you for posting it) I could almost believe that this is the Word of God. The first two passages are most beautiful. But in the third passage do you not see the hand of man at work to ruin such divine sentiment of the first two ... ?
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
Unfortunately this assumes the following:
1) Inside you, you are harboring a desire to heap coals on the head of another living creature
2) God thinks that you have a desire to heap coals on someone's head and will aid you in doing so
3) It's ok to be two-faced
The other part that bothers me is:
"Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody."
I was dismayed by a Jehovah's witness whom I was debating with online on Boxing Day as the Tsunami news came it ... his immediate response was "we must be seen to be supportive and providing aid".
We must be seen.
Regardless of how he felt. My first thought was not about how we should appear. Maybe I just don't like politicians?
Thank you for the humilty and the beautiful words bagwell :-)
"Treat Others" ... and Romans 12:9-21
Just a thought ...Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with God's people who are in need. Practice hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (NIV)
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
The Problem of Pain
People of faith have struggled with the broad question of why bad things happen. If an all-powerful and all-loving God exists, why then do bad things happen?
To the best of my knowledge, no definitive answer has ever been offered. By my reading (not exhaustive, I'll confess), the answers tend to break down into one of three broad categories:
Trials, Suffering and Growth -- This answer makes sense when the trial is something small and manageable, but more difficult to accept when the trial is large and life-threatening. Still, the idea of struggling and hard work as a means of growth and strengthening isn't hard to see in our everyday world. My difficulty with this answer comes up when the "trial" is the sudden death of, say, a 10 year old child. What opportunity does the child have to learn anything from suddenly dying? Perhaps part of the answer involves the lesson being applicable to another, who suffers greatly because of another's death and comes out of the grief stronger in some way. I do not know. This too is a mystery, at least to me.
A Non-Sovereign God -- There is a relatively recent theological development called "Open View Theism," or simply "Open Theism." The thinking with this is that God is not in control of all things; that events on this earth are out of his control; that he is not all-knowing; and that God is "learning as he goes" with his creation called the universe and mankind. This may provide a convenient way around the problem of pain, but the cost to the doctrinal framework is high. Stripping God of his omnipotence and omniscience runs completely contrary to the Bible. It also begs a critical question that cannot be ignored: "If God cannot control the events of this earth to stop the death of a small child, then why bother praying to him for any other help or assistance?" The non-sovereign God answer is a disturbing development.
One question comes to my mind: is there a distinction between God causing something and God allowing something? The book of Job tells of God allowing the Devil to afflict Job. It does not say God did any of the horrible things to him. To your eye, do you see that as a distinction without a difference?
I do not know why God allows tsunamis to kill over a hundred thousand people. I do not know why innocent children lay dying in cancer wards. What I do know is that the Bible reveals this earth as a fallen place, and that God love us despite our sin, as evidence by Jesus on the Cross. In times of stress and turmoil, it is important -- yet difficult -- to remember that Jesus taught, time and again, that our hope must be set not on things of this world, but on things eternal.
That answer does not completely satisfy, I confess. But that answer is what the Bible instructs.
To the best of my knowledge, no definitive answer has ever been offered. By my reading (not exhaustive, I'll confess), the answers tend to break down into one of three broad categories:
- "The Lord works in mysterious ways"
- God teaches us valuable lessons through trials and suffering
- That's out of God's control
Trials, Suffering and Growth -- This answer makes sense when the trial is something small and manageable, but more difficult to accept when the trial is large and life-threatening. Still, the idea of struggling and hard work as a means of growth and strengthening isn't hard to see in our everyday world. My difficulty with this answer comes up when the "trial" is the sudden death of, say, a 10 year old child. What opportunity does the child have to learn anything from suddenly dying? Perhaps part of the answer involves the lesson being applicable to another, who suffers greatly because of another's death and comes out of the grief stronger in some way. I do not know. This too is a mystery, at least to me.
A Non-Sovereign God -- There is a relatively recent theological development called "Open View Theism," or simply "Open Theism." The thinking with this is that God is not in control of all things; that events on this earth are out of his control; that he is not all-knowing; and that God is "learning as he goes" with his creation called the universe and mankind. This may provide a convenient way around the problem of pain, but the cost to the doctrinal framework is high. Stripping God of his omnipotence and omniscience runs completely contrary to the Bible. It also begs a critical question that cannot be ignored: "If God cannot control the events of this earth to stop the death of a small child, then why bother praying to him for any other help or assistance?" The non-sovereign God answer is a disturbing development.
One question comes to my mind: is there a distinction between God causing something and God allowing something? The book of Job tells of God allowing the Devil to afflict Job. It does not say God did any of the horrible things to him. To your eye, do you see that as a distinction without a difference?
I do not know why God allows tsunamis to kill over a hundred thousand people. I do not know why innocent children lay dying in cancer wards. What I do know is that the Bible reveals this earth as a fallen place, and that God love us despite our sin, as evidence by Jesus on the Cross. In times of stress and turmoil, it is important -- yet difficult -- to remember that Jesus taught, time and again, that our hope must be set not on things of this world, but on things eternal.
That answer does not completely satisfy, I confess. But that answer is what the Bible instructs.
A Perfect Plan?
God is sovereign so to God everything is known a priori.
God knew that Eve & Adam would sin and allowed it.
God knew that the Tsunami was coming and allowed it.
God, so far, has made the decision not to change the timeline to eradicate the original sin committed by Eve & Adam, he chooses not to perfect His creation. He chooses not to eradicate the Tsunami.
Why?
I wonder - is life some sort of test? Through trial and suffering, is God testing us for suitability for entry into Heaven?
God knew that Eve & Adam would sin and allowed it.
God knew that the Tsunami was coming and allowed it.
God, so far, has made the decision not to change the timeline to eradicate the original sin committed by Eve & Adam, he chooses not to perfect His creation. He chooses not to eradicate the Tsunami.
Why?
I wonder - is life some sort of test? Through trial and suffering, is God testing us for suitability for entry into Heaven?
Free Will and God's Sovereignty
Wow ... we're getting to some fundamentally important things here. When I refer to "Absolute Truth," what I am referring to is someone that is an unchallengeable authority; someone who knows all and is unchanging, consistent and perfect. That is God. My line of argument there is that absent that -- absent an absolute authority, or "Truth" -- then nothing has any meaning whatever.
Yes, God created man, but that does not mean that man was created equal to God. Man was created "in God's image," which is to say a reflection of his character and conscience. God gave to man free will, which, if used properly, would have provided man the opportunity and ability to experience the richness of God's love fully. Instead, man chose to use free will to be disobedient, which cast man into sin and alienation from God. Thankfully, Jesus provided a way back.
You asked: "Does the fact that God does not control everthing mean to you that God is not sovereign? If so, how do you reconcile that with the fact that God does not control our free will?" When I use the term "sovereign," what I mean is that it is within God's power to affect or control anything. Whether He chooses to is within his sovereign providence. The same holds for our free will. Your assertion that "God does not control our free will" is not the same thing as saying "God can not control our free will." He could if he chose to, but has chosen not to, for reasons that, I suspect, are not fully revealed to us.
The doctrine of God's sovereignty is a fundamental cornerstone of Biblical faith. Take that away, and the major themes and messages of the Bible evaporate.
Yes, God created man, but that does not mean that man was created equal to God. Man was created "in God's image," which is to say a reflection of his character and conscience. God gave to man free will, which, if used properly, would have provided man the opportunity and ability to experience the richness of God's love fully. Instead, man chose to use free will to be disobedient, which cast man into sin and alienation from God. Thankfully, Jesus provided a way back.
You asked: "Does the fact that God does not control everthing mean to you that God is not sovereign? If so, how do you reconcile that with the fact that God does not control our free will?" When I use the term "sovereign," what I mean is that it is within God's power to affect or control anything. Whether He chooses to is within his sovereign providence. The same holds for our free will. Your assertion that "God does not control our free will" is not the same thing as saying "God can not control our free will." He could if he chose to, but has chosen not to, for reasons that, I suspect, are not fully revealed to us.
The doctrine of God's sovereignty is a fundamental cornerstone of Biblical faith. Take that away, and the major themes and messages of the Bible evaporate.
Free will
Bagwell wrote:
That begs the question ... if God himself is Absolute Truth, is then what God creates, or has written, or says also Absolute Truth?
-- creates -- This depends how you define "Absolute Truth" .... God created Satan and Hitler, most folks would not say that these characters represent "Absolute Truth".
-- has written -- Who knows what God (the Creator of the Universe) has written? Muslims, Jews, Christians and Hindus are all entitled to their beliefs of what He wrote (if anything :-)
-- says -- same as -- has written --
I suppose that God could have created absolutely perfect ("Truth") beings, but that those beings chose to be imperfect through the use of their free will. And on free will:
You say:
Because if what passes from God into existence goes from absolute to relative, then we have to face two potential prospects:
1. God is not sovereign; the control of Truth is out of his immediate control, or
Does the fact that God does not control everthing mean to you that God is not sovereign? If so, how do you reconcile that with the fact that God does not control our free will ?
That begs the question ... if God himself is Absolute Truth, is then what God creates, or has written, or says also Absolute Truth?
-- creates -- This depends how you define "Absolute Truth" .... God created Satan and Hitler, most folks would not say that these characters represent "Absolute Truth".
-- has written -- Who knows what God (the Creator of the Universe) has written? Muslims, Jews, Christians and Hindus are all entitled to their beliefs of what He wrote (if anything :-)
-- says -- same as -- has written --
I suppose that God could have created absolutely perfect ("Truth") beings, but that those beings chose to be imperfect through the use of their free will. And on free will:
You say:
Because if what passes from God into existence goes from absolute to relative, then we have to face two potential prospects:
1. God is not sovereign; the control of Truth is out of his immediate control, or
Does the fact that God does not control everthing mean to you that God is not sovereign? If so, how do you reconcile that with the fact that God does not control our free will ?
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
God is Truth, Absolutely
You wrote:
That begs the question ... if God himself is Absolute Truth, is then what God creates, or has written, or says also Absolute Truth? Because if what passes from God into existence goes from absolute to relative, then we have to face two potential prospects:
Oh, by the way ... 1+1=2 in all cases because that's what my first grade teacher told me.
She was a stern task master. She frightens me to this day.
So there. :-)
"When you have a God, there can be no Absolute Truth, other than God himself. Without God, there are many Absolute Truths."
That begs the question ... if God himself is Absolute Truth, is then what God creates, or has written, or says also Absolute Truth? Because if what passes from God into existence goes from absolute to relative, then we have to face two potential prospects:
- God is not sovereign; the control of Truth is out of his immediate control, or
- God intentionally creates uncertainty and ambiguity, like quantum physics
Oh, by the way ... 1+1=2 in all cases because that's what my first grade teacher told me.
She was a stern task master. She frightens me to this day.
So there. :-)
The measurement of Absolute Truth
But first ... on the morality issue, I agree we need to appeal to a higher power. But in my estimation there is only one commandment that the higher power needs to give us, and it is this:
"Treat others as you wish to be treated".
All else flows from this very simple golden rule. Given non-masochistic minds can you think of one circumstance where this would not improve the world? It clearly covers your "slap in the face" example. Whether or not we follow the commandment depends on whether we see why it is good to follow (or not).
Matthew 7:12 (New International Version)
12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Now .. on to "Absolute Truth". How does one define "Absolute Truth", it is a rare thing is it not? One definition might be "something is absolutely true if all observers in the Universe measure something to be the same - - at every point in the Universe".
I am carefully chosing this way of defining "Absolute Truth" because some scientists believe that "constants" such as Pi or h may indeed vary depending on where you are in the Universe.
I don't define something to be "absolutely true" if it is relative to a belief system or a set of axioms.
1 + 1 = 2
is true only relative to the axioms of mathematics. There are some cases in the real world where adding two particles together leaves us with zero particles.
Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus all define their God to be the Absolutely True one and good luck to them, it will be a bloody battle if we carry on like that.
Then we get into Quantum Mechanics. Is Schrodingers cat alive or is Schrodingers cat dead? Edwin Schrodinger developed his famous thought experiment to prove how absurd Quantum Mechanics is. But he ended up proving how absurd the Universe is. Becuase the cat is neither alive or dead until it is observed. This gives us a clue as to the nature of "reality" - - to which "Absolute Truth" is intimately connected.
Spooky sidebar, Schrodingers thought experiment parallels Einstein's introduction of the "Cosmological Constant" - - something he called his greatest blunder. Well Einstein appears to be right! The Cosmological Constant is back - - it is required for dark energy and the accelerating inflation of the universe. I guess "once a genius always a genius".
The "Absolute Truth" of what is going to happen in the future is no longer with us due to the Quantum Mechanics wave function and superposition of states. Although we can be almost 100% sure of what is going to happen in the future, we cannot be absolutely sure.
So we're still looking for an Absolute Truth to measure ... well we're not going to find any we can measure in the set of future events so let's look into the past. Ok it is absolutely true that the first post on this blog was titled "Jesus' new covenant in the New Testament".
But is it? I think it is Absolutely True, right now, in a Universe without a God.
However, God is a supreme being. He can change anything in the past, present or future. So he could change the title of the first post in this blog and he could make it so that we didn't even realize it had changed.
God is unbounded by time, unlimited by space and He is supreme, He could make it so 9/11 and the Tsunami never even occured.
When you have a God, there can be no Absolute Truth, other than God himself.
Without God, there are many Absolute Truths.
Absolute Truth, by my defintion above, is hard to find in any place but God, in a God filled universe.
"Treat others as you wish to be treated".
All else flows from this very simple golden rule. Given non-masochistic minds can you think of one circumstance where this would not improve the world? It clearly covers your "slap in the face" example. Whether or not we follow the commandment depends on whether we see why it is good to follow (or not).
Matthew 7:12 (New International Version)
12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Now .. on to "Absolute Truth". How does one define "Absolute Truth", it is a rare thing is it not? One definition might be "something is absolutely true if all observers in the Universe measure something to be the same - - at every point in the Universe".
I am carefully chosing this way of defining "Absolute Truth" because some scientists believe that "constants" such as Pi or h may indeed vary depending on where you are in the Universe.
I don't define something to be "absolutely true" if it is relative to a belief system or a set of axioms.
1 + 1 = 2
is true only relative to the axioms of mathematics. There are some cases in the real world where adding two particles together leaves us with zero particles.
Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus all define their God to be the Absolutely True one and good luck to them, it will be a bloody battle if we carry on like that.
Then we get into Quantum Mechanics. Is Schrodingers cat alive or is Schrodingers cat dead? Edwin Schrodinger developed his famous thought experiment to prove how absurd Quantum Mechanics is. But he ended up proving how absurd the Universe is. Becuase the cat is neither alive or dead until it is observed. This gives us a clue as to the nature of "reality" - - to which "Absolute Truth" is intimately connected.
Spooky sidebar, Schrodingers thought experiment parallels Einstein's introduction of the "Cosmological Constant" - - something he called his greatest blunder. Well Einstein appears to be right! The Cosmological Constant is back - - it is required for dark energy and the accelerating inflation of the universe. I guess "once a genius always a genius".
The "Absolute Truth" of what is going to happen in the future is no longer with us due to the Quantum Mechanics wave function and superposition of states. Although we can be almost 100% sure of what is going to happen in the future, we cannot be absolutely sure.
So we're still looking for an Absolute Truth to measure ... well we're not going to find any we can measure in the set of future events so let's look into the past. Ok it is absolutely true that the first post on this blog was titled "Jesus' new covenant in the New Testament".
But is it? I think it is Absolutely True, right now, in a Universe without a God.
However, God is a supreme being. He can change anything in the past, present or future. So he could change the title of the first post in this blog and he could make it so that we didn't even realize it had changed.
God is unbounded by time, unlimited by space and He is supreme, He could make it so 9/11 and the Tsunami never even occured.
When you have a God, there can be no Absolute Truth, other than God himself.
Without God, there are many Absolute Truths.
Absolute Truth, by my defintion above, is hard to find in any place but God, in a God filled universe.
A Question of Absolute Truth
"Christianity does not have a monopoly on good deeds or forgiveness."
Indeed not. You and I have experienced people who claim to be "Christian" yet exhibit some of the most awful behavior. There are two important points about the Christian faith that need to be kept in mind:
Atheists may very well be moral people -- good, kind and decent. But they are operating on a borrowed morality; or, more precisely, their notion of what is good and what is bad is borrowed. Determining what is good or what is bad is always an act of comparison against a standard. When the very standard comes into question, who or what resolves the conflict? To a Christian, the answer is "God and the Bible." To the Muslim the answer is "Allah and the Koran." To the Jew the answer is "God and the Torah." To the atheist the answer is ... what?
Romans 1:20 reads:
When the atheist performs a kind act, and knows it is kindness he is exhibiting, his notion of kindness is a product of God. God's law is written on the hearts of all men, whether they acknowledge God or not.
But let's set aside the question of whether atheists can be moral -- I concede that they can, provided it's understood that I argue their morality is not their own. The broader question is whether there's an absolute truth. Because if there is not -- if things are truly relative -- then there cannot, by definition, be any morality at all.
Imagine a world where there is no absolute truth, no absolutes at all, a world of pure relativism.
Note: there are many who believe that's exactly what we have, sadly.
Person A walks up to Person B. A slaps B across the face. B takes offense. A, however, feels quite good about doing it. Who's right? More importantly, why? More important still, if you wished to resolve this conflict, where would you take it? As C.S. Lewis once wrote, the very act of arguing with someone implies both parties in the argument appealing to a higher authority -- one is trying to convince the other that by that higher authority their position is correct. In a purely relativistic world, there can be no authority, since there is nothing on which to base the authority.
To wrap this up, my argument is not "Christianity vs. other faiths," my argument is about "God vs. nothingness." This is why I said that "if one doesn't believe in God, or an afterlife, or a day of judgment, then one can commit unjust acts in this life with the belief it will not matter." If no God then no ultimate authority, and if no ultimate authority then no ultimate truth. If no ultimate truth, then no morality. If no morality, then anything is as good as anything else. Unhinged from a framework of morality, a man can indeed do what he pleases with the belief that ultimately it will not matter.
Imagine that you woke up tomorrow and everyone on the planet was a committed, die-hard atheist. What kind of world do you think we'd have?
Indeed not. You and I have experienced people who claim to be "Christian" yet exhibit some of the most awful behavior. There are two important points about the Christian faith that need to be kept in mind:
- Many who claim to be Christian are, in fact, not
- True Christians are not perfect, and never will be as long as they draw breath on this earth
Atheists may very well be moral people -- good, kind and decent. But they are operating on a borrowed morality; or, more precisely, their notion of what is good and what is bad is borrowed. Determining what is good or what is bad is always an act of comparison against a standard. When the very standard comes into question, who or what resolves the conflict? To a Christian, the answer is "God and the Bible." To the Muslim the answer is "Allah and the Koran." To the Jew the answer is "God and the Torah." To the atheist the answer is ... what?
Romans 1:20 reads:
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (NIV)In other words, God has revealed something of himself in the very creative order of the universe. The same holds for basic tenets of morality ... is it not striking that every culture and every faith in this world holds to the same basic ideas about good and bad?
When the atheist performs a kind act, and knows it is kindness he is exhibiting, his notion of kindness is a product of God. God's law is written on the hearts of all men, whether they acknowledge God or not.
But let's set aside the question of whether atheists can be moral -- I concede that they can, provided it's understood that I argue their morality is not their own. The broader question is whether there's an absolute truth. Because if there is not -- if things are truly relative -- then there cannot, by definition, be any morality at all.
Imagine a world where there is no absolute truth, no absolutes at all, a world of pure relativism.
Note: there are many who believe that's exactly what we have, sadly.
Person A walks up to Person B. A slaps B across the face. B takes offense. A, however, feels quite good about doing it. Who's right? More importantly, why? More important still, if you wished to resolve this conflict, where would you take it? As C.S. Lewis once wrote, the very act of arguing with someone implies both parties in the argument appealing to a higher authority -- one is trying to convince the other that by that higher authority their position is correct. In a purely relativistic world, there can be no authority, since there is nothing on which to base the authority.
To wrap this up, my argument is not "Christianity vs. other faiths," my argument is about "God vs. nothingness." This is why I said that "if one doesn't believe in God, or an afterlife, or a day of judgment, then one can commit unjust acts in this life with the belief it will not matter." If no God then no ultimate authority, and if no ultimate authority then no ultimate truth. If no ultimate truth, then no morality. If no morality, then anything is as good as anything else. Unhinged from a framework of morality, a man can indeed do what he pleases with the belief that ultimately it will not matter.
Imagine that you woke up tomorrow and everyone on the planet was a committed, die-hard atheist. What kind of world do you think we'd have?
Monday, January 24, 2005
A monopoly on graceful behavior?
" .... if one doesn't believe in God, or an afterlife, or a day of judgment, then one can commit unjust acts in this life with the belief it will not matter"
I disagree. It does matter if we commit unjust acts regardless of what may or may not happen after we die. This is a key point.
Why should this not matter to an individual who is a Buddhist or a Muslim?
I personally think it matters because the Universe is clearly a zero sum game (we know this because approximately 14,000,000,000 years ago everything in the Universe appeared to be congruent -- in the same place). I don't want to pollute the Universe with injustice. I don't want bad things to happen to me so I will not do bad things to others.
Instant Karma does get you as the great man found out (and please no discussion on whether or not Mark Chapman should ever be let out of Attica State prison!)
This, incidentally, is why all non-Christians do not immediately commit suicide (and I met a Christian who thought that they should -- now THAT is grace for you) because a life is worth living -- treating others as you wish to be treated.
Life is also about the now, the struggle and the joy, about how you live your life, as well as what you do after, if indeed "you" are "you" in the afterlife. As a sinless creature in Heaven you may not even recognize yourself.
Christianity does not have a monopoly on good deeds or forgiveness.
I disagree. It does matter if we commit unjust acts regardless of what may or may not happen after we die. This is a key point.
Why should this not matter to an individual who is a Buddhist or a Muslim?
I personally think it matters because the Universe is clearly a zero sum game (we know this because approximately 14,000,000,000 years ago everything in the Universe appeared to be congruent -- in the same place). I don't want to pollute the Universe with injustice. I don't want bad things to happen to me so I will not do bad things to others.
Instant Karma does get you as the great man found out (and please no discussion on whether or not Mark Chapman should ever be let out of Attica State prison!)
This, incidentally, is why all non-Christians do not immediately commit suicide (and I met a Christian who thought that they should -- now THAT is grace for you) because a life is worth living -- treating others as you wish to be treated.
Life is also about the now, the struggle and the joy, about how you live your life, as well as what you do after, if indeed "you" are "you" in the afterlife. As a sinless creature in Heaven you may not even recognize yourself.
Christianity does not have a monopoly on good deeds or forgiveness.
Judging and Judging Not
The Bible:
Upon reflection, deep.thought, is this not aligned with your "Treat others as you wish to be treated?" This strikes me as saying that God will use against you whatever you use against others.
Now, in the earthly realm we may not think that mistreating others will come back to bite us. But in the heavenly realm there will be a day of judgment. Of course, if one doesn't believe in God, or an afterlife, or a day of judgment, then one can commit unjust acts in this life with the belief it will not matter. But introduce the notion of a God that will judge, and the dynamics change.
But wait, some may ask ... am I not contradicting my previous post? Where is the "loving God" in that equation? Very simple -- nailed to a cross, dying for our sins, so that through his act of selfless sacrifice we might enjoy true forgiveness, blessed by the Grace of God.
Hence my original proposition -- first, love God with all your heart, mind and soul. That includes believing in the truth of Christ crucified and risen. And when the truth of this settles into a man's heart, from that will stem a forgiving and just attitude in return.
“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” (NIV, Luke 6:37-38)
Upon reflection, deep.thought, is this not aligned with your "Treat others as you wish to be treated?" This strikes me as saying that God will use against you whatever you use against others.
Now, in the earthly realm we may not think that mistreating others will come back to bite us. But in the heavenly realm there will be a day of judgment. Of course, if one doesn't believe in God, or an afterlife, or a day of judgment, then one can commit unjust acts in this life with the belief it will not matter. But introduce the notion of a God that will judge, and the dynamics change.
But wait, some may ask ... am I not contradicting my previous post? Where is the "loving God" in that equation? Very simple -- nailed to a cross, dying for our sins, so that through his act of selfless sacrifice we might enjoy true forgiveness, blessed by the Grace of God.
Hence my original proposition -- first, love God with all your heart, mind and soul. That includes believing in the truth of Christ crucified and risen. And when the truth of this settles into a man's heart, from that will stem a forgiving and just attitude in return.
The Gift of Grace
I agree with you -- Grace is "one of the most powerful lessons that Jesus tried to teach us," as you observed. In fact, Grace is the unique quality of Christianity that separates it from all other faiths. The song "Amazing Grace" is trotted out frequently to invoke a "religious feel," yet how often do people consider the words they are singing? Few, I'd suspect.
Grace is properly defined as unmerited favor. It's important to dwell on the adjective there -- Grace, the gift of forgiveness, is something granted by God despite our not deserving it. We do nothing to earn it. God, out of his infinite love, grants forgiveness. "For God so loved the world ..." (John 3:16)
Note: there's a tension here: The granting of Grace is part of God's sovereign domain, yet it requires our accepting Christ as savior first. Yet it is not a transaction; our accepting Christ does not earn us Grace. It is unmerited. I can't fully resolve this tension.
All other faiths have either a merit system or a notion of an unapproachable deity. Only Christianity has a personal, approachable God whose love extends to us despite our having utterly rejected him in our thoughts and ways. Recall the parable of the prodigal son -- he takes his inheritance early, splurges it all on things that do not honor his father, and winds up in an utterly ruined man. But in repenting and coming back to his father's house, he finds his father running out to greet him, showering him with warmth and love. That is the God of Christianity -- welcoming back his children that return in a spirit of true repentance, and wrapping them in the warm blanket of Grace, purchased by the blood of Jesus on the cross of Calvary.
Alistair Begg, senior pastor of Parkside Church in Cleveland, Ohio, once said that the surest sign of one who knows forgiveness from God is one who displays a forgiving spirit. It is out of a spirit of real recognition of Grace that a man displays true and humble forgiveness in return.
Grace is properly defined as unmerited favor. It's important to dwell on the adjective there -- Grace, the gift of forgiveness, is something granted by God despite our not deserving it. We do nothing to earn it. God, out of his infinite love, grants forgiveness. "For God so loved the world ..." (John 3:16)
Note: there's a tension here: The granting of Grace is part of God's sovereign domain, yet it requires our accepting Christ as savior first. Yet it is not a transaction; our accepting Christ does not earn us Grace. It is unmerited. I can't fully resolve this tension.
All other faiths have either a merit system or a notion of an unapproachable deity. Only Christianity has a personal, approachable God whose love extends to us despite our having utterly rejected him in our thoughts and ways. Recall the parable of the prodigal son -- he takes his inheritance early, splurges it all on things that do not honor his father, and winds up in an utterly ruined man. But in repenting and coming back to his father's house, he finds his father running out to greet him, showering him with warmth and love. That is the God of Christianity -- welcoming back his children that return in a spirit of true repentance, and wrapping them in the warm blanket of Grace, purchased by the blood of Jesus on the cross of Calvary.
Alistair Begg, senior pastor of Parkside Church in Cleveland, Ohio, once said that the surest sign of one who knows forgiveness from God is one who displays a forgiving spirit. It is out of a spirit of real recognition of Grace that a man displays true and humble forgiveness in return.
"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged"
Luke 6:37 (King James Version)
37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
I like the "forgive and ye shall be forgiven" piece. Forgiveness and "Grace" is one of the most powerful lessons that Jesus tried to teach us I believe.
However, the "Judge not ..." piece. "Treat others as you wish to be treated" does not work unless we (society - as you rightly spotted) apply the "societal brakes" to people who treat others in a way that they themselves would not like to be treated.
For example, six year old kids sweeping chimneys. The person sending the kids down the chimneys would not like to have to go down those chimneys himself, especially not at the tender age of six. If the person still wants to send the kid down a chimney (to make money) then someone needs to judge the person who is not treating others as he himself wishes to be treated.
Notice that this approach is self-moralistic and self-policing, you don't need a law written down to know that sending the kid down the chimney is bad. You know it's bad, because you wouldn't like to do it yourself when you were a kid, you might die -- or worse!!
I feel that the modern political correctness we are seeing is a result of the asymptotic population explosion we are seeing. If the Earth is some 4.5 billion years old get this: The Earth's population has more than doubled in the last 50 years. Going from some 3 billion to 8 billion (round numbers) - and it's still going strong at this rate. Now look in the phone book, in the yellow pages the largest section will be lawyers.
Working on lawsuits for folks who have been unfairly treated?
Another example: it takes as long today to get across London as it did in 1905. The cars are faster than the horse drawn carriages but there is so much more congestion.
With the worlds population growing as it is it is hardly surprising that Political Correctness abounds -- but I believe (I hope!) that it is a passing fad -- we need to judge eachother occasionally. I want to be judged from time to time so that I know how I am doing in society.
We need to simplify things.
37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
I like the "forgive and ye shall be forgiven" piece. Forgiveness and "Grace" is one of the most powerful lessons that Jesus tried to teach us I believe.
However, the "Judge not ..." piece. "Treat others as you wish to be treated" does not work unless we (society - as you rightly spotted) apply the "societal brakes" to people who treat others in a way that they themselves would not like to be treated.
For example, six year old kids sweeping chimneys. The person sending the kids down the chimneys would not like to have to go down those chimneys himself, especially not at the tender age of six. If the person still wants to send the kid down a chimney (to make money) then someone needs to judge the person who is not treating others as he himself wishes to be treated.
Notice that this approach is self-moralistic and self-policing, you don't need a law written down to know that sending the kid down the chimney is bad. You know it's bad, because you wouldn't like to do it yourself when you were a kid, you might die -- or worse!!
I feel that the modern political correctness we are seeing is a result of the asymptotic population explosion we are seeing. If the Earth is some 4.5 billion years old get this: The Earth's population has more than doubled in the last 50 years. Going from some 3 billion to 8 billion (round numbers) - and it's still going strong at this rate. Now look in the phone book, in the yellow pages the largest section will be lawyers.
Working on lawsuits for folks who have been unfairly treated?
Another example: it takes as long today to get across London as it did in 1905. The cars are faster than the horse drawn carriages but there is so much more congestion.
With the worlds population growing as it is it is hardly surprising that Political Correctness abounds -- but I believe (I hope!) that it is a passing fad -- we need to judge eachother occasionally. I want to be judged from time to time so that I know how I am doing in society.
We need to simplify things.
Sunday, January 23, 2005
What Once Was Called "Shame"
Ah ... so one who seeks to exploit others will be thwarted by the exerted influence of a majority of others. In other words, a "societal check" will be employed to prevent the encroachment of improper behavior in favor of proper actions.
Once upon a time that was called "shame." Members of a community that violated the community standards would bear the criticism and scorn of the community at large. Fear of being shamed was a powerful deterrent. There is much to be said in favor of the concept of shame employed like that.
Unfortunately, expressing condemnation of another's actions is today's greatest sin. "Judge not," people say, indicating that what one does is really none of anyone's business. "Ah," others say, "that only applies when what one does causes no harm to others." But not when the two parties -- offender and offended -- are both members of some grievance minority, competing for exemption from confining dictates because of their oppression, perceived or real.
I'm reminded of a line from the movie "Amadeus." The Emporer of Austria, played by Jeffrey Jones, says to Mozart: "You are passionate, herr Mozart. But you do not persuade." When it comes to the efficacy of public condemnation, what used to be is no more. The influence of post-modernism has wrought a terrible price. In a world where there is no absolute truth, mixed with today's caustic blend of entitlement, I can see the case where one can treat another quite differently from how they wish to be treated ... and feel with total certainty that what they are doing is either morally right, or morally justified.
Case in point: "affirmative action" ... or more properly phrased, "reverse discrimination." A minority wishes to not be discriminated against. Yet they are happy to have government programs in place that actively discriminate against others so they gain an advantage.
Another case in point: lawyers who pride themselves on protecting free speech actively seek to oppress the free expression of Christian belief.
What's my point? My point is that mankind is sinking deeper and deeper into the mire of his own sinfulness. Naturalism, relativism, humanism and pluralisim are taking a dreadful toll. What used to structure society has been loosed; the foundation is gone, the house is crumbling.
Mankind doesn't need education; mankind needs a Savior.
Once upon a time that was called "shame." Members of a community that violated the community standards would bear the criticism and scorn of the community at large. Fear of being shamed was a powerful deterrent. There is much to be said in favor of the concept of shame employed like that.
Unfortunately, expressing condemnation of another's actions is today's greatest sin. "Judge not," people say, indicating that what one does is really none of anyone's business. "Ah," others say, "that only applies when what one does causes no harm to others." But not when the two parties -- offender and offended -- are both members of some grievance minority, competing for exemption from confining dictates because of their oppression, perceived or real.
I'm reminded of a line from the movie "Amadeus." The Emporer of Austria, played by Jeffrey Jones, says to Mozart: "You are passionate, herr Mozart. But you do not persuade." When it comes to the efficacy of public condemnation, what used to be is no more. The influence of post-modernism has wrought a terrible price. In a world where there is no absolute truth, mixed with today's caustic blend of entitlement, I can see the case where one can treat another quite differently from how they wish to be treated ... and feel with total certainty that what they are doing is either morally right, or morally justified.
Case in point: "affirmative action" ... or more properly phrased, "reverse discrimination." A minority wishes to not be discriminated against. Yet they are happy to have government programs in place that actively discriminate against others so they gain an advantage.
Another case in point: lawyers who pride themselves on protecting free speech actively seek to oppress the free expression of Christian belief.
What's my point? My point is that mankind is sinking deeper and deeper into the mire of his own sinfulness. Naturalism, relativism, humanism and pluralisim are taking a dreadful toll. What used to structure society has been loosed; the foundation is gone, the house is crumbling.
Mankind doesn't need education; mankind needs a Savior.
On Efficacy: A compromise ala Nash equilibria
On "Treat others as you wish to be treated"
Bagwell wrote:
"Two basic questions:
1. Why don't more people abide by it?
2. Do you believe that those who presently do not abide by it will be persuaded to start because others are either saying it, or perhaps doing it to some degree? "
Great questions and these are my thoughts:
1. It's a simple idea that is against our nature. To survive we are programmed with behavior to try and do better than our fellow man. It's a gene thing I believe. I think that it's time we rose above our natural impulses in this area.
2. Yes. No-one used the world wide web 15 years ago - now look at us. But to use anything, people will need to see a benefit from the use of it. The benefit of it is linked to a) one's personal happiness and b) the happiness of the group. It shouldn't be such a difficult sell.
"I just don't see how it'll ever be effective. Not in a world where evil exists and seeks to exploit every opportunity to prey on the kind and gentle"
This assumes that evil is something that exists as a "thing" - like a human being occupied by an "evil" demon. This is certainly how life appears to be, but we cannot predict "evil" behavior with any great accuracy - this means we don't have a good theory of evil or even understand what it is.
If the majority abide by "Treat others as you wish to be treated" then it might work like this:
If one "evil" person does not abide then he doesn't get very far, because those around him refuse to be led into "evil" behavior. Osama dreams of 9/11 but can get no-one to fly the planes. Saddam dreams of a dictator state but can get no-one to enforce his crushing abuse of the populace. Bush wants to stay in Iraq but all the soldiers go home etc etc .
I think "Treat others as you wish to be treated" will only ever be effective if it is taught to us when we are very young. There was a time when only three people in the world understood General Relativity, a much harder and well developed concept, and now many do; "Treat others ..." shouldn't be so hard for folks to understand. But if people say "it won't work" then they won't experiment with it and it will never happen.
People seem much more comfortable with "Do unto others ..." which any game theorist will tell you is a loser (I've seen the "A Beautiful Mind" John Nash film :-)
If a game has a unique Nash equilibrium and is played among completely rational players, then the players will choose the strategies that form the equilibrium.
The future of humanity is a race between education and disaster.
Bagwell wrote:
"Two basic questions:
1. Why don't more people abide by it?
2. Do you believe that those who presently do not abide by it will be persuaded to start because others are either saying it, or perhaps doing it to some degree? "
Great questions and these are my thoughts:
1. It's a simple idea that is against our nature. To survive we are programmed with behavior to try and do better than our fellow man. It's a gene thing I believe. I think that it's time we rose above our natural impulses in this area.
2. Yes. No-one used the world wide web 15 years ago - now look at us. But to use anything, people will need to see a benefit from the use of it. The benefit of it is linked to a) one's personal happiness and b) the happiness of the group. It shouldn't be such a difficult sell.
"I just don't see how it'll ever be effective. Not in a world where evil exists and seeks to exploit every opportunity to prey on the kind and gentle"
This assumes that evil is something that exists as a "thing" - like a human being occupied by an "evil" demon. This is certainly how life appears to be, but we cannot predict "evil" behavior with any great accuracy - this means we don't have a good theory of evil or even understand what it is.
If the majority abide by "Treat others as you wish to be treated" then it might work like this:
If one "evil" person does not abide then he doesn't get very far, because those around him refuse to be led into "evil" behavior. Osama dreams of 9/11 but can get no-one to fly the planes. Saddam dreams of a dictator state but can get no-one to enforce his crushing abuse of the populace. Bush wants to stay in Iraq but all the soldiers go home etc etc .
I think "Treat others as you wish to be treated" will only ever be effective if it is taught to us when we are very young. There was a time when only three people in the world understood General Relativity, a much harder and well developed concept, and now many do; "Treat others ..." shouldn't be so hard for folks to understand. But if people say "it won't work" then they won't experiment with it and it will never happen.
People seem much more comfortable with "Do unto others ..." which any game theorist will tell you is a loser (I've seen the "A Beautiful Mind" John Nash film :-)
If a game has a unique Nash equilibrium and is played among completely rational players, then the players will choose the strategies that form the equilibrium.
The future of humanity is a race between education and disaster.
Efficacy
Rather than respond comment by comment, I'm going to drop back and address the fundamental point. You believe that if more and more people followed "Treat others as you would like to be treated," then the world would be a better place. The premise of this is that virtually everyone -- save masochists -- wish to be treated decently; thus, they'll treat others the same way. It's difficult to argue that would be true, if people abided by it.
Two basic questions:
(By the way, Gandhi was lucky. His oppressors were civilized north-western Europeans. Were he facing a Stalin, a Mao Tse Tung, a Pol Pot, a Fidel Castro ... he'd have disappeared long before he had the opportunity to have any lasting effect. )
Two basic questions:
- Why don't more people abide by it?
- Do you believe that those who presently do not abide by it will be persuaded to start because others are either saying it, or perhaps doing it to some degree?
(By the way, Gandhi was lucky. His oppressors were civilized north-western Europeans. Were he facing a Stalin, a Mao Tse Tung, a Pol Pot, a Fidel Castro ... he'd have disappeared long before he had the opportunity to have any lasting effect. )
When your God says "kill"
Bagwell said:
"**Except that the fate suffered by Sodom and Gomorrah was directly at the hand of God. A more challenging example, I think, is in Joshua, where God commands the Israelites to attack a town and destroy all living things -- men, women and children. The Bible tells us that God spoke directly to Joshua and commanded this. But did others witness the commandment? What are we to do with modern day "Joshua's" who come forward and say, "God told me to kill everyone in the town?" I'll confess -- I am not strong enough in my faith or my knowledge of the Bible to provide an effective answer."
And your example is so much better than mine (I knew you would have one with your burgeoning knowledge of scripture :-)
The thing about belief is that there will always be an answer that the believer can accept. This smacks of something that just doesn't agree with me. This is how Osama sleeps at night.
If your first effort in life is to "Treat others as you wish to treated", when the kill message comes in from your God, you put it aside and do not carry it out. Now that takes courage I believe.
"**Except that the fate suffered by Sodom and Gomorrah was directly at the hand of God. A more challenging example, I think, is in Joshua, where God commands the Israelites to attack a town and destroy all living things -- men, women and children. The Bible tells us that God spoke directly to Joshua and commanded this. But did others witness the commandment? What are we to do with modern day "Joshua's" who come forward and say, "God told me to kill everyone in the town?" I'll confess -- I am not strong enough in my faith or my knowledge of the Bible to provide an effective answer."
And your example is so much better than mine (I knew you would have one with your burgeoning knowledge of scripture :-)
The thing about belief is that there will always be an answer that the believer can accept. This smacks of something that just doesn't agree with me. This is how Osama sleeps at night.
If your first effort in life is to "Treat others as you wish to treated", when the kill message comes in from your God, you put it aside and do not carry it out. Now that takes courage I believe.
Mother Theresa
Bagwell said:
"**I'm in full agreement with you here. There is no place in the true believer's life to be dismissive and abusive to those who do not share the faith. "Be merciful to those who doubt" -- Jude 1:22. I'm reminded of Mother Theresa, who went into non-Christian Calcutta and provide selfless love and care to the forgotten and helpless. To the best of my knowledge there was no overt attempt to evangelize, and clearly the care was never conditional upon profession of some kind of faith. I've always been deeply humbled by the example set by Mother Theresa -- truly she was the "light on the hill" Jesus commanded us to be."
Me too - I too am in awe of her life and works. However -- she was one in how many billion? We cannot all be Mother Theresa (the world would stop). Most folks would be over-daunted by the mere suggestion of her way being the way for them to live their lives, but -- we can all try to "Treat others as we wish to be treated".
"**I'm in full agreement with you here. There is no place in the true believer's life to be dismissive and abusive to those who do not share the faith. "Be merciful to those who doubt" -- Jude 1:22. I'm reminded of Mother Theresa, who went into non-Christian Calcutta and provide selfless love and care to the forgotten and helpless. To the best of my knowledge there was no overt attempt to evangelize, and clearly the care was never conditional upon profession of some kind of faith. I've always been deeply humbled by the example set by Mother Theresa -- truly she was the "light on the hill" Jesus commanded us to be."
Me too - I too am in awe of her life and works. However -- she was one in how many billion? We cannot all be Mother Theresa (the world would stop). Most folks would be over-daunted by the mere suggestion of her way being the way for them to live their lives, but -- we can all try to "Treat others as we wish to be treated".
Critical mass to be effective
Bagwell said:
"**Here's a question in return to you: the "Treat others as you wish to be treated" directive would work if everyone abided by it. Would it work if only 75% of the people abided by it? How about 50%? This topic is related to the question of how to abide by what Jesus said in Matthew 5:39 -- "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." To be honest, I've never fully understood how this can be accomplished. Are we as believers to turn ourselves over to the abusive evil of others? I can't imagine that's true. I won't pretend to comprehend the deepest meaning of that passage. "
I think that the more people that subscribed to it the better it would work. Gandhi had a great non-violent approach which won out in the end. It's a very interesting point, I personally believe that if people are abusing others, and are acting violently (Hitler, Osama etc), then they need restrained. The primal urges we have to be better will lead to the survival of the race en mass so should not be bred out completely -- just chanelled (somehow) away from not "treating others as one would wish to be treated". It would not be an easy road to get from here to there. "Treat others as you wish to be treated" is like a "vision statement" (ugh) -- an attempt to encourage folks think about their actions, without turning them off with an overtly religious sell.
"**Here's a question in return to you: the "Treat others as you wish to be treated" directive would work if everyone abided by it. Would it work if only 75% of the people abided by it? How about 50%? This topic is related to the question of how to abide by what Jesus said in Matthew 5:39 -- "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." To be honest, I've never fully understood how this can be accomplished. Are we as believers to turn ourselves over to the abusive evil of others? I can't imagine that's true. I won't pretend to comprehend the deepest meaning of that passage. "
I think that the more people that subscribed to it the better it would work. Gandhi had a great non-violent approach which won out in the end. It's a very interesting point, I personally believe that if people are abusing others, and are acting violently (Hitler, Osama etc), then they need restrained. The primal urges we have to be better will lead to the survival of the race en mass so should not be bred out completely -- just chanelled (somehow) away from not "treating others as one would wish to be treated". It would not be an easy road to get from here to there. "Treat others as you wish to be treated" is like a "vision statement" (ugh) -- an attempt to encourage folks think about their actions, without turning them off with an overtly religious sell.
Effects of the Holy Spirit
Yes I think you're right new posts are the way to go ..
You said
"**I've never thought about whether the influence of the Spirit can be measured. The Spirit Himself can't be measured -- He is immeasurable; infinite and timeless. But wouldn't you agree that the effect of the Spirit in a believer's life can be seen, particularly over time? "
I believe the effect of belief on the mind has a very powerful influence, I like to think that this is the Christian Holy Spirit but I really don't know - which annoying but I have to be honest. I know that people (me included) are capabale of believing anything.
You said
"**I've never thought about whether the influence of the Spirit can be measured. The Spirit Himself can't be measured -- He is immeasurable; infinite and timeless. But wouldn't you agree that the effect of the Spirit in a believer's life can be seen, particularly over time? "
I believe the effect of belief on the mind has a very powerful influence, I like to think that this is the Christian Holy Spirit but I really don't know - which annoying but I have to be honest. I know that people (me included) are capabale of believing anything.
Inherently sinful nature
I don't think I'm proposing that the existing order changes, "Love your neighbor as yourself" does not necessarily lead to "Treat others as you wish to be treated". You can "Treat others as you wish to be treated" whilst thoroughly NOT loving your neighbour, but behaving anyway for the "common good".
This is interesting ... following your argument, it does not matter in what order the commandments come, man is destined to follow his sinful nature. I think you allude to the fact that if one starts with Loving God first then one will get "an assist", in the form of divine help from the Holy Spirit?
The trouble with this approach is that you have to believe in divine help from the Holy Spirit. There are many religions on the Earth and I can't see Muslims or Jews suddenly signing up for Christianity.
You make a good point about our ability to follow any commandment -- I don't think it's easy to "Treat others as you wish to be treated", not at all. I'm suggesting that if well tried to follow it then the world would be a "better place" but far from perfect.
One billion Muslims will never turn to Yahweh and Jesus, one billion Christians will never turn to Allah, Jewish folks and atheist folks may never turn to Christ. Everyone can try to "Treat others as they wish to be treated". Not easy -- believe me, I know.
A hangover from "Treat others as you wish to be treated" is that you won't get Muslims trying to convert Christians to Islam - because a Muslim would not like to be converted to Christianity.
Also you mentioned that Osama could not be doing what God said when he masterminded 9/11, there are Biblical references for large slayings of guilty people, such as Soddom & Gomorrah, again who decides who is the guilty?
This is interesting ... following your argument, it does not matter in what order the commandments come, man is destined to follow his sinful nature. I think you allude to the fact that if one starts with Loving God first then one will get "an assist", in the form of divine help from the Holy Spirit?
The trouble with this approach is that you have to believe in divine help from the Holy Spirit. There are many religions on the Earth and I can't see Muslims or Jews suddenly signing up for Christianity.
You make a good point about our ability to follow any commandment -- I don't think it's easy to "Treat others as you wish to be treated", not at all. I'm suggesting that if well tried to follow it then the world would be a "better place" but far from perfect.
One billion Muslims will never turn to Yahweh and Jesus, one billion Christians will never turn to Allah, Jewish folks and atheist folks may never turn to Christ. Everyone can try to "Treat others as they wish to be treated". Not easy -- believe me, I know.
A hangover from "Treat others as you wish to be treated" is that you won't get Muslims trying to convert Christians to Islam - because a Muslim would not like to be converted to Christianity.
Also you mentioned that Osama could not be doing what God said when he masterminded 9/11, there are Biblical references for large slayings of guilty people, such as Soddom & Gomorrah, again who decides who is the guilty?
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Reversing the Order of the Matthew 22:37-39
The trouble with the reversal of Matthew 22:37-29's ordering of the commandments is that it relies upon human power -- rather than divine power -- to achieve the desired results. Implicit in the reordering is that people will actually abide by the new first commandment, which is to treat others as one wishes to be treated themselves.
One of the cornerstones of the Bible is the notion that mankind is inherently sinful. It's important at this point to define "sin" -- sin, according to the Bible, is not only the explicit commission of some wrong act, but rather the failure to abide by God's will. A quick reading of the Ten Commandments reveals that God's will extends to our thoughts as well as our deeds. The inability to mankind to abide perfectly to these commandments -- and perfection is required as God is perfect in His Holiness -- is the basis for the Bible's judgment that man is inherently sinful. (That is why the most useful way of viewing the Ten Commandments is not as a ladder one climbs to God, but rather as a mirror in which one sees one's true self. That is when the gift of Grace through Jesus Christ becomes evident.)
Therefore, if mankind is incapable of avoiding sin, then mankind is incapable of perfectly following the commandment to "treat others as they themselves wish to be treated." Some will try not at all; some will strive heartily and fail frequently. Small infractions lead to larger ones; habits nurtured become character.
That is why, I feel, that Jesus ordered the commandments the way he did: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." From that will flow greater obedience to the Lord, which results in God's Holy Spirit working through the obedient to further God's Will here on earth.
The objection is that someone such as Osama Bin Laden would argue that by murdering thousands they are, in fact, being obedient to God or loving God, perverse as that may be. This then is why I believe another cornerstone of the Christian Faith is a belief that Scripture is inerrant -- not literal, but inerrant -- and that God's will is revealed in Scripture. Believing this, then one's obedience to a calling can be tested against Scripture. And "testing against scripture" involves not only specific verses, but context within the passage, within the book and within the Bible as a whole. One who claims to be justified in doing something heinous such as killing thousands with a terrorist strike would find no support for their plans in Scripture.
If mankind were first to love the Lord their God and from that then strive to do right by God's will, then we would have a better world. When man inverts the equation man falls prey to his inherently sinful nature, and the best laid plans are eventually corrupted.
One of the cornerstones of the Bible is the notion that mankind is inherently sinful. It's important at this point to define "sin" -- sin, according to the Bible, is not only the explicit commission of some wrong act, but rather the failure to abide by God's will. A quick reading of the Ten Commandments reveals that God's will extends to our thoughts as well as our deeds. The inability to mankind to abide perfectly to these commandments -- and perfection is required as God is perfect in His Holiness -- is the basis for the Bible's judgment that man is inherently sinful. (That is why the most useful way of viewing the Ten Commandments is not as a ladder one climbs to God, but rather as a mirror in which one sees one's true self. That is when the gift of Grace through Jesus Christ becomes evident.)
Therefore, if mankind is incapable of avoiding sin, then mankind is incapable of perfectly following the commandment to "treat others as they themselves wish to be treated." Some will try not at all; some will strive heartily and fail frequently. Small infractions lead to larger ones; habits nurtured become character.
That is why, I feel, that Jesus ordered the commandments the way he did: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." From that will flow greater obedience to the Lord, which results in God's Holy Spirit working through the obedient to further God's Will here on earth.
The objection is that someone such as Osama Bin Laden would argue that by murdering thousands they are, in fact, being obedient to God or loving God, perverse as that may be. This then is why I believe another cornerstone of the Christian Faith is a belief that Scripture is inerrant -- not literal, but inerrant -- and that God's will is revealed in Scripture. Believing this, then one's obedience to a calling can be tested against Scripture. And "testing against scripture" involves not only specific verses, but context within the passage, within the book and within the Bible as a whole. One who claims to be justified in doing something heinous such as killing thousands with a terrorist strike would find no support for their plans in Scripture.
If mankind were first to love the Lord their God and from that then strive to do right by God's will, then we would have a better world. When man inverts the equation man falls prey to his inherently sinful nature, and the best laid plans are eventually corrupted.
Friday, January 21, 2005
Jesus' new covenant in the New Testament
The Biblical canon, which I believe has the hand of man all over it, reports that Jesus gave us a New Covenant (as compared to the Old Covenant given to Moses):
In Matthew 22
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
my suggestion of a way to a better world (and I know that you believe the world is corrupt and could be a lot better :-) is this:
1. Treat others as you wish to be treated
2. Love the Creator of the Universe
I will explain my reasoning ... if Osama had been following the commandments in the order I suggest above then 9/11 could not have happened. An event such as 9/11 can only happen when you reverse the order, when you put your God first - then all sorts of things can be justified from that premise "In The Name Of God (or Allah)". If your God tells you to avoid treating others as you wish to be treated then I suggest that it is not God telling you what do to ... no matter what reward is promised you for doing so. (Clearly this does not work if you are a masochist!)
In Matthew 22
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
my suggestion of a way to a better world (and I know that you believe the world is corrupt and could be a lot better :-) is this:
1. Treat others as you wish to be treated
2. Love the Creator of the Universe
I will explain my reasoning ... if Osama had been following the commandments in the order I suggest above then 9/11 could not have happened. An event such as 9/11 can only happen when you reverse the order, when you put your God first - then all sorts of things can be justified from that premise "In The Name Of God (or Allah)". If your God tells you to avoid treating others as you wish to be treated then I suggest that it is not God telling you what do to ... no matter what reward is promised you for doing so. (Clearly this does not work if you are a masochist!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)